BL - 94 Michael Moore-types and told them to go ahead and "vote their conscience".

I think you have this wrong anecdotally. Tim Walz and Collin Peterson are not Michael Moore Democrats. I imagine there’s much more of a rural, populist explanation – at least for the nay (D)s.

LAMBERT: The link I provided on who voted against and why is less facetious than my "Michael Moore" characterization. But the "nays" were a very odd coalition.

As I angrily wrote last week, this was a vile bill, in either the 3 or 110 page version. The was a whole lot to dislike, whether the socialization of risk or the failure to focus on the struggles of the middle class. Jim Ramstad is no troglodyte Republican nor (obviously) does he need to worry about his re-election, so there are other factors (principles included) at work here. I still think the most amazing part of this story is that a majority of House Democrats were willing to rescue a Bush economic disaster while a majority of his own party shunned the President and his surrogates.

LAMBERT: No kidding there's a lot to dislike, and I'd like it a lot more if it included a couple hundred billion for infrastructure improvements -- you know local jobs you can't out-source to Bangladesh. But I'm buying the argument that liquidity has to be restored. The upside to defeat yesterday is that we may get slower dispersal, more oversight and more tangible support to "Main Street" than before.

"...pagan union of right-wing troglodyte Republicans and Michael Moore Democrats" Huh?

The PAULSON PLAN is a bad plan. The voters in red state and blue states, purple and green states are pissed off about it. Congress can't pass the plan because it is totally inept.

After presenting a three page plan (3 PAGES!) and a randomly picked large cash amount ($700 billion) with the country having to concede complete authority without oversight to the Treasury Secretary the fury was unleashed. Who wouldn't be mad, angry, and unwilling to bend over and take it in the ass?

This bail-out plan, like everything else the Bush Administration has put forward as policy (Katrina relief, Geneva Convention adherence, a sound strategy for War in Iraq, firing U.S. Attorneys, or catching Osama bin Laden just to name a few) is a blatant example of contemptible incompetence by finger-pointing dimwits.

LAMBERT: Look, I'm not happy about this. The only ones who are are the major bankers who get to stay in business thanks to this infusion. But as it was yesterday it was a long ways passed the original Paulson plan, and as I said to a previous commenter, yesterday's "no" vote may move it even farther from Paulson and closer to individual mortgage repair and other immediately tangible "stabilizers". Note that I'm also very big on indicting a couple dozen of these titans, as a precedent for failure on this kind of scale.

BL - it'd be oddly reassuring if one of these guys (or gal) could suck it up and step up and explain that because each in our own way -- some small(er) and some on a gargantuan scale -- have abetted the construction of a house cards, built on way too much fake/"perceived" value, the time has come for some serious changes.

The cultural figures are out there. Suzy Ormond has done quite well. The budget stuff that appears on Oprah’s show is probably actually helpful. The NPR/MPR stuff is great. On the other end culturally there’s a fellow who markets Financial Peace University through the evangelical movement. He’s made a name for himself, but I can’t remember it, I take my orders from Rome – he had a show on KTLK on Sundays until they replaced it with an Art Bell knockoff. I’m reading up on my Veblen as we speak.

And Keith Ellison is a Michael Moore Democrat, for that matter. He voted yes.

The thing I don’t get, and perhaps you’re in a position to explain, is the eagerness of the Democrats to get into bed with W and Paulson on this. This bailout is VERY top down. Very trickle down, I might add.

I would also think a more effective plan would be to pour $700B into public works projects immediately.

Skepticism is a reasonable response, and the congressional Republicans are the ones showing it.

LAMBERT: Really? Honest, pure skepticism?

BL - The upside to defeat yesterday is that we may get slower dispersal, more oversight and more tangible support to "Main Street" than before.

You're acknowledging the bill was too flawed to vote for. There's your principle, there's your skepticism. Didn't you just do an entry on crisis capitalism? What was your shock doctrine post about? What was the lesson to learn there, if not to brace against impetuousness? Calling cognitive dissonance, anyone...

