Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Bailout Rejected by the House?
The one body of government most hardwired to the American public just rejected the leadership of both major political parties, the president of the United States, his administration, the two contenders to his throne, and seemingly every talking head on cable television. The first tally was 228-205-1; but it looks like they're keeping the vote open long past the allotted time, and now it's at 226-207-1. "They're just going to hold it closed until they can get enough Yeah votes," CNN's floor reporter just said. That's the same maneuver they used to create a huge new Medicare/prescription drug entitlement. Democracy!
C-SPAN today has been more gruesome than watching David Cronenberg's Crash. Among the minute-by-minute horrors of crap economics, utterances of the phrase "inaction is not an option," and nausea-inducing bipartisanship, my favorite moment might have been when Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland) quoted favorably, and without irony, Spiro fucking Agnew, as saying "the cost of our failure will far exceed the price of our progrees." Just one of scores of comments today that did not make any sense, at least not to me.
The Dow Jones tumbled down 650 points (more than 5 percent) right when the deal looked killed, but now it's around minus-450 for the day and heading northward, though in a herky-jerky way.
More importantly, if this vote is allowed to stand, 132 House Republicans and 94 Democrats will have, at least for a moment, slowed the rush to nationalization that has shot through Washington like Hoof in Mouth disease these past days and weeks. I'm as apocalyptic as the next guy, but I never did understand how a temporary illiquidity in the mortgage-backed securities and credit default swaps markets required the biggest government intervention since Richard Nixon's disastrous wage and price controls.
UPDATE: Mistah bill, he dead.
|9.29.08 @ 2:11PM|#
If only there was a presidential candidate that was against the bailout. He/she would look really smart right now.
BDB|9.29.08 @ 2:12PM|#
It's dead. And the economy will probably be really awful for a year or two now.
|9.29.08 @ 2:14PM|#
BDB,
I doubt it will be bad for more than a quarter. I'll even bet you a
quarter.
BDB|9.29.08 @ 2:15PM|#
This really really shows how much credibility the administration has blown. Is there any other example of this in history when EVERYONE is for it but it gets voted down?
|9.29.08 @ 2:16PM|#
Watch for people pointing at the stock market plunge, as if that's a direct indicator of the state of the economy.
JP|9.29.08 @ 2:16PM|#
Now it's time for the rest of us to stay strong as various scary things happen to the economy and the "I told you sos" start flying.
|9.29.08 @ 2:17PM|#
It's dead. And the economy will probably be really awful for
a year or two now.
I'm not certain about dead. If so, (I hope, I hope) the economy
will probably take a downturn. That would still be better than
passing it.
jmd|9.29.08 @ 2:17PM|#
the stock market IS a direct indicator of the state of the economy, asshole. or do you own no assets?
Kolohe|9.29.08 @ 2:17PM|#
Any way to find out who is on what side,
currently?
Here
eventually will be the roll call tally, but it hasn't been enrolled
yet.
I don't think you can know who's voting for what in real time
unless you're actually on the floor looking at the score board.
MrDan242|9.29.08 @ 2:18PM|#
What I heard on CSpan
For(207) 144 Dem & 66 Rep
Against(226) 94 Dem & 132 Rep
There was one Rep that was flopping so might change slightly.
|9.29.08 @ 2:19PM|#
I don't think this is just about the administration, which
leaves us in a few months, anyway. Could they have voted this way
because they don't think the bailout would work? That it's unfair
to taxpayers? That the emergency isn't as dire as stated by
Paulson?
Whatever happens--and I'm sure something will be passed at some
point--we're in for some rocky times.
robc|9.29.08 @ 2:20PM|#
Theresa K,
stock market is up about 200 since the bill failed.
It was down 600+, now down 400+
dmoynihan|9.29.08 @ 2:20PM|#
America, fuck yeah!
And, fine, markets are gonna plunge, it's gonna suck for a while,
there will be bargains, and those of us with a bit of cash are
starting to look at vacation areas for a deal on waterfront
properties.
... just looking!
|9.29.08 @ 2:21PM|#
Look, I hate to say it, but some kind of bail-out is necessary. It takes a little while for the credit freeze to percolate down to retail-level markets like commercial paper and business lines of credit, but that started happening last week. From there, a collapse of the most cash-sensitive businesses will follow, and then the ripples will hit the next tier, and then.... We can't predict how deep the fall will be, but it will be bad, bad, bad.
SIV|9.29.08 @ 2:21PM|#
C-SPAN today has been more gruesome than watching David
Cronenberg's Crash.
I still prefer CRASH to c-span.Dead Ringers and
Videodrome are even better.
This is a good example of why I believe Republicans to be
marginally preferable to DemocRATS.
|9.29.08 @ 2:21PM|#
Who wants to go on a bank run with me?
Fuck it, according to Paulson, we should just knock a few banks
over because we'll all be slaughtering each other in the streets
now.
Kolohe|9.29.08 @ 2:22PM|#
And it looks like everyone in the world is going to the thomas/roll call webpage, because now it says 'service unavailable'
libertarian democrat|9.29.08 @ 2:22PM|#
Is there any easy place to look up who voted how on it? Like, just a big list of Ds and Rs on each side?
robc|9.29.08 @ 2:23PM|#
Look, I hate to say it, but some kind of bail-out is
necessary. It takes a little while for the credit freeze to
percolate down to retail-level markets like commercial paper and
business lines of credit, but that started happening last week.
From there, a collapse of the most cash-sensitive businesses will
follow, and then the ripples will hit the next tier, and then....
We can't predict how deep the fall will be, but it will be bad,
bad, bad.
So, why is it necessary?
I dont see anything in there that isnt a proper correction.
|9.29.08 @ 2:24PM|#
Call me crazy, but having this voted down when "both major political parties, the president of the United States, his administration, the two contenders to his throne, and seemingly every talking head on cable television" was for it, is the best news I've heard out of Washington in a long time. We still have a democracy, apparently.
|9.29.08 @ 2:24PM|#
jmd,
Ever hear the old saying, "The stock market has predicted 10 of the
last 3 recessions"?
|9.29.08 @ 2:24PM|#
Maybe McCain and Obama should both suspend their campaigns now... maybe indefinitely.
Kolohe|9.29.08 @ 2:25PM|#
Theresa K,
stock market is up about 200 since the bill failed.
It was down 600+, now down 400+
We had foxnews in the office and they had the bailout vote and djia
on at the same time in split screen.
Dow was down about 200-300 as the roll call started, but when the
nays exceeded the ayes, it went down to about 500+ down, and once
the nay hit 218, dow was 600+ down.
It's been bouncing from 500+ down to 300+ down since then.
|9.29.08 @ 2:26PM|#
"It's dead. And the economy will probably be really awful for a
year or two now."
Better that than awful for a couple decades.
|9.29.08 @ 2:26PM|#
dmoynihan
And, fine, markets are gonna plunge, it's gonna suck for a
while, there will be bargains, and those of us with a bit of
cash
Exactly! Disaster for some, great bargains for others.
