Althouse: The bailout/rescue bill passes the Senate.

October 1, 2008

The bailout/rescue bill passes the Senate.

In sweetened form.

86 comments:

Elliott A said...: We are on the slippery slope to becoming Sweden. The Fed has also promised the 5 big banks that they will not let them fail. Wachovia didn't make the list, so they get eaten for pennies on the dollar. The financial news kept the 25billion to the automakers under the radar. Soon the govt. will own everything and control everything.; 10/1/08, 9:39 PM
Anonymous said...: A mental health parity "sub-bill", help for rural schools, pork pork pork...they are addicted...; 10/1/08, 9:40 PM
Too many jims said...: NEW! Improved crap sandwich! 25% more tasty than before.; 10/1/08, 9:41 PM
Anonymous said...: And let me clarify, the bailout per se may be necessary, but how do they explain the pork?; 10/1/08, 9:41 PM
Unknown said...: Started as 3 pages, defeated as 110 pages, maybe it will pass as 450+ pages. http://www.c-span.org/pdf/hr1424_100108.pdf; 10/1/08, 9:42 PM
Elliott A said...: pork is the new artificial sweetner instead of just the other white meat; 10/1/08, 9:42 PM
chickelit said...: porco accordo!; 10/1/08, 9:44 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: "Wachovia didn't make the list..."

I though they were bought.; 10/1/08, 9:45 PM
Wince said...: Should McCain oppose the bill on the pork?; 10/1/08, 9:46 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: They did not forbid lobbying or campaign contributions from the regulated and bailed out entities. I guess the money train is back on track.; 10/1/08, 9:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Keep the moratorium on the AMT, toss most of the rest of it.

It's still a crap sandwich, but with some bacon added for extra yummy flavor.

Just change the stupid mark to market rule, and let the market sort out everything else.; 10/1/08, 9:49 PM
Elliott A said...: If Wachovia wasn't bought, they would have gone under, 42billion in debt. If they were on the list, the feds would have bailed them. If not they get eaten. City, Wells, JPM Chase, BOA, and manhattan something or other are the 5. For almost nothing, Citi gets the property all those Wachovia branches are on. Almost every community has small banks who will gobble up the branches to grow their business. City will make off like a bandit.; 10/1/08, 9:55 PM
Chris said...: Depressing. But it's worth remembering that for a lot of people, the idea of total government control of the finance sector is the equivalent of what a human mission to Mars or a universal cancer vaccine would be to you and me - the ultimate achievement.; 10/1/08, 9:56 PM
Lorelei Leigh said...: "Wachovia didn't make the list..."

I though they were bought.

They were. By Citi.

The pork is depressing, but hardly surprising. Apparently, it takes a load of pork to make that crap sandwich more palatable.; 10/1/08, 9:59 PM
Anonymous said...: So, figure 50% will go to the deserving, and the other 50% will go to people that don't need rescue.

They could have accomplished a bailout for far less, and only to the needy, by just lending the money from the fed using any collateral the bank put up, and saying they'd allow $1 face value on the collateral.

Then the fed could have quarterly decided to waive the interest rate on the loans.

Same result, a lot cheaper.; 10/1/08, 10:01 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: Our legislators, the people's reps; PIGS AT THE TROUGH!; 10/1/08, 10:01 PM
Alex said...: 10/1/08: The day America as a republic died.; 10/1/08, 10:04 PM
Lorelei Leigh said...: Our legislators, the people's reps; PIGS AT THE TROUGH!

That would make them cannibals, no?; 10/1/08, 10:07 PM
Anonymous said...: EDH said...
Should McCain oppose the bill on the pork?

9:46 PM

Good question. In principle he should, and so should Obama (PBUH). At the same time, much has been made by both candidates of this bill. We'll have to see how it plays out.; 10/1/08, 10:14 PM
Meade said...: It's now a pork crap sandwich with toasted bipartisan soylent green buns.; 10/1/08, 10:33 PM
Methadras said...: This thing is more bloated than a Richard Simmons swinging to the hits party. Have any of you read these sections?

