Skip to comments.Senate to vote on bailout Wednesday (additions made by Senate)
Posted on 09/30/2008 8:08:08 PM PDT by Fred
The package before the Senate will be similar to the House version, with these additions, the New York Times reported in its online edition:
* The higher limit for insured bank deposits sought by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., which asked to raise the cap to $250,000 from $100,000, to quell opposition by individual and small-business depositors.
* Tax breaks for businesses and alternative energy, part of a package that has been caught in a stalemate in the House of Representatives. The Senate version of the gridlocked tax legislation would cost more than $100 billion and extend and expand many individual and business tax breaks, including tax credits for the production and use of renewable energy sources, like solar energy and wind power, the Times said. It would also extend the business tax credit for research and development, expand the child tax credit, protect millions of families from the alternative minimum tax and provide tax relief to victims of recent floods, tornadoes and severe storms, according to the Times..
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said details of the proposal wouldn't be available until Wednesday, the Times reported.
If the Senate approves the package, it would go to the House, which doesn't reconvene until noon Eastern on Thursday.
The House's rejection triggered an historic, 777-point drop for the Dow Jones Industrial Average. The Senate development comes after members of both houses went back to the drawing board Tuesday in an effort to craft a new version of rescue package for the financial markets.
(Excerpt) Read more at marketwatch.com ...
You can’t say “all money bills.” Income-increasing (iow, taxation) bills must originate in the house. Spending can originate in either. (The fact that they plan to “make money” on this travesty is just more evidence that the system is completely afu.)
You got that right. Our very freedoms--- the crucial two-party system of checks and balances---are threatened here.
It's disgusting to see Lieberman hanging onto McC--touted as McC's top surrogate. AT THE SAME TIME he's sucking up to McC, Lieberman writes a $100,000 check to the Dem party.....to keep his Dem creds. Lieberman imperils our freedoms--he is a threat to democracy.
Even more threatening is LIEberman's hidden agenda as a pukeneo stooge. This cadre of unrepentant conservative haters keep kicking conservatives to the curb (except we won't stay down).
The visceral hatred for religion is embodied in the complete religious cleansing of the Dem party. They're now squatting in the Repub party with the same goal. END GAME Religious cleansing of America (excerpt from the pukes "National Greatness" flim-flam). Pukeneos are also cheerleaders for amnesty, the ones trying to shove amnesty down our throats.
Lieberman makes sure McC's leash is tightened and that McC is reading from the puke script.
He's hoping he'll get federal job in a McC admin. Just what we need to completely destroy the US political system---Lieberman in a Repub Cabinet---with conservative-hating pukes in complete control of the US government.
Here’ the link for live discussion of Senate bill- I think the idea is for us to try and keep info, links and tips on one thread.
If this pos gets to the House it should be rejected outright by every Republican.
from Boxer’s front page:
Technical Note: E-mail Difficulties
Because of widespread citizen concerns about the ongoing financial crisis, the U.S. Senate is currently experiencing a higher volume of e-mail traffic than normal. Although we realize that communicating with your Senator is a vital part of the democratic process, you might experience difficulty when trying to submit an email through our contact form. If you do, please try again at a later time when demand is not so high. System engineers are working to resolve all technical issues as soon as possible.
(she’s doing EVERYTHING SHE CAN, PEOPLE. what MORE DO YOU WANT?)
heh...what % of those clogging up the senate’s bandwidth is screaming FOR the bailout you figure? ;)
Goodbye Senate Republican RINOS. Don’t let the door hit you where the sun don’t shine. You’re gone.
We Americans are tired of your polictical bs.
They porked it up....it went from 3 pages, to 110 pages, to 300 plus pages!
They were saying there was a tax break on wooden arrows on Fox Business News.
The Senate is one CORRUPT body politic...
People extend credit to make money.
And when people's credit is good, they will get credit.
Too much bad credit has been extended (with the Gov't interfering) and we are paying for it.
Credit isn't a right!
Unless you're a well connected investment bank.
When I read that Paulson was conferring with Goldman Saks (who had a 20B stake in AIG) prior to the bail out of AIG I blew my top. This whole thing is so "in bred" by a bunch of northeast elitists and the rest of the country pays the price.
Very credible people have presented alternatives that don't cost anywhere near as much and do not involve the govt. taking so dramatic a role in determining who wins and loses, yet these ideas are ignored or just given lip service. It is very frustrating.
