If Obama keeps pushing this, he's lost my vote. I'm sorry, but if you all want a plan, how about fighting for provisions that help real americans and not just Rich, over-privileged Parasites. Maybe banks do need some money, but so do normal people.

And spare us the 'we can take care of that later' Bs. People like you said the same fucking thing about NAFTA, and you were lying your asses off. You have no credibility left, and thats why nobody trusts you.

it would be clean and ideologically coherent

This assumes the Democrats are 'clean and ideologically coherent'

No political party is. Heck, no *individual* is 'ideologically coherent'. (On the other hand, I'm pretty sure, say, Tony Shalhoub is clean)

I believe your analysis is, essentially, correct, but I would argue even more strongly for partisanship.

The Democrats have a nominal majority in the House, with an amorphous group of corrupt-conservative Democrats often holding the balance of power, and the Senate is evenly split. Moreoever, the institutional environment includes a Media, which slants conservative and promotes "bipartisanship" and frequently demands, in crisis, that unspecified "something" be done.

Given the even split, and the Media bias in presenting narratives for public consumption, crisis moments become games of political chicken, where political tactics of irresponsibility and demagoguery are rewarded.

The Democrats, always earnest, are easily stampeded into supporting policy horror shows produced by Republicans, like the Paulson bailout bill.

The Democrats probably need a few more members in both bodies, before they could maintain the discipline necessary to be far more partisan in policymaking.

and, you know, a close reading of the Federalist Papers would confirm that the people who designed this system from scratch INTENDED it to be this way: biased toward the wealthy white men, and biased against any serious change in the status quo. Were I designing a system to benefit my class, I'd do the same.

On health care, they'd shoot for single payer.

What action have they taken as a party to support that conclusion? There's a single payer bill in the House that they could all co-sponsor to make a point and yet they don't. The Dems are two parties - maybe three right now. The ones in power are Republicans. I know that's simplistic but I've watched them work for two years and I think the simple conclusion is the correct one.

They want the Paulson plan to pass so that's the one we're seeing. They want the war in Iraq to continue and so it does. They didn't want SCHIP to be expanded and so it wasn't. They didn't want an econ recovery package to pass last week and so it didn't. These are powerful people. There are ways to handle a filibuster - forcing debate would be one. Oh - they wanted FISA "fixed" and that happened too. Please don't make excuses for them. Organize to get them out of office and replaced by the sort of people you describe above.

Ezra, take a moment to try and get back into the real world. Sit down and try to get out of your bubble. What you are doing right now, and it hurts me to say this but you act almost like a Bushie. You are lying to yourself in order to keep faith that your opinion is right. I'm gonna prove this.

You claim that "Polling is mixed, and mainly depends on phrasing". Well let's look at the phrasing. When respondents are asked about the "economic rescue plan", they are opposed at least two to one. What they support, in the other poll, is the government "investing billions to try and keep financial institutions and markets secure". Note that the first poll was fairly neutral, avoiding the term "bailout". The second is a blatant lie: this is not "investment", no value is created. People might be in favor of government investment, I'm sure they are. But that is entirely different from being in favor of a Wall Street bailout. Note also that both polls avoid to mention the figure 700 billion. The responses would clearly have been more negative had it been mentioned.

Clutching straws and clinging to illusions is the very worst thing to do now. Ezra. Please, come back.

Ezra: "When it comes to the American political system, you can almost never believe in change." Bruce: "I believe your analysis is, essentially, correct, but I would argue even more strongly for partisanship." Does any of you pause for a moment to think about how much change Bush, dumbest President ever (allegedly), has actually achieved? How did he do it? Well, he just did it. He didn't compromise, and democrats always compromised. What you fail to see is that the bailout is just another example of Bush getting his way with the help of a spienelss Democratic party. Well, almost - his own party let him down, bless them. Don,t you see how twisted your narrative is? Bush almost - and he still may - got a financial bailout enacted that was nothing short of a coup d'etat, and you guys complain that nothing ever gets done in this country? How absurdly wrong. A lot gets done here, too bad it's the wrong things that keep getting done! You are making the biggest mistake, and a uniquely American mistake I would say, when you expect Democrats - the oppsoition party, remember? - to get things done *wile in opposition*. The purpose of the opposition, anywhere in the world except for the US and North Korea, is to be different from the government, to offer an alternative. Voters then have the opportunity to vote for an alternative, instead of being practically forced to become cynical. Which is exactly what the outcome really will be.

