Sunday, September 28, 2008

The Agreement

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com

The text of the bailout agreement has been posted, but the link doesn't seem to work, although it probably will work in a few hours. In the interim, here is an article detailing it, with the link within.


The bill may not pass, with objections from the rank and file of both the far left and the far right. From what I can gather, whips don't have the necessary pass counts yet. The larger stumbling block appears to be the House Republicans: if they won't commit to agreeing, Speaker Pelosi will not bring the bill to the floor.

UPDATE: Here is a better link to the bill. House is to vote tomorrow, Senate on Wednesday.

Comments (8)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
Login or signup now to comment.
It seems to me it is very likely to pass if brought to the floor. The result may LOOK close, because those in close members may be given permission by the whips to vote against it.

The problem is the one Jessica identifies in her last sentence: the Democrats aren't about to go out on a limb for Bush without bipartisan support.
Reply
1 reply · active less than 1 minute ago
I would want to see 50 republicans agree to be cosponsors of the bill. Ideally I would want more, but I think the democrats could easily provide 170 votes to pass the bill. It is not perfect, but with so much on the line for the economy this is not the time to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.
Reply
Mike in Maryland's avatar

Mike in Maryland · 859 weeks ago

Ideally for me would be for the Dem leadership to tell the Repigs how many votes the Repigs have to supply. Then let EVERYONE know what the deal is - a minimum of X number of Repig votes or no deal.

When the voting begins, all the Democrats should vote 'Present' unless and until the requisite number of Repigs vote 'Yea'.

If there are no Democratic members voting until that requisite number of Repig 'yeas', and the Repigs don't get that number of members voting 'yea', the Democratic leadership would then be able to authoritatively let everyone know just who killed the bill.

A bit risky? Yes. But it puts the pressure on the Repigs to live up to their word for a change.

Mike
Reply
I work for DC government and back in the fall I took my paycheck to my band (Bank of America). I was told there would be a 7 day hold on it.....because DC government banks with Wachovia. The teller then began to tell me that bank holds were established based on the ranking of the bank on Wall Street. That's when I knew we were in trouble and told my mother....I think we may be headed to the next depression. I have also been told (by a banker) that the FDIC has up to 25 years to pay people for their deposits, even those less than $100,000. I went on the FDIC website to try and find the bank watch list about two months or three months ago and ironically IndyMac, WaMu...weren't there.

I am an Obama supporter, but no matter who is over this its a mess, as near as I can tell...and i am not a financial genius, this is an equivalent of an adrenaline shot to a human directly into the heart. But, eventually, adrenaline levels out. What happens when this levels out ......no one knows. But, the start of this deregulation dates back over 20 years...so it was Repub and Dem. Our next leader (hopefully Obama) has his job cut out for him.
Reply
The 25 year payback has been debunked by Snopes. The seven day hold is the maximum permitted under current law.

The adrenaline shot is to get us past the heart attack. Obviously, once the crisis is over, the rehabilitation process begins -- hopefully with less damage than if you had not used an adrenaline shot.
Reply
If people can stay in their homes and pay their mortgages, the crisis goes away. Therefore, the banks should renegotiate all of the bad mortages so people can afford them. The congress should revert the bankruptcy legislation passed by the Republicans so that the courts can step in to prevent borrowers from going default. The Congress should reinstate the regulations of the financial institutions as was done in the New Deal. They should ban or heavily regulate sub prime mortgages.

The billions in bailout money should go to education, renewable energy and public works programs to create jobs, so people can pay their mortgages. The reverse Robin Hood aproach of the current bailout plan only rewards the deceitful writers of the bad mortgages for their crimes.
Those people who got us into this mess should go to prison.
Reply
Karen Anne's avatar

Karen Anne · 858 weeks ago

I really don't like this bill. The apparent Congressional control seems to be unreal window dressing, with Bush really in charge of the floodgates. I would like to see the corrupt financial companies sidestepped altogether and left to crash and burn, and some money used in perhaps a separate entity to supply credit directly to homeowners and small businesses. And the courts being able to undo some of the usurious mortgage terms.
Reply
uplandpoet's avatar

uplandpoet · 858 weeks ago

This is my biggest sticking point:

Limiting executive pay: Curbs would be placed on the compensation of executives at companies that sell mortgage assets to Treasury. Among them, companies that participate will not be able to deduct the salary they pay to executives above $500,000.

They also will not be allowed to write new contracts that allow for "golden parachutes" for their top 5 executives if they are fired or the company goes belly up. But the executives' current contracts, which may include golden parachutes, would still stand.

How do we allow a company to keep its current contracts with the bozos who caused this mess, and yet we are going to bail them out?

I understand the legal problems, but if you offer the executives the option of rescue or taking their chances with a bankrupt company, they might be willing to renegotiate...
Reply

Comments by