But I’m not afraid of giving the other side their fair shake to make their case.

We are a diverse bunch. In point of fact, we cannot get a formal site position on this because the Directors are divided.

If you can’t stand the other side also being given an opportunity to make their case, go elsewhere.

This is just one of those issues where reasonable people on the right will disagree.

It’s not a good idea to treat anyone who disagrees with you on any issue as an enemy. That’s what the left does: If you disagree, you’re evil, racist, etc. etc.

He wasn’t a fan of government, but he sure used it when he had to. The Department of Defense was there under Reagan, and it was there to help.

It’s just more important to have govenrment do things within its limits, respecting of rights, when government is the only option.

I really think that if done right, the Paulson plan fits all three criteria. Just barely.

I’d tell ya to knock it off, but you won’t.

BigGator, I agree with you much of the time, but you almost sound like a dem, trying to stifle dissenting opinions. What’s up with that?

I can survive without the bailout. But, I have friends and family who cannot afford a big financial hit.

I am of the opinion that we can solve this crisis without “buying” the debt. But, I respect other opinions, as well.

It seems like there is an implicit admission by the media that what happens to “big business” impact main street. McCain MUST use this to attack Obama’s position on taxing “big business”. This can be a winning strategy

But it’s funny to see people say they are a fiscal conservative, and then say they’re for the bailout. Makes absolutely no sense to me and totally reinforces my belief in scripture. If we need to have a downturn to straighten out the excess of alot of people, then so be it. I am married with 3 kids and rent in a duplex. For the past 5 years everyone was telling me to go get a house because they are giving them away. We investigated our options and my wife and I decided we should just keep saving until we could do it the right way. Now all the people who fed us that line of bull are on the brink. I say let em go under. Go look at a site like Credit Boards and witness the pure insanity of what credit has done. On that site people openly brag about the fact they filed bankruptcy, and a couple months later got a 5000 dollar credit card from WAMU. Or the people who filed bankruptcy in their husbands name and then got a house in the wifes. Or the people who get paid “under the table” and bought a 300000 dollar house. It goes on and on and on. The good banks are rolling along with no problems. We bank with Chase and I laughed when I saw that they bought WAMU. The first thought I had was what a shocker and then I went to see if Credit Boards had anything to say. Sure enough there was pure panic about what Chase would do to the WAMU credit cards. LOL!! I guess what I am saying is, people need to pay for this. I dont own a home yet because I chose a more responsible path, but the government is saying I need to help people who screwed themselves. I say no! I dont care if the Dow drops to 5000 and you cant get credit with an 800 score. Eventually it will work itself out and the rules will change for the better. I’m just a regular guy and I have no idea about all the inner workings of finance. What I do know is something about common sense and the American way and a bailout is neither of those things.

nt

There are times when people panic and they opt for the only straw that seems to be in reach. You don’t discuss by calling people wimpy or whatever because they don’t look at things the way you do.

I understand where they’re coming from, even if I don’t agree. I’ve looked at Erick’s articles on the subject and I don’t see where he is supporting the bailout. He’s just putting in both sides of a bad situation.

Here’s something interesting; just a tidbit. Of the top 25 recipients of Fannie/Freddie money in the House, 8 are Democrats, 6 are Republicans. That’s 14 of the top 25 from the House alone. None of those 14 showed up in the No votes, naturally.

So, it’s not as ‘partisan’ as it at first seems.

went down, I wasn’t sure what I thought about it since I’m not an economist or even particularly tuned into financial affairs. All I knew was that it was a complex and dire situation with plenty of blame to go around. As a Romney supporter, I was obviously interested in his position.

It was at the height of the conservative rallying cry to oppose the bail that MItt came out strongly in support of the bill saying that it’s passage was necessary even if only to curb panic and sell offs.

Since that wasn’t the popular position at the time, I wondered if he was off the reservation so to speak. But I realized, mostly after the Republican arm flexing in Congress backfired, that it’s precisely Romney’s pragmatism and lack of ideology that impresses me so much.

