Obama Says McCain Deserves No Credit for Bailout Proposal

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:31:47 AM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, John McCain, 2008 (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

On Face the Nation this morning, Sen. Barack Obama said John McCain deserves no credit for the bailout proposal. He also said he's likely to support it.

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said Sunday his Republican rival deserves no credit for helping to forge a tentative agreement on the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street.

On why Obama deserves credit: [More...]

Instead, Obama said he deserves credit for making sure the proposal includes safeguards for taxpayers. Obama said he is inclined to support the bailout because it includes increased oversight, relief for homeowners facing foreclosure and limits on executive compensation for chief executives of firms that receive government help.

"None of those were in the president's provisions. They are identical to the things I called for the day that (Treasury) Secretary (Henry) Paulson released his package," Obama said. "That I think is an indication of the degree to which when it comes to protecting taxpayers, I was pushing very hard and involved in shaping those provisions."

Congressional leaders signaled today they will approve the bill, which is now being referred to as an "intervention" rather than a "bailout."

Update: McCain said he hopes to support it but wants to see the details first.

Interviewed Sunday by ABC's "This Week," McCain said, "This is something that all of us will swallow hard and go forward with."
McCain also said he probably would have voted for legislation to keep the government running even though it contains thousands of the type of pork barrel projects he strongly opposes.

< More Details Emerge on the Bailout Proposal | A DEA Agent and His Rogue Informant To Cost Taxpayers $356k >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama Says McCain Deserves No Credit for Bailout Proposal | 63 comments (63 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I wouldn't be rushing to take "credit" (5.00 / 7) (#1)
by ruffian on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:35:55 AM EST

for this, if I were either candidate.

I am disappointed. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by DarielK on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 11:23:23 AM EST

Just when I am reaching a point where I think I could actually support and vote for Obama, he falls back into the "arrogant opportunist" that I have felt he was all along. I can't support McCain - but right now I can't support Obama either.

There was a survey done a couple of weeks ago - I wish I could find it again - but this survey asked a number of people who had worked with Obama, were close to Obama and who now support him whether Obama is a "talker" or a "doer". Almost unanomously they said he was a "talker". They did the same thing with McCain and the answer was that he is a "doer". From looking at this situation, I would say that both candidates are doing what they do best and both have contributed to this "bail-out" - but I can't say that either should take "credit".


Though yes, Obama helped make it better. (none / 0) (#2)
by ruffian on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:38:13 AM EST

But it still is not going to be a popular bill.


McCain did (5.00 / 4) (#3)
by TheRizzo on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:44:16 AM EST

work with the house republicans to get their concerns and voices into the mix. Without it the democrats would have been pooched. Getting the republicans to the table so that a joint deal and vote could be done should be appreciated by the Democrats who were scared to death to have to vote this in themselves since they always had the majority votes to do it.

I don't believe for a second either candidate did anything at all with the actual bill though. They called for more oversight but I highly doubt everyone in congress didn't think of it until they heard McCain and Obama say they want it.


: I've seen no evidence so far that (none / 0) (#4)
by pluege on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:46:43 AM EST

democrats still won't be "pooched". Predication: Big Liar John doesn't vote aye.

You can't buff a t*rd (5.00 / 4) (#6)
by lambert on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 11:00:32 AM EST

It's still a trillion dollars; the tranches don't matter, because they'll just hold a gun to our heads again. Roubini cites an IMF study of 42 bailouts that shows most bailouts do not purchase toxic assets, and those that do are less effective and more expensive. And since Paulson can purchase the toxic derivatives instead of the underlying assets, we're rewarding the finance guys who got us into the mess in the first place, and all we get in return are some non-voting stock warrants. As Roubini says, it's a "rip off," pure and simple. Great hopey-changey on ACORN, though (assuming that's in the text of the final bill).


: Yeah, I am still against it myself (none / 0) (#24)
by ruffian on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 11:39:00 AM EST

Just marginally better than the original Paulson Bill.

Obama seems to deserve credit... (none / 0) (#5)
by Shainzona on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:48:31 AM EST

for including ACORN in it - they will receive profits from the bailout before the US taxpayers do.

Hey, it's good to have friends in high places.

Wish I did.


You might want to check this but (none / 0) (#7)
by rdandrea on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 11:01:33 AM EST

I think ACORN has been written out of the compromise.


