Yeah 207 (141 D, 66 R)
Nay 226 (94D, 132R)
Dow down 777.68 points
S.&P. 500 Index
Down 95 (-7%)
It's sort of amusing, watching folks scurry around, trying to 'convince' folks.
I don't know how I feel. On the one hand, I believe this is a hustle. On the other hand, some seriously bad ($*% is happening out there. Firms that have been around for a 100 years, collapsing like this, is like one burning building after another. Bottom line for me: I just don't trust these mofos.
The Democrats came through. Boehner was supposed to deliver 100 Republican votes, and he didn't.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
I was afraid of this...
It shows how divided the nation really is. Also shows the weakness of Nancy Pelosi as the Speaker of the House.
This may have been a demo vote. Perhaps Republicans wanted to show constituents that they were against the Bill... However, things are going to get so out of control this week... that they will have to vote again. (I hope) WTF!
This may also be part of a process to convince voters. For Republicans, this is more about politics, than the well-being of the Country. So perhaps they are willing to allow some damage to take place in order to convince constituents. Many Americans don't see anything wrong with the alternative....
Economists had warned about this... that the legislation would get bogged down...or worse, that the Bill would be rejected. And if it did... things would go downhill quick.
And it's mostly these uninformed Republican voters who need the most convincing... the same ininformed folks who Republicans take advantage of...who blindly vote Republican, are the same ones who Republicans are now having a hard time convincing. Ironic.
So maybe this is part of a shock plan (allow the people to see a glimpse of the collapse of America). Then re-vote.
One thing is for sure... there is no "Country First" atmosphere. It's "I'm worried about my Congressional Seat First". Selfish, Selfish, Selfish!
Pelosi should not have allowed the vote unless she had the numbers. (I'm not a fan of this woman as Speaker....never thought she knew what the Hell she was doing quite frankly. We might as well have Paris Hilton in the position).
This is political brinksmanship at its worst. SOME partisanship is o.k., but things shouldn't be so bad that Congress can't come together to get things done to fix a dire situation.
And how many folks will lose their jobs, how many banks will collapse, how many lives will be wrecked, and how much damage to the economy will take place while these clowns play politics with the economy?
They didn't explain the deal very well.... they will have to do it again... I understood it... but the avg. American bonehead didn't get it. This is what they get for having a boneheaded electorate.
AI,
Pelosi got 2/3 of the Democrats.
She wanted a BI-PARTISAN bill.
This is all about Boehner.
He couldn't deliver 100 friggin' votes.
I agree, the Republicans dropped the ball... But I hate them all at this point.
Dems should frame this as the Republicans choosing economic disaster rather than Country.
Unfortunately, until Americans start "feeling" this decision... they probably won't support the plan.
And think about all the bad legislation for Americans that gets passed by Congress all the time. Why is that legislation allowed to pass? Because there is no spotlight on it... now all of a sudden, folks want to pay attention and come out against something? Where were these boneheads during the blind March to war with Iraq? That's when they needed to be paying attention. They've already paid about 700 billion for these damn wars. At least this 700 billion will go towards dealing with the economy... and much or all of the money would be paid back.
This is more of a loan... than a giveaway... this is one of the main points that the boneheaded electorate doesn't understand.
For an electorate that hasn't paid much attention to their government, to how the economy works, or to anything else all their lives, it's hard to give them a crash course on the Financial system and how a collapse will impact them.
These idiots are worried about keeping their Congressional seats.... but Congressional seats representing WHAT? Soon, they won't have a Country to represent. These narrow minded fools (a trademark of Conservatism) are all about themselves. They are willing to do anything, or allow anything for some sort of political benefit.
I just wonder how long they plan to keep it up. How long they will take it... seems like they lose either way. If they vote for it... they lose. If they allow Depression-like conditions to begin to take hold (which could take weeks or months to set in), they still lose...but hey.. it will be after the election in November.... so they are willing to let things get worse.
But hopefully Obama will be helped.
If things begin to deteriorate throughout November... then that should help him. McCain...and other Republicans make themselves look by voting against the Bill....but they look good only to fellow Republicans (the hardcore Republicans). To Independents, and many Democrats, it makes them look reckless anyway. So they'll be able to keep their seats... because those are mostly Republican voters... but on the National level, they are dooming McCain.
This is not only a Republican House rejection of Bush, but also of John McCain and his Presidential bid. They said, they'd rather have Obama than lose our little Congressional Seats.
Country First? They rejected the McCain slogan in the clearest way possible.
"Dems should frame this as the Republicans choosing economic disaster rather than Country."
That's what they're doing AI.
And I have to say that I think the only mistake Pelosi made was in trusting "Bonehead" to deliver his votes. Just like a Rethuglican, he lied. He assured Pelosi that he had the votes when he knew he didn't!
The truth is, I think McSenile can kiss the Presidency "GOOD-BYE" (I pray)_and the GOP is no doubt, wilderness bound.
But I'll have to wait until Nov 4th to see if I'm right :-)
I was particularly interested that the Republi-can'ts were so vehemently opposed to the bailout even after President Bush himself stood on the White House lawn this morning seemingly in support of it.
But honestly, I can't entirely blame the Republicans for this one. A $700 billion price tag is crazy to rescue companies who have been going to bed with politicians and screwing the average American. When this nation looks down on social welfare, how can they support corporate welfare without putting on their hypocrisy hat? Granted, I don't think Republicans see this as a corporate welfare system; nor would they care about how hypocritical they would be for supporting this but not social welfare for GENUINELY poor people. But that's another story.