Now is an opportune time to buy.
|9.29.08 @ 2:27PM|#
Not to obsess about the campaign (but why not? this is all
campaign-driven posturing anyway), but McCain looks an even bigger
fool for having "suspended his campaign" to go to Washington to
"get those Republicans in line behind this bill", or whatever
claptrap he was spouting.
Ineffectual never looks good on a candidate.
Mike M.|9.29.08 @ 2:27PM|#
In my opinion, every single member of the House who voted Nay on both sides of the aisle deserves a Profile in Courage award.
texas_libertarian|9.29.08 @ 2:28PM|#
I'm surprised that so many Democrats voted against it. But it's probrably just a political stunt by Bluedogs win elections this year. As far as the Republicans go, if they still had control of Congress, more probrably would have voted for it. Republicans only become economic libertarians win the Democrats are in control.
|9.29.08 @ 2:29PM|#
Republicans killed it. If the economy gets tight for joe average, there will be massive payback in november. McCain may as well pack his shit and go home.
Kyle|9.29.08 @ 2:30PM|#
It will be interesting to see how the Dems pin this on the Repubs since so many Dems voted it down
robc|9.29.08 @ 2:30PM|#
brotherben,
Huh, my thought was the opposite. GOP killed it, which is what the
people want, those in the middle will vote for those who followed
what they wanted.
However, whats clear is: Its spinning time for both parties.
|9.29.08 @ 2:31PM|#
Seriously, who gives a shit about the stock market? The days of "What is good for General Motors..." are long over. It ran up like a fucking monster while all this idiocy was going on and while the US accumulated massive national debt. Wall Street is now fucking useless for determining what is good for America.
dmoynihan|9.29.08 @ 2:31PM|#
Look, I hate to say it, but some kind of bail-out is
necessary. It takes a little while for the credit freeze to
percolate down to retail-level markets like commercial paper and
business lines of credit, but that started happening last week.
From there, a collapse of the most cash-sensitive businesses will
follow, and then the ripples will hit the next tier, and then....
We can't predict how deep the fall will be, but it will be bad,
bad, bad.
Really?
That's funny. The major investment banks have all been gobbled up
(Merrill, Bear), turned commercial (MS+GS), or allowed to fail
(Lehman). Morgan Stanley just secured $9 bil. in extra capital from
Mitsubishi.
For banks: Citi just bought Wachovia, in part 'cuz they expected
the Feds GUARANTEE to buy Wach's (Golden-acquired) bad loans FOR
MORE than Citi had paid for them as part of this bill. Pretty sure
JP Chase expected something similar for Wamu.
There's likely to be a lot of houses sitting on the market for a
while, many of them vacant, but that had to happen, and probably
wouldn't be happening now if we hadn't bailed out the S&Ls 20
years ago. Contagion's gonna rage for a while into Europe, and it's
gonna suck, but it's not unexpected, and it's a hell of a lot
healthier now than it would be in the long run.
And for cash-sensitive... probably, you mean credit-sensitive
businesses... we just bailed out the auto industry to the tune of
$25 bil., and the bluest of the blue chips--Wal Mart, McDonald's,
are doing just fine.
Yeah, it's blood in the streets, Paulson.
libertarian democrat|9.29.08 @ 2:31PM|#
Republicans killed it. If the economy gets tight for joe
average, there will be massive payback in november. McCain may as
well pack his shit and go home.
It's really depressing that the party will probably suffer for
doing the right thing. It's less depressing that McCain might lose
because of it, although more ironic.
|9.29.08 @ 2:32PM|#
In my opinion, every single member of the House who voted
Nay on both sides of the aisle deserves a Profile in Courage
award.
Whoa. I want to see their motives for voting it down first. We
might get something worse.
dmoynihan|9.29.08 @ 2:32PM|#
Exactly! Disaster for some, great bargains for others.
Now is an opportune time to buy.
Not in that much of a hurry...
|9.29.08 @ 2:33PM|#
My prediction: Congress passes something much cheaper, of limited duration, to treat the symptoms of the meltdown. In 4-6 months, economic conditions will either be good enough that they decide nothing more is needed (or maybe just a little more "treat the symptoms" aid), or it will be bad enough that everyone is on board for drastic action. Even if the it's the latter, that means everyone will have had 4-6 months to better understand what's going on, and develop some better ideas, and implement them in less hasty, more thoughtful manner.
|9.29.08 @ 2:34PM|#
Good point, Henry. It's the thinking you describe that got us into this mess. "The stock market must always go up, never down!" POP!
kinnath|9.29.08 @ 2:34PM|#
My prediction: Congress passes something much cheaper, of
limited duration, to treat the symptoms of the meltdown.
Yup, and probably a better solution in the long run.
|9.29.08 @ 2:34PM|#
I'm with jdb on this one, I think. I'm not enough of a free
market purist to welcome a liquidity crisis and financial
meltdown.
Of course, bailout or not, no politician seems to be talking about
the real causes of the crisis: government and lefty activists
pushing against "red-lining" and for low-income mortgages. All
those subprime mortgages didn't just happen out of "excesses" of
the "free market."
JLM|9.29.08 @ 2:34PM|#
I bet that a lot of the Dems decided to vote against this when they saw how many Repubs were headed in that direction. I doubt that they want to be seen as being in bed with W on a major issue like this when a majority of his party is jumping ship.
Jerry|9.29.08 @ 2:35PM|#
How can you trust Congress to make good with the American economy when they can't even keep their own servers up?
Fluffy|9.29.08 @ 2:35PM|#
Pelosi and Boehner have also been embarrassed here.
They couldn't deliver the votes, and they brought it to the floor
not knowing they couldn't deliver the votes.
If Boehner did this one purpose, he fucked Pelosi so hard her
facelifts gave way. As did the 90 odd House Dems who voted against
this. Ouch.
|9.29.08 @ 2:36PM|#
Reason wanted it killed. I would hope they would give credit to
the bipartisian group that killed it. I go back and fourth on this.
I am starting to think we should just take our medicine and endure
a serious recession, like we did in 1981 and 1982 and come out
better on the other side for it.
One thing that does make me feel a little optimistic is perhaps
this could be the return of the bo weivel Democrats. I haven't
looked at the vote, but I bet most if not all of the Dems who voted
agianst it are from red states and did so because 99% of their
constiuent calls were against it.
If there really are bo weival Democrats and the Republican minority
actually gets its nerve back, you could have a recipe for real
gridlock, regardless of who wins the Presidency.
|9.29.08 @ 2:36PM|#
Agreed there, joe. Though I think that's going to lead to us getting the same bill (or something worse) in 4-6 months when there's no election on the horizon.
huffer|9.29.08 @ 2:36PM|#
But it's probrably just a political stunt by Bluedogs win elections this year.
Or they listened to their constituents?
libertarian democrat|9.29.08 @ 2:36PM|#
It's interesting though. I know many democrats (although of a
similar highly educated demographic), and not one of them thought
this was a good idea.
And yet it was so strongly supported by the democrats in the house
(without link, I am assuming those against it were probably mostly
blue dogs, but who knows).
|9.29.08 @ 2:37PM|#
PapayaSF, the "blame CRA" line was killed so long ago it's decomposed into compost and is fertilizing wildflowers.