: So, 0.01% less horrific (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by lambert on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 11:02:42 AM EST

Although every little bit counts.
How'd it get in there in the first place?

Could you explain (none / 0) (#11)
by Steve M on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 11:14:49 AM EST

your opposition to ACORN?


You could start (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by tootired on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 11:23:59 AM EST

here.


Seriously? (3.00 / 2) (#15)
by Steve M on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 11:26:40 AM EST

Are you from RedState or something?


Do you prefer (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by tootired on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 11:38:29 AM EST

here or here or here? Or maybe here?


Shrug (3.00 / 2) (#28)
by Steve M on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 11:45:47 AM EST

I'm glad you can link to something other than right-wing astroturf, but if you have nothing more than Google to contribute to the discussion, it's not likely to lead anywhere productive.

I am concerned that so many "liberals" seem to have fallen for the Rush Limbaugh talking point that the Democrats included a huge earmark for ACORN in the proposed bill. I am also concerned that so many "liberals" seem to have reached agreement with the right wing that one of the major pro-consumer and low-income housing organizations is now evil because they have been guilty of sloppiness in registering new voters.

Everyone who is opposed to putting money into helping low-income people get housing, because some of the money might go to that horrible organization ACORN, just raise your hands please. I want to see what has become of the Democratic Party.


I don't want money to go to ACORN (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by Cream City on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 12:01:29 PM EST

because its shenanigans in my city are arming my state's GOP AG to really make a mess of the election here -- and long-term, it gives my state GOP legislators more ammo to bring voter ID here.

I'm all for GOTV but not ACORN. Not with my tax money, when I'm making less every year in real dollars. And I want names of whomever attempted to put it into bills about the economy. I've had it with that sort of legislative nonsense.

ACORN is the GOTV Bridge to Nowhere But Trouble.


: But that's not what I asked (none / 0) (#35)
by Steve M on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 12:13:09 PM EST

I didn't ask who opposed an earmark for ACORN. There was no earmark for ACORN. I asked who opposed putting money into helping low-income people get through the housing crisis, solely on the basis that some of that money might go to ACORN.
If it's unacceptable for the federal government to put any money into this area until it first passes a bill of attainder against ACORN, that's fine, but I wouldn't expect many liberals to take that position.

: If you would like (none / 0) (#52)
by standingup on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 03:24:00 PM EST

some good information to counter the GOP BS for voter ID, email me at my username@gmail.com.
I have dealt with the same issues in my own state, Missouri, where they passed a voter ID law in 2006 that was ruled unconstitutional. A lot of the GOP material comes directly from GOP officials in my state. The first and possibly the only prosecution for anything related to the U.S. Attorney scandal may be for actions taken by Brad Schlozman while he was the US Attorney in the Western District of Missouri. It is no coincidence the actions taken involved voter registrations that came from ACORN.
I worked with a team at ePluribus Media researching and reporting on the US Attorney scandal. We have been researching on voting issues for over three years now.

You asked about opposition to ACORN, (4.40 / 5) (#42)
by tootired on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 12:49:29 PM EST

not whether we support help for low income people to get housing. ACORN is a scandal in the making. Either they are incompetent or corrupt. Until they are properly investigated, they shouldn't be recipients of additional tax payer funds. Fox has reported that ACORN is out of the bailout, which is a good thing if true. ACORN is not the only organization that can help with either low income housing or voter registration. Given his links to ACORN, I would hope that Obama would not want it to appear that ACORN was getting special treatment here. It would be a real talking point for McCain. One does not have to be "from Redstate" or "PUMAland" to be critical of some of Obama's associations. Accusing anyone who raises an issue that might not be entirely positive to Obama of being a Republican or an "idiot PUMA" is what cheapens the discourse.


My God (3.50 / 2) (#47)
by Steve M on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 01:34:42 PM EST

Your response to my question, which was posed to someone else and not you, was to post a link to testimony from a right-wing astroturf organization. Please, just drop the sanctimony already. If you had no clue that there was never actually an earmark to ACORN in the Democratic proposal, maybe you should have looked into the facts before jumping into the conversation.


On Friday Lindsey Graham on Fox said, (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by tootired on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 02:12:18 PM EST

And this deal that's on the table now is not a very good deal. Twenty percent of the money that should go to retire debt that will be created to solve this problem winds up in a housing organization called ACORN that is an absolute ill-run enterprise, and I can't believe we would take money away from debt retirement to put it in a housing program that doesn't work."

