House votes bailout down

[avatar4321]

Not sure whether they are going to do another vote or not, but Rush has been paying attention to the bailout vote and it looks like the Democrats lost and the Bailout was voted down.

What that means at this point, who knows?

[red states rule]

Not sure whether they are going to do another vote or not, but Rush has been paying attention to the bailout vote and it looks like the Democrats lost and the Bailout was voted down.

What that means at this point, who knows?

Looks like the Dems did not have the votes to pass it. Dems are now threatening 11 Dems to change their votes

Right now it is 226 to 207 against it. 94 Dems voted against it

[red states rule]

Not the give me game starts. What will it take for San Fran Nan to buy 11 Dem votes to pass this massive handout?

How much more will it cost us the taxpayers???

[mundame]

Looks like the Dems did not have the votes to pass it. Dems are now threatening 11 Dems to change their votes

Right now it is 226 to 207 against it. 94 Dems voted against it


The Dems SURE didn't get their 100 Republicans. And they didn't even get a lot of their own party.

I was watching a streamer -- They considered revoting and then decided they needed more time (as RSR says) and then the chamber cleared.

[red states rule]

The Dems SURE didn't get their 100 Republicans. And they didn't even get a lot of their own party.

I was watching a streamer -- They considered revoting and then decided they needed more time (as RSR says) and then the chamber cleared.

Mundame, this shows how screwed up the Dems are. Obama could not get his own party behind this

Now the Dems, and the liberal media, will not blame Republicans - yet 94 Dems voted against it

If 11 more Dems would have voted for it, the bill would have passed

[mundame]

I've lost enthusiasm for this bailout over the weekend, RSR --- what do you think about it?

I'm aware the Dow is down 500 points, but it does that.

[theHawk]

From what I heard the House is PISSED that the Senate will sit on the bill until Wednesday or even Thursday for a vote. Why? Well apparently its the situation is not that dire, they need to give Obama a few days to see some poll numbers first before he votes on it.

[red states rule]

I've lost enthusiasm for this bailout over the weekend, RSR --- what do you think about it?

I'm aware the Dow is down 500 points, but it does that.

I am against it

The market can and will correct itself. If the government does not stick its nose into it a screw it up even more

Dems and their social engineering it was caused the mess in the first place

[actsnoblemartin]

what?


Mundame, this shows how screwed up the Dems are. Obama could not get his own party behind this

Now the Dems, and the liberal media, will not blame Republicans - yet 94 Dems voted against it

If 11 more Dems would have voted for it, the bill would have passed

[red states rule]

From what I heard the House is PISSED that the Senate will sit on the bill until Wednesday or even Thursday for a vote. Why? Well apparently its the situation is not that dire, they need to give Obama a few days to see some poll numbers first before he votes on it.

Why give him until the middle of the week - he will probably vote "present" as he usually does

[Mr. P]

Not sure whether they are going to do another vote or not, but Rush has been paying attention to the bailout vote and it looks like the Democrats lost and the Bailout was voted down.

What that means at this point, who knows?

Means the Dow and Nasdaq are crashing right now.

[April15]

It seems that more republicans are needed to follow their fearless leader! After all it was his call to bail out the world! So he swhould get his people behind this "bi partisan" effort.

[red states rule]

It seems that more republicans are needed to follow their fearless leader! After all it was his call to bail out the world! So he swhould get his people behind this "bi partisan" effort.

April, please pay attention. 94 Dems voted against the bill

Pelosi missed passing it by 11 votes

Dems are worried abouth their reelection, perhaps that is why they voted against it. Only about 25% of the folks favor this handout

[retiredman]

It seems that more republicans are needed to follow their fearless leader! After all it was his call to bail out the world! So he swhould get his people behind this "bi partisan" effort.


I agree completely. According to CNN, About 60% of Democrats voted for the measure, but less than a third of Republicans backed it. The leader of his party can only get a third of his house members to support him. Says volumes about his total lack of leadership...

and I love to think back on how McCain suspended his campaign to fly back to DC to rally the GOP troops.... not only is their current leader an abysmal failure, it would appear that the pretender to the throne ain't any better!

[red states rule]

I agree completely. According to CNN, About 60% of Democrats voted for the measure, but less than a third of Republicans backed it. The leader of his party can only get a third of his house members to support him. Says volumes about his total lack of leadership...

and I love to think back on how McCain suspended his campaign to fly back to DC to rally the GOP troops.... not only is their current leader an abysmal failure, it would appear that the pretender to the throne ain't any better!

MFM, Dems run the House and all they need is a simple majority to pass anything

Once again, your party fails to deliver on its promsies and you pass the buck

So much for Obama keeping the Dems in line, and Pelsoi leadership skills.

[avatar4321]

It seems that more republicans are needed to follow their fearless leader! After all it was his call to bail out the world! So he swhould get his people behind this "bi partisan" effort.

Pelosi is constantly attacking the members of the house, particularly the Republicans, who voted against this. Why exactly do you think calling them stupid or other derrogatory comments are going to make people vote your way?

It was a bad bill. any bill with bipartisan support is because its designed to screw the people.

[red states rule]

Pelosi is constantly attacking the members of the house, particularly the Republicans, who voted against this. Why exactly do you think calling them stupid or other derrogatory comments are going to make people vote your way?

It was a bad bill. any bill with bipartisan support is because its designed to screw the people.

Because Pelosi will not accept the blame for her failure to deliver the votes, so she needs a scapegoat

The liberal media will lap it up, and libs like April and MFM will repeat it

I am glad the Republicans stuck together, and were able to win over some Dems (who may be nervious about their reelection chances if they voted for it)

[red states rule]

Someone buy San Fran Nan a scratching post - so she keeps her big motuh shut before an important vote


snip

Several Republican aides said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had torpedoed any spirit of bipartisanship that surrounded the bill with her scathing speech near the close of the debate that blamed Bush's policies for the economic turmoil.

Without mentioning her by name, Rep. Adam Putnam, R-Fla., No. 3 Republican, said: "The partisan tone at the end of the debate today I think did impact the votes on our side."

Putnam said lawmakers were working "to garner the necessary votes to avoid a financial collapse."

But the defeat was already causing a brutal round of finger-pointing.

"We could have gotten there today had it not been for the partisan speech that the speaker gave on the floor of the House," House Minority Leader John Boehner said. Pelosi's words, the Ohio Republican said, "poisoned our conference, caused a number of members that we thought we could get, to go south."

Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., the whip, estimated that Pelosi's speech changed the minds of a dozen Republicans who might otherwise have supported the plan.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080929/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown

[mundame]

From what I heard the House is PISSED that the Senate will sit on the bill until Wednesday or even Thursday for a vote. Why? Well apparently its the situation is not that dire, they need to give Obama a few days to see some poll numbers first before he votes on it.

Very interesting point. I wonder if you may be right.

I'm watching the Dems speaking on the vote --- they are of course blaming the Republicans, which is certainly fair since the Dems had more votes, but it was a Republican administration bill!!!!!!

So...........................McCain said he supported the bill, but his GOPers in the House would not go along with him.

That's not going to look good for him, after he parachuted into Washington last week causing a train wreck of what looked like a quick agreement!

[red states rule]

Very interesting point. I wonder if you may be right.

I'm watching the Dems speaking on the vote --- they are of course blaming the Republicans, which is certainly fair since the Dems had more votes, but it was a Republican administration bill!!!!!!

So...........................McCain said he supported the bill, but his GOPers in the House would not go along with him.

That's not going to look good for him, after he parachuted into Washington last week causing a train wreck of what looked like a quick agreement!

and Obama did not deliver the Dem votes

What does that say about the messiah? Was his phone busy when they tried to call him :laugh2:

[mundame]

Several Republican aides said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had torpedoed any spirit of bipartisanship that surrounded the bill with her scathing speech near the close of the debate that blamed Bush's policies for the economic turmoil.