SOM - I still think the most amazing part of this story is that a majority of House Democrats were willing to rescue a Bush economic disaster while a majority of his own party shunned the President and his surrogates.

Yes, entirely

BL = "...abetted the construction of a house cards, built on way too much fake/"perceived" value, the time has come for some serious changes. My head might stop pulsing if I heard someone risk that."

Give yourself some credit Brian...you just did say it, in print no less, and that is a fantastic start.

That is what underlies my and many other americans and now even the Republicans (and 94 Democrats) in the House as regards the Bailout...or Spinout as it is now...and Wipeout as it might become soon.

And wipeout is what seems to be needed, it is at least as sensible as pouring a huge amount of non-existent tax dollars into a bailout of what will still be a house of cards.

For example, my house is 700 sq ft (not ground floor, TOTAL livable space) and it cost my mortgagor $170,000 last year! It is in South Mpls and it was built in 1900...think about it, and that was market, what it appraised at then. Does that make any real sense?

Nope, only in the house of cards that our real estate speculation provided...does it make sense to bail that value out and leave all housing to measure up to that inflated amount?

Or does it make more sense to write these mortgages down to a sensible amount so the dollar avoids resembling the worth of 3rd world currency?

I don't know that answer, nor would I ever be allowed in the room where that decision will be made. All I know is when the stock market collapses like it has lately--that too indicates it is house of cards. Is real money being lost there? I think not. If those stocks are going down, if investors are so fragile, then guess what--those high points were just an illusion anyway and all this serves to be is a market correction.

If people can't tolerate losing this fake money, isn't that Rule #1 of Investment 101...and maybe Too Big to Fail is turning out to be an illusion too, especially if it was propped on all the little mom's and pop's of america who really don't feel any connection to mighty Wall Street.

And if Wall Street has financed all its fake wealth on credit that no longer exists...and why do I want to bail them out, how can I think of bailing them out when I am still in debt for the Iraq war in an economic downturn? What is left on my table after the beans and rice are gone?

LAMBERT: As I say, indictments are in order.

There are parts of this that should be really easy. For the life of me, I don't know why the modification of mark to market accounting is a partisan issue. This would seem resolvable - unless your preference is to use the crisis to sieze an equity stake in the financial industry.

Mark to market accountings role in this is similar to the role TEFRA/TAMRA of 1986 played in setting off the S&L crisis. This would not be a problem of too little regulation.

BL - Look, I'm not happy about this.

That could easily be followed by, “but I’m a team player”. I do understand though. There’s a long sociological history of liberal deference to cultural and technocratic authority figures.

Let me add the aversion our liberal "leaders" have for the nasty investment bankers with golden parachutes - is there a more ludicrous example of class-ism?

Too many are confused by the howlings of the class-ist constituents - and it's now at the terrible expense of Main Street.

Do you folks understand what this means to our auto dealers, and other durable goods retailers, for starters?

BTW, I hear the mail room at the Strib is a bit "randy", Randy.

As a modest retailer in the Twin Cities, I am looking at, and experiencing, this mess as a liquidity issue. Let me explain..

In March I ordered about $125,000 worth of inventory that I need for the holiday season. I'll take delivery of it in about three weeks. At the time of the order, I was given credit terms allowing me to pay for that delivery in full on Dec. 10, which is very typical in the industry. As a result, I planned the rest of my buying and cash flow planning for the holidays around this fact.

On Monday, I got a call from my wholesaler who told me the terms were no longer being offered and that I would have to now pay cash in full on delivery. The reason for the decision was explained to me this way: The bank in China where the manufacturer got his financing cut his credit by 50%, which meant the importer had to cough up a larger share of cash before the products would ship, which meant the wholesaler who buys from him had to do the same in order for the importer to raise enough cash to pay for their order. Which is precisely why my phone rang yesterday. Impact? Pretty serious. While I have the money in hand to make the payment to receive the goods, it also means that there will not be enough money left to pay rents and salaries over the next eight weeks until the holiday season sees our cash flow go up. Which, in turn, means I am going to have to lay off staff. It also means things are going to be a whole lot more expensive for my customers this season compared to last year. I truly don't enjoy that fact any more than you do.