Citizen Nothing|9.29.08 @ 2:37PM|#
"Seriously, who gives a shit about the stock market?"
So where do you have all your savings, henry?
Kruggerands in a coffee can buried in the back yard? In the bank at
1 percent interest (while inflation rages ever onward)?
In that bag of Doritos sitting on your coffee table?
JP|9.29.08 @ 2:38PM|#
Let me not be one who is unwilling to say, I agree with
Joe.
Therefore: I agree with Joe.
Guy Montag|9.29.08 @ 2:38PM|#
Humm, let me see if I have this timeline straight . . .
I go to Orlando, FL for a few weeks and the leadership of both
major Parties, in both Houses and the Executive, decide to
nationalize the financial institutions of the USA.
I return to the Beltway from Orlando, and it gets called off.
No thanks necessary folks, but as a reminder, I do accept free
Foster's when out and about :)
|9.29.08 @ 2:40PM|#
I actually supported this bill and worry about the consiquences of it not passing. That said I can't help but feel kind of good right now. For better or worse, the majority of the people in this country did not want this bill. Only our elites wanted it. The fact that the elites were not able to shove this bill down the country's throat makes me feel that Democracy does occasionally make a difference.
dmoynihan|9.29.08 @ 2:40PM|#
My prediction: Congress passes something much cheaper, of
limited duration, to treat the symptoms of the meltdown.
Prez, Congress, the Fed, and Treasury, have been "treating the
symptoms" of this thing for a year via borrowed-for stimulus
packages, excessive loans, lower rates at a time of soaring
inflation, and nationalization. The efforts have not restored
confidence, have not "fixed" the problem. If anything, the
"treatments" have exacerbated the situation.
What Congress oughta do, if they really care about America, is get
into 24-hour Taiwanese Parliament mode, just beating the crap out
of each other whenever the cameras look their way. This'll have
roughly the same impact on "the crisis" as any legislation they
might concoct, but at least have the benefit of entertaining
members of the populace.
Me, anyway.
Fluffy|9.29.08 @ 2:41PM|#
I have spared no ink arguing with joe about the causes of the
crisis, which I put down to monetary and fiscal policy and not
regulation - so I am sympathetic to arguments that look for a
non-market cause for the current situation.
But the CRA meme is just completely false.
Subprime loans and CRA loans are not the same thing. CRA loans are
made by federally supervised depository institutions. The
overwhelming majority of subprime loans were made by lenders and
conduits who weren't depository institutions and weren't even
subject to the Act. Lehman [and their mortgage arm, Aurora] had no
CRA requirement to fulfill, and the HMDA sections they were subject
to didn't go very far beyond mere reporting requirements.
|9.29.08 @ 2:42PM|#
Andrew, I don't think this particular bill is coming back. It
would have to be some other bill.
But if things really are bad enough in 6 months that people are
clamoring for a bailout, then we're talking about something
big.
If the financial liquidity crisis really does what people are
afraid it will do, in six months, it isn't just going to be some
political and financial elites making noise, because by then, the
pain would have spread throughout society. If the warnings are
correct.
|9.29.08 @ 2:43PM|#
"Boll weevil" Democrats? I haven't heard that term in a long
time."
That is because they went extinct in the 1990s. The Democrats run
the House. The Republicans are just spectators. This thing failing
is about Democratic politics, not Republican. The Democrats could
have passed this thing without one Republican vote, letalone the
forty or fifty that they got.
|9.29.08 @ 2:43PM|#
Spiro Agnew was the Governor of Maryland, which is why Steny
Hoyer quoted him. Where do Maryland politicians pick their
names?
The great thing about this is that, if we're lucky, universities
will demote their B-School and MBA programs to the place where they
belong:
As non-credit courses offered in the trailer out back of the local
vocational technical institute, provided, of course, that the
chicken cutting technology class doesn't need the MBA program's
space.
|9.29.08 @ 2:43PM|#
Of course, bailout or not, no politician seems to be talking
about the real causes of the crisis: government and lefty activists
pushing against "red-lining" and for low-income mortgages. All
those subprime mortgages didn't just happen out of "excesses" of
the "free market."
The reason nobody is mentioning these things as the causes is
because only idiots believe it.
Laws against red-lining neighborhoods didn't force lenders to lend
to people with bad credit. No matter how much people like you
pretend it.
Just because you weren't allowed to penalize neighborhoods by zip
code didn't mean that lenders were required to throw underwriting
out the window and ignore their basic due dilligence and make sure
they people they loaned money to were credit-worthy. So in fact
they did originate because of excesses of the free market. Lenders
should have denied people who weren't credit worthy but they
didn't.
Not only that, but the community banks which fall under the the
Community Reinvestment Act regulations aren't the ones failing or
having the problems. The CRA laws have been on the books for 30
years, but all of a sudden, NOW they are the problem?
Suuuuuuuure
robc|9.29.08 @ 2:44PM|#
I also agree with joe. Also, not sure if it will be a good thing or a bad thing that happens in 4-6 months. Also also, not everyone will be on board for drastic action, I wont be. Well, I will be, but a completely different kind of drastic action.
|9.29.08 @ 2:45PM|#
I think I'm about to cry.
Now the question is, what crackpot bill are they going to come up
with to replace it?
jmd|9.29.08 @ 2:45PM|#
the wacko fringe of libertarians don't care about the stock market or banks cuz they don't believe in credit in the first place. everything in gold or cash only. credit was something evil invented by the illuminati. i think they also believe usury is a sin, but i can't confirm that for sure.
|9.29.08 @ 2:45PM|#
But the CRA meme is just completely false.
Well said.
I have said these types of things in other threads as well, but
certain morons on these boards keep pretending like CRA is to
blame.
There is a lot of blame to go around, but CRA isn't part of it.
|9.29.08 @ 2:45PM|#
Hooray hooray! Gridlock saves America from economic
overdose!
While I second the hoorays, this wasn't the work of almighty
Gridlock.
libertarian democrat|9.29.08 @ 2:46PM|#
I also think what joe said about what will possibly happen sounds very likely. And I also agree that whatever happens will probably be better than this happening now would have been.
|9.29.08 @ 2:47PM|#
My comments about the reps. getting the hook for this is based upon this. All the msm coverage I've seen for the last 10-12 days has been saying that we are in for a depression scenario without the bailout, the president hisself predicted very bad things if this didn't pass. It failed in the house. If the economy slides awhile, the average voter, that gets his/her "news" from "Good Morning America" and other similar shows, is going to demand heads on a platter. The news last week was about McCain swooping in and fucking up the talks. Republicans will be saddled with blame if things don't turn around instantly. That's all I was suggesting.
kinnath|9.29.08 @ 2:47PM|#
I was sitting in a small town cafe eating breakfast this weekend. The little grey-haired ladies in the booth behind me talked about the bailout for half an hour. These people are the heart of the democratic voting block, and they were strongly opposed to the bailout.
|9.29.08 @ 2:50PM|#
The Democrats could have passed this thing without one
Republican vote, letalone the forty or fifty that they
got.
