Rep. Frank: “We Have a Bailout Bill”

Hahahaha...and Frank's announcement had nothing to do with McCain's? Nothing about Democrats moving fast to embarrass McCain.

Right. Notice how Frank declared that the "Democrats" have reached this agreement.

Hmmm...isn't there another party with representatives in the House and the Senate?

Oh yes, we're meeting them tomorrow, Frank says.

But regardless of what they say . . . or that odd fellow living in that house down the avenue says . . . the "Democrats" have reached this agreement.

Hahahahahaha....

Umm, the Democrats control the House. It was Frank and Dodd in negotiation with Paulson. Of course the Dems would announce they had a deal first. And their first task was to make sure their own caucus supported it.

Tomorrow, they work with Republicans to get more numbers. If McConnell and Boehner back the White House, they will agree to the Frank-Dodd plan, albeit with some revisions.

Frank didn't "move fast" to announce the deal. The deal was moving along at the regular pace when McCain claimed today that the deal was "dead."

elrod, Frank didn't "move fast" to announce the deal. The deal was moving along at the regular pace when McCain claimed today that the deal was "dead."

That's right.... everyone thought that the bill would come to a vote on Thursday. So Frank is right on track... Of course I suppose staying on track with the original timetable intact would embarrass those who tried to manipulate the timing for their own political benefit. I suppose the bill will probably be voted on either tomorrow (Thursday) or Friday.

So the debate can go on! Yeah!

Where was this "original timetable" or "regular pace" you guys are talking about?

From Forbes:
"Do I expect to pass something this week?" Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., mused to reporters Tuesday. "I expect to pass something as soon as we can."

A spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., says she is optimistic that the House will pass a bill this week. But that doesn't mean the Senate, which is by nature more sluggish than its larger counterpart on the other side of Capitol Hill, will be so quick to act.

In the Reuters statement, Frank said it was only this afternoon that he realized he had the votes.

Just as I cannot believe McCain's move was not political . . . I can't believe the Democrats finding the votes (among the Democrats!) today was not political as well.

Marlowecan, when it was first announced I heard Congress talking about the vote happening on Thursday, which I thought was pretty quick. Besides, Bush and McCain and Paulson, etc. have all said they want it to happen quickly. I also seem to recall Paulson (or Bernanke) all wanted the bill quickly.

"Republican leaders who support the administration’s plan warned the Democrats on Monday to exercise restraint and not slow the bailout package, even as they prepared for an aggressive internal campaign to rally Republican support.'

"Because the markets are eager for a final deal and because Congress is trying to adjourn for the fall elections, lawmakers are bypassing the normal committee process and working toward an agreement in hopes of votes in both chambers within days." (This was an article from NY Times on Monday.)

And then there's this, "President Bush’s proposed solution, which he wants Congress to authorize immediately, tells taxpayers to write a check for $700 billion and trust the government and Wall Street to do the right thing — with inadequate regulation and virtually no oversight."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/opinion/23tue...

"White House spokesman Tony Fratto told reporters flatly the legislation will pass this week.' (From an article just yesterday.)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080923/ap_on_go_pr...

"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he expected the administration and the Fed to have a proposal to lawmakers in a matter of hours, rather than days."

"Pelosi wrote to Bush on Thursday saying Congress would meet beyond its planned Sept. 26 adjournment, if necessary, "to consider legislative proposals and conduct necessary investigations" related to the financial crisis."

"Administration officials said it was critical that Congress act next week, according to sources familiar with the meeting, who spoke on condition of anonymity because it was private."

http://wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=111&sid=1480912

Lastly, it's the Bush administration who wrote the bill and urged Congress to pass it as quickly as possible. So I'm at a loss as to how anyone can claim that the Dems acted quickly to embarrass McCain when the Dems are moving just as fast as

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/business/23co...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/09...

Marlowe,
A lot of that had to do with Paulson's willingness to negotiate. Early in the week Paulson said "My way or the highway." Not surprisingly lots of Democrats thought nothing would get passed. But Paulson has acceded to almost all of the Democrats demands the last few days. There was word as far back as Tuesday that the Dems would have a bill ready with Paulson's approval.

The only issue here is Republicans. Dems in the House wanted to get as many Republicans on board as possible so the whole thing wouldn't be cast off as a partisan bailout. Republicans could vote against the bailout, reap the voters' rewards for doing so, but pay no political price for a collapsed economy. That's why Pelosi wanted Republicans on board.

In the Senate it's more complicated because of filibusters. If Bunning filibusters, the GOP will need a sizable number of its caucus to back the bill.

If Boehner and McConnell agree substantively with the Frank-Dodd bill, the whole thing will be passed to Bush on Friday.

So where the hell does McCain come in on this? He has no expertise to offer. He's just a vote. And by swooping into Washington, he's politicizing this even more. Many Democrats may run away from the plan so as not to be used as a prop for McCain.

What McCain did was a stunningly selfish thing.