He was not alone in discussing earmarks for ACORN.


Thanks to a poster at NoQuarter (none / 0) (#51)
by standingup on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 03:03:30 PM EST

We have a full fledged misinformation campaign against ACORN. It is based primarily upon guilt by association and holding an entire organization accountable for the corrupt acts of a couple of people.

I would like to see ACORN amend the way they handle compensating the people who do their voter registration work. If nothing else, it simply leads to situations where people are paid based on the quantity of registrations submitted rather than the quality. Of course, most of the detractors fall hook, line and sinker for the GOP tactics of ignoring the role of state registrars in checking the veracity of the information on the registration. How many studies do we have now showing the incidence of alleged voter fraud that the GOP uses is simply not there? The system we have, for the most part works but it does not stop GOP propaganda to instill fear that the Democrats are stealing elections with voter fraud with the help of organizations like ACORN.


Hear, hear. (none / 0) (#53)
by shoephone on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 03:27:41 PM EST

Yes, there have been $ accountability problems w/ ACORN of late and they absolutely need to be addressed. But it has been an important organization doing grassroots work to help low-income people all over the country.

NoQuarter is nothing BUT a smear site. It went over the cliff months ago and has become one of the most vile McCain-Palin support sites on the web. They are the new Swift Boaters. It's a real embarrassment.


: Yeah, it's really disturbing. (none / 0) (#62)
by Iris on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 02:08:39 PM EST

Notice how it always goes back to the 60's and "black radicalism," etc? I think this is an example of a time when people who supported Hillary (like myself) have to throw up their hands and admit that some of the hardest opposition to Obama IS racially motivated. And if not racial, some of it is virulently anti-liberal/illiberal. Many of the posters and commenters there are Republicans, of course, but it doesn't seem to matter to people looking for an anti-Obama fix.
The problem is, the Confluence and a number of other "PUMA" sites are not much better. PUMA is the bastard child of the Democratic primaries and is obsessed with hating Barack Obama above all else. I disassociate myself from every shred of it. Even Corrente is more preoccupied with carping at Obama and finding instances in which they can say "I told you so" or "look, we could have had Hillary" than anything else. I saw a comment by lambert here recently that harped on Jeralyn for saying Obama was not a career politician; if that's the sort of thing that is foremost on your mind, I think you've lost perspective.
The 'meta' critique from the left that it represents has probably helped push Obama to the left, of course, but what's scary is when people convince themselves that they should vote 3rd party or for McCain-Palin because Obama hasn't lived up to their lofty standards. Has anyone else seen the "30% solution" thing that has been floating around these sites? It's the most laughable piece of cognitive dissonance I have ever seen. Have we learned nothing since 2000?
In a nutshell, I find it an amazing paradox that there are actually people who want to see HOLC implemented and YET are thinking of voting something other than Democratic...I just don't have the words to unpack the stupid inherent in that. Oh I forgot, I'm not supposed to call anyone stupid because I might lose Obama votes...but again if you're basing your vote on what an internet commenter says, what is the depth of your principles?

I'll raise my hand. (none / 0) (#32)
by Wile ECoyote on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 12:02:12 PM EST

Or just show me in the constitution where the federal gov't has the authority to do that.


is this strategy not what was done during... (none / 0) (#33)
by laila on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 12:02:19 PM EST

The great depression? Not so much Acorn, but the low income housing, and returning the loan to the American people while investing in the economy to create jobs? I am asking by the way but I think I heard that somewhere?


Attack the messenger.... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by Shainzona on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 12:32:11 PM EST

SSDD.

Open your ears, please.


Red State or PUMA land (3.00 / 2) (#21)
by Faust on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 11:36:40 AM EST

it's hard to tell the difference these days.


: If you want Obama to win Wisconsin (none / 0) (#48)
by Cream City on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 01:38:38 PM EST

he has to not run into the obstacle course that the state AG is setting up, and it's aimed at the city that will make or break it for Obama: Milwaukee. Remember, Kerry won by only 11,400 votes last time in Wisconsin. In Milwaukee, we call that a couple of blocks in the inner city.
And it's represented by a Congresswoman, a major Obama supporter, whose son was involved in some really awful shenanigans in the last election -- which the local conservative squawkers and blogs keep beating like a drum here. Really, if you read the local blogs, you'd see that there will be a mess at the polls in Milwaukee again. And again, it's a third of the population in the state, and a state you might want to win.
So discount it all you want, and see who gets the last laff here. Or see it from where I sit, read TChris' diaries on the AG stuff here, and that was even before this city's Dem DA backed him up on it . . . and remember, too, who our local USAA is. I think it's going to stink here, because I can smell the setup coming. . . .

