September 29, 2008

The bailout fails!

Crash!

ADDED: They just couldn't choke down that crap sandwich!

Woe to us all! Right? Or... not....

512 comments:

1 – 200 of 512   Newer›   Newest»
ricpic said...

Halellujah!

Roger J. said...

something like 68 democrats bucked their leadership and voted against it. Must have been some pretty strong opposition to it at home.

Hoosier Daddy said...

So much for bi-partisanship. I'll be interested to see the make up of the no vote.

Concerned Citizen said...

"All together shout it now. There's no one who can doubt it now. Let's tell the world about it now....

Your cares and troubles are gone.
There's be no more from now on."

Dig that crazy xylophone!

Hoosier Daddy said...

That's interesting Roger. Looks like Speaker Pelosi can't control her minions either.

Roger J. said...

Hoosier: I think the honorable members said screw the leadership, we want to get reelected in November.

$9,000,000,000 Write Off said...

Huzza! The people in this video do not know what they are doing, and we shouldn't subsidze that ignorance with $700,000,000,000

Dust Bunny Queen said...

sigh

Simon said...

They say that partisanship is an obstacle to progress. It appears that bipartisanship is not without its wrinkles, either.

John K. said...

Yay! Maybe some politicians do respond to their constituents some teeny tiny bit after all.

Simon said...

So, what now? A motion to reconsider? Try to pass the GOP's insurance only approach? Do nothing?

We have two men asking to be given leadership of the country. Here's an opportunity for one of them to actually show leadership instead of waiting to be given it.

rhhardin said...

Back in the Penn Central days, the Fed called up bankers all weekend and said that if anybody comes in Monday wanting a loan, give it to them.

Martin Mayer has better material now.

LarsPorsena said...

BO first failure as presumptive president. He couldn't close the deal for the fix. He couldn't even hold the votes of his own party.

Recession on Wall Street. Depression at ACORN headquarters. Now, back to watching my 401k, and 457 burn to the ground...........

Trevor Jackson said...

Lars, there's plenty of fail to go around. Apparently, McCain didn't suspend his campaign for long enough either.

ricpic said...

Watch the world NOT come to an end.

John K. said...

Simon said: "It appears that bipartisanship is not without its wrinkles, either."

Yes, this was an example, refreshing in its clarity, of the leadership of both parties being starkly opposed to the expressed interests of the vast majority of Americans. Refreshing also in that the will of the people has in this instance thus far prevailed.

EnigmatiCore said...

Any time the GOP threatens to shed the Stupid Party label, it hunkers down and glues it right back in place.

The Democrats should craft their own plan and pass it on a party-line vote.

LarsPorsena said...

"We have two men asking to be given leadership of the country. Here's an opportunity for one of them to actually show leadership instead of waiting to be given it."

Echo Simon.

Mortimer Brezny said...

The central bank is handling it.

Palladian said...

We're fucked.

LarsPorsena said...

"The Democrats should craft their own plan and pass it on a party-line vote."

I concur.

mcg said...

I'm with Simon. Where the hell are the presidential candidates?

mcg said...

And yes I really do mean both of them.

Simon said...

John K. said...
"Refreshing also in that the will of the people has in this instance thus far prevailed."

Certainly most ordinary folks appear to be against the bailout, and not without good reason. Still, I cannot help but feel that we're about to test H.L. Menken's proposition that democracy is the theory that the common man knows what he wants, and deserves to get it - good and hard.

Theo Boehm said...

As of a few minutes ago, I just lost $17,000 in supposedly conservative and safe stocks. Fucking TODAY!!

Tell me about the long term, Republicans. Just like 1929.

Yep, if you waited 28 years back then, you would get your money back in something like 1957.

Yes, tell me about the long term, you sons of bitches.

mcg said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hoosier Daddy said...

Hoosier: I think the honorable members said screw the leadership, we want to get reelected in November.

Perhaps. Honestly, I'm don't have the economic savvy to say whether this was a good thing or bad. While the thought of bailing out private institutions is contrary to my principles, I do wonder what the ramifications to the economy as a whole will be.

Seems to me, we're going to have to eat a shit sandwhich whether we ordered one or not.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Theo and Palladian

Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Told'ya.

erniecu73 said...

EnigmatiCore said...
Any time the GOP threatens to shed the Stupid Party label, it hunkers down and glues it right back in place.

The Democrats should craft their own plan and pass it on a party-line vote.

1:48 PM


They voted against this one too. I'm not sure I get your point.

Theo Boehm said...

I just moved what's left in my stock account into money market funds.

Let's see if that goes away, too.

Democrats, deal with it, and fuck the Republicans for another 40 years.

You've got the votes. Screw the sons of bitches.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Grow up, Theo.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Theo. You are mistaken in thinking this is a Republican only generated depression. The Democrats hold the most blame.

But there is plenty of blame to go around. Too late now though.

read

chickenlittle said...

Theo- I'm not sure that wise, but of course it depends on your investment horizon.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Democrats, deal with it, and fuck the Republicans for another 40 years.

You've got the votes. Screw the sons of bitches


Theo, if they had the votes, the bill would have passed eh?

Roger J indicated that some 68 Dems voted nay so assuming that figure is accurate, it just isn't those fucking Republicans.

Will said...

Theo: way to lock in your losses. "Hey everybody else is panicking, maybe I should too!"

mcg said...

I know people are suggesting that the Democrats pass a bill of their own here, but I'm telling you, it is not going to happen. Michael Moore is calling this "The biggest robbery in the history if this country." There is a cliff of non-support on both sides of the political spectrum here.

Bipartisan support is really the only way this 'crap sandwich' is going to pass.

AlphaLiberal said...

Republicans could not deliver the votes. Dems rejected many elements that our base wanted, in order to put something together that the Repubs would back.

John Boehner seems to be crying on TV that Nancy Pelosi hurt his caucuses' feelings so they couldn't vote for it. Prima Fricken Donnas.

rhhardin said...

There's simpler things to do, like eliminate mark to market, which in this circumstance has been guaranteeing an instability mode exists.

Instabilities are the most interestsing things in life.

They give you herringbone clouds and a thousand other things, some not so benign.

The Lockheed Electra had a really cool coning instability in the engine mounts that occasionally, and for quite a while mysteriously, would tear off a wing.

Anyway mark to market is an instability mechanism at the moment.

Will said...

Here's the roll-call. It's a pretty mixed bag: conservatives and liberals on both side of the vote.

mcg said...

I just moved what's left in my stock account into money market funds.

You're joking, right? Money market funds are at risk too you know.

ricpic said...

My investments are tanking too but better the pain be sharp and swift and the correction start soon then the no one fails no one recovers regime these apparatchiks were trying to put in place.

Peter V. Bella said...

If Nancy Pelosi had kept her mouth shut it may have passed. She just had to give her blame speech; it is all Bush's fault. It is all the Republicans fault. Now let's be bipartisan and play nice.

She is responsible for this catastrophe and a pox on her.

EnigmatiCore said...

"They voted against this one too. I'm not sure I get your point."

There was a compromise between what the GOP wanted and the Democrats wanted.

The Democrats voted in a higher percentage for it than the GOP did.

The Democrats should now pass what they want without concessions to the GOP.

L. E. Lee said...

Most of the Republicans (and Democrats) who voted against it do not have opposition or do not have serious opposition in next month's elections.

mcg said...

Note that the Senate wasn't going to vote on this until Wednesday, I believe. There is still time for last minute negotiations to save this. Interestingly it might very well require further compromise on Pelosi's part.

mcg said...

The Democrats should now pass what they want without concessions to the GOP.

If they could, they would. I don't think they can.

AlphaLiberal said...

Here's a post from our Orange Overlord Kos heavily criticizing Pelosi for the bill.

