Ok, fair enough (that’s if you’re talking about the Republicans. If you’re talking about how the Yankees did something right, screw you, you damned fool!)
To blame Nancy Pelosi’s speech on the failure of this passing is a new low.
Let me get this straight: Reps came to DC to “change the tone”-- a Rep can tell a Dem to fuck off on the Senate floor; they can obstruct meetings and the flow of communication etc while they’re in power and it’s all “politics as usual”. But let a woman say something disparaging about their party, they take all their toys and go home?
Who the hell are these morons? Vote against it if you don’t agree with its contents. Stand up and say that to your constituents. Don’t blame some other person for this mess.
Oh yeah the 24/7 news cycle gets mad props for trying to tank the economy. And I actually sorta mean that.
Conspiracy minded, the people causing the drop are the same people that would benefit from the bailout and see this as a means to get congress to pass it for them.
That will work by ignoring on purpose that the reality remains that the majority is really paper thin, And still the President and the Republican efforts made the FISA amendments to be passed this year. (Just say boo! and watch the democrats jump)
Who is in control when the pushing is made can not be denied, The President still starts the ball rolling and the very little effort (in the end) that was made to reign on this economic doomsday shows the priorities the peanut brain in chief had.
That’s true; the Yankees are incapable of doing anything right. They are irredeemable.
well then, not to hijack or anything, but if you’re ever in the vicinity of Munich before november or NC in DEC/JAN, send me a shout. I’ll buy you and your hubby a drink hopefully over an an Obama victory!
The crash began the moment the bill failed. Are you denying that the traders are scared? If you are responsible for a lot of money, and it looks like we’re heading into a recession due to frozen credit, it behooves you to dump stock now. No conspiracy required.
The reason this is significant, even if it is not the biggest percentage drop ever, is that it comes after a major decrease, and represents fears about an ongoing problem. Do we know it won’t fall more tomorrow?
Now, I wonder how the major donors for the guy who voted against this are going to feel about losing an oodle of money today. That goes for both parties. My representative voted yes, but if he had voted no I’d be sending a nasty e-mail about now.
Well, they did just close up their ballpark and have been paying out about $100 Million in dead money. Seems they are doing a few things right.
What a peculiar time for Bush’s Republican ‘rubber stampers’ to finally grow a pair of balls. 
I don’t see in you cite,** squink**, anything about the Reps blaming Pelosi? 
I heard someone quoted as doing so on NPR (I was making dinner and didn’t catch the name), then I heard a Senator from Oregon (I suck at names) who said essentially what I did. Basically, the Reps (and some Dems) either opted out of voting or voted no, either due to their consciences or their constituents. To say it was due to the Speaker of the House’s less than gracious demeanor/speech as some Reps have done is childish and ridiculous. A gratuitous smear, if you will.
The People’s Republic Party has always opposed those lickspittle lackeys of the Wall Street plutocrats, the Democrats!
I just saw a snippet on CNBC where some Congressman (not sure who) actually came right out and said that it was her fault they didn’t pass the bill. I’ll go looking for a cite, but I just heard it with my very own ears.
ETA: it was Boehner, cite here
So what if they’re deregulation advocates. A bailout isn’t regulation.
Probably the same wanker I heard. It solves nothing, causes more acrimony and makes you look stupid. Great job there, Mr Representative!
My rep voted no and he is getting a nasty email and a phone call tomorrow. Of course, one of my Senators tried to screw the whole process up…
There were a few interesting tidbits in Glenn Greenwald’s blog entry, Bailout follows the 10 normal principles for how our government functions (click-through ad to view, I believe), where he rails against the bill (as voted on). I don’t think he’s just being a crank; for instance, in his “Update I”, he says:
Worth reading, IMHO.
Let’s not take McCain’s statements out of context, ok?
Earlier today, he took credit for the passage of this bill. [url= http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=AF9F10EC-18FE-70B2-A82949C5A24271A8]here](]http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGxVPm[/URL)
I make no claim as to the partisanship of the site. I just googled what I remembered of his speech today and this came up first.
He makes Linda Blair look like a Parkinson’s pt.
It’s a bit more complex. The issue has partisan politics at its core. One of the greatest bipartisan achievements of the last 30 years has imploded.
It is fundamentally a Democratic idea to alter the mortgage markets to provide affording housing and financing to those who would not otherwise be able to attain it. This is the idea behind Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. It is a fantastic idea and has been a huge success. It put a lot of people into homes, freed up credit, started a housing boom and has been arguable the largest force behind the economic growth everybody has enjoyed over the last thirty years.
