Best guess on if the Bill will pass Congress Sunday nite?

[Orchidflower]

Ditto on the game of chicken. Good one.

 

[OAG]

Wait I have to go check the Vegas Line on this. Personally, at this point 8:28 am today I think the odds are 60/40 NO. But there are so many necks on the block now I am sure "they" will come up with something for "us".

 

[samclem]

Gee, I wonder if this really IS important enough to delay that li'l ol' debate by a couple of days. Obama says no. McCain is looking smarter and smarter. Where did Obama spend the night? Oh, in Washington. Yep--he blinked.

Well, it now looks like McCain will do the debate even though there's no deal on the bailout-so HE blinked, too. Dang!

 

[ziggy29]

My guess is that they are so intransigent on a compromise now that come Sunday afternoon, just before Asian markets open, they'll be forced to quickly adopt something -- anything -- that will be even worse than what's out there now.

As you can see, my faith in Washington is infinite.

 

[Grep]

It's probably just me, but I wonder if the slightly more hasty than usual seizure of W.M. was to hold the administration's feet to a hotter fire?

 

[ziggy29]

It's probably just me, but I wonder if the slightly more hasty than usual seizure of W.M. was to hold the administration's feet to a hotter fire?

How so? If the feds seized the assets, it would have been led by an executive agency, not a legislative one. If anything, it would have been hastily done at the urging of the administration to put a sense of urgency on Congress.

 

[haha]

Harry Reid says yesterday's arrival of candidates hurt process.

Mr. Reid, standing next to Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, the chairman of the Senate banking committee, said that negotiations had been headed toward a successful conclusion Thursday evening, but that the arrival of the presidential candidates, as well as the failure of House Republican leaders to participate in some discussions, helped to derail them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/27/business/27reax.html

 

[Bestwifeever]

I hate politics. When I saw Paulsen on the Sunday morning talking heads shows and heard him being second-guessed, I could tell that there was not way a bailout was going to happen without a lot of special interests and good old fashioned pontificating and speechifying first. This could have been a done deal by now. I'm voting against all the incumbents from now on.

 

[youbet]

Mr. Reid, standing next to Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, the chairman of the Senate banking committee, said that negotiations had been headed toward a successful conclusion Thursday evening, but that the arrival of the presidential candidates, as well as the failure of House Republican leaders to participate in some discussions, helped to derail them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/27/business/27reax.html

It does look that way. But I wonder....... I haven't heard the GOP Congressional folks agree that negotiations had been headed toward a successful conclusion. The Dems say that the GOP Congressional folks were going along with it. But I haven't heard the GOP folks themselves say that. Is the actuality that the Dems were interpreting silence as support? Or did the Dems think that Paulson was speaking for the Congressional Republicans, which we can see now he isn't? Were the Republicans, feeling left out of the action and having zero input, just sitting back and waiting to vote "no?" Then, with the candidates back in town, they opened up and said that they didn't feel the process had been inclusive and still wanted to have input? Dunno. But it is strange that the Republican congresscritters themselves have never (that I've heard or seen) said that they were supporting the bill the Dems had put together.

At this stage, if the Dems feel confident in the bill as it stands with their modifications, they should probably go ahead and pass it since they seem to have the votes. Otherwise, they should give the Republicans some input.

If I'm reading this wrong and there is Republican input to the modified bill from the Republican minority in Congress, what is it? Everything seemed to be just the Dem modifications.

Edited: Oh yeah.... one other thought. As far as Obama and McCain being involved, I remind myself that they are senators as well as presidential candidates. It's not like two presidential candidates who are not part of Congress (say, two govenors running for pres.) showing up to inject their two cents. Two much involvement? Maybe. But I'd be just as concerned if they were ignoring the situation and had no involvement at all.

 

[ziggy29]

At this stage, if the Dems feel confident in the bill as it stands with their modifications, they should probably go ahead and pass it since they seem to have the votes. Otherwise, they should give the Republicans some input.

If I'm reading this wrong and there is Republican input to the modified bill from the Republican minority in Congress, what is it? Everything seemed to be just the Dem modifications.

