House of Representatives Rejects Bailout Bill

[RyJae]

@Oy

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:

No taxes already need to go up, but spending even more money we don’t have after 2 weeks of screaming "it’s the end of the world as we know it… unless you pass this bill.

I think people need to slow down, realize that it was stupid to push it like this. It is a lot of money, take your time make sure the bill is the best our money can be spent on.

[Maeglin]

@Strassia

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.

The same logic works in reverse. Republicans are not the only people sitting on unsafe seats. Democrats in threatened constituencies predictably voted against the bill as well. Unsurprisingly, there are a lot more vulnerable Republicans in this congress than there are Democrats. Pelosi did not have to tell her people to “vote their consciences” because she knew she could deliver the votes anyway.

[RyJae]

@Maeglin

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.

So you are agreeing we had more than 2 weeks to find the best intervention?

[Martin_Hyde]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

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.

There’s a lot of Republicans who hold a great deal of blame for the situation we are in right now, but that blame is shared with a great many Democrats and a whole entire industry of people whose jobs it was to know better.

But in all this mess one thing I can be absolutely certain of, is Nancy Pelosi is a blithering idiot. This crisis has as much to do with Bush’s economic policies as it does with the leaky faucet in my bathroom.

This crisis is based entirely on the fact that thousands of professionals who should have known better across the globe basically made a “bet” that housing prices were going to rise indefinitely. How many people have heard, prior to 2007, the claim that “real estate prices can only go up?” When anyone who has ever paid attention to the economy knows that people make and lose fortunes in real estate all the time, just like any other commodity.

How can you bitch about Republicans being concerned with “ticky-tack partisan getback” when the speaker of the House, who ostensibly must have known how difficult it was to get votes lined up for this (this bailout is one of the least popular things that Congress has considered in the past twenty-five years, legislators know they are putting their very political careers on the line with this vote) decides that she can’t refrain from making a partisan slam that isn’t just out of line, it is factually wrong?

I do find it upsetting that our leaders can’t avoid acting like children, but to act like the only one being childish here are the House Republicans is some of the most ludicrous and biased partisan bullshit I’ve ever seen stated with a straight face on these forums.

[Sinaijon]

@spoke-

I’m talking about the compromise over the weekend which brought this bill to the floor today with the expectation of passage.

Funny, everything I read this weekend talked of House leaders trying to rally support for the bill, and that there was till significant opposition. That continued even this morning.

Like here:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/28/news/economy/Sunday_talks_bailout/index.htm?postversion=2008092822

[Voyager]

@RickJay

1. No. The US government acted very differently, and very stupidly, after the 1929 crash, and did a lot of things that compounded the problem and caused the Depression to last much longer than it needed to. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff - a response to the crash - did far more to create and prolong the Depression than the crash itself. It probably killed more Americans than the Iraq War.

Even if no bailout bill is ever passed, it won’t be that bad. And,

You think a depression couldn’t occur in a different way? This sounds like fighting the last war. Yes, we have the tools to stop it, but we need the political will to use them.

2. They’ll come up with a bill soon enough that will get majority support. There’s no huge rush on this; much of the ensuring panic and tearing of hair has been created by politicians and talking heads SAYING the bill needs to pass now, now, now. It doesn’t.

I hope you’re right. Certainly, after the election they’ll be able to do what is right without fear of a backlash from the yahoos. But I hope the credit freeze hasn’t totally screwed the economy by then. Maybe, just maybe, the market crash will make constituents worried about their retirement savings call the holdouts and make them change their votes.

[Strassia]

@Maeglin

The same logic works in reverse. Republicans are not the only people sitting on unsafe seats. Democrats in threatened constituencies predictably voted against the bill as well. Unsurprisingly, there are a lot more vulnerable Republicans in this congress than there are Democrats. Pelosi did not have to tell her people to “vote their consciences” because she knew she could deliver the votes anyway.

While this is true, it misses the point. Congress works by deals for most things. The outcomes of votes are usually known before the official floor vote. In this case, in some back room, The leadership came to an agreement. It may have been both parties had to deliver 60% yes votes, or in exchange for some clause or wording one party gives more. Whatever the case, a deal was made but the Republicans backed out figuring the Democrats would pass it anyway and then could be blamed. The Democrats figure if they have to eat the blame, they should get what they want. I can’t say I blame them.

[Clu-Me-In]

@Sinaijon

I’m actually bit suprised here. There seems to be a lot of support here what was basically still Bush’s plan. Normally people on this board have nothing but scathing retorts for anything Bush related.

Wrong!! This was not Bush’s plan. This plan was drawn up by a specialist (Paulson) — somebody one who is looking for financial expertise can trust. Paulson’s plan was supported by Bush, and once the Congressional leadership understood what he was talking about, they too gave support and started looking at ways to bring his plan to a vote.

