« This Is Why My Boss Has HR On Speed Dial | Main | Is There a "Good" Poll? »

Breaking News - "Bailout" bill fails in House, Stock plunge

The $700 Billion "bailout" just failed a House resolution, and the two sides are going back to the drawing board.

In related news, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is down 476 points at this time, and had been down by more than 700 points earlier today.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/31940.

Comments (83)

That would be the initial r... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

That would be the initial reaction to a numbskull bailout plan.

Thank God it's an election ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Thank God it's an election year. Obviously some people in DC are actually worried about the repercussions of their vote.

Too bad we can't vote 'em all out of office.

Anyone got a "Tums" for Nancy and Harry?

Good, now it's time for the... (Below threshold)
ODA315:

Good, now it's time for these slackers to get to work creating a REAL solution set that strengthen the markets without giving Paulson and his pals responsibility for the financial wellbeing of americans.

Message to Pelosi.....quit pointing fingers and get your partison ass to work. The primary role of the house leader is NOT to get her friend and neighbors reelected. Troll

9% Nancy, fails again.... (Below threshold)
GianiD:

9% Nancy, fails again.

Whatever happened to her promises to bring sides together, or lower gas prices, or have the most ethical congress ever, or......

Pelosi screeching something... (Below threshold)
ODA315:

Pelosi screeching something on TV right now like "and I'll get your little dog toooo"

Yea, Pelosi blew it ... (Below threshold)
Larry:


Yea, Pelosi blew it with her partisan remarks. Wonder if that will hit the news.

They're going to be thinkin... (Below threshold)

They're going to be thinking of 9% fondly in very short order, I suspect...

Looks like Obama failed aga... (Below threshold)
hermie:

Looks like Obama failed again.

Why Obama? Well the NYT has the story (puff piece) that he is in charge of the bailout package, making phone calls and providing 'cerebral' input.

It's not like they can blame the GOP, since there were plenty of Dems who voted against this.

I'm not smart enough to fig... (Below threshold)

I'm not smart enough to figure out the financial angles, but anything that keeps economic doom and gloom at the top of the news is bad for McCain on at least a tactical level. He's getting killed on this one issue, and if it's what people keep thinking about most...

A good end to a bad idea.</... (Below threshold)
Dan Patterson:

A good end to a bad idea.

Read the US Constitution and act accordingly.

Dan Patterson
Arrogant Infidel

Here's a little perspective... (Below threshold)
kbiel Author Profile Page:

Here's a little perspective on that drop in the DJIA.

90 Democrats voted against ... (Below threshold)
Dee:

90 Democrats voted against this bill. It was a given that a majority of the Republicans would not vote for it. But 90 Democrats? Good luck spinning that Nancy...

I can tell you why 90 Democ... (Below threshold)
d-mi:

I can tell you why 90 Democrats didn't vote for it: they purposely kept the democrats vote short of the needed majority, allowing reps who didn't favor the bill to vote their conscience, knowing that the Republicans would not and could not make up the difference. The point is, this bill is bad for America, and most people aren't in favor of it, even if (like myself) they understand the rational argument for it. I am a democrat, I understand the argument, and I am deeply opposed to the idea. Let the market crash: it is the ONLY way we as citizens are going to regain control of our country...

I am glad it failed my hous... (Below threshold)
joe cnn:

I am glad it failed my house is payed off.

Here's a little perspective... (Below threshold)
Pam:

Here's a little perspective for you blowhards. The Dow has dropped over 700 points; the House Repubs believe in the free market and are willing to let the working class continue to suffer more than those of us can ever imagine; politicians have enough resources to see themselves through a tough time and are willing to experiment with our pain; and there are some of them that get it but many of them that don't care to get it! Get ready for the great depression people because of an expressed Republican principle that has not and will not work.

If, as d-mi as said, this w... (Below threshold)
Larry:

If, as d-mi as said, this was calculated by Pelosi to help Obama get elected, she took a major risk. If it was to help keep her majority in Congress, she again took a calculated risk.

What is different from times past is the Internet. A further difference is Talk Radio, led by Rush and Hannity.

It is getting easier and easier to place blame where it belongs and even the MSM cannot always spin it enough to allow cover.

If Pelosi took a risk, you have to keep in mind that it is a risk and risks can turn negative in a heartbeat. My personal belief is that she just shot off her mouth to give Frank and Dodd cover.

And that can backfire if enough people try to understand and if they do, there will be hell to pay for the Democrats.