This thing was watered down to placate Republicans and then they bailed on it. As was predicted they would, so they could let Dems do the heavy lifting and then run against it.

Up until now I wasn't sure I believed that scenario was true.

The Crybaby Caucus returns.

rhhardin said...

There's nothing wrong with selling. It might go down, it might go up.

It's a question whether you can afford the risk on the downside or not.

``I'm not trying to get rich. I'm trying to stay rich,'' is the best investment advice I've run into, if retirement is in the visible future.

amba said...

the will of the people has in this instance thus far prevailed.

Are the people willing to pay the price of their will? Do they even know what it is? The Great Depression has almost passed out of living memory.

Hoosier Daddy said...

There was a compromise between what the GOP wanted and the Democrats wanted.

The Democrats should now pass what they want without concessions to the GOP.


So much for working across the aisle eh?

Trevor Jackson said...

Peter, that's ridiculous. The Republicans' pride is more important than the economy's stability?

AlphaLiberal said...

Ed Rollins, last week: Repubs put party before country. Playing the financial crisis for electoral advantage.

Me, now: No shit, Sherlock.

The markets will just need to wait until November? What could go wrong?

erniecu73 said...

Enigmatic,

The actual percentages are pretty close. This just means that the Dems don't have the votes within their ranks to pass this as is. Not even being the ones in control. Why? Pelosi must know.

They will have to keep working on it. A lot of people noticed how "fat" the deal kept getting throughout the weekend. I am not talking moneywise, but provisions-wise. Maybe that has a lot to do with it.

Concerned Citizen said...

Paulson should have gotten on both knees, instead of one, in front of Pelosi.

No government action will happen until after Jan. 20 (120+ days from now), and the rush for the financial exits will continue apace. Hedge funds are fearing big cash outs on Sept. 1, when their redemption window briefly opens. And the short sale ban is expected to be renewed when it expires Thursday.

Basically, the parties have decided to wait to fix the system until the new guy comes in.

I was in DC over the weekend. Saw armed men in black on the roof of the White House. Never saw that before. About two blocks away I saw this exhibit at the Corcoran Gallery. 'Home Suite' by Eleana Del Rivero. At first I thought it was a joke. Then I understood. All that paper. Worthless.

TosaGuy said...

A whole bunch of Dems don't want to be part of this trainwreck either. This vote was not naming some post office or some other BS. This is a vote that will hang around a Rep's neck for years. The Dems control the house and can pass any bill they want to at anytime. Nancy P wanted bipartisan cover and then went on a partisan blame spree. How does that encourage bipartisanship? Nancy P had 65 GOP votes on this. She utterly failed to hold her own party together so blaming this on the GOP is ridiculous. The Dems still can ram their own bill through, just like they could have last week, but they don't want to do that.

Theo Boehm said...

Paul: That is a perfectly reasonable plan. Ben Bernanke is the leading expert on the liquidity crisis in 1929, and he at least partly came up with this plan to avert just what is happening. People don't like it because they don't understand the effects of a credit crisis. Nobody likes this bail out, but it's absolutely necessary.

And don't fucking tell me to grow up. I'm saying that somebody has to step up and solve this. The Democrats seemed to have the votes. They should act. If they can't, then they ALL are fucked.

I am perfectly aware that BOTH parties and much of the financial community are to blame. I don't care who solves it, but it looks like the Republicans are hung up on supposedly free market principles, while people's savings go up in flames, just like 1929.

Yas, the market eventually DID come back to 1929 levels. It just took 28 fucking years. I should live so long.

ricpic said...

The trick in investing is not making a pile it's keeping the pile you've made from shrinking.

Also: piles aren't pleasant.

AlphaLiberal said...

Peter Bella has this odd thing to say:
If Nancy Pelosi had kept her mouth shut it may have passed.

What were the offending words? I haven't seen them. They must have been just horrible.

And you're saying that a fit of pique over a perceived slight is enough reason to tank a major bill to help our economy? It was too much to suck it up?

By all means, elaborate on that. I find the thinking fascinating.

AlphaLiberal said...

ripic:

The trick in investing is not making a pile it's keeping the pile you've made from shrinking.

This is a game of musical shitpile.

Also: piles aren't pleasant.
Don't sit on cold concrete!

mcg said...

I'll say again what I've said before: if I have to accept Obama as president in order to head off this financial crisis I will. I think the Republicans who have voted against this package may very well have cemented that either/or.

Having said that, the challenge still remains that something must be done here, IMO. And as I've indicated above, I don't think it's possible to get a unilateral plan to pass.

erniecu73 said...

You know, Theo, I am sorry, but "playing the market" has its risks. Everyone should know that. I am really sorry your 401k has gone down in value...you at least have one.

Peter V. Bella said...

Link

Several Republican aides said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had torpedoed any spirit of bipartisanship that surrounded the bill with her scathing speech near the close of the debate that blamed Bush's policies for the economic turmoil.
In her speech, Pelosi had assailed Bush and his administration for reckless economic policies.
"They claim to be free market advocates when it's really an anything-goes mentality: No regulation, no supervision, no discipline. And if you fail, you will have a golden parachute and the taxpayer will bail you out. Those days are over. The party is over," Pelosi said.

Original Mike said...

[The Dems] watered down to placate Republicans and then they bailed on it.

What items did the Deomocrats take out of the bill?

Jim Hu said...

Interesting stuff on the list of No votes.

The D candidate for Senate in CO voted NO, after appearing on MTP on Sunday. From the transcript, it's hard to see what Udall was saying, other than that his calls were split between No and Hell, no, because the R candidate seemed to be interrupting him.

bearbee said...

Huzza! The people in this video do not know what they are doing, and we shouldn't subsidze that ignorance with $700,000,000,000

C-Span vaults must be bulging with videos of self-righteous, expostulating idiots. These videos should be aired on all network and cable channels.

I'm curious just how many of them could read a balance sheet.

Brother Can You Spare a Dime

AlphaLiberal said...

The Democrats voted in a higher percentage for it than the GOP did.

Anyone have data? Oh, hell, I'll see what Kos has:
Partisan breakdown: 140 Dems for, 95 against, and 65 Rs for, 133 against. One non-voter, and that was Jerry Weller (R-IL).

So, that's 60% of majority Dems for the bill.
33% of minority Republicans for it.

Not even close.

Peter V. Bella said...

And you're saying that a fit of pique over a perceived slight is enough reason to tank a major bill to help our economy? It was too much to suck it up?

She wanted bipartisanship. She wanted everyone to play nice and come together. She demanded one hundred Republican votes.

Well, she torpedoed it. If she had kept her trap shut, it may have squeaked by. You cannot have bipartisanship if you make a partisan hate speech.

Roger J. said...

I understand some of the ripple effects of a liquidity/credit crunch. And there is going to be some pain for people--esp those looking at retirement in the near future. But I submit comparisons to the great depression are way over drawn--Do we really believe that 33% of Americans will be out of work? There were still 20% unemployed at the start of WWII. Can anyone provide me a scenario that will result in that kind of employment outcome?

Triangle Man said...

You're joking, right? Money market funds are at risk too you know.

The risks are not equivalent. Money markets are much less risky even with the "failure" last week (shares dropping 3% below the $1.00 benchmark) of Reserve Primary Fund. People who use money markets like a checking account may run into liquidity problems if another "near run" happens, but people who are trying to preserve their retirement funds don't have this concern.

mcg said...

I don't think that speech helped, that's for sure. But the words themselves really aren't the issue. Rather, they are a reflection of the lack of good faith the Democrats brought to the negotiation table. If Pelosi and Reid needed bipartisan support for this bill---and it is now clear that they did---they consistently demonstrated a lack of seriousness to achieve it.