SEC. 308. INCREASE IN LIMIT ON COVER OVER OF RUM EXCISE TAX TO PUERTO RICO AND THE VIRGIN ISLANDS.

Yeah, I need a fucking drink after reading this abortion of legislation.

SEC. 317. SEVEN-YEAR COST RECOVERY PERIOD FOR MOTORSPORTS RACING TRACK FACILITY. wtf?

SEC. 319. EXTENSION OF WORK OPPORTUNITY TAX CREDIT FOR HURRICANE KATRINA EMPLOYEES. uh, what the fuck is a Katrina Employee?

SEC. 325. EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF DUTY SUSPENSION ON WOOL PRODUCTS; WOOL RE SEARCH FUND; WOOL DUTY REFUNDS.

SEC. 402. PERMANENT AUTHORITY FOR DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION RELATING TO TERRORIST ACTIVITIES.

SEC. 502. PROVISIONS RELATED TO FILM AND TELEVISION PRODUCTIONS.

SEC. 503. EXEMPTION FROM EXCISE TAX FOR CERTAIN WOODEN ARROWS DESIGNED FOR USE BY CHILDREN.

and the list goes on and on. This is absurd and the very reason why these malignant fools in both the Senate and in the House should be run out on a rail. I heard someone put it today that these morons set the house on fire and now they are acting like the firemen in trying to put it out. Fucking idiots. Who the fuck do they think they are trying to pass off this steaming pile of cow shit as legitimate bailout legislation? Oh wait. Crap sandwich doesn't do it justice, more like sewer sandwich, make it a foot long.; 10/1/08, 10:38 PM
Methadras said...: Lorelei Leigh said...

Our legislators, the people's reps; PIGS AT THE TROUGH!

That would make them cannibals, no?

If you said that to DTL he would have called you an anti-semitic homophobe.; 10/1/08, 10:39 PM
DaLawGiver said...: It's now a pork crap sandwich with toasted bipartisan soylent green buns.

Meade,

You are the bomb. That is indeed a succulent mental image.; 10/1/08, 10:44 PM
Lorelei Leigh said...: Both my Senators voted against, so I guess that's something.

As for McCain, how can he oppose the bill when he voted for it?; 10/1/08, 10:53 PM
holdfast said...: On the Pork thing check out Ace at ace.mu.nu - apparently this is an old Pork bill that originated in the House, and then the Senate tacked the Bailout stuff onto it, since as all good legal scholars should know, money bills have to be originated in the House.

That doesn't make the pork any more attractive, but it's not new - and the AMT stuff is vital, though they need to fis it permanently, not bandaid it every year.; 10/1/08, 10:54 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Akaka of Hawaii voted yes. Is that his real name? or a typo?

How can anyone get elected with a name like that?

Many have said Obama's biggest detriment to winning is his name.; 10/1/08, 11:02 PM
Matt said...: Notice how Obama spoke at the Senate today? McCain did not. Then Obama went to the Republican side to shake hands with McCain.
The political tension was clear as Senator Barack Obama walked to the Republican side of the aisle to greet Senator John McCain, who offered a chilly look and a brief return handshake.

Good for Obama.; 10/1/08, 11:04 PM
Simon said...: I guess the problem with the other version was that it just wasn't long enough. This is a crisis - it demands a really long bill in response!; 10/1/08, 11:04 PM
Joe said...: How is McCain supposed to defend his anti-pork stance now that he's voted for the biggest pile of pork to ever be produced by the Senate?

And how is this change, Obama? Huh?

