From this article (pops) it didn't even sound like Boehner or McCain had even read the proposal before they attended the talks!

FTFA: Neither man was familiar with the details of the proposal being pressed by House conservatives, and up to the moment they departed for the White House yesterday afternoon, neither had seen any description beyond news reports.

How can you counter with your own proposal when you haven't even read the one on the table? Stunning.

These guys either have the world's smallest brains,
or the World's Biggest Balls!

is there not one issue important enough for my congress to put ideology aside and do what is right and expedient?

/already knows the answer

FireBreathingLiberal: These guys either have the world's smallest brains,
or the World's Biggest Balls!

Stupidity and bravery often go hand in hand.

FireBreathingLiberal: These guys either have the world's smallest brains,
or the World's Biggest Balls!

How about both?
GOP= Genitals Over Plans

thomps: is there not one issue important enough for my congress to put ideology aside and do what is right and expedient?

i want whatever you're smoking.

Republican "deregulation" tends much more towards corporatism than actual free-market reforms, so this proposal may well have been crap. I can't say until I've seen the details.

Now, having said that, if the House Republicans actually stood up to Bush, the GOP leadership, and the Democrats and did everything in their power to stop the bailout, I might actually be able to find the tiniest bit of respect for them. It would be the first thing they've done right... well, probably ever.

We just didn't do it right the first time. We need to give tax breaks to large companies and relax regulation even more so that free market capitalism can work.

That way, we can privatize any profits that the government could make on this and instead just stick them with any and all costs if it fails!

From West Wing season 3:

CJ : "We need to be investigated by someone who wants to kill us just to watch us die. We need someone perceived by the American people to be irresponsible, untrustworthy, partisan, ambitious, and thirsty for the limelight. Am I crazy, or is this not a job for the U.S. House of Representatives?"

thomps: is there not one issue important enough for my congress to put ideology aside and do what is right and expedient?

Sadly, it's all about who wins.

Churchill2004: Now, having said that, if the House Republicans actually stood up to Bush, the GOP leadership, and the Democrats and did everything in their power to stop the bailout, I might actually be able to find the tiniest bit of respect for them. It would be the first thing they've done right... well, probably ever.

Almost none of them appear to be doing so. Everything I've seen has shown them offering a different version of the bailout-- less money sometimes, certainly, but I haven't seen any of their versions that don't include "less" regulation, which you correctly identify as corporatism.

The way the Swedes handled this would make a good model for us. Irony: They did it in a less socialistic fashion than we are.

So let me see if I've got this straight.

The President says "I want A, B, and C."

House Democrats say "We will reach across party lines and work with you, mister President. We will offer you a compromise that gives you what you asked for, A, B, and C, but it has to be A, B, C, and a few safety valves."

The Senate sees a draft of this and the Senate Democrats AND Republicans say "we will shake hands across the aisle and make this work."

And then the House Republicans say "Oh no no no! We never approved that! We didn't even read this, screw you all, you're partisan hacks if you don't use OUR proposal which is F, U, U, S, A."

Everyone else says "Wait WTF?"

Bernake and Wossname say "Um... that won't even work, your FU-USA plan is not functional to solve this problem..."

And the House Republicans say "Oh hey, if you DEMS want to make this partisan, just put it to a vote, YOU have a majority. It's not US playing politics! But it is our F.U.U.S.A. or nothing!"

Do I have that straight?

Geekette: How can you counter with your own proposal when you haven't even read the one on the table? Stunning.

So McCain DNRTFA but had an opposing opinion?

What's his Fark handle?

ToxicMunkee: Sadly, it's all about who wins.

it just annoys me that today i've seen both sides propose the only economic band aid that they know: republicans want to cut taxes and deregulate, democrats want to give more money to the middle class. and both want to do it in the shortest time-frame possible. long-term stability and righting the ship apparently aren't simple or ideologically clear enough to be worth pursuing.

I blame Congress. And TV. And the American "educational" system.

/not necessarily in that order

The House Republicans will hold a press conference announce, approximately 10 minutes after the debate is over, that thanks to the glorious leadership of McCain, there is a solution draft on the table.

It will be the only way to take the media spotlight off of the horrible slaughter that is about to happen at Oxford. It will do for McCain tonight what announcing Palin did after the sheer bloodfest that was Obama's speech at the DNC. They know it, and they're willing to gamble my 401k on it, and I really hope i'm wrong.