The health and vitality of the economy was his only concern. This pitted him aganist conservative superstars who were lauded as heroes for opposing a bill that will now pass anyway. There is definately a place for ideological battles, but when the nation is facing a genuine crisis, I want the politicians and bloggers to sit it out.

“has DailyKos taken over….”

Maybe you don’t know this, but Markos is 100% AGAINST the bailout. Just like you. Hey, for once the ultra left and ultra right can agree on something.

Maybe for different reasons, but whatever the reason, if you are against the bailout, you’re on the same side as Kos this time.

I have issues with the federal government making insanely big honking gobs of cash at anything; it just encourages it to keep doing it, which is not smart in the long term.

But, as Maximum Leader noted, we are a diverse bunch, and we have been arguing about this very issue amongst ourselves quite vehemently for the last week. While I’m sorry that you don’t like the fact that we did not line up behind your position on this issue I must note that is a: not our problem and b: easily fixed on your part.

And how much of the Constitution do we throw out the window?

I have scattered my comments around the site the last few days, and readers will know I have concluded with a good deal of certainty that the “crisis” is being “sexed up” (to use an infamous phrase) by the leftists and their media to stoke classic class warfare (Big Business vs. The Little Guy) in favor of Big Brobama.

The only kind of bill I would support must contain a lower threshold of money (250-350 Billion – bad enough) which will be repaid and then rebated to the taxpayers, not put into the general fund.

Romney, Forbes, etc. are being too generous to the other side: there is manipulation going on, deliberate if not co-ordinated, because in the past 10 days far too many things have fallen into place to let the Dems push their agenda.

So if you want to stop a panic, and even such a phony panic can indeed become more real, then let’s have a bill that starts very small and see what the reaction is first.

See “Gamecock’s” points on such a bill as well.

now please stop quoting Ronald Reagan.

If you disagree with Erick and/or Leon, and you have trusted their minds in the past, why not attempt to persuade them rather than tossing epithets and insults.

Let’s not try to draw blood from allies. This isn’t the Romney campaign, you know.

Thank You, House Republicans

Sometimes these things are made to look more complicated than they really are. From an economic perspective, if the problem is liquidity and credit, there simply is no need for the federal government to assume massive amounts of debt on its book by assuming loans in anticipation that their holders or borrowers will default. This seems to me like a brand new expanse of government power that is not justified (if it ever is) by the arguments made on its behalf. The government controls monetary policy through supply and interest rates, among other things. It can further ease money supply and credit, thereby increasing the flow of capital. The government controls tax policy. It can increase liquidity and the flow of new money into the economy both from within the country and from foreign sources by eliminating the corporate income tax and the capital gains tax even on a mid-term basis. No matter what is done, some financial institutions will fail, as they did in the 1981-82 recession and have since. And the Fed and Treasury and other instrumentalities of government will have to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether to intervene and how to intervene. They will also have to determine whether other policies require modifying, such as the McCain proposal today, in which he suggests increasing federal insurance for individual depositors from $100,000 to $250,000. Other smart suggestions include modifying the mark-to-market rule requiring financial institutions to downgrade the valuation of assets. If the goal is to prevent panic in the economy by investors and depositors, then increase credit, liquidity, and the flow of capital, and deal with problem institutions that are significant enough in size that their demise could resonate to the wider economy. But the Soviet-style, top-down five year plan a la Paulson’s proposal, and to a significant extent the proposal that was voted down yesterday, could easily do more damage to both the economy and our governmental structure. So, in this respect, I must depart from NRO’s editorial.

Also, count me among those few here who want to thank the House Republicans for taking a bold stand against what had been a stampede on a scale I have never before witnessed on matters of huge consequence. Conservatism is more than a quaint belief-system to be embraced and debated over donuts at Starbucks. It is more than a list of talking points. It is the foundation of the civil society. The liberal uses crises, real or manufactured, to expand the power of government at the expense of the individual and private property. He has spent, in earnest, 70 years evading the Constitution’s limits on governmental power. If conservatives don’t stand up to this, who will? If they don’t offer serious alternatives that address the current circumstances AND defend the founding principles, who will? The House Republicans have done both. And I, for one, thank them.