Don't elections suck when you have two fucking assholes to pick from. (Don't bring up Bob Barr, who makes McCain and Obama look good.); 10/1/08, 11:08 PM
Simon said...: Joe - I think McCain can justify it. One can reasonably accept a measure as an emergency response to a crisis even while saying that such measures are generally inappropriate in normal circumstances. Sometimes the extraordinary demands an extraordinary response.; 10/1/08, 11:18 PM
Matt said...: Joe

Yeah, but here is the thing. If they vote for it everyone says this is just a taxpayer bailout and some form of socialism. But if they don't do something then everyone says Congress is being irresponsible and not looking out for Wall Street, Main Street or business in America.
What can they do?
Make a better bill? Maybe. But everyone would still hate them. I say we let main street Americans go to Congress and see if they could do better. I don't think they could. Couch quarterbacks I say.; 10/1/08, 11:19 PM
Joe said...: Give me a break Simon, he could have had the balls to stand up and lead and remove the bulk of the pork. Same with Obama. These two aren't remotely presidential material--they're two spineless windbags.; 10/1/08, 11:23 PM
LoafingOaf said...: I'm waiting for the Vice PResidential debate tomorrow evening, so I can hear Sarah Palin's expertise on the financial crisis, before I form any opinions.; 10/1/08, 11:31 PM
Adrian said...: holdfast is right, you guys (and the media explanation, so it's not your fault) are misunderstanding this. the bailout bill is being attached to a preexisting pork bill that already passed, and then that bill is being re-voted on. go over to ace like holdfast says, he explains it very clearly. it's a silly but necessary procedural gimmick because the senate cannot originate spending bills. they took a bill that the house originated, that already passed in both the house and the senate, and amended the bailout to it, and re-voted on it. now it goes back to the house because since the bill was amended the house needs to re-vote on it.

key point: no pork was added, no hundreds of pages were added. those all already existed and were already voted on near-unanimously. if you wanted to attack them for pork, you should have attacked them back when they voted in favor of that pork bill, not now, when they are voting on the bailout as an amendment to it. i hope that was somewhat understandable, i am sick and tired. no, not of the issue, i mean literally: bad cold, and very tired, goodnight!; 10/1/08, 11:32 PM
sonicfrog said...: OK. New voting rule. For the next four years, I swear here and now that I will not vote for anyone who is a lawyer, and only vote for someone with an economics background.... Oh crap. Bush has an economics background, though you could never tell.; 10/2/08, 12:24 AM
sonicfrog said...: PS. No offense Ann. I would vote for you... maybe!!!! :-); 10/2/08, 12:25 AM
Alex said...: John McCain is a fucking insane joke. He let down his running mate, he has dishonored himself.; 10/2/08, 12:44 AM
Anonymous said...: Palin's hilarious answer about Supreme Court opinions is definitely not law-blogworthy.

That was something; she thinks she believes there is a right of privacy in the Constitution! Who will be the first to tell her, no, she *does not* believe that?! They will have to tell her clearly and precisely what she believes before the debate with Biden!

ROFL.

I never thought we'd have another Dan Quayle. But honestly, Quayle is like a freaking genius compared to this woman.

God, it's so weird re-reading all those smitten editorials and blog posts from the heady days following Palin's nomination. Virtually no one could have imagined that a governor of a state could be more clueless than the average beauty queen.

Just weird. But then, it *is* the Republican Party, after all. And when you consider the price of entry to that party, it's not surprising that you end up with a cast of characters like Quayle, Palin, Bush, DeLay, and the other luminaries of the conservative movement.

It will be a lot funnier if they are safety defeated in November. Until then, we just have to hold our breath and pray that the wingnuts don't have enough votes to send this woman to Washington.

Meanwhile, 20 years of writing conservative op-eds wasn't enough to protect Kathleen Parker from the death threats and hate mail she's getting for having the temerity to accurately describe Palin.

I thought it was funny the other day when Andrew Sullivan observed that at this late date, if you want to find a conservative still willing to defend Palin you have to go to the Althouse blog!

The thing is, Ann is obviously a brilliant woman. A far right reactionary, but brilliant. How can she possibly support Palin? It defies all logic.; 10/2/08, 1:00 AM
Jim said...: Voting for the bailout amendment to the bill is not the same as voting for the original pork. All they did today was vote on amendment, so all the criticism about "McCain voting for pork" is just dead wrong.

My guess is that neither McCain nor Obama will likely show up for the final bill which contains the pork. Neither one wants to get tagged with it, and there is sufficient support to pass the final bill without their additional votes.

