Althouse: The bailout fails!

September 29, 2008

The bailout fails!

Crash!

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

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

511 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 511 Newer› Newest»

Unknown said...: Does anyone know if the mark to market rules can be suspended purely by executive action?; 9/29/08, 3:44 PM
Roberto said...: I think there will be a bill within seven days.

The market itself will force it.; 9/29/08, 3:44 PM
Alex said...: mcg - the people were HORRIFIED at the prospect of a $700B bailout shoved down their throats with no debate, no transparency! I'm truly shocked that Bush and Co. thought they could do this! Any Republican who wants to make sure he wins his seat in a close district should immediately run against "chicken little" Bush!; 9/29/08, 3:44 PM
Alex said...: michaelTroll - you will not shove the MOAB down America's throat. We do not live in a dictatorship of the finance/political elite.; 9/29/08, 3:45 PM
Roberto said...: Paulson is speaking right now and he looks like a man who is extremely agitated and upset by the vote.

Asked if the banking system can "handle this," he did not say "yes."

He said it was "holding up" for now.; 9/29/08, 3:47 PM
George M. Spencer said...: The fire is sweeping our very street today, burns like a red coal carpet: Mad bull lost its way.; 9/29/08, 3:47 PM
Alex said...: I couldn't care less what Paulson has to say about anything. He's one of those uber-rich oligarchs who think they rule over the rest of us. I honestly can't believe MichaelTroll is standing up for said oligarch. So much for basic principles!; 9/29/08, 3:48 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/29/08, 3:48 PM
UWS guy said...: Who the fuck are you alex?

You don't know shit about any of this and very few posters here do.

"I can't accept".

"WILL of the American people"

Populist bullshit; 9/29/08, 3:48 PM
Simon said...: Henry, alas Krugman is an idiot. A highly educated idiot, but still an idiot.; 9/29/08, 3:49 PM
Roberto said...: Alex, You need to get yourself an education.

Either you own nothing, have no 401K or pension funds or you're just plain dumb.

The banking industry is teetering on the edge of insolvency and you continue to throw our silly right wing bromides that are irrelevant to the situation.; 9/29/08, 3:50 PM
chickelit said...: Affordable Housing Slush Fund (ACORN Fund)

Final Bill: OUT

thus certain Dem votes evaporated for the bill.

What is your point? Why don't you defend ACORN?; 9/29/08, 3:50 PM
UWS guy said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/29/08, 3:50 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: Anyone hear what Obama said today since this failure of leadership?

Earlier this morning he said he was confident it would pass. Where is he now?; 9/29/08, 3:50 PM
Anonymous said...: 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.

Simon, it sure is beginning to look like it does not. A financial meltdown of the sort we're staring at certainly qualifies as a "crisis," IMHO.

My portfolio would have been looking rather "crisis"-like, if I had not put everything in cash today. Another two or three days of this would have put me beyond all recovery in the stock market.

As it is, I have lost, net, the better part of $100,000 in the past 15 years on supposedly safe and conservative investments. I suppose that's better than the $270,000 a friend lost in the last stock market crash. He had, however, very aggressive positions and paid accordingly.

I have had Milquetoast positions in everything I have invested in, and have still lost. This is the last straw. The Dow can go to 7,000 without me. The sad reality is that for an average middle-class person, which I am statistically, investing in the underside of a mattress would have been better than riding out the last 15 years in all those lovely investments the large, oh-so-helpful financial institutions (think of a big one that starts with "F") want you to consider for your future.

The future is here, and it's looking like fucking 1930.; 9/29/08, 3:50 PM
former law student said...: It seems like only last week when this sincere-sounding guy said I am calling on the President to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Senator Obama and myself. It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem.

We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved.

What happened to that guy? Why aren't they meeting right now, trying to make a crap sandwich more palatable.

And Nancy Pelosi was trying to tear Bush a new sphincter; she wasn't picking on the Republicans in Congress. I figured the GOPsters were already fairly well detached from W.

dbq, et al: I know that profits (if any -- a giant if) were intended to go into the Housing Trust Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund. But no one other than right-wing echo chamber sites has connected them to the scarey boogeymen La Raza (whatever that is) and ACORN.; 9/29/08, 3:50 PM
Cedarford said...: Way too much partisan gibberish here.

Both Parties failed. Our American system failed. We have a professional politician class now, utterly corrupted by money and the addiction to power and perks.

We have an 18th Century Constitution that is now failing badly in modern times on everything from war powers, to justices magically creating new law, to the line item veto.

Think. Every business leader, every State Governor, every mayor employs a line item veto - absolutely essential as a tool of responsible executive management.

But our Federal Government is Constitutionally forbidden that tool.; 9/29/08, 3:50 PM
Trooper York said...: "That is absolutely not true.

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

You really are a stupid dick. People or financial institutions who have the ability to repay a loan will be able to get one. The ruptured ducks will be devoured by the carnivores. The days of easy credit with lame ass balance sheets are over. No more $2 million dollar condos any more. It will take money to make money. Just like it ever was.; 9/29/08, 3:51 PM
knox 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?

In the 90s, ACORN got gov't permission for its employees to act as a lenders, signing up poor, unqualified people for mortgages that they couldn't possibly pay back. Then ACORN simply passed the paperwork on to banks, who were actually accountable for the money.

Banks who refused to comply and be saddled with the bad loans, were subject to large fines (thanks to the the Federal Housing Enterprises Regulatory Reform Act of 1992)--or tactics by ACORN such as filling up their branches with people making change all day long; or outright intimidation of bank managers.

ACORN is not a warm 'n' fuzzy organization. They get funding ostensibly to help the poor, but it's just a cover for socialism.

And the fact that YOU associate their activity with blacks says more about you than anyone else.; 9/29/08, 3:52 PM
Bob said...: Okay, I understand why the Hispanics did not embrace this. But why did Conyers not? Or other black Congressman? Doesn't make obvious sense.; 9/29/08, 3:52 PM
Simon said...: UWSguy, you can argue that the "will of the people" is wrong, that pandering to the will of the people is wrong, that government should do what's right for the people rather than what the people want, but it's hard to argue that opposing the bailout is not the will of the people right now.; 9/29/08, 3:53 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Just remember, pols, it's best not to point fingers when the rest of the metaphors are scatological.; 9/29/08, 3:53 PM
knox said...: But no one other than right-wing echo chamber sites has connected them to the scarey boogeymen La Raza (whatever that is) and ACORN.

predictable. nice try.; 9/29/08, 3:53 PM
Roger J. said...: Michael--are you asserting there will be no, zero, money at all to be borrowed tomorrow? You have managed to repeal the law of supply and demand. Now if your hyperventilated point is that there will somewhat less money to be borrowed tomorrow and it may be more expensive to borrow it as reflected in a higher interest rate, then you would be correct--; 9/29/08, 3:55 PM
former law student said...: predictable. nice try.

Can you connect the dots for me? Or are you talking out your ass, too?; 9/29/08, 3:55 PM
Dust Bunny Queen 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?

FUCK OFF... uws guy....double FUCK OFF. I don't care what color these ACORN people are. They are corrupt. The policies that they bribed and weaseled through Congress and the economic disaster that those policies created are the issue.

The fact that they are a racist front organization for inner city black people, has nothing to do with my particular animus towards them. If they were all comprised of David Duke and guys as white as Johnny Winter.....I would hate them and want to lynch them and all of their toady supporters like Frank and Dodd and countless other lackeys in government just as much.

We are no longer just peering into the abyss and it is people like ACORN and their ilk who have just shoved us into the firey pit.; 9/29/08, 3:55 PM
Simon said...: Cedarford said...
"We have an 18th Century Constitution that is now failing badly in modern times...."

That is, to use your word, gibberish. The Constitution has not failed at all, least of all in the context of this crisis. The Constitution provides the rules of decision: who will decide and how. It does not (in the main) stipulate outcomes, it stipulates process. The Constitution required that Congress pass this bailout as a law; the Constitution succeeded if Congress assented, and it succeeded if Congress refused assent.; 9/29/08, 3:56 PM
Alex said...: uws - I'm a concerned taxpayer that doesn't want my taxes raised to pay for this and other MOAB plans that your socialist side likes to come up with. You can take George Bush and your other chicken little types. I hope you're happy!; 9/29/08, 3:58 PM
Simon said...: If you define failure as preventing government from acting, by the way, Cedarford, you really have no clue what the Constitution is designed to do. Limited government is supposed to be one of the founding principles of this country - to be for an omnicompetent government that can do anything necessary to handle any crisis, it seems to me, is deeply unamerican.; 9/29/08, 3:58 PM
UWS guy said...: Amazing...have the republicans not been in control of congress for the last 14 of 16 years (gingrich revolution: 1994-2006)? Have we not had a republican executive for 8 of those 12 years?

You guys saying all this happened since democrats won the house and senate in the last 2 years?; 9/29/08, 3:59 PM
Roberto said...: Chicken, you're moving the goalposts.

YOU said there was 20% in he bill for Acorn.

That is patently false.

I understand why you're trying to change the subject, but it's meaningless as an explanation of defense of your previous statement.; 9/29/08, 3:59 PM
Henry said...: Anyone hear what Obama said today?

He's not getting too low when he's low.

Which is what I'd recommend in general. Whence the sudden death mentality? Yeah, I know everyone in politics talked up this grand plan while everyone in finance pretended it was nectar from the gods.

Sure the markets are in turmoil. That's the nature of markets. In any long-term view the value of the markets is based as much on single day gains and losses as incremental adjustment.

Tomorrow there will be a new plan to talk up. Stuff will happen. We'll see.; 9/29/08, 3:59 PM
vbspurs said...: That is, to use your word, gibberish.

The only reason I "like" these kinds of catastrophes, is that people's true stripes show in a crisis.

Never fails. And that's why human beings just don't improve. Facts change, but human behaviour is constant.; 9/29/08, 4:00 PM
Trooper York said...: People call it populist like it’s a bad thing when the people rise up and say enough of the bullshit. Enough of the congressman in their silk suits in their Cadillac’s not paying their taxes but telling you that you should pay more. They are tired of some Wall St. whore who made 50 million last year before he was Treasury Secretary telling us we have to do this today, right now, don’t stop to think, just sign right here. That’s how we got in the mess in the first place.; 9/29/08, 4:01 PM
Roberto said...: uws guy asks: "You guys saying all this happened since democrats won the house and senate in the last 2 years?"

Yes, that's exactly what many on this blog say every day of the week.

The constant drumbeat that the Democrats, over the past 19 months or so...destroyed the universe.; 9/29/08, 4:01 PM
UWS guy said...: crisis averted everyone!

Chris Mathews is talking about tina fey.

We can't be that bad off.; 9/29/08, 4:01 PM
Beth said...: I just listened to the GOP leadership explaining that they had the votes, but that "unfortunately" their reps were in the chamber and heard Pelosi's "partisan speech" and that killed it.