But again, that's academic. Politically I think the Dems are likely to succeed in pinning this failure on Republicans, despite the fact that Pelosi couldn't even get her own party on board.

AlphaLiberal said...

What items did the Deomocrats take out of the bill?

See the post I helpfully provided above from Kos for some examples. Caps on exec compensation are, apparently, BS, for example.

I have my doubts over adequacy of homeowner assistance, what the taxpayers get for this.

LarsPorsena said...

mcg:
"I'll say again what I've said before: if I have to accept Obama as president in order to head off this financial crisis I will."
a
I'm in the same boat but what makes you think BO is the answer? Why didn't his magic work late last week?
When, we are told, he took charge of the meeting at the WH.

Roger J. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Peter V. Bella said...

And you're saying that a fit of pique over a perceived slight is enough reason to tank a major bill to help our economy? It was too much to suck it up?

Gee that is what Barney Frank said; one of the largest recipients of Fan/Fred and other largesse.

mcg said...

lars,

I don't think BO is the answer. On the contrary, his presidency will suck for a whole host of reasons.

All I'm saying is that, at the moment, I'm a single-issue guy. And if the political consequences, however manipulated, of this bailout failure impact the Republicans, I'll accept it---if the end result is a bailout.

On the other hand, a failed bailout and an Obama presidency would be adding insult to injury.

Michael said...

Democrats vote 2 to 1 for the
bailout.

The "Maverick" says...NADA.

The Knight in "Whining" armor evidently didn't save the day
afterall.

And the Republicans blame the defeat (by exactly the number of votes needed to make sure it failed)...on a speech by Pelosi?

Bullshit.

Roger J. said...

Alpha-if only 7 of those 95 dems had voted for the bill it would have passed--spare us that percentage bullshit. The Democrats are the majority party in the house, and the Speaker couldnt get the job done. She failed. By making it a partisan issue and trying to get republican cover, she screwed it. f**k her

Peter V. Bella said...

See the post I helpfully provided above from Kos for some examples.

KOS, not hat is hilarious. A real reputable news source.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

I'm sure glad I don't have a job so I don't have to worry about not getting a paycheck!

Hey, capitalism was fun while it lasted!

Come on guys, it's not that bad...all we really need are blogs and a dollar menu.

AlphaLiberal said...

Peter Bella sheds plenty of heat, zero light:
Well, she torpedoed it. If she had kept her trap shut, it may have squeaked by. You cannot have bipartisanship if you make a partisan hate speech.

WTF are you talking about? Do you have some text to share? Or just hyperbole?

I honestly don't know what the fuss is about.

And what does it say about them that they'd vote against an important bill because they were criticized? Hurt feelings should take precedence over the national interest?
-----------------

Cut the crap? Sorry if FACTS offended you. But, really, why should it all be up to the Democrats to pass an unpopular bill? Can you make a coherent case for that? (Probably not). A minority of GOP voted for this. FACT.

Boehner didn't even deliver a majority of his caucus.

Sigh. The grindstone calls.

Michael said...

mcg: "I don't think BO is the answer."

What exactly makes YOU more of an expert than Paulson, Buffet and others who have spent their entire lives dealing with the economy and finance?

Isn't it just possible these and other people know more than anybody here?

Hoosier Daddy said...

I'm sure glad I don't have a job so I don't have to worry about not getting a paycheck!

Zach, do you still live with your parents? I only ask cause I'm trying to figure out how to not have to work yet still have money to live and pay for my ISP too.

al said...

I was in DC over the weekend. Saw armed men in black on the roof of the White House. Never saw that before.

I saw that as well in July. Same with the Capitol. They have been there for years - more noticeable since 9/11. A Capitol guard, when asked by my wife about night vison, just smiled and said "Yes Maam. That and a whole lot more." Some cool tech there.

Maybe the failure of the vote will convince our reps to actually negotiate in good faith.

AlphaLiberal said...

OK. Here is the text from Pelosi's speech that led Republicans to torpedo the bill. Please show us what was so bad. I've made it easy for you (with TPM assistance).

(working late tonight!)

Simon said...

Theo Boehm said...
"The Democrats seemed to have the votes. They should act."

They never had the votes, Theo! What about this don't you and enigmaticore understand? If Pelosi had had the votes, this bill would have been passed last week. The only reason to talk around and find language that can get support from the minority party is if your own caucus is divided. Pelosi didn't have the votes last week, and as the vote total here vividly demonstrates, she doesn't have them today. The bailout is DOA - because there was a large bipartisan majority that was against it, for various reasons.


TosaGuy said...
"The Dems control the house and can pass any bill they want to at anytime. ... The Dems still can ram their own bill through, just like they could have last week, but they don't want to do that."

No, they can't. They can only do that if they are united. Ordinarily, they are; on this, they are not, as the vote tally on this bill demonstrates.

Theo Boehm said...

Let me say I totally agree with mcg. Nothing like losing $17,000 before lunch to make you a single issue guy.

mcg said...

What exactly makes YOU more of an expert than Paulson, Buffet and others who have spent their entire lives dealing with the economy and finance?

What in the world are you talking about? I don't claim to be more of an expert than they are. In fact, their influence and arguments are among reasons I support the bailout.

I don't think you get my point. I am basically a supporter of the Paulson bailout. The Republicans, my own party, seem to be more against it than the Democrats. If the Democrats pass it, and the economy recovers, the Democrats are likely to get credit for it, as well they should. And that will pretty much seal up the election for Obama.

If all of that happens, I'll live with it.

Original Mike said...

Well, I need a shower, but I went over to KOS. All I saw were the compensation caps (which I thought were still in the bill, but I'll take your word for it for now). That's it, AL? The compensation caps?

AlphaLiberal said...

OK. It was a short speech. I scanned it fast, searched for all mention of "Republican."

Over the past several days, we have worked with our Republican colleagues to fashion an alternative to the original plan of the Bush Administration.

OMG! That's HORRIBLE!!!

And, this is just beyond the pale:

Secretary Paulson deserves credit for working day and night to help reach an agreement and for his flexibility in negotiating changes to his original proposal.

Come on, you jokers. Put up or shut up. Where is the offense in this speech?!?

ricpic said...

Failure. How is this a failure? We live in a democracy case the big muckamucks hadn't noticed. And they hadn't. Well, The People said no and their representatives heard them and responded as they should. Success!

Simon said...

I wonder if the Bush administration - if it's as out of control as its critics charge - will take the view that this has to happen and buy or seize the assets anyway, a la Youngstown.

Will said...

"But, really, why should it all be up to the Democrats to pass an unpopular bill?"
If the bill is as self-evidently in the national interest as you think, why shouldn't the Democrats want to shoulder that burden? If it is such a good thing, they should be falling all over themselves to support it and hang the republicans by their no votes.

Peter V. Bella said...

Cut the crap? Sorry if FACTS offended you. But, really, why should it all be up to the Democrats to pass an unpopular bill?

They are supposedly the majority party. Pelosi wanted bipartisanship then blasted it to hell. Those are facts. Fact- this bill would have covered the asses of major Democrats like Obama, Frank and Dodd who still have to explain those hefty contributions from the entities.

Fact, Pelosi could have come out like a hero; instead she came off like a typical bully. If she had just let the bull up for a vote and STFU it may have passed. Read the real news instead of KOS.

mcg said...

AL, here's another speech that people are talking about. Pelosi calling the Republicans "unpatriotic" for not showing up to a meeting that the Dems failed to invite them to.

jdeeripper said...

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 674

So Republicans AND some of the most liberal members voted against Bush/Pelosi.

AlphaLiberal said...OK. Here is the text from Pelosi's speech that led Republicans to torpedo the bill.

Almost the entire Hispanic caucus voted against it. Lefties like John Conyers and Sheila Jackson Lee and Dennis Kucinich voted NO.