Without mentioning her by name, Rep. Adam Putnam, R-Fla., No. 3 Republican, said: "The partisan tone at the end of the debate today I think did impact the votes on our side."

Putnam said lawmakers were working "to garner the necessary votes to avoid a financial collapse."

But the defeat was already causing a brutal round of finger-pointing.

"We could have gotten there today had it not been for the partisan speech that the speaker gave on the floor of the House," House Minority Leader John Boehner said. Pelosi's words, the Ohio Republican said, "poisoned our conference, caused a number of members that we thought we could get, to go south."

Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., the whip, estimated that Pelosi's speech changed the minds of a dozen Republicans who might otherwise have supported the plan.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080929/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown


Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah, that's all GOP garbage to excuse them not voting for the bill. What, they wouldn't vote for it because Pelosi hurt their wittle feelings? They never heard a Dem say anything bad about Bush before and they were shocked, SHOCKED?

No. They didn't want to vote for the bill and they didn't vote for the bill. Okay, maybe that was best.

The Dow is falling like a rock (I can't type fast enough, more than -730 now) and the S&P and NasDaq are both down over -8%, so that's not great, but hey, whatever.

I'm inclined to agree with RSR on this matter, I don't like it either and I'd like to see it sort itself out and I'm not even sure it's POSSIBLE to cope with a crisis of confidence of this magnitude by throwing hundreds of billions at it, so let's hope we're right, RSR!!

[mundame]

and Obama did not deliver the Dem votes

What does that say about the messiah? Was his phone busy when they tried to call him :laugh2:


Hmmmmmmm........true.

But Hawk's point is that this bill became unpopular (note you and me, as well as the many protestors with signs in Washington and New York) and so ....SHOULD Obama have "delivered" the bill, given that the GOPers wouldn't pass it?

There is no reason the Dems should carry water by themselves for a GOP administration, and note ---------------

They just refused to do so.

[red states rule]

Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah, that's all GOP garbage to excuse them not voting for the bill. What, they wouldn't vote for it because Pelosi hurt their wittle feelings? They never heard a Dem say anything bad about Bush before and they were shocked, SHOCKED?

No. They didn't want to vote for the bill and they didn't vote for the bill. Okay, maybe that was best.

The Dow is falling like a rock (I can't type fast enough, more than -730 now) and the S&P and NasDaq are both down over -8%, so that's not great, but hey, whatever.

I'm inclined to agree with RSR on this matter, I don't like it either and I'd like to see it sort itself out and I'm not even sure it's POSSIBLE to cope with a crisis of confidence of this magnitude by throwing hundreds of billions at it, so let's hope we're right, RSR!!


That is the talking point Barney Frank used to excuse Pelosi's example of bipartisanship. Trash the minorioty party and then get pissed when they do not vote the way she wants

Bottom line is San Fran Nan failed to deliver the Dem votes as she has done on many issues

[red states rule]

Hmmmmmmm........true.

But Hawk's point is that this bill became unpopular (note you and me, as well as the many protestors with signs in Washington and New York) and so ....SHOULD Obama have "delivered" the bill, given that the GOPers wouldn't pass it?

There is no reason the Dems should carry water by themselves for a GOP administration, and note ---------------

They just refused to do so.

Why do you think so many Dems voted against it? They know it is unpopular - menawhile the Dem leadership is having a temper tanturm on nationwide TV over their defeat

Dems wanted this bill more the Pres Bush - hardly carrying water mundame

[retiredman]

Hmmmmmmm........true.

But Hawk's point is that this bill became unpopular (note you and me, as well as the many protestors with signs in Washington and New York) and so ....SHOULD Obama have "delivered" the bill, given that the GOPers wouldn't pass it?

There is no reason the Dems should carry water by themselves for a GOP administration, and note ---------------

They just refused to do so.the fact that ANY democrats - let alone a majority - voted for the administration's bailout bill is a testament to Pelosi's leadership. The fact that only one third of the republicans voted for Bush and Paulsen's bill - even after McCain halted his campaign to return to DC to bring those house GOP members in line - is a testament to what a tattered shambles the GOP finds itself in... well deserved, I might add.:lol:

[mundame]

Dems wanted this bill more the Pres Bush - hardly carrying water mundame


Not so, RSR. If that were true, 94 of them wouldn't have voted against it!

No, I like Hawk's idea. The country is cooling fast on this idea, and it is possible the Senate (and Obama) will indeed oppose it; I watch with interest how that develops.

So, Paulson was quite right: do it fast, fast, fast ---------- or it might not be possible to do at all.

And McCain DID sabotage it.

[red states rule]

the fact that ANY democrats - let alone a majority - voted for the administration's bailout bill is a testament to Pelosi's leadership. The fact that only one third of the republicans voted for Bush and Paulsen's bill - even after McCain halted his campaign to return to DC to bring those house GOP members in line - is a testament to what a tattered shambles the GOP finds itself in... well deserved, I might add.:lol:

MFM needs to enroll in Civics 101 to learn how the Dems blew it in the eyes of the voters

BTW, where is Obama's leadership to bring in all the Dems on this vote?

[red states rule]

Not so, RSR. If that were true, 94 of them wouldn't have voted against it!

No, I like Hawk's idea. The country is cooling fast on this idea, and it is possible the Senate (and Obama) will indeed oppose it; I watch with interest how that develops.

So, Paulson was quite right: do it fast, fast, fast ---------- or it might not be possible to do at all.

And McCain DID sabotage it.

Over the weekend Dems held a photo op to to tell us this vote was slam dunk

So much for their credibility

[mundame]

The Economist, a few minutes ago:


But with a vote of 228 to 205, the House rejected it. World stockmarkets promptly slumped. At one point the Dow Jones industrial average had fallen than 700 points, its biggest intraday drop ever. The oil price slumped by $10 to less than $97 a barrel.
The House voted against the bill despite the best efforts of the two candidates to be president. “This is something that all of us will swallow hard and go forward with,” John McCain had said. Barack Obama had added that “What we can't do is do nothing.” As it stood on Monday, that was precisely what the House had chosen to do.


And this is why, as I thought:



In a USA Today/Gallup Poll conducted on September 24th just 22% favoured Mr Paulson’s proposal while 56% wanted something different...


Only 22% of the public in favor of the bailout!!!!! No, the House didn't care for that. Neither party cared for that negative opinion from the voting public.

[red states rule]

The Economist, a few minutes ago:


And this is why, as I thought:



Only 22% of the public in favor of the bailout!!!!! No, the House didn't care for that. Neither party cared for that negative opinion from the voting public.

Looks like House Republicans cared - and House Dems are telling to to shut up

According to our resident liberal hack MFM, they are to blame for the bills failure - so you should be thanking them Mundame

[mundame]

so you should be thanking them Mundame


Thank you, Gopers. http://macg.net/emoticons/smilebow.gif

[red states rule]

Thank you, Gopers. http://macg.net/emoticons/smilebow.gif

The Dems who voted against it are probably worried about Novemeber and voted to save their reelection chances

[mundame]

The Dems who voted against it are probably worried about Novemeber and voted to save their reelection chances


I'm sure. Lots of instant analyses by Wall Street types, and this before the 4:00 ticker has even stopped!! At 4:11 PM.........got a little volume going today, don't we? I myself don't remember it not stopping so late as this.

I'm making it -748 down on the Dow, if it stops now, and more than 9% down on the NasDaq.....that can't be good.

[red states rule]

I'm sure. Lots of instant analyses by Wall Street types, and this before the 4:00 ticker has even stopped!! At 4:11 PM.........got a little volume going today, don't we? I myself don't remember it not stopping so late as this.

I'm making it -748 down on the Dow, if it stops now, and more than 9% down on the NasDaq.....that can't be good.

Is it a show? Did Dems let it fail and then after the NYSE takes a nose dive, they will pass it?.

Then the Dems can say that if they did not act, the economy would collapse.

Sounds like a Daily Kos kook conspiracy eh Mundame?