So can we have enough with the "gotcha" attempts from people who obviously don't know the first thing about how bills move in the Senate?

Speaking of people who don't the first thing, verso -

Are you going to spam the same off-topic comment in every thread? Didn't Axelrod tell you to be more subtle than this, or is he getting that desperate?; 10/2/08, 2:05 AM
blake said...: I'm waiting for the Vice PResidential debate tomorrow evening, so I can hear Sarah Palin's expertise on the financial crisis, before I form any opinions.

Yes, you've certainly not formed any opinions to date.; 10/2/08, 2:39 AM
JSU said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/2/08, 3:01 AM
Dody Jane said...: I am seriously bothered by the wool research. After all this time, what is it we DON'T know about wool?; 10/2/08, 5:27 AM
Jon said...: Verso said: "That was something; she thinks she believes there is a right of privacy in the Constitution! Who will be the first to tell her, no, she *does not* believe that?!"

Why would they? John Roberts and Samuel Alito both agree with Palin that there is a consitutional right to privacy. The belief in such a right does not require support for Roe v. Wade. There was nothing wrong with Palin's response- in fact it was Biden who flubbed that question, his response was nonsensical.; 10/2/08, 5:43 AM
hdhouse said...: Elliott A said...
"We are on the slippery slope to becoming Sweden."

Well Elliott (phone home....)if we are on a slope, let's hope it is Sweden...100% literacy, wonderous health care, infinite social safe nets, a standard of living that you only dream about....yes, yes, verily I say...; 10/2/08, 6:02 AM
KCFleming said...: Sweden: "a standard of living that you only dream about"

"The result is that average U.S. per capita income is now about 55% higher than the average of the European Union's core 15 countries (it expanded to 25 in 2004). In fact, the biggest E.U. countries have per capita incomes comparable to America's poorest states. A recent study by two Swedish economists found that if the United Kingdom, France, or Italy suddenly were admitted to the American union, any one of them would rank as the 5th poorest of the 50 states, ahead only of West Virginia, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Montana. Ireland, the second richest E.U. country, would be the 13th poorest state; Sweden the 6th poorest. The study found that 40% of all Swedish households would classify as low-income by American standards. "; 10/2/08, 6:25 AM
Meade said...: Our "large Pogo Moment."

Dody Jane,
The wool research is essential. How else will Congress know how many bags it takes to completely pull the wool over the taxpayers' eyes?; 10/2/08, 6:29 AM
PogoПОССУМ said...: For to socialize the risk and privatize the profit is much the better for making some патриот patriots very very fat, and for to treat the rest as dear children, from cradle to grave.

No need for decisions from you!
We become deciderer for you!
On health, on job, on senators; we know what is best for you.
We are мать and отец, mommy and daddy!
Party hold you in loving arms.
Is heaven, this way. Come!; 10/2/08, 6:40 AM
LoafingOaf said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/2/08, 7:13 AM
MadisonMan said...: I share everyone's annoyance at the lard in the bill.

Is there a breakdown somewhere on how Senators running for re-election this cycle voted for it vs. Senators not up for re-election right now?; 10/2/08, 7:19 AM
Simon said...: Joe said...
"Give me a break Simon, he could have had the balls to stand up and lead and remove the bulk of the pork. Same with Obama. These two aren't remotely presidential material--they're two spineless windbags."

He thinks that this is a crisis that demands a bailout now, and is acting accordingly to get that passed by prioritizing. You can disagree with him on that, but looking at it through his paradigm, it's tough to say he's acting "spineless[ly]."

Jon said...

Verso said: "That was something; she thinks she believes there is a right of privacy in the Constitution! Who will be the first to tell her, no, she *does not* believe that?!"

"Why would they? John Roberts and Samuel Alito both agree with Palin that there is a consitutional right to privacy."