The thing is this: They seem to indicate that the problem is specifically with Republicans in the House.

If they can get cooperation from about 10 GOP senators AND get the assurances that the president would sign it, they don't need House Republicans for anything: it passes the House, it passes the Senate with a filibuster-proof majority, and the president signs it. Done.

So there has more to it than just "House Republicans."

 

[OAG]

Oh the Democrats DO NOT want to pass this thing without a LOT of Republican votes as they need POLITICAL COVER in case this thing does not work (which IMHO it is not going to work - of course I am not too clear on WTH the actual objective is).

 

[youbet]

I hate politics.

you and me both

When I saw Paulsen on the Sunday morning talking heads shows and heard him being second-guessed, I could tell that there was not way a bailout was going to happen without a lot of special interests and good old fashioned pontificating and speechifying first. This could have been a done deal by now. I'm voting against all the incumbents from now on.

That's my normal procedure. Chicago Dems are an exception, of course. I'm in the suburbs now and can't actually vote for them anymore () but ya still gotta cheer for 'em!

 

[laurence]

And you'll recall Harry Reid had claimed he was told that McCain would support it. McCain denied it, but I believe Reid wants very much to have McCain on board before signing anything.

I don't know if McCain is actually holding things up. This must infuriate Reid and Pelosi. They dislike McCain deeply, (Reid has made it personal) but are too afraid to move ahead without his cover. If they don't move ahead, and the markets crump--they are to blame. If they do move ahead and the Amrican public rebels against the costs and the giveaways of this package, their party will be punshed at the ballot box. They are in a bad spot, and (hopefully) McCain will use his available leverage to improve the bill (reducing taxpayer liabilities as much as possible and keeping the bill focused on the problem). If so, he'll be able to rightfully hold this out as an improvement he's responsible for.

Gee, I wonder if this really IS important enough to delay that li'l ol' debate by a couple of days. Obama says no. McCain is looking smarter and smarter. Where did Obama spend the night? Oh, in Washington. Yep--he blinked.

Hold on, come on now. The Republican administration tells congress, "PASS OUR PLAN NOW! OR THERE WILL BE DEATH!" and demand $700 billion with no strings attached. Currently the plan is to only allow $350 billion at first. Now that something is close to being hammered out, the congressional republicans are crying about it, and judging from your post above, it's obvious the game plan is to somehow blame this mess all on democrats. It's genius political maneuvering on the GOP's part, but it is pure politics. The Dem leadership is smart to demand bipartisan support for this bill. Right now if it does work, the Republicans can claim credit for submitting/crafting the initial plan, and if it blows up, they can throw the dems under the bus. McCain's grandstanding and pretend halt of the campaign (Commercials still running! Still making political statements on the national news! Still releasing press releases blamestorming!) is really annoying me. This is not the McCain I donated money to. And saying, "they started it" or "they do it too!" is hardly an effective defense.

Now McCain is going, he read the polls saying he should debate and did a U-turn, without an agreement in place. Who blinked?

 

[laurence]

Oh the Democrats DO NOT want to pass this thing without a LOT of Republican votes as they need POLITICAL COVER in case this thing does not work (which IMHO it is not going to work - of course I am not too clear on WTH the actual objective is).

Repubs 1, Dems 0 on the political maneuvering. The plan was crafted by a Republican administration, it was a blank check for $700 billion. The house dems input reduced the initial cost and put in some safeguards. But the resistance from congressional republicans allows them to go to their home district and scream about "bloated dem budget busters!" and win in November. Dems are scrambling to figure out how they got checked so bad by this. They are in a complete no win situation.

 

[ziggy29]

It's genius political maneuvering on the GOP's part, but it is pure politics. The Dem leadership is smart to demand bipartisan support for this bill. Right now if it does work, the Republicans can claim credit for submitting/crafting the initial plan, and if it blows up, they can throw the dems under the bus.

Maybe, maybe not. But going back to what I said before, the Democrats have to do better than blame "House Republicans" because if everyone else is on board, House Republicans are impotent. The bill passes the House without a single GOP vote, and if enough Senate Republicans are on board, it passes without filibuster. And if the president is on board, he signs it.

