Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Well, yeah, but I wouldn't want that to depend on whether or not the firm generates a profit. And indeed, there's no need for that to be in the temporary measure before the election ... I have seen back of the envelope figures of around $150b, and that sounds reasonable if the full bailout is supposed to be $700b.

That can indeed be the first thing brought to Congress to start pounding away at the vestiges of the Republican Senate Fillibuster ... make them vote against making the executives who created the mess personally liable, or else turn class traitor in defense of their own necks, especially the large Republican class up for re-election in 2010.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Wed Sep 24th, 2008 at 12:58:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In this climate such a bill could pass unanimously.  The problem would be in the details.  This will remain the case unless and until they reform campaign finance.  A start could be to revoke the right of corporations and individuals to make campaign contributions for, say, 10 years after receiving a government bail out.  Then Congress would have to enact public financing just to cover the hole in their campaign budgets. (I read hints that loss of contributions from bankrupt firms was one of the dire consequences with which congress was presented on Thursday night by Paulson and Bernanke.)

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Sep 24th, 2008 at 03:24:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series