One possibility is that the Democrats pass a Democratic bill - one
that negotiated not between the leadership (which leans strongly
centrist/DLC) and the Republicans, but between the different
factions of the Democratic caucus.
This would mean that Henny Stoyer or whatever the hell his name is
goes from being the leftmost faction at the table to the
rightmost.
I wouldn't count on it, though. Harry Reid's testicles get sucked
up into this abdominal cavity when a Republican looks at him
cross-eyed.
kinnath|9.29.08 @ 2:52PM|#
CRA is irrelevant. The crisis was caused by lenders letting upper middle class people buy $500,000 houses when they could only afford $400,000 houses.
libertarian democrat|9.29.08 @ 2:53PM|#
house.gov won't load for me. Hrm. I wonder if this could be related.
|9.29.08 @ 2:54PM|#
my congresswoman also voted no, and she's also a democrat with an election coming up this november
|9.29.08 @ 2:54PM|#
I believe my congresscritter, a rarity in that he's a relatively
liberal Texas Democrat, showed the intestinal fortitude to vote
against it. At least the Post quoted him as opposing the
bill.
I'm about to send him a congratulatory note.
The people that were victims of genuine mortgage fraud (and not
their own bad judgment) should be offered some protection. For the
rest, especially the bankers, let the chips fall where they may. I
don't want my tax dollars going to them.
|9.29.08 @ 2:54PM|#
There's a diary on Daily Kos with the roll call.
Look in the right-hand column, scroll down a little.
|9.29.08 @ 2:54PM|#
The free market will correct itself and Big Money will take care of Big Money as it always has. What is needed is a rescue plan to help common, non-stock-owning American figure out how to succeed in a capitalist market where the real money only changes hands between, and real wealth only increases for, those who know how to work The System. Regular Americans simply need to be become smarter about this economy, stop whining about their stupidity and stop looking to Big Government to solve their economic problem that were brought on by their fiscal ignorance. That's NOT how things work in a liberal, participatory republic.
robc|9.29.08 @ 2:56PM|#
joe,
Harry Reid's testicles get sucked up into this abdominal cavity
when a Republican looks at him cross-eyed.
I knew you had it in you.
robc|9.29.08 @ 2:56PM|#
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/index.asp
For those not wanting to go to kos
Kraorh|9.29.08 @ 2:58PM|#
Of course, my big worry now is that they'll just load up the bill with extra pork and goodies aimed at getting recalcitrant Dems to get on board. Sure, the pork itself is only a tiny amount of the budget, but it's sort of insult to injury that it would facilitate the passing of this abomination.
BDB|9.29.08 @ 2:58PM|#
My God, I'm represented by a liberal black Democrat in a
minority-majority district (thus he is Congress-man-for-life Bobby
Scott) and he voted against it!
That's a shocker.
Doug|9.29.08 @ 2:59PM|#
The Dow Jones tumbled down 650 points (more than 5 percent)
right when the deal looked killed, but now it's around minus-450
for the day and heading northward, though in a herky-jerky
way.
If this "crisis" was systemic we'd have been well below 10k by now.
Call me a skeptic but I'm not buying the crisis blather.
|9.29.08 @ 2:59PM|#
All the msm coverage I've seen for the last 10-12 days has
been saying that we are in for a depression scenario without the
bailout, the president hisself predicted very bad things if this
didn't pass.
I have seen almost all the coverage from mainstream media sources
being basically pro bailout and only showing opinions of people who
think SOMETHING MUST BE DONE NOW OR ELSE ! -- yet most polling
seems to show most americans not in favor the bailout.
I find it rather interesting (and pleasantly surprosed) that
despite all the cheerleading and pro-bailout info from media
companies (that most likely stand to benefit from the bailout
themselves) people are smart enough to realize the bailout (or at
least a 700 Billion dollar bailout) is a bad deal.
I think the House members recognize this as well. The Dems would be
complete fools to pass a bill that doesn't have majority support
from the GOP -- if they do, they will get killed in November as
every GOPer will attack them for being socialists or for saving
corrupt Wall Street.
|9.29.08 @ 3:00PM|#
I am starting to think we should just take our medicine and
endure a serious recession,
My thoughts exactly. It won't be pretty, but in the long term it
would be best.
|9.29.08 @ 3:00PM|#
The Democrats will round up the votes this week, with minor changes. Pelosi was surprised to not get the Republicans on board enough to allow some clingers no votes for political cover. Serves her right for her partisan diatribe before the vote.
|9.29.08 @ 3:01PM|#
I think the meme with many Democrats is that this is a bailout
for the rich, which means that it must be killed until it's a
bailout for everyone.
Not sure why the GOP voted against it. I doubt it was for anything
close to the right reasons.
|9.29.08 @ 3:03PM|#
Kraorh,
Of course, my big worry now is that they'll just load up the
bill with extra pork and goodies aimed at getting recalcitrant Dems
to get on board.
But if that's all they do, they'll lose as many votes on the right
as they gain on the left - at least as many.
BDB|9.29.08 @ 3:03PM|#
Pro L-
That makes sense. I think that's why my ultra-libruh Congressman
wasn't on board.
|9.29.08 @ 3:03PM|#
I'm having that same "did I get up in the wrong parallel
universe?" feeling I had the first time I heard Ron Paul say
"Austrian Economists" in a televised debate.
I'm so used to being on the wrong side of public opinion (and then,
two blocks further), that when something like this happens, I can't
quite absorb it.
Maybe this whole separation of powers / Constitutional thingie was
a good idea -- I mean, the wheels seem to have fallen off the war
powers thing, but still...
Ron Paul's Left/Right/Third Party shindig is looking more relevant.
A coalition has joined around "No Socialism For The Rich." Half the
congressfolks were voting "No Socialism..." and half were voting
against "...For The Rich".
And McBama looks really, really lame now.
|9.29.08 @ 3:04PM|#
Dear god, the woman (Donna Edwards) who replaced that 300 lb
sack of shit, Albert Wynn, voted against the bill. I didn't think
she had it in her. I have no doubts he would have voted for
it.
It must have been my impassioned email I sent to her this AM that
tipped the scales.
BDB|9.29.08 @ 3:06PM|#
I guess I'll vote for Scott now instead of writing in the name of my cat like I usually do(he's always unopposed).
|9.29.08 @ 3:06PM|#
They voted against it because Nancy hurt their feelings?
Really?
Republicans who thought this was necessary to save the nation
changed their mind because Nancy Pelosi is mean? What a bunch of
whiny, irresponsible assholes.
Or, they didn't think it was necessary, and were going to spend
$700 billion in taxpayer money for something they didn't believe
was necessary, purely for political reasons? What a bunch of whiny,
irresponsible hacks.
I'm with James Ard. Republicans suck.
Mike Laursen|9.29.08 @ 3:07PM|#
I'm fucking amazed the house had the spine to vote this
down.
