Here's an interesting piece on the reason for the failure of the bailout bill:
With leadership -- and elites -- so aggressively behind the bill, the massive defections suggest that congressmen are sensing a towering populist outrage. Like on the immigration bill, the opposition did not fear their party but their voters. The implication here is that the politics of the bailout are much more intense than most currently recognize.
And what it says about the current system:
It is further proof that we have a calcified political system incapable of responding to either long-term threats or short-term crises. The electoral and partisan incentives have made actual action too dangerous and rendered obstruction everyone's easy second choice.
[link]
FCM:
Dow stops dropping
Dow drops below 10,000
Dow drops below 10,000 and keeps going
What the hell is this? Fuck, Chuck and Move to Canada?
Drive-by post:
Happy Jewish New Year, Buffistas. Although I've been spending my increasingly short time on the board in TGWW and a couple tv threads, you all are in my thoughts and prayers.
Am I chucking me off the cliff?
Am I chucking me off the cliff?
Yes. Because you're fucked. And no one will ever marry you.
Move to Canada?
They will probably need to boost border security.
They will probably need to boost border security.
But with global warming, they'll probably need more migrant farm workers to deal with their more productive agriculture.
Speaking of Palin, one of my favorite post debate lines was watching Anderson Cooper on CNN. Someone, I think Blitzer, mentioned trying to get Palin for comment and Anderson said, "Don't hold your breath on that one."
Some more comments. There are a couple of paths out of this. If the Congress granted 32 billion under the current bailout terms, with a new session the 14th and a committment that the session would not end until something was passed that probably would probably calm the credit markets enough to get through to the 14th. If not the alternative is to forget about trying to get the Republicans on Board. The bailout lost 94 Democrats because there were too many concessions to Republicans. Do a Swedish style bailout - no purchase of assets straight equity investment (preferred stock, with a modification to financial laws that it was super-duper preferred stock preferred over bondholders, not just other stockholders.) Add a Roosevelt option - Nationalize the Federal reserve, make a Bank of the United States (or if that name is taken, something similar) that can lend to small businesses and provide other types of vital short term credit. I suspect that would unfreeze credit in banks that were not taken over. You could add conditions, something more concrete than is in the current bill to keep people in their homes, real limits on executive concessions. You could also add a quarter percent tax on financial and currency transactions to pay for the costs of the bailout, and. Since deregulation, and lack of new regulation got us into this mess, I'd include limits on leverage and require that all new types of financial instruments require approval before they become legal. I'd add that a special session be called in January (if neccesary taking time from the regular session ) to pass new more comprehnsive regulation and changes - the legislation to be fast tracked, not completely (amendments would be allowed) but not subject to filibuster, and with not only debate but Amendendments and other parliamentary manuevers for delays limited.
Frankly, I'd follow historical precedent of using emergencies to extract progressive concessions (how democracy evolved in England for example) and say New Deal or No Deal, and add a bunch of stuff like green investment, and National Health. But I don't think you could get Democratic support for that, so I'll stick to what I already mentioned, which I think you could get a Democratic majority for.