If Democrats refuse to take it to a vote without any House GOP support, then they too are playing politics since they could pass it without a single Republican vote in the House -- they're more afraid of being blamed if it blows up than fixing it. Not saying the Republicans are behaving any better, but there is certainly enough partisan positioning from both sides to go around.

"House Republicans" alone can't stop this. Now if they don't have enough Republican support in the Senate to block a filibuster, that's another story. For the Democrats, passing it without bipartisan support would be a "profile in courage."

 

[samclem]

The Dem leadership is smart to demand bipartisan support for this bill.

They are the majority. They wanted to be in the majority, instead of sniping from the sidelines. They are in a position to take action. If they don''t take action, the American public is not going to blame a small group of minority members. "Leading" means that you take responsibility.

Now McCain is going, he read the polls saying he should debate and did a U-turn, without an agreement in place. Who blinked?

Hey, I already said that!

 

[Bestwifeever]

Time to move this thread to the soapbox.... imho, let's throw all the bums out, including whoever wins the election in six weeks, as soon as we can.

 

[ziggy29]

Time to move this thread to the soapbox....

Not quite, IMO. While there are party politics being discussed here, so far it's not in the disrespectful "attack mode" as seen in the soap box and because it's pretty much staying to the topic on hand. I'm actually for the most part rather pleased at how the civil the tone has been.

Now if the topic starts *focusing* on ideology and partisanism without thoughtful discussion on the issue, I'd agree that it's Soap Box time.

 

[youbet]

The Dem leadership is smart to demand bipartisan support for this bill.

Agreed. But to get a consensus they're probably going to have to give the minority Republicans some input on this...... And the Dems are going to have to come to the realization that Bush does not have the minority Republican congresscritters on a short leash. Just because Bush and Paulson are ready to sign anything that Congress passes doesn't mean that short-timer and unpopular Bush has any control of those GOP representatives. If the Dems want bipartisan support, they'll have to let them have a little input. It could be as simple as allowing the Republican representatives include the provision that no earmarks will be included on the final bill.

 

[ziggy29]

In any event, I expect both sides to again declare they are "very close" within the next 30 minutes or so, IMO, in order to try to stave off a vicious selloff in the last hour of trading. That gives them breathing room until the Asian markets open on Sunday evening.

 

[laurence]

They are the majority. They wanted to be in the majority, instead of sniping from the sidelines. They are in a position to take action. If they don''t take action, the American public is not going to blame a small group of minority members. "Leading" means that you take responsibility.

Hey, I already said that!

Re-reading my post I realize I might be interpreted in seeing the Dems as innocent victims of a political ploy. Let me clarify I'm not shedding tears for them! Just calling out scoreboard on the political game.

I for one am more comfortable with the house GOP plan. Wolf has been cried too many times in the past year.

 

[haha]

Are there any grown-ups around?

Right now, players throughout the system are refusing to lend and hoarding cash — and this collapse of credit reminds many economists of the run on the banks that brought on the Great Depression.
It’s true that we don’t know for sure that the parallel is a fair one. Maybe we can let Wall Street implode and Main Street would escape largely unscathed. But that’s not a chance we want to take.
So the grown-up thing is to do something to rescue the financial system. The big question is, are there any grown-ups around — and will they be able to take charge?

Krugman, NYT yesterday

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/opinion/26krugman.html?em

Ha

 

[laurence]

It could be as simple as allowing the Republican representatives include the provision that no earmarks will be included on the final bill.

Wouldn't that be nice! I think the number I heard thrown around was $2,300 for every man, woman and child in America as the cost for this bill. Tough pill to swallow when you haven't seen a raise in years or are about to lose your home.

 

[audreyh1]

Right now, players throughout the system are refusing to lend and hoarding cash — and this collapse of credit reminds many economists of the run on the banks that brought on the Great Depression.

Check out http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f28/how-to-bail-out-main-street-39122.html

Audrey

 

[haha]

Hey, are we invested in the Main Street 500? I don't think so! On with the Wall Street Bailout.

ha