My personal FICO score is over 800, my only debt is my mortgage, and I have LOTS of real equity in my home, even in a falling market. The bank today simply said "No. We can't do it this year," to my request to use some of that equity to keep my staff employed.

EVERYONE is going to pay for the mess we're in whether by congressional action or inaction.

The ripple effect of all of this will affect all of us in ways none of is likely imagining. I can't think anyone on my staff woke up today thinking their job was at risk because banks in China are only honoring Letters of Credit at 25% instead of the usual 50%. It's all connected and we really can't hide behind intellectual arguments about who 'deserves' to be bailed out or the 'socialist' tendencies of the current government. Honestly, we are all FAR more exposed to this risk than we think.

My $ .02.

LAMBERT: That's a tangible example of what's barreling down the pipe. As many have said -- in support of this "rescue plan" -- this is price of resolving raging emotions. If by picking up the "toxic paper" we -- the taxpayers -- can restore faith among banks -- that they're dealing with other banks based on real assets -- scenarios like yours loosen up. No one wants to stop doing business. There's plenty of demand all over the world. What's needed is the assurance that the crap has been moved off the balance sheets. A miserable situation. But really, what else are you going to do? That said, I still say the Democrats should build in a huge infrastructure-restoration/jobs creation bill and pass the damn thing on their own. Let the talk radio Republicans stand isolated.

But Bri - that would silence the only voice that can assign the appropriate blame, and the appropriate response.

(Is The Porn Chuckler(TM)fit for Senatorial involvement on this, on any other issue? I think not).

Look what San Fran Gran Nan and Do-Nothing Reid have done! Obstruct. Whine, mewl and obsfucate.

BTW, care to comment on Hewitt's getting an exclusive radio interview with Palin yesterday?

And for god's sake man, where's the trenchant analysis on Obama's half siblings (eight are confirmed so far!)?

Fair and balanced, guy, fair and balanced.

LAMBERT: Hewitt interviews Palin. Wow. Send me the Mp3.

Wow, what a contrast: Listen to the movingly honest and practical description of the everyday effects of the liquidity issue and the collapse of the American economy on his business and employees from Deference and THEN the sniveling, dishonest, hyperbolic rant by bertram, jr.

As Adam Platt puts it, here we are, "A nation in free fall, unable to distinguish between schadenfreude and self-immolation."

BL, 9/21 - Are you kidding me? $700 billion to $1 trillion entrusted to the same crowd that has doubled the national debt in seven years and has basically started and fought a $1 trillion war on off-budget money it is borrowing from the Chinese?

Is this heads exploding post a product of you guessing wrong on the Dems ultimate position? And now you have to scramble to get back on the reservation? Do you get a memo from the national in situations like this?

Completely useful example from deference. I get it. Still, I think its legitimate to question whether $700B is a number that has any basis in reality, and whether credit even resumes as a result of this proposed MBS buyout. We’re being asked to go on faith – in W, in Paulson, in Paulosi, in Reid, in Dodd, in Frank. I think it’s a poor proposition. I’m shocked Democrats find it palatable.

By the way Brian – this indictment fetish of yours is just another leftist post-revoultionary recriminations fantasy. Who is Attorney General John Edwards going to indict, and for what? If Raines, Gorelick, Dodd and Frank aren’t indictable for something than no one is.

LAMBERT: 108, I've been as clear as I can be on a subject I have so limited experience -- ultra-high-finance, algorithm-driven mortgage derivatives and the proper way to correct them. I've said I don't like he idea of a "rescue plan". I certainly had extreme trepidation about Paulson's three-page manifesto. But I accept that confidence has to be restored to the banking system and that the real crap that everyone is afraid of is somehow strained away. If you have a better solution than BIG GOVERNMENT stepping in and doing that kind of triage, let's hear it. But I believe the controls the Dems have insisted on are appropriate. Moreover, I'd like this think much, much more if, as I've said, they larded on another $100-$150 billion strictly for infrastructure. Create thousands of middle good-paying jobs and you'll restore confidence pretty damned quick.