Incidentally, if you want to buy a home or car today you can. And if your credit is decent, you can get loans at a good rate. Last week we were told that if a deal was not struck by last Friday, our economy would collapse. It has not. That is not to say the evidence of economic troubles or worse should be ignored. It is to say that now is a time for reasoned decisions based on tried and true principles, not for abandoning them. I notice that the socialist, who, for the last 30 years, has insisted that private institutions make risky loans based on non-economic factors, still has not abandoned his policies. Socialism does not work. We shouldn’t support more of it.

that we have BigGator5 to shine the light of simple truth and straighten rubes like Tom Coburn, Steve Forbes, et al out. It’s so simple! I mean, it’s simply unfathomable that if people stop paying their mortgages, the government will repossess them and resell the property, right?

Sorry about your timeshares buddy, but you know who stands to go out of business if the bailout doesn’t pass? Everyone who needs any credit (including the kind of “credit” you don’t typically think about, such as not being required to pay for goods for 30 days after being invoiced) to make their business run. That’s everyone.

Now, you’re certainly free to think that your timeshares guy has got the eagle-eye view of the entire economy and that everyone else – including people who have fought for free market solutions for their entire life – are socialist idiots, but try to say it out loud less.

I’m certainly no fan of the current form of the bill and I was pleased to see it defeated. Obviously, the world didn’t come to an end either on Main St or Wall St. The Market lost 700+ points yesterday and got about 500 back today.

I’m also no fan of government involvement in our lives. I would happily shut down probably 75% of the non-defense related government programs. The one thing I would not do however, is walk away from maintaining some level of liquidity in the larger credit markets. If ever there was a situation where the “Commerce Clause” applied, this is it.

In single syllable words that I know you don’t care about – and feel sure you certainly can’t understand – if the credit markets melt down there will be no economy.

Overall, the markets are in fairly good shape if you apply some hindsight to last few weeks. We’ve seen some huge bank failures – IndyMac & WAMU to name two. Effect on the market? As long as you didn’t own stock in them, zip. Bear Stearns? Zip.

The “$700B Problem” isn’t really a $700B out-of-pocket problem. To imply that demonstrates an amazing degree of ignorance. 50% of the underlying value of the MBS market is not worth zero dollars. The problem, as blackhedd has eloquently discussed here on numerous occasions, is one of short-term implied value which causes a liquidity crisis because of regulatory requirements on banks and brokers. The federal government should be taking steps to provide a floor to the market, it’s the right – and Constitutional role – of government.

That said, I’m no fan of the current effort. The fact that the Dow got back 500 points today and foreign markets were quite stable should buy some time to put a liquidity fix together that works to provide a market floor – hence stability – at a minimal-to-no-long-term cost.

Now, if you want to talk about a real bailout that should be killed and never discussed again, let’s talk about that $25B for GM/Ford/Chrysler.

I’m not an economist, but like everyone else I have a problem with the plans I’ve seen. The latest appears to include tax cuts. While I would love to believe some of my taxes would be returned to our pocket, now is not the time for a tax cut. Never ever thought I’d say those words.

Basically, the country has a problem and we need a solution. What’s bothered me until now is the sky-is-falling-NOW approach. The markets haven’t melted. At the moment you can still, if you are financially stable and employed, get credit.

However, enough warnings resound that I realize relief must be arranged.

That relief should be as unencumbered by extraneous items as possible.

But extreme caution should be exercised.

I’d like to see constituents basically tell Congress to stick with solving this problem and leave every other single item off. That is what has complicated it–the early plan wanted a percentage of any future revenues to Capital Magnet and Affordable Housing.

Now they’re adding tax relief.