: AMEN; n/t (none / 0) (#63)
by Iris on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 02:09:24 PM EST

We can't lose! Here's how... (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by lambert on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 11:04:51 AM EST

AP:

Another important bargain, vital to attracting support from centrist Democrats and Republicans who are fiscal hawks, would require that the government, after five years, submit a plan to Congress on how to recoup any losses.

Oh, lordy.

They're going to submit a plan. Now I feel so much better.

Will there be ponies in the plan?

Dancing ponies. And (5.00 / 5) (#16)
by karmadillo on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 11:27:07 AM EST

they'll sing in harmony. Seriously, I don't mind the rich having two political parties, but can't the rest of us have one, too?


Forget the ponies . . . (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by nycstray on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 11:29:25 AM EST

I want a house!


: I could keep my pony in my house!!!!! (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by lambert on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 11:57:05 AM EST

I'm so happy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cmon (5.00 / 4) (#10)
by Steve M on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 11:11:01 AM EST

Obama helped write the Dodd proposal? Dodd called for a copy of the latest Obama speech before deciding what to put in there? Please don't insult my intelligence.

Doesn't pass the straight face test. (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by oculus on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 11:31:08 AM EST

If he helped shape the final plan, why is he still saying he is "likely" to vote for it?


: Because any and all conceptual gains (none / 0) (#43)
by Christy1947 on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 01:00:03 PM EST

can be lost in the infamous 'fine print.' And vague points must be clarified in the selfsame fine print and may show themselves as presented there as "not what I thought they were.'

That is what Obama implied (4.00 / 1) (#20)
by ruffian on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 11:36:04 AM EST

He never mentioned Dodd's name, and said he called every day and made sure his principles were implemented. I'm sure Didd is fine with taking one for the team and letting Obama claim credit.


He probably is fine with it (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by Steve M on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 11:38:54 AM EST

But it's lame IMO. After spending several days for ridiculing McCain for trying to create the impression that only he had the magic power to broker a deal, I don't want to feel the same way about my own side.


Do you think Obama will be in the (none / 0) (#25)
by oculus on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 11:41:02 AM EST

Senate for the vote?


I don't want to feel that way either (none / 0) (#26)
by ruffian on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 11:42:18 AM EST

Was disappointed to watch Obama go that route. He was very coy about it - like he didn't want to outright say "I did it!" but wanted you to draw your own conclusions by his principles being in the final bill. I'm sure there will be video from 'Face the Nation' at some point today. Not his most attractive moment.


I had to turn it off (5.00 / 2) (#34)
by Prana on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 12:11:38 PM EST

because he was twisting the truth all over the place. Where he lost me was when he was claiming that talks with rogue foreign governments would not be at a Presidential when in the debate he said the opposite. I'm just tired of listening to him change what he says every other day. And I don't believe his new populist message for a second.

Who here really believes that lobbyists didn't have a hand in crafting this bailout that is now being sold as an "intervention"? And who believes that Obama does not know lobbyists were involved?

This is the same old Democrats giving up billions of our tax dollars so they can reap millions in campaign contributions to get reelected. Meanwhile those billions that could have given everyone healthcare is gone with the wind.


Overall I thought he made a lot of good points (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by ruffian on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 12:37:02 PM EST

Except for the taking credit for the bill. I missed what he said about the foreign leader talks - I was reading TL at the same time he was on. Should have paid more attention.

In general, I wish he would just admit he made a mistake in answering the way he did in that uTube debate. It was a very straightforward question that was asked, and he answered it the wrong way, assuming nuance that was not there in the question. He has been reworking his explanation ever since. I agree wholeheartedly with his real foreign policy and diplomatic views, but that one sloppy answer has left him open to misinterpretation.