Why did 95 Democrats, disproportionately black and Hispanic, vote against it?

I wonder if they really understand it or just figure if Bush is championing it then it must be another classic Bush fuck up.

I wonder if the McCain camp will allow Palin to come out in the debate and say she is against the bailout plan because it is a bailout for the rich to be paid for by the middle class.

Arturius said...

Isn't it just possible these and other people know more than anybody here?

Do they? Perhaps Main Street just realized that those supposed 'smart' people in Washington and Wall Street aren't as bright as they appear to be.

It's somewhat ironic that the very people in DC who were asleep at the wheel were asking for our trust with getting the car back on the road. It may very well be that Main Street made their voices heard and the majority of the House responded accordingly.

Michael said...

Republicans vote 2 to 1 against their own President.

John McCain...missing in action.

Theo Boehm said...

Apparantly not, Simon. I thought the Dems could squeak this one through w/o Republican support if need be, but wanted political cover. BOTH parties seemed to need political cover for this, which is fine with me.

I still think the plan in its essence is a good one, but it looks like the Government is paralyzed until the election, after which time we shall all be...how can I put this delicately?...FUCKED!

Chip Ahoy said...

Keep those calls coming, Folks. If Congress wants to pass this thing badly enough, they'll rid the bailout of the pork with which they instinctively lard up every single thing. But you gotta hold their feetsies to the fire.

If voters were truly serious about Hope-n-Change™, they'd completely flip Congress. Short of that, voters are merely blowing smoke.

I do enjoy watching congress people squirm. Squirm, Bitches. Squirm.

About stock though, my favorite stock, the one I bought just for fun and because I like their product so much, is up 20¢ a share today. I bought a ton of it. *glees* Aero, the Aerogarden one, not the Airplane engine parts one. I expect it to, er, grow and grow. The company is growing unbelievably fast, so they issued additional stock to finance that growth, which bummed me out because it diluted what I owned, but pleased me because it bodes well for the company. Oh well, patience, Grasshopper.

mcg said...

Failure. How is this a failure? We live in a democracy case the big muckamucks hadn't noticed. And they hadn't. Well, The People said no and their representatives heard them and responded as they should. Success!

You are right on that point. I suspect that politically, the Republicans who voted against it are safe. Even the Democrats who voted against it are safe.

That is, until the bottom drops out of the economy, and everyone realizes that this plan that Paulson had been working on for weeks now was a heck of a lot better than the situation we all find ourselves in then.

I suspect a few minds will be changed then.

Peter V. Bella said...

Failure. How is this a failure? We live in a democracy case the big muckamucks hadn't noticed. And they hadn't. Well, The People said no and their representatives heard them and responded as they should. Success!

You know ripic, as much as I do not want agree with that, I have to. Representatives, for once, voted with the people who they represent.

Original Mike said...

Maybe it was this, AL:

Pelosi: "I must recognize the outstanding leadership provided by Chairman Barney Frank, whose enormous intellectual and strategic abilities have never before been so urgently needed, or so widely admired."

I get so angry, I have to change the channel when Frank comes on. Seriously. Talk about lack of accountability. This guy has more culpability than anyone else in the country.

Bob said...

We need to act all shocked here that Nan acted in a mean partisan manner. 5 weeks from Presidential elections and Nancy is partisan. Perhaps she was hoping to secure a larger majority in both houses and cement the White House for young waht's-his-name. Wow, surprise, shocking! /sarcasm off

Matt said...

Even if this is a good news this will actually be much harder on McCain. Where was he to rally the GOP?

Peter V. Bella said...

Why did 95 Democrats, disproportionately black and Hispanic, vote against it?

Because the billions that might have gone to ACORN and La Raza was taken out of the bill?

Hoosier Daddy said...

Pelosi: "I must recognize the outstanding leadership provided by Chairman Barney Frank, whose enormous intellectual and strategic abilities have never before been so urgently needed, or so widely admired."

Can I assume this quote is from The Onion?

If not, just lie so I don't throw up on my keyboard.

Michael said...

Arturius: Are you implying that YOU know more about the economy and world finances than Paulson and Buffet?

I understand partisan politics, but try to at least be reasonably honest.

Trying to make the case that the average American knows more about mortgages, interest rates, derivatives, hedge funds, bundling, currencies, banking laws, etc. is patently ridiculous.

*And by the way, framing the bill as a "bailout for the rich to be paid for by the middle class" is once again, nothing more than pure partisan politics.

This is a bill that will impact every American's pocketbook.

The Drill SGT said...

Roger J. said...
something like 68 democrats bucked their leadership and voted against it. Must have been some pretty strong opposition to it at home.


More like 90 votes IMHO.

More interesting is what value did Obama have with all his faux "working the phones" talk in the NYT.

Obama is the leader of the Democratic party now. Was he working phones with the 90 dems who voted against? if not, where was his leadership?

Ah, he was out on the circuit pitching "Change" and post-partisanship, and how he can get things done in DC, now I understand.

mcg said...

And by the way, framing the bill as a "bailout for the rich to be paid for by the middle class" is once again, nothing more than pure partisan politics.

Tell that to Michael Moore!

LarsPorsena said...

"Almost the entire Hispanic caucus voted against it. Lefties like John Conyers and Sheila Jackson Lee and Dennis Kucinich voted NO."

I think the final bill did not include enough ACORN money for the 'community organizations' these reps
rely on for grassroots support. So, they can cry about 'executive compensation' caps but the real sticker is that their private honeypots were emptied.
The slush funds they are dependent on are drying up.

Original Mike said...

Yes, Hoosier. It's from the Onion. Honest.

AlphaLiberal said...

Thanks for the info, mcg. Though, this is a press conference, not a prepared speech.

So Repubs were mad that she said they were "unpatriotic." Umm.... Republicans say that about Democrats daily. So, this is another Republican double standard, if this is the offense.

I can't speak to "showing up at the meeting" as it's the first I've heard of it. Maybe she was right. Maybe not.

bottom line: When you're grown up, you just don't take your marbles and go home. Sticks and stones...
-------------------
Time for McCain to re-suspend his campaign?

Wash Post:
After bragging today about his role in shaping the economic bailout package, Sen. John McCain has made no statement to the press since the defeat of the bill, in part at the hands of House Republicans.

McCain boarded his Straight Talk Air charter plane a few minutes ago, but the plane has not taken off yet. McCain is in the front of the plane, separated from reporters by a brown curtain

Aides to McCain have not characterized his reaction to the bills defeat. On Sunday, he said he would "swallow hard" but vote for the plan, which he said was better than originally proposed.


h/t TPM.

Michael said...

If you thought McCain was in trouble at the end of the week, this is a real killer.

He rolls into town, blathering on about how he's going to save the day...and his fellow Republicans blow it out their ass for him.

mcg said...

So Repubs were mad that she said they were "unpatriotic." Umm.... Republicans say that about Democrats daily. So, this is another Republican double standard, if this is the offense.

Republicans in elected office? Name 'em. Go for it.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Zach, do you still live with your parents?

Funny you should ask!

I live alone in a nice apartment...but not for long. Luckily, I had a nice savings when I got laid off two months ago and that, coupled with unemployment, carried me along until now. I have enough to pay one more month of rent...but I think I'd rather keep the money and just move out this week, and back in with my parents. Who knows! I have to decide by tonight.

Concerned Citizen said...

Inaction is the highest form of action.

--Jerry Brown

erniecu73 said...

I will leave this thread before I throw up. You guys have fun! Catch y'all later!

Michael said...

Anybody hear McCain's speech earlier today?

Literally bragging about his input and confidence the bill would pass.
Repeating the mantra that he came to Washington to make sure things were done right.

