> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 4:21 AM, <moominek at aol.com> wrote:
>> Sometimes it is quite difficult to understand US-interiors from outside,
>> four questions that's why from Berlin:
>>
>> 1) Is it at all a debate about state intervention "in principle" in
>> US-Congres? May be it is more a conflict about who will controll this state
>> intervention next - after the election? And the rejection of the bailout
>> more a symptom of a republican "Après moi les deluge"/"devil may
>> care"-position?
>
> This is all from secondary and tertiary sources, but the complaints in
> principle about state intervention are primarily a Republican
> fascination, particularly in the house (they seem to have more crazies
> there than in the senate). The complaints on the Dem side seem to
> vary more, some of it control -- namely handing over so much unchecked
> control to Paulson -- but also "rewarding" those that caused the mess.
> Hence the push for executive pay caps. As you may have read here
> there is some populist rhetoric from the Dems regarding state
> intervention -- part of the local religion, as you aptly put it -- but
> that seems mostly from the edges.
One notable objection to the current bill comes from the Congressional Black Caucus, who rejected it as a bloc due to the lack of bankruptcy protections for workers.