Marlowecan, stop. Please stop carrying water for this political stunt. It's devastatingly embarrassing. It was HIS decision to pull this stunt. John McCain's. The reactions of Congress and Democrats across the spectrum do not matter, because JOHN MCCAIN decdided to pull a political stunt. Personal responsibility and all that, good boy eh? I think some Republicans still believe in that.

Yeah, selfish of McCain, sure. Yet fine that Pelosi and Reid would've held the bill hostage if they couldn't get enough GOP on board simply to avoid the political responsibility that goes along with passing legislation.

It's stunning how people can assign blame to politicization when the other party does it, yet pretend that their own party isn't to blame for the same type of behavior.

It's politics, and it's quite obvious that everyone involved- Congressional leaders, the president, and the presidential candidates- are factoring their political calculus into every move they make here. You can choose to believe that Barney Frank (the same guy who blocked attempts to revise the oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2006 on the grounds that the GOP was sounding the alarm about a manufactured crisis, and that there wasn't any real problem that had to be addressed) is really the white knight here, then you're either naive or delusional. I do presume that he has the best interest of the country at heart now, but he's a bit late to the game and certainly not entitled to complain about the other party using the crisis for political gain.

I have to agree with Marlowecan, and to some degree CStanley.

Every last bit of this is political calculation. Interestingly, only Obama seems to have avoided the more overt showing of cards in this go-round; everybody else looks pretty ham-handed at the table here. Kind of like poker players grimacing in dismay at their hands. They look like a bunch of amateurs (John McCain included).

And I also think there's significance to the specific reference that the Democrats have agreed a bill. If there's resistance that can be defined as party-specific, you can bet it'll be appearing in an ad near you, very soon.

I agree with Polimom that so far Obama is coming out looking the best (though that could change, depending on how things progress today.) But basically he's playing good defense- I don't think for a minute that he too didn't think about the best political take on the crisis. And honestly, as long as each man does so without neglecting what is actually the best way to optimize the legislative process, I don't care what they do. I'm not going to fault them for trying to display leadership, no matter what form that takes (just as I think it's stupid when people criticize presidents for either showing up at a natural disaster scene or not, where either choice can be spun into the wrong one because staying away shows lack of caring and going there often means getting in the way.)

I'm a lot more interested in what each candidate has to say about the actual legislation than the posturing, and I grant that they both have to posture.

The warped twisting and stretching to bash McCain on here lately is pathetic.

People really are desperate these days to bash McCain any time and way they can.

Pathetic.

DLS - Stop the KoolAid drinking. As I noted in another thread, if the situation is so grave for McCain why is he currently sucking up to Bill Clinton and talking like a tree hugger, while Obama speaks via satellite?
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09/25/politic...

(NEW YORK) – The day after suspending his presidential campaign, John McCain will start the day here with a speech at the Clinton Global Initiative, Bill Clinton’s non-partisan organization that aims to bring together leaders to address global issues. McCain will be introduced by Clinton and plans to speak about climate change. Barack Obama will address the event via satellite shortly after McCain’s speech.

McCain will then head to Washington, D.C., where both he and Obama will meet with President Bush to work on the $700 billion financial bailout plan. The presidential contenders issued a joint statement calling for bipartisan action to avert further catastrophe on Wall Street.

Obama is speaking via satellite because he can't spare the time away from his debate prep down in Florida and also can not miss the fundraisers that he has set up down there.

PWT says: "Obama is speaking via satellite because he can't spare the time away from his debate prep down in Florida and also can not miss the fundraisers that he has set up down there."

It's called "MULTITASKING"! It's a valuable characteristic that most people want their leaders to have.

McCain seems to have a problem with "SINGLETASKING"... Palin has repetitive "NOTASKING" down to an art form.

What did Bush, Cheney, and Congressional sponsors of the Frank-Dodd bailout bill know about the impending collapse of mortgage based securities and contagion to other areas of the market? When did they know, and how much money have their financial surrogates made out of it by short selling, etc. ?

I learned about the real estate collapse from the cover story of Harper's Magazine for May 2006, 28 months ago. Harper's has a circulation over 200,000. And I've found a little evidence collapse and contagion was a concern in 2005.

A simple bill to resurrect the Homeowner's Loan Corporation of the depression era, H.R. 5649, which worked to keep people in their homes, was introduced into Barney Frank's Financial Services Committee six months ago (3/14/08). It has a specific "haircut" provision - no mortgage can be bought for more than the lesser of $900,000 or 90% of fair market value. I don't see this in H.R. 1424. Having the government buy up the bad mortgages and reissue, say, 6% fixed interest ones for 40 years would not only keep people in their homes. It would fix the value of the lowest tranche of mortgage backed securities in the credit default obligations and so resolve the issue of the valuation of them. And in helping thousands of average to poor people, it would have much less “moral hazard” than the bailout of powerful Wall Street firms by taxpayers. Why, instead, did Bush's Treasury Secretary, the Fed., and the leaders of Congress choose the inefficient, slow-motion bailout of Wall Street that is careening around the world?

Investigative journalists should hop on this before the election.