Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
What do we think of the Senate's bailout plan?
Good on the Senate for trying to jump start this thing and working over the holiday while waiting for after sunset to vote, but I'm afraid the lack of major changes are a recipe for another rejection and dow plunge.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/01/congress.bailout/index.html
Congressional leaders played a delicate political game Wednesday as they added "sweeteners" to a $700 billion financial bailout plan to attract enough House members, particularly Republicans, to pass the plan, which failed in the House just two days ago.
The measures -- a mix of tax extensions, an increase in federal deposit insurance and other measures -- include many items that are appealing to Republicans.
"Republicans are doing everything we can to encourage more Republicans to vote for this bill," said the spokesman, Kevin Smith.
"We believe we'll have a better chance to pass this bill than the one that failed yesterday," Smith added.
The "sweeteners," however, could drive away conservative Democrats, which would still leave leaders short of the votes needed to pass the bill.
In particular, the additional tax extensions meant to persuade some House Republicans to switch their votes in favor of the bill could cause some fiscally conservative, or "Blue Dog," Democrats to drop their support because the tax cuts are not paid for and will drive up the federal deficit.
Senate leaders announced Tuesday night that the Senate would vote on a modified bailout package Wednesday night. The vote will occur after sunset, which will mark the end of the Jewish New Year.
The "sweeteners" in the package include:
A fix that would prevent middle-class taxpayers from paying the alternative minimum tax
A number of tax extensions favored by either Republicans or Democrats
Tax exemptions for renewable energy
A measure that would require health insurers to treat mental health issues the same way they treat physical illnesses
Re: What do we think of the Senate's bailout plan?
Besides the FDIC thing, WTF do those things have to do with the bailout? I bet there's earmarks in this.
I'm really not comfortable with the congress throwing irrelevant items into this bill. Not when this happened so fast.
I think the House version, with the latest changes (except one terrible one about banning short selling), is better.
On the radio this AM, one of the analysts was saying that he thought only minor changes would be made to bring over just enough votes of people who were mostly for it but were holding out on one little issue. The danger isn making major changes is losing Yes votes you already have.
"As of page 2 this might be the most boring argument ever. It's making me long for Rape Day." - Mouse
I think it will get passed asap.
I know, right? It's like, oh taxes have something to do with money, so that must help. If we're going to have a giant costly plan, how about it addresses what's actually wrong.
I heard (on Today?) that the way the Senate is getting a crack at this w/o House approval first is that they're attaching it to another bill. I don't remember what that original bill is, it may be these tax cuts.
Took the words right out of my mouth! Ditto ditto ditto.
Seriously! OMG!
I am against it. All these "sweeteners" on non-relevant issues make it even worse. Wolverines? Mental health care?
It's too bad we don't have a conservative Republican running for president.
Why did the McCain campaign pick this critical juncture to revert back to the inept campaign of the early summer? In his own words, he should "stand up and fight," not be Obama lite. (I am impressed with my couplet.) As BIll Kristol says, he needs to stand against his advisors and go against the conventional wisdom. Liberalism must be defeated, not imitated. I wish he were against the bill.
I agree that this bill needs to be 100% focused on the bailout.
But, the other things in there aren't just "hey let's cobble together some stuff and stick it in."
The mental health parity bill has been 10 years in the making. The bill has been drafted and edited and gone in and out of committee a million times and it's pretty fine tuned. It's got bipartisan support and Bush said he'd sign it, but for whatever reason, nobody's tried to push it through.
Likewise, bills getting rid of the AMT have been bouncing around for years too.
Neither are really half-assed pieces of legislation.
I do think they should pass on their own, seperately, but I'm not really concerned about the substance of them or that they haven't been throught through enough.
Does that make sense?
And given that both of them have pretty broad bipartisan appeal, they make for nice things to sweeten the deal, and give all those congress people in tight re-elections an easy accomplishment.
(Of course if they had been doing their jobs in the first place, they wouldn't need to be doing this now.)
So anyway, I guess my point is that I can see both sides.
I don't know anything about the mental health bill, but for the sake of argument I'll assume everyone loves them.
I think the only reason they would attach this bailout to another bill everyone loves is so they can shield themselves from public ire. They know everyone hates the bailout so this is their excuse, "Well I fought so hard for the AMT reform/mental health bill that I just couldn't vote against them."?
That aside, I see your point. ?