Hahahaha. You partisan foo... (Below threshold)
Dean:

Hahahaha. You partisan fools are all alike. Repubs, look in a mirror, and you will see Pelosi staring back at you.

BWAHAHAHAHA.....

Woo Hoo!... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:

Woo Hoo!

Maybe this shit sandwich wi... (Below threshold)
Baron Von Ottomatic:

Maybe this shit sandwich will look more appetizing after sitting on the kitchen counter overnight.

Pam, quit sucking on the go... (Below threshold)
ODA315:

Pam, quit sucking on the govt teat, step back, and do a little research. If your House democrat pals wanted this to pass they HAD THE MAJORITY TO DO IT. Guess princess Nancy was too busy calling her bipartison friends unpatriotic and bashing the president when she could have been wrangling her constituents.

But it's BUSHROVEHALLIBURTONEVILREPUBLICANSCHENEY that did it!!! Do youself a favor and google CRA and do some research. You won't look like such a dumbass next time.

Dee - they have the media t... (Below threshold)

Dee - they have the media to do that for them - ABC's Jake Tapper is spinning 40% of Dems voting against it thusly:

"Most Democrats supported the White House on the issue..."

Yeah, 60% is most if you define most as 50%+, but most of us wouldn't define 60% in a crucial vote 'most'.

Did you like how he's hanging it around the White House's neck instead of Pelosi's?

90 plus Democrats vo... (Below threshold)
Larry:


90 plus Democrats voted against. And they weren't mad at Pelosi for lying their face off.

It does occur to me that this may be the first time that I have seen Heinlein's way to lie by telling the truth so badly that everyone thinks you are lying.

So what now? The blame game gets more attention and I suspect that Barney Frank's role in all of the lead up to the bad mortgage loans will get more widespread knowledge.

And for those who point fingers at Republicans, get a grip. And get an education. Bad mortgage loans upgraded to investment grade by act of Congress is the bottom line for the seeds of destruction. Maybe ignorant people don't know that (now) and maybe they never will, which has nothing to do with the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I would bet that most of those spouting off with the blame Republicans game haven't a clue what "Mark to Market" means.

Pam,You cannot wit... (Below threshold)
dave:

Pam,

You cannot with any self respect lay blame for this bill not passing at the feet of the Republicans. The Dems could have passed this bill in their sleep!! You want someone to blame, blame the 90 Dems who voted against this bill, then blame Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, et al, for stonewalling and refusing to vote on the legislation introduced by McCain in the 1990's. This is absolutely not the fault of the Republicans. That argument is intellecually lazy and only shows your ignorance of the issue.

Why should I be upset that ... (Below threshold)

Why should I be upset that a plan to bail out Fannie and Freddie, etc. failed? Bush wants to give these institutions bailout money, then float the expense around long enough to sell repossessed housing at a profit. So, in effect, the bailout is secured by houses people couldn't afford. Who's smoking pot in DC?

People are losing jobs, pensions and investments; and our government hopes abandoned homes will sell for a profit - and replace the bailout funds. Otherwise the debt falls to taxpayers. If I am understanding this, I'm reserving my spot under a bridge before they are all gone.

Just have do a little resea... (Below threshold)
Ron:

Just have do a little research Bill Clinton signed the bill into law that got the ball rolling on all this. Look up Glass-Steagall.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html

the House Repubs b... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
the House Repubs believe in the free market and are willing to let the working class continue to suffer more than those of us can ever imagine
Pam, you have no idea in hell what is going on right now. And if the above statement wasn't ignorant enough, here's the rest of that broken record that you got in the mail free just for ordering your nineteen thirty-something copy of Clueless Economic Advice:
politicians have enough resources to see themselves through a tough time and are willing to experiment with our pain

Short answer to a long question: You don't make taxpayers suffer for the greedy-ass mainstreeters that took over Wall Street. If you honestly believe that it was all the "evil Republicans", then stay inside and clip some coupons.

Poor Nancy. Looks like the... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Poor Nancy. Looks like the OCTOBER SURPRISE came a little early!

IF anyone really believes t... (Below threshold)
Ron:

IF anyone really believes that $700 Billion was going to cover this,your living a pipe dream. Try more like $2 Trillion then you might be close,the devil is in the details. All those politicians were just tring to cover there butts till the election was over then they were going to stick you with the real price tag.