So, just so I understand this: in terms of the folks Boehner and someone else were referring to: they were going to vote for the bill. The bill did not change. They voted against the bill because they got mad at Nancy Pelosi.

That's from your GOP leadership, folks. No speculation there, just "Nancy hurt our feelings." Of course, now, they have to renegotiate the bill. Not that the bill itself was the problem. No, not at all. It was the mean things Nancy said at the last minute. Sure.

They're either liars or whiners.; 9/29/08, 4:02 PM
Roger J. said...: UWS guy: more than enough blame to go around; but because the dems are in control of Congress the onus is on them to act, and they failed. So it matters little who was last in charge; it only matters about who is charge today. That would be the dems; 9/29/08, 4:02 PM
Roberto said...: Trooper York said..."People call it populist like it’s a bad thing when the people rise up and say enough of the bullshit."

But it was the Republicans and some of the Democrats who cast the votes.

And what does this "populist" movement you describe say for the sitting Republican President?

Are you saying...you do not support George W. Bush??; 9/29/08, 4:03 PM
Revenant said...: The Democrats should now pass what they want without concessions to the GOP.

Let's use our brains here, please. No intelligent person thinks the Democrats made concessions to the Republicans just to be nice. If they could have passed a bill that Democrats liked they would have even if Republicans hated it. They made concessions because they knew they'd never get enough votes just from Democrats.; 9/29/08, 4:03 PM
Alex said...: beth - Hastert is full of dung. He's a RINO and true Republicans don't care what he thinks. If you prefer to listen to his bloviating versus Congressmen getting 100:1 emails/phones against the bailout, then please do so. The rest of us will continue functioning in reality.; 9/29/08, 4:04 PM
Alex said...: Revenant said...

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

Let's use our brains here, please. No intelligent person thinks the Democrats made concessions to the Republicans just to be nice. If they could have passed a bill that Democrats liked they would have even if Republicans hated it. They made concessions because they knew they'd never get enough votes just from Democrats.

4:03 PM

KA-CHING!! Some of us understand reality that blue-dog Democrats you know EXIST. I know MichaelTroll, UWS and Beth would prefer to pretend they don't.; 9/29/08, 4:05 PM
UWS guy said...: Well alex if the emails are 100:1 against it, then voting no must have been the right choice to make.

clearly democracy won the day today.; 9/29/08, 4:06 PM
Revenant said...: they were going to vote for the bill. The bill did not change. They voted against the bill because they got mad at Nancy Pelosi.

They were willing to vote for an unpopular bill. They just weren't willing to let the silly cunt blame them for it.

If Pelosi had simply shut the fuck up instead of taking the opportunity to repeat the outright lie that Republican policies led us into this mess, the bailout would have passed. But she wanted to pass the bill AND pass the buck. Fuck that.; 9/29/08, 4:06 PM
Roberto said...: Roger, The Democrats are certainly in charge of the House, with a slim, slim majority in the Senate, but laying this on the party who has been in control for 19 months is disingenuous at best.

And as you already know, no matter what they feel is best, Bush can veto it, and they most certainly DO NOT have the necessary vote to override...so that makes things rather difficult.

Over the course of the first 6 years of the Bush administration Bush vetoed...NOTHING. Since the Democrats took "control" he's signed at least 6 vetoes.

The real question is why Bush's fellow Republicans shoved the bill up his ass.

Do YOU support George W. Bush?; 9/29/08, 4:07 PM
Eric said...: I agree with Ace. Paulson has convinced Congress the bill needs to be passed, but nobody in a contested district wants to vote for it.

But it will pass. Before Wednesday, I'm guessing.; 9/29/08, 4:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Isn't this interesting?

David Cameron pinned the blame for Britain's economic crisis on Gordon Brown yesterday as his party countered Labour's claims about who was best placed to guide the country through troubled times.

Faced with polls showing that Labour has eaten slightly into the Tory lead, Mr Cameron opened his party's conference by ridiculing Mr Brown's ten-year stewardship of the economy. He told delegates in Birmingham that Mr Brown had had his boom, but that his reputation was now bust.

“We have to ask the question, who brought us and our economy to this position? Who was it that spent and spent and borrowed and borrowed and gave us that massive Budget deficit? Who was it who said that he, and he alone, had rewritten the laws of economics to end boom and bust? The answer is our Prime Minister, the then Chancellor, Gordon Brown.”
Timesonline.uk

And this,

Harper, Dion exchange fierce barbs over economy
Updated: Fri Sep. 26 2008 19:27:53

The economy moved swiftly to the forefront of the election today as the Conservatives took one of their most incendiary shots yet at the Liberals.

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper accused the Grits of cheering for a recession after Liberal Leader Stephane Dion blamed Tory policies for the recent economic slowdown.

"Each time you have Conservative governments, the economy is not going well. In fact, Tory times are tough times," Dion said Friday in Toronto.

Harper responded by accusing Dion of "trying to drive down confidence in the Canadian economy without foundation -- and quite frankly sitting on the sidelines virtually cheering for there to be a recession."

After hearing his rival's accusation, Dion hit back hard.

"He accused me to cheer for a recession in Canada, because I'm criticizing his mismanagement of our economy. Shame on him!" Dion said in a passionate tone that many Canadians have not seen yet from the leader in this campaign.

"Do you want more of this? Do you think it's the way, in a democracy, to debate and to try to find the best solutions for our country?"

Dion said that Harper's "right-wing policies" will hurt average Canadians, "You don't cheer for a recession, you want jobs, you want families to have a good living. You love your country."
ctv.ca

Same game, different players.; 9/29/08, 4:07 PM
Simon said...: Theo Boehm said...
"Simon, it sure is beginning to look like it does not. A financial meltdown of the sort we're staring at certainly qualifies as a 'crisis,' IMHO."

Well, fine - let's stipulate that this is a crisis. That's only the pitch, not the swing. What is correct policy response? Was the correct policy response the bailout? Is it something else? What if - and this is neither unthinkable nor unprecedented - the best policy response is to do nothing? Sometimes government swings into action to help the

When the black death hit England six centuries ago, King Bush and his chief advisors Lords Paulson and Bernanke, along with Paliamentarians Reid and Pelosi, reached an eminently sound and logical diagnosis and policy response. The plague was the result of evil, and what is evil? Witches! And aren't cats - the agents of witches - all among us? Logically, it must be the cats - we must eradicate the cats! Now, I admit that my view may be shaped by the fact that I think the ancient egyptians had roughly the right idea about cats, but the bottom line is that society demanded action, determined what action it thought best - based on what information was known and could be milled through the prevailing paradigms of the day - and did precisely the wrong thing.

We have limited ability to analyze complex systems, and although our knowledge has grown since the plague, so has the complexity of systems around us. We should acknowledge this, and pause to consider that it is sometimes better to do nothing at all than to do the wrong thing.; 9/29/08, 4:08 PM
Alex said...: eric - it will not pass in this session of Congress. Mark my words on it!; 9/29/08, 4:08 PM
vbspurs said...: UWS guy: more than enough blame to go around; but because the dems are in control of Congress the onus is on them to act, and they failed. So it matters little who was last in charge; it only matters about who is charge today. That would be the dems

Agree 100%.

This was a revolt by Main Street by what they perceive is greed by Wall Street (which BTW, is a ridiculous populist take), but also on their Congressmen. People papered their congressmen with phone calls and faxes telling them to vote no, or else there'd be hell to pay.

But it is important to note that 3 years ago, the price of gas at the pump was around $2.60, and 3 years ago, the toxic Bankruptcy Bill led by Joe Biden was passed. The price of gas skyrocketed after 2006, and people just couldn't afford to keep up with all their bills.

What now? Is Pelosi going to call more people 'unpatriotic' today?

What a joke of a leader that person is.

Cheers,
Victoria; 9/29/08, 4:09 PM
Roberto said...: rev says: "If Pelosi had simply shut the fuck up..."

What?

The exact number who were evidently offended...would have voted yea?

And where the hell is John The Savior McCain???

Anybody hear from him yet??

Of course not.; 9/29/08, 4:09 PM
Beth said...: revenant, so you're admitting they had an emotional meltdown. They should man up. If the bill was what was important, they'd have done that. Pelosi's speech would have gone down as ill-spirited. If that speech turned a "yes" into a "no" vote, then the person changing that vote is a nitwit. What a bunch of crybabies: "she MADE me vote no! She's mean! She's unfair!"; 9/29/08, 4:10 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: Beth,
Pelosi wanted, embraced, and demanded- whatever the case was- bipartisanship. All she had to do was keep her mouth shut until after the vote. How can you expect people to be bipartisan when you kick them in the teeth?

She made a grave tactical error; whether it was intentional, unintentional, or just plain stupid, she lost the votes she needed by being two faced.; 9/29/08, 4:11 PM
Anonymous said...: A populist channels and rides fear-that's why some don't like it.

It isn't leadership-it's a stoking and riding of the herd mentality.; 9/29/08, 4:12 PM
vbspurs said...: Pelosi's remarks at 12:21. What a partisan, finger-pointing dope.; 9/29/08, 4:12 PM
Roberto said...: Speaking of Republicans not supporting the President from their own party...maybe they're actually on to something:

With twenty years of the ups and downs of the U.S. business cycle, there is a significant advantage when a Democrat occupied the White House in each of five categories.

% Per Annum - GDP Growth:
Democrat 4.1%
Republican 2.9%

% Per Annum - Employment Democrat 2.9%
Republican 1.7%

% Per Annum - CPI
Democrat 4.0%
Republican 5.1%

% Per Annum - DJIA
Democrat 8.1%; 9/29/08, 4:14 PM
vbspurs said...: John McCain is speaking FIRST. Have we heard from Obama yet? No. As usual, he waits.; 9/29/08, 4:15 PM
Alex said...: beth - if you don't understand that you can't insult people's honor, then you understand nothing about politics.; 9/29/08, 4:15 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/29/08, 4:16 PM
Roger J. said...: Michael--do you honestly believe the stuff you write? Lets review: this is a money bill and all money bills start in the house, where there is an absolute democratic majority. Your speculation about the senate and a veto are simply thrown out there because you cant deal with the fact the the dems couldnt pass it.

And let me repeat this for you: there is blame enough to go around; at this point the democrats get the blame because they are the majority party in the house and couldnt get the job done. The broke it, they own it.; 9/29/08, 4:16 PM
chickelit said...: Michael said: Chicken, you're moving the goalposts.

YOU said there was 20% in he bill for Acorn.

That is patently false.

Where did I say that? I think Knox said it at 3:09/

Alex- stopped using my name in vain!; 9/29/08, 4:17 PM
Roberto said...: McCain is finally addressing the nation, touting how much better the bill is now...since he rolled in to make sure everything was under control.

Funny how it took him hours to draft his explanation of the bill's failure.

That's what you "thinking on your ass."; 9/29/08, 4:17 PM
Roberto said...: Chicken, sorry if I mistook you for knox.; 9/29/08, 4:17 PM
former law student said...: vb: "michael" posted a transcript of Pelosi's remarks here. Which are the partisan dope remarks?