: He answered it right on YouTube (none / 0) (#54)
by BigElephant on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 03:37:04 PM EST

Unfortunately, we have a dumb political game going on where we naively believe that meeting with someone we agree with means we endorse their views. This is just downright stupid. But most people don't seem to have even the slightest critical ability to see this.
I wish Obama could simply say, "Yes, I'd meet with them with absolutely no preconditions. With that said, if we can use preconditions to further our goals, all the better, but it's not a deal breaker".
That's exactly how it should be. Unfortunately, most people don't have the critical thinking skills to get around the yelling. And as someone who has taught critical thinking at the JC level (volunteer teaching position), it's downright scary out there.

That seemed to be what Obama was (none / 0) (#14)
by Rhouse on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 11:25:27 AM EST

implying on "Face the Nation" this morning with his use of "I" and "his Four Key Points".


: But didn't McCain also have (none / 0) (#19)
by nycstray on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 11:31:21 AM EST

points he wanted included? And both he and Obama agreed on some of the major points?

Wouldn't all the members of the (none / 0) (#56)
by MoveThatBus on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 08:20:16 PM EST

banking committee been heavily involved in the creation of this bill? I haven't checked the gov't site, but I thought I had heard Obama say he was either on that committee, or chair of it, a month or so ago.

I could be wrong, but since Obama is the current leader of the Democratic party, would they be allowed to move on anything without making sure it met his approval?


: No and yes and no and . . . (none / 0) (#58)
by Cream City on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:45:07 PM EST

Let's try to unsnarl this confusion Obama caused!
No, he is not chair nor even a member of the Senate banking committee -- although yes, he recently referred to it as "his" committee.
And Dems ought to vote with their nominee at this point in a campaign, sure. But he has backed off before on promises, i.e., FISA, so -- are they and we sure how he is going to vote on this?

Not so sure that was a wise statement (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by joanneleon on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 12:42:31 PM EST

since it could be interpreted as "McCain had nothing to do with the bailout".

This thing is wildly unpopular. I see Congresspeople and Senators congratulating themselves for working together in a partisan manner. But frankly, I don't think this impresses the people who are strongly against the bill.

The idea here was to "hang together" wasn't it?

Obama seems to be letting McCain off the hook.

: McCain was soft-pedaling his own (none / 0) (#46)
by ruffian on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 01:18:20 PM EST

influence on MTP this morning. It seemed to be his false-modestly schtick though, not an attempt to avoid blame. Interesting that Obama chose the other route this morning, after claiming false credit seemed to backfire on McCain on Friday.

Not so sure that was a wise statement (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by joanneleon on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 12:42:40 PM EST

Wow! Arguing about who gets credit for this. (5.00 / 4) (#41)
by Angel on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 12:43:16 PM EST

Funny, but I haven't heard anyone take the BLAME for the mess that this is supposed to help. Sheesh. A bunch of big fat egos trying to hog the limelight for themselves instead of rolling up their sleeves and working on the real problems of the country. Is it any wonder I and many others have chosen to not vote in the presidential election? I'm sick of these people always jockying for position.

Are we in tan-suit territory? (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by ricosuave on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 02:25:21 PM EST

Are we really going to argue over which candidate had more influence over the final deal? Neither of them was willing to commit to any kind of solution during the debate. Neither of them can even tell us what is in the final bill yet or whether it is something they will support.

We just ended a week where the democrats have (again) swallowed the administration's premises and nitpicked over the details, where Bush got away with another "you're gonna die if the democrats don't pass this before Sunday" speech, and the fact that this is now "resolved" in the press means we can stop discussing the best issue the democrats have going from now on (which already happened on Meet the Press this morning).

This was definitely the kind of victory these guys could relate to: Pyrrhus, Santa Anna.

Neither should get credit; it was put (2.00 / 1) (#27)
by WillBFair on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 11:45:36 AM EST

together by the dems, frank and dodd and the rest.

Not so (5.00 / 2) (#30)
by lambert on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 12:00:08 PM EST

It was put together on a thoroughly bipartisan basis and the bottom line -- billions to Hank Paulson's golfing buddies for their toxic derivatives -- is still firmly in place. Seriously, what would you imagine would give these guys confidence except not revoking their license to steal?

It's the Bush + Paulson + Pelosi + Reid + Frank + Obama bill, for sure. They can all take credit it for it, certainly.


: Bipartisan and Bicameral! (none / 0) (#38)
by ruffian on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 12:38:57 PM EST

As McCain hastened to add this morning.
I'd like to tell it bye-bye, myself.