My recollection - I'd have to look at the transcript to be sure - was that they hedged. For example, Roberts was asked if there was a right to privacy in the Constitution and said something to the effect of, "it protects privacy in many ways." That's a dodge: the question is about Griswold not, you know, Katz or what-have-you. I'm not so pessimistic about Roberts and Alito on this. That said, I'm one of these optimists who still hopes to see cases as entrenched as Wickard, Garcia and, yes, Griswold overruled.

"The belief in such a right does not require support for Roe v. Wade."

Rehnquist said as much in his Roe dissent.; 10/2/08, 7:28 AM
Sloanasaurus said...: The Fed has also promised the 5 big banks that they will not let them fail.

When the fed makes this promise, however, it isn't referring to the shareholders or the bank officers and employees, the fed is referring to the banks lenders - the depositers and bond holders.; 10/2/08, 7:32 AM
Lorelei Leigh said...: Is there a breakdown somewhere on how Senators running for re-election this cycle voted for it vs. Senators not up for re-election right now?

I don't know about a breakdown of everyone, but I can offer this:

I'm in Mississippi and we have two Senators up for election (one is a special election for Trent Lott's old seat). Both of them voted against the bill.

However, only one of those (the special election) is hotly contested.; 10/2/08, 7:33 AM
Sloanasaurus said...: Well Elliott (phone home....)if we are on a slope, let's hope it is Sweden...100% literacy, wonderous health care, infinite social safe nets, a standard of living that you only dream about....yes, yes, verily I say...

Didn't I recently read that in Sweden only 2 of the top 50 companies has been started since 1970. A lot of good socialism has done for new ideas.; 10/2/08, 7:34 AM
MadisonMan said...: Neither Feingold nor Kohl are up for election this year. Kohl voted for it. Feingold voted against it. From the local paper:

It fails to offset the cost of the plan, leaving taxpayers to bear the burden of serious lapses of judgment by private financial institutions, their regulators, and the enablers in Washington who paved the way for this catastrophe by removing the safeguards that had protected consumers and the economy since the great depression," said Feingold. "The bailout legislation also fails to reform the flawed regulatory structure that permitted this crisis to arise in the first place. And it doesn't do enough to address the root cause of the credit market collapse, namely the housing crisis. Taxpayers deserve a plan that puts their concerns ahead of those who got us into this mess.

I would have liked to hear more gripes about the pork in the bill and ideas about how to pay for it.; 10/2/08, 7:39 AM
George M. Spencer said...: Probably too late. The whole big thing is unwinding.

Christmas sales this year will be incredible. Same with deals on cars. But people will either be afraid to spend or won't have the money because their debts are too high, they've been laid off, or they're afraid they're going to be laid off. Cities and states are going to find it harder to raise money for public works projects. Small businesses won't be able to get loans. Housing prices will continue down and stay in the doldrums.

It's going to be a long, long queasy ride. Be glad you don't live in China, Pakistan, or Egypt where things will get ugly fast. (Just what will all those newly urbanized Chinese peasants do when their toy factories close?)

Enjoy your big flat screen TV set and all the other junk you bought over the past 30 years! Five or six years from now there'll be oodles of pent-up demand for new junk. I'm optimistic about 2013 and 2014.; 10/2/08, 7:42 AM
KCFleming said...: "And it doesn't do enough to address the root cause of the credit market collapse, namely the housing crisis."

What do you suppose Feingold meant by "housing crisis"?

I'd bet it wasn't 'people spending money they didn't have', though.

The cri de coeur of the modern American, used to socialized risk, is 'It's all your fault! How could you let me be so stupid?'; 10/2/08, 7:46 AM
Anonymous said...: Apathetic Citizen said...
[...]

7:42 AM

"In the daily exercise of our pastoral ministry -- and much to our sorrow -- we must sometimes listen to those who, consumed with zeal, have scant judgment or balance. To such ones the modern world is nothing but betrayal and ruin. They claim that this age is far worse than previous ages, and they rant on as if they had learned nothing at all from history-and yet, history is the great Teacher of Life. . . . We feel bound to disagree with these prophets of doom who are forever forecasting calamity -- as though the world's end were imminent. Today, rather, Providence is guiding us toward a new order of human relationships, which, thanks to human effort and yet far surpassing human hopes, will bring us to the realization of still higher and undreamed of expectations."

