Bailout Plan: Spin city?
The bailout plan is retarded. Unfortunately, it has become necessary to do something about the situation, right?
Didn’t McCain say that something needed to be done about the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac risks, I dunno, three years ago?
Wasn’t his proposal shot down by the Dems?
Why did the Democrats say they had a plan when they met with the president when they didn’t really have one?
Why are they blaming McCain and the Republicans for screwing up the meeting?
True, the Reps are not agreeing to the plan that was presented. $700 billion with 20% going to earmarks for groups like ACORN. No conservative in their right mind (or Democrat) would sign on to that thing. Not without lots of reform.
In the meantime, here’s my view of what has just been set up. I could be way off, and this could just be me starting a new conspiracy, or whatever. This is a question that I have though.
This $700 billion bailout ‘plan’ was thrown together as a ploy. The plan was to have something that the Democrats WERE CAPABLE OF PASSING on their own without the Republicans. However, to appear non-partisan, they refuse to do it without the Republicans…all while screaming that something ‘had to be done by Friday’ (yesterday) or the financial world was going to end as we know it. Then when the Republicans reject the plan, they blame McCain for it because he showed up. Forget that he didn’t really say much about the plan during the meeting…
By doing this, a couple of things have happened:
1. The Republicans look like they are stalling. Now that Friday has come and gone, if something major happens (again), the Democrats will blame the Reps for stalling the bailout and not fixing the problem.
2. The Democrats have forced the Republicans into a place that, thanks to the help of the media, looks very bad. They’ve created a sense of urgency and have made it appear that the waiting is all the fault of the Republicans when the Dems have knowingly and willfully presented a bill that they knew without a doubt that the Republicans would not approve of in an attempt to make the Reps look bad to the public.
If the Democrats pass this without the Republicans (which they can), they win by default and the Republicans failed to take action to prevent the harm to the taxpayers, making them look bad.
If the Republicans sign on to this bill, the Democrats win, and in the ensuing crap storm the Republicans will be blamed on them because they were ‘needed’ to pass a bill that was full of garbage, making them look bad.
If the Republicans say no (which they have), the Democrats use the media to make it look like the Republicans are stalling and screwing things up (which the Dems are doing), and any negative fallout will be blamed on the Republicans, making them look bad.
In the meantime, the Democrats are probably sitting around patting themselves on the back and enjoying their success in making the Republicans look like a spectacle to the general public who believe everything the media has fed them.
I will admit that you have to give the Dems credit for such a brilliant and effective strategy, albeit a bit evil. You force your enemy into a posiition where they look bad no matter what they choose to do.
Non-partisan my butt. The Democrats aren’t putting their country first, they are pushing their political agenda with this and trying to win over the taxpayers who ought to know better by using spin and strongarm tactics to make conservatives look like fools. And unless the conservatives continue to fight, and stand up and defend themselves and use some power plays of their own, the taxpayers will lose this fight, no matter who gets what bill passed.
If you enjoyed this post, please subscribe to our RSS feed or help keep this site running!
Tags: acorn, bailout, democrats, government, mccain, obama, republicans, taxpayers
- About admin
2 Responses to “Bailout Plan: Spin city?”
Sponsors
Awards
September 28th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Howdy. My girlfriend directed me to this site and suggested that comments would be welcome.
You’re correct that McCain support Chuck Hagel’s attempt to “do something” about the instability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac three years ago. However, his efforts were shot down by both democrats and his own party (seeing as both houses of Congress were under Republican control at the time). It was an interesting bill (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190) in that it abolished one regulatory agency and replaced it with another. It isn’t entirely clear what the differences would have been, although my inexpert reading of it suggests that there would have been less, not more regulation.
I’m afraid you’re factually mistaken about the nature of the bailout plan. All $700b go directly into the bailout. I think you’re probably thinking of this section:
“TRANSFER OF A PERCENTAGE OF PROFITS.
DEPOSITS. Not less than 20 percent of any profit realized on the sale of each troubled asset purchased under this Act shall be deposited as provided in paragraph (2).
USE OF DEPOSITS. Of the amount referred to in paragraph (1) 65 percent shall be deposited into the Housing Trust Fund established under section 1338 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Regulatory Reform Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4568); and 35 percent shall be deposited into the Capital Magnet Fund established under section 1339 of that Act (12 U.S.C. 4569).
REMAINDER DEPOSITED IN THE TREASURY. All amounts remaining after payments under paragraph (1) shall be paid into the General Fund of the Treasury for reduction of the public debt.”
As you can see, the money set aside is 20% of any future profits that come from selling the distressed assets. It seems at this time rather unlikely that there will be any profits, but if there are 20% of them will be distributed to state and local governments via an affordable housing slush fund. Not one dime is earmarked for ACORN or any other organization.
Your view of the bailout is, in many ways, the opposite of that of most conservative bloggers. They are almost unanimous in suggesting that this is an enormous opportunity for McCain. No matter what plan is passed, it is going to be extremely unpopular. Given that whatever plan passes will likely be primarily the work of congressional democrats and President Bush, this provides McCain an opportunity to distance himself from both of these entities without having to endorse a fix that, even if it is ridiculously well-crafted, will be an anchor around the neck of whoever is seen as responsible.
Based on the reports I’ve read on McCain’s faux-suspension of his campaign, this appears to be the game plan. During the meeting with the President, he did in fact say very little, but did voice support for the plan put forth by a segment of house republicans that had no chance of ever passing. It’s a clever move on his part and one that imparts almost no risk whatsoever.
As for who is responsible for this mess, obviously Republicans will bear the brunt of the blame as it was under their watch that this crisis was generated (the decision to let selected banks leverage at 40:1 instead of the required 16:1 was, in retrospect, obviously disasterous), but Democrats are by no means blameless. The blatantly dishonest canard that the deregulation of sub-prime lending was an attempt to make housing available to the poor was floated to give dishonest democrats cover when they voted for it.
In a broader sense, though, taking the partisan labels out of it, this is a massive and entirely predictable failure of conservatism. Conservatism is marvelously pragmatic when it comes to market economics. Liberals are naive when it comes to human nature. Self-interest is the surest motivator known to man, and conservatism is built on this platform.
However, when it comes to regulation, it is the conservatives who seem to be blind to human nature. Markets do not magically regulate themselves like marvelous perpetual motion machines. Without a referee, they are subject to unfettered greed and, obviously, corruption.
So, obviously, this was a predictable disaster. The sub-prime crisis is no different in this respect than the S&L crisis of the previous generation. Human nature guarantees it, and we’re all going to be paying for it for a long, long time.
October 1st, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Well, in the first draft that was rushed in, 20% was dedicated to earmarks, but in the newer versions that has been changed up a bit, with Acorn’s part being removed completely.
That still doesn’t make it a very good idea.
Yes, it was a predictable disaster. Conservatives predicted it, and even tried to stop it, but it was blocked by the Democrats.
Either way, we are in a huge mess. Thanks for your comments!