Wednesday, October 1, 2008

Williams v. Sestak: On The Bailout

Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak voted for the proposed "bailout" legislation Monday that would have granted the government up to $700 billion to prop-up the nation's lending industry.

His opponent Republican Craig Williams says he would have voted against it, along with the dozens of other Republicans who broke ranks with their leadership and their president.

There are good arguments for either side.

Maybe, there is a better deal for the American people to be had.

Certainly, the original proposal by Treasury Sec. Henry Paulson was badly flawed and in need of improvement, more oversight, more profit-sharing protection for taxpayers, etc.

That Democrats tried to stuff the bill with goodies for their friends -- like the folks at ACORN, who register would-be voters and not always within the bounds of the law -- goes without saying.

Nancy Pelosi foolishly sailed into the breach with her partisan flags flying. Is it any wonder she and her colleagues in the Republican leadership couldn't keep GOP fence-sitters from jumping to the other side. Pelosi cynically she gave her own leadership members a pass on this tough vote. If she was going to act as if this was nothing more than a partisan bill, it's not surprising that even some Republicans believed her.

There were plenty of Republicans and conservatives who hated this deal on the principled grounds that it was the most massive government takeover of the economy since the New Deal.

There is plenty of blame to go around. This blog has pointed out the coziness of Democrats to Fannie and Freddie and the shameless actions of politicians like Barney Frank who helped create this mess.

But he only helped. There are those who tried to reign in these lending and financial institutions, seeing the potential for a train-wreck up ahead. No one listened.

So here we are.

Monday, the stock market plummetted as it became clear the bail-out bill was going to fail Monday. Tuesday it rebounded some. But mostly on the belief that something real would get done soon to deal with the crisis.

And it is a crisis.

Overnight lending rates to businesses went up to 6.4 percent. When the price of money is that steep, borrowing become virtually unaffordable for most businesses. If those rates don't come down, Main Street is in serious trouble. Wall Street is already dead as we know it. Main Street will be wounded for years to come if something is not done quickly.

Whatever his motivations, Sestak's vote was a reasonable one under these circumstances. He's taking heat from his constituents about it. But he's done that before.

It's always easier for a challenger who doesn't have to make the vote to say how he "would have" voted (think Barack Obama and Operation Iraqi Freedom.)

Williams cites the unpopularity of the bailout and says he hasn't met one person who was for it. Big deal. The question is what needs to be done now.

George Bush went on TV last week and explained the situation pretty well. It's dire. But nobody listens to him anymore.

Laymen like us, unfamiliar with intricacies of high finance, are left to listen to the experts, men and women who couldn't prevent all this from happening in the first place.

This much we believe, strong government intervention is needed to prevent a severe and long-term downturn in our economy.

Conservatives should be concerned that if government isn't given the power to act now (or at least very soon), it will be given much greater powers later when the economy is really hobbled.

A "No" vote Monday may have been popular with many people across the country. It will be less popular in the long run if Congress doesn't act and things get worse. Much worse. And based on those interest rates, they're getting bad quickly.

UPDATE: Did we say "bailout?" We meant "Rescue," because that's what it is.


Anonymous r said...

so, are you voting for Sestak?

October 1, 2008 at 10:16 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

yeah, its a rescue, but I would vote in favor of it - despite the ACORN crap. I don't see the market rebounding without help from Uncle Sam. And, maybe it does make money after all.

October 1, 2008 at 10:39 AM 
Anonymous r said...

Williams is right, the vast majority of We The People are against this expensive government grab in its present form. It’s actually rather refreshing that our elected officials are actually listening to Us for once. With what he said, he shows that he will continue to do this should he be elected.
And it’s not as if we’re in a take-it-or-leave-it situation. The opposition to this plan has helped reshape it into something better. As always, a slow and comprehensive approach of the turtle Repubs is always better then the Socialist reactionary of the LibDem rabbits.

October 1, 2008 at 12:07 PM 
Blogger Nicholas said...

October 1, 2008 at 5:05 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

October 1, 2008 at 5:05 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

nice video - I have ot say that I am offended that McCain's taking all the heat on this one - the campaign contributions and advisor levels alone should be putting heat on Barry O.

October 2, 2008 at 8:31 AM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Gil - What I don't see being discussed here, and what I found interesting, was McCains initial plea to Obama not to politize this issue, and then McCain went on to do exactly that! To the extent that he was berating Obama, and declaring victory hours before the legislation was first shot down.
If the polls are correct, people are starting to see McCain as the grandstanding pol that he really is. His actions once again show McCain putting politics before public interest, and highlights his inability to act rationaly in a crisis situation. His choice of Palin as a running mate is another prime example of McCain putting his political aspirations before the good of the people. And another example of poor judgement.

October 2, 2008 at 8:45 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

how is mccain politicizing it whem Obama was on the attack immediately for McCain suspending his cmapaign to address the crisis, including demanding that the debate go on as planned? Should McCain simply take it and assume the role of a push-over? Or should he speak his mind and push back like I hope he would do?