And then the vote fails.

Maybe that's why he jumped on his plane without issuing a statement of any sort...which is unheard of for a Presidential candidate after such an incredibly important vote for Americans.

*And, as for Pelosi's speech: What possible difference does a speech, regardless of whether it's partisan or not (and I haven't heard it or read the transcript), have to do with something this important. The Republicans come out of this looking like children.

knox said...

Why did 95 Democrats, disproportionately black and Hispanic, vote against it?

Because the billions that might have gone to ACORN and La Raza was taken out of the bill?


I hope this isn't true. I've been wondering if there were democrats who were set on this--or if they were just half-heartedly trying to sneak it in, as one final kick in the groin to the taxpayers.

ACORN: an innocent enough moniker; still the most frightening acronym since CREEP.

TosaGuy said...

I said...
"The Dems control the house and can pass any bill they want to at anytime. ... The Dems still can ram their own bill through, just like they could have last week, but they don't want to do that."

Simon Says:
"No, they can't. They can only do that if they are united. Ordinarily, they are; on this, they are not, as the vote tally on this bill demonstrates."

The GOP spotted Nancy P 65 votes to help dole out political cover to her caucus. She could afford to lose 82 Dems. The GOP was bipartisan enough on this thing for it to pass. An effective speaker does not lose 95 votes from her own party on such a big bill.

Strip Charlie Rangel and Barney Frank from their chairmanships and the less ideological members of both parties will play ball.

knox said...

Anybody hear McCain's speech earlier today?

...

What possible difference does a speech... have to do with something this important.


You are such a dumbass

mcg said...

Here's a video of Pelosi's speech on the floor of the house today.

Now look, I tend to agree that not voting for this bill simply because Pelosi hurled insults is very weak tea. But honestly, I have to ask if perhaps her speech even scared some Democrats too. The transcript doesn't do it justice, you have to watch the video, or at least the first sentence: "When was the last time anyone ever asked you fo. SEVEN. HUNDRED. BILLION. DOLLARS."

I mean crap, when you put it that way...

Arturius said...

Arturius: Are you implying that YOU know more about the economy and world finances than Paulson and Buffet?

I didn't imply anything of the sort.

Trying to make the case that the average American knows more about mortgages, interest rates, derivatives, hedge funds, bundling, currencies, banking laws, etc. is patently ridiculous.

I didn't make any such case. I simply stated that the supposed intelligent people in DC and Wall Street who deal in these instruments and those tasked to oversee them failed miserably at their jobs. I then pointed out the irony that the same people who failed said task are being asked to fix it.

Personally I think the failure of the bills passage is bad but I can certainly understand the electorate's reluctance for wanting to throw more money after bad.

knox said...

mcg, Yes! I watched the speech and when she said that I thought, "Wait, I thought you want people to vote FOR this...."

SteveR said...

Here's a quick analysis. I live in NM, we have three members in the House, Wilson (Rep), Pearce (Rep) and Udall (Dem). Pearce and Udall who are running against each other to take Domenici's senate seat and otherwise don't agree on anything, voted NAY. Wilson voted YEA.

Michael said...

Someone tell me how this speech would create such a reaction from the Republicans?

Transcript of Pelosi speech:

"Madam Speaker, when was the last time someone asked you for $700 billion?

"It is a number that is staggering, but tells us only the costs of the Bush Administration's failed economic policies--policies built on budgetary recklessness, on an anything goes mentality, with no regulation, no supervision, and no discipline in the system.

"Democrats believe in the free market, which can and does create jobs, wealth, and capital, but left to its own devices it has created chaos.

"That chaos is the dismal picture painted by Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke a week and a half ago in the Capitol. As they pointed out, we confront a crisis of historic magnitude that has the ability to do serious injury not simply to our economy, but to the American people: not just to Wall Street, but to everyday Americans on Main Street.

"It is our responsibility today, to help avert that catastrophic outcome.

"Let us be clear: This is a crisis caused on Wall Street. But it is a crisis that reaches to Main Street in every city and town of the United States.

"It is a crisis that freezes credit, causes families to lose their homes, cripples small businesses, and makes it harder to find jobs.

"It is a crisis that never had to happen. It is now the duty of every Member of this body to recognize that the failure to act responsibly, with full protections for the American taxpayer, would compound the damage already done to the financial security of millions of American families.

"Over the past several days, we have worked with our Republican colleagues to fashion an alternative to the original plan of the Bush Administration.

"I must recognize the outstanding leadership provided by Chairman Barney Frank, whose enormous intellectual and strategic abilities have never before been so urgently needed, or so widely admired.

"I also want to recognize Rahm Emanuel, who combined his deep knowledge of financial institutions with his pragmatic policy experience, to resolve key disagreements.

"Secretary Paulson deserves credit for working day and night to help reach an agreement and for his flexibility in negotiating changes to his original proposal.

"Democrats insisted that legislation responding to this crisis must protect the American people and Main Street from the meltdown on Wall Street.

"The American people did not decide to dangerously weaken our regulatory and oversight policies. They did not make unwise and risky financial deals. They did not jeopardize the economic security of the nation. And they must not pay the cost of this emergency recovery and stabilization bill.

"So we insisted that this bill contain several key provisions:

"This legislation must contain independent and ongoing oversight to ensure that the recovery program is managed with full transparency and strict accountability.

"The legislation must do everything possible to allow as many people to stay in their homes rather than face foreclosure.

"The corporate CEOs whose companies will benefit from the public's participation in this recovery must not benefit by exorbitant salaries and golden parachute retirement bonuses.

"Our message to Wall Street is this: the party is over. The era of golden parachutes for high-flying Wall Street operators is over. No longer will the U.S. taxpayer bailout the recklessness of Wall Street.

"The taxpayers who bear the risk in this recovery must share in the upside as the economy recovers.

"And should this program not pay for itself, the financial institutions that benefited, not the taxpayers, must bear responsibility for making up the difference.

"These were the Democratic demands to safeguard the American taxpayer, to help the economy recover, and to impose tough accountability as a central component of this recovery effort.

"This legislation is not the end of congressional activity on this crisis. Over the course of the next few weeks, we will continue to hold investigative and oversight hearings to find out how the crisis developed, where mistakes were made, and how the recovery must be managed to protect the middle class and the American taxpayer.

"With passage of this legislation today, we can begin the difficult job of turning our economy around, of helping those who depend on a growing economy and stable financial institutions for a secure retirement, for the education of their children, for jobs and small business credit.

"Today we must act for those Americans, for Main Street, and we must act now, with the bipartisan spirit of cooperation which allowed us to fashion this legislation.

"This not enough. We are also working to restore our nation's economic strength by passing a new economic recovery stimulus package--a robust, job creating bill--that will help Americans struggling with high prices, get our economy back on track, and renew the American Dream.

"Today, we will act to avert this crisis, but informed by our experience of the past eight years with the failed economic leadership that has left us left capable of meeting the challenges of the future.

"We choose a different path. In the new year, with a new Congress and a new president, we will break free with a failed past and take America in a New Direction to a better future."

mcg said...

I know this blog is probably always going to have dimwitted partisan idiots like michael and AL trumpeting every anti-Republican spin around. The rest of us can discuss our own party's successes and failures when called for.

So for those people, let me offer: when the Democrats retain both houses of Congress this fall---and I think barring a major scandal that will happen---would my Democrat friends here at least concede that it might be a good idea to replace Pelosi and Reid?

Simon said...

Theo Boehm said...
"I still think the plan in its essence is a good one, but it looks like the Government is paralyzed until the election"

Theo, even if the election were held tomorrow, the plan would be DOA. The chances that the election will deliver more votes for the bailout are between slim and none - the numbers I saw this weekend indicated that something like two in three voters opposed the bailout. I don't know whether this plan was genuinely needed or not. But the political reality is that it faces broad, deep bipartisan opposition - that opposition rises from a different well on each side of the aisle, and so the opponents are unlikely to coalesce on a single plan of their own, but there is ample opposition to kill the bailout. The question is what to do next.