Here's a question for you O... (Below threshold)
marc:

Here's a question for you ObamaMessiah-maniacs - The Messiah took credit for this bill:

"Here are the facts: For two weeks I was on the phone every day with (Treasury) Secretary (Henry) Paulson and the congressional leaders making sure that the principles that have been ultimately adopted were incorporated in the bill," Obama said in an interview on "Face the Nation" on CBS.
Now that this abortion wrapped in legislation has not only failed House muster, but with a vast majority of the American public, which one of you dems, leftists, progressives, lefturds, leftdroids and moonbats will assign the slightest amount of blame on The Messiah for its failure?

What's that.... crickets?

So Obama knew for two weeks... (Below threshold)
hermie:

So Obama knew for two weeks about this bill, had supposedly negotiated it, and still didn't know what was in it when he endorsed it last Friday?

A short lesson for Pelosi a... (Below threshold)
marc:

A short lesson for Pelosi and Reid - "A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government." Thomas Jefferson

If it wasn't such a serious... (Below threshold)
Brian:

If it wasn't such a serious situation, it would be fun seeing you people spinning your heads off.

Dems supported this bill 60%. Repubs supported it 32%. And you blame the Dems because they didn't support it more.

The bill failed because the Repubs didn't come through with the votes.

11:36 A.M.: The Los Angeles Times reports that the White House lobbied Republicans right up until the vote, in an ultimately unsuccessful effort to overcome Republican objections to the bailout: "Right up until the roll call, Bush, Cheney and Paulson and industry groups called skeptical members of the president's party. Deputy White House Press Secretary Tony Fratto said they worked one-by-one through a list of potentially recalcitrant Republicans, seeking to answer their complaints."


11:33 A.M.: House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, the Republicans' top vote-counter in the House, tells a news conference that he miscounted -- he believed Republicans had a dozen more votes for the bailout than they really did. He blames "partisan discussion" for the failure of the bill.

McCain promised to deliver the votes; only 65 came through. Blunt miscounted. Bush twisted arms. Republicans revolted.

So what caused the breakdown of a $700 billion rescue package that at one point seemed to have been amended to everyone's liking ... ? In the simplest terms, it was House Minority Leader John Boehner's surprising declaration at the White House meeting that his caucus does not support the deal and that alternatives should be considered. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has demanded that Boehner get at least half of his caucus -- or 100 members -- to vote for the legislation so that Democrats are not left passing this still very unpopular bill by themselves less than two months before the election. Boehner simply doesn't have the votes and nothing that President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Paulson or even Boehner has said has swayed the GOP's rank and file.

During Paulson's meeting Wednesday with the GOP caucus, dozens of members steadily streamed out of the meeting in outrage. Finally, with just 60 or so members left in the room, Paulson called for a show of support, according to Representative Tom Davis, a Virginia Republican. Only four people raised their hands. Eric Cantor, a Virginia Republican who has started pushing an alternative to the Paulson plan that would not require Washington to pony up so much money, said every member has been inundated with hundreds of calls from angry conservatives.
...
If enough Republicans did not support the bill, why, they ask, did Republican Senator Bob Bennett and Representative Spencer Bachus, the top Republican on the House Banking Committee, stand at the press conference on Thursday announcing the agreement and voice their support? Why wait until a meeting at the White House to throw out a raft of alternative solutions that the Administration had already rejected, and which would require a whole new round of talks to get done?
...
The press conference, [House Republicans] contend, was a staged production to give the illusion of an agreement and force it down the throats of unwilling House Republicans.

If you really hate the bill, then celebrate that Republicans successfully killed it. But you can't pin this one on the Democrats.

Source for the second block... (Below threshold)
Brian:
You want someone to blam... (Below threshold)
Brian:

You want someone to blame, blame the 90 Dems who voted against this bill.... This is absolutely not the fault of the Republicans. That argument is intellecually lazy and only shows your ignorance of the issue.

So blame the 90 Dems who voted against it, but you can't blame the 133 Reps who voted against it because that would show ignorance. Got it.

If you really hate the bill... (Below threshold)
res45:

If you really hate the bill, then celebrate that Republicans successfully killed it. But you can't pin this one on the Democrats.

If it was such a great bill then WHY didn't all the DEM's vote for it

The fact is that the Dems a... (Below threshold)
jbw:

The fact is that the Dems are in charge of the House. They could have passed it with no republican support if it was such a great bill. Yet 40% of dems voted against it. With the numerous Republican votes, ( and she wasn't getting many more) Pelosi only need a few Dem votes but couldn't get them.


