'For the sake of the altar of the free market..'

[SirNitram]

Link

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson left a late-night session at the Capitol Thursday without a deal on the bailout plan the White House says is needed to prevent economic disaster.

Four of the five parties involved in the deal — House Democrats, Senate Democrats, Senate Republicans and the White House — had agreed to the general outlines of a plan, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said after the meeting ended.

That left one remaining obstacle: House Republicans.

Or maybe two.

Although John McCain hasn’t said whether he supports the bipartisan, bicameral compromise struck earlier in the day Thursday, one of his leading Senate surrogates – Lindsey Graham of South Carolina – said Thursday night that McCain joined House Republicans in opposing that proposal.


With so many parties involved, Paulson asked congressional leaders to limit the meeting participants to one representative each from the Senate Democrats, House Democrats, House Republicans and Senate Republicans.

Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) stood in for the House Republicans. But as Frank said after the meeting, “he wasn’t even marginally deputized” to speak for his caucus, having been publicly chastened by House GOP leadership earlier in the day. Bachus, said Frank, excused himself from the meeting, explaining that since he wasn’t authorized to speak on behalf of his caucus it wasn’t useful for him to stay.

Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) represented the GOP, with Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) endorsing the negotiations. Dodd and Frank represented the Democrats, although Sens. Jack Reed (D-N.H.) and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) were also there for part of the meeting.

Following the meeting, Frank and Dodd implored President Bush to persuade House Republicans that the situation is urgent. “The president has got to go to work here,” said Frank. As for McCain’s offer of assistance, Frank said, “God save us from such help.”

Frank gave reporters copies of the House Republicans’ set of principles, and he said that their primary goal — insuring bad bank loans, rather than buying them — had already been rejected by Paulson as unworkable. He noted that no House Republicans raised the insurance idea at a House hearing yesterday; if anyone had, he said, Paulson would have rejected the idea out of hand.

The Democrats insisted that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) would not bring the plan to the floor unless is had substantial support from the GOP.

It does not yet, and it’s not clear how it ever will.

According to one GOP lawmaker, some House Republicans are saying privately that they’d rather “let the markets crash” than sign on to a massive bailout.

“For the sake of the altar of the free market system, do you accept a Great Depression?” the member asked.

President Bush’s lame duck status, and his heavy hand in dealing with lawmakers in his own party for the last seven-plus years, is also coming back to haunt the White House, as House Republicans grumble that Bush is “trying to tear up the Constitution” by committing the federal government to such a massive intervention in the U.S. financial markets.

Paulson traveled to Capitol Hill Thursday night to see if he could get the negotiations back on track, but it wasn’t clear if the he could be successful considering what occurred throughout the day. a late-night meeting with lawmakers broke up with no deal.

Asked what Americans should know when they awake Friday morning, Paulson said: “It’s Friday.”

Senior House Democrats slammed McCain and House GOP leaders for the breakdown in the discussions, claiming that they are pushing a proposal that Paulson and the White House have already rejected.

After a wild meeting at the White House, House Financial Service Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) was asked whether the Congress and the president were close to a deal.

“Yes and no,” he said. "We're closer to a deal between House Democrats, Senate Democrats, Senate Republicans and the administration. I cannot tell you, but we seem further away with the House Republicans because we thought we might have some differences of opinion over the president's approach. They're now talking about a very different approach."

Frank bashed McCain for becoming involved in the bailout talks, suggesting he was doing it only for political gain in the presidential race.


"I think Sen. McCain was hurting politically on the economic issue," Frank just told reporters. "I think this was a campaign ploy for Sen. McCain. I think they then had this problem that there might not have been enough of a deadlock for him to resolve. I don't know what motivated what, but the next thing we know, he's in a position, frankly, where he's making it harder to get things done rather than negotiate differences.

"He's slowed it down, I don't know whether he caused it or what," Frank said. "We are trying to put it back together."

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) reiterated that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) will not bring any bailout plan to the floor that does not have bipartisan support. Pelosi and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) held their own discussions of Thursday night.

"This needs to be bipartisan. If it's gonna pass, it needs to be bipartisan," Hoyer said. "We need to have significant bipartisan support if this is gonna pass."

House Republicans, of course, have their own take on what happened. They blame Frank and Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, for trying to force through an agreement lacking bipartisan backing once they knew McCain had suspended his presidential campaign in order to return to Washington. Republicans said it was a blatant attempt by Democrats to deny McCain – and House Republicans - a role in the discussions.

