Ariana nails it.

[riverdeep]

"Bailout Bill: Obama Needs to Lead, Not Be One of the Bailout Bipartisan Musketeers"

Last night, he announced that he'd urged Democratic leaders in Congress not to pursue efforts to include an economic stimulus package in the bailout, or to push for a provision giving bankruptcy judges the power to rework mortgage rates because it might derail a deal.

There has been a flood of irate calls and emails pouring into Congressional offices from people who are not buying George Bush's efforts last night to paint the bailout not as a helping hand to Wall Street but essential to avoid wiped-out retirement savings, rising home foreclosures, lost jobs, and "a long and painful recession."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/bailout-bill-obama-needs_b_129374.html

All of the people saying that what McCain is doing is foolish and intrusive, well that's looking at it strictly from the reality based point of view. You have to consider the point of view of manipulating the public. I believe this is what McCain will do: He has never stated whether or not he supports the President's bailout package, indeed if you can believe it, he says he hasn't even had a chance to read the 3 pages. He will side with the defecting Republicans, who currently have the populist sympathy, and be seen as distancing himself from Bush while Obama, if he supports the bailout, will be seen as the one who swindled the taxpayers out of a trillion dollars and siding with Bush.

If the bailout goes through and the markets don't tank, these people will say the market was fine all along. If the bailout goes through and the market tanks, they will say he just wasted even more of taxpayer money. Obama needs to step carefully here. These next few days can make or break the election. My suggestion, no bailout. Say much more time is needed to hold proper hearings before a decision can be reached. Put this off till AFTER the election. Remember, they had this plan drawn up two months ago!

[Naturalist]

1. That is correct!

[Cronus Protagonist]

2. NO TO CORPORATE WELFARE

Let the market forces do their job. Maybe Mr. Buffett will buy MORE of these poorly run companies.

[riverdeep]

8. Do you want to know how they chose the $700 billion figure?

"In fact, some of the most basic details, including the $700 billion figure Treasury would use to buy up bad debt, are fuzzy.

"It's not based on any particular data point," a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. "We just wanted to choose a really large number."

http://www.forbes.com/home/2008/09/23/bailout-paulson-congress-biz-beltway-cx_jz_bw_0923bailout.html

Does that inspire any confidence? These people are damned crooks. Something needs to be done, but NOT this.

[Cronus Protagonist]

9. They didn't even use a dradle?

That is telling in and of itself.

[fulllib]

3. Agreed!

Especially now that the GOP walked out of a deal to "spend taxpayer money," he needs to be careful.

The Dem Congress needs to be careful, too. Either make a plan that saves taxpayer money, or steal a play from the McCain playbook and walk out too. They need to get back on the side of the people, hwever they do it.

Barack is smart, and is clued in on all this- its just a matter of hi working with Congressional leaders, party leaders, etc. to coordinate how it looks.

Thanks for the post!

[riverdeep]

5. Without Republicans going along, NO Dem should be supporting this.

First of all, from what I've been reading lately, the opinions vary greatly on whether this really is an 'economic 9/11' or not. I would rather take my chances and let the market flap in the wind for a couple of months than pass something like this.

Second, the Dems need to find a solution that puts up the least amount of taxpayer money as possible. The renegade Republicans have such a plan. I'm not an economist, but that's what hearings would be for. To figure out if it's realistic or not. If it is, then that should be the first resort, and the taxpayers the last. Of course, I would shoot down any lowering of the capital gains tax or further deregulation, but if that kernel of the idea, that there is a solution out there that doesn't involve the taxpayer can work, I'm all for it, I don't care where it came from.

[Naturalist]

6. A WISE CHOICE OF WORDS

[On the Road]

4. It Is an Awkward Time for Washington Mutual to Fail

a deal completed tonight would not have stopped the bankruptcy, but it will certainly affect the markets tomorrow and reignite fears of a wider bank run.

[shanti]

7. perhaps this is why

* was pushing this to be a done deal by Friday/tomorrow. :eyes:

[DCKit]

10. What I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall when * throws a Rumplestiltskin temper tantrum...

'cause they won't give him what he wants.

Matter of fact, what he wanted was a $700B handout, NSA. What he's going to get are new laws, regulation and oversight up the ass.

Another Epic Fail to add to his legacy.

[shanti]

11. heh!

so the moral of the story is - be careful what you ask for!

[mzmolly]

12. Arianna and I agree. I've been sounding the bell here for a couple of days.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7186445&mesg_id=7186445

We know it's a farce to suggest McCain was interested in flying into Washington to "solve a crisis." On the other hand, I don't feel many realize that it's also a sham to portray McCain as trying to "take credit" for anything related to the plan in question.

McCain will not sign on to this bill unless he has to.

[FatDave]

13. Barack's going to force him to take a side tonight in the debate.

And he's going to eviscerate the house republican plan.

[Orsino]

14. And a great time to do it...

...would be during tonight's opening or closing statement. Whether or not the debate sticks to foreign policy, I think he can afford to take a minute or two to freakin' lead.