Michael said...

Arturius said..."It may very well be that Main Street made their voices heard and the majority of the House responded accordingly."

And the "voices" of "main street" know more than Paulson, Buffet, etc.?

There are all kinds of things "main street" thinks or wants that would turn the entire country upside down.

erniecu73 said...

wow, michael, you took out what 5 minutes of her speech?? You are a such a joke! Don't you see that someone already linked to the video of the speech

What a tool you are!

Original Mike said...

Nancy Pelosi is an effing idiot. It really is that simple.

knox said...

"Democrats insisted that legislation responding to this crisis must protect the American people and Main Street from the meltdown on Wall Street.

Bullshit. Until the republicans stopped them, they were going to give the first 20% of profits to ACORN.

Peter V. Bella said...

I mean crap, when you put it that way...

The point is, hqad she kept partisanship out of this, the vote may have squeaked through. You cannot demand people play nice together and then bash them. That is not bipartisanship. That is childishness.

Too many jims said...

McG,

I watched her speech live and I thought it was the worst in support of the bill (though it was kind of designed to rally her troops to vote for it despite their reservations).

It may be that there are 12 House Republican members who were prepared to vote for it but were so weak that when they heard her speak, they turned. It might be the case, but they really need to find a better argument for their side before the evening news.

As an aside, either Blunt can't count and/or someone wants Boehner's job.

Michael said...

simon says: "...the numbers I saw this weekend indicated that something like two in three voters opposed the bailout."

And I'll bet 90% of them don't understand it.

This is an extremely complicated situation and there are very few who can sift through the details and really understand exactly what the bill addresses and how it will impact our economy. And I can't imagine the bill not being tweaked over a period time.

Right now, the banking industry is literally frozen.

Buford Gooch said...

So, if Pelosi had been able to control just 5% more of her own caucus, the bill would have passed.

chickenlittle said...

I wonder how much Nancy's hubby lost today.


"it crept up on us like a cat"

How come a lay person like myself saw this coming years ago and Pelosi couldn't? Why indeed.

Simon said...

mcg said...
"[W]hen the Democrats retain both houses of Congress this fall---and I think barring a major scandal that will happen"

This doesn't count as a major scandal? Two in three people are against the bailout, from the numbers I saw this weekend, and many of them were hopping mad about it. I think you're going to see every candidate running against an incumbent who voted for the bailout playing the populist card - "Representative Jane Doe voted to give wall street 700bn of your money and your children's money. This November, tell her how you feel."

chickenlittle said...

The sky is not falling

They don't call Chairman Ben Bernanke "Helicopter Ben" for nothing.

He's been wargaming this in his head for months.

mcg said...

I really do wonder how this is playing out right now on Main Street. The polls aren't unanimous, but most suggest broad bipartisan rejection of the bailout.

As I said before, if the economy totally tanks and his everyone where it hurts, then the sentiment might shift. But what's the sentiment now? I mean, is it politically viable for Pelosi & Co to craft a full-on lefty bailout bill?

Michael said...

erniecu73: It's the "transcript" of the speech.

If you want to blame this on Pelosi, I don't find that the least bit hard to believe.

Rush Limbaugh does, too.

But anybody who thinks, in a situation like this, that a speech, partisan or not, changed the votes of EXACTLY the number of Republicans needed to make the bill fail is dreaming.

Why not quit whining about Pelosi and add something relevant to the discussion?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Someone tell me how this speech would create such a reaction from the Republicans?

Because it is a pack of lies, distortions and half truths. The Democrats/Pelosi want to put all the blame on Republicans when the majority of the blame lies directly at their own feet.

If Pelosi had enough votes in her own party, and it is obvious that she didn't, she could slap in the face Republicans who have been trying to get this bill "clean", scrubbed of ACORN and other socialist/communitic provisions.

They (Repubs) might have been able to swallow that pill in the name of bipartisanship. But when it became evident that Pelosi was not acting in good faith and when this bill failed FAILED to produce results becuase it was still a dirty larded up bill AND that they would blame the Republicans for the failure of this monstrosity, they said Screw you Nancy...>>>Back to the drawing board.

mcg said...

This doesn't count as a major scandal?

Not until the bottom really does drop out of the economy, no. But I do see your point, and perhaps even if it does, the political ads could be spun that way. "As the economy was sinking, the Democrats in congress wanted to give $700bn to Wall Street..." I think that's bullshit, but I wonder if it will work politically.

Michael said...

erniecu73: By the way...the transcript provides her entire speech.

Michael said...

Bunny: "Because it is a pack of lies, distortions and half truths."

Point them out and explain how they would trash he passing of this bill.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The sky is not falling

True. More like a plummeting elevator that we are all trapped in.

erniecu73 said...

Michael said...
erniecu73: It's the "transcript" of the speech.

If you want to blame this on Pelosi, I don't find that the least bit hard to believe.

Rush Limbaugh does, too.

But anybody who thinks, in a situation like this, that a speech, partisan or not, changed the votes of EXACTLY the number of Republicans needed to make the bill fail is dreaming.

Why not quit whining about Pelosi and add something relevant to the discussion?

3:14 PM


Let me repeat this, because it expresses exactly what I think:

knox said...
Anybody hear McCain's speech earlier today?

...

What possible difference does a speech... have to do with something this important.

You are such a dumbass

2:58 PM


And I don't know about what Limbaugh thinks or not. I don't listen to him. Apparently you do.

Simon said...

Michael, I don't disagree with you about most people not understanding this. I don't, candidly, and I think I understand it better than some. Nevertheless, the fact is that there are large majorities against it, and no one in a marginal district is going to risk their career to vote for this thing.

This is one of the limitations of democracy. If the people are determined to go to hell, rational legislators will ask how fast. Alas, we can't even blame this one on the 17th amendment. Our system was originally set up to resist the passage of bad legislation that would create a bad situation. It has no institutional mechanism to deal with the converse situation: to overcome resistance to good legislation that would alleviate a bad situation. The system is biased against action, and while that usually serves us well, sometimes it does not, and it isn't clear which category the present "'crisis'" falls into.

Der Hahn said...

Nancy P Our message to Wall Street is this: the party is over.

This was the soundbite I heard over the weekend from the speech. I'd say that's why the Republicans bailed. The Democrats have been on their knees for Freddie and Frannie while this clusterf*** was rolling along for the last three years and throwing up roadblocks to effective regulation that might have averted this mess. Making it sound like the Dems are taking the high road while begging for 'bipartisan cover' from Republicans was too much.

Take one for the country, Dems.

Peter V. Bella said...

Hey Mikey,
If you actually read the news reports you would learn that many Republicans voted no based on that speech. They could not reconcile her partisanship and finger pointing after they were all asked to come together in a bipartisan manner.

Just like Reid blaming the Republicans for not attending a meeting they were never invited to.

You really should read beyond KOS, MyDD, and others.

Michael said...

Knox says: "they were going to give the first 20% of profits to ACORN."

Do you have any evidence or link or objective commentary to substantiate this idiotic statement?

This is the kind of statement that is indicative of how little "main street" knows about this bill.

erniecu73 said...

Michael said...
erniecu73: By the way...the transcript provides her entire speech.

3:16 PM


No, it doesn't. Where is her tirade about Bush and the Clinton surpluses? Where is her extended tirade about "Bush's failed economic policies"?

Did you watch the video??

raf said...