Pope John XXIII; 10/2/08, 7:47 AM
Arturius said...: I would have liked to hear more gripes about the pork in the bill and ideas about how to pay for it.

I could not agree more. I will be very interested to see both candidates address the impact of this bill on their economic plans. I'm not quite sure how McCain or Obama can consider any kind of tax cut and I think Obama can pretty much forget his health care plans.; 10/2/08, 7:49 AM
TJ said...: "Rehnquist said as much in his Roe dissent."

I'd like to hear more about this. Is there a constitutional right to privacy? Can one support that right and still disagree with the finding in Roe?

IOW, how do most Roe opponents square a right to privacy with their anti-choice position?; 10/2/08, 7:50 AM
Peter V. Bella said...: …and the AMT stuff is vital, though they need to fis it permanently, not bandaid it every year.

They should just repeal it, along with the capital gains tax and the estate tax.; 10/2/08, 7:51 AM
LoafingOaf said...: Are you going to spam the same off-topic comment in every thread? Didn't Axelrod tell you to be more subtle than this, or is he getting that desperate?

Are you guys still going on with that talking point about Palin-bashers being "desperate"? No, we're vindicated.

Well, well, well. Tonight's the big night. How dumb can Palin get? Everyone's tuning in to find out! Forget baseball.

Yes, we know all you Palin fanatics are pooping in your pantyhose about tonight, and are praying to God that Biden makes such a massive gaffe it'll divert attention from Palin's idiocy. But it would take one hell of a gaffe to divert attention from the fact that Palin doesn't know a damn thing.; 10/2/08, 7:51 AM
Peter V. Bella said...: Hey Verso,
Did you know Joe Biden was a hard coal miner? Ha ha ha ha ha ha. I'll bet old FDR got him the job in the mines. Hee hee hee.; 10/2/08, 7:54 AM
Anonymous said...: Trevor Jackson said...
"Rehnquist said as much in his Roe dissent."

I'd like to hear more about this. Is there a constitutional right to privacy? Can one support that right and still disagree with the finding in Roe?

IOW, how do most Roe opponents square a right to privacy with their anti-choice position?

7:50 AM

I present to you

The Third Amendment of The United States Constitution

and

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution

Hooozah! How would you possibly have known??; 10/2/08, 7:55 AM
MadisonMan said...: What do you suppose Feingold meant by "housing crisis"?

Yes, like any politician's statement, it is annoyingly vague. Still, it doesn't change the fact that he voted against a bill that hasn't been paid for, and I like that even if the reasons he gives aren't the ones I like to hear.; 10/2/08, 7:59 AM
Anonymous said...: And the abortion question is pretty simple. Privacy righst do not justify crime against another person, murder inflicted on another person. Opponents of Roe and abortion in general argue that abortion is murder, still a crime, and therefore not protected by privacy rights and/or statutes.

You couldn't figure that one out yourself?; 10/2/08, 8:00 AM
TJ said...: Ernie, thanks for responding.

I did figure it came down to a "murder" issue, but then we're into an argument about when life begins and when a woman ceases to be in control of her own body.

But it does square the "privacy" issue. I see. Anti-choice folks say one's privacy is irrelevant once she becomes aware of her pregnancy.; 10/2/08, 8:07 AM
Original Mike said...: Enjoy your big flat screen TV set and all the other junk you bought over the past 30 years!

I'm way behind on junk. This looks like a nice opportunity to catch up at Depression level pricing.; 10/2/08, 8:11 AM
Anonymous said...: Trevor Jackson said...
Ernie, thanks for responding.

I did figure it came down to a "murder" issue, but then we're into an argument about when life begins and when a woman ceases to be in control of her own body.

But it does square the "privacy" issue. I see. Anti-choice folks say one's privacy is irrelevant once she becomes aware of her pregnancy.