Try starting at one of:
People are melting the phone lines with calls to their representatives. I tried to call my Senator’s office about four times today about and couldn’t get thru. I did get a call into one of my Senators and told him to vote no on the bailout.
When I read that Paulson was conferring with Goldman Saks (who had a 20B stake in AIG) prior to the bail out of AIG I blew my top. This whole thing is so "in bred" by a bunch of northeast elitists and the rest of the country pays the price. Very credible people have presented alternatives that don't cost anywhere near as much and do not involve the govt. taking so dramatic a role in determining who wins and loses, yet these ideas are ignored or just given lip service. It is very frustrating.
Because it is a big scam!
I think you're right. These big time investment bankers and traders want open and free markets until they get caught up in something that doesn't work out. Then they want the govt. to bail them out.
Also, in every sector of the economy that you see problems with pricing, services and the need for govt. help you find the govt. has politicized that product or service. Off the top I can think of health care, college costs, auto industry, and now the financial markets. In the last case, the govt. pushed sub prime lending so "everyone can own a home" and now middle America pays the price.
I think McCain has probably lost the election because of this. He could have really separated himself from the DC crowd and shown he wants to represent middle America, but he didn't. We all want change. We want someone to go in there and clean up this cess pool and McCain has shown he won't.
This is why we don’t elect Senators to the Presidency, they are too prone to compromise and cut deals.
The Rats just won the election and I think we are entering a very "dark" time (no pun intended). I believe there is a very real possibility that freedoms will be lost, such as talk radio and internet web sites, then it will be increased regulation of places of worship. IOW, all vocal opposition will be slowly muted.
LORD help us!
Everything you folks have said is correct. I have a degree in Economics (that and 50 cents will buy me a copy of the NY Post)
If it’s any consolation, I am not proud of myself for supporting this bailout bill.
I’m ashamed of myself. I know what it makes me:
A “Conservative of Convenience”
I support it strictly for selfish reasons. Namely, I’m afraid of being po. I tried being po. I’ve researched poverty first hand and I made a decision....I didn’t like it. So I decided I wanted no part of it and worked hard to make money.
I support it only because I don’t want to see another 777 point drop in the Dow. I’m selfish.
I feel like the Conservatives of Convenience who claim to want limited government, except when government will intervene and get rid of stinky smelly smokers in bars that are private property, than they love big government.
I should be and I am ashamed of myself FWIW.
What does does tomorrow's DJIA have to do with the amount of money I'll get when I start cashing out in 30 years or so? As far as I can see, not a whole lot. Sometimes (often) markets are priced above the fundamental worth of stocks, and sometimes they're priced below. So what.
If the average FR post today were 100 characters shorter than the average post yesterday, given that FR has 2,000,000 posts, would that mean that FR somehow 'lost' 200 megs of post-stuff between yesterday and today?
Stock prices may sometimes be useful as a means of predicting value, but there are many factors that affect stock price (especially in the short term) that do not affect value. So why do you care about trying to maintain high prices?
You just summarized the problem somewhat well. Not very well, few people get your FR gazillion post analogy, but I do.
Gubmint tried to re-price the lending risk through central planning. Socialism has never worked, doesn’t work and will never ever work.
Anybody paying attention gets it.
The basic notion is that (average size of today's posts) times (total number of posts) is about as meaningful as (average market share price today) times (number of shares outstanding). The former number is clearly meaningless; the latter number is no less so.
Gubmint tried to re-price the lending risk through central planning.
The avoidance of moral hazard should IMHO be one of the most important considerations when formulating policy. A policy which is would achieve mediocre results but is free of moral hazard is apt to be better than one which could create great results, but has some seemingly-slight moral hazards. If moral hazards exist, markets will adapt to exploit them.
BTW, I've sometimes thought it might be good if the FDIC policy were to, instead of insuring accounts for 100% of face value, instead insure them for face value minus, say, three years' reverse-compounded interest (so if an account was earning 3%, its value would be reduced by about 8.8%). That would encourage people to give some consideration to how solid their bank was, and give a competitive advantage to a bank that was more solid but offered slightly inferior returns. Unfortunately, insuring at anything less than 100% face value might result in more runs on banks, so I don't really know the best solution.