In it’s initial writing, it was not something that could pass, so they re-worked it many times over until it was acceptable enough for the leaders of both parties and the Presidential candidates. Once that was agreed upon, they sought to convince the rank and file that even though it was not the best bill, that it was something that begins to address the financial crisis.

Bus isn’t smart enough to understand the gravity of the economic mess we’re in.

[MOIDALIZE]

@spoke-

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.

Why do you assume this bailout is in the nation’s best interests?

[Ravenman]

@RyJae

So you are agreeing we had more than 2 weeks to find the best intervention?

As was pointed out earlier, GDP and employment tend to lag, even though it must be pointed out that unemployment has gone from 5% to 6.1% this year.

My concern is that unless something is done soon, more banks will continue to fail. The alternate solutions I have heard so far (principally, either doing nothing or requiring insurance to be bought on assets that have already experienced a loss) don’t seem to make sense to me.

Are there other ideas that you think are more worthwhile?

[Sinaijon]

@Clu-Me-In

This was not Bush’s plan. This plan was drawn up by a specialist (Paulson)

Duh. Paulson is his Treasury Secretary and part of his administration. Are you really claiming there is a distinction between the administration’s policies, and those that are personally Bush’s?

[RyJae]

@Ravenman

As was pointed out earlier, GDP and employment tend to lag, even though it must be pointed out that unemployment has gone from 5% to 6.1% this year.

My concern is that unless something is done soon, more banks will continue to fail. The alternate solutions I have heard so far (principally, either doing nothing or requiring insurance to be bought on assets that have already experienced a loss) don’t seem to make sense to me.

Are there other ideas that you think are more worthwhile?

Nope, but I am not a professional. I do hear a lot of ideas in my workplace from those that actually dabble in that sector. I’m sure a good bill could be made that would do something, that would get better support.

[DigitalC]

@ArizonaTeach

AYES
Democratic 140
Republican 65

NOES
Democrat 95
Republican 133

How the hell is that NOT the republicans fault, jesus christ.

[RyJae]

@Clu-Me-In

Wrong!! This was not Bush’s plan. This plan was drawn up by a specialist (Paulson) — somebody one who is looking for financial expertise can trust. .

Yeah we can trust him.

In Spring 2007, Secretaty Paulson told an audience at the Shanghai Futures Exchange that “An open, competitive, and liberalized financial market can effectively allocate scarce resources in a manner that promotes stability and prosperity far better than governmental intervention.” [22]

In August 2007, Secretary Paulson explained that U.S. subprime mortgage fallout remained largely contained due to the strongest global economy in decades. [23]

On July 20, 2008, after the failure of Indymac Bank, Paulson reassured the public by saying, “it’s a safe banking system, a sound banking system. Our regulators are on top of it. This is a very manageable situation

There has been some criticism of Paulson, with suggestions that Paulson’s plan may potentially have some conflicts of interest. This is because Paulson is the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, a firm that may benefit from the plan. [31][32] Unlike the previous bailouts and managed liquidations of Goldman competitors Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch and Lehman Bros. and those of AIG, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, in which shareholder value was largely wiped out, Goldman’s stock would likely rise under the Paulson plan, benefiting his former partners, because it would take distressed assets off their balance sheet

Henry Paulson

[XT]

The truely ironigh thing about all this is that the Dems were mostly on the same side as the President (though I thought Pelosi’s speech was incredibly stupid), while a lot of 'dopers are siding with…the majority of Republicans who voted against the bail out. If the situation wasn’t so dire I’d be howling with laughter at some of the people who are against this thing…and their supposed rational for this position.

And me? I’m on the side of the President (who I can’t stand) and the Dems (who I think by and large are a bunch of air heads) and against allowing the market to correct this situation while providing the government with another step towards socialization. Gods this is a weird situation…

-XT

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

McCain is claiming the failure of the bill is can be faced squarely at the feet of…
…wait for it…

…Barack Obama. :rolleyes:

[Spoke]

@MOIDALIZE

Why do you assume this bailout is in the nation’s best interests?

Because I trust the vast majority of economists and the elders of both parties who say so?

[RyJae]

@spoke-

Because I trust the vast majority of economists and the elders of both parties who say so?

Which “vast majority of economists” are you listening too?

[Martin_Hyde]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

McCain is claiming the failure of the bill is can be faced squarely at the feet of…
…wait for it…

…Barack Obama. :rolleyes:

I can see him blaming Pelosi, but Obama hasn’t really exposed himself to this crisis to a degree that makes him a valid target of this kind of cheap partisan political shot. This makes McCain look crazy.

[XT]

Yeah, that’s nuts that McCain is blaming Obama. While I can understand the reasoning this was the Republicans that shot this down. Certainly Pelosi is a major contributor to the blame (the fuck was she thinking?), but I don’t see Obama as even a minor player in this fuckup…and what role he DID have was positive.

-XT