I did not hear Pelosi make any unkind remarks about the Republicans in Congress, though she sharply criticized Bush.; 9/29/08, 4:19 PM
Alex said...: Pelosi not only insulted the Republican congressmen, but insulted their constituents. You just don't do that if you are not pretending to be bi-partisan. My guess is that SF liberals demanded it.; 9/29/08, 4:20 PM
Roberto said...: FLS, I've challenged those here again and again to point out the points she made that would result in exactly the number of "offended" Republicans to trash the bill.

No takers thus yet.; 9/29/08, 4:22 PM
Alex said...: I wish someone could tell me how many Republicans were going to vote YES but then changed their minds after the Pelosi speech. I'd like to think that a solid majority was against this bill on the ideology if it.; 9/29/08, 4:23 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: "michael" posted a transcript of Pelosi's remarks here. Which are the partisan dope remarks?

The transcript posted was not the speech she actually delivered.

Try this... read the transcript and watch the freaking video.; 9/29/08, 4:24 PM
Alex said...: dbq - regardless of Nasty Nancy, was there a YES majority before her speech or not?; 9/29/08, 4:24 PM
Revenant said...: revenant, so you're admitting they had an emotional meltdown.

Sorry, I forgot you're not very intelligent. I'll explain more simply.

There is going to be enormous political fallout from this bill, because people do not want it. That is why it has to be TRULY bipartisan. That means both sides support it, both sides admit it is necessary, and neither side blames the other for it.

What Pelosi wanted was to pass the bill but deflect all the public hatred of it onto the Republican Party. The Republicans decided not to play along, for the obvious reason that the minority party is not going to commit political suicide to save the careers of the majority party.

Every single one of the Republicans who voted against this bill was from a district where the majority of voters don't want the bill passed. If they pass a bill that is both widely hated AND blamed on Republicans, they're dead.

Of course you want them to "man up" since "man up" amounts to "taking a bullet for the Democratic Party's sake". But they don't exist to serve the partisan interests of the Democratic Party.; 9/29/08, 4:24 PM
Beth said...: How can you expect people to be bipartisan when you kick them in the teeth?

I expect people to be able to do the right thing, EVEN in the face of an insult, or a perceived one, yes. I don't expect some silly emotional reaction to notions of honor in the face of a crisis. Where's rhhardin and his talk of soap opera now? More drama queen madness.

And, yes, I also want to hear from the Dems that voted no. I don't expect their "reasoning" to be any better.

And I ultimately don't think this was about honor or "playing" nice (it ain't play, it's work -- another idiotic perspective). I really don't think mature adults carrying grave responsibilities would throw a little tantrum and vote no against a bill they had agreed to support. This is a tactic, to keep working on the bill.; 9/29/08, 4:25 PM
vbspurs said...: I did not hear Pelosi make any unkind remarks about the Republicans in Congress, though she sharply criticized Bush.

Only to the obtuse would this not strike a partisan, and completely unnecessary note.

All she had to do, is what any leader would've done (indeed, what President Bush said in his remarks this morning), is to rah-rah a bill and leave the insults and fingerpointing for later.; 9/29/08, 4:26 PM
Bob said...: When chickens run screaming about how everything will stop we need some cooler heads. The Treasury floated $680 billion out today so I suspect that companies with good credit histories are going to be able to borrow. But consumers or businesses who are shaky are going to find the credit lines tight or dry.

Also, let's remember a large chunk of that $700 billion was going towards credit card and auto loans. We have certainly lived thru defaults on those types of loans before. Detroit got its $25 Billion in "loans" earlier in week so I'm unmoved on how planet will stop spinning by making Congress take some time crafting a bailout. Bills crafted in extreme haste always end up being bad.; 9/29/08, 4:27 PM
Beth said...: Sorry, I forgot you're not very intelligent. I'll explain more simply.

You are so pathetic, Revenant. It's like clockwork - someone disagrees with you and you turn into a little playground bully, shrieking insults.; 9/29/08, 4:27 PM
KCFleming said...: Beth,
Gonna ask the Dem's to "man up" too, or just the minority party?

What, no words of critiques for Pelosi, who couldn't even get her own party to vote yes?

I cannot pretend to know what to do here. I suspect Dust Bunny Queen is right, however, that a liquidity crisis means we are all fucked.

As a result, I hope a version of this passes, stripped to the floorboards, nekkid except for what is desperately needed, and policed and transparent and fingerprinted every goddamned step of the way.

Trooper has a point, as well. Why should I trust these fucks?

It's godawful to see the Dems take FAN/FRED money and now want to blame the GOP for it all.
It's maddening to see Bush not get up and explain WHAT need occur and WHY.
It's maddening to see McCain and Obama both expose their ignorance of economics.

Neither appears capable of leading in a real crisis.
Fucking assholes, all of them..; 9/29/08, 4:27 PM
Anonymous said...: Simon: With all due respect, this isn't 1348, and we DO understand a fair bit more about complex financial systems than they did then, or even in 1929.

From what I understand, the current crisis is behaving almost exactly like the computer model co-created by Ben Bernanke about 10 or 12 years ago. Bernanke is one of the world's foremost experts on the crisis of liquidity in 1929 and the subsequent financial meltdown. He is also the co-author of the Bush bailout plan. The basic reasoning behind it makes perfect sense to me, although I only had a year of upper-division economics at the University of California, and so am no expert.

But I am economically literate enough to know a reasonable plan from witches and cats, even though Barney Frank wants to put in too much wing of bat. From what I've heard, I would be afraid of eye of Newt as well.; 9/29/08, 4:28 PM
Alex said...: beth doesn't understand basic politics. My guess is she read the "Ms Manners guide to politics" or some nonsense like that. "manning up" in politics means survival, doing whatever it takes.; 9/29/08, 4:28 PM
Original Mike said...: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey3ZlsmIkz4

Holy Crap!; 9/29/08, 4:29 PM
Simon said...: Michael said...
"laying this on the party who has been in control for 19 months is disingenuous at best."

What was the price of gas when nine percent Nancy became speaker?

"no matter what they feel is best, Bush can veto it"

That's no excuse for inaction. Bush's veto is an excuse for why you tried and failed - when the GOP took over the House in '94, they brought everything in the Contract with America to the floor. They didn't hide behind excuses - "oh, the Senate isn't going to pass it"; "oh, the President will veto it" - they brought it to the floor from a vote, and the upshot is that they can legitimately blame the failure of those measures on the Senate and the President of the day. Democrats have no excuse for inaction just because they speculate the President might veto.

"Over the course of the first 6 years of the Bush administration Bush vetoed...NOTHING."

An oversold talking point. Bush's allies controlled the House, ergo nothing Bush opposed made it to his desk to sign.

"Since the Democrats took 'control' he's signed at least 6 vetoes."

A President doesn't sign a veto. There is no veto clause in the Constitution. The word "veto" doesn't even appear in the Constitution - a veto is a consequence of the design, as a corner is the intersection of two walls. The President must, with very specific exceptions, sign any bill that has passed Congress before it can be law. "Veto" is what we call his or her failure to do so.

Even setting that aside - ooh, a whole six vetoes! Less impressive when one considers it in the context of the 324 total bills presented to him for this Congress.; 9/29/08, 4:29 PM
Beth said...: But they don't exist to serve the partisan interests of the Democratic Party.

No, indeed, that is not the party they are putting above country. Good point. Thanks for explaining that so simply.; 9/29/08, 4:29 PM
Beth said...: An oversold talking point. Bush's allies controlled the House, ergo nothing Bush opposed made it to his desk to sign.

Including years of spending that have taken us into record deficits. Surely someone in the GOP might have remembered how much y'all just hate spending tax dollars.; 9/29/08, 4:30 PM
vbspurs said...: But I am economically literate enough to know a reasonable plan from witches and cats, even though Barney Frank wants to put in too much wing of bat. From what I've heard, I would be afraid of eye of Newt as well.

Heh, on that note, I need to eat. I think Mickey D's has 69 cent cheeseburgers. I think I'll be eating a lot of those in the near future...

Cheers,
Victoria; 9/29/08, 4:31 PM
Beth said...: "manning up" in politics means survival, doing whatever it takes.

Right, like running and whining about partisanship? That's whatever it takes to do what, exactly?; 9/29/08, 4:31 PM
Alex said...: beth - you better lay your wrath on the Democrats for failing to put "party above country".; 9/29/08, 4:32 PM
Joe said...: Pelosi says there is a crisis and then lets the house not reconvene until Thursday. Brilliant!

Congress could pass several laws right now to help. Change mark-to-market accounting. Reduce capital gains. Change capitalization requirements for purchasing a house.

Congress could revisit the bloated continuing resolution they just passed, removing everything but the essentials and diverting that money to other things.; 9/29/08, 4:33 PM
Unknown said...: So rumor has it that Pelosi & Co will basically put all the pork back in the bill and resubmit it for a vote in the hopes of securing the support of the rest of her party. That would mean people like this:

"I have been rushed to judgment by the Bush Administration before. There hasn't been enough time to evaluate the impacts this legislation would have if enacted, or to consider alternatives. Congress deserves time to weigh the benefits and the potential pitfalls of borrowing this money." — Rep. Baron Hill, Democrat.

"We are now in the golden age of thieves. And where I come from we put thieves in jail, we don't bail them out." — Rep. Pete Visclosky, Democrat

I just don't see how they can change their mind in a couple of days. What is more, the margin she needs to cover will only get larger if she makes the bill even less palatable for Republicans.; 9/29/08, 4:33 PM
Wayne Moore said...: Re: Pelosi's speech (to AlphaLiberal)

Nancy Pelosi simply explained to Republican house members that if they vote for the package this will be how your Democrat opponent will attack you for the next five weeks. I have no idea if she actually changed any Republican votes from "aye" to "nay", but she certainly made it more difficult for any Republicans on the bubble to to support the bill.

Ironically, she may have done the same with some Democrats.

Her speech was foolish. The Democrats need to replace her as speaker.; 9/29/08, 4:33 PM
George M. Spencer said...: Before being elected President, he'd been in national politics for 20 years. He married money. He loved the Navy. He suffered more terribly than most men can imagine, undergoing horrible physical tortures that left him permanently disabled. He was rash and impetuous, throwing policies out with seemingly reckless abandon. His vitality was amazing.

His opponent was from a poor family out west. Orphaned, he lived with his grandmother. He was a cool, above-it-all type renowned for his intellectual skills. People forget that he was also a humanitarian. And he pulled himself up by his bootstraps; unfortunately, he wasn't very good working with other politicians.

The year was 1932.; 9/29/08, 4:33 PM
Anonymous said...: Amen, Joe, amen.; 9/29/08, 4:34 PM
Beth said...: Pogo, yes, plenty of criticism for the Dems, too. But if you pay attention to my initial post, I am amazed by the GOP leadership's public acknowledgement that 1) they supported the bill, but 2) won't vote for it because of Pelosi's speech. My disgust is with representatives who put emotion before doing what's right.