Perhaps Pelosi WANTED the bill to fail so she could play politics by blaming Republicans for a deeper financial crisis. After all, it is more important to elect Democrats than for the economy to suffer for a few months -- or even years. The last depression worked out well for Democrats, why not repeat a proven strategy?

erniecu73 said...

Michael said...
Knox says: "they were going to give the first 20% of profits to ACORN."

Do you have any evidence or link or objective commentary to substantiate this idiotic statement?

This is the kind of statement that is indicative of how little "main street" knows about this bill.

3:20 PM


And why hasn't "The Champion of Main Street (PBUH)" explained it to us, poor mortal? Where are the details?

erniecu73 said...

raf said...
Perhaps Pelosi WANTED the bill to fail so she could play politics by blaming Republicans for a deeper financial crisis. After all, it is more important to elect Democrats than for the economy to suffer for a few months -- or even years. The last depression worked out well for Democrats, why not repeat a proven strategy?

3:21 PM


Would she be that smart?

Concerned Citizen said...

DJIA down 777 to 10,365.

Folks, go to this Google chart and let your eyeballs go from left to right. (Set on Max zoom going back to 1970).

Could we have a Dow 7,000 in our future?

If you don't think so, reset the chart so you only see the period from 1970 to 1976. Dow went from 1,026 in Jan '73 to 577 in Dec '74.

Dow was at 14,093 in Oct '07.

chickenlittle said...

This is the kind of statement that is indicative of how little "main street" knows about this bill.
I guess somebody on this board simply doesn't understand how American democracy works.
Somebody on this board insists on insulting the intelligence of “Main Street.”
Good fucking luck with that attitude.

Michael said...

Peter, I understand and heard what they said, but it's hard to believe they would abandon such an important bill, based on the speech I provided above.

First of all, point out what she said that would illicit such a bizarre reaction.

Second, how is it that, exactly the number of nay votes necessary to make the bill fail...were changed because of the speech?

Are you saying the speech offended ONLY those 12...but the others who voted yea...weren't offended?

C'mon...NOBODY believes that.

knox said...

Michael, here you go, you shithead:


d) TRANSFER OF A PERCENTAGE OF PROFITS.-

(1) DEPOSITS.-Not less than 20 percent of any profit realized on the sale of each troubled asset purchased under this Act shall be deposited as provided in paragraph (2).

(2) USE OF DEPOSITS.-Of the amount referred to in paragraph (1)-

(A) 65 percent shall be deposited into the Housing Trust Fund established under section 1338 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Regulatory Reform Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4568); and

(B) 35 percent shall be deposited into the Capital Magnet Fund established under section 1339 of that Act (12 U.S.C. 4569).

(3) REMAINDER DEPOSITED IN THE TREASURY.-All amounts remaining after payments under paragraph (1) shall be paid into the General Fund of the Treasury for reduction of the public debt.


"the Federal Housing Enterprises Regulatory Reform Act of 1992" ... that's a big part of what got us in this hot water to begin with. Clinton and the leftists giving "affordable" housing (read: mortgages) to poor (read: unqualified) people.

There's the language Dodd had in the bill until Republicans forced them to take it out.

knox said...

link:

http://volokh.com/posts/1222499614.shtml

UWS guy said...

I've kept my mouth shut on this issue because I don't understand it.

So far all I've seen are the republican nay voters saying they listened to "real families" in their home states. Do those real families understand any of this either?

Megan McCardle describes this as cutting off your nose to spite your face. I sure hope this isn't the case.

the populist rantings of Rush Limbaugh today were heartening, because if he's being a complete partisan about this, things can't be that bad right...


right....?


Every economist I've read so far says....wrong.

integrity said...

Once the markets fall again tomorrow the politicians will have cover to pass the wall street welfare bill, as their constituents have been unwilling to budge thus far(I agree with them-no bailout).

There is nothing as fun as watching the people on wall street panicking and begging for their welfare checks. This is really fun, make 'em squirm for their money.

Sloanasaurus said...

This is the largest blunder made by a Speaker of the House in American history. Pelosi brought this bill to the floor that she said had the votes to pass, then gave a partisan speech about it and the vote failed.

It's like a general going into battle and giving a pessimistic speech right before the battle only to see half your troops run away.

Pelosi's actions on this is a terrible failure of leadership. The Democrats need to get rid of her, bring in a new speaker, and then bring the same bill back for a re-vote.

Michael said...

chicken - "I guess somebody on this board simply doesn't understand how American democracy works."

I never said anything of the sort.

I said "main street" does not understand the complexities of this bill and the ramifications if it fails.

Twisting my words to suit your needs is silly and makes you look foolish.

Roger J. said...

I think I have a general understanding of how illiquidity ripples through all sectors of the economy. If laws of supply and demand are still in effect, interest rates will rise because credit will be in shorter supply; insurance premiums will probably rise as insurance firms cover their losses by increasing rates; there will be fewer start ups, and new housing starts and investments in capital goods will be diminished. Personal wealth for many will be diminished and people about to retire will be rethinking their plans.

But again, can someone tell me how these events will result in 20 to 30 percent unemployment? Those are great depression numbers for what I think is the most painful part of an economic downturn: loss of income resulting from loss of a job.

vbspurs said...

DBQ wrote:

sigh

Quite...there are no winners right now. Maybe if you want cheap gas at the pump, but if you run a business, you got no access to credit lines in the foreseeable future. God only knows how business will function in America in the coming days.

Everyone loses here, but if we have a majority in Congress, and they couldn't get their ducks in a row, I have no idea when they think they'll get a better chance to show their strength.

Cheers,
Victoria

Sloanasaurus said...

There is nothing as fun as watching the people on wall street panicking and begging for their welfare checks. This is really fun, make 'em squirm for their money.

It will be even more fun watching people squirm to get their loans for college, cars, and homes. HA HA. I can't stop laughing. It's so funny.

Peter V. Bella said...

Mikey,
You cannot expect people to play nice all along and then at the last minute, when everything is on the table and it all counts, you insult them. Sometimes, silence is golden. Better she would have spewed her hate speech AFTER the voting.

Simon said...

At this point, I wouldn't bet against Bush going ahead and doing it anyway, intra vires vel non (it almost certainly isn't). The left keeps telling us how the administration thinks it's above the law, and the administration keeps telling us that the President has inherent authority to respond to a crisis. Congress has shown it can't act, and the administration believes this is a crisis. Like I said, I wouldn't bet against it.

Salamandyr said...

Integrity, I'm sure you realize that the majority of Americans, including most of the middle class, actually own stocks and securities? What the hell do you think is in all of those 401K's?

Bad for Wall Street is bad for Main Street! They're the same damned thing!

Trooper York said...

Let's ask Charley Rangel to help with this. I mean is always a bi-partisan healer kind of guy. Chairman of the Ways and Means. I just saw him on the cover of the Post today driving up to his fourth rent stabilized apartment in the Cadillac registered to his campaign committee. These are the kind of guys we should trust with 700 billion dollars in a bill that has to pass today, right now, this minute.

Michael said...

Sloan: "This is the largest blunder made by a Speaker of the House in American history."

Geee, don't let history and the 100's and 100's of speeches made over the past 200+ years stand in the way of a purely partisan right wing view.

Why not pull out the parts of the speech that you feel constitute the "...largest blunder made by a Speaker of the House in American history."

knox said...

This is the largest blunder made by a Speaker of the House in American history. Pelosi brought this bill to the floor that she said had the votes to pass, then gave a partisan speech about it and the vote failed.

agreed, but the republicans don't look too smart now, either. If they didn't like the things Pelosi said, they shoudl get their asses out there and explain why they are not to blame. A protest vote is just stupid.

As a result, they are going to take the blame for causing this crisis, and they're going to take the blame for the failure of the bill, and they're going to take the blame for the utter collapse we're facing.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Knox says: "they were going to give the first 20% of profits to ACORN."

