Slog - Comments on How the Washington Reps Voted on the Bailout

Comment by scary tyler more

scary tyler more — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 12:10:13 -0800

Dave Reichert is not a Democrat! Please fix NOW!

thenk yew.

Comment by Cato the Younger Younger

Cato the Younger Younger — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 12:14:34 -0800

At least we don't have money for Health Care, Social Security or education. Thank God those forms of communism will soon die!!

Hey, wasn't that a great idea companies opting for 401k's over actual pension plans? How's that all working out for ya??

Comment by Non

Non — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 12:15:30 -0800

glad to know we can still count on Jim McDermott

Comment by Levislade

Levislade — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 12:18:09 -0800

McD's switched vote is indeed interesting. Maybe he caught a load of shit from constituents for his first vote?

Comment by Trey

Trey — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 12:18:21 -0800

Is anyone else besides me disturbed by the idea that Darcy Burner would consider Jim McDermott a mentor?

Comment by Levislade

Levislade — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 12:24:02 -0800

@5 - It would be strange if a progressive Democrat running for Congress in WA didn't consider McDermott a mentor in some way, no?

Comment by SeMe

SeMe — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 12:29:17 -0800

come on guys, please fix the reichert D thang. NOW!!

Comment by Cato the Younger Younger

Cato the Younger Younger — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 12:31:14 -0800

The Stranger is saying Reichert is a Democrat and that's good enough for me!!!! Darcy must be a Republican!!!

Comment by Craig

Craig — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 12:32:29 -0800

Reichert is an I just likethe ads an idiot. His district is one of the wealthiest in Washington, and his constituents have probably lost a lot of money in the market. I don;t think they'll be happy with him next month.

Comment by LT Nixon

LT Nixon — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 12:49:30 -0800

Thanks for nothing Norm Dicks, you ass.

Comment by Fnarf

Fnarf — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 12:57:37 -0800

IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE STOCK MARKET. The bill was ESSENTIAL for the global economy to continue working.

Comment by elenchos

elenchos — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 13:06:31 -0800

What if we let all these companies fail and the government uses 700 trillion to lend to homebuyers and businesses who won't have a private financial sector to turn to for however long it takes them to sort themselves out?

I mean, if ultimately the taxpayer's job is to provide the liquidity the financial sector can't provide to the consumers and producers of the economy, what value to these middle men add? They produce nothing, and they are nobody's customers. They just come crying to us ever 5 or 10 years asking for money to cover their losses. Why do we need them at all?

Comment by Fnarf

Fnarf — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 13:19:24 -0800

Jesus Christ, Elenchos, are you a complete idiot? Injecting liquidity into credit markets on occasion has ALWAYS been a part of what government does. To get from there to "why do we need credit markets" is insane. YOU need these credit markets; everyone does, whether you know it or not.

Comment by elenchos

elenchos — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 15:32:06 -0800

I need credit. Everyone does. I get that.

I thought I needed a credit market too, but it turns out the credit "market" is just the route that government money takes on its way to being borrowed. So sure, let's have credit without this endlessly broken market. I mean, maybe there's a reason why it needs constant oversight and policing, and the occasional massive cash injection.

I'm told greed is the problem. Perhaps we should first eliminate greed. Once done, we can reconstitute the credit market. In the mean time, wouldn't it be cheaper to lend the money directly from the government? We're not so rich as we once were and need to save our nickels.