Revealed: Most ‘Improvements’ to Bailout Bill Were a Fraud

They really did try to roll us — that's the conclusion that flows from the transcript disclosed in Mussolini-Style Corporatism in Action: Treasury Conference Call on Bailout Bill to Analysts (Updated).

I wonder how many people in Congress voting knew about this. Some, I suspect.

This entry was posted in Econ & Money: Mortgage Mess. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Revealed: Most ‘Improvements’ to Bailout Bill Were a Fraud

  1. I'dtapsarahpalintoo says:

    Thank god the House Republicans finally stopped this thing.

    The entire Democratic Rubber stamp party gets smacked around by Bush like a beaten wife, and they don’t complain. Are we witnessing the death of the Democrats and the two party system?

  2. LACJ says:

    Ha yeah, its actually slightly true. Well not about the Dems getting pushed around, that’s a bit of a joke.

    In fact, the House GOP put together a proposed bill that was so clueless as to real market theory (as opposed to the ‘free market’ theories that they use to rationalize policies to their constituents and apparently actually believe) that it is was roundly rejected. Therefore, under the mistaken belief (or overt rationalization) that they were defending the ‘free market’, and, licking their wounds and feeling especially selfish, they ‘stood tall’ and voted nay on the bill.

    Then, instead of defending their ‘economic’ ideas, or their belief in the ‘free market’, like men who have ideas and principles, they…blamed it on Nancy Pelosi!

    I have been waiting for someone, anyone to ask the question “Why now”, and haven’t seen a satisfactory answer yet. Its a simple question, what, precisely, precipitated this urgent need? I don’t trust this Administration, no one does, and so, isn’t that a good question to ask?

    The only thing admirable in the GOP about all of this is that the House Republicans should be commended for their skepticism about whether the bailout is necessary, much less absolutely necessary this instant! Which is how it was all started by Paulson.

    Of course they weren’t skeptical when Bush wanted his war, or his torture. When Cheney wanted ‘frank advice’ from his energy policy working group. They asked no questions; argued no questions were necessary; argued asking questions was counter-productive on its face; argued and stripped down oversight mechanisms everywhere. On ideological grounds.

    Now they are bucking Bush’s own hand-picked man! And they are not following their new leader, either. Apparently they are not as trusting as they once were. Oh, and we still have a new package of ideological grounds. And these guys are not financial wonks, to put it mildly.

    So god bless the fringe/psycho House Repubs, every one! May they long remain skeptical! And I suppose that means that they must remain permanently in the minority, because that’s the only time they will be skeptical.

    The GOP is in complete disarray. Palin now looks like a good pick because at this point at least you can count on the baby-lovers vote showing up. After that, not so much.

  3. joe says:

    …blamed it on Nancy Pelosi!

    One of the republican gentlemen from California, Darrell Issa, doesn’t blame Ms. Pelosi: “Issa Ridicules Notion That Pelosi Speech Impacted Vote”:

    To be honest, somebody finding out that Nancy Pelosi made a partisan speech? I’m shocked,” said Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), a lead opponent of the bailout package, who tells the Crypt that the idea that her speech shifted votes is “nonsense.”

    Issa said that the credit is actually due to former FDIC Chairman William Isaac, who has been on Capitol Hill briefing lawmakers as to what other options and financial tools are available to the treasury. Isaac spoke to a group of skeptical Democrats yesterday and set up camp outside the Democratic Caucus meeting Sunday. Along with liberal economist Dean Baker and another economist, James K. Galbraith, the trio would engage Democrats coming in and out of the meeting.

    The former FDIC Chairman William Isaac has some definite views on “How to Save the Financial System”. I’m not sure I agree with those views, but they deserve serious attention.

    Congress needs to hold hearings before another vote.

  4. LACJ says:

    The House Republican leadership blamed their failure to gather enough votes on Pelosi’s speech.

    Later, a number of members, such as Issa, rejected that idea. But the ‘notion’ was first introduced by none other than the House GOP itself, in fact, John Boehner of Ohio.

    Indeed, from the article you link to: [After Boehner made the claim] “His leadership colleagues endorsed the opinion.”

    It was a stupid thing to say. So stupid, in fact, that a nutjob like Issa could even see how dumb it was.

    Issa’s point in that article is quite unclear. This Isaac’s argument or position on the bailout is what, exactly? How did Isaac convince people like Issa to vote against? Any specific aspects of the plan that were objectionable?

    I read Isaac’s piece in the WSJ and remain unconvinced. Personally I smell right wing nonsense there, in that while he lays out three policies, he doesn’t explain how those three moves will change anything. Does the Fed buy the toxic paper? I do believe that is what Isaac wants us to do.

    So this type of behavior is very much in line with what we have learned about the right wing. Make a bunch of noise, but never quite explain what you really plan to do.

    The House Republicans don’t want to talk about why they voted against the bill, or about their proposal, because both discussions would show how ignorant and ideological they are. That was my point.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.