"When it comes to the American political system, you can almost never believe in change."

Horseshit. Ezra you need to read up on the Shock Doctrine. And read this:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=a_liberal_shock_doctrine

Sorry, meant to say "please."
That last comment belonged to me.

Why don't we just admit it: the framers concocted a political system that worked well for nearly two centuries (and there are still plenty of cool features like the first amendment), but it's simply not as effective as a parliamentary system when it comes to managing the rapidly changing circumstances we're confronted with in the 21st century. If I could wave my magic wand I would: A) Double the size of the House of Reps; B) Abolish mid-term House (but not Senate) elections; and, C) Let the House (or maybe the House and Senate together in dual session) elect the president, who could in turn be removed from office and replaced at any time by the legislature. Heck, we wouldn't even have to give up separation of powers, much less federalism.

Crazy, it's almost as if our form of government wasn't designed to micro manage our healthcare, finances, and day to day lives. It's like some crazy old people intended it to only govern national defence and a small list of other clearly defined task. No wonder we have some many problems passing these huge bills.

That is a brilliant point, Nate! Clearly the founding fathers anticipated today's health care system and made a conscious choice to keep their eighteen century government away from it! Jefferson was in BigLeeching's pocket, but clearer heads prevailed.

Don't get me started on how the Founding Fathers had it right when it came to regulating the airwaves!

I've been thinking and have decided I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG.

Instead, I suggest giving $85,000,000,000 to Americans in a "We Deserve It" dividend.

To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200 million bonafide U.S. citizens 18+.

Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child and 200,000,000 is a pretty close ballpark number of adults 18 and up.

So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billion that equals $425,000.00

My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18 and over as a "We Deserve It" dividend.

Of course, it would NOT be tax free.

So let's assume a tax rate of 30%.

Every individual over 18 would pay $127,500.00 in taxes.

That will send $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam.

But it also means that every adult over 18 now has $297,500.00 in their pocket.

A husband and wife has $595,000.00.

So here's the question:

What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 ?

Would you pay off your mortgage? >> Housing crisis solved.

Repay college loans? >> What a great boost to new grads.

Would you put away money for your children's college? >> Now it'll be there when you need it.

Would you save it in a bank? >> That will create money to loan to entrepreneurs.

Would you max out your HSA? >> That would be smart.

Would you buy a new car? >> That will create jobs.

Invest in the stock market? >> That means capital driven growth.

Buy health insurance? >> That's 48 million newly protected Americans who can now afford to see a doctor before a $200 office visit turns in to a $100,000 hospital bill which goes unpaid.

Would you buy "stuff" you've always wanted? >> That will channel sales tax dollars right back in to your state comptrollers budget.

Enable deadbeat dads to come clean -(or else)- >> problem solved.

Remember this is for every adult U.S. citizen 18 and over including the folks who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company that is cutting back.

And while we're at it, let's give those serving in our Armed Forces a 150% "We Deserve It" dividend, and if they're a wounded Vet, waive
the damn taxes.

Look, if we're going to re-distribute wealth,
let's really do it, instead of trickling out
a puny $1000.00 economic incentive.

If we're going to actually DO an $85 billion bailout,
let's bail out every adult U.S. CITIZEN, and in turn, let every American citizen distribute the funds right back in to our economy.

As for AIG - give the execs their walking papers and liquidate it.

Sell off its parts.

Let American General go back to being American General.

Sell off all the real estate.

Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up.

Here's my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn't, period.

Sure it's a crazy idea that can "never work."

But that my friend is how do you jump start an economy.

I trust my fellow Americans will know how to use the $85 billion
without government intervention.

"We Deserve It" more than the geniuses at AIG or the do nothing politicians in Washington DC .

And remember, my bailout plan's bottomline is $59.5 billion because
$25.5 Billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam.

I feel better getting that off my chest.

I've been thinking and have decided I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG.

Instead, I suggest giving $85,000,000,000 to Americans in a "We Deserve It" dividend.

To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200 million bonafide U.S. citizens 18+.

Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child and 200,000,000 is a pretty close ballpark number of adults 18 and up.

So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billion that equals $425,000.00

My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18 and over as a "We Deserve It" dividend.

Of course, it would NOT be tax free.

So let's assume a tax rate of 30%.

Every individual over 18 would pay $127,500.00 in taxes.

That will send $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam.

But it also means that every adult over 18 now has $297,500.00 in their pocket.

A husband and wife has $595,000.00.

So here's the question:

What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 ?

Would you pay off your mortgage? >> Housing crisis solved.