Anybody else having a problem swallowing this entire dog and pony show?
It is just a bunch of disjointed bits and pieces that do not really make any kind of sense in view of what is actually happening.
Most of it looks made up on the fly and just is not passing the pixels look right test.

depmode98: i264.photobucket.com

Ah, yes, a screed based entirely on blatant fabrication and ignorance of the facts is clearly a persuasive argument.

If they really want to stimulate investment (and especially from international investment) they really SHOULD drop some taxes--particularly, the capital gains tax.

Mors: So let me see if I've got this straight.

The President says "I want A, B, and C."

House Democrats say "We will reach across party lines and work with you, mister President. We will offer you a compromise that gives you what you asked for, A, B, and C, but it has to be A, B, C, and a few safety valves."

The Senate sees a draft of this and the Senate Democrats AND Republicans say "we will shake hands across the aisle and make this work."

And then the House Republicans say "Oh no no no! We never approved that! We didn't even read this, screw you all, you're partisan hacks if you don't use OUR proposal which is F, U, U, S, A."

Everyone else says "Wait WTF?"

Bernake and Wossname say "Um... that won't even work, your FU-USA plan is not functional to solve this problem..."

And the House Republicans say "Oh hey, if you DEMS want to make this partisan, just put it to a vote, YOU have a majority. It's not US playing politics! But it is our F.U.U.S.A. or nothing!"

Do I have that straight?

You forgot the part where the Maverick GOP spoiler drops everything to fly to Washington on the premise of ensuring that things are going well, then throws a major wrench in the proceedings while studiously declining to take a position on either plan. (new window)

PinocchioDeBergerac: Geekette: How can you counter with your own proposal when you haven't even read the one on the table? Stunning.

So McCain DNRTFA but had an opposing opinion?

What's his Fark handle?

McCain doesn't have an account on Fark because he can't raise his arms to use a keyboard. POW

Churchill2004: depmode98: i264.photobucket.com

Ah, yes, a screed based entirely on blatant fabrication and ignorance of the facts is clearly a persuasive argument.

is watching the Republicans exploit the financial disaster in order to lower taxes on the rich and further deregulate the markets a persuasive argument?

Wow. just wow.

Churchill2004: Ah, yes, a screed based entirely on blatant fabrication and ignorance of the facts is clearly a persuasive argument.

Ah yes, reason.com...the bastion of unbiased opinion and factual based objective thoughts.

bulldg4life: Ah yes, reason.com...the bastion of unbiased opinion and factual based objective thoughts.

well, aside from the incoherent, obligatory defense of Friedman, that article was dead on. That book exaggerates, overstates, and cherrypicks like crazy.

I understand the argument, but it feels like that book had an editor who decided it needed to be more combative, or something. It reminded me of Freakanomics in that way.

Geekette: Mors: So let me see if I've got this straight.

The President says "I want A, B, and C."

House Democrats say "We will reach across party lines and work with you, mister President. We will offer you a compromise that gives you what you asked for, A, B, and C, but it has to be A, B, C, and a few safety valves."

The Senate sees a draft of this and the Senate Democrats AND Republicans say "we will shake hands across the aisle and make this work."

And then the House Republicans say "Oh no no no! We never approved that! We didn't even read this, screw you all, you're partisan hacks if you don't use OUR proposal which is F, U, U, S, A."

Everyone else says "Wait WTF?"

Bernake and Wossname say "Um... that won't even work, your FU-USA plan is not functional to solve this problem..."

And the House Republicans say "Oh hey, if you DEMS want to make this partisan, just put it to a vote, YOU have a majority. It's not US playing politics! But it is our F.U.U.S.A. or nothing!"

Do I have that straight?

You forgot the part where the Maverick GOP spoiler drops everything to fly to Washington on the premise of ensuring that things are going well, then throws a major wrench in the proceedings while studiously declining to take a position on either plan. (new window)



Right. But both of you forgot that he didn't actually drop everything, he kept campaigning and making photo-op stops in New York until several HOURS after Obama had reached DC. Ads still ran, and apparently his ad people were hard at work making the ad proclaiming him victor in the debates he wasn't going to attend. So basically the whole thing was a grandstanding lie. I hope the press and the people call him on it.

unlikely: Geekette: Mors: So let me see if I've got this straight.

The President says "I want A, B, and C."

House Democrats say "We will reach across party lines and work with you, mister President. We will offer you a compromise that gives you what you asked for, A, B, and C, but it has to be A, B, C, and a few safety valves."

The Senate sees a draft of this and the Senate Democrats AND Republicans say "we will shake hands across the aisle and make this work."