When some of the Dems who voted no start explaining their reasoning, I'll be disgusted with them, too.; 9/29/08, 4:34 PM
Wayne Moore said...: Re: Pelosi's speech (to AlphaLiberal)

Nancy Pelosi simply explained to Republican house members that if they vote for the package this will be how your Democrat opponent will attack you for the next five weeks. I have no idea if she actually changed any Republican votes from "aye" to "nay", but she certainly made it more difficult for any Republicans on the bubble to to support the bill.

Ironically, she may have done the same with some Democrats.

Her speech was foolish. The Democrats need to replace her as speaker.; 9/29/08, 4:35 PM
KCFleming said...: "Right, like running and whining about partisanship? "

Christ on roller skates, did you watch that goddamned video?
Is Pelosi insane?
What an idiot.

Why didn't she just stand up and say, "Bend over GOP. It's for the good of the country. If it succeeds, we'll take the credit. if it fails, you'll take the blame. If you resist, it's your fault. If you play, we have you by the short hairs, because you'll lose your seat."

Yeah, Beth, what a fucking patriot she is.; 9/29/08, 4:36 PM
Beth said...: Also, the time to attack Pelosi is after passing the bill. Then, do it from the moral high ground and make her look foolish.

Wat this the right bill, or the nest effort that could be hoped for? If so, then it should have passed. If not, then I don't think Pelosi's speech was the reason, just an excuse. And she, or other Dem leaders, are going to have to deal with their nay-voters down the line if there's another bill in the works.; 9/29/08, 4:37 PM
Alex said...: Shorter Beth:

Democrats are to be criticized, but Republicans are to be smashed.; 9/29/08, 4:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Is Pelosi insane?

People want crisp answers:

Yes.

And Sen. Shelby can share her padded cell.; 9/29/08, 4:39 PM
Salamandyr said...: I'm pretty sure the reason McCain and Bush haven't gone full bore in attacking Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and yes, Barack Obama, is because they've been trying to come up with a solution both sides can live with.

Is it really too much to ask for the Democrats to show similar grace? Maybe the handful of GOP who changed their votes (assuming they did) should have sacrificed more for the greater good. And maybe Nancy Pelosi should have shown some fucking leadership and shown she was willing to sacrifice as much as what she was asking others to make.; 9/29/08, 4:39 PM
Alex said...: Shorter Beth:

We must bow down to Queen Nancy because....; 9/29/08, 4:39 PM
former law student said...: Democrats believe in a free market ... but in this case, in its unbridled form as encouraged, supported by the Republicans — some in the Republican Party, not all

Hey, if you take offense to that, aren't you admitting you're one of the bad guys? "If the shoe fits..."

no words of critiques for Pelosi, who couldn't even get her own party to vote yes?

Remember that while Bush was the Prodigal Son, he wasn't the Democrats' Prodigal Son. Why expect the Democrats to kill the fatted calf for Bush?

"When President Bush took office, he inherited President Clinton's surpluses — four years in a row, budget surpluses, on a trajectory of $5.6 trillion in surplus. And with his reckless economic policies within two years, he had turned that around .; 9/29/08, 4:39 PM
Beth said...: So rumor has it that Pelosi & Co will basically put all the pork back in the bill and resubmit it for a vote in the hopes of securing the support of the rest of her party.

That will be a bad thing, but it didn't have to happen. If her speech was a tactic to achieve that, then the people who ran at that red flag are stupid.; 9/29/08, 4:39 PM
Cedarford said...: Simon's view: (People were ignorant in 1348, ergo:) We have limited ability to analyze complex systems, and although our knowledge has grown since the plague, so has the complexity of systems around us. We should acknowledge this, and pause to consider that it is sometimes better to do nothing at all than to do the wrong thing.

Shorter Simon: Trust in the Sacred Parchment our Holy Founding Fathers gave us...for their 18th Century system is perfect. Have faith in the divine works and their wisdom. Continue business as usual.; 9/29/08, 4:41 PM
Roberto said...: Simon, I have no idea why someone who represents himself as being relatively well read and knowledgeable about politics, continues to defend the Bush administration.

Are you actually saying you think Pelosi has something to do with gas prices? Really?

And that Bush never vetoing a bill (maybe 1?) the entire time the Republicans were in the majority, then suddenly finding his veto pen (for only 5 or 6?) after the Democrats took control...is NO BIG DEAL? With the budget and deficit exploding over the first 6 years?

And the fact that 324 total bills were presented to him for this Congress is interesting, but how many were presented in the first six years?

*Hell, based on today's vote...even the Republicans don't support Bush.; 9/29/08, 4:41 PM
Beth said...: alex, "Queen Nancy" isn't the bill. Putting hurt feelings over the bill was stupid. There'd be no shortage of chances to rip Pelosi a new one, trumpet that she risked passing the bill on a partisan gambit, go for her throat. But pass the bill first.; 9/29/08, 4:42 PM
Revenant said...: It's like clockwork - someone disagrees with you and you turn into a little playground bully, shrieking insults.

Gee, Beth, where's your sense of humor? Can't you take a joke? :)

Anyway, I didn't insult you. No intelligent person could have read my post as saying that the Republicans had "an emotional meltdown". You took it that way, ergo you're not that intelligent. QED.; 9/29/08, 4:43 PM
Alex said...: shorter Beth, MichaelTroll, UWS:

Republicans must bend over and be royally *bleeped* for the good of the country(Democrats)...; 9/29/08, 4:43 PM
knox said...: 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?"

Right, they should. But they won't because, I'm like a broken record here, they are horrible communicators, with the worst PR instincts.; 9/29/08, 4:43 PM
Fletch said...: mcg(2:58)

"When was the last time anyone ever asked you fo. SEVEN. HUNDRED. BILLION. DOLLARS."

Last year.

How much did we spend on "Socialist InSecurity" last year? Wiki says 20.9%. On a $3.3 trillion budget, that's $690 billion...; 9/29/08, 4:43 PM
former law student said...: even the Republicans don't support Bush.

Amazing but true. Republicans expect the Democrats to bail out Bush. This foreshadows the Labors of Hercules that Obama will have to perform after he's elected, beginning with the Augean Stables.; 9/29/08, 4:44 PM
knox said...: Beth's right in that if the republicans don't come up with some really good explanation for why they don't like the bill, not Nancy Pelosi, they are going to look like idiots.

McCain already looks like an idiot for saying "I won't debate until there's a plan" and there's no plan 3 days later.; 9/29/08, 4:45 PM
Joe said...: When President Bush took office, he inherited President Clinton's surpluses — four years in a row, budget surpluses, on a trajectory of $5.6 trillion in surplus. And with his reckless economic policies within two years, he had turned that around.

Bullshit. A massive hi-tech bubble popped. Nobody could have done anything about it. (The size of the bubble was greatly exacerbated by Greenspan's money giveaway in the late 90s.)

Fact is that Clinton's ass kissing of ACORN, etc. was one of the principal causes of this mess.

A good summary:

http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2008/09/29/who-caused-the-biggest-financial-crisis-since-the-great-depression/; 9/29/08, 4:45 PM
Roberto said...: knox - Nice to see you crawled out into the light of day.

I asked you about that inane Acorn comment and you disappeared.

20% of the bill is NOT directed to Acorn.; 9/29/08, 4:46 PM
Unknown said...: BTW, I can't figure out Pelosi's motivations for adjourning until Thursday. Doesn't it undercut any attempts to blame the Republicans for screwing things up? If it's not important enough to keep Congress in session to put together an alternative? And if it is important, and that becomes more clear over the next couple of days, won't she look foolish?

Attention partisan hacks here, I'm asking this from her perspective. I'm just not clear on the political value of this choice.; 9/29/08, 4:47 PM
Sofa King said...: Beth, will you give it up please. It's not about "hurt feelings," it's about Pelosi making it a partisan issue. Once she does that it's no longer bipartisan, and it's fair for BOTH parties to act in their political interests. You are demanding that the Republicans be high-minded bipartisans while the Democrats are allowed to demagogue the issue. That's just a bridge too far.; 9/29/08, 4:47 PM
krylovite said...: Every single one of the Republicans who voted against this bill was from a district where the majority of voters don't want the bill passed.

Yeah? Tell me where I can find the polling data that supports your statement.; 9/29/08, 4:47 PM
Roberto said...: I've read Pelosi's speech a few times and still can't understand what there is in the speech that would render the "exact number" of Republicans so offended they would vote nay.

Did it not offend those who voted yea??; 9/29/08, 4:48 PM
Sloanasaurus said...: eth's right in that if the republicans don't come up with some really good explanation for why they don't like the bill, not Nancy Pelosi, they are going to look like idiots.

It's hilarious listening to the left blame republcans for this one. Nancy Pelosi and Democrats are in charge of the Congress. They can pass any bill they want in the House. The fact that she brought this bill to the floor and it failed is her failure of leadership. What's worse is that Democrats have no other proposals.; 9/29/08, 4:50 PM
integrity said...: mcg said...
BTW, I can't figure out Pelosi's motivations for adjourning until Thursday.

Jewish holiday.; 9/29/08, 4:50 PM
Anonymous said...: Knox is absolutely right. Republicans WILL look like idiots.

I blame them first and foremost for not supporting Bush's plan.

Then I blame the Democrats for their games. But the way this is falling out, the Republicans get the most blame, and, like the Republicans in 1932, will be blown out of the water.

Spin it how you will. That's the way it looks to me.; 9/29/08, 4:50 PM
Sofa King said...: Michael -

What are you talking about with your "EXACT NUMBER!!!" flames? You're making it sound like the bill failed by one vote...; 9/29/08, 4:51 PM
Too many jims said...: McG,

It is Rosh Hashanah. I don't think they will have a vote until that ends though many will continue to negotiate.; 9/29/08, 4:51 PM
Roberto said...: Sofa King said..."Beth, will you give it up please. It's not about "hurt feelings," it's about Pelosi making it a partisan issue."

And God knows...the Republicans are firmly against any form of partisan commentary.

Now THAT is funny.

*And again: Tell where in the speech Pelosi is so partisan or offensive??; 9/29/08, 4:51 PM
Original Mike said...: Pelosi: "When was the last time anyone ever asked you fo. SEVEN. HUNDRED. BILLION. DOLLARS."

Fletch: "Last year."

Yeah, I found the irony in Pelosi's question pretty rich, too.; 9/29/08, 4:51 PM
former law student said...: A massive hi-tech bubble popped.

Exactly how did dot.com companies selling, for example, pet food on the web, who never made a dime in their brief existence, create a revenue surplus? Whereas it's easy to understand how drastically cutting taxes, then fighting a two-front war, can create deficits.; 9/29/08, 4:52 PM
Matt said...: Alex
The American people just said "no to a 700B bailout... doesn't bode well for Obama's grand national health care plans in 2009...