I'm really happy the voted it down. However, I heard that the polls
show more Americans are opposed to the plan than for it, so the
House members are actually going along with public opinion and what
will get them re-elected. They are saying, "Up yours!", to the Bush
Administration, which is awesome!
|9.29.08 @ 3:07PM|#
BDB, the minorities I have been hearing seem especially angry about the bailout. My guess is The Democrat nos were probably from poorer districts. Despite the fact that the poor have the least to lose in a bailout.
|9.29.08 @ 3:07PM|#
Not sure why the GOP voted against it. I doubt it was for
anything close to the right reasons.
I actually looked at it as kind of the opposite.
Most Dems would be happy to bail out Wall Street under the belief
that something must be done and this is their chance to add
regulations. And they want to get as many concessions as they can
from the WH and the GOP (hence the stupid focus on things like
executive compensation and mortgage cram downs)
But for the GOP, it's hard to reconcile "regualtions bad free
markets good" and "personal responsibility" with "bailout wall
street".
Rank and File GOPers have to answer to their voters soon. I get why
GOP leaders are for the bailout, but it would make no sense to me
if the majority of Republicans didn't oppose it (especially this
close to an election)
No one likes to basically out themselves has hypocrites.
|9.29.08 @ 3:08PM|#
I'll be very interested to see which way this goes. Will the
Dems just say "Fuck it" to the Repubs, and pass a partisan bill?
Can they do so and get it through the Senate?.
If not, which way lies a bi-partisan bill?
Is it really a matter of just not enough goodies hanging off the
Christmas tree, so if leadership adds a few more they can buy the
handful of votes they need? That's gotten a lot harder, because now
we know exactly who will be switching their votes, and they will be
tarred as having been bought off against the wishes of their
constituent by leadership. And, for a truly bi-partisan
ass-covering, they will need more than just a bare majority bill
opposed by a majority of Republicans. I don't know that a Christmas
tree bill gets the job done either.
And who is going to stay in Washington the month before an election
to work on it?
JP|9.29.08 @ 3:08PM|#
I think the meme with many Democrats is that this is a
bailout for the rich, which means that it must be killed until it's
a bailout for everyone.
Not sure why the GOP voted against it. I doubt it was for anything
close to the right reasons.
Thanks a lot, Mr. Buzzkill!
|9.29.08 @ 3:08PM|#
The polls vary greatly depending on how the question is asked. There are several showing a strong majority supporting a bailout bill in theory.
Crisis of Ethics|9.29.08 @ 3:09PM|#
Money quote in the spin dept:
"As I said on the floor, this is a bipartisan responsibility
and we think (Democrats) met our responsibility," said House
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md.
BDB|9.29.08 @ 3:09PM|#
That makes sense, James. Still I feel like I'm in Bizzaro World for actually agreeing with Bobby Scott! The world turned upside down, as it were.
|9.29.08 @ 3:10PM|#
RC,
Can they do so and get it through the Senate?.
Senate Republicans tend to be more mellow than House Republicans,
so I'd think the Senate would be friendlier ground than the House
for a Democratic bill. Oddly enough.
Fluffy|9.29.08 @ 3:11PM|#
It's back down to almost 600 down now.
If a bounce doesn't develop in the next 20 minutes the last half
hour of the trading day could be very interesting.
|9.29.08 @ 3:12PM|#
majority supporting a bailout bill in theory.
Bad in theory, disastrous in practice.
My headline for tomorrow:
"Dow plummets as reality is allowed in financial markets"
|9.29.08 @ 3:12PM|#
Oddly, joe's comment @ 3:06 pm almost exactly mirrors my
comments late last week on the Dem search for Republican cover for
this bill.
Repubs oppose bill because Nancy tries to muscle them and are
therefor not serious/partisan hacks = Dems won't pass bill without
political cover from Repubs and are therefor not serious/partisan
hacks.
I think we can agree that the rather distasteful glimpse into the
sausage factory at work the past week has shown that Dems and
Repubs are both predominantly not serious/partisan hacks.
Who was it said that the unfortunate thing about politics was that
90% of politicians gave the other 10% a bad name?
|9.29.08 @ 3:12PM|#
Not sure why the GOP voted against it. I doubt it was for
anything close to the right reasons.
According to James Ard (and the people who tell him what he
thinks), they voted against it becaue Nancy Pelosi didn't kiss
their asses enough.
Personally, I give them more credit than that.
|9.29.08 @ 3:13PM|#
We need a few days of the Dow falling through the floor...some runs on some banks, and this could get to be a lot of fun...
BDB|9.29.08 @ 3:13PM|#
The "Nancy hurt my feelings" meme is really fucking stupid and they're going to regret they started it.
Amakudari|9.29.08 @ 3:14PM|#
These people are the heart of the democratic voting block,
and they were strongly opposed to the bailout.
Well, every public opinion poll I've seen has shown
widespread opposition. I wonder how the protest vote will shape the
coming elections. The Senate especially is drinking the Kool-Aid on
this one.
In terms of a pragmatic solution, I would hope they come up with a
strict, greatly reduced plan (Ã la joe's assumption), because
inaction simply won't happen.
The two largest retail banks that could have been saved by a quick
passage -- WaMu and Wachovia -- are out of the picture (and
painlessly, in terms of impact on the FDIC), so there's no reason
to hurry. Citi, JPMorgan and BofA are diversified enough that
they're fine, and regional banks like National City may not be able
to handle the capital hits from asset write-downs under any
reasonable program, honestly. Now TARP is tied even more to
preserving Wall Street, and I only expect public angst to
increase.
|9.29.08 @ 3:15PM|#
Rank and File GOPers have to answer to their voters soon. I
get why GOP leaders are for the bailout, but it would make no sense
to me if the majority of Republicans didn't oppose it (especially
this close to an election)
Sadly, this is when the Stupid Party shines: when it has no real
power other than obstructionism. I say keep 'em in the minority,
but only barely, and things might actually get better for a
while.
|9.29.08 @ 3:15PM|#
BDB,
Maybe they can go Full Daschle, and start whimpering about "comfort
zones."
Mew mew, I don't think the American people are comfortable with
this harsh, partisan rhetoric mew mew.
Roy, you went Full Daschle. You never go Full Daschle.
BDB|9.29.08 @ 3:15PM|#
Absolutely. The Republicans rock as an opposition Party. The Democrats suck at one, because they have no spine.
|9.29.08 @ 3:16PM|#
That's it. Obama wins the presidency.
I'd personally love to hate-fuck Pelosi right now. Cum on her back,
steal $50 out of her purse, leave out the window, never call her
again.
|9.29.08 @ 3:16PM|#
The reason the GOP voted against it is simple: They wanted to take credit for voting against it without having to face the consequences of it not passing...Democrats (who are maybe even less excited to bail out businesses) were not going to take the fall for doing something they didn't really like to do, but were being told that must be done.
BDB|9.29.08 @ 3:17PM|#
How about full Reid, joe?
Tom DeLay would have never said "Pelosi was too mean".
|9.29.08 @ 3:18PM|#
I doubt the GOP cares that much about Pelosi. She's too weak a
Speaker to be worth that kind of effort. Some GOP representatives
voted against this on principle, I'm sure--Flake, Paul, other
economic conservatives. Some voted against it for some sort of
strategic political reason or reasons. The rest I can't figure
out.