"There is an agreement between Sen. Dodd and Chairman Frank," said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio).

Steel reiterated that Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) — who, as ranking member of the House Financial Service Committee participated in talks on the compromise — "wasn't empowered to negotiate" any agreement on behalf of other House Republicans.

House Republicans also complained privately that the Treasury Department has refused to supply them with technical help needed to draft their own detailed alternative plan, leading to a delay in releasing a counter-proposal that conservative Republicans can rally around.

Asked what Americans should know when they awake Friday morning, Paulson said: “It’s Friday.”

Senior House Democrats slammed McCain and House GOP leaders for the breakdown in the discussions, claiming that they are pushing a proposal that Paulson and the White House have already rejected.

After a wild meeting at the White House, House Financial Service Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) was asked whether the Congress and the president were close to a deal.

“Yes and no,” he said. "We're closer to a deal between House Democrats, Senate Democrats, Senate Republicans and the administration. I cannot tell you, but we seem further away with the House Republicans because we thought we might have some differences of opinion over the president's approach. They're now talking about a very different approach."

Frank bashed McCain for becoming involved in the bailout talks, suggesting he was doing it only for political gain in the presidential race.


"I think Sen. McCain was hurting politically on the economic issue," Frank just told reporters. "I think this was a campaign ploy for Sen. McCain. I think they then had this problem that there might not have been enough of a deadlock for him to resolve. I don't know what motivated what, but the next thing we know, he's in a position, frankly, where he's making it harder to get things done rather than negotiate differences.

"He's slowed it down, I don't know whether he caused it or what," Frank said. "We are trying to put it back together."

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) reiterated that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) will not bring any bailout plan to the floor that does not have bipartisan support. Pelosi and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) held their own discussions of Thursday night.

"This needs to be bipartisan. If it's gonna pass, it needs to be bipartisan," Hoyer said. "We need to have significant bipartisan support if this is gonna pass."

House Republicans, of course, have their own take on what happened. They blame Frank and Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, for trying to force through an agreement lacking bipartisan backing once they knew McCain had suspended his presidential campaign in order to return to Washington. Republicans said it was a blatant attempt by Democrats to deny McCain – and House Republicans - a role in the discussions.

"There is an agreement between Sen. Dodd and Chairman Frank," said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio).

Steel reiterated that Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) — who, as ranking member of the House Financial Service Committee participated in talks on the compromise — "wasn't empowered to negotiate" any agreement on behalf of other House Republicans.

House Republicans also complained privately that the Treasury Department has refused to supply them with technical help needed to draft their own detailed alternative plan, leading to a delay in releasing a counter-proposal that conservative Republicans can rally around.

According to one GOP lawmaker, some House Republicans are saying privately that they’d rather “let the markets crash” than sign on to a massive bailout.

“For the sake of the altar of the free market system, do you accept a Great Depression?” the member asked.

And they even call it that, willing to sacrifice the market to it.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Reason in revolt now thunders, and thus ends the age of Kant...

Christ. If this were widely published, that Republicans would willingly accept a second Great Depression to preserve their ideal of the Free Market system, there really might be mobs in the street. The Great Depression is to much a part of the national consciousness to dismiss with the equivalent of "let them eat cake".

[Adrian Laguna]

Laissez-faire has become a God dammed religion. Its adherents are immune to logic, follow its tenets without regard for the consequences, and are incredibly fanatical because of the illusory promise of a mythical reward. I would have thought that examining the results of a certain course of action, the harm and the benefit, would have been an obvious thing, but unfortunately most people seem to be incapable or unwilling to engage in critical analysis.

Reason in revolt now thunders, and thus ends the age of Kant...

Perhaps I am reading the first clause incorrectly, but I don't see how reason revolting would end the age of Kant, since the only thing reason could possibly revolt against is unreason. Perhaps you mean to imply that reason's revolt is its last hurrah (ie, a failure)?

Christ. If this were widely published, that Republicans would willingly accept a second Great Depression to preserve their ideal of the Free Market system, there really might be mobs in the street. The Great Depression is to much a part of the national consciousness to dismiss with the equivalent of "let them eat cake".

Mobs on the streets might actually be a good thing, riots have a way of making politicians sit up and take notice. However, I don't think there is yet enough tension to spark some.