Robb the Bolshevik:

"Sniveling" is somewhat subjective, no?

"Dishonest" is not proven /addressed by your swipe.

"Hyperbolic rant"? I leave that to Olberman.

Facts, man, facts.

Try to concentrate...what do YOU have to say about the blackout on Obama's "family issues"?

I say it's the smoking gun of the liberal media's racist complicity in tanking for the most unqualified candidate in American history.

LAMBERT: The first time you recognize a "fact" let us know.

Here you go:

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/TalkRadio/Show.aspx?RadioShowID=5&ContentGuid=9c930bbd-2571-4987-bd47-d1862ba390eb

Enjoy, as they're really two great Americans talking in common sense question and answer form, which may cause you some confusion and disorientation.

I'll look forward to your thoughts on Gwen Ifil's "moderator" credentials.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76645

LAMBERT: Bertram my man, you're letting us see you sweat.

If Pelosi can stuff a shoe in her mouth, this thing should get done Friday in the house. I'm very troubled about the government ending up with all of this paper and know there are better solutions, but time is of the essence and it's an election year.

Credit has dried up. Auto sales were off 30% last month. We cannot afford to let this go on until after the election -- there are other failures waiting to happen. (Even GE is having problems!)

Between Palin's head exploding and the economy tanking, Brian's 8 point margin prediction for Obama is looking good. I hope I didn't bet an expensive steak.

LAMBERT: 32 oz. Porterhouse. Manny's. With drinks.

I am all for "family blackouts" as long as the candidate is not trying to prop themselves up the protector of "family values," "pro-life," and "pro-children" and then act irresponsibly and inappropriately with their own families and impose their personal choices of others through government intervention.

With the economic and foreign crisis facing American today, it is moronic to be screaming about petty manufactured gossip and false idiotic rumors of the character you'd find in the New York Post or supermarket tabloids.

We are a better nation than that and the real issues we currently face are far more important to our survival and well-being.

Now is time to focus on seeking solutions and not obsess on the distractions and mindlessness of crude internet flamers and the dark undertow of desperate politicians out to poison the drinking water for all citizens.

Read, watch and listen to what people like Deference have to say about their business and employees because this crisis is real man.

Quit working so hard at generating useless noise and pointless gossip.

LAMBERT: Without useless noise and pointless gossip bertram's life would have no real purpose.

Hewitt's on a roll:

http://webmail.aol.com/39155/aol/en-us/Lite/MsgRead.aspx?folder=NewMail&uid=1.21829508&seq=15&searchIn=none&searchQuery=&start=0

"Plugs" Biden ("...he's clean AND articulate!") tonight.

Zambrano on the mound for the Cubs...

It's so rich, so very rich.....

People are finally starting to see the light. It's not the Republicans. It's not the Democrats. It's the Politicians - which if I remember my junior high math - is all inclusive of both subsets.
I watched the first debate. What's the difference ? McCain wants to continue slugging it out in Iraq; Obama wants to merely move an unwinable war to a larger and more hostile theater of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Where's the peace candidate who is anti-bail out ? That's who I want to vote for. Meanwhile, every one else can debate the lesser of two evils.

LAMBERT: I am very curious about Obama's plans for Afghanistan. How do you ever declare "victory" against an insurgency on someone else's soil?

Alright Brian – I’ll take a step back and approach this from a more healthy Mencken like bemusement. Just saying, I’m not at this moment trying to gore anyone’s ox.

The bill as it stands now, with the tax extenders:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aKd0vyGN8L2k&refer=us

The arrow modification is getting a lot of attention today. The overt ridiculousness just slaps you in the face time after time on many levels. I guess my first question is, how did we get here? Did a treasury agent visit the toy factory after this went into effect years ago, and say “hey, you haven’t been submitting your excise tax collections on these toy arrows?” Toy factory starts collecting excise taxes, toy factory engages lobbyists.