What I think this may show is that the House as a whole isn't
buying the looming disaster story.
|9.29.08 @ 3:18PM|#
BDB | September 29, 2008, 3:15pm | #
Absolutely. The Republicans rock as an opposition Party. The
Democrats suck at one, because they have no spine.
Similarly, the Republicans couldn't successfully march a troop of
Boy Scouts across an open field with molesting half of them and
letting the others die of exposure.
They're just no good as a governing party, but damn! they make for
an effective opposition.
BDB|9.29.08 @ 3:19PM|#
That's because Republicans are best when they are opposing
government expansion, Democrats are most effective when they're
arguing for it.
When they're reversed, it gets fucked up.
|9.29.08 @ 3:19PM|#
Jamie--Give me a call and we'll tag team her. I'll split the cash with you 60-40 and have the car ready.
|9.29.08 @ 3:19PM|#
"I'll be very interested to see which way this goes. Will the
Dems just say "Fuck it" to the Repubs, and pass a partisan bill?
Can they do so and get it through the Senate?."
No way would the Republicans filabuster a Democratic bill on this.
Then they really would get stuck with the blame if things went
wrong. The Republicans would just vote against it and let it pass
and kill the Democrats for giving away 700 billion to Wall
Street.
The Democrats run congress. They have the support of the President
and no threat of a filabuster. If they can't get this thing
through, it is on them.
BDB|9.29.08 @ 3:19PM|#
But the Republicans opposing them tooth-and-nail limits the suckery. I'm talking a close majority, not a big one.
BDB|9.29.08 @ 3:21PM|#
I read why my Congressman voted against it. James Ard is right--minorities hate this bill. Basically he said he's not bailing out Wall St. bankers and bunch of upper middle class folks who bought a $600,000 house when they could only afford a $400,000 one.
|9.29.08 @ 3:21PM|#
There's a diary on Daily Kos with the roll call.
Thanks, joe. Use an HTML link next time! ;-)
My oh so leftist congresscritter, Kwame's mom, Carolyn Cheeks
Kilpatrick voted nay. I could almost kiss her over
this.
|9.29.08 @ 3:21PM|#
Pro Libertate | September 29, 2008, 3:19pm | #
Which would be great, except that the Democrats suck in power,
too.
Meh. Say what you will about Bubba Clinton, he didn't leave any
earth-shattering disasters in his wake. My appreciation for that
style of leadership has grown over the past 7.5 years.
|9.29.08 @ 3:22PM|#
I think we are missing the real problem with American economic policy which is that we let the Dow determine what we should be doing, they have been trying to blackmail us during the past weeks to hand them tons of money(more than has been spent in that stupid Iraq war).
|9.29.08 @ 3:23PM|#
he didn't leave any earth-shattering disasters in his
wake.
No, just a long series of low-intensity failures and compromises
that brought us, for one thing, 9/11.
DannyK|9.29.08 @ 3:23PM|#
Here's that Kos roll call post:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/29/11452/7359/37/614233
|9.29.08 @ 3:23PM|#
Actually, I didn't claim Republicans flipped BECAUSE of the speech, I said it served her right being so partisan, not that it cost the vote. Pelosi is an incompetent fool who blew the count before her stupid speech.
Fluffy|9.29.08 @ 3:23PM|#
I'm looking at some of the Democrat nay's.
Kirsten Gillibrand-NY, for example. A first termer in a GOP heavy
district. Pelosi couldn't deliver her vote? Freshwoman reps who
need the support of the national party in their own districts are
thumbing their nose at Pelosi?
Pelosi should resign as Speaker. If she can't control her caucus on
Da Biggisht Vote of Da All Time, she has to go. And as I said
above, the fact that she apparently didn't even realize she didn't
have the votes makes her look seriously incompetent. If you can't
count to 218 you shouldn't be Speaker.
Yad Vashem|9.29.08 @ 3:24PM|#
Meh. Say what you will about Bubba Clinton, he didn't leave
any earth-shattering disasters in his wake. My appreciation for
that style of leadership has grown over the past 7.5
years.
You are pushing your luck, little man.
kinnath|9.29.08 @ 3:25PM|#
Similarly, the Republicans couldn't successfully march a
troop of Boy Scouts across an open field with molesting half of
them and letting the others die of exposure.
They're just no good as a governing party, but damn! they make for
an effective opposition.
Recipe for good governance ;-)
Pissed-off republican minority in the house. 50/50 split in the
senate. Alertnating presidents.
Not much happens without months or even years of negotiations.
BDB|9.29.08 @ 3:26PM|#
Whens the last time the DOW actually ended up lower than when a President took office?
|9.29.08 @ 3:27PM|#
Mr. Welch, tell us again why you think there's no real financial
crisis - what were you saying about the TED spread?
But I guess facts don't matter. How about correcting the record? Do
you even know why the TED spread matters?
|9.29.08 @ 3:27PM|#
DJI still up 12.6% over the last five years.
Give 'er time. It's only been a couple hours.
Jerry|9.29.08 @ 3:29PM|#
This just in: DJI still up 12.6% over the last five years.
So is the Zimbabwean stock exchange I heard.
|9.29.08 @ 3:29PM|#
Fox headline: "Pelosi: We Want to Protect the Middle
Class"
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
|9.29.08 @ 3:31PM|#
DJI still up 12.6% over the last five years.
And what good is 12.6% when the dollar is down 30?
|9.29.08 @ 3:31PM|#
Minority-majority district, J sub?
Detroit Michigan*. Minority majority city. She would have gotten
re-elected no matter how she voted. She barely eked out a primary
win while her son was still not a convicted felon. But in her
district Beelzebub(D) could beat Jesus(R).
* and the Grosse Pointes.
BDB|9.29.08 @ 3:32PM|#
I'm beginning to think it was a very odd coalition that killed this bill--black Democrats, blue dog Democrats, conservative/libertarian Republicans, and Republicans who had their feelings hurt by Pelosi.
|9.29.08 @ 3:33PM|#
Contrary to some speculation, it looks like the Democratic Nays came maninly from the party's left wing, not the Blue Dogs.
|9.29.08 @ 3:34PM|#
I hate to say it, but I am actually proud of congress. I didn't realize that there were republicans who still had values; now we know. I am proud of my country today, honestly, for good or bad, someone took a stand against this bullshit.
|9.29.08 @ 3:34PM|#
to find out how your rep voted:
http://home.wickedlocal.com/2008/09/29/how-did-your-rep-vote-on-the-bailout/
|9.29.08 @ 3:35PM|#
Here's
the vote breakdown in case it wasn't yet posted
here.
See joe? miche shows how it's done.
|9.29.08 @ 3:35PM|#
If you look at opinion sites, this bill was hated by the far left and far right, but loved by most of the extablishment(Centerists, Center-Left Center-Right)
|9.29.08 @ 3:36PM|#
joe,
He also faced a GOP Congress most of his time in office. And the
times were radically different, no thanks to him or to anyone else
in government--Cold War bonus, technology boom, smaller government,
no 9/11.