8:07 AM

I see it more like the old saying "Your right to swing a fist ends where my nose begins"

It is again an argument against murder. You can't hide behind privacy to commit murder more than you can hide behind it to commit any other crime. The problem comes down to how you see abortion, and yes the begining of life. And everyone's views on that are protected by the First Amendment.; 10/2/08, 8:12 AM
MarkW said...: Yes, we know all you Palin fanatics are pooping in your pantyhose about tonight, and are praying to God that Biden makes such a massive gaffe it'll divert attention from Palin's idiocy.

Here's why for me -- if I were voting on the VP alone -- I'd pick Palin without a second thought, no matter how many 'deer in the headlights' moments she has:

"Senator Biden, you’ve been one of the Senate’s most ardent drug warriors. You helped create the office of “drug czar”; backed our failed eradication efforts in South America; encouraged the government to seize the assets of people merely suspected of drug crimes; pushed for the expanded use of racketeering and conspiracy laws against drug offenders; advocated the use of the military to fight the drug war; and sponsored a bill that holds venue owners and promoters criminally liable for drug use by people attending concerts and events."

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/129193.html

And, I would add, helped destroy civil liberties as the drug war has lead to middle-of-the-night, kick-the-door paramilitary-style raids on private citizen's homes:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/07/mayor.warrant/index.html

Biden's horrible record as one of the leading proponents and architects of the war on drugs (and, in doing so, against civil liberties) puts him well into my "anyone but" category.; 10/2/08, 8:16 AM
bearbee said...: Seats of 9 out of 25 'no' votes up for 2008 re-election.

Why do they persist in adding the pork?

Both my senators (dem/rep)voted 'yes' and not up for re-election.

They will hear about the pork.; 10/2/08, 8:17 AM
TJ said...: "And everyone's views on that are protected by the First Amendment."

Who wants to take away your view?

You believe abortion is murder? Don't have one. Want others to stop having them? Help prevent unwanted pregnancies. Support an economic environment that makes having and raising children affordable for everyone.

Sorry for pushing the thread OT. Ernie, with the graciousness of O'Reilly, I offer you the last word.; 10/2/08, 8:17 AM
Simon said...: MadisonMan said...
"Is there a breakdown somewhere on how Senators running for re-election this cycle voted for it vs. Senators not up for re-election right now?"

A very quick analysis: This year, there are thirty Senate races with an incumbent. Ten voted against the bill. Of the Democrats seeking reelection, only two (Landrieu of Louisiana and Johnson of South Dakota) joined eight of the Republicans seeking election (Sessions of Alabama; Roberts of Kansas; Cochran and Wicker of Mississippi; Dole of North Carolina; Inhofe of Oklahoma; Enzi and Barasso of Wyoming) in voting no.; 10/2/08, 8:23 AM
Anonymous said...: Trevor Jackson said...
"And everyone's views on that are protected by the First Amendment."

Who wants to take away your view?

You believe abortion is murder? Don't have one. Want others to stop having them? Help prevent unwanted pregnancies. Support an economic environment that makes having and raising children affordable for everyone.

Sorry for pushing the thread OT. Ernie, with the graciousness of O'Reilly, I offer you the last word.

8:17 AM

I'm not sure about the O'Reilly part. I will have to take your word on his graciousness. I don't watch the guy more than I watch Keith Olbermann which very close to none of the time.

I have no last word on this. My views on the issue are very conflictive, and would not contribute any to the debate.

So, let's get back on topic.; 10/2/08, 8:33 AM
Simon said...: Trevor Jackson said...
"'Rehnquist said as much in his Roe dissent.' I'd like to hear more about this."

The case is available online, and Rehnquist - even then - was a wonderfully fluent writer. ;) I do encourage reading it.

"Is there a constitutional right to privacy?"

Yes and no. To be accurate, no: there are specific privacy rights and privacy interests protected by, for example, the Fourth Amendment, but there is no general right to privacy. Nevertheless, to reflect current realities, yes: the Supreme Court found that there was in Griswold v. Connecticut.

"Can one support that right and still disagree with the finding in Roe?"