[Yurt]

typical libs, insult, insult, insult....and then blame the other side....this just proves that to the dems, power over country matters most...


Republicans blamed Pelosi's scathing speech near the close of the debate — which attacked Bush's economic policies and a "right-wing ideology of anything goes, no supervision, no discipline, no regulation" of financial markets — for the vote's failure.

"We could have gotten there today had it not been for the partisan speech that the speaker gave on the floor of the House," Minority Leader John Boehner said. Pelosi's words, the Ohio Republican said, "poisoned our conference, caused a number of members that we thought we could get, to go south."

WTF was the point of that speech? quit your bitching and do your job, stop putting politics over country and work with others, not against them, did she really think giving a big finger to teh repubs would help?

[red states rule]

typical libs, insult, insult, insult....and then blame the other side....this just proves that to the dems, power over country matters most...



WTF was the point of that speech? quit your bitching and do your job, stop putting politics over country and work with others, not against them, did she really think giving a big finger to teh repubs would help?

Yurt, here is all you need to know about the failure of the bailout bill

217 votes needed to pass.

235 Democrat House members.

[mundame]

-777 down on the Dow, official.

Now we're having fun.

[Kathianne]

Well we'll see what happens:


*

Dow 10,365.45 -777.68 -6.98%
Chart for Dow
Nasdaq 1,983.73 -199.61 -9.14%
Chart for Nasdaq
S&P 500 1,106.42 -106.59 -8.79%
Chart for S&P 500
10 Yr Bond(%) 3.6320% -0.1950

[red states rule]

-777 down on the Dow, official.

Now we're having fun.

Send a thank you note to Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and the DNC

[mundame]

Send a thank you note to Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and the DNC


I don't see why you say that, since there were more Dems voted for it than GOPers.

If a few more GOPers had voted for it, the bill would have passed.

Personally, I think both parties coordinated this vote to avoid passing it: it just wasn't popular enough. Not for representatives who have to stand for election in just a month.

[red states rule]

I don't see why you say that, since there were more Dems voted for it than GOPers.

If a few more GOPers had voted for it, the bill would have passed.

Personally, I think both parties coordinated this vote to avoid passing it: it just wasn't popular enough. Not for representatives who have to stand for election in just a month.


Mundame, Dems run the House. All they need is a simple majority to pass anything

Pelosi blew it with her rant against Pres Bush and Republicans who were ready to vote for it

Remember 95 Dems voted against it - it shows how Pelosi can't even manage her fellow Dems

[mundame]

It's the administration's bill, RSR. A REPUBLICAN administration.

If they can't get their own people to vote for their OWN bill, there is no reason the Dems should pass an unpopular bill.

Remember Pelosi always said she needed 100 Republicans: the White House (or McCain, whoever) had to get her 100 Republicans.

And of course!! Because it was a Republican bill.

McCain couldn't swing it and Pelosi didn't bother, and I don't blame her.

As I say, my opinion is that this isn't an issue of blame --------------

This is a case of collusion. Pelosi and Boehner killed this bill between them, because the people seriously didn't want it.

I mean, come on --- if you and I BOTH don't like it, you know it's unpopular.

[red states rule]

It's the administration's bill, RSR. A REPUBLICAN administration.

If they can't get their own people to vote for their OWN bill, there is no reason the Dems should pass an unpopular bill.

Remember Pelosi always said she needed 100 Republicans: the White House (or McCain, whoever) had to get her 100 Republicans.

And of course!! Because it was a Republican bill.

McCain couldn't swing it and Pelosi didn't bother, and I don't blame her.

As I say, my opinion is that this isn't an issue of blame --------------

This is a case of collusion. Pelosi and Boehner killed this bill between them, because the people seriously didn't want it.

I mean, come on --- if you and I BOTH don't like it, you know it's unpopular.

But you keep ignoring (like MFM) the fact Pelosi lost the vote due to a lack of Dems voting for it

Get over you hate for Pres Bush and Republicans. House Republcians have opposed this bill from the beginning. there is nothing new for them voting against it

Dems, however blew it by not making sure the votes were there on their side

[retiredman]

It's the administration's bill, RSR. A REPUBLICAN administration.

If they can't get their own people to vote for their OWN bill, there is no reason the Dems should pass an unpopular bill.

Remember Pelosi always said she needed 100 Republicans: the White House (or McCain, whoever) had to get her 100 Republicans.

And of course!! Because it was a Republican bill.

McCain couldn't swing it and Pelosi didn't bother, and I don't blame her.

As I say, my opinion is that this isn't an issue of blame --------------

This is a case of collusion. Pelosi and Boehner killed this bill between them, because the people seriously didn't want it.

I mean, come on --- if you and I BOTH don't like it, you know it's unpopular.


you are exactly right... a republican administration, a republican treasury secretary...A REPUBLICAN BILL DESIGNED TO SAVE THE ECONOMY THAT HAS FLOUNDERED ON THE ROCKS WHILE A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT HAS BEEN AT THE HELM!!! Pelosi tried to sell it to HER folks and did a hell of a lot better job than Boner or Bush or Paulson OR McCAIN in selling it to republicans. The republican party has ZERO effective leaders on the national level, it would seem.

[Kathianne]

I don't know if it should have passed or not, my initial feelings were no. I do not like the idea of the government interfering with what should be the private sector. However, after watching what has been said, reading what I could, I figured it seemed to be necessary.

Bottom line, representatives are supposed to represent what their constituents would do, if they had the information available that the leaders do. They have to have a backbone to make the tough choices.

I've no idea where this will lead to, but doesn't look to be a good place.

[red states rule]

you are exactly right... a republican administration, a republican treasury secretary...A REPUBLICAN BILL DESIGNED TO SAVE THE ECONOMY THAT HAS FLOUNDERED ON THE ROCKS WHILE A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT HAS BEEN AT THE HELM!!! Pelosi tried to sell it to HER folks and did a hell of a lot better job than Boner or Bush or Paulson OR McCAIN in selling it to republicans. The republican party has ZERO effective leaders on the national level, it would seem.

More drivil from our resident liberal political hack.

So you know more then the 78% of folks who are opposed to this handout?

In your mind, of course you are

[Kathianne]

I'm going with the cynical:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_09_28-2008_10_04.shtml#1222715601


[David Bernstein, September 29, 2008 at 3:13pm] Trackbacks
Pelosi's Speech:

Speaker Pelosi's speech before the House today was remarkable, but not in a good way. She was trying to round up votes for a bailout package that shes claims to believe is essential for the stability of the American economy. She can't, and doesn't want to, pass the bill without a substantial number of Republican votes. So what does she do? You would think she would say, "let's pass this emergency measure now, in the best interests of the country, and talk about who is to blame later." Instead, Pelosi began her speech with a highly partisan tirade against "Bush" and "Republican" economic policies, which were allegedly to blame for this situation. She focused on an attack on the growth of federal deficits, which clearly are at best tangential to the current crisis. That, to me, is the sort of irresponsible thing you do when (a) you're not claiming there is a vast emergency; and (b) you are in the minority, and not claiming to exercise leadership. [Commenters point out that Republican Housemember were acting equally irresponsibly to the extent they rose to Pelosi's bait and voted against the bailout out of pique at Pelosi. True. But the Speaker of the House is a leader, not just a random member of the House, and her actions inevitably and justifiably get more scrutiny than those of her colleagues.

UPDATE: 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.

FURTHER UPDATE: Here's a cynical take from commenter Bart:


Pelosi was not acting out of stupidity, but out of malice to obtain partisan electoral advantage.

The woman knows how to count votes. She has kept several bills from coming to votes over the past Congress because she knew she was short on votes and would lose.

The woman knows how to follow polls. Obama was losing to McCain until this mess emerged a little over a week ago. Now Obama has a 5 point lead.

One has to be willfully blind not to see that Pelosi was attempting to dump on Bush and pick a fight with the GOP to ensure that this rescue plan lost and the partisanly advantageous crisis continues.

