INSIDERS SAY TO DO OTHERWISE WOULD ENCOURAGE DEMOCRATS TO VOTE AGAINST IT, THE SAME WAY PELOSI'S "UNPATRIOTIC" SPEECH CAUSED REPUBLICANS TO VOTE AGAINST IT

Is that breaking news? Or just obvious?

Obvious, I think. But I figured I had to trick people into reading the headline. Nothing else seems to work.

This hobbyhorse must be put aside. A lot of people are saying Nancy Pelosi tanked the bill due to her hyperpartisan speech attempting to claim this was the fault of Republicans..

Our claim? That's putting partisanship above country and the national interest. Of course a fragile alliance for an unpopular bill is going to be undone by that bullshit.

So I'm afraid I don't quite grok those who say they don't mind the rescue, necessarily, so long as McCain and the Republicans aren't putting the blame (rightly) on Chris Dodd and Barney Frank and attacking the Democrats' favorite bit of socialism, the CRA.

I just saw someone saying this yet again at Hot Air.

I don't get it.

Pelosi's to blame for indulging in partisanship before the vote, but oh, we should have some partisanship on our side too before the vote. Our partisanship is cool.

Well, our partisan attacks will actually be accurate, and may actually move votes, but making them now precludes any chance of a rescue.

The Democrats are already cutting their throats by signing this -- you think their constituents are pro giving money to Wall Street?

We can finish cutting necks later.

So, please. A bit of plausibility and realism here would be nice.

If you want the partisan attacks and CRA deauthorization now, fine, but don't say you're in favor of a rescue if you can have those things first. You can't have them first.

Posted by: Ace at 03:33 PM | Comments (165)
Post contains 330 words, total size 2 kb.

Since people are screaming "socialism," make it voluntary.

All taxpayers can contribute money that would ordinary go to paying their taxes into a pool to purchase these toxic assets at a 1:1 ratio. Take $1000 you would have paid Uncle Sam in taxes and instead direct that $1000 directly into paying into a pool to purchase these assets.

Some limitation must be placed on this, of course. Perhaps a minimum of $1000, or up to 10% of your entire tax liability or $20,000 total, whichever is lower.

You buy into the pool. Once you buy in, you are owed pro-rata profits on how the pool performs. You may not get your money back, but if you do, you'll get a special low capital gains rate on these profits. Say...5%.

Now, people are going to want to invest in the pool, because either way, that money is gone, as it was being paid to the government anyway.

Any fool will make the maximum allowable contribution to the pool. Those who still think this is socialism can choose not to buy-in, however. Their choice. If they'd rather their taxes go completely to funding the government's ongoing functions, fine by me.

But most will deem it not socialism. It's people choosing to invest their tax payer dollars into a program run by government officials but whose profits are purely private. If government involvement is still too "socialist," fine, charter a purely private organization (but formed by government license and legislation) and with lots of oversight. Including shareholder rights to fire the board.

There.

The program is sunsetted after six years maximum. They can take up to six years to sell out these toxic assets, but only six. At six years they must sell anything left, even if the lots are being sold for pennies on the dollar.

How you like that?

Now, the thing is, people will say, "Ace, that is virtually exactly what is being proposed anyway. You're just making tiny tweaks to make it not 'socialist'.

Exactly. It is no different, really. But if you want the branding, there it is.

Posted by: Ace at 03:04 PM | Comments (106)
Post contains 360 words, total size 2 kb.

Like I said in the comments: I am not an economic alarmist myself and I get my take from people who aren't economic alarmists.

So when they suddenly become economic alarmists, I'm alarmed.

Incidentally, don't mislead yourselves into thinking I'm unaware that I'm taking an unpopular position and it could cost me traffic, and readers, and therefore salary.

100-1 against. I know this. I know this is a Schiavo-level split, the same sort of split that caused readers to abandon some blogs.

So I do know that I could actually gain traffic and readers by rah-rahing the KILL THE BILL position.

But I can't. Because I honestly think most conservatives are very wrong on this.

And not only are they very wrong, they're very wrong with possibly dire consequences. And not only that, there's the possibility that all faith in capitalism will crater and we'll have three generations of real socialism.

I have to be honest. I cannot be 100% sure, but I'm sure enough that I'll risk losing a lot of readers: We are in trouble. There is a chance that a crisis will not lead to a vicious-circle deleveraging and halt to a lot of economic activity, but the odds that it will seem much greater.

So I'm not taking this position to annoy people. Or because I have money in stocks. I don't own a single stock. And my credit's bad, so, honestly, this kind of doesn't really affect me. I've been on a pure cash personal economy for years.

I'm taking this position because I think it's right.

H/t to Kensington for the quote.

Posted by: Ace at 01:35 PM | Comments (373)
Post contains 328 words, total size 2 kb.

And we're not done yet.

Posted by: Ace at 01:02 PM | Comments (108)
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

Only the first day's bad news.

And it's not just a market sell-off. A market sell-off, in and of itself, only has implications (mostly) for those who lost money.

This sell-off is anticipatory. The market is looking ahead to see a sharply contracting economy, failing business, greatly reduced economic activity, plummeting consumer spending, layoffs, bigger government debts (lower tax receipts plus more outlays for unemployment, etc.).

Not good.

Posted by: Ace at 12:14 PM | Comments (172)
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.

I hope those opposing this aren't relying on last week's news and opinion.

Because they've changed.

Scroll back through Hot Air's headlines to see all the people who have reverse positions.

I'll tell you what's going on. The pubic hates this but it's necessary. Republicans are hoping it passes with the bare minimum of Republican support so that the majority of the caucus can run against it.

But they are hoping it passes. Most are, at least.