Yes. In my view - and that of many others - a right to abortion doesn't follow from a right to privacy. (Justice White certainly didn't think so: he concurred in Griswold and dissented in Roe- and its companion case Doe v. Bolton.) Partly for the reasons Rehnquist gave, partly because abortion would fall under a more specific "'right to bodily autonomy' if ... anything. To reach the conclusion that the Constitution creates a 'right to abortion,' one must first abstract from the enumeration of specific privacy rights to a broad-based 'right to privacy,' and then[,] from this abstraction, abstract again ... [thence to a] 'right to bodily autonomy,' a process that amounts to 'prophylaxis built upon prophylaxis, producing a veritable fairyland castle of imagined constitutional restriction.'"; 10/2/08, 8:34 AM
MadisonMan said...: Thanks Simon.; 10/2/08, 8:40 AM
bearbee said...: No votes

Up for re-election; 10/2/08, 9:02 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: Without reading any of the above comments I can tell you from my perspective. WE ARE FUCKED.

Do we have a liquidity problem? Yes we do, but it doesn't require this huge pork laden monstrosity. It doesn't require 700 billion dollars of tax money. It doesn't require a brand spanking new massive government agencey.

How to solve the problem in the short term in 2 easy steps.

1. Suspend capital gains taxes for 6 months to 1 year.

2. Suspend or completely remove the mark to market accounting that's crippling banks.

Ta Dah!!! Cash will be flowing into the system at no government cost. The failing mortgages can fail as they are SUPPOSED to fail and the underlying collateral goes back on the market at reduced and more realistic value. The losses can be absorbed easily because by doing number 1 and 2 the cash is flowing in the economy.

But that's too easy. We must give away taxpayer dollars for wooden arrows, cow DNA studies or how bean farts can be alernate energy suppliments.; 10/2/08, 9:17 AM
KCFleming said...: I ♥ reading DBQ.; 10/2/08, 10:12 AM
MadisonMan said...: Suspend capital gains taxes for 6 months to 1 year.

Sell high! The market is down. Why would someone sell now? Unless they have to, I suppose.

But I take your point. And I'm no happier about this bill than you are.; 10/2/08, 10:13 AM
bearbee said...: Share the Wealth; 10/2/08, 10:25 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: Sell high! The market is down. Why would someone sell now? Unless they have to, I suppose.

A lot of people have embeded capital gains in market investments and there is much much more embeded capital gains that has nothing to do with the stock market. There is more to the economy than the stock market.

Real estate for instance.; 10/2/08, 10:42 AM
MadisonMan said...: By the way, near as I can tell from the NYTimes' nifty graphic (thanks for the link bearbee), there's little correlation between NO votes and election runs.

So one can accuse Senators of many things, but apparently not cowardice in front of angry voters.; 10/2/08, 10:45 AM
bearbee said...: Share the Wealth

Fixed link.; 10/2/08, 10:59 AM
bearbee said...: And this is always fun to see:

A $53 Trillion Federal Financial Hole

Be sure to remind your congressional oinkers that you know the score.; 10/2/08, 11:20 AM
IgnatzEsq said...: Just as important issue is the Mark to Market converstation that the FASB (Financial Account Standards Board) and the SEC want to temporarily suspend. Essentially, this is a debate about allowing corporations to value their currently illiquid mortgage assests at a rate in which they believe they will be worth in the future.

Michael_H and Dust Bunny Queen are apparently on the side of suspending it. I don't understand how this would help in the long run at all. This article makes sense to me:
http://cdn.atwola.com/_media/uac/tcode3.html#&ch=

As to what it means to you, well, lets just say that a good 3/4 of all financial advisors are against this more as well:
http://www.cfainstitute.org/aboutus/press/release/08releases/20080926_01.html; 10/2/08, 3:48 PM
IgnatzEsq said...: Let me try this with links:

http://cdn.atwola.com/_media/uac/tcode3.html#&ch=

http://www.cfainstitute.org/aboutus/press/release/08releases/20080926_01.html; 10/2/08, 3:49 PM