[April15]

I agree completely. According to CNN, About 60% of Democrats voted for the measure, but less than a third of Republicans backed it. The leader of his party can only get a third of his house members to support him. Says volumes about his total lack of leadership...

and I love to think back on how McCain suspended his campaign to fly back to DC to rally the GOP troops.... not only is their current leader an abysmal failure, it would appear that the pretender to the throne ain't any better!
It is how the uniter has pulled the troops together for the good of the world! OH well I have nothing so when the nation goes into the tank it will only mean I get to diet with no choice in the matter.

[red states rule]

Here are a few of the liberal Dems who voted no on the bill. They could be worried about the opposition the majoroty of people have for this bill

Conyers
DeFazio
Jackson Jr
Jackson-Lee
Ramstad
Ros-Lehtinen
Sanchez, Loretta
Stupak

[theHawk]

you are exactly right... a republican administration, a republican treasury secretary...A REPUBLICAN BILL DESIGNED TO SAVE THE ECONOMY THAT HAS FLOUNDERED ON THE ROCKS WHILE A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT HAS BEEN AT THE HELM!!! Pelosi tried to sell it to HER folks and did a hell of a lot better job than Boner or Bush or Paulson OR McCAIN in selling it to republicans. The republican party has ZERO effective leaders on the national level, it would seem.

Yes, but unlike you and your party, Republicans do not gobble up everything their party leaders throw out there. They actually LISTEN to their constituents back at home. What a novel idea!!!

We all know liberals won't blink at spending 700 BILLION, and giving the government more power.

Bush may be a social conservative, but no one has ever accused him of being a fiscal conservative or a Constitutional conservative.

[April15]

RSR, Relax. You remember how I described a senario where bush nullifies the election and declares martial law? Well this is leading up to it and he will make himself grand PooBah of the nation.

[red states rule]

Yes, but unlike you and your party, Republicans do not gobble up everything their party leaders throw out there. They actually LISTEN to their constituents back at home. What a novel idea!!!

We all know liberals won't blink at spending 700 BILLION, and giving the government more power.

Bush may be a social conservative, but no one has ever accused him of being a fiscal conservative or a Constitutional conservative.

Passing it would have only made the problem worse by rewarding failure, if you reward failure you only get more failure. That is the foundation of liberalism.

The government needs to stay out of this and let the free market take care of itself. We have had recessions before and made it through them, we'll never live though socialization of our businesses

[Kathianne]

Well they are waiting to 'reconvene' until Thursday. If there are another 3 days like this on Wall Street and the European banks keep sliding, it may be too late.

[red states rule]

Well they are waiting to 'reconvene' until Thursday. If there are another 3 days like this on Wall Street and the European banks keep sliding, it may be too late.

Dems believe in taking their time off no matter what.

The voters are taking all this in - I hope

[retiredman]

Well they are waiting to 'reconvene' until Thursday. If there are another 3 days like this on Wall Street and the European banks keep sliding, it may be too late.


you know that the leadership will be working round the clock between now and then to put together a bill that will be able to win more than one third of the republican party. Does your party really think that American voters will look back to who has been in power for the last eight years, and who has had both executive AND legislative control for six of the last eight years, and NOT hang responsibility for this mess around your necks? My house is nearly paid off, and my 401k portfolio is very conservative (aqs of about three months ago) so I personally will not suffer because of this mess... my parishioners will. that's the bad news. the republicans will. that's the good news.

[red states rule]

you know that the leadership will be working round the clock between now and then to put together a bill that will be able to win more than one third of the republican party. Does your party really think that American voters will look back to who has been in power for the last eight years, and who has had both executive AND legislative control for six of the last eight years, and NOT hang responsibility for this mess around your necks? My house is nearly paid off, and my 401k portfolio is very conservative (aqs of about three months ago) so I personally will not suffer because of this mess... my parishioners will. that's the bad news. the republicans will. that's the good news.

Another example of MFM's liberal compassion and putting his party ahead of his country

The more people are hurting, the happier the minister of hate is as he looks down on the masses from his ivory tower

How typical and expected

[manu1959]

you know that the leadership will be working round the clock between now and then to put together a bill that will be able to win more than one third of the republican party. Does your party really think that American voters will look back to who has been in power for the last eight years, and who has had both executive AND legislative control for six of the last eight years, and NOT hang responsibility for this mess around your necks? My house is nearly paid off, and my 401k portfolio is very conservative (aqs of about three months ago) so I personally will not suffer because of this mess... my parishioners will. that's the bad news. the republicans will. that's the good news.

true republicans and conservatives will vote against any such bail out .....

the one they just passed for the automakers was a travesty as well........

[red states rule]

true republicans and conservatives will vote against any such bail out .....

the one they just passed for the automakers was a travesty as well........

If the 95 Democrats who voted against the bill had changed their vote, the bill would have passed. I believe they're laughing that Pelosi couldn't get those 95 who would have passed this bill to vote for it, then she blames the Republicans for the bill not passing.

It's like listening to a bald woman talking about her long, luxurious hair and expecting everyone to believe her.

Or MFM telling us how he gives sermons, was a respected officer, and cares about the people of America

[Silver]

you are exactly right... a republican administration, a republican treasury secretary...A REPUBLICAN BILL DESIGNED TO SAVE THE ECONOMY THAT HAS FLOUNDERED ON THE ROCKS WHILE A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT HAS BEEN AT THE HELM!!! Pelosi tried to sell it to HER folks and did a hell of a lot better job than Boner or Bush or Paulson OR McCAIN in selling it to republicans. The republican party has ZERO effective leaders on the national level, it would seem.

You've read the bullshit above....

Now for the Facts...

Asked whether House GOP lawmakers are right to believe they were slighted, Kanjorski (D)replied, “I don't know that we included them in enough, and that's always a dangerous thing in politics.
talking about bail-out bill

Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) doesn’t agree with Kanjorski. During a press conference Thursday night, Frank noted that the committee's ranking member, Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), has participated in the negotiations.
one, count 'em....one Bachus--Barney obviously thinks this is sufficient

After Democrats announced they had a deal on Thursday, Bachus released a statement, which stated, “As I made clear in the meeting [Thursday] morning, I was not authorized by my colleagues to make any agreement on behalf of House Republicans.”

So....clear enough..this was a Dem. bail out bill...100% with little to no republican input

[retiredman]

true republicans and conservatives will vote against any such bail out .....

the one they just passed for the automakers was a travesty as well........

go ahead. urge your republican congressmen and senators to vote against it. see how that will drive your party into permanent monority status and guarantee an Obama victory in November.

[manu1959]

If the 95 Democrats who voted against the bill had changed their vote, the bill would have passed. I believe they're laughing that Pelosi couldn't get those 95 who would have passed this bill to vote for it, then she blames the Republicans for the bill not passing.

It's like listening to a bald woman talking about her long, luxurious hair and expecting everyone to believe her.

Or MFM telling us how he gives sermons, was a respected officer, and cares about the people of America

personally i am glad it did not pass and really could care less which liar claims credit or lays blame ...... they should all be fired ...... they were all there 8 years ago....they all fucked up....they should all do the honourable thing and resign.....

[red states rule]

go ahead. urge your republican congressmen and senators to vote against it. see how that will drive your party into permanent monority status and guarantee an Obama victory in November.

BS, your party has the majority and can pass this bill on their own. They need 217 to pass it and hold 225 seats. You party has just proven why they have such a low approval rating once again. She can't even unite her own party yet claims to be bi-partisan.

[Kathianne]

true republicans and conservatives will vote against any such bail out .....

the one they just passed for the automakers was a travesty as well........

