Could Policy And Politics Get Any Better Than This?

If I read the first part of Ace's post correctly here (I don't agree with him on the second portion - that it's a bad idea and Paulson's plan has to be swallowed, even as currently amended) - think about what a terrific moment this could be for America.

According to Gingrich and Dick Morris on Hannity and Colmes, McCain has killed the Paulsen bailout and will present his own version, which will require the government to lend, not give the money, and regulations will be reformed and taxes will be loosened to help them pay us back.

Both Gingrich and Morris were giddy. They both said McCain has shown that he will stand up to anyone--including the president--to fight for the country, and he's changed the argument: Now, the Dems support giving a trillion dollars to the Wall Street "fat cats," as they called them over and over, but McCain has refused, in the name of the taxpayer.

Obama can't accept the Republican plan on its face. Yes, both parties are playing a bit of politics with important legislation. But think of the timing. McCain and Obama - on stage tonight - debating one crucial bit of legislation to become the next President of the United States.

If that ain't democracy, I don't know what is. Will it happen? Hard to say. But I think it has the potential to be a watershed moment, not just in the campaign, but in American politics. In a sense, it would be turning the clock back to when Americans might have heard just a bit of sincerity from politicians on issues of import, as opposed to the usual rehearsed spin.

Who would you bet on to win that debate? Obama has something of an expectations issue btw.

Tonight’s debate, if it takes place, could be very significant. Forty-one percent (41%) of voters say they are certain to vote for Obama and will not change their mind. Thirty-nine percent (39%) say the same about McCain. The remaining 20% are the target audience for the candidates during the debates and throughout the rest of the campaign. Data to be released later today shows that Obama is seen as having better debating skills and is more likely to help his campaign at the Mississippi forum

Comments

[Fred Beloit]

I don't think daily polls are good enough. The rate at which we Americans change our minds, according to the pollsters, indicates we can do better. May I humbly suggest four polls per hour, 15-minute polls? I think this would give the media a much more accurate picture of "change" in action.

[Totally Heterosexual Conservative]

The best thing for all of us is for both fellas to show up and sell us on the proposal each of them think is best. We've heard a bit from Obama, and I think he is right that we need to have an equity stake in anything we're buying. Any deal that is struck must provide some guarantee for the tax payer. We're just gonna give these crooks a trillion bucks? Tax breaks? Is that a joke? We've seen what these skunks have done with tax breaks.

This bailout as proposed stinks. And the political nonsense on both sides is not providing any illumination beyond what each party thinks will help them best on election day. At this point could anyone really describe what a "good" plan would look like and why? Seriously.

[Lala]

I posted this on another thread but I think it belongs here too:

Good editorial by IBD

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306544845091102

The revisions also allowed for the first time the securitization of CRA-regulated loans containing subprime mortgages. The changes came as radical "housing rights" groups led by ACORN lobbied for such loans. ACORN at the time was represented by a young public-interest lawyer in Chicago by the name of Barack Obama.

[Lala]

This little attachment to the bailout has to go -

“Directs a certain percentage of future profits to the Affordable Housing Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund to meet America’s housing needs.”

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/09/26/dems-bailout-proposal-redirects-paulsons-profits-to-left-wing-groups/

[seekeronos]

Let's take a look at the pole positions and where the pols are attempting to meet somewhere in the middle:

Paleoconservative (i.e. Ron Paul/Chuck Baldwin types like myself)
--- Absolutely no bailout whatsoever: let the bad firms fail, and the market take its lumps sooner, so that the bad business and bad decision makers be cleared out. There would be short to medium term market dislocations, but in the end, the markets recover as new businesses with better business practices emerge to replace the failed ones

McCain Plan (as I understand it)
--- Lend money at some unspecified interest rate, to be paid back in structured payments over a term of no more than ten years
--- Tax cuts to encourage wiser use of capital

Seeker's additions to McCain Plan:
--- Placing a lien on all hard assets and real property owned by (the corporation[s]) taken into this loan programme.
--- Placing income caps on all corporate officers of no more than $150,000 per annum, and non-officer employees capped at $85,000 (more or less scaled to government employee pay plus cost of living adjustments for equivalent jobs)

(Typical Government Receivership Plan)
--- companies are taken under control by a committee or other body that more or less breaks up the company into smaller bits that can be sold or auctioned off, and the wasted parts auctioned off to companies that can absorb them, or otherwise wound down (auctioning of hard assets to cover debts).