And the end result will be that the dems will put up a new bill that is worse in terms of liberal goodies items and get it passed on a party vote. In fact some speculate that this is a strategy by the dems, they allow their own party to kill it, 94 dems voted against it. A number which included several liberals, then blame Republicans for the problems (stock market) Bring back worse bill and pass it; they get credit and the GOP gets the blame.

If it was such a great b... (Below threshold)
Brian:

If it was such a great bill then WHY didn't all the DEM's vote for it

You can't expect everyone to agree. But Dems voted for it 2-1 over Reps. So your complaint is that they didn't vote for it 2.2-1 instead?

The fact is that the Dem... (Below threshold)
Brian:

The fact is that the Dems are in charge of the House. They could have passed it with no republican support if it was such a great bill.

Hold on... during the years the Republcans were in charge of the House, they blamed Democrats for every failed bill. No permanent tax cuts... Democrats killed it. No offshore drilling... Democrats killed it. But when the Republicans were in charge of the house, couldn't they have passed all those things with no Democratic support if they were such great bills? If the majority is all-powerful, what's your excuse for why all those Republican bills failed?

Yet 40% of dems voted against it. With the numerous Republican votes, ( and she wasn't getting many more) Pelosi only need a few Dem votes but couldn't get them.

Again, you blame the 40% of the Dems who voted against it, but not the 68% of Reps who did. Disingenuous, to say the least. Looking at the individual numbers, 95 Dems and 133 Reps voted against it. If they wanted "a few" more votes, the Republicans had a much larger pool to squeeze them from. To paraphrase you, Boehner only needed a few Rep votes but couldn't get them.

brian - "House Speaker ... (Below threshold)
marc:

brian - "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has demanded that Boehner get at least half of his caucus -- or 100 members -- to vote for the legislation so that Democrats are not left passing this still very unpopular bill by themselves less than two months before the election."

Better re-read that section of your own quote brian

For the reading challenged it in essence states the dems don't want to swing from a high rope come election day, they want rep company, by passing a bill that is UNSUPPORTED (using any metric you desire) by the American people on j.

brian - "Hold on... dur... (Below threshold)
marc:

brian - "Hold on... during the years the Republcans were in charge of the House, they blamed Democrats for every failed bill. No permanent tax cuts... Democrats killed it. No offshore drilling..."

No you "hold on," that's the exact arguement pelosi has used for the last 3 years of dem control of the Senate.

OK, marc, then celebrate th... (Below threshold)
Brian:

OK, marc, then celebrate that the Republicans bucked Pelosi and successfully killed an unpopular bill! Embrace its failure and tout your responsibility for it!

I've seen a lot of things on this site, but Republicans bitching that Democrats didn't vote against them by an even wider margin is definitely new.

Here's a reasonable Bailout... (Below threshold)
Jeff S:

Here's a reasonable Bailout Plan that may actually work. It addresses the issue of this not being a bailout, but rather an investment, and it pushes $ back to the US Citizens, and saves Social Security. That's what I'm talking about!!
http://sinatraco.com/blog/2008/09/27/the-sinatra-bailout-plan/

No you "hold on," that's... (Below threshold)
Brian:

No you "hold on," that's the exact arguement pelosi has used for the last 3 years of dem control of the Senate.

Exactly. And it's a valid one. The minority has the power to scuttle the majority. (Although Pelosi leads the House, not the Senate.)

Thanks for showing that comment #36 is BS, and for further demonstrating the culpability of the minority Republicans in the failure of the bailout bill.

brian - "OK, marc, then... (Below threshold)
marc:

brian - "OK, marc, then celebrate that the Republicans bucked Pelosi and successfully killed an unpopular bill! Embrace its failure and tout your responsibility for it!"

Thanks brian but, as is your usual, "touting my responsibility" isn't on my agenda because unless.... you assign something to me I'm not aware of. (I've been elected to the Senate or House without my knowledge, where's my nearly 200k paycheck!)

What I will agree with, "tout" as you call it, is a LARGE number of dems and reps voted the correct way on this BS bill after being deluged with correspondence by their constituents.

Funny how that works... it's also funny how you along with your fellow travelers all said McCain "flip-flopped" when he did the same thing over the immigration issue.

It's "flip-flop" to a partisan hack, but to the more clear headed it's listening to the people that put you in a position to act on their wishes.

Brian: Your quote: <blockq... (Below threshold)
Paul Duffau:

Brian: Your quote:

If it wasn't such a serious situation, it would be fun seeing you people spinning your heads off.
.

