Osler's Razor

We need that Patriot/Financier guy from the statue in the post from earlier.
 

Or Bob Barker. He could straighten this out.
 

Democrats in the house ended up voting 60% in favor of the bailout. Republicans voted about 67% against the bailout.

Out of the 38 representatives facing a congressional race that can be 30 voted against, 8 for. Out of the remainder of the congress, 197 for, 198 against.

So, I think you're right in one respect. At least for some this was a purely political move that had more to do with reelection than with any ideology.

The sad part is, the most likely next step is that the Democrats bring forward an even more leftwing/liberal version of the bailout bill in order to get more of their people to fall in line. They don't need the Republicans obviously, and at least some of their people voted against the bill because they felt like it was too middle of the road. They get it through on a party-line vote, and Bush signs it because he thinks something has to be done. This is the worst case scenario at this point, and probably the most likely.
 

Senator Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire, said of the new plan, “If we don’t pass it, we shouldn’t be a Congress."

Well said, Senator.
 

I'll give you cash for your gold.
 

The Problem with democracy? The People are sometimes ill-informed, short-sighted, and selfish.

In truth the will of the people is not always the same as the public interest. This is why self government based on representation by courageous statesmen is far superior to the tyranny of the majority (see James Madison et al, 1787).

"Not with my money you don't" is demagoguery. Politicians who caved in to this populist claptrap should be ashamed.

My prediction: if the stock market tanks (and by that I mean a 2000+ drop) over the next few days, this misguided populist rebellion will evaporate.
 

Personally, I'd like to hear about other options than bailing out Wall Street or Main Street. I'm sure they're there. We're just not being creative enough.

Some of the biggest mistakes in my life were when I rushed into a decision. I'm glad Congress has slowed down.

Give me other options and prove that the bailout is the only feasible way. Then I might consider supporting it. But I'm confident that if we explore other options, we'll find something much better.
 

Yes, and it's interesting that, although other options have been proposed, the press has also run with the "$700 million bailout" line for the last ten days. I guess it was Paulson's idea first and it stuck . . .

and I agree with Waco Farmer that sometimes our elected officials may know better than we do what is best . . . I just hope there is time to hear out the other proposed solutions, because I also agree that there could be a better option.

AGain, it's a situation (like the Iraq war) that, once we're in the midst of, getting out of it is totally no-win. Better to make better decisions on the front end, to avert such a catastrophe. And that would have meant better regulation and less greed, I suppose, in this situation.
 

Farmer Friend--

Madison knew what he was doing. He constructed a government (through the Constitution) with two features that play directly into this outcome:

1) The lower house of the legislature would be elected, in whole, every two years.

2) All spending bills must originate in that lower house.

Madison, then, said that spending would be controlled by people who are constantly up for election. That seems to me to be a system which demands that proposed spending bills respond to the desires of the electorate, which is what happened today.

It's surprising how little faith you have in small government, the will of the people, or the basic and broad intelligence of Americans. It is almost as if you have turned into the caricature of a liberal we sometimes see in the conservative media-- an aloof intellectual who assumes that the government is smarter than the governed, and thus more government is the answer to problems.

The American people are not ill-informed. At the very least, they have learned not to trust this administration, and that is a very well-informed viewpoint.
 

Dear Prof. Osler,

Your historical analysis is spot-on concerning the Lower Chamber; it really is (as intended by Madison) the people's house.

On the other hand, Madison knew there would be rare times when even the House needed to defy the People and take its lumps.

This was/is a moment when representatives need to lead rather than follow.

A statesman who loves his office more than the public good is a politician. We had a few too many politicians in this country this afternoon.

As for the "broad wisdom of the people," it is amazing to me how often it really is correct. Our history of "getting things right" collectively so often over time is almost enough to make one believe in Providence.

However, there are also numerous instances in which the broad wisdom of the majority is just flat wrong: 200 years of insensitivity on race comes to mind.

