The real reason Jim Martin opposed the bailout revealed.

Jim Martin has been pounding Saxby Chambliss for his support of the $700 billion bailout bill. However, Martin didn’t oppose the bailout because he supported a free market solution to the problem, he’s opposed it because it didn’t contain enough big government for him:

“Obviously something needed to be done,” the former state representative said. “… My concern is that we didn’t go far enough, not that we didn’t need to do something, but that the job wasn’t completed.”

Martin argued – as he has previously – that the bill should have cracked down on “predatory lending” and other dubious financial dealings. (Virginia Senator Jim) Webb said that, although he voted for the bill, he had similar qualms.

13 comments

  1. TPNoGa says:

    I have a voting question I hope can be answered. A co-worker and I were discussing Georgia’s voting machines and the security of those machines. I have read up on the security features of the actual equipment, but one thing bothers us. What controls are in place to prevent people from just standing at a machine and voting over and over? How do they prevent people from doing this? The cards that are given to the voter is just used to turn on the machine, can they also prevent someone from voting mutiple times?

  2. odinseye2k says:

    Well, yeah. The “free market solution” was basically holding everyone’s breath and hoping we didn’t slam into depression.

    The active question is whether something a lot smarter than buying $700B of absolute crap and an inflated street value was the correct way to defuse the bomb.

    With a couple of clauses tossed in by the Senate, and some changes of tactics by Paulson, it appears that this approach has been abandoned for a more direct nationalization of the troubled companies. The hands of the guys that screwed us into this situation come off the wheel and larger objectives become the driving aim of these failed banks – rather than trying to be the winner of the hot potato game with these crazy derivatives.

    The other, rather useful barb, is the executive compensation limit. It has been oddly useful in getting the heads of companies to bias their judgment as to how self-sufficient they are. If it appears there is *any* way for a bank to hunker down and get through, these guys will go for it. Oddly enough, this aspect of the greed is handy for making sure the Fed really is the buyer of last resort.

    Thus, if you’re really screwed, let the Feds help with the soft landing. If you are anything but, pay your money and take your chances.

  3. atlantaman says:

    There isn’t a Senator that voted for the bailout that hasn’t gone out and stated he’s had some “qualms” or “reservations” about voting to give those irresponsible Wall Street types so much money. We all know Martin would have voted for the bailout. Knowing his extreme left-wing nature, he probably wouldn’t be happy with the bailout until a complete government takeover of all businesses and a picture of Lenin on our currency.

  4. JB in Buford says:

    It can be argued that Martin’s opposition to borrowing $700 billion to (now) nationalize banks is Monday morning quarterbacking, or that he wanted more, or he would have signed on if he had been there. All this is speculation.

    We KNOW that Saxby voted for borrowing $700 billion to buy bad debt, to nationalize banks, and who knows how else to entangle the government in the free market. The Senator may vote for socialistic policies with a frown on his face and deep reservation, but he still votes for socialistic policies.

    I’ll be voting for someone for Senate, but it won’t be Chambliss.

  5. ramblinwreck says:

    The “something” that should have been done should start with prosecuting the members of congress who enabled this mess. THEN, do something that doesn’t reward bad behavior and endorse the outright theft of a huge chunk of the country’s assets for the next couple of generations.

  6. Ga Values says:

    How can any CONSERVATIVE vote for the Big Spending, Big Government, Pro Amnesty LIBERAL, Saxby Chambliss.. I voted for Buckley Tuesday and will vote for Martin if there is a run off. At least he will work for GEORGIA not the highest paying LOBBYIST like Saxby.

  7. odinseye2k says:

    Greenspan is starting to get it, but not entirely:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html?hp

    Meanwhile, if you’ll forgive the Commie / Socialist / Insoc / Jihadi paper reference, there’s one point from there I’d like to make. Greenspan said he believed that banks’ self-interest would keep them from taking crazy risks.

    Here’s the problem. Institutions don’t act in their self-interest. People do. And even that is very uncertain with the latest in psychological research.

    Here’s how that plays out. Institutions working in their self-interest balance the risk of leverage with the profits heavy lending makes available. People that run these institutions shove the leverage as high as possible to trigger bonuses in their contracts. They also load compensation committees with their buddies in order to create golden parachutes. These parachutes pretty much cancel the risk for that individual in case their big bets kill the company.

    Thus, the person is hedged against risk while the institution … um, not so much.

    Of course, there is also the problem of information with the credit swaps that were also supposed to “insure” the banks against the mortgages they knew were rotten.

  8. atlantaman says:

    GA Values-

    You might want to take a look at Martin’s disclosure before you start criticizing PAC money.

Comments are closed.