AYES
Democratic 140
Republican 65
NOES
Democrat 95
Republican 133
Let me see if i understand this, the Republicans (most of whom voted AGAINST the bill) are blaming the Democrats (most of whom voted FOR the bill) for the bill’s failure?.
I am the only one who think they are out of their fucking mind?
Anyone see the analysis over on FiveThirtyEight? In brief, support for the bailout was almost exactly 50% among congressmen with secure reelection prospects, almost 90% among congressmen not running for reelection, and just barely over 20% among congressmen whose reelection is not a sure bet. Interestingly, almost all of the congressmen not running for reelection are Republicans.
Re: the second Great Depression, note that it’s widely agreed that one of the major causes of the first depression was the gold standard (cite). So that’s one more thing we have going for us over those poor bastards, and one more reason why we’re insulated from another disaster.
I can’t believe you brought this shit up. But since you did, allow me to correct your usual mistake. He was impeached for lying. You really should know this by now. But if you make the mistake again I’ll be glad to correct you again.
Carry on.
The Dow is down 15% since May.
Here is the text of Rep Petosi’s comments. Other than the almost obligatory shot at Bush economic policy, I don’t see anything especially offensive or unusually partisan about her comments.
Well it didn’t help that the DJIA added a freaking bank to the average in the midst of a banking crisis did it?
He said this AS HE WAS STEPPING DOWN as chairman of the fed, and after 6 years of praising subprime mortgages, and telling us all they were safe and good. More than any single human anywhere, HE was responsible for the subprime mortgage fiasco.
Well, the only sane thing to do now is suspend the vice-presidential debates until the crisis is fixed.
I’m trying to figure out why people are blaming the Republicans while refusing to acknowledge the failures of the Democrats here.
Like I’ve said, if the Democrats wanted to pass this, they could have done so without a single Republican vote.
The above is exactly what I was saying without even looking too closely at the data. Since which congresspeople were not seeking reelection and which are vunlerable is well know, I now find it even harder to believe that this bill was even supposed to pass at all.
That was my point. That we won’t make the same mistakes does not mean that we won’t wander into a depression through some other path. In 20 years economists will be saying what the hell could we be thinking.
Refighting the last war, in my understanding, means preparing for the conditions last time at the expense of flexibility for what is going to happen this time, which will be different.
They might have thought that was smart politics, but with the markets crashing, they are going to have to do something (likely just about the same thing they voted against today), and explain why they voted against it before they were for it.
This non-logic is kind of insulting. Republican leadership claims to have wanted to pass it, too. Should the fact that Republican leadership failed mean that the Democrats’ bar gets raised? Pelosi delivered enough of her caucus. That was, in all probability, her job. Blaming her for not doing more to compensate for Boehner’s failure to rally enough people to back their president is just ex post illogic. Arguing otherwise is moving the goalposts.
I must say, I agree. What was the big deal?
ArizonaTeach, this is an unpopular bill with the electorate. Why should the Democrats single-handedly have to pass it so that the Republicans can publicly wash their hands of it while still reaping its benefits? Almost two-thirds of Democrats were on board. Less than one third of Republicans were on board. It was requested by a Republican administration, after an extended period of Republican control of government. How can you not hold the Republicans more responsible for the failure of this bill to pass than the Democrats?
All the pissy reporters on cable are cracking me up.
I get the idea that a credit crunch is bad because businesses operate with lines of credit.
And I understand that bank failures are dangerous for the economy.
But if I may speak for the Clem Kadiddlehoppers in our country, what’s got me pissed off about this $700 billion situation is I see the same people who’ve been speculating on gas prices and costing ME money out of my pocket;
the same banks who raise fees and charge exorbitant interest rates;
the same wealthy executives who’ve expanded the difference between CEO and employee pay;
and the same slick Wall Street talkers in expensive suits who make MILLIONS of dollars in bonuses each year who are now saying “we don’t want to start making loans until we get guarantees/coverage of our losses/whatever it is backed by the U.S. gov”.
To which I say, fuck you.
And it’s being sold to us by a President who’s spending our money at breakneck speed.
To which I say, fuck you and the vice president you rode in on.
I’ll participate more later, right now the markets not the only thing crashing the boards seem to be as well for me.
Hey! Leave me out of this!
You owe me a beer. And a new keyboard. 
The problem being, you’ll get fucked long before they will. They’ll never have to struggle to put their kids through college. They’ll never have to wait another few years to buy a new car. You may.
I’ll suffer a bit if it means those assholes have to suffer a LOT. So, no, we don’t have to save the failing banks. Fuck them. I’m ready to ride this thing all the way down, and maybe at the end of the day when these assholes have to suffer REAL consequences for lying, stealing, and cheating the system, we’ll have learned something.
Otherwise, what good does bailing out the mortgage industry do? It keeps the same people in power with the same morals and the same evil streak as before, but now armed with the knowledge that there are no consequences for anything they do, ever.
If you’re so eager to spend 700 billion saving a bunch of people in financial trouble, I have a better idea. The government should pay every homeowner who was tricked by predatory lenders and our economic leadership (most importantly Alan Greenspan) the difference between what their introductory interest rate was and their current interest rate. Every dollar that the government spends this way should equal one second of community service time for all of the board members involved with the banks receiving it. The bank can then either keep these people on their board and pay a 75% tax on the money the government pays them in this way, or fire them and have the money taxed at a regular rate.
Everyone wins. It costs the government about the same as this goofy bailout package. People don’t lose their homes. The bank shareholders can either decide to keep the villains in charge and have their stocks decline in value, or they can punish the villains and have their stock values increase.