Also, I think this thread began with you chastising popular ignorance on offshore drilling. A large majority of Americans demand offshore drilling. Should they be given their head?

A more optimistic (or perhaps pessimistic) reading of democracy is that this week may bring an abrupt awakening. The people are feeling like this is someone else's problem right now. If the crisis begins to snowball in the days to come, we may very well see a throbbing electorate feeling suddenly at risk and clamoring for action.

And if nothing happens, if you are right, and Bush merely created this false sense of urgency (like Iraq), then a hesitant democracy will have proven incredibly wise, indeed.
 

Oh, I'm not sure the urgency is false-- I'm just saying that people don't buy that from this administration.

In the wake of this, I will say that if there is an honest re-evaluation of where things went wrong, people should conclude that McCain was right, very right, about campaign finance reform. He should make that point now-- that lobbyists bought lax controls, and we all pay the price-- and take credit for seeing it coming and trying to take proactive measures to control the money culture in DC.

Meanwhile, people saw this (correctly) as a Bush administration initiative, and they just don't trust him. If there was broad trust in the President, the calls to Congressmen would not have been so overwhelmingly against him and his plan, even in the most conservative areas of the country.
 

Let's (we, the people) march in to Wall Street and take control of everything. Instead of letting legislators decide how to spend our money (or worse, businesspeople), let's march right in there, take those assets, and democratically decide how to restructure the whole thing to better serve our ends, and not the ends of Wall Street, Main Street, or any street.
 

This MSN money clip shows why the bailout was the wrong choice http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-us&tab=s338&playlist=videoByUuids:uuids:25f132d8-4c5d-4f8d-96ca-2d9f327396e7&showPlaylist=true&from=IV2_en-us_Money_Commentary_ExpertJubakVideo&fg=gtlv2
 

I'm very, very, very happy to hear that it failed, too.
 

I hope none of the companies that those of you who opposed the plan work for borrow money to make the payroll. Or that you work for a large law firm that borrows money in January to meet payroll for the first six months of the year. Yes, it's true - most companies borrow to meet payroll in order to compensate for inevitable fluctuations in accounts receivable collections. Most law firms borrow money because receivables in the beginning of the year are not sufficient to cover operating expenses. Is this "bad" business? No, it's just business as it has been for a very long time. It will trickle down to that ivory tower, too, when student loans dry up and enrollment in private universities begins to fall.

This was not a bailout of Wall Street, it was a freeing of the credit markets. Today's overnight LIBOR rate is higher than the average 30-year mortgage rate. If banks won't lend to one another then they sure as heck won't lend to you or your employer...
 

Ah, so someone staying at the swanky Lancaster Hotel in Houston is telling us little people how it is, huh?

It seems like part of the reaction to this is the alarm of the ultra-rich upon discovering they can't manipulate absolutely everything all of the time.

So, I guess if there isn't a bailout, next time you might have to stay at the Hilton or someplace without a spa? Poor thing.
 

Does it make anybody else on here uncomfortable that Tina can figure out which hotel in Houston you're staying at? Big Brother is out there man.....

Lane, you better watch out. The black helicopters, at the direction of Tina with her extensive knowledge of your exact location, will be coming for you with all that revolution nonsense.
 

tina you are kinda freaking me out.

But then so did Suze Orman on Oprah the other day. People first, Then Money, then Jackets.
 

RRL -- only libertarian conspiracy theorists get visited by black helicopters. We revolutionaries are set upon by the reanimated corpse of Joe McCarthy and his zombie goon squad.
 

Are Joe McCarthy's goons much like Serr's?
 

Not quite so frightening. And they move with a more shambling gait.
 

I don't know where else to put this comment, but there are other ideas to help our economy. I still haven't decided if I agree with everything in this plan, but it stands in stark contrast to the current proposed plan: http://www.daveramsey.com/common_sense_fix.txt