Today's Newark Star Ledger (none / 0) (#44)
by Mshepnj on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 01:12:19 PM EST

has an article by Sam Ali entitled "Instruments of Finance - and Confusion", in which the writer explains some of the causes the of this current financial crisis that really opened my eyes to what is happening. Here is the link to the online version of the article: http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-14/1222575934326640.xml&coll=1

Here are some relevant excerpts:

"...take collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs)... banks take subprime loans and bundle them together. These loan bundles are then sliced, usually in six ... tranches that have been sorted and packaged by degree of risk. These... are then sold to various investment groups such as hedge funds, insurance companies and mutual funds.

The highest rated slice is typically AAA rated. The lowest possible tranch, known as the "equity" portion... is unrated and often referred to as "toxic waste," because it is so high-risk. In the past, investment banks kept these...on their own books.

But Wall Street ... [took] unrated equity slices from...different CMOs and pool them together to create a brand new security.

That pool ... was sliced into another six pieces and sorted by varying degrees of risk... into... a ...new security called a collateralized debt obligation or (CDO). The highest rated CDO would typically be stamped AAA, and the lowest was again referred to as the equity tranch and was unrated.

So now you an equity tranch of a CDO already made up of junky tranches of a subprime mortgage-backed security..."

The article goes on to explain credit default swaps (CDS), and the whole thing just sounds unbelievable.

If all this is true then what I want to know is, why should we taxpayers bailout these Wall Street frauds and crooks? How did the rating agencies fail to do due diligence by giving AAA ratings to junk and "toxic waste" because of fancy packaging? How did the government fail to provide regulatory oversight to prevent such abuses?

Why is there no talk in this deal about bailing out the borrowers so those that can are able to stay in their homes and pay something, rather than being foreclosed out and exacerbating the problem? My Congressman, Rush Holt, is fighting for a HOLC solution as are Senator Clinton and a few others.

If I'm going to pay to bail someone out, I'd rather it be borrowers, because keeping those people who can pay something in their homes by refinancing seems to be the way out, long term. Without this, I don't think Congress should approve any bailout deal that doesn't include this.

God, what a mess.

: Sorry -I misposted this here. (none / 0) (#45)
by Mshepnj on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 01:17:42 PM EST

I meant to post this on the other bailout thread. My apologies to the Mods.

: Some links and info are so good they need to be (none / 0) (#57)
by jawbone on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 09:27:43 PM EST

posted more than once--far and wide would do!
Too bad so many in the MCM (mainstream corporate media) don't read this blog--or do some research.

Bail out (none / 0) (#55)
by carolo on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 07:50:46 PM EST

Don't be disappointed. Both Senators were asked not to come to Washington because they did not want the committee side-tracked by politics. This was not a time for it and not a time to use OUR crisis as a political stunt.

Neither man was part of the committee working on this crisis and neither man was asked to join the discussions. Obama felt he could say, as a Senator, what he wanted this bail out to include on the phone without derailing the meetings. However, McCain went parachuting in as if to "save the day". He must have spent the day walking the halls with his ear against the committee door? Even several Republicans were ticked at him.

A tentative agreement had already been reached when McCain's plane was landing in Washington last Wednesday. However, a bunch of nonsense transpired and the whole thing turned into a mess. Obama was asked there the next day but Bush so he went but I believe the Democrats were ticked off because McCain was there grandstanding and they thought Obama may as well be there, as well.

McCain lied when he said his campaign was stopped and he was meeting with people in Washington and campaigning there. His ads were still aired on TV. This was all a big political ploy used by McCain to bring attention to himself which darned near derailed all the progress that had been done.

I think Obama was still plenty ticked off at McCain at the debate.

: Other sources say otherwise (none / 0) (#59)
by Cream City on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:47:10 PM EST

and that Paulson wanted McCain there to kick some GOP House butt. We may never know.

Obama hasn't done anything to take any credit (none / 0) (#60)
by stefystef on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 07:11:33 AM EST

There is no indication whatsoever that Obama has had a real hand in anything to do with this bail out.

While Obama has said all the things he's supposed to say about protecting the American people, blah, blah, blah.

Let's see what Obama says about this plan and what he plans to vote.

"Obama Says McCain Deserves (none / 0) (#61)
by Iphie on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 08:29:34 AM EST

No Credit for Bailout."

Lucky McCain.