I think they have the data to determine, or come close to determining, some sort of ballpark value for these assets. Here’s an interesting report that details the subprime loans, on the Federal Reserve website, dated Dec. 2007:

[http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2008/200829/200829pap.pdf]

Why did no committee evaluate that report? How did media miss that report?

It strikes me that we have almost sunk our economy by doing what Obama proposes–investing capital in the bottom quintile, but doing so without demanding responsibility and accountability, especially from those who facilitated the investments (at all levels).

I just read that George Soros has presented a plan:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/soros-floats-alternative-bailout-plan-with-dems-2008-09-30.html

This entire chain of events, strangely beginning with Schumer’s IndyMac leaked letter, just got even stranger.

Soros entering the fracas had the same impact on me as the cottonmouth moccasin I thought dead in a plastic garbage bag by my feet as I rode home after checking on a wood duck project with biologists one afternoon. The cottonmouth rose out of the bag to greet me when I set it on the ground. A memorable moment.

I’ve been a journalist all my life.

This whole thing reeks.This has been a bizarre set of events from the gitgo.

So all I’m saying is we need a rational plan to solve the problem. On that I agree.

I haven’t seen a rational plan yet. Somewhere there must be a true leader who can inspire a solution (hoping McCain’s team sees the opportunity here). Thus far a leader has not risen to the top.

And I hope I don’t lose this blasted post.

best to all, Kay

I just reco’d. I don’t like the way Gator presented it, nor do I like some of his responses, but what I see in the arguments is panic driven support for what should be considered blasphemy to a conservative soul. You will swallow the bailout for money regardless of the long term consequences.

Once the government has the power you’re willing to give them you’ll never get it back. If that price isn’t too high for you, there’s nothing I, or anyone else, can say that is going to change your mind.

I will continue to pray for you in spite of it.

Allow me to quote myself from a comment under “How Republicans Fix the Bailout” by Brian Johnson.

The timing is highly suspicious as well: remember October Surprise? Check your calendars tomorrow when the Senate supposedly will vote: how many Dems are going to vote “no” and then blame the Republicans for a lack of action to “resolve the crisis” ? Follow the money: what is *Soros *buying and selling right now? Ted Turner? Peter Lewis? Carlos Slim? Just to name a few leftist billionaires, who could clean up even more by manipulating the political system to their advantage, under the guise of bettering humankind: Soros himself has openly said this.

So Soros, from the summary I read, wants to semi-nationalize the market by having the government become a shareholder/ part-owner in the failing financial companies to prop them up. The summary from “The Hill” was rather sketchy, and I suspect that there are some very curious details in this plan, which, since it was presented directly to Democrats, tells you something about it immediately.

On the other hand Edmund Phelps has an article in the Wall Street Journal advocating the use of “warrants” a la the 80′s Chrysler resuscitation, which is not too dissimilar.

we need to make a stand on what should be the content of the Bill that will be fairly acceptable to the reps/cons.

Somebody must take the lead on this.

Ordinary republicans/conservatives and even moderate Republicans are confused on this.

Opinions of conservative economists should also be fully considered.

that all of this has seemed to have the trumped up emotionalism of a fake October surprise. And on a number of key conservative issues, this is just plain wrong.

1) It disrespects the vision of the founders of the Country. The purpose of the division of powers is to minimize the potential for momentary panic to produce bad laws. This has ALL the earmarks of exactly what the founders wanted to avoid. A temporary condition, which most economists agree would sort itself out in a year, at most, is being used as an excuse to create massive government intervention across an entire industry INTEGRAL to the modern economy. It’s like nationalizing STEEL in the pre-WW2 economy. It would never, ever, be undone.

2) The record of these bailouts is atrocious. They simply do not work. So why do we keep throwing good taxpayer money after bad? Conservatives are supposed to get that wasting taxpayer money on boondoggles is bad for the economy and wasteful spending.