The Democrats deserve a huge amount of credit for this. The entire nation has benefitted. It started with Carter, was unimpaired with Reagan, and took off under Clinton. Being great for everybody and the economy it was great for business.
As a party the Democrats view themselves as being for the little guy. They don’t view themselves as friends of big business. They perceive a divide. The economy and big business did great, along with the little guy who could buy a house and watch his equity grow.
This looked to work out well for everybody. The Republicans could be friendly to business, and take that part of the Democrats’ credit, while the Democrats could take credit for all the good they did the little guy.
Except, it didn’t work out that way. The whole thing was perceived as a triumph of capitalism and big business which is generally more of a Rebublican thing. So, the Democrats got screwed. Partially this is their own fault for insisting on seeing a divide where one does not necessarily exist. Why is it bad if low income housing is good for big business and we can all make a lot of money? Why would they feel this is wrong? On the other side of the coin, it is exactly the ability to perceive divides that allowed the Democrats to see the initial problem and a way to address it. It’s a catch-22.
In any event, Republicans got credit for an essentially Democratic founded enterprise.
Starting in the very late 90s it started to become apparent that things were getting overheated. Bill Clinton himself sought reform on some of the excesses of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and attempts for more regulation were made. These continued after Clinton left office, and Republicans took the majority. The attempts for reform and regulation became largely a Republican issue. They were an easy Republican issue at this point. Normally considered weak on regulation, here, regulation was clearly needed, and also very friendly to big business as it would necessitate a tightening of reins on lending to the those least able to pay it back. Banks were not happy with the artificial environment that caused them to have to have lower lending standards to remain competitive. A tightening of Fannie and Freddie would allow banks to similarly raise their standards.
Weakened Democrats, losing control, perceived an opportunity to gain traction. Here, they made a terrible mistake. I’ve worked hard to give the Democrats their due so far, and not to post from a partisan standpoint on this issue, but there’s no getting around this.
The Democrats strongly resisted reform under the flag that such reform would hurt the little guy and his ability to get financing and own his own home. Sight was lost as to whether or not the little guy could actually afford it, or make the payment for the loan he was getting. A lot of Democrats got in bed with Fannie and Freddie, and any attempt to rein in the lending was attacked as being crony capitalism in service of big business by fucking over the little guy.
Over time, the response from the markets was “You want us to do shitty loans. No problem. Watch!” The loan market got so competitive that loans became “sales.” We had Libor based ARMs, 0% financing, what have you. Big business was very happy, and frankly not too many Republicans were making noise either. After all, there wasn’t much else fueling the economy.
But, there were some Republicans making noise. Bush was one of them. He was one of the loudest. We had hearings in 2004 to attempt reform, and it was vehemently opposed by most Democrats.
Market and Capitalistic excesses have a lot to blame for the current debacle. The Democrats Really fucked up resisting reform, and a lot of this can be laid at their feet.
They know this.
There’s an attempt by Pelosi, Reid, et al to characterize this as a failure of Bush economics, big business and runaway capitalism.
Today’s remarks by Pelosi were an attempt to frame it as such. The Repbulicans are getting screwed right now. They got the credit before, but now they are catching the blame for a mistake that is not their fault. A lot of republicans are idealistically opposed to this bailout. Some believe that Socializing losses and privatizing gains is hypocrisy.
As the speaker of the house I think Pelosi needs to not throw people under the bus when she needs their votes. I think her attempts to frame this as Republican failure are undermining efforts to get this thing through. Republicans may be considering that it may be too late, anyhow and damned if their going to take the blame. They may be considering that they have the opportunity to stand on principle without risk (which is the funnest way.) The longer this thing takes the worse it is going to look for Democratic leadership in the Senate, and the more likely Pelosi’s reframing is to unravel and Democrat culpablility in this mess to be exposed.
It’s gaining traction:
The Republicans may have a lot to gain by not cooperating, and little to lose.
I apologize for the double post (on preview, I see that they’re no longer consecutive at least), but Greenwald linked to an article (blog entry?) by economics professor Nouriel Roubini, in which he cites a study of other world-wide banking crises and how they were handled. What justifies this post sans commentary (in my mind) is that the article presents (in outline) some alternatives to the bailout as it’s been proposed.
Not being very conversant in economics, I was thankful for having them spelled out and thought that others might appreciate it also.