Also, this paragraph:
“Several others are new provisions, including two tax breaks worth $478 million over the next decade for movie and television producers who shoot films in the United States. The legislation would allow filmmakers to qualify for a 3 percentage-point reduction from the 35 percent top tax rate approved in 2004 for domestic manufacturers.“

Now I thought the discussion of the corporate tax rate in the debate was good. McCain explains US rate too high, Obama explains that would true if there weren’t a ton of loopholes. The above proposed change is in fact what you call a ‘loophole’. Where are we now with these? Loopholes are bad, especially if they’re for oil companies, but loopholes for movie companies = good? This is insane.

I can't help but continue to be skeptical of the urgency.

LAMBERT: $478 for movie production. Where's the problem. States offering give-backs on production costs do very well on the deal. Why let all this work flow to Canada? It's hardly Exxon/Mobil-money. But as this deal as slowed and been larded with goodies to attract the reticent, you won't be surprised that I like a lot about George Soros' proposal. We taxpayers re-capitalize for a gilded stock position. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d68e10cc-8f45-11dd-946c-0000779fd18c.html?nclick_check=1

and this deal is supposed to pay for itself?

Isn't that what Bushie and the Wolfowitzes said about The Great War?

and how's that working out?

LAMBERT: You are not the only skeptic out there, my friend. Just as in our international relations, no one trusts this crowd. Which is why Paulson, I think, is stunned at the number of eyeballs he's going to have looking over his shoulder.

By keeping them off our soil, Bri.

He's cried wolf too often. One reason I don't believe the Prezzie when he says the bailout is a smart investment:

"Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction."

Ari Fleischer
White House press secretary
February 18, 2003

And another:

"There is a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be US taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people. We are talking about a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon."

Paul Wolfowitz
Deputy Secretary of Defense
testifying before the defense subcommittee
of the House Appropriations Committee
March 27, 2003

At least Clinton kept his lies to where he was putting his fingers (pretty much). These crazy all-or-nothing, God-is-with-us, bug-eyed extremists found ways to set up rationales and scenarios in their heads that have caused thousands of funerals and trillions in debt.

So I don't believe them when they say that this time they're serious.

LAMBERT: This "rescue plan" would move much faster if Bush and his "team" just went down to the ranch at tossed cowpies until it was over. Every time they pop up on TV its a reminder of how many times they have screwed up.

The people are starting to see the light, huh, Jed?

There is a pattern to be observed with "politicians." Politicians do act like politicians are suppose to act for the most part. People get all huffy with them, as if in a flash of brilliance, they've discovered something nobody else has previously observed: Elected officials are prone to disagree, argue or fight and then compromise to get things done.

Yet, if viewed in a larger historical context, it is pretty easy to see that they all act in a fashion that our Founding Fathers wanted them to act in -- to debate, to challenge, to blow holes in Paulson's plan, for example, and ask for revisions and amendments as well as attach riders and other pieces of legislation unacceptable or indigestible to their foes. Why all the righteous indignation?

We have been known to call this Democracy. The art of compromise, of legislative oversight and the balance of powers. It is often the role of the Senate to be deliberative, reflective, and to slow down the impatience and emotional distress of the House and the excessive intemperance of the President.

If you don't like all the messiness of social democracy than perhaps you want to consider a dictatorship - a dictatorship of the proletariat (i.e. Stalin) or one fashioned to support corporate syndicalism (i.e. Mussolini) where only one view often prevails without being questioned or debated. With these forms you can throw out all the politicians and just have one autocratic ruler who will not tolerate criticism or dissent.

I have a sense there are people in this country who want only one view to prevail without discussion or debate. And they like to use a crisis to evoke an emergency state in order for this one ideological perspective to prevail. We've been seeing a lot of this lately in Washington and Saint Paul.