Well that was certainly my take 2 weeks ago. I'm not so sure anymore, which may be a function of all the doomsday scenarios we've heard. Here is someone I think quite brilliant, who agrees with you:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODUxMmI1MWRkNGY3NzEyZjFmZmY0MzBlNTY0Zjg2MTI=


I respectfully dissent [Andy McCarthy]

I do not understand why those who've voted no should be labeled "irresponsible." The senate evidently will not deign to take up this crisis legislation until Wednesday. Meanwhile, even if you don't reject the bill on philosophical grounds (see e.g., Dick Armey's article on NRO today), there is massive room for improvement. Why not take the time to try to improve it?

This was a terrible bill. To take just a few particulars, why is there no reform of the government interventions that got us to this point in the first place? Why aren't Fannie and Freddie being wound down — even after we've now had to make explicit the implicit, disastrous government guarantee? Why is Pelosi saying (as I noted in an earlier post) that the authority in the bill will allow the Treasury Department (perhaps soon an Obama Treasury Department) to take bad debt off the hands of mismanaged state and local governments?

Why don't we have a firmer formula for how Paulson (or, again, an Obama Treasury Secretary) will determine the value of the toxic debt before the government starts throwing money at it. Now, I've heard all the arguments about how, for the bailout to "work," a premium above current value would have to be paid. Even if I accept that as true for argument's sake, however, are you telling me I am wrong to worry that this bill gives the Treasury Secretary unduly wide latitude to feed taxpayer money into businesses that should fail because they've been irresponsibly leveraged and utterly mismanaged?

Why does the government have to buy the securities? If liquidity is the problem, why can't it make money available for loan, taking back collateral, placing the risk on the bad actors rather than the taxpayers, and letting market set a reasonable price for the bad debt by auction and other conventional methods. Most people will pay their mortgages so these "troubled assets" still have significant value. And there are buyers out there. The troubled entities are not selling at the price the market will bear because they (understandably) think they will get a wildly inflated price from the government — once again, perverting the market: penalizing responsible actors, rewarding the bad actors who brought us to this point, and keeping those bad actors in business.

Even as this deal has been negotiated, the market is carrying on. AIG worked out an enormous loan because it was better to nationalize it than let it fail — but at least taxpayers were protected. Lehman did not get the same deal because it didn't rate it ... and it failed. WaMu and Wachovia have been swallowed by JP Morgan and Citigroup. (See David Reilly WSJ analysis discussing how the JP Morgan/WaMu deal shows the system is working.) Central banks are acting to pump liquidity into faltering institutions in Europe.

....

Does anyone doubt the truth of the following statement in the aforementioned Armey piece today:


Granting the Treasury broad authority to buy troubled assets from private entities poses a significant threat to taxpayers and fundamentally alters the relationship between the private economy and the federal government. Despite the sweeping breadth of the proposed bailout, there is virtually nothing in the bill that addresses the underlying problems that created the housing bubble and the oversized and over-leveraged financial services sector that grew with it. Taxpayers have become Wall Street’s newest financier, with little more than a promise — and a report to Congress on “regulatory modernization” — that Congress will not let this happen again.

FWIW, I think Armey is right about this, and it scares the daylights out of me. Of course, an economic meltdown caused by a drying up of credit scares me, too. But why should I assume the latter problem is necessarily worse than the former? I understand the impulse to obsess over the pain and potential catastrophe staring us in the face, but what if the wages of drastically altering the capitalist system that has been our engine of freedom are decidedly worse?

[Silver]

Ironic...on another site, 100% of the DimLibs agree with the 93 Dems that voted against the bail-out....

[PostmodernProphet]

Not the give me game starts. What will it take for San Fran Nan to buy 11 Dem votes to pass this massive handout?

How much more will it cost us the taxpayers???
I bet she could buy 12 Republican votes by admitting the Dems caused this problem.....

[Silver]

I bet she could buy 12 Republican votes by admitting the Dems caused this problem.....

She doesn't need to...she only needs to convince 12 of the 93 of her own that say the bill sucks...

[red states rule]

Ironic...on another site, 100% of the DimLibs agree with the 93 Dems that voted against the bail-out....

Those Dems will be banned from the site, and branded Karl Rove plants

[manu1959]

Well that was certainly my take 2 weeks ago. I'm not so sure anymore, which may be a function of all the doomsday scenarios we've heard. Here is someone I think quite brilliant, who agrees with you:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODUxMmI1MWRkNGY3NzEyZjFmZmY0MzBlNTY0Zjg2MTI=

i will just say this.....chase, citi, b of a, wells fargo etc....are all fine.....let the market sort itself out properly....

[red states rule]

Here is the roll call vote. See how your rep voted

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml

[Silver]

Shela Jackson voted against the bill because................their party practices democracy......now on MSNBC

Too bad she doesn't see fit to extend that right to R's that voted against it...

[red states rule]

Shela Jackson voted against the bill because................their party practices democracy......now on MSNBC

Too bad she doesn't see fit to extend that right to R's that voted against it...

To libs that is what they call bipartisanship

[Silver]

MeatheadFromMaine seems to have disappeared.....

well...when the going gets tough...the pussies get going....

[red states rule]

MeatheadFromMaine seems to have disappeared.....

well...when the going gets tough...the pussies get going....

Conmanfrommaine is learning his talking points from MSNBC, and CNN

[retiredman]

You've read the bullshit above....

Now for the Facts...

Asked whether House GOP lawmakers are right to believe they were slighted, Kanjorski (D)replied, “I don't know that we included them in enough, and that's always a dangerous thing in politics.
talking about bail-out bill

Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) doesn’t agree with Kanjorski. During a press conference Thursday night, Frank noted that the committee's ranking member, Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), has participated in the negotiations.
one, count 'em....one Bachus--Barney obviously thinks this is sufficient


After Democrats announced they had a deal on Thursday, Bachus released a statement, which stated, “As I made clear in the meeting [Thursday] morning, I was not authorized by my colleagues to make any agreement on behalf of House Republicans.”

So....clear enough..this was a Dem. bail out bill...100% with little to no republican input
a DEM bill? :laugh2::laugh2:

NO republican input??? :laugh2::laugh2:

that ain't what Paulsen and Bush think! Can you stand up straight after all that sp[inning? you must be dizzy!

[red states rule]

a DEM bill? :laugh2::laugh2:

NO republican input??? :laugh2::laugh2:

that ain't what Paulsen and Bush think! Can you stand up straight after all that sp[inning? you must be dizzy!

Dems did need "everyone" for thr bill to pass. Can't you do simpe math? 217 of the 225 is NOT EVERYONE and 12 of the 94 nays is NOT EVERYONE. Your party can't even unite their own members yet BLAMES Republicans. How pathetic a party you support

Party ahead of country once again with you

[retiredman]

MeatheadFromMaine seems to have disappeared.....

well...when the going gets tough...the pussies get going....

just getting the brown rice cookin' for dinner. sliver:lol:

[Kathianne]

http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/commentary/bearslair?art_id=10123


Creating a Great Depression

* by Martin Hutchinson
* September 26, 2008

Financial downturns are unpleasant, but they do not need to turn into the Great Depression, which historians now agree was the product primarily of a number of egregious policy mistakes. For almost 80 years, we have thus felt safe from a recurrence of the “Great Depression” phenomenon, primarily on the basis of “we have learned from those mistakes – nobody would today be so stupid.” Sadly recent events suggest that this optimism may have been misplaced and that politicians, never the most economically intelligent of mankind, may be working towards the considerable feat of constructing a Great Depression – Mark II.

The bull market before 1929 was sold for a generation as unprecedented in size, representing an apogee of speculation that had never been seen before and would never be seen again. We now know that to be rubbish. Radio Corporation of America, the Google or Microsoft of the period, never sold for more than 28 times earnings, a generous valuation to be sure but nothing compared to the stratospheric prices reached by the more fashionable dot-coms in 1999-2000. The stock market capitalization to Gross Domestic Product ratio peaked in 1929 at 75%, above the long-term average of 58%, equal to the 1966 peak, but less than half of the 185% it reached in 1999 and still substantially less than the 105% of GDP at the end of 2007. Then there was housing, which in the 1920s enjoyed no great boom outside Florida (partly because mortgage finance was then very conservative) and so did not represent a giant overhang of overpriced assets ready to crush the economy when markets turned.