For those who are taking a purely doctrinal position on this (and by "purely doctrinal," I mean hand-waving the details of the bill and our current situation in favor of relying on very general principles), I really must urge you to read Big Lizards' post on this.

It's a longish read but worth it.

The Food Fight: Pelosi's hyperpartisan speech. Note, again, McCain could have hung this crisis around Obama's neck, but wisely chose to hold fire until the crisis had been addressed.

And vid of House Republicans blaming her.

Barney Frank, however, had a lot of fun calling Republicans temper-tantrum children putting the economy at risk because their "feelings were hurt."

That doesn't absolve Pelosi -- but if anyone thinks we can win on a spiteful response, you're dreaming.

And Here... We... Go! As Joker says.

One of the reasons we need Republicans on this is to keep the left-wing bullshit out of it.

Democrats are willing to keep that out -- in exchange for the bipartisan cover provided by Republican votes.

But if Republicans aren't voting for it, Democrats will have to put all that ACORN shit in again to bribe their utraliberal minority members.

Which is what they're now promising to do.

Slublog figured they'd do this.

Republican intransigence on this makes it nearly guaranteed there will be billions and billions of dollars for ACORN. And more money for the CRA. And more guaranteed mortgages for people who can't afford them.

Posted by: Ace at 11:50 AM | Comments (104)
Post contains 343 words, total size 3 kb.

You know why McCain didn't hammer Obama on this during the debate? Because he was trying to keep it nonpartisan, or bipartisan, until the situation could be fixed.

He knew, unlike Nancy Pelosi, that injecting partisanship into this would destroy it.

The Democrats are trying to get their partisan blame in before it passes (and it may yet pass) because then know the moment the President's signature is on it McCain and the Republican caucus begin explaining the facts of the situation to America.

Posted by: Ace at 11:26 AM | Comments (92)
Post contains 114 words, total size 1 kb.

Just to clarify:

Open Blog is something I declare, usually on weekends or days off. I haven't minded the occasional open blog post slipping in, but it's now kind of becoming an anytime sort of thing, so I just wanted to clarify.

Unless there's some reason a post needs to go up now (like it seems obvious I'm away from the computer but some big breaking story just hit), open blog should be reserved for the times I say "Open Blog." Though I usually don't specify the end time, it's basically until, say, 10am the following morning, or 10am the first weekday after a weekend.

I'm thinking about opening up late-night open-blogging generally, from like 11pm to 10am everyday, but I haven't decided that yet.

Posted by: Ace at 10:48 AM | Comments (32)
Post contains 131 words, total size 1 kb.

Not smart by Pelosi, but also not smart to vote against a bill just because Granny Rictus McBotoxImplants is a bubbleheaded partisan whore.

Opponents said part of the reason for the opposition from Republicans was what they termed a partisan speech by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, said one GOP source.

"Pelosi's partisan speech has caused our members to go berserk and may cost us any remaining chance to pass the bill," the source said.

DNC-Identified Jew Eric Cantor Holding Up the Speech... It was the "unpatriotic" that did it.

Incidentally, in case this joke is stale and people don't get why I'm calling Cantor a "DNC-Identified Jew:" the DNC released a negative "fact-sheet" about Cantor in which five of six bullet-points stated he was Jewish.

They apparently were really hoping that big negative -- J-E-W-! -- would hurt him in the upcoming election.

Posted by: Ace at 10:29 AM | Comments (176)
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.

I've been thinking along these lines:

As for McCain trying to clarify what [Palin] says in the clip about cross-border raids into Pakistan, itÂ’s high time for him to knock off this dopey little game heÂ’s playing with Obama about not telegraphing our moves. Everyone knows weÂ’re already conducting those raids. Everyone knows weÂ’ve sent drones over the border repeatedly to try to decapitate Al Qaeda. Persisting in this nonsense when his own running mate and George Bush agree with The One only lets Obama outhawk him, which isnÂ’t something McCain can afford, needless to say.

McCain was trying to make a great point, but didn't make it. The point was that Obama was talking tough like a child -- as George Bush has frequently been accused of the left of talking.

The point he should have made is that Obama is constantly talking about invading a nuclear-armed country of 170 million which is also a critical ally on the War on Terror, just to make himself sound butch. He should have noted that if he himself (McCain) talked this way about Pakistan, they would immediately make a sharp diplomatic protest and threaten to end cooperation with the US. There is a reason Pakistan doesn't so protest when Obama says this: Because they don't believe him. If Pakistan doesn't believe Obama, why should the US voter?

The trouble is that the public is not very nuanced. We heard McCain say that a President shouldn't say things like this, but then add, "But of course you do what you have to do." Basically, saying of course he'd do this; he just doesn't want to humiliate and threaten an ally by saying so directly, making killing Al Qaeda more problematic.

But the public, I fear, only heard that Obama will kill bin Ladin (who's dead, by the way) while McCain won't answer either way.

McCain should be pounding Obama on this, but in the right way. And the right way is not to allow this absurd insinuation lie. Obama is making the most ridiculous assertion imaginable -- that Bush isn't really doing just this to kill not only bin Ladin (who's dead, by the way) but a lot of medium-level Al Qaeda, and of course McCain would do similarly. (Indeed, it's likely he encouraged it.)

McCain should call him out-- "Of course I would do that. I tried to keep it quiet, as any serious candidate for president would, but since you are determined to play tough even at the expense of the very military action you so tough-guy-ishly proclaim, I'll have to say it too. Of course I'd kill bin Ladin if I had the chance, without notifying the Pakistan government. But by proclaiming this publicly, we've now unfortunately made Pakistan's cooperation more difficult to secure."

Posted by: Ace at 09:47 AM | Comments (25)
Post contains 478 words, total size 3 kb.