Why anyone wants to increase the power of the federal government is
beyond me. The ineptitude and dishonesty of these people makes them
untrustworthy in the extreme. Even if we're facing financial chaos,
I'd rather leave it to the market to sort out than let these jokers
"manage" things. Not even considering my libertarian preferences,
there's just no way we can cede any more power to these barking
monkeys. Who, if they've done a good thing today, we can rest
assured will do a bad thing tomorrow.
JP|9.29.08 @ 3:36PM|#
A good one from Arnold Kling (at EconLog) today:
Think of the mortgage securities market as a poker game being
played on a ship. The game is grinding to a halt, because so many
players have lost most of their chips. So they come out on deck and
shout, "Emergency! Emergency! The ship is about to sink! Everybody
needs to give the ship's Bursar authority to play poker, using
money from the ship's vault!" It's not clear that the ship is
sinking, or how reviving the poker game would help if it
is.
djia|9.29.08 @ 3:40PM|#
Whens the last time the DOW actually ended up lower than
when a President took office?
Carter.
Jan. 20, 1977: 959.03
Jan. 20, 1981: 950.68
Guy Montag|9.29.08 @ 3:41PM|#
My fine Rep, the Honerable Jimmy Duncan (R-TN) voted NO. Just like he did with forming the Homeland Security dept. and the PATRIOT Act.
|9.29.08 @ 3:41PM|#
This whole episode does something very important I think for Americans which is damages their faith in the stock market, which I think can only yield good in the future.
|9.29.08 @ 3:42PM|#
This proves the far left are fucking idiots. The bailout would be the biggest step ever towards their beloved socialist paradise.
|9.29.08 @ 3:45PM|#
Dow coming back a bit (10566.96, -576.17 (-5.17%)). Planning on throwing money into the stock market over the next dew days if it comes down a bit more.
|9.29.08 @ 3:48PM|#
My rep, Dan Cazayoux was a nay. Poor guy though, all the political posturing in the world won't save his seat with a black independent in the race. Republicans retake the LA sixth in a romp.
Citizen Nothing|9.29.08 @ 3:48PM|#
I'm with you Andrew. I wish I had some free cash right about now.
|9.29.08 @ 3:49PM|#
Based on my normal MSM news gathering methods (Google News) I
would say the reporting on the failure of this bill to pass is the
most universally whiny I've ever seen at a national level. The only
thing I've ever seen that even compares to it was when Jesse
Ventura won the governor's election, but that was limited to
Minnesota media.
Their "professional objectivity" gets really strained when people
don't do what they say.
JP|9.29.08 @ 3:52PM|#
Their "professional objectivity" gets really strained when
people don't do what they say.
HAHAHA! Sit on it & rotate, you whiny little bitches!
Dixiecrat|9.29.08 @ 3:58PM|#
So far the 'financial crisis' has been great for me. All of my pre-existing lowball bids on small stocks have been successful after months of not dropping low enough, and my mortgage lender just contacted me to let me know now is the time to lock in a super low interest rate, since my credit is excellent. Maybe I will get to own my home one day after all.
|9.29.08 @ 3:58PM|#
I should do my patriotic duty and head to the nearest car lot and replace the Expedition. With five grand down, I'm thinking somebody will write me a note.
Kolohe|9.29.08 @ 4:17PM|#
from way up there by John:
One thing that does make me feel a little optimistic is perhaps this could be the return of the bo weivel Democrats. I haven't looked at the vote, but I bet most if not all of the Dems who voted agianst it are from red states and did so because 99% of their constiuent calls were against it.
Both HI congresspersons (D's) voted Nay (and abercombie's one of
the most liberal persons ever to be in the House). A quick glance
shows 2 Va democrats voted Aye (Boucher, Moran) and one Scott voted
against. Moran and Scott are pretty conventional urban liberal,
Boucher's the one in a socially more conservative part of the
state.
|9.29.08 @ 4:25PM|#
Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders
tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to
finance loans for lower-income families. . . . "These two entities
- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial
crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the
ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more
people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on
these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable
housing."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&scp=1&sq=&st=nyt
CRA had a lot to do with this. Further, the reason why they
couldn't fix the problem before it was to late was that jackasses
like Barney Frank cried racism when they tried to clean up Freddie
Mac and Fannie Mae.
BDB|9.29.08 @ 4:29PM|#
John, the foreclosures I'm seeing where I live have to do with lilly-white upper middle class people who bought a $400,000 home when they could only really afford $200,000.
|9.29.08 @ 4:30PM|#
I flipped CNBC on a few minutes ago, in time to hear that fucking imbecile Charlie Gasparino boo-hooing about how Nancy Pelosi wrecked this "absolutely necessary" bill. What a useles sack of shit.
voxpo|9.29.08 @ 4:33PM|#
Amakudari | September 29, 2008, 3:14pm | #
...inaction simply won't happen.
You mean government inaction, right? ;)
|9.29.08 @ 4:35PM|#
My god, what a bunch of blathering hysterics. Now there's some
moron claiming this was a well-thought-out, terrific plan. What the
fuck is wrong with those people?
I'll answer my own question- they think The Dow is the economy.
Amakudari|9.29.08 @ 4:38PM|#
One thing that does make me feel a little optimistic is
perhaps this could be the return of the bo weivel Democrats. I
haven't looked at the vote, but I bet most if not all of the Dems
who voted agianst it are from red states and did so because 99% of
their constiuent calls were against it.
It's pretty sloppy, but I broke things down ad hoc to see where
votes were coming from (somewhat
arbitrary Census divisions here):
Format: Division Aye-No (Aye%)
Democrats
Midwest
East North Central 19-14 (58%)
West North Central 6-5 (55%)
Total 25-19 (57%)
Northeast
Middle Atlantic 32-9 (78%)
New England 13-8 (62%)
Total 45-17 (73%)
South
East South Central 6-6 (50%)
South Atlantic 24-11 (69%)
West South Central 10-10 (50%)
Total 40-27 (60%)
West
Mountain 2-9 (18%)
Pacific 25-21 (54%)
Total 27-30 (47%)
Republicans
Midwest
East North Central 11-23 (32%)
West North Central 3-12 (20%)
Total 14-35 (29%)
Northeast
Middle Atlantic 8-12 (40%)
New England 1-0 (100%)
Total 9-12 (43%)
South
East South Central 7-7 (50%)
South Atlantic 11-34 (24%)
West South Central 7-21 (25%)
Total 25-62 (29%)
West
Mountain 6-11 (35%)
Pacific 11-13 (46%)
Total 17-24 (41%)
|9.29.08 @ 4:40PM|#
Say what you will about Bubba Clinton, he didn't leave any
earth-shattering disasters in his wake.
Well, not counting a couple of missing towers in Manhattan,
anyway.
