Home › Opinion › Opinion
Editorial: This bailout better work
Little left in government's arsenal
STORY TOOLS 
More from OpinionIf there were any doubts the House would pass the revised $700 billion bailout package, they were quickly resolved when the unemployment figures for September came out in advance of the vote.
The rate was unchanged at 6.1 percent, but that masked the real damage to the economy — a loss of 159,000 jobs last month, the most in five years and far more than analysts expected. It was the ninth straight month that the economy shed jobs, bringing the total for the year to 760,000, a number The Associated Press called "staggering."
The White House is usually quick to try to put a positive spin on economic news but this time it limited itself to a fact sheet listing the reasons the House should pass the bailout package, which the House quickly did, even though it was in large measure basically the one the lawmakers had rejected Monday.
The bailout was poorly explained to the public and easily demagogued as a taxpayer-financed rescue of Wall Street fat cats done in by their own greed. The lawmakers, especially the 133 Republicans who provided the margin of defeat, were quickly chastened by a record plunge in the stock market and the evaporation of more than a trillion in paper wealth.
And their constituents also came to see the connection between the bailout and their own ability to get loans for homes, college tuition, cars, small businesses and consumer purchases. The bailout that had gone down Monday, 208 to 225, passed easily Friday, 263 to 171.
One who again voted no was Rep. Elton Gallegly, R-Simi Valley. Friday, Rep. Gallegly complained in a press release that the bill passed that day was "virtually identical" to the one voted down Monday, except it included "pork at its worst."
He couldn't resist mentioning "illegal immigrants" in his press release, noting that the economic problem was partly caused by "tens of thousands of people, including illegal immigrants, who were given loans without proper scrutiny and often put no money down and made few payments."
President Bush quickly signed the bill. But it is already late in the game. If the country is not already in a recession, it certainly seems headed there. Some economists see unemployment at 7 percent or above deep into next year, and if the bailout doesn't work, the government has little left in its arsenal.
These are the last unemployment figures before the November elections, and they underscore the fact that the presidential campaign is now down to almost a single issue — the economy.
Posted by luv2sail on October 4, 2008 at 6:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Time for everyone to get their house in order. This bill, 810 billion not 700 billion, is reflective of the little Dutch boy putting his finger in the dike. It will offer relief for awhile but likely come apart long before the election of 2012. Also, thanks to Lois Capps for now making my decision easy. Since you voted for the bill I will certainly vote against you.
Posted by cassandra2 on October 4, 2008 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It was a tough call. Even I who have an opinion on everything wasn't sure until the end, and then I thought it should not pass, particularly with tax cuts. You don't decrease your income when you take on huge debt.
I don't think it will do much. We are stuck with an overweening military, a losing and spreading war in Afghanistan, and a stagnant oil supply up against a rising demand. And behind that the unknowable consequences of severe climate change. This bill just tries to deal with the emergency without dealing with the Long Emergency, to use Kunstler's term.
What would help? Relocalizing our economy--work toward local self-sufficiency and reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. Honest and competent government using its powers to regulate rather than to reward the plutocracy.
I noted Gallegly's statements--pure demagoguery. Full of factual distortions.
Posted by ebrockway on October 4, 2008 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What demagoguery? That IS part of the cause. Nobody is saying it is ALL of the cause.
There are too many "parts" to the cause to even list in a short space, and possibly Gallegly could have saved it for another time, but which part is "Full of factual distortions"?
Is it the part where "tens of thousands of people...were given loans without proper scrutiny and often put no money down and made few payments."
Or possibly the part where its "including illegal immigrants"?
Both parts are true, and I defy you or anyone else to show me where it's not true.
But again, it's not the fault of the "illegal immigrants" or others who possibly couldn't qualify today for the same loans.
Posted by cassandra2 on October 4, 2008 at 4:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The distortion is the disproportionate emphasis to numerically insignificant cases. The demagoguery of dragging in illegals to excite the zenophobic already prone to scapegoat the illegals. Further the attribution of cause to acts that enabled home ownership to low income folks but not that this was used to by bankers and others as an excuse to sell dubious paper as assets and without adequate oversight take the money and run leaving the banks in deep doo doo.
Another regulatory failure from folks who are regulation phobic. They don't like government? Swell, vote them out it
But thanks for asking in a civil manner. I never said there was not factual basis but rather that the facts were distorted and the distortion is naming the distant neutral event rather than the proximate causes and the smaller portion of the loans rather than the greater. Still it's nice to have a response that invites clarification instead of a rant.
BTW did you watch the clip of Barney Frank trying to talk to O'Reilly on Fox News (?) ? Whoa!
The people cry for revenge, but the perps are going to be hard to find.
Posted by ebrockway on October 4, 2008 at 7:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Cass;
O'Reily blew it when he blew his gasket! I was shocked, not by O'Reily but that I found myself feeling sorry for Barney Frank! O'Reily was Unfail and Imbalanced.
Finding perps is like asking Scarecrow "Which way to the Emerald City?", and the citizens with pitchfork and torch can find no one person to burn at the stake.
Posted by mikeb6804 on October 4, 2008 at 8 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm sorry O'Reilly didn't flatten him. Barney is nothing but a conniving skunk and you'll notice he admitted no responsibility. Just tried to slough it off on Republicans. Don't feel too sorry for Barney. He could go home and be comforted by his roommate, a former Fannie higher up. You might also look into Barney's donations from the real estate industry.
Overall I'm thoroughly disgusted with the bailout. Congress now thinks it's better to do something rather than nothing; they don't have a clue whether the bailout will achieve the intended result. If they had done something, and this goes for the administration as well, we wouldn't be in this mess.
Cassie -- As for Gallegly's commments, get on your bike and peddle on down to Oxnard. There is ample evidence of illegals living in houses they could never afford as well as them being used as fronts for others who couldn't qualify on their own.
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
- Posts that degrade others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or disability.
- Disparaging remarks, abusive language or obscene comments.
- Threats, whether obvious or veiled.
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
There are 6 comments to this article.
Comments are found beneath the Yahoo! ad below.