This is incorrect. People don't want this plan mainly because it is 700 billion to bail out crooks. Obama's healthcare plan is a fraction of 700 billion. And it is not bailing out crooks. It would be giving something to working class and middle class Americans.
They are two different situtions.; 9/29/08, 4:52 PM
Unknown said...: Ah, got it, folks. Thanks. That is a fair reason.; 9/29/08, 4:52 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: food for thought

The Democrats/Progressives are either stupid or deliberately evil.

Either way. I'm gonna go drink now.; 9/29/08, 4:53 PM
bearbee said...: Bloggingheads on Fannie/Freddie; 9/29/08, 4:54 PM
krylovite said...: It's like clockwork - someone disagrees with you and you turn into a little playground bully, shrieking insults.

Yeah, that's Revenant!; 9/29/08, 4:54 PM
bleeper said...: Today my money is still ok. With luck it will continue to be ok. Is it time to buy gold?; 9/29/08, 4:54 PM
Revenant said...: No, indeed, that is not the party they are putting above country. Good point. Thanks for explaining that so simply.

Technically speaking they serve the voters, who didn't want the bill passed. At a higher level they serve the people of the United States, who also don't want the bill passed. At a more selfish level, they serve the Republican Party, which wants the bill passed by doesn't want to have to take all the blame for it. At the most selfish level, they serve themselves.

Now, you can try to sell some line of bullshit about how they should have put what's best for the country ahead of what the voters want, what's good for their party, and what's good for their own careers. Nobody thinks you actually believe that, because Democrats aren't doing it and you're not asking them to. What Democrats ARE doing is trying to do is pass the bill and blame the Republicans for it.

If you were honest and actually believed politicians should do the right thing and damn the consequences, you'd be attacking the MAJORITY party for not doing so. They COULD pass the bill entirely on their own, after all. The only reason they need Republican votes is to give themselves political cover. They aren't willing to move without that cover, and the Republicans aren't willing to provide it unless the coverage is mutual.; 9/29/08, 4:55 PM
Roberto said...: Sofa, it failed because the exact number of Republican counted on to vote yea (even by the Republicans and the Bush administration)...voted nay.

If I remember correctly it is 12.; 9/29/08, 4:55 PM
Roberto said...: Bunny, Oh, sure it's the deliberately evil part.; 9/29/08, 4:56 PM
Beth said...: I did find your effort to explain things funny, Revenant. Did I not include a smiley face? Sorry!

What other than an emotional meltdown would you call walking into the chamber, ready to vote yes, then changing your vote in a hissy fit? I'm going on what the GOP leadership said -- the last-minute nay-voters did not vote on the merits, or the necessity, of the bill. They reacted to the Pelosi speech; make that over-reacted. Ergo, emotional meltdown. They let anger overwhelm reason.

None of that makes Pelosi's speech a good idea, or even a fair thing to do.; 9/29/08, 4:57 PM
Unknown said...: I really like David Bernstein's take (actually, the part in his UPDATE) on why Pelosi's speech today was a bad move:

As I wrote in the comments, I have no idea why any particular member, or group of members, of the House, voted for or against the bill. All I'm saying is that if you are trying to rally the House to pass an emergency bill, you make it seem like there is AN ACTUAL EMERGENCY, which more or less precludes partisan attacks. To the extent any Republican voted against the bill because of Pelosi's speech, it may not be a question of them being offended by her partisanship, but the perspective that if Pelosi thinks that the situation calls for partisanship, it must not be a serious emergency, because leaders simply don't engage in such antics when a true emergency is at hand. For that matter, if I were a Democrat skeptical of the bill, Pelosi's speech may have discouraged me from voting for it for the same reason.

(link); 9/29/08, 4:57 PM
knox said...: If I remember correctly it is 12.

Plus a hell of a lot of democrats. But they don't count, guys! It's not fair to count democrats!; 9/29/08, 4:57 PM
Roberto said...: Matt says: "People don't want this plan mainly because it is 700 billion to bail out crooks."

It's a tad more complicated than that.

Right now bank are in huge trouble. There is little if any liquidity, money to use for loans, etc,. is all but frozen.

There are always some who we don't want saved, that are saved, but this is a bill directed to all of America.; 9/29/08, 4:59 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: When I bought stocks, I don't remember my neighbors signing up to give me a free insurance policy against loss. My stocks, my risk to take. I'm not going to support a bailout to force other people to prop up my portfolio.; 9/29/08, 4:59 PM
George M. Spencer said...: Yes, Bleeper at 4:54 p.m., it is time to buy gold.

For further investment advice, please send a SASE with $3.00 to

C. Citizen
RFD 357
Rhyolite, NV; 9/29/08, 5:00 PM
former law student said...: Whatever happened to the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 (S. 190), filed by Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska), with co-sponsors Sens. John Sununu (R-New Hampshire) and Elizabeth Dole (R-North Carolina)? This would have also established the Federal Housing Finance Agency as an independent agency, just as in H.R. 1461.

It's hilarious listening to the right("Roger's Rules") blame Democrats for this one. Bill Frist and Democrats were in charge of the Congress. They could pass any bill they want in the Senate. The fact that Shelby couldn't move this bill to the floor was the GOP's failure of leadership.

Oh, yeah, McCain made a speech co-sponsoring it in mid-2006, although the bill had been stuck in committee since July 2005.; 9/29/08, 5:01 PM
Simon said...: Beth said...
"Including years of spending that have taken us into record deficits. Surely someone in the GOP might have remembered how much y'all just hate spending tax dollars."

I agree. As I've said before, I wasn't sad to see the Congressional GOP punished severely last election, and I'd have been happy to see them taking an even stearner drubbling. Nevertheless, the bottom line is that their sin was in abandoning Republican principles - out of lethargy, out of avarice, out of incompetence, and so forth. It wasn't the program that failed, it was the people we sent to enact it who then did not.; 9/29/08, 5:01 PM
Beth said...: I keep seeing that the GOP reps who voted no are all in districts where voters are overwhelmingly against the bill. What kind of statistic is that? Is there any district where voters are in FAVOR of the bill? Isn't it a given that this is a "crap sandwich"? No one's going to applauded back home in the district for this bill, but this is part of representative government. Sometimes it sucks to be in office.; 9/29/08, 5:01 PM
Sofa King said...: There are always some who we don't want saved, that are saved, but this is a bill directed to all of America.

Then that case should be made not to Congress, but to the People of the United States whose money it is that we're ultimately arguing over. The prevailing wisdom out of D.C. so far has been "Please, don't ask questions, just trust us and hand over your wallet! NOW!"; 9/29/08, 5:01 PM
Roberto said...: knox - I know all about the Democrats, but the reason the bill failed was because of the 12 Republicans who switched their supposedly promised votes.

The Democrats knew exactly what THEY had, and were counting on what Bohner and others promised from their end.

I wish every single Democrat voted yea, but that isn't what happened and the reason everybody was so positive was because of the negotiations the Republicans "thought" they had.; 9/29/08, 5:01 PM
Eric said...: Exactly how did dot.com companies selling, for example, pet food on the web, who never made a dime in their brief existence, create a revenue surplus?

Oh come now, you know the answer. They may not have made money off customers, but they got (and spent) plenty of money from investors. All that spending has a ripple effect - it's the classic bubble, and every bubble brings in surplus taxes. Just like every popping bubble hurts tax revenue.; 9/29/08, 5:02 PM
Simon said...: Michael said...
"There are always some who we don't want saved, that are saved, but this is a bill directed to all of America."

A good play on words, given that a bill is both a legislative proposal and an invoice for the cost of something.; 9/29/08, 5:02 PM
Unknown said...: The Democrats knew exactly what THEY had

How do you know?; 9/29/08, 5:02 PM
Roberto said...: Sofa King said..."Then that case should be made not to Congress, but to the People of the United States whose money it is that we're ultimately arguing over."

Correcto Mundo.

The bill has not been adequately explained and that is certainly the crux of the matter.

Maybe this will make them do so.; 9/29/08, 5:03 PM
Revenant said...: What other than an emotional meltdown would you call walking into the chamber, ready to vote yes, then changing your vote in a hissy fit?

Beth, your persistent belief in this nonexistent "Republican hissy fit" simply illustrates that you haven't got the intelligence to hold up your end of the conversation.

I already explained the actual reason for their change of votes, which had nothing to do with emotions and everything to do with not wanting to be Pelosi's fall guys. I'll not bother explaining it to you again, since if you couldn't understand it the first two times I doubt you'll understand it the third.; 9/29/08, 5:05 PM
Roberto said...: mcg - Well I base knowing the Democrats had all the they votes they could muster, and felt the additional votes from the other side of the aisle would suffice...

...because I've heard Democrats all day long saying just that.

I guess you can start the "oh, they were all lying" bit, but...this appears to be the case.; 9/29/08, 5:06 PM
Unknown said...: As I said, michael, how do you know the Dems knew how many votes they had?

After all, I agree that it's silly to think that exactly the key number of Republicans switch votes at the last minute. But that's how many Blunt is claiming. Surely Pelosi would not have risked going into this with a near tie. It seems to me that she probably thought she had a little bit of a cushion.; 9/29/08, 5:08 PM
Roberto said...: rev says: "Beth, your persistent belief in this nonexistent "Republican hissy fit" simply illustrates that you haven't got the intelligence to hold up your end of the conversation."

But that is exactly what the Republicans said right after th vote was taken.

Bohner, Kantor, etc. blamed Pelosi for tainting the vote with her speech.

And...again: Read the damn thing and tell me what is soooooooo inflammatory to create such a situation.; 9/29/08, 5:08 PM
Roberto said...: mcg said..."As I said, michael, how do you know the Dems knew how many votes they had?"

I just told you?

Good lord...read the response.; 9/29/08, 5:09 PM
Unknown said...: I remember reading somewhere, and I can't find it now, that Pelosi gave the Democrats free reign to vote their conscience. I'll try and find it and post it here. Sure, she might have done the count, but with that kind of freedom comes a freedom to switch, too.; 9/29/08, 5:10 PM
vbspurs said...: A quick return just to post the Ayes/Nos.