3) The economists generally agree that this will not be enough to do what is considered the aim. And it will not stop the banks from going under. All it will do is delay the inevitable so they go under less rapidly. There will not be a crash, there will be a slow capsize. The problem with that is, with a crash, the ability to restore the market is actually better, because there will be less intervention for the new start-ups that replace the old wrecks.

4) If Conservatives ‘really’ want to do what is consistent with our principles and protect those who cannot protect themselves. We should NOT be playing the market, which should be allowed to go the path it has chosen for itself. Rather, we should protect those people who the market’s self-destruction will actually harm. That is, the government should backstop the PEOPLE who would be harmed by the businesses failing. NOT the businesses that are going to be doomed anyway.

5) The entire debt cycle of the economy, on conservative principles, must end. And in economic terms, it cannot continue indefinitely anyway. This was doomed to happen when we substituted credit for savings. And it will happen again unless we can push the economy back to a place where ordinary families CAN save again.

Keynsian pump-priming for the economy is bad enough. But this current economic ideology of forcing ordinary citizens to prime the pumps with debt living is doomed to self-destruction. We are well on the way to being the first generation that leaves children a lower standard of living than their parents. The debt culture MUST be reversed to stop this. The bailout is bad economics, it’s bad politics, it’s bad for society. So why in the world would a conservative back it, except to kill their own conscience?

and I am definitely way out of my league with the majority of contributors here.

I am a wife, a lacrosse Mom and a small business owner. I have tried to wrap my arms around this bail out to understand a few things. I don’t think that I am atypical, if anything, I am just an average American.

The breakneck speed that this issue had to be solved astounds me along with the mixed signals received from places like The Fed. Didn’t Bernake say, in 2007, the worst of the subprime mess was behind us? And weren’t those who were claiming “pish, all is well” the ones being the harbingers of destruction if a bill weren’t passed last Friday? To me, a rush to solve usually results in a half answer to a problem.

I look at the original figure of $700 Billion, now it is $810 Billion. So another $110 Bill has been tacked on to this bill since the original estimate given by the Treasury, who by the way, just came up with a really big number. Since the government operates with OPM, exactly at what point did they say, this is okay, let’s put another $110 Billion of the taxpayers’ money in this. I feel, the elected leadership of this country just mortgage my children’s future in a quick fix to solve a problem not only that has been around for awhile but they help create.

I don’t like the idea of the government being stakeholders in private firms or homes and especially banks. That is not what our government was set up to do. If I recall, wasn’t that one of the tenants spelled out by Karl Marx? The nationalizing of banks and private industry? I would like for someone to explain the constitutionality of this bail out.

As a small business owner, I try very hard to keep my house in order. I watch the bottom line very carefully and only take minimal risk to ensure a slow but sustained growth. If I were to make bad decisions and risky ventures, I would be accountable to me and me alone. There would be no one bailing me out, especially if I had shown a history of bad decisions or kept throwing good money after bad. Businesses in a free market rise and fall on their business models. Some make it, some don’t. That’s what happens. But to prop up a failing entity without first figuring out what the cause of the problem is doesn’t fix it, it gives a temporary fix that surely will be repeated down the road at some point.

While I do feel that something needed to be done, I don’t feel that a bill cobbled together in breakneck speed, ladened with the gimmes that are in this bill was the answer to the problem.

To me, it just raises more questions.

…and drama re: RS, but how can anyone support a 700 BILLION dollar bailout.

Let the markets work it out.

Not really sure why not supporting it is such a difficult concept. It’s kind of like a bandaid solution to a tourniquet problem. Even if it is a tourniquet (Big Bailout), it’s the wrong tourniquet. Dave Ramsey had some good ideas about alternative solutions.

Simply opposing…well, that’s good for Joe Sixpack American. Offering up viable alternatives…that’s something to get behind.

it passed

Nerves have nothing to do with it. People of good will can disagree. If you support John McCain and think Republicans are more likely to further conservative aims, then RedState provides a great place to respectfully disagree.

If a discussion site allows one faction to trample descent, then it becomes like the Daily Kos; self congratulatory, petty and bitter.