And I could have sworn that the repeal of Glass-Steagal being
blamed for this (wrongly, IMO) was signed by Bill.
|9.29.08 @ 4:44PM|#
Hank is very disappointed. He will continue to terrorize America until the country submits.
|9.29.08 @ 4:51PM|#
The TV news executives probably have all their stocks invested
in financials, that's why they are so pro-bailout.
You know, the collapse of Wall Street might just be the biggest
wealth equalizing event in our lifetimes. Who says the market only
causes increasing inequality?
Dog\'s New Clothes|9.29.08 @ 4:56PM|#
J sub,
CHEEKS! This is a surprise. If I didn't think about it for more
than a couple seconds, I might consider voting for her. But she's
running against a Libertarian named Gregory Creswell, so the choice
is obvious.
|9.29.08 @ 5:04PM|#
"This bailout is an evil scheme! It's putting the money of
hardworking Americans in hands of big businesses"
Too bad, if they DON'T take some of your money the rest of it will
be WORTHLESS.
Kolohe|9.29.08 @ 5:05PM|#
Say what you will about Bubba Clinton, he didn't leave any
earth-shattering disasters in his wake.
Well, not counting a couple of missing towers in Manhattan,
anyway.
Come on you're better than this.
voxpo|9.29.08 @ 5:06PM|#
R C Dean | September 29, 2008, 4:40pm | #
Well, not counting a couple of missing towers in Manhattan,
anyway.
Yes, Clinton did continue Bush I's (who built military bases in
Saudi Arabia) policy.
Ulysses Berman|9.29.08 @ 5:12PM|#
You're seriously comparing this to the Medicare drug vote?
The latter was:
- an overnight vote
- held open for over 3 hours
- during which lobbyists freely roamed the House floor
- for a permanent entitlement
- in which the government was specifically proscribed from
negotiating bulk pricing on the very product they were providing
through the entitlement
among many other things.
Nobody likes this plan. But there's no need to inject stupidity
into the argument.
Northwestern|9.29.08 @ 5:21PM|#
Republicans are protecting the interest of tax payers. These are
the reasons why it was rejected and a list of items that the
Democrats are trying to hide within the bailout hoping it is pushed
through quickly because of the current panic:
TRIAL LAWYERS - Instead of investigating the scandal-plagued
American trial lawyer industry, the Democratic Congress has showed
it in pork, tucking special benefits into major bills to benefit
the industry at the expense of American taxpayers - and the
economic rescue bill has been no exception. Working drafts of the
bill include so-called 'cramdown' provisions allowing bankruptcy
judges to reduce mortgage principal under the guise of helping
those at risk of foreclosure. If enacted into law, the provision
would be a bonanza for trial lawyers and undercut the effectiveness
of any economic recovery effort by making it even harder to value
mortgage-backed securities.
WASHINGTON LABOR BOSSES - Washington's powerful big labor bosses -
another special-interest constituency closely aligned with the
Democratic Party - also get a big handout in the working draft of
the bailout bill. So-called "say on pay" or "proxy access"
provisions have been added to the bill by Democrats proposing to
mandate a nonbinding shareholder vote on proxy access and other
issues for all companies in which the Treasury Department buys a
direct stake in certain assets. The proposal can and should include
restrictions on executive compensation for participating firms in a
responsible manner without allowing Washington labor bosses to have
an undue say on corporate governance at the expense of American
workers and their prosperity.
ACORN - The draft bill includes a left-wing giveaway that would
force taxpayers to bankroll a slush fund for a discredited ally of
the Democratic Party. At issue is the Association of Community
Organizations for Reform Now - better known as ACORN - an
organization fraught with controversy for, among other scandals,
its fraudulent voter registration activities on behalf of
Democratic candidates. Rather than returning any profits made in
the long-term from the economic rescue package, Democrats want to
first reward their radical allies at ACORN for their (often
illegal) help in getting Democrats elected to office. Families,
seniors, small businesses, and all American taxpayers deserve
better.
MORTGAGE INDUSTRY BAD ACTORS - The draft of the bill includes
"foreclosure mitigation" provisions that essentially establish a
preference for purchasing assets with the goals of modifying or
restructuring loans. House Republicans believe the goal of the
rescue legislation should be to stabilize the markets and protect
taxpayers - NOT to use taxpayer dollars to identify assets to
purchase in order to improve loan workouts. Congress has already
enacted one irresponsible housing bailout to deal with the mess
created by the Democrats' refusal to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac. We don't need another.
Roger Maltz|9.29.08 @ 5:26PM|#
Citizen Nothing sez: "Seriously, who gives a shit about the
stock market?"
So where do you have all your savings, henry?
Kruggerands in a coffee can buried in the back yard? In the bank at
1 percent interest (while inflation rages ever onward)?
In that bag of Doritos sitting on your coffee table?
Well, you basically just described my savings situation (that and
the mortgage I pay), although I don't keep impure slag like the
Krugerrand.
alan|9.29.08 @ 5:29PM|#
jmd | September 29, 2008, 2:45pm | #
the wacko fringe of libertarians don't care about the stock market
or banks cuz they don't believe in credit in the first place.
everything in gold or cash only. credit was something evil invented
by the illuminati. i think they also believe usury is a sin, but i
can't confirm that for sure.
Grotesque mischaracterization. Criticism of fractional banking is
essentially about accounting methods. When a bank lends money, its
reserves go down, and are accounted for as such. In other words,
sure they can lend, they just can't make shit up out of thin air
because that is fraud.
|9.29.08 @ 6:30PM|#
My Rep., the honorable Sam Farr (D), made me proud awhile back,
and earned praise from the local Libertarian Party, by introducing
a bill to rescind the President's authorization to use military
force in Iraq. As far as I could tell, he was the first to do so in
the House. It was a move I thought Ron Paul might make, and how
surprised I was to see Mr. Farr's name on the bill -- and NOT Ron
Paul's, as co-sponsor, at least! That's the right way to begin
ending this War and I was very happy that this bit of common sense
was injected into the House of Representatives by the fellow who
represented my own region. The Monterey Libertarian Party
apparently felt similarly, and I read that its leader spoke
glowingly about Farr in honor of that bill and several other
"libertarian" things he has done lately.
But I was not so proud to see Farr's name in today's list of "Aye"
votes for the bailout scheme, particularly as I had sent him a
letter recently, urging him to vote against it. I mean, what can
you say about someone who votes to put you personally on the hook
for another $7,000 to pay for someone else's misjudgment, when you
have personally asked him not to do so? I know I shouldn't be
disappointed that a Democrat Party stalwart acted this way, but as
he is MY representative, I can't help it.
Mobius|9.29.08 @ 7:49PM|#
Yeah, the Spiro Agnew reference killed me, too - what a moron. Any idea where we can get his entire remarks in transcript format? I'd love to pick this fool apart some more. LoL
Mike Laursen|9.30.08 @ 2:58AM|#
Give 'er time. It's only been a couple hours.
OK, the DJI is up 11% in the last five years. Not great, but you
still couldn't describe it as total economic meltdown.
And what good is 12.6% when the dollar is down 30?
Now that's a good point, although are you sure that the amount of
inflation of the dollar in the last five years isn't more like
19%.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245