BILL TITLE: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide earnings assistance and tax relief to members of the uniformed services, volunteer firefighters, and Peace Corps volunteers, and for other purposes

Ackerman D NY legislator Aye
Allen D ME legislator Aye
Andrews D NJ legislator Aye
Arcuri D NY legislator Aye
Baird D WA legislator Aye
Baldwin D WI legislator Aye
Bean D IL legislator Aye
Berman D CA legislator Aye
Berry D AR legislator Aye
Bishop (GA) D GA legislator Aye
Bishop (NY) D NY legislator Aye
Boren D OK legislator Aye
Boswell D IA legislator Aye
Boucher D VA legislator Aye
Boyd (FL) D FL legislator Aye
Brady (PA) D PA legislator Aye
Brown, Corrine D FL legislator Aye
Capps D CA legislator Aye
Capuano D MA legislator Aye
Cardoza D CA legislator Aye
Carnahan D MO legislator Aye
Clarke D NY legislator Aye
Clyburn D SC legislator Aye
Cohen D TN legislator Aye
Cooper D TN legislator Aye
Costa D CA legislator Aye
Cramer D AL legislator Aye
Crowley D NY legislator Aye
Davis (AL) D AL legislator Aye
Davis (CA) D CA legislator Aye
Davis (IL) D IL legislator Aye
DeGette D CO legislator Aye
DeLauro D CT legislator Aye
Dicks D WA legislator Aye
Dingell D MI legislator Aye
Donnelly D IN legislator Aye
Doyle D PA legislator Aye
Edwards (TX) D TX legislator Aye
Ellison D MN legislator Aye
Ellsworth D IN legislator Aye
Emanuel D IL legislator Aye
Engel D NY legislator Aye
Eshoo D CA legislator Aye
Etheridge D NC legislator Aye
Farr D CA legislator Aye
Fattah D PA legislator Aye
Foster D IL legislator Aye
Frank (MA) D MA legislator Aye
Gonzalez D TX legislator Aye
Gordon D TN legislator Aye
Gutierrez D IL legislator Aye
Hall (NY) D NY legislator Aye
Hare D IL legislator Aye
Harman D CA legislator Aye
Hastings (FL) D FL legislator Aye
Higgins D NY legislator Aye
Hinojosa D TX legislator Aye
Holt D NJ legislator Aye
Honda D CA legislator Aye
Hooley D OR legislator Aye
Hoyer D MD legislator Aye
Israel D NY legislator Aye
Johnson, E. B. D TX legislator Aye
Kanjorski D PA legislator Aye
Kennedy D RI legislator Aye
Kildee D MI legislator Aye
Kind D WI legislator Aye
Klein (FL) D FL legislator Aye
Langevin D RI legislator Aye
Larsen (WA) D WA legislator Aye
Larson (CT) D CT legislator Aye
Levin D MI legislator Aye
Loebsack D IA legislator Aye
Lofgren, Zoe D CA legislator Aye
Lowey D NY legislator Aye
Mahoney (FL) D FL legislator Aye
Maloney (NY) D NY legislator Aye
Markey D MA legislator Aye
Marshall D GA legislator Aye
Matsui D CA legislator Aye
McCarthy (NY) D NY legislator Aye
McCollum (MN) D MN legislator Aye
McDermott D WA legislator Aye
McGovern D MA legislator Aye
McNerney D CA legislator Aye
McNulty D NY legislator Aye
Meek (FL) D FL legislator Aye
Meeks (NY) D NY legislator Aye
Melancon D LA legislator Aye
Miller (NC) D NC legislator Aye
Miller, George D CA legislator Aye
Mollohan D WV legislator Aye
Moore (KS) D KS legislator Aye
Moore (WI) D WI legislator Aye
Moran (VA) D VA legislator Aye
Murphy (CT) D CT legislator Aye
Murphy, Patrick D PA legislator Aye
Murtha D PA legislator Aye
Nadler D NY legislator Aye
Neal (MA) D MA legislator Aye
Oberstar D MN legislator Aye
Obey D WI legislator Aye
Olver D MA legislator Aye
Pallone D NJ legislator Aye
Pelosi D CA speaker Aye
Perlmutter D CO legislator Aye
Pomeroy D ND legislator Aye
Price (NC) D NC legislator Aye
Rahall D WV legislator Aye
Rangel D NY legislator Aye
Reyes D TX legislator Aye
Richardson D CA legislator Aye
Ross D AR legislator Aye
Ruppersberger D MD legislator Aye
Ryan (OH) D OH legislator Aye
Sarbanes D MD legislator Aye
Schakowsky D IL legislator Aye
Schwartz D PA legislator Aye
Sestak D PA legislator Aye
Sires D NJ legislator Aye
Skelton D MO legislator Aye
Slaughter D NY legislator Aye
Smith (WA) D WA legislator Aye
Snyder D AR legislator Aye
Space D OH legislator Aye
Speier D CA legislator Aye
Spratt D SC legislator Aye
Tanner D TN legislator Aye
Tauscher D CA legislator Aye
Towns D NY legislator Aye
Tsongas D MA legislator Aye
Van Hollen D MD legislator Aye
Velazquez D NY legislator Aye
Wasserman Schultz D FL legislator Aye
Waters D CA legislator Aye
Watt D NC legislator Aye
Waxman D CA legislator Aye
Weiner D NY legislator Aye
Wexler D FL legislator Aye
Wilson (OH) D OH legislator Aye
Bachus R AL legislator Aye
Blunt R MO legislator Aye
Boehner R OH legislator Aye
Bonner R AL legislator Aye
Bono Mack R CA legislator Aye
Boozman R AR legislator Aye
Brady (TX) R TX legislator Aye
Brown (SC) R SC legislator Aye
Calvert R CA legislator Aye
Camp (MI) R MI legislator Aye
Campbell (CA) R CA legislator Aye
Cannon R UT legislator Aye
Cantor R VA legislator Aye
Castle R DE legislator Aye
Cole (OK) R OK legislator Aye
Crenshaw R FL legislator Aye
Cubin R WY legislator Aye
Davis, Tom R VA legislator Aye
Dreier R CA legislator Aye
Ehlers R MI legislator Aye
Emerson R MO legislator Aye
Everett R AL legislator Aye
Ferguson R NJ legislator Aye
Fossella R NY legislator Aye
Gilchrest R MD legislator Aye
Granger R TX legislator Aye
Herger R CA legislator Aye
Hobson R OH legislator Aye
Inglis (SC) R SC legislator Aye
King (NY) R NY legislator Aye
Kirk R IL legislator Aye
Kline (MN) R MN legislator Aye
LaHood R IL legislator Aye
Lewis (CA) R CA legislator Aye
Lewis (KY) R KY legislator Aye
Lungren, Daniel E. R CA legislator Aye
McCrery R LA legislator Aye
McHugh R NY legislator Aye
McKeon R CA legislator Aye
Miller, Gary R CA legislator Aye
Peterson (PA) R PA legislator Aye
Pickering R MS legislator Aye
Porter R NV legislator Aye
Pryce (OH) R OH legislator Aye
Putnam R FL legislator Aye
Radanovich R CA legislator Aye
Regula R OH legislator Aye
Reynolds R NY legislator Aye
Rogers (AL) R AL legislator Aye
Rogers (KY) R KY legislator Aye
Ryan (WI) R WI legislator Aye
Saxton R NJ legislator Aye
Sessions R TX legislator Aye
Shays R CT legislator Aye
Simpson R ID legislator Aye
Smith (TX) R TX legislator Aye
Souder R IN legislator Aye
Tancredo R CO legislator Aye
Upton R MI legislator Aye
Walden (OR) R OR legislator Aye
Walsh (NY) R NY legislator Aye
Weldon (FL) R FL legislator Aye
Wilson (NM) R NM legislator Aye
Wilson (SC) R SC legislator Aye
Wolf R VA legislator Aye
Abercrombie D HI legislator No
Altmire D PA legislator No
Baca D CA legislator No
Barrow D GA legislator No
Becerra D CA legislator No
Berkley D NV legislator No
Blumenauer D OR legislator No
Boyda (KS) D KS legislator No
Braley (IA) D IA legislator No
Butterfield D NC legislator No
Carney D PA legislator No
Carson D IN legislator No
Castor D FL legislator No
Cazayoux D LA legislator No
Chandler D KY legislator No
Childers D MS legislator No
Clay D MO legislator No
Cleaver D MO legislator No
Conyers D MI legislator No
Costello D IL legislator No
Courtney D CT legislator No
Cuellar D TX legislator No
Cummings D MD legislator No
Davis, Lincoln D TN legislator No
DeFazio D OR legislator No
Delahunt D MA legislator No
Doggett D TX legislator No
Edwards (MD) D MD legislator No
Filner D CA legislator No
Giffords D AZ legislator No
Gillibrand D NY legislator No
Green, Al D TX legislator No
Green, Gene D TX legislator No
Grijalva D AZ legislator No
Herseth Sandlin D SD legislator No
Hill D IN legislator No
Hinchey D NY legislator No
Hirono D HI legislator No
Hodes D NH legislator No
Holden D PA legislator No
Inslee D WA legislator No
Jackson (IL) D IL legislator No
Jackson-Lee (TX) D TX legislator No
Jefferson D LA legislator No
Johnson (GA) D GA legislator No
Kagen D WI legislator No
Kaptur D OH legislator No
Kilpatrick D MI legislator No
Kucinich D OH legislator No
Lampson D TX legislator No
Lee D CA legislator No
Lewis (GA) D GA legislator No
Lipinski D IL legislator No
Lynch D MA legislator No
Matheson D UT legislator No
McIntyre D NC legislator No
Michaud D ME legislator No
Mitchell D AZ legislator No
Napolitano D CA legislator No
Ortiz D TX legislator No
Pascrell D NJ legislator No
Pastor D AZ legislator No
Payne D NJ legislator No
Peterson (MN) D MN legislator No
Rodriguez D TX legislator No
Rothman D NJ legislator No
Roybal-Allard D CA legislator No
Rush D IL legislator No
Salazar D CO legislator No
Sanchez, Linda T. D CA legislator No
Sanchez, Loretta D CA legislator No
Schiff D CA legislator No
Scott (GA) D GA legislator No
Scott (VA) D VA legislator No
Serrano D NY legislator No
Shea-Porter D NH legislator No
Sherman D CA legislator No
Shuler D NC legislator No
Solis D CA legislator No
Stark D CA legislator No
Stupak D MI legislator No
Sutton D OH legislator No
Taylor D MS legislator No
Thompson (CA) D CA legislator No
Thompson (MS) D MS legislator No
Tierney D MA legislator No
Udall (CO) D CO legislator No
Udall (NM) D NM legislator No
Visclosky D IN legislator No
Walz (MN) D MN legislator No
Watson D CA legislator No
Welch (VT) D VT legislator No
Woolsey D CA legislator No
Wu D OR legislator No
Yarmuth D KY legislator No
Aderholt R AL legislator No
Akin R MO legislator No
Alexander R LA legislator No
Bachmann R MN legislator No
Barrett (SC) R SC legislator No
Bartlett (MD) R MD legislator No
Barton (TX) R TX legislator No
Biggert R IL legislator No
Bilbray R CA legislator No
Bilirakis R FL legislator No
Bishop (UT) R UT legislator No
Blackburn R TN legislator No
Boustany R LA legislator No
Broun (GA) R GA legislator No
Brown-Waite, Ginny R FL legislator No
Buchanan R FL legislator No
Burgess R TX legislator No
Burton (IN) R IN legislator No
Buyer R IN legislator No
Capito R WV legislator No
Carter R TX legislator No
Chabot R OH legislator No
Coble R NC legislator No
Conaway R TX legislator No
Culberson R TX legislator No
Davis (KY) R KY legislator No
Davis, David R TN legislator No
Deal (GA) R GA legislator No
Dent R PA legislator No
Diaz-Balart, L. R FL legislator No
Diaz-Balart, M. R FL legislator No
Doolittle R CA legislator No
Drake R VA legislator No
Duncan R TN legislator No
English (PA) R PA legislator No
Fallin R OK legislator No
Feeney R FL legislator No
Flake R AZ legislator No
Forbes R VA legislator No
Fortenberry R NE legislator No
Foxx R NC legislator No
Franks (AZ) R AZ legislator No
Frelinghuysen R NJ legislator No
Gallegly R CA legislator No
Garrett (NJ) R NJ legislator No
Gerlach R PA legislator No
Gingrey R GA legislator No
Gohmert R TX legislator No
Goode R VA legislator No
Goodlatte R VA legislator No
Graves R MO legislator No
Hall (TX) R TX legislator No
Hastings (WA) R WA legislator No
Hayes R NC legislator No
Heller R NV legislator No
Hensarling R TX legislator No
Hoekstra R MI legislator No
Hulshof R MO legislator No
Hunter R CA legislator No
Issa R CA legislator No
Johnson (IL) R IL legislator No
Johnson, Sam R TX legislator No
Jones (NC) R NC legislator No
Jordan R OH legislator No
Keller R FL legislator No
King (IA) R IA legislator No
Kingston R GA legislator No
Knollenberg R MI legislator No
Kuhl (NY) R NY legislator No
Lamborn R CO legislator No
Latham R IA legislator No
LaTourette R OH legislator No
Latta R OH legislator No
Linder R GA legislator No
LoBiondo R NJ legislator No
Lucas R OK legislator No
Mack R FL legislator No
Manzullo R IL legislator No
Marchant R TX legislator No
McCarthy (CA) R CA legislator No
McCaul (TX) R TX legislator No
McCotter R MI legislator No
McHenry R NC legislator No
McMorris Rodgers R WA legislator No
Mica R FL legislator No
Miller (FL) R FL legislator No
Miller (MI) R MI legislator No
Moran (KS) R KS legislator No
Murphy, Tim R PA legislator No
Musgrave R CO legislator No
Myrick R NC legislator No
Neugebauer R TX legislator No
Nunes R CA legislator No
Paul R TX legislator No
Pearce R NM legislator No
Pence R IN legislator No
Petri R WI legislator No
Pitts R PA legislator No
Platts R PA legislator No
Poe R TX legislator No
Price (GA) R GA legislator No
Ramstad R MN legislator No
Rehberg R MT legislator No
Reichert R WA legislator No
Renzi R AZ legislator No
Rogers (MI) R MI legislator No
Rohrabacher R CA legislator No
Ros-Lehtinen R FL legislator No
Roskam R IL legislator No
Royce R CA legislator No
Sali R ID legislator No
Scalise R LA legislator No
Schmidt R OH legislator No
Sensenbrenner R WI legislator No
Shadegg R AZ legislator No
Shimkus R IL legislator No
Shuster R PA legislator No
Smith (NE) R NE legislator No
Smith (NJ) R NJ legislator No
Stearns R FL legislator No
Sullivan R OK legislator No
Terry R NE legislator No
Thornberry R TX legislator No
Tiahrt R KS legislator No
Tiberi R OH legislator No
Turner R OH legislator No
Walberg R MI legislator No
Wamp R TN legislator No
Westmoreland R GA legislator No
Whitfield (KY) R KY legislator No
Wittman (VA) R VA legislator No
Young (AK) R AK legislator No
Young (FL) R FL legislator No
Weller R IL legislator Not Voting