If this is such a serious situation, why are you more active assigning blame than rallying to your side to demonstrate their leadership?

Not that I care much whether is passes or not but to accuse others of spinning when you are engaged in exactly the same behavior is quite amusing. Childish on your part of course but still, amusing.

And BTW brian - "Exactl... (Below threshold)
marc:

And BTW brian - "Exactly. And it's a valid one. The minority has the power to scuttle the majority. (Although Pelosi leads the House, not the Senate.)"

Then you disagree with the argument the dems are trying to, what's that word... oh yeah, the dems are trying to "tout" they had no culpability during the time they were in the minority and the reps, with McCain leading the charge, in trying to fix this problem years ago.

"In related news, the Dow J... (Below threshold)
Herman:

"In related news, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is down 476 points at this time, and had been down by more than 700 points earlier today." -- DJ

Actually, the Dow dropped further still and is now lower than what it was the day Bush became president.

Wow.

After close to eight years of Chimpy, a loss in the DJIA, to go along with a gain in the U.S. Poverty Rate, ice levels in polar regions falling, the turning of a budget surplus into a $400 billion dollar deficit, and more Americans being killed through Bushie's actions than through Osama's.

Way to go, Republicans.

why are you more active ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

why are you more active assigning blame than rallying to your side to demonstrate their leadership?

In case you didn't notice, my post wasn't until #32. I was responding to those who were "more active assigning blame than rallying to their side to demonstrate leadership". What's amusing is you skipping over all those other posts and honing in on mine.

Alrighty, I had a chance to... (Below threshold)
Paul Duffau:

Alrighty, I had a chance to listen to the Madame Speaker of the House do everything she could to lie about the cause of this mess and play the blame game.

IMHO, it was fluff. It was designed to provide covering fire for the Democrats because they did not have the votes even with a plan that large followed Democratic Party principles. Yet the Republicans are being chastised for holding firm to their principles by the likes of Brian and Pam.

If this were a truly world-ending event, why did the Democrats not vote enmass for it as they have on a great many issues?

A great many Republicans will be pleased to see the plan fail. They don't by the hype and they'll stick to their principles. If time proves them wrong, okay. But that knife can cut both ways - it may find that the 133 Republicans were right to withhold their "ayes" on this one and the Democrats irresponsible for trying to "re-fight" the Great Depression in the way that generals re-fight the last war not the one that they are in.

It looks like Brian and his kindred souls are also more interested in a blame game than standing on a principle.

So Brian, is this a world-ending event of monumental proportions? Or politics as usual? The hype indicates the former, the responses by you, the latter.

Actually, I picked your pos... (Below threshold)
Paul Duffau:

Actually, I picked your post(s) because you appear to be actively spinning, as was Pam. Several of the commenters support my contention that they like the bill being killed for now (they would prefer forever), some saw the partisan game played over at ABC and reacted to that.

Put me in the camp that does not support the bailout - though it will very likely cost me my business. I'll support a principled stand over political manuveuring almost every time.

I will respect a principled stand -even on an issue I oppose - over political manuveuring.

I have yet to such a stand from Pelosi unless you count "Power to us'ns!" as a principled stand. Certainly they haven't evidenced any other agenda.

The above was directed to "... (Below threshold)
Paul Duffau:

The above was directed to "Brian" - sorry!

Actually, I picked your ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Actually, I picked your post(s) because you appear to be actively spinning,

Comments before mine blaming the Dems for the failure of the bill to pass:

4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 16, 22, 23, 27, 29, 30, 31

Comments before mine blaming the Reps for the failure of the bill to pass:

17

I would think you'd understand the meaning of "actively spinning", since you're engaged in it.

herman - "... turning o... (Below threshold)
marc:

herman - "... turning of a budget surplus into a $400 billion dollar deficit,"

You're clueless, get one.

Yet the Republicans are ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Yet the Republicans are being chastised for holding firm to their principles by the likes of Brian and Pam.

Not at all. I respect holding firm to your principles. But that's not what's happening. The Reps are not out there proudly saying "we killed a bad bill". They're blaming the Dems.

If this were a truly world-ending event, why did the Democrats not vote enmass for it as they have on a great many issues?,

If this were truly a terrible bill, why did the Republicans not vote en masse against it? And why were Bush, Cheney, Paulson, and Boehner trying to get them to pass it?

It looks like Brian and his kindred souls are also more interested in a blame game than standing on a principle.

Not.