While the asset bubble awaiting deflation in 1929 was smaller than those of 2000 or 2007 (or that in Japan in 1990) the global economy of 1929 had other weaknesses. The world payments balance had not recovered fully from World War I, so continental Europe was dependent on loans from the New York money market, as was much of Latin America. US and most European tariffs were much higher than currently, while the British Empire was running an entirely self-defeating unilateral free trade policy, with a currency that was linked to gold and considerably overvalued – thus Britain had largely failed to share in the US boom of the 1920s.

Thus the imbalances in 1929 and 2007 were different, but fairly close to equivalent. In both cases, the world economy had shown robust growth over the preceding few years but had weaknesses which were likely to cause trouble in the long run. In the circumstances of 1929, it is now generally agreed that the following ingredients came together to worsen an inevitable downturn and turn it into the Great Depression:

1. a crash in asset prices, wiping out much wealth that had been thought secure,
2. a revival in protectionism early in the downturn, destabilizing the world payments equilibrium and causing world trade to decline
3. a series of serious banking crashes – the Bank of the United States failure of December 1930, followed by the Austrian Creditanstalt crash of May 1931, leading to a collapse in the US and global money supply which was not corrected by the Fed
4. a determined diversion of resources from the private sector to the public sector, initially in 1931-32 by President Herbert Hoover’s Reconstruction Finance Corporation and then by the New Deal
5. a panicky incentive-killing tax increase pushing up top marginal income tax rates sharply from 25% to 63%
6. a partial abandonment of basic principles of capitalism through the first New Deal, disrupting relations between buyers and sellers
7. a government-directed destruction of capital raising mechanisms, motivated by hatred of Wall Street and rendering risky debt and equity issues almost impossible for the next decade

As the political picture of the 2008 electoral transition comes into clearer focus, personality parallels with the 1929-39 period appear. The current presidential candidates eerily mirror the Presidents who presided over the Great Depression. John McCain is Herbert Hoover, full of populist denunciations of Wall Street that clearly come from the heart, but devoid of effective solutions to the economic problems the US faces. We can imagine McCain in the White House, after a year or so during which the economy proves recalcitrant, adding to the national pessimism by scowling angrily for the cameras at a fate that has left him confronted by a problem he cannot solve – or possibly borrowing some leftist solution like Hoover’s 1932 tax increase that makes matters much worse. As in 1931-32, the electorate would soon be counting the days until 2012, when another choice could be made.

As for Barack Obama, he is nothing more nor less than Franklin Roosevelt, empty rhetoric and all. “We have nothing to fear but fear itself!” rivals “Yes, we can!” in its mindless uplift and lack of specificity. Like Roosevelt, Obama would be full of clever ideas to solve the nation’s economic problems; like Roosevelt’s, his ideas would mostly be half-baked leftist panaceas that did more harm than good, prolonging the downturn and leading the nation a substantial distance further towards the nightmare of the leviathan state. His rhetoric is so good, however that the electorate would not notice his economic failures and would happily re-elect him as they did Roosevelt in 1936.

....

[red states rule]

Pelosi Lied and the Banking Bill Died

[avatar4321]

im glad this was voted down. If we have to suffer through a downturn id rather suffer through this than push this off to my grandchildren.

Shame we dont have a real leader to rally behind.

[red states rule]

im glad this was voted down. If we have to suffer through a downturn id rather suffer through this than push this off to my grandchildren.

Shame we dont have a real leader to rally behind.

Should Obama win the election, do you think for one minute an econmic downturn will stop Dems from jacking up taxes and Federal spending?

Here comes carter's second term folks

[Silver]

just getting the brown rice cookin' for dinner. sliver:lol:

Sounds good..hope you have some shrimp for that rice....

[red states rule]

Sounds good..hope you have some shrimp for that rice....

and some cheese with the whine

[Kathianne]

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTk3Nzg3MWI5ZDNmYTUyZmFhZTkyM2IyYzZiMjFmZGM=



The Sky Has Not Fallen [Peter Robinson]

We'll see what happens tomorrow, of course, but in the meantime it's worth noting that today the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell only about seven percent.

Only?

Yes, only.

On October 19, 1987, it fell by more than 22 percent.

09/29 08:25 PM

[manu1959]

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTk3Nzg3MWI5ZDNmYTUyZmFhZTkyM2IyYzZiMjFmZGM=

yep it was 500 points or so and i believe the dow was around 2000 then....

[manu1959]

all bullshit aside ...... several members of congress have said they were swamped with calls and e-mails telling them to vote no ......

the pubs are proposing an "FDIC" funded by wall street fees.....to prop up the bad mortgages not tax payer bailout.....

[red states rule]

all bullshit aside ...... several members of congress have said they were swamped with calls and e-mails telling them to vote no ......

the pubs are proposing an "FDIC" funded by wall street fees.....to prop up the bad mortgages not tax payer bailout.....

and making the banks pay an ins premium and roll back the capital gians tax to 0% for perhaps a year

That will make the Dow make up alot of the losses

[retiredman]

Sounds good..hope you have some shrimp for that rice....

do you have a crystal ball? I made a dish of gigantic jumbo shrimp stir fried with snow peas, carrots, and vidalia onions in a ginger garlic sauce served over brown rice... a bottle of gerwurtztraminer.... simply delicious!:coffee:

[manu1959]

and making the banks pay an ins premium and roll back the capital gians tax to 0% for perhaps a year

That will make the Dow make up alot of the losses

you watching the same show as me huh.........

[red states rule]

you watching the same show as me huh.........

Great minds think alike sir

[Silver]

do you have a crystal ball? I made a dish of gigantic jumbo shrimp stir fried with snow peas, carrots, and vidalia onions in a ginger garlic sauce served over brown rice... a bottle of gerwurtztraminer.... simply delicious!:coffee:

Livin' large.....German? French? Canadian? (Gewürztraminer)

[retiredman]

Alsatian

[red states rule]

Alsatian

Eating out?

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/political-pictures-barack-obama-replaced-server.jpg

[Sitarro]

you know that the leadership will be working round the clock between now and then to put together a bill that will be able to win more than one third of the republican party. Does your party really think that American voters will look back to who has been in power for the last eight years, and who has had both executive AND legislative control for six of the last eight years, and NOT hang responsibility for this mess around your necks? My house is nearly paid off, and my 401k portfolio is very conservative (aqs of about three months ago) so I personally will not suffer because of this mess... my parishioners will. that's the bad news. the republicans will. that's the good news.

Gee, even more suffering for your "parishioners"....... step down and give them some relief.

[red states rule]

Gee, even more suffering for your "parishioners....... step down and give them some relief.

MFM has told us how rich he is - he can afford to hand them some cash to help them out

Oh, libs like him only want to hand over other peoples money

[stang56k]

WOOOHOO DEATH TO COMMUNISM!!!!!!!!!!!:dance::dance::dance::dance::d ance:

[Sitarro]

do you have a crystal ball? I made a dish of gigantic jumbo shrimp stir fried with snow peas, carrots, and vidalia onions in a ginger garlic sauce served over brown rice... a bottle of gerwurtztraminer.... simply delicious!:coffee:

Is that a recipe you cooked on the boat that you served as cookie on?:laugh2:

[retiredman]

Is that a recipe you cooked on the boat that you served as cookie on?

I never was a cook in the navy. that is an enlisted position, and my entire service was as either a midshipman or a commissioned officer....but then, you knew that and yet feel compelled to continue sophomoric insults. Why am I nut surprised?:laugh2:

[retiredman]

Gee, even more suffering for your "parishioners"....... step down and give them some relief.


they would not let me step down now.... they like the job I'm doing.

Do you have anything other than insults to post, by the way, or is that really the extent of your posting repertoire?:laugh2:

[red states rule]

they would not let me step down now.... they like the job I'm doing.