Repay college loans? >> What a great boost to new grads.

Would you put away money for your children's college? >> Now it'll be there when you need it.

Would you save it in a bank? >> That will create money to loan to entrepreneurs.

Would you max out your HSA? >> That would be smart.

Would you buy a new car? >> That will create jobs.

Invest in the stock market? >> That means capital driven growth.

Buy health insurance? >> That's 48 million newly protected Americans who can now afford to see a doctor before a $200 office visit turns in to a $100,000 hospital bill which goes unpaid.

Would you buy "stuff" you've always wanted? >> That will channel sales tax dollars right back in to your state comptrollers budget.

Enable deadbeat dads to come clean -(or else)- >> problem solved.

Remember this is for every adult U.S. citizen 18 and over including the folks who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company that is cutting back.

And while we're at it, let's give those serving in our Armed Forces a 150% "We Deserve It" dividend, and if they're a wounded Vet, waive
the damn taxes.

Look, if we're going to re-distribute wealth,
let's really do it, instead of trickling out
a puny $1000.00 economic incentive.

If we're going to actually DO an $85 billion bailout,
let's bail out every adult U.S. CITIZEN, and in turn, let every American citizen distribute the funds right back in to our economy.

As for AIG - give the execs their walking papers and liquidate it.

Sell off its parts.

Let American General go back to being American General.

Sell off all the real estate.

Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up.

Here's my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn't, period.

Sure it's a crazy idea that can "never work."

But that my friend is how do you jump start an economy.

I trust my fellow Americans will know how to use the $85 billion
without government intervention.

"We Deserve It" more than the geniuses at AIG or the do nothing politicians in Washington DC .

And remember, my bailout plan's bottomline is $59.5 billion because
$25.5 Billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam.

I feel better getting that off my chest.

The reality of this, and it's something Ezra, Kevin Drum, Barack Obama, or any of the other useless followers of Bush on this will admit, is that if this were really important, it wouldn't be this hard to pass. If it were really plain as day that economic Armageddon would be the result of not doing this, then Wall street would be willing to take a bath on executive pay. The right would give in on bankruptcy courts. Bush would be willing to break this into small installments that might actually be stoppable if the legislature wanted to. Congress would have put real oversight into the bill instead of lolletsjustpretendfortherubes oversight. Democrats would have been able to put in homeowners assistance, unemployment coverage, and any other fucking thing that they wanted. That none of that happened, that this was SOOOOO hard to do and the Democrats got rolled on every little fucking thing, indicates that this isn't actually needed. Its just about looting the treasury and giving Obama an excuse to not do shit his entire presidency.

The Democrats are going to lose the house and the senate over this in 2010, and probably the white house in 2012. Hell, they even fucking deserve to. This will just give lots of money to rich people and an economic crisis is still going to take place. Millions of people will still lose their houses. They will still lose their jobs. Screaming "BUT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN WORSE!!1!!!" isn't going to do jack shit.

Okay so I like many of your readers have been skeptical of the urgent need for a bailout and astonished at how worried you and other bloggers (Drum, etc) were at the bailout's failure. But I just read this David Leonhardt column: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/business/economy/01leonhardt.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1222868869-ifP8Jr+R+XMcjbTi3oICDw and I've come a lot closer to seeing things from your point of view.

Ezra, I think it's a mistake to see the last 25 years as a feature of the whole. What has happened is that the Republican party has turned to a narrative in which division is a paramount theme, and therefore, premises its power in large part on disagreeing with Democrats on anything important even where, I am guessing as with the bail out, there really aren't fundamental disagreements about something needing to be done. But they have set their leitmotif in such a direction that to agree is to be irrelevant.

It wasn't always like this. Medicare and the Voting Rights Act could not possibly have been enacted in today's Congress, but they were enacted by previous sessions, and not all that long ago.

It pains me greatly, but until Democrats realize that you can't achieve consensus with people who have staked their power on not achieving it, we won't get anything rationally effective done that's big. So yes, Ds have to adopt a bit of a "my way or the highway" attitude, which might make some of the more moderate Rs get on board, and which might help to remake the Republican party into something that is interested in actually having a constructive rather than a destructive role in the functioning of government.

Dental Dan, please buy a pocket calculator. You are three zeroes off.

http://votenobailout.org/

Tell your legislator to vote no!

"What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00?"

Might I suggest buying a pocket calculator? That would let you determine that the actual amount per family (based on your assumptions) is only $298 to $595.