[Broomstick]

Not riots, no, but there were some spontaneous demonstrations/protests outside the White House, Federal Reserve Banks, and financial districts like Wall Street. The peasants are definitely getting restless, which makes the oligarchs nervous as it reminds them that they are severely outnumbered.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Not riots, no, but there were some spontaneous demonstrations/protests outside the White House, Federal Reserve Banks, and financial districts like Wall Street. The peasants are definitely getting restless, which makes the oligarchs nervous as it reminds them that they are severely outnumbered.

It's already started happening.

Protest Wall Street!
September 22, 2008, 5:09 pm
Filed under: Uncategorized

Forward widely….

Everyone,

This week the White House is going to try to push through the biggest robbery in world history with nary a stitch of debate to bail out the Wall Street bastards who created this economic apocalypse in the first place.

This is the financial equivalent of September 11. They think, just like with the Patriot Act, they can use the shock to force through the “therapy,” and we’ll just roll over!

Think about it: They said providing healthcare for 9 million children, perhaps costing $6 billion a year, was too expensive, but there’s evidently no sum of money large enough that will sate the Wall Street pigs. If this passes, forget about any money for environmental protection, to counter global warming, for education, for national healthcare, to rebuild our decaying infrastructure, for alternative energy.

This is a historic moment. We need to act now while we can influence the debate. Let’s demonstrate this Thursday at 4pm in Wall Street (see below).

We know the congressional Democrats will peep meekly before caving in like they have on everything else, from FISA to the Iraq War.

With Bear Stearns, Fannie and Freddie, AIG, the money markets and now this omnibus bailout, well in excess of $1 trillion will be distributed from the poor, workers and middle class to the scum floating on top.

This whole mess gives lie to the free market. The Feds are propping up stock prices, directing buyouts, subsidizing crooks and swindlers who already made a killing off the mortgage bubble.

Worst of all, even before any details have been hashed out, The New York Times admits that “Wall Street began looking for ways to profit from it,” and its chief financial correspondent writes that the Bush administration wants “Congress to give them a blank check to do whatever they want, whatever the cost, with no one able to watch them closely.”

It’s socialism for the rich and dog-eat-dog capitalism for the rest of us.

Let’s take it to the heart of the financial district! Gather at 4pm, this Thursday, Sept. 25 in the plaza at the southern end of Bowling Green Park, which is the small triangular park that has the Wall Street bull at the northern tip.

By having it later in the day we can show these thieves, as they leave work, we’re not their suckers. Plus, anyone who can’t get off work can still join us downtown as soon as they are able.

There is no agenda, no leaders, no organizing group, nothing to endorse other than we’re not going to pay! Let the bondholders pay, let the banks pay, let those who brought the “toxic” mortgage-backed securities pay!

On this list are many key organizers and activists. We have a huge amount of connections – we all know many other organizations, activists and community groups. We know P.R. folk who can quickly write up and distribute press releases, those who can contact legal observers, media activists who can spread the word, the videographers who can film the event, etc.

Do whatever you can – make and distribute your own flyers, contact all your groups and friends. This crime is without precedence and we can’t be silent! What’s the point of waiting for someone else to organize a protest two months from now, long after the crime has been perpetrated?

We have everything we need to create a large, peaceful, loud demonstration. Millions of others must feel the same way; they just don’t know what to do. Let’s take the lead and make this the start!

AGAIN:
When: 4pm – ? Thursday, September 25.
Where: Southern end of Bowling Green Park, in the plaza area
What to bring: Banners, noisemakers, signs, leaflets, etc.
Why: To say we won’t pay for the Wall Street bailout
Who: Everyone!

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Reason in revolt now thunders, and thus ends the age of Kant...

Perhaps I am reading the first clause incorrectly, but I don't see how reason revolting would end the age of Kant, since the only thing reason could possibly revolt against is unreason. Perhaps you mean to imply that reason's revolt is its last hurrah (ie, a failure)?

No, that is a line from The Internationale that I was quoting.

[Stark]

Pretentious AND inappropriate? lol. Looking at the early 20th century, the idea of a communist revolt in America is absurd. A massive reaction against 'the free market' is just as ignorant and stupid now as it was then. Look at Ein's quote - people are ALREADY deciding 'zomg free market evil' with one-dimensional analysis. Yay?

It amuses me a great deal that that conservatives actually use this language, however. I'd simply assumed that they somehow rationalised it, but they're quite honest.

[Adrian Laguna]

No, that is a line from The Internationale that I was quoting.

That doesn't answer the question, merely changes it from "perhaps you mean" to "perhaps it means".