Brian: By Post To everybod... (Below threshold)
Paul Duffau:

Brian: By Post To everybody else, my apologies, just skip it.

#4 Partisan comment regarding Pelosi's popularity and that she failed to get the bill thru - accurate statement on success/failure of said bill. No reason given for failure.

#5 Attempt at humor

#7 Predicted future populrity of Speaker was negative. No balme assigned.

#8 Partisan attack on NYT

#12 Partisan

#13 Explanation of #12 - analysis

#16 Analysis

#22 Information : Homework for Brian - Please define "Mark to Market" in next response.

#23 Response to Pam, #15 First Democrat Partisan Response.

#27 Snarky but not partisan on the issue

#29 Questioned whether Obma had measure of blame in fiasco. Irony. Lost on Brian, though.
#30 Questioned Obama's intelligence. Did not assign blame.

#31 You're fricking kidding right? A quote by T. Jefferson is considered playing the blame game?

#32 Your first post on the subject and where you stated expressly that the Republican did not come through and killed the bill beginning your own spin.

You and Pam both were spinning. Several early posters favored the death of the bill. More engaged in analysis (that you don't agree with it does not make it spinning). Only poster #12 on your list was actively engaged in spinning - something taht you also immediately engaged in when you arrived.

You still didn't answer my question - Is this a world-ending affair or politics?

Brain: But th... (Below threshold)
Paul Duffau:

Brain:

But that's not what's happening. The Reps are not out there proudly saying "we killed a bad bill". They're blaming the Dems.

The republicans have been opposed to this government bailout from the beginning on principled grounds. Right or wrong, they're votes today were reflective of the way that everybody expected them to vote - including Pelosi.

And while it may not have been enmass, it was pretty close despite the leverage brought against them.

And why were Bush, Cheney, Paulson, and Boehner trying to get them to pass it?

In case you didn't notice, Bush is hardly a friend of the fiscal conservative.

When given the opportunity, Pelosi did not rise to the occassion (assuming that all hell is due to break loose on the economy) and rally the troops, Democrat and Republican. Instead, she lashed out in a partisan manner.

Why?

Brian, I don't give a sh*t ... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

Brian, I don't give a sh*t who killed it. It is a bad bill. I have an auto loan that was owned by Wachovia, and Citibank bought them out today. That is much better than the government owning it at whatever interest rate accommodates the balance. If that sucker gets voted in, I don't think people really understand how much it's going to suck. It's corruption in free enterprise that is being "rescued" by corruption in the government, along with mismanagement.

Instead, she lashe... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
Instead, she lashed out in a partisan manner.

Because she's a hypocrite who really doesn't know what she talking about. She never wanted bi-partisan anything, and just wanted the dems to be in charge. She got her wish, and needs to shut up now.

LaMedusa: Well, Yeah!? :)<... (Below threshold)
Paul Duffau:

LaMedusa: Well, Yeah!? :)

Paul~Meaning, she ... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

Paul~

Meaning, she needs to shut up now, but won't. :D

marc,Please don't ... (Below threshold)
Herman:

marc,

Please don't waste your readers' time with your BIASED, RIGHT-WING sources which when not defending Sarah Palin define deficits as they please. Instead, go for the more scholarly journals.

From Business Economics (read it and weep):

"In 1998, the federal government accomplished something it had not done for the previous 28 fiscal years--IT RAN A BUDGET SURPLUS RATHER THAN A DEFICIT. However, four years, two tax cuts, one terrorist attack, and a recession later, federal budget deficits returned with a vengeance in the form of a FY2002 deficit of $157.8 billion and deteriorated further after that."

herman - "Please don't ... (Below threshold)
marc:

herman - "Please don't waste your readers' time with your BIASED, RIGHT-WING sources which when not defending Sarah Palin define deficits as they please. Instead, go for the more scholarly journals."

Since when is the U.S. Treasury, where those stats came from, a "BIASED, RIGHT-WING" source?

Nitwit.

LaMedusa,I started... (Below threshold)
Paul Duffau:

LaMedusa,

I started to type a witty reply, stopped because I thought I smelled smoke. Asked the kids about the smoke.

Mistake.

They're rolling on the floor and suggesting I stop thinking so hard. So much for Honor thy mother and father....

And yeah, you're right about Pelosi - have mouth, will spew.

Brian: By Post... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Brian: By Post

It makes no difference the attitude of the poster. They are blaming the Dems. It doesn't help that you seem to spin that away too. For example:

#29 Questioned whether Obma had measure of blame in fiasco. Irony. Lost on Brian, though.