Ultimately as much as I hate this bailout nonsense, we have to recognize how important it is. At this point in the game, it's critical for those loons in Congress to stop playing these silly partisan games over how to get financial markets stabilized. Opposing this bill may increase their electability (at least for the time being), but it does absolutely NOTHING to improve the situation. Congress needs to wake the hell up.
As much as I'm feeling the urge to tell Fannie, Freddie, Frankie, and Fonzie to all kick rocks, the consequences of doing nothing could be disasterous.
Hi all
Things are happening fast and furious and I am struggling to just keep up with the news, let alone formulate my own thoughts and ideas on which voices represent viable and realistic solutions. I've been lurking at lefty blogs like Open Left and even took a peek at right-winger Michelle Malkin's blog and found strong anti-bailout sentiments on both sides of the ideological fence. And the voting patterns show that opposition to the bailout was bipartisan and crossed ideological and party lines.
My friends who are more knowledgeable about economic matters have urged me to start reading up on Dean Baker, James K. Galbraith or Nouriel Roubini for alternative stimulus options. I've been following Paul Krugman at the New York Times and the Open Left blog for some perspective. I also became aware of alternative plans to the bailout being circulated by the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the SEIU. And Senator Bernie Sanders also released a petition last week that outlines guidelines for any bailout plan.
Needless to say I'll keep on trying to keep up and perhaps write something when I find my bearings enough to write something coherent.
LAD,
So I guess we should all wait for the pain to trickle down into commercial banks? Because "The Run On Banks Marathon" will begin shortly...put your best running shoes on.
I don't buy the idea of coming up with some watered down BS plan at this point. Having a large comprehensive plan was needed...because half the problem that the financial markets face is a problem of confidence. A watered down plan won't do. Paulson & Bernanke (although they are Bush appointees... I don't feel that these men are partisan hacks... they are not politicians... they are among a few Bush appointees who i'm willing to listen to)...these men have made it clear that a weak, watered down plan won't work... particularly when it comes to restoring confidence.
And as I have mentioned... the $700billion (paper exchange...bonds for bad loans) is more of a Loan than a giveaway. Once the housing market resets....once sales pickup and prices go up... the mortgage assets would be worth more than what they are now... and investors (who would be taxpayers in this case) would get a return on that money. Much of the money would be paid back. The U.S. Government would be holding these assets until later, when things begin to improve.
This is Finance 101.
The media is partly responsible for spreading the "bailout" mantra and the misinformation that comes with it. The media always sensationalizes these stories (to boost their own ratings). This is another example of how damaging the corporate media can be to the Country. They have taken a complicated situation... and used it to scare voters....when voter education is what was needed.
Unfortunately I think it might take disturbing images to convince people that something substantial and comprehensive needs to be done.
Andre:
"When this nation looks down on social welfare, how can they support corporate welfare without putting on their hypocrisy hat?"
This is particularly true of Rethuglican Party leaders who, for nearly 40 years have peddled that belief to their "base"_and their "base" ("hard-working" reich-wingers) bought it! They didn't know they were being PLAYED by their leaders, for their own personal gain.
Now their "leaders" tell them:
"We're still against Welfare except in a case like THIS. THIS is different"
To which the "base" has responded:
"You..You're friggin kidding right?!"
anyway, the truth is, I didn't like this bill for lots of reasons. But I recognize that the probelm needs to be addressed. Hopefully now they'll put together a better plan/bill (and do so in a timely fashion)_vote on it and it'll pass.
Hi AI
There's too many smart, Progressive people whose perspectives I trust and respect saying that the bailout as it was originally drafted was a bad piece of legislation and should be re-thought. Sorry AI I would have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. It's not that I favor a watered-down version of the original bill -- it's that I have a lot of trouble trusting Paulson, Bush, Bernanke and the rest of them who presided over this mess for years and are holding us all hostage to the tune of $700 billion because they followed deregulation policies that led to this mess in the first place. Surely they must have known something like this would happen sooner or later? I want safeguards as a precondition to disbursement of funds to make sure that this type of crap doesn't happen again. As I said in my last comment, alternative plans and bailout guidelines are circulating from the SEIU, the Progressive Caucus, and Sen. Bernard Sanders among others. Economists like Joseph Stiglitz are coming out with advice. I think these people ought to be listened to.
LAD,
I understand what you're saying... I don't have a problem with the reforms that stiglitz is talking about.. in fact, I am for restoring regulation. No one is arguing against those general ideas. My problem is... Republicans and Democrats who are crying over what has already happened (the neglect, etc... ) we can't change what has happened in the past...we can only change the present and the future.
The problem with the article from stiglitz is highlighted in the title of his commentary- "How to Prevent the Next Wall Street Crisis". Problem is... we have to deal with THIS CRISIS first... once we deal with this one, then we can put the safeguards in place to prevent the next one.
The backwards thinking isn't going to cut it.
I think in the end... Congress will end up voting for something close to the original Bill... they are simply waiting for public opinion to swing in favor of intervention.
In other words...these clowns are willing to wait until the crisis reaches Main Street and Your Street, and begins to hurt average Americans before they will act. But the risk is that by then, it may be too late.
I have been seeing figures that show the the FDIC might not have the money to cover the 750-1000 bank collapses that could be on the horizon.
Usually I would agree with my more liberal comrades... I hate the Fat Cats too... but there is too much at stake here.
And once the dominos begin to fall... it will be harder to stop the madness. The longer they wait... the more perilous things will become IMO.
Republic or Democrat does not mater which side your on but when elected officials cost us the public 1.2 trillion dollars we the public should have ever members name that voted NAY. As a citizen of this country make your vote count when those folks come up for re-election.
Give us all of the names that voted NAY!!!!!!!
Post a Comment