The most famous Floridians in my region all voted no: Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Lincoln Diaz-Balart and his brother, Mario.

Cheers,
Victoria; 9/29/08, 5:10 PM
Unknown said...: Good lord...read the response.

It's called crossposting, asshole.; 9/29/08, 5:10 PM
Fletch said...: Lucky Old Michael-

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.

"Sloan" was obviously being sarcastic in his response to another commenter.

OTOH, I'm a "Paultard" who is actually laughing his fucking ass off! My savings (70% in Gold/30% cash) are holding up quite nicely, thank you...

DOW 3000 or Bust!

I might even buy some stock if the S&P500 hits 650.; 9/29/08, 5:10 PM
KCFleming said...: Yeah, well, nothing changes.

Pelosi and the stupid money laundering fucks in the Senate and House -both goddamned parties- have gilded their lives with all sorts of goodies, but couldn't see toward doing any actual governing for the common man.

They believed, and apparently still do, that you can spend money you don't have.

Until the last few days, I had hoped that the usual approach of we'll survive these idiots, too would suffice but it may not actually be true at all.
Goddamned assholes, every last one of them.

Screw Obama.
Screw McCain.
Augean Stables? Rest assured, neither of them will be shovelling shit. I will. You will. My kids will. My neighbors will. Not them. So fuck that sentiment.

It's been a bipartisan clusterfuck. I've been reading about this pending debacle for about 15years, but never wanted to believe it. Now it's happening, and I can't help but think that how this plays out 1 and 5 and 10 years from now will be good for anyone.

And I can't believe that's the approach by Obama and McCain.

You guys say you hav the goddamned balls to lead? Then fucking lead asswipes, or get out of the way. Instead they are both doing their schtick, one trying to be Joe Cool at Congress, the other trying to be Snoopy and his Sopwith Camel.

Fuck that.
Where are the damned adults?
Gone. Every last one.; 9/29/08, 5:10 PM
Alex said...: revenent - do you honestly think that those 12 Republicans would have been ok politically if Pelosi kept her mouth shut?; 9/29/08, 5:11 PM
Beth said...: I understand your argument, Revenant. I just don't buy it, IF the reality is that the bill would stave off a crisis. Vote for the bill, THEN go after Pelosi.; 9/29/08, 5:11 PM
Paddy O said...: I can't accept a $700B giveaway without explaining in great detail what it is for.

For the good of the country, I would be willing to accept $700B, without any explanation why or what I should do with it.

I do promise to be very benevolent.; 9/29/08, 5:11 PM
vbspurs said...: P.S.: What a kooky Bill title.; 9/29/08, 5:11 PM
Fletch said...: Theo-

The Dow can go to 7,000 without me. The sad reality is that for an average middle-class person, which I am statistically, investing in the underside of a mattress would have been better than riding out the last 15 years in all those lovely investments the large, oh-so-helpful financial institutions

You bet. You lost.

Sorry about your luck!

You could have bought gold 15 yrs ago at $400/oz...; 9/29/08, 5:12 PM
Alex said...: For the good of the country, I would be willing to accept $700B, without any explanation why or what I should do with it.

I do promise to be very benevolent.

5:11 PM

LOL!!! No problem, I'm suuuuure you will be.; 9/29/08, 5:12 PM
snv61 said...: Did anyone for one second think that the congress would do the right thing for the American Taxpayer when throughout it history it has done nothing but? Their failure to act in the very best interest of our nation must make us call into question their motives if not their sanity. These pompous windbags that said they were merely voting the way their constituents wanted them to vote are the cowards. Did they ask their constituents how to vote when they voted on spending over 800 billion of our tax money on a war that has gone nowhere? No one wants to see 700 billion dollars of taxpayer money go to bail out the so called free market, however the free market, as Adam Smith wrote of it” doesn’t exist in this country and never did. Throughout our history those who have hesitated to inject a little “socialism” into the veins of our failing markets to keep people working have caused their constituents enormous harm, just ask the Greatest Generation about that. I only hope that I am wrong, but if I am not those in congress who voted the way their constituents wanted them too will have no problem discussing their next vote when they meet them on soon to be formed soup lines.; 9/29/08, 5:13 PM
Beth said...: Pelosi and the stupid money laundering fucks in the Senate and House -both goddamned parties- have gilded their lives with all sorts of goodies, but couldn't see toward doing any actual governing for the common man.

Pogo, sometimes we end up at the same place. I can't find a thing wrong with a single word of what you say above. We're being failed by our elected representatives, period, for whatever reasons, for whatever wheels-within-wheels strategizing might be going on.; 9/29/08, 5:13 PM
Alex said...: I only hope that I am wrong, but if I am not those in congress who voted the way their constituents wanted them too will have no problem discussing their next vote when they meet them on soon to be formed soup lines.

5:13 PM

More chicken little on cue! Keep it up, I'm ROFLing...; 9/29/08, 5:14 PM
Alex said...: beth - you just admitted that Pelosi and Friends are scumbags that got us into this mess. You TRUST them to get us out of it? Have you lost your mind?; 9/29/08, 5:15 PM
Simon said...: Cedarford, you're saying that the syste failed because it didn't provide the results that you preferred. But the system is not designed to produce the results that you prefer. So far as this issue is concerned, the Constitution's role is to say where the decision will be made - not what the decision will be. The bill was brought to Congress, and Congress made a decision. The system worked perfectly.

Michael said...
"And that Bush never vetoing a bill (maybe 1?) the entire time the Republicans were in the majority, then suddenly finding his veto pen (for only 5 or 6?) after the Democrats took control...is NO BIG DEAL? With the budget and deficit exploding over the first 6 years?"

My point is that it isn't a criticism of Bush that he failed to veto bills. That's a lame criticism. Now, there are bills that I think he ought to have vetoed, and I'm sure you can think of some too - but that is an entirely different matter. Just pointing to the raw statistic means nothing at the best of times, and less than nothing when you consider the broader context that Bush had other, softer means to prevent a bill of which he disapproved becoming law.

"Hell, based on today's vote...even the Republicans don't support Bush."

That hasn't been news for quite some time.

Theo Boehm said...
"[T]he Republicans get the most blame, and, like the Republicans in 1932, will be blown out of the water. Spin it how you will. That's the way it looks to me."

Everything is spin, including your comment that the Republicans were blown out of the water in 1932. While that is accurate, it is misleading by the ommission of context, the very essence of spin. Another way to frame the 1932 election is that the incumbent majority party failed to address a crisis and were thrown out in favor of the majority. As Kenobi said, "many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view"; did the voters in 1932 punish Republicans or simply the majority party? Depending on how you look at it, the precedent could bode ill for either side.; 9/29/08, 5:15 PM
Cedarford said...: Pretty amazing that this financial crisis had all the members of Congress now bagging it for two days, "to respect Jewish members Rosh Hashanah plans..."

Let's see....the New Year celebration of a minor group like the New Year festivities of Muslims and Chinese who also don't follow the modern calender...

Not a Federal holiday for employees inside or outside government. Limited to Israel, and a small number of cities and towns in the American NE that offer the day off..
And Congress.
Now THAT is real influence and clout!
Congress will be back Thursday.

777 Point drop in the Dow. Largest in history.

Has Congress been called into session or to remain is session in national crises before...even on days more important to the majority of Americans than a minor day impacting 1% of the population???

Yes.
Most recently for the Terri Schiavo fiasco on Palm Sunday. But also on occasions far more "inconvenient" for a whole lot more people than just Jews plans - after Pearl Harbor, during Watergate and Vietnam, and during the "great" policy & budget battles of the LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton Administrations.