Assigning blame. Irony or not.

#31 You're fricking kidding right? A quote by T. Jefferson is considered playing the blame game?

Did you miss the first part? "A short lesson for Pelosi and Reid". Assigning blame.

You and Pam both were spinning.

I'm not sure why you're so infatuated with Pam. Her post didn't even address the bailout. It was just a random rant against Republicans. Regardless, I am not her, so your continued attempts to equate me with her will continue to fall flat.

Only poster #12 on your list was actively engaged in spinning - something taht you also immediately engaged in when you arrived.

Your definition of "spin" appears to be "say something bad about Republicans", but "say something bad about Democrats" is just good ol' straight-talkin'. You don't even argue how Republicans aren't culpable in the failure. You just dismiss any suggestion of it as "spin". It's not productive having a debate with you when you're unwilling to share common language, and choose instead to redefine words to benefit your view.

You still didn't answer my question - Is this a world-ending affair or politics?

Neither. I'm not sure what new light that ridiculously simplistic question is supposed to shed, but I figured your one-track mind would hound me until I answered it. It has the benefit of changing the subject, too, which is probably your real intent.

The republicans have bee... (Below threshold)
Brian:

The republicans have been opposed to this government bailout from the beginning on principled grounds. Right or wrong, they're votes today were reflective of the way that everybody expected them to vote - including Pelosi.

Some are, yes. But the minority leadership promised the votes, and did everything they could to round them up. So obviously not everyone expected them to vote that way.

In case you didn't notice, Bush is hardly a friend of the fiscal conservative.

And it only took you 8 years to figure that out.

When given the opportunity, Pelosi did not rise to the occassion (assuming that all hell is due to break loose on the economy) and rally the troops

Once again, the Dems voted for the bill 2-1 over Republicans. She did her part.

Instead, she lashed out in a partisan manner.

Why?

Because she was being a nitwit. Are you telling me that the Republicans voted against what they thought was a good bill because of spite against Pelosi? Is that your argument?

Brian, I don't give a sh... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Brian, I don't give a sh*t who killed it. It is a bad bill.

As I said several times, that's fine. Then be happy about and own the fact that the Republicans largely voted against it.

The commenters I was addressing are the ones who appear to have wanted the bill passed, and are upset that the Dems didn't sufficiently outvote the Republicans like you.

I think Pelosi was just an ... (Below threshold)
ORyan:

I think Pelosi was just an excuse. This bill is unpopular and a lot of Republicans and Democrates could face serious primary (or general) election challenges if they vote for it. Not that I really blame them; I was not sold on this bill either.

"and are upset that the Dem... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

"and are upset that the Dems didn't sufficiently outvote the Republicans like you."

That doesn't make sense, Brian. I am not upset that the dems didn't sufficiently outvote the Republicans. I am still hoping this dumb bill doesn't pass because it won't solve anything. As HughS pointed out on another thread, The Feds just put $670 billion into the banks. The only ones they have to answer to are Ben Bernanke, so they didn't doddle around with a partisan tug of war.

Brian: Keep spinning, boyo... (Below threshold)
Paul Duffau:

Brian: Keep spinning, boyo. The Democrats have the majority but they lacked the will to do what's right if it is a crisis or are just playing really dirty politics to gain more power.

Ninety-five Democrats bucked their party leadership today precisely because Nancy Pelosi made it cost-free for them to do so. By refusing to make this a "party loyalty vote" -- and thereby giving a clear signal to every Democratic member of the House that there would be neither carrots nor sticks applied by the House leadership -- Speaker Pelosi ensured that even the mere dozen additional Democratic votes needed for passage wouldn't be there.

The indisputable fact is that the Democratic leadership of the House consciously declined to use the tools available to them that would have ensured the passage of this bill. Period, end of paragraph, and end of the story for today. This is a matter of simple arithmetic and standard party practices. It is not a matter that can even be seriously debated. It is only a matter that Democrats like Majority Leader Hoyer can attempt to conceal, as he does in the statement quoted above, by misleading the public about how hard the Democratic leadership actually tried.

courtesy of Bill Dyer

And, no, Republicans did vote against a good bill because Pelosi is an ass. They were going to vote for a god-awful bad bill and hold their noses because they are either loyal to the party leadership or of the RINO variety Republican. Then Pelosi got going and they decided that party loyalty was stronger to principles than to the leadership. And they voted against "the crap sandwich".