And then the House Republicans say "Oh no no no! We never approved that! We didn't even read this, screw you all, you're partisan hacks if you don't use OUR proposal which is F, U, U, S, A."

Everyone else says "Wait WTF?"

Bernake and Wossname say "Um... that won't even work, your FU-USA plan is not functional to solve this problem..."

And the House Republicans say "Oh hey, if you DEMS want to make this partisan, just put it to a vote, YOU have a majority. It's not US playing politics! But it is our F.U.U.S.A. or nothing!"

Do I have that straight?

You forgot the part where the Maverick GOP spoiler drops everything to fly to Washington on the premise of ensuring that things are going well, then throws a major wrench in the proceedings while studiously declining to take a position on either plan. (new window)



Right. But both of you forgot that he didn't actually drop everything, he kept campaigning and making photo-op stops in New York until several HOURS after Obama had reached DC. Ads still ran, and apparently his ad people were hard at work making the ad proclaiming him victor in the debates he wasn't going to attend. So basically the whole thing was a grandstanding lie. I hope the press and the people call him on it.

You can't blame him for having a senior moment and forgetting that he was rushing to D.C. C'mon the man has had cancer four times, he's 70 something years old, he was a POW and a war hero for crying out loud. Hell I heard that he was shooting down Vietcong bamboo gliders as he floated down after ejecting from his plane. Not even Chuck Norris did that! Give him a break!

BravadoGT: If they really want to stimulate investment (and especially from international investment) they really SHOULD drop some taxes--particularly, the capital gains tax.

Horeshiat. That won't solve a damn thing. I mean, Jesus Christ, what's wrong with you people? How could I have ever been affiliated with you? Let's just keep cuttin' taxes. We'll make the Bush tax cuts permanent, and then enact McCain's tax cuts on top of that.

Howabout I quit my job and buy a few HDTVs on my credit card? fark the balance I already got on there. It'll all work out in the end. If not, I'll blame the Democrats.

scruffy1: he was a POW and a war hero for crying out loud.

Wait, he was a POW war hero? Why did nobody mention this before?

This changes everything!

Geekette: scruffy1: he was a POW and a war hero for crying out loud.

Wait, he was a POW war hero? Why did nobody mention this before?

This changes everything!

well he's a humble and modest man and doesn't want people to think that he's in it for the attention

ragekage: BravadoGT: If they really want to stimulate investment (and especially from international investment) they really SHOULD drop some taxes--particularly, the capital gains tax.

Horeshiat. That won't solve a damn thing. I mean, Jesus Christ, what's wrong with you people? How could I have ever been affiliated with you? Let's just keep cuttin' taxes. We'll make the Bush tax cuts permanent, and then enact McCain's tax cuts on top of that.

Howabout I quit my job and buy a few HDTVs on my credit card? fark the balance I already got on there. It'll all work out in the end. If not, I'll blame the Democrats.

Yes, yes, I see your point! That WOULD make the American market a more attractive place for investors--both domestic and international! Well played, sir!

ragekage: Howabout I quit my job and buy a few HDTVs on my credit card? fark the balance I already got on there. It'll all work out in the end. If not, I'll blame the Democrats.

This is a bit complicated, but you have to understand that in bravado's mind the last bit of what you said is a given, not a ridiculous absurdity. Try to make a tough decision where the whole idea of any consequences for your actions is non-existent... notice how it becomes much easier to be in favor of any hair brained notion ?

Now assume that that way of thinking is so baked in that you aren't even aware of it. Why are you arguing with someone like that ?

No, I really wanted to know. Did I miss anything or was that how this played out?

President: ABC

House Democrats: We ignore party and work with republican president, here is ABC+oversight.

Senate (all): We ignore party and work with House, your draft will be a good foundation, let's roll.

House Repubs: Not so fast, we didn't even READ ABC, but FU-USA is the only way to go.

Fed guy, Treasury guy: Um... FU-USA won't even work

House Repubs: AHA! PARTISAN HACKERY! DEMS ARE GRANDSANDING LOL. It's FU-USA or your partisan politics fark the country.

Is that or is that not what we're seeing? I really want to know if my perception is skewed.

Obdicut:I understand the argument, but it feels like that book had an editor who decided it needed to be more combative, or something. It reminded me of Freakanomics in that way.

That's definitely true. The quotes on top of tortured prisoners was two steps to the left of looneyville.

But, the argument is still there. Somewhere.