I suppose next up Congress will declare itself unable to do any urgent business during Ramadan, on Cinco de Mayo, Wiccan Winter Solstice Day - in deference to those constituencies.; 9/29/08, 5:16 PM
Unknown said...: You could have bought gold 15 yrs ago at $400/oz...

Yes. And 15 years ago today, the Dow was at 3629.73.

Today it's at 10365.45.; 9/29/08, 5:16 PM
Roberto said...: mcg: Based on the Democrats being sure they had 140 YEA votes...let's try this:

140 Democrats voted YEA

65 Republicans voted YEA

That's 205 Total YEA Votes

They needed 217 YEA votes to pass.

Hence: The 12 missing YEA votes were cast as NAY votes (because of the speech?)...even as the Dems & Republicans thought they would vote YEA.

You end up with 205 YEA / 228 Nay; 9/29/08, 5:17 PM
The Exalted said...: ha

2/3 of the dems vote for the bill, 2/3 of the gops vote against the bill

a bill proposed by the gop treasury and demanded for on primetime by the gop president

and you jokers blame the dems

get a life; 9/29/08, 5:18 PM
Alex said...: cedarford - nothing like mixing in a little antisemitism to spice up things, eh?; 9/29/08, 5:19 PM
Unknown said...: That's what I'm saying, Michael. Pelosi would be willing to go to a floor vote on this to get to 217-216? Even if we concede that the exact number of flips on the Republican side was 12, I can't see her going to a vote with that little cushion. I honestly suspect that's not the full story.; 9/29/08, 5:20 PM
KCFleming said...: "Face it. You fucked up. You trusted us!"; 9/29/08, 5:20 PM
Alex said...: exalted troll - the House members listened to THE PEOPLE. Or do you want a dictatorship?; 9/29/08, 5:21 PM
Alex said...: mcg - until we gets more facts, I'm not quite buying the "Republican hissy fit" meme.; 9/29/08, 5:21 PM
The Exalted said...: revenant,

the gops are explicitly claiming that it was pelosi's big mean speech that caused the bill to fail.

they're lying, but thats their story.; 9/29/08, 5:22 PM
Roberto said...: Fletch: If you invested your money in a CD, etc at 5% your money would have been safe as can be...and doubled over the course of 14.4 years.

Gold today is at about $900 so, based on risking your money in a highly volatile metal, you picked yourself up an extra $75 buck or so.

In the S&p or a mutual fund of stocks your return would be much, much more than gold.; 9/29/08, 5:23 PM
snv61 said...: Did anyone for one second think that the congress would do the right thing for the American Taxpayer when throughout its history it has done nothing but? Their failure to act in the very best interest of our nation must make us call into question their motives if not their sanity. These pompous windbags who said they were merely voting the way their constituents wanted them to vote are the cowards. Did they ask their constituents how to vote when they voted on spending over 800 billion of our tax money on a war that has gone nowhere? No one wants to see 700 billion dollars of taxpayer money bail out the so called free market, however the free market, as Adam Smith wrote of it” doesn’t exist in this country and never did. Throughout our history those who have hesitated to inject a little “socialism” into the veins of our failing markets to keep people working have caused their constituents enormous harm, just ask the Greatest Generation about that. I only hope that I am wrong, but if I am not those in congress who voted the way their constituents wanted them too will have no problem discussing their next vote when they meet them on soon to be formed soup lines.; 9/29/08, 5:24 PM
Unknown said...: Recently on NPR: Congressman Peter DeFazio (D. Or.) said that Nancy Pelosi and the House Democratic leadership always assumed that the bailout bill would pass. As a result, they failed to lean hard enough on people like DeFazio and other House Democrats who were allowed to vote "no" as a matter of conscience.

This is a paraphrase by Pejman Yousefzadeh on RedState. I would be interested to hear DeFazio's exact words. If Pejman's paraphrase is accurate then it suggests that no, Nancy Pelosi did not know she had the votes.; 9/29/08, 5:25 PM
Alex said...: svn61:

Keep up the chicken little! Bush's scare tactics didn't work!; 9/29/08, 5:25 PM
Roberto said...: mcg said..."That's what I'm saying, Michael. Pelosi would be willing to go to a floor vote on this to get to 217-216?"

I'm not saying it smart, just that that is what happened. She is taking heat for not making sure the vote was solid, and I agree.

I've been in sales, etc. for years and never say I have a "deal"...until I have the "deal."
(It's bad luck.)

And by the way, they've done exactly that 100's of times over the years.

It's not unusual to make a deal that holds up with one single vote.

*And NO, I'm not going to go back through history to provide the actual votes.; 9/29/08, 5:26 PM
Alex said...: mcg - huh so if the bill was going to lose, then DeFazio would vote for it? So much for principles. Easy to have votes of conscience when nothing is on the line.; 9/29/08, 5:26 PM
The Exalted said...: ah, i read more of your comments revenant

you sound like a pissant college republican with your juvenile vitriol

and you concede that the big ol' mean speech changed their votes

how pathetic if that were true when all GOP leaders, including mccain and bush, invoked the great depression; 9/29/08, 5:27 PM
Revenant said...: Weller R IL legislator Not Voting

What is it with Illinois and politicians not voting?; 9/29/08, 5:28 PM
Unknown said...: mcg - huh so if the bill was going to lose, then DeFazio would vote for it? So much for principles. Easy to have votes of conscience when nothing is on the line.

DeFazio did vote no. The point is that Pelosi didn't lean hard on her own party to convince them to fall in line and vote yes.; 9/29/08, 5:32 PM
Alex said...: mcg - but you are implying that DeFazio would have voted yes if he thought he'd be on the winning side. Another scumbag politician...; 9/29/08, 5:33 PM
Unknown said...: Speaking of "12", 12 members of the Hispanic Caucus voted no.; 9/29/08, 5:34 PM
Unknown said...: mcg - but you are implying that DeFazio would have voted yes if he thought he'd be on the winning side. Another scumbag politician...

No, I'm not. I don't mean to imply anything in particular. Look, it's standard practice on both sides of the aisle to press hard on your party's members for important votes. All I am saying is that DeFazio seems to be claiming that Pelosi did not push too hard.; 9/29/08, 5:35 PM
Unknown said...: OK, I owe my daughter some attention, but I will close by noting that it's a weird day when a majority of Republicans vote in agreement with Michael Moore and a majority of Democrats do not. Maybe bipartisanship is alive after all!; 9/29/08, 5:37 PM
Cedarford said...: Alex said...
cedarford - nothing like mixing in a little antisemitism to spice up things, eh?

Nice try.

Congress bagging it for a minority groups little holiday?

I'd be upset if Catholics had the clout to demand Congress break for Ash Wednesday or the Muslims got the Prophet's ascension day or the Wiccans got theirs. And Congress felt the need to kowtow to them.

But, Alex, we know....Jews are above criticism for pushing their clout, and Congress should only be praised for being deferential to their wishes and fail to do their jobs in the midst of a national crisis when all other Federal employees are working...

Yes, yes, Alex..we all know the "rules" you demand other Americans express themselves under.

Or you call them names.

Amazing, isn't it, how America is now beginning to follow the rest of the world in rejecting your "rules"??; 9/29/08, 5:37 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: Why are so many people so willing to trust the government to save us? Their pandering, corruption, and cronyism got us into this, and now somehow giving them $700 billion is going to save us all? I'm not buying it, and I'm not the only one.; 9/29/08, 5:38 PM
Fletch said...: mcg-

Yes. And 15 years ago today, the Dow was at 3629.73.

Today it's at 10365.45.

How much did you pay in Cap Gains/Income taxes? Brokerage fees? Mutual fund fees?

How often did you "bend over and spread" while the Gov't inspected your financial colon?

I bought my gold 1 oz at a time- and I won't pay a single penny of tax on my profit when I sell.; 9/29/08, 5:40 PM
Palladian said...: "Amazing, isn't it, how America is now beginning to follow the rest of the world in rejecting your "rules"??"

Yes, it's good that America is beginning to turn into a Jew-hating socialist shithole like the rest of the world! As I said elsewhere, the Cedarfords and the Obamatrons are going to link up pretty soon. Duck and cover, everybody.; 9/29/08, 5:44 PM
Anonymous said...: Michael - Thank you for your continuous posts. Every word you write makes me increasingly firm in my resolve to vote for McCain/Palin. In fact, thanks to you, I've just sent another campaign donation to McCain'08. You're a buddy!

There is money to lend, just not from the big investment banking firms on Wall Street, and a few commercial banks like WaMu and Wachovia that went tits deep in sub-prime mortgages and mortgage-backed derivatives as a way to add meth to their growth curve. Well-run banks like BB&T, US Bank, BofA, etc are in good condition and making loans to good credit risks, same as always.

The stock market plunge presents a great opportunity to invest in blue chip stocks. The stock prices of some very well run companies have plummeted again today - companies that have nothing to do with investment banking, Wall Street, or commercial banking. Their prices were caught up in the general decrease in prices. Buy blue chips this week, if you were smart enough to save some dough. Whent he market hits its natural low and begins to rebound, there will be table-pounding gains to be had in blue chips.

The Dems blew it by their incessant passing the blame to President Bush, even though the Bush administration tried twice to cure the precipatating mess at Freddie/Fannie only to be thwarted by the Dem majority. Nancy Pelosi seems intent on lowering Congress' approval level from single digits to negative numbers.

The Dems have the majority and could have passed the bill without one Rep vote. Problem is, the calls to the Congressweasels offices were running about 1,000 to 1 against the bill. The vox populi said NO, and this is a representative republic. And the House members are standing for election in November.

Way to go, Ms. third in the chain of succession.; 9/29/08, 5:45 PM
Anonymous said...: If you want a nutshell on why a bailout without structural reform will make things worse, read at mises.org.; 9/29/08, 5:46 PM
Roberto said...: Paladian says: "Yes, it's good that America is beginning to turn into a Jew-hating socialist shithole like the rest of the world!"

Where in the world you live?

Who in the world do you talk to?

What in the world are you talking about???

A "Jew-hating socialist shithole"??; 9/29/08, 5:46 PM
Revenant said...: I bought my gold 1 oz at a time- and I won't pay a single penny of tax on my profit when I sell.

You will if you don't want to go to federal prison for tax evasion.; 9/29/08, 5:46 PM
Fletch said...: Lucky Old Michael-

If you invested your money in a CD, etc at 5% your money would have been safe as can be...and doubled over the course of 14.4 years.

And I would have also been forced to give the Gov't 28% of my return (my "marginal" rate) each and every year- thus depriving me of the effects of "compounded interest". How much would that reduce my total return?; 9/29/08, 5:47 PM
blake said...: Pelosi: "You scumsucking Wall Street-lovin' Rethuglicans caused this disaster all on your own, with absolutely no help or interference from us.

Now, sign this regardless of what your constituents say and shell out $700B so we can blame you if it doesn't work."

Huh. And they didn't sign it?; 9/29/08, 5:47 PM