Do you have any evidence or link or objective commentary to substantiate this idiotic statement?

here
transcript of Dodd's proposal. Section d.

TRANSFER OF A PERCENTAGE OF PROFITS.

DEPOSITS.Not less than 20 percent of any profit realized on the sale of each troubled asset purchased under this Act shall be deposited as provided in paragraph (2).

USE OF DEPOSITS.Of the amount referred to in paragraph (1)

65 percent shall be deposited into the Housing Trust Fund established under section 1338 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Regulatory Reform Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4568); and

35 percent shall be deposited into the Capital Magnet Fund established under section 1339 of that Act (12 U.S.C. 4569).

REMAINDER DEPOSITED IN THE TREASURY.All amounts remaining after payments under paragraph (1) shall be paid into the General Fund of the Treasury for reduction of the public debt


Holy Crap Sandwich. No less that 20% is shoveled to a corrupt agency like ACORN that is subverting elections with fraudulent voter registration and is actively campaigning for Democrats. BEFORE returning any of it to the taxpayers.

No wonder they tried to shove this piece of shit down the House Republican's throats last week. Even if it means we all go to hell in the next depression (and we are), I'd rather do that than to see ONE FREAKING CENT given to ACORN.

Agencies like ACORN supported by corrupt Democrats like Dodd and Obama are one of main the reasons that we have this subprime mortagage melt down in the first place.

chickenlittle said...

Dust Bunny said: More like a plummeting elevator that we are all trapped in.

Thermodynamics suck sometimes.

PatCA said...

If the situation is so dire, why are Dems putting in a slush fund for the likes of Acorn; why is no one suggesting we repeal the laws that enabled all the bad mortgages in the first place?

Whoa...was the emergency that Pelosi knew the subpoenas were coming?

This is getting interesting.

Trooper York said...

Maybe we can stop and take a breath for a minute. Let people know exactly what is in the bill. Then it might get the support of the people. Right now it's the same old, same old.

erniecu73 said...

Michael said...
Knox says: "they were going to give the first 20% of profits to ACORN."

Do you have any evidence or link or objective commentary to substantiate this idiotic statement?

This is the kind of statement that is indicative of how little "main street" knows about this bill.

3:20 PM



Here Can you read?

Michael said...

Sloan says: "It will be even more fun watching people squirm to get their loans for college, cars, and homes. HA HA. I can't stop laughing. It's so funny."

Why would you think things like this are funny?

Do you have a pension fund or a 401K?

You never cease to amaze me with your insane and thoroughly immature comments.

Simon said...

UWS guy said...
"So far all I've seen are the republican nay voters saying they listened to 'real families' in their home states. Do those real families understand any of this either?"

Any comment that tries to point the finger at the GOP - implicitly or explicitly - is being disingenuous. 95 democrats voted against the bailout. The Dems don't have the votes to pass this with or without the GOP supporters.

knox said...

Michael,

that's 3 of us who've given you links; DBQ and I both gave you the exact wording of the legislation.

Your democrat leaders are a bunch of princes, really. What a great bunch of guys.

Original Mike said...

Pelosi's actions on this is a terrible failure of leadership. The Democrats need to get rid of her, bring in a new speaker, and then bring the same bill back for a re-vote.

You know, that might just work.

integrity said...

The democrats must not pass this thing without heavy republican cover, as a matter of fact they should let the republicans write the bill and own it with minimal democratic support. The wall street welfare bill will not help long-term anyway.

Why does anyone here think 700B is going to fix the problems? Wall street is now a sinkhole, only the fittest should survive. Government can come in once all the junk is cleared. Let the bad companies die, they will sooner or later.

Alex said...

Tell me I'm living in alternative universe where Bush and MichaelTroll are both on the same "chicken little, the sky is falling" side. That truly makes my day.

Trooper York said...

Money will be available to be borrowed just like there has always been since the moneylenders were first let into the temple.

The only difference is the people who can't pay it back won't be getting loans anymore.

Unless you call Nunzio. And then you damn well better pay it back.
At least the vig.

Michael said...

erniecu73 said...:

Affordable Housing Slush Fund (ACORN Fund)

Final Bill: OUT

And your point is???

Alex said...

The American people just said "no to a 700B bailout with no transparency". Which doesn't bode well for Obama's grand national health care plans in 2009...

Alex said...

Basically today's vote was a big FU to Obama if he had designs on running a left wing Presidency. He will be forced to govern in the middle, just like Clinton.

UWS guy said...

This populist ranting about ACORN is what scares me. It's pure fear mongering. Can all the racists chill while the adults fix the financial markets?

I know ACORN helps inner-city black 'folk but can you wait to lynch this grass-roots organization until after?

mcg said...

PatCA, that's a very interesting development, and it dovetails well with the post I was just crafting:

Now that I've set out my thoughts about the importance of this loss, my willingness to accept an Obama victory if a bailout is forthcoming, etc. etc., I think it's time to share my thought on what the RNC oughta do at this point.

And that's hammer home to the American people the degree to which the Democrats are to blame for getting us into this mess in the first place.

I propose that the RNC go on full attack mode with 30- and 60-second commercials laying the blame for the failures of Freddie and Fannie firmly on the doorsteps of Democrats. Videos like this offer some good supporting material.

They should hammer it home in every battleground state, and tag it with "why should we trust the Democrats with the bailout bill if they're the reason we're in this mess?"

vbspurs said...

Whoa...was the emergency that Pelosi knew the subpoenas were coming?

And Tony Rezko is ready to sing like a canary. I've never been much for October surprises, but this is going to be a very interesting October.

Michael said...

Trooper York said..."Money will be available to be borrowed just like there has always been since the moneylenders were first let into the temple."

That is absolutely not true.

There are all kinds of companies and individuals will NOT be able to borrow, regardless of the interest rate.

First of all, the banks themselves have to be able to borrow at a rate that eventually turns a profit...and without available funds...they will stop making loans entirely.

Many already have.

mcg said...

Now on the other hand, the Dollar recorded its biggest gain in 15 years, and oil fell $10. I wonder how that's gonna shake out.

Eric said...

Every economist I've read so far says....wrong.

Not me. I've read some that say we need it and some who don't. And I've read some who think we're headed over the falls even if it passes. So, as always, you can find an economist who tells you what you want to hear. Part of the problem is people who do know, or at least should know, what's going on stand to benefit personally from a bailout.

I'm supporting the bailout, tentatively, but I can't shake the feeling the taxpayers have been set up. And I want to see a clean bill - if the situation is so damn desperate why is the bill getting loaded up with a bunch of extra giveaways?

Alex said...

mcg - there will be no bailout in this election year. When congresscritters are getting 100:1 against these type of bailouts, they will not commit political suicide. There will be no bailout in 2008.

Henry said...

Simon wrote: The left keeps telling us how the administration thinks it's above the law, and the administration keeps telling us that the President has inherent authority to respond to a crisis.

Paul Krugman is calling the U.S. a banana republic because the grand measure of the day was voted down by elected representatives.

If the U.S. is a banana republic now, what do we call it after the strongman steps in to rescue the country?

As usual Krugman's vitriol advances ahead of his thought.

vbspurs said...

Paulson speaks. "Very disappointed, but both leaders on both side of the aisle worked very hard".

Sigh.

mcg said...

alex, if you're right about that, then I think the RNC needs to launch my proposed attack strategy ASAP.

Alex said...

eric - no transparency, no deal. I can't accept a $700B giveaway without explaining in great detail what it is for. I will NOT take Bush/Paulson/Pelosi's word for it. We do not live in a dictatorship. The Congress has just heard the WILL of the people and responded. This is why America is a great nation.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 512   Newer› Newest»