Are the House Pubs seriously saying that they voted against the bill because Nancy Pelosi hurt their widdle feewings? THAT’S what they care about? Not the economic welfare of the US, but petty, ticky-tack partisan getback?
What am I talking about? They impeached a President for getting a blowjob. Of course that’s all they care about.
As opposed to their success at cratering the economy responsibly? 
That’s an oversimplification. The parties both have negative things going for them. It’s just that the republicans have *way more *negative things going for them.
What major issues are they in lockstep on?
Gay rights, abortion rights, prayer in school, ID in school, birth control, stem cells research, health care, deregulation. These would seem to be things they oppose each other on.
Don’t forget Obama. Obama flew back as well.
No, agreeing to vote for a bill and then changing your mind in a fit of pique because of Pelosi’s comments is a snit fit.
Juvenile idiots.
As for “standing on principle,” I think the current crisis amply demonstrates the bankruptcy of Republican economic principles. These jackasses are going down with the conservative ship, and they’re wrecking the lifeboats while they’re at it.
Pelosi is certainly a numbskull, but but it does not reflect well on Republicans who were willing to vote for this bailout bill until she said mean things about them.
Either it was a good bill and they should have voted for it, or it was a bad bill and they should have voted against it. It does them no credit to claim they are deciding on a $700billion bill based on anything but the merits of the bill.
You misunderstand my question. I’m not asking for a list of economists who disapproved of Paulson’s proposal (my guess is that the economists listed would have differing views of what an ideal proposal looks like, setting aside the issue of whether how much the House plan changed from the Paulson plan, as noted in the caveat on the top of the linked page).
I’m asking you why you think that a bill shouldn’t be passed soon. You replied earlier that you think that the situation is, in effect, being hyped. What are your specific reasons for thinking that things are better than they are being portrayed?
You know those frequent flyer miles were going to expire!
Also he was specifically invited by Pres. Bush for a meeting. McCain just thought he’d fly down like mighty mouse… forgetting how stupid someone who can’t lift their arms above their head looks while flying.
This was gone over and over and over in the last thread. The House Republicans never agreed to vote for it. When the deal was announced, a Senator® said that he expected they might have an agreement in the future, and the House® said there wasn’t any deal whatsoever.
The Democrats went overboard trying to upstage McCain coming back and blew their load too early by announcing the ‘Deal’, when none actually existed.
Because the President asked him to. Nobody asked McCain.
I think we can all agree that the blame game has been completely bipartisan. 
What difference does that make?
Because if they aren’t and we have to bail things out, taxes might have to go up. And we can’t have that. :eek:
Because he wasn’t going to go until asked by the President. Neither Obama nor McCain added anything of value to the plan, as evidenced by today’s vote. The difference was that Obama knew that ahead of time and said so, and McCain said the opposite.
Well our GNP/GDP has been okay, our unemployment rate has been okay. I think that bodes well for our overall economy. At least long enough to get a suitable bill to do what needs* to get done.
About 5-8 points in the polls.
Seriously, the difference is that McCain tried to insert himself into a process where he wasn’t needed, had no expertise, no committee membership and no leadership role purely as a stunt to attempt to boost his poll ratings.
Obama tried to stay out of the way, and only went back to Washington at the request of teh President, not for political self-interest.
I was listening to NPR on the way to lunch, and this is how they described it:
After the House and Senate leadership sat down and agreed to comprimise bill, the Republican leadership released their memebers to “vote their conscience”. This basically meant they were telling their members to vote against it if they felt it would be a liablity to them in the future (meaning they could blame it on the Democrats). The Democrats felt betrayed because they had legitimately compromised and then were not going to get true bipartisan supprort.
As you point out, in Democrats have a majority in the House. They do not need Republican support to pass the bill. But, why should they pass a compromise bill instead of what they really want? The only reason they compromised was to get be able to call it a bipartisan effort.
Both GDP and unemployment rate are extremely lagged indicators. If there is going to be any intervention, it must be done before these indicators reflect the impact of this financial crisis. To wait until afterwards would drastically increase the transaction cost. It is much cheaper not to fire someone at all than to lay him off and then have to rehire for the same position in several months.
I’m not talking about the “deal” that was announced last week. I’m talking about the compromise over the weekend which brought this bill to the floor today with the expectation of passage. It was in all the papers.
Face it: The Republicans behaved like petulant children today, at the nation’s expense.
You see, Pelosi made them do it. Just like Barney Frank the member of a minority that couldn’t even get a room to hold a hearing in when the Republicans didn’t want one, somehow blocked regulation of Fannie and Freddie. Don’t you realize that Republicans were for regulation for the past 8 years and the Dems against it? Please put all evidence to the contrary into the memory hole.
This is just like the California budget crisis, where Republicans refused any compromise, even when offered by the leader of their own party. BTW, when the deal was finally done, they voted for the budget with the new funding, but refused to vote for the funding itself.
Will these people accept any responsibility for the total failure of their economic policy? No fucking way. At least we can console ourselves that markets in free fall don’t help the incumbent party very much.