Democrat Plan (again, as far as I understand it)
--- GIVE upwards of $1.5 Trillion (that's with a "T", or thirteen figures) to these failed banks, with no apparent means of ensuring that these businesses will be able to become profitable again, pay caps on CEOs and officers
--- Giving Treasury Sec. Hankenstein unrestricted, unilateral powers to toss money at these failed businesses
--- No assurance that the costs of this bailout won't be shouldered onto the taxpayers via tax hikes (above and beyond the lapsing of the Bush tax cut) or revival of old communications tariffs (the long distance phone tax) or some other such nonsense yet to be contrived.

Nutroots/Socialists Plan
--- Direct government nationalisation/expropriation of failed businesses (among other things like the oil industry)
--- Institution of an extremely oppressive wartime taxation policy (70% or greater for the uppermost brackets, and upwards of 35% for the middle class, whilst the "voting poor", a.k.a. "los peones" get a free ride from their loving, paternalistic "patrones".

[Alex]

Is it just me or is it hard to take Dodd seriously. He is one of the many reasons that we are in this mess.

[mrkwong]

My plan: stick Barney Frank on a spit and auction on eBay the right to light the fire, proceeds to go to homeowners' mortgage assistance.

[Lala]

The newspaper, the Waterbury Republican, has been hammering Dodd constantly. I hope the CT voters are paying attention.

Seek, 150,000.00 in New York is peanuts, especially after taxes and housing costs are factored in.

[seekeronos]

"--- Seek, 150,000.00 in New York is peanuts, especially after taxes and housing costs are factored in. ---"

That's the idea, Lala. It would be a punitive measure for burdening the government (and the people) with a failed business.

Of course, I'd much rather see a completely non-interventionist approach, where the market is allowed to clear out these failed (and failing) businesses; but this sort of common sense approach (much less embracing Austrian-school economics) seems unlikely. So, I'll bend a little and compromise with the near-certainty of a bailout, if it properly punishes the greedy fools who got us into this fix.

[seekeronos]

Additionally, I could not in good conscience support continuing the multi-million dollar salaries of these bunglers if their companies are taken over/funded with Treasury money (I'll save the inflation/leveraging rant for now) ... even the Dem's plan to cap the CEOs at $400K is excessive.

Let them sell their mid-town penthouses and pick up a relatively cheaper place out in Forrest Hills (Queens) or Park Slope (Brooklyn), or commute in from Jersey like millions of other B&T'ers do each day.

[Spartan112]

"Democrat Plan (again, as far as I understand it)
--- GIVE upwards of $1.5 Trillion (that's with a "T", or thirteen figures) to these failed banks, with no apparent means of ensuring that these businesses will be able to become profitable again, pay caps on CEOs and officers
--- Giving Treasury Sec. Hankenstein unrestricted, unilateral powers to toss money at these failed businesses
--- No assurance that the costs of this bailout won't be shouldered onto the taxpayers via tax hikes (above and beyond the lapsing of the Bush tax cut) or revival of old communications tariffs (the long distance phone tax) or some other such nonsense yet to be contrived."

Wait, I thought that was the Bush plan?

[seekeronos]

"--- Wait, I thought that was the Bush plan? ---"

Bush, Democrat, a hair's worth a difference in this case, no?

[Fred Beloit]

Totally, ask Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, they'll tell you. "Is this a joke? We've seen what these skunks have done with tax breaks."