October 2, 2008 at 10:14 AM 
Anonymous randal said...

No one has played more political games with this crisis and the bailout than LibDems. To say otherwise is partisanly dishonest. Heck, they caused it in the first place but have been pointing their finger at everyone else!

October 2, 2008 at 11:16 AM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Steve - If McCain was sincere about this, he simply could have started making calls to get his party in line, and gone on with his campaign. Thats all he really needed to do. Those that were in meetings with him said he contributed little to nothing, and he admits knowing little about the economy. Instead, he makes this grandiose declaration that he is suspending his campaign to save the country!!! I wonder if he has a closet that he sneaks into when he puts on his cape and his shirt with the big S on it. Or would that be the big BS?

October 2, 2008 at 2:04 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Steve - Heres the proof. Check it out for yourself. McCain said he didn't know if he would show up for the dabate because he had to save the country from this financial crisis, yet his campaign ran an online ad, aired prematurely (before the dabate) declaring McCain the winner of the dabate! He had every intention of showing up. It was a dog and pony show. More proof that he was politicizing the issue - his campaign was declaring his success hours before the bill was rejected, putting his talking heads on TV declaring that McCain rode into town and saved the day. I saw it. Another Mission acomplished moment. What more proof do we need?

October 2, 2008 at 3:25 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Heres a good one. I just watched Meg Stapelton, Palin spokeswoman, explain Palin's problem with her interview with Couric. She was anticipating the next question, and she was way ahead of Couric in the thought process! LMAO

October 2, 2008 at 3:32 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

Could have easily bought the ad right at the debate. It hasn't sold me on anything.

For a guy who doesn't know anything on the economy, we could have utilized his advice a few years ago when he co-sponsored a bill to monitor and regulate Sallie Mae and Freddie Mac. Oh, wait, shot down...

October 2, 2008 at 3:55 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Steve- then I have to ask the obvious. McCain said that in the interest of the country, he would suspend his campaign until the matter was resolved. So why did he continue to campaign? Why did he go through with the debate before the isuue was resolved, when he told us that he wouldn't?

October 2, 2008 at 4:43 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Steve- you said "Could have easily bought the ad right at the debate"

The ad was aired BEFORE the dabate even took place. It declared McCain the winner!

Dont take my word for it. Research it.

October 2, 2008 at 4:46 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

lets go around the circle again bob - he returned for the debate despite calling for the postponement for more important issues. Did obama do the same? Of course not, he's holier than thou and what he says goes for the major networks and maniacal followers(plus he would have never postponed his own campaign anyway - for he doesn't bridge the aisle based upon his historically 96% left leaning voting record - the other 4% somehow being accidental).

Let's also ask the other obvious, if McCain were to not debate, how would that have played out and how quickly would you and all others on the left gone overboard to criticize his 'cowardly actions' and his "unpreparedness" or maybe he would have been "too good to stand on stage with obama" - feel free to add to the list. Say what you will but I know how the big networks would have played it out, don't you?

If he's in the debate, why the hell WOULDN'T he buy airtime? I saw a key Barry ad before the debate as well on CNN - you know the channel with those 'uncommitted' democratic voters in Ohio who control the chart at the bottom center of your screen?

if mccain's campaign bought the airtime before the debate, it was either well before the suspension or right after his agreement to return for it. Either way, I really don't care - would you tell your campaign staff to keep an ad canceled after returning for a debate? Play away, brotha - although I wish it stated that Barry Obama will NEVER unite this country over an overly-liberal agenda and that four more years of red-state/blue-state were a guarantee.

October 2, 2008 at 10:58 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Steve - bottom line, and you can't deny it. McCain said he was postponing his campaign until the financial crisis was settled, and he went back on his word. He lied to us. The debate ad that aired before the debate, declared him the winner. Thats not playing politics? You are in denial.

October 3, 2008 at 1:26 AM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Bill passed. Its ok for McCain to resume campaigning now.

October 3, 2008 at 5:37 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

due to the debate and Barry O's lack of cooperation I would have done the same thing.

October 4, 2008 at 1:45 AM 
Anonymous bob said...

Oops! Except in Michigan. McCain pulled out.

“We’re blindsided, along with everybody else in Michigan,” said Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson. “I feel like I woke up this morning and there was a note on my pillow.”

“When the general leaves the battlefield when the fight’s still going on, it creates a lot of chaos,” he said.

October 4, 2008 at 9:53 AM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Gil- Seems as though theres another Bob contributing. That last post about Michigan was not mine. I would kindly ask that poster to choose another name or add an initial to differentiate.

October 4, 2008 at 5:44 PM 
Anonymous boob said...

Bob, sorry. I was making joke about McCain and meant to type "boob".

October 4, 2008 at 9:43 PM 
Anonymous r said...

Same thing.

October 6, 2008 at 11:02 AM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home