Do you have anything other than insults to post, by the way, or is that really the extent of your posting repertoire?:laugh2:

What a bunch of undemanding people they must be.........

[actsnoblemartin]

Eating out?

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/political-pictures-barack-obama-replaced-server.jpg

hahaha, where's the pasta :laugh2:

[retiredman]

hahaha, where's the pasta :laugh2:


I knew you were all talk and no action martin...don't bother writing me those smarmy heartfelt PM's if they continue to be nothing but bullshit. OK?

[red states rule]

I knew you were all talk and no action martin...don't bother writing me those smarmy heartfelt PM's if they continue to be nothing but bullshit. OK?

Your posts must be rubbing off on him

Martin has tried to be friends with you - why I will never know - and you respond with contempt

[Yurt]

I knew you were all talk and no action martin...don't bother writing me those smarmy heartfelt PM's if they continue to be nothing but bullshit. OK?


Do you have anything other than insults to post, by the way, or is that really the extent of your posting repertoire?

:poke:

[retiredman]

:poke:

I guess you read the PM's in question, counselor?

[remie]

all bullshit aside ...... several members of congress have said they were swamped with calls and e-mails telling them to vote no ......

the pubs are proposing an "FDIC" funded by wall street fees.....to prop up the bad mortgages not tax payer bailout.....

Exactly. God bless the American public for flooding the Whitehouse switchboard telling their Congressmen to vote no. If you recall the same thing happened when they tried to ram the amnesty bill down our throats.

Personally I am for some sort of bill, but not one which puts the burdon on the taxpayers who pay their mortgages and pay all the taxes already. The free market would work if we just let it. If they want to pass a bill that guarantees the paper I am ok with that. Guess what I am doing today. Buying stock because I have the utmost confidence in our system. Besides, if the USA tanks the rest of the world will tank with it. There is exactly the same number of dollars in play as there was yesterday and the day before. Its only when we panic that the market flucuates wildly. IMO we all need to chill.

[DragonStryk72]

Here's my thing: We should not be bailing these companies out, period. This corporate welfare we've been running for so long is at the root of this problem. We have continually kept going this illusion of a good economy, all the while selling out our country, and our futures to keep from admitting that the government simply doesn't have a good business mind.

These companies need to fail, and we should be focusing any help the government gives on helping the ones effected by this, not saving companies that cannot keep their own finances straight.

[red states rule]

:poke:

With a little hard work, MFM could work himself up to half wit

[stang56k]

Here's my thing: We should not be bailing these companies out, period. This corporate welfare we've been running for so long is at the root of this problem. We have continually kept going this illusion of a good economy, all the while selling out our country, and our futures to keep from admitting that the government simply doesn't have a good business mind.

These companies need to fail, and we should be focusing any help the government gives on helping the ones effected by this, not saving companies that cannot keep their own finances straight.

Right on!

Giving money to people that couldn't manage their own money is kind of an oxymoron...

[red states rule]

Right on!

Giving money to people that couldn't manage their own money is kind of an oxymoron...

and what is worse, letting the same Dems who created the problem, the power to "fix" it

[stang56k]

and what is worse, letting the same Dems who created the problem, the power to "fix" it

I'm just really estatic there is good people in washington that voted this down even with all the hype and hysteria .:salute:

[red states rule]

I'm just really estatic there is good people in washington that voted this down even with all the hype and hysteria .:salute:

What is better, is Pelsoi and Obama could not get a simple majority of Dems to vote for the bill :laugh2:

5 Dems committe chairmen voted against it

12 Dems on Barney Frank's banking committee voted against it

[stang56k]

What is better, is Pelsoi and Obama could not get a simple majority of Dems to vote for the bill :laugh2:

5 Dems committe chairmen voted against it

12 Dems on Barney Frank's banking committee voted against it

Mccain tried too :wink2:

[actsnoblemartin]

[QUOTE=stang56k;302515]WOOOHOO DEATH TO COMMUNISM!!!!!!!!!!!:dance::dance::dance::dance::d ance:[/QUOTE

:clap: :clap: :clap:

[red states rule]

Mccain tried too :wink2:

Their was never any doubt where the Republcinas stood - Dems held several press conferences telling us how the "deal was done'

The problem is the Dems never talked to the Republicans

Pelosi did not need ONE REPUBLICAN VOTE to pass this bill. She could not keep her fellow Dems in check, and Hoyer failed in hsi job as whip to line up the votes

[actsnoblemartin]

mfm, are you on your period again :laugh2:

Seriously man :coffee:, learn to take a joke.

For someone who dishes it out so easily, you have really thin skin mate

:lol:


I knew you were all talk and no action martin...don't bother writing me those smarmy heartfelt PM's if they continue to be nothing but bullshit. OK?

[actsnoblemartin]

I knew you were all talk and no action martin...don't bother writing me those smarmy heartfelt PM's if they continue to be nothing but bullshit. OK?

and for christ sake, ask rsr how many times ive begged him to be nice & stop/lessen his insults/lessen or eliminate his negs towards you

Really :poke:

its bordering on harrassment.

The one thing i dont like about you is, unlike stephanie or rsr, you are not as forgiving as they are, if i dare not do exactly what you want, when you want it, or dare criticize you, you become a fire breathing dragon while steph and rsr and sweet and kind hearted and have thick skin.

lighten up mate!

[red states rule]

mfm, are you on your period again :laugh2:

Seriously man :coffee:, learn to take a joke.

For someone who dishes it out so easily, you have really thin skin mate

:lol:

Martin, stop trying to be nice to this worthless carbon based lifeform. He is not worth it, and he will turn on you in a heartbeat

[red states rule]

and for christ sake, ask rsr how many times ive begged him to be nice & stop/lessen his insults/lessen or eliminate his negs towards you

Really :poke:

its bordering on harrassment.

The one thing i dont like about you is, unlike stephanie or rsr, you are not as forgiving as they are, if i dare not do exactly what you want, when you want it, or dare criticize you, you become a fire breathing dragon while steph and rsr and sweet and kind hearted and have thick skin.

lighten up mate!


You should know by now, MFM is not happy unless he is smearing and cussing someone out. He is treating us like he treated the enlisted men who served under him - if he really was in the US military at all

[actsnoblemartin]

i have nothing to say, i am just dis-heartened at all my attempts to be nice/be-friend and have my teeth kicked in :slap:

[retiredman]

and for christ sake, ask rsr how many times ive begged him to be nice & stop/lessen his insults/lessen or eliminate his negs towards you

Really :poke:

its bordering on harrassment.

The one thing i dont like about you is, unlike stephanie or rsr, you are not as forgiving as they are, if i dare not do exactly what you want, when you want it, or dare criticize you, you become a fire breathing dragon while steph and rsr and sweet and kind hearted and have thick skin.

lighten up mate!

I am not breathing fire at you martin. I merely point out that you are all hat and no cattle, so to speak.

[red states rule]

I am not breathing fire at you martin. I merely point out that you are all hat and no cattle, so to speak.

Looking in the mirror - or did it crack?

[Kathianne]

I never was a cook in the navy. that is an enlisted position, and my entire service was as either a midshipman or a commissioned officer....but then, you knew that and yet feel compelled to continue sophomoric insults. Why am I nut surprised?:laugh2:

Enlisted men are sophomoric? :smoke:

[red states rule]

Enlisted men are sophomoric? :smoke:

To MFM they are peasants

[Kathianne]

Exactly. God bless the American public for flooding the Whitehouse switchboard telling their Congressmen to vote no. If you recall the same thing happened when they tried to ram the amnesty bill down our throats.