Mordant: ragekage: Howabout I quit my job and buy a few HDTVs on my credit card? fark the balance I already got on there. It'll all work out in the end. If not, I'll blame the Democrats.

This is a bit complicated, but you have to understand that in bravado's mind the last bit of what you said is a given, not a ridiculous absurdity. Try to make a tough decision where the whole idea of any consequences for your actions is non-existent... notice how it becomes much easier to be in favor of any hair brained notion ?

Now assume that that way of thinking is so baked in that you aren't even aware of it. Why are you arguing with someone like that ?

If you want to talk about consequences--what of the consequences of investors who take their money and put it into markets where they can to pay a lower tax-rate? They don't care that we need to pay off debt. They are in it to maximize their return. The less attractive (i.e. more expensive) we make it to invest in our market, the less likely it is that investors want to put their money here.

Mors: Is that or is that not what we're seeing? I really want to know if my perception is skewed.

I was saying that I thought your rendition was oversimplified and left out McCain's pure-politics lies and grandstanding that were the heart of WHY they were rolling dice with my future, but effectively yes, you're right, that's how it went down.

Yes, because tax cuts will fix the gaping budget deficit, and less regulation will keep this from happening again.

*facepalm*

BravadoGT: Mordant: ragekage: Howabout I quit my job and buy a few HDTVs on my credit card? fark the balance I already got on there. It'll all work out in the end. If not, I'll blame the Democrats.

This is a bit complicated, but you have to understand that in bravado's mind the last bit of what you said is a given, not a ridiculous absurdity. Try to make a tough decision where the whole idea of any consequences for your actions is non-existent... notice how it becomes much easier to be in favor of any hair brained notion ?

Now assume that that way of thinking is so baked in that you aren't even aware of it. Why are you arguing with someone like that ?

If you want to talk about consequences--what of the consequences of investors who take their money and put it into markets where they can to pay a lower tax-rate? They don't care that we need to pay off debt. They are in it to maximize their return. The less attractive (i.e. more expensive) we make it to invest in our market, the less likely it is that investors want to put their money here.

Hey, I have no kids. Let's take off our seatbelts, floor it and try the same thing that got us where we are now. Who know, this time you may be right.

Mors: Is that or is that not what we're seeing? I really want to know if my perception is skewed.

You're leaving out the very obvious fact that McCain is directly responsible for wrecking the entire negotiations, but yeah, that's pretty much right. And that, my friends, is FARKING SCARY.

No matter how they fix this ... someone stupid is going to end up with a pile of free money and it won't be me.

Some of this said this last night, subby.

How are the talks going now that Mr Depends is in Mississippi?

So suddenly Farkers are for a $700 billion dollar bailout of the bankers who got us into this mess, and against the GOP plan that makes it easier for strong banks to take over weak ones, and does not use taxpayer money?

Wow... just farking wow. The balls on these people must be huge and hard.

BiffDangler: So suddenly Farkers are for a $700 billion dollar bailout of the bankers who got us into this mess, and against the GOP plan that makes it easier for strong banks to take over weak ones, and does not use taxpayer money?

Everything's a false choice in your world.

seminole87: republicans have cocks so small you need a microscope to see them

*Insert Obama black penis joke here*

Churchill2004: Ah, yes, a screed based entirely on blatant fabrication and ignorance of the facts is clearly a persuasive argument.

Johan Norberg (born 27 August 1973) is a Swedish writer devoted to promoting economic globalization and libertarian positions. He is arguably most known as the author of In Defense of Global Capitalism. Since March 15, 2007 he is a Senior Fellow at Cato Institute.

Yeah sorry, no.

Geekette: From this article (pops) it didn't even sound like Boehner or McCain had even read the proposal before they attended the talks!

FTFA: Neither man was familiar with the details of the proposal being pressed by House conservatives, and up to the moment they departed for the White House yesterday afternoon, neither had seen any description beyond news reports.


and the sad thing is, it isn't like it was a big secret. Hell *I* read the farking plan and submmited no less than 3 different links to it in the last few days (all red-so maybe this is really Fark's fault) and if an uniformed blowhard like ME read it...how much more inexcusable is it that Mighty Mouse McCain Hadn't?

How can you counter with your own proposal when you haven't even read the one on the table? Stunning.

Christopher Dodd the guy that got all that money from Fanny and Freddie now wants to give some back and have me pay for it, talk about balls.

I say let them all fail, let all the people that are over extended live in a van down by the river, and throw Dodd in jail for corruption.

Most economists think bailing out the banks is a terrible idea.