Personally I am for some sort of bill, but not one which puts the burdon on the taxpayers who pay their mortgages and pay all the taxes already. The free market would work if we just let it. If they want to pass a bill that guarantees the paper I am ok with that. Guess what I am doing today. Buying stock because I have the utmost confidence in our system. Besides, if the USA tanks the rest of the world will tank with it. There is exactly the same number of dollars in play as there was yesterday and the day before. Its only when we panic that the market flucuates wildly. IMO we all need to chill.
Seems many agreed with you:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080930/us_time/thebailoutdefeatapoliticalcredibilitycrisis



The Bailout Defeat: A Political Credibility Crisis

By MICHAEL SCHERER / WASHINGTON2 hours, 7 minutes ago

There was a lack of trust, a loss of confidence, a popular revolt.

Nearly every major political leader in the U.S. supported the $700 billion financial-bailout bill. The President. The Vice President. The Treasury Secretary. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve. The Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Democratic and Republican nominees for President. The Democratic and Republican leadership of the House and Senate. All of them said the same thing: vote yes.

But a majority of those politicians anointed by the Constitution to reflect the will of the people voted no. This is a remarkable event, the culmination of a historic sense of betrayal that Americans have long felt for their representatives in Washington. The nation's credit crisis on Monday exposed a much deeper and more fundamental problem: a crisis of political credibility that now threatens to harm our nation further, should the markets freeze up and more companies begin to fail, as many experts predict.

The problem has been growing for years. Roughly 28% of Americans approve of President Bush. Roughly 18% of Americans approve of Congress. Now those low numbers and majority of bad feelings have manifested themselves in the starkest of terms.

Asked to take a leap of faith regarding a dizzyingly complex problem, a critical mass of voters refused to trust their leaders, turning down the medicine that was offered. And so the politicians who are most exposed to popular whims have run for cover. With an election on the horizon, 95 House Democrats and 133 House Republicans opposed the bill. Some portion voted no for clearly ideological reasons. But many more were simply doing what politicians do - responding to the will of the people.

An analysis by statistician Nate Silver, who runs FiveThirtyEight.com, made this clear. Of the 38 incumbent members of Congress from both parties who are considered vulnerable in the coming election, 30 voted against the bill (eight supported it). By contrast, members of Congress from relatively safe districts were evenly divided - 197 for it to 198 against it.

"What this showed more than anything else was that not even members of Congress can ignore a switchboard system of Capitol Hill that is so totally jammed," said Peter Sepp, a conservative opponent of the bill with the National Taxpayers Alliance...

I've personally come full circle, for now I think the 'bailout' is wrong. If it was such an 'emergency' 13 days ago, how do we account for 'now'? Bush this morning saying it's a veritable necessity to stave off a depression? Pelosi making hay before the vote yesterday? Gained back how much today?

Skip the bailout, let the markets slam the deserving.

[retiredman]

Enlisted men are sophomoric? :smoke:
and you don't think that making posts about me cooking shrimp as a cook in the navy are sophomoric? Or are you SUCH a partisan bitch at this point in the evening that you really have lost all sense of rationality? Or are you just drunk? Which is it?:laugh2:

[actsnoblemartin]

I think ill just leave you alone, I dont know what your problem is, but I can only do my best to be fair and kind to all, and if i fail with some, so be it.

I do the best i can.

I hold no hard feelings toward you.
I am not breathing fire at you martin. I merely point out that you are all hat and no cattle, so to speak.

[retiredman]

I think ill just leave you alone, I dont know what your problem is, but I can only do my best to be fair and kind to all, and if i fail with some, so be it.

I do the best i can.

I hold no hard feelings toward you.

that's fine. I hold no hard feelings towards you either. I have enjoyed giving your counsel from time to time... but I understand that your loyalties and affectionate friendships are more important to you than the prusuit of knowledge or truth. That's cool. don't sweat it.

[Kathianne]

and you don't think that making posts about me cooking shrimp as a cook in the navy are sophomoric? Or are you SUCH a partisan bitch at this point in the evening that you really have lost all sense of rationality? Or are you just drunk? Which is it?:laugh2:

Hmmm, partisan bitch or drunk? Such choices. You sir, are a fuktard and a numbnuts.

[Kathianne]

and you don't think that making posts about me cooking shrimp as a cook in the navy are sophomoric? Or are you SUCH a partisan bitch at this point in the evening that you really have lost all sense of rationality? Or are you just drunk? Which is it?:laugh2:

You're problem. I NEVER DID. In fact, as a husband think it was a good thing. If you HAD cooked in Navy, bet it would have been appreciated. YOU were the one to denigrate it, not me.

[retiredman]

Hmmm, partisan bitch or drunk? Such choices. You sir, are a fuktard and a numbnuts.

give me another option. do you really think that shittaro's post was NOT sophomoric?

[Kathianne]

give me another option. do you really think that shittaro's post was NOT sophomoric?

Gee, I thought you were getting up close and personable. I haven't a clue to Sitarro's posts.

[retiredman]

You're problem. I NEVER DID. In fact, as a husband think it was a good thing. If you HAD cooked in Navy, bet it would have been appreciated. YOU were the one to denigrate it, not me.

If I had cooked in the navy, I would have been a great cook. But shitarro's post was an attempt to denigrate my service. and you supported it.

[Kathianne]

If I had cooked in the navy, I would have been a great cook. But shitarro's post was an attempt to denigrate my service. and you supported it.

Get over yourself, admiral. That better? Seriously you must have the smallest level of self confidence from any I've met. What a wuss.

[retiredman]

Gee, I thought you were getting up close and personable. I haven't a clue to Sitarro's posts.
post #96

[Kathianne]

post #96

Psst, while I like Sittaro, the issue isn't with him. I'm not going there.

[actsnoblemartin]

what are you talking about?

I have told rsr numerous times to knock it off but i cant make him.

If you have an instance where you think something is wrong, and i didnt act because of friendship, why not just let me know, instead of just antagonize me?

I just dont get you


that's fine. I hold no hard feelings towards you either. I have enjoyed giving your counsel from time to time... but I understand that your loyalties and affectionate friendships are more important to you than the prusuit of knowledge or truth. That's cool. don't sweat it.

[stang56k]

BERKELEY, CA—Members of the U.S. House of Representatives today voted against a $700 billion financial system bailout. MAPLight.org has found that, over the past five years, banks and securities firms gave an average of $231,877 in campaign contributions to each Representative voting in favor of the bailout, compared with an average of $150,982 to each Representative voting against the bailout--54 percent more money given to those who voted Yes. 205 Representatives voted Yes and 228 voted No, with 1 Not Voting.

House Democrats split their votes on this bill, 140 voting Yes and 95 voting No. Democrats voting Yes received an average of $212,700 each, about twice as much as those voting No, $107,993.

House Republicans also split their votes on this bill, 65 voting Yes and 133 voting No (and 1 not voting). Republicans voting Yes received an average of $273,181 each, 50% more than those voting No, $181,688.

“Profit-driven companies wouldn't be making campaign contributions if it didn't buy them influence or access," said Daniel Newman, MAPLight.org's executive director. “Votes in Congress align with the river of money that flows through our political system.”

Votes on H.R. 3997, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008

Average amount banks and securities firms gave to U.S. House Members:



Average amount given to each legislator voting this way

House Members (All)
voted Yes
$231,877


voted No
$150,982

House Democrats voted Yes $212,700
voted No $107,993
House Republicans
voted Yes
$273,181

voted No $181,688

http://www.maplight.org/node/43109

[DragonStryk72]

Interestingly, although this bailout was a bill from Bush & Co., the least number of votes in favor of it came from the Republicans.

[PostmodernProphet]

Interestingly, although this bailout was a bill from Bush & Co., the least number of votes in favor of it came from the Republicans.
quite simple actually, it wasn't a conservative solution.....

[Yurt]

quite simple actually, it wasn't a conservative solution.....

:clap:

[retiredman]

all you have to do is add a little pork and those house republicans get right in line!:laugh2:

[Yurt]

all you have to do is add a little pork and those house republicans get right in line!:laugh2:

and so did the dems, but you deceptively leave that out :poke:

[red states rule]

and so did the dems, but you deceptively leave that out :poke:

Are you surprised by that omission?