I do appreciate the fact that you know she is a nitwit. What is her excuse for not pulling 12 more votes since you're demanding excuses? "Sorry, America, but I, Speaker Pelosi, am a nitwit."

Not that I care to actually see it pass - in case you missed it, I'm opposed to this pig of a bill. But hell, you don't care either - to you, it's politics as usual and you're looking to pin it on the Republicans for a win in November, country be damned.

Power, the only principle a Democrat believes in....

Paul Duffau... notice how a... (Below threshold)
marc:

Paul Duffau... notice how a couple of the lamebrains here have followed Pelosi's lead in ignoring the obvious (not the mention history) and instead have worn their fingers down to the bone in a pointing gesture?

Yep, marc. What's really a... (Below threshold)
Paul Duffau:

Yep, marc. What's really aggravating is watching them spin like mad that the Republicans have delivered a calamitous blow to the country and yet it wasn't serious enough to motivate just 12 more democrats to act.

Brian is pretty good at this and, if pressed, says its neither world-ending or just politics. Damn, son, just pick one. Then defend it. Nope, no can do, he's a democrat. It's all politics but he can't admit it.

Anyway, we'll see what happens in the next week or two. I'm going to start my layoff process tomorrow and probably reorganize to improve cashflow.

Brian will just sit and whine and type. He makes such an adorable victim.

Shoot, just realized Brian ... (Below threshold)
Paul Duffau:

Shoot, just realized Brian never got around to defining "mark to Market". Dangnabit...
I was really looking forward to his answer.

That doesn't make sense,... (Below threshold)
Brian:

That doesn't make sense, Brian.

I know. That's what's so amusing about this thread. You have half the Republicans here saying it's good the bill failed, and credit the principled Republicans who stuck to their values. Then the other half says it's bad that it failed, blaming the Democrats who didn't get enough votes to overrule those principled Republicans.

Paul Duffau - "Shoot, j... (Below threshold)
marc:

Paul Duffau - "Shoot, just realized Brian never got around to defining "mark to Market". Dangnabit... I was really looking forward to his answer.

Yeah but when faced with the truth brian and his nutcase cohorts would have a fatal head explosion if the truth ever entered their ear holes. And of course, stopped, rather than passing thru un-noticed.

Then Pelosi got going an... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Then Pelosi got going and they decided that party loyalty was stronger to principles than to the leadership. And they voted against "the crap sandwich".

That's real good. They based their vote not on what's best for the country, but their personal feelings towards Pelosi. You run with that.

What is her excuse for not pulling 12 more votes since you're demanding excuses?

I'm demanding nothing. You are. Anyway, her excuse is that she pulled 140 votes. If Republicans wanted more, as I said, there was a significantly larger pool of Republicans to pull that from.

But hell, you don't care either - to you, it's politics as usual and you're looking to pin it on the Republicans for a win in November, country be damned.

Wow, you just haven't really been reading this thread at all, have you?

Brian is pretty good at this and, if pressed, says its neither world-ending or just politics. Damn, son, just pick one. Then defend it.

Why? You throw out some invented false dilemma and demand I play along? Sorry. Try not to get the sniffles.

Shoot, just realized Brian never got around to defining "mark to Market". Dangnabit...
I was really looking forward to his answer.

Aww, try not to cry too much that I didn't bite at your attempt to change the subject from why the bill failed to blaming the Dems for the mortgage meltdown.

The democrats could have pa... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

The democrats could have passed this bill all on their own but failed to bring together their own party. It failed because of leadership.

The 64 republicans had the arms twisted to vote for the bill for the good of the party and GW and before the vote you have Pelosi accusing the same congressmen for making the mess. Their feelings were not hurt, like Brian in intimating, they just lost their urge to go along on a bad bill. ww

Brian,Pick a side,... (Below threshold)
Paul Duffau:

Brian,

Pick a side, son. Quit playing both sides against another. You're like the 5 year old who doesn't get the answer she likes from Dad so goes to Mom.

You're very first post was political spin. You're posting on a blog you have no hope of influencing. You're side has all the votes needed to pass emergency legislation but it's the republican's fault that it didn't get done disregarding the fact that most republicans didn't want it to pass on philosophical grounds. You're not here to learn anything new or make a positive contribution, you're here to spew a mess over everybody's screen in an effort to feel good about yourself. Get over yourself.

The request for you to define "mark to market" was designed to show that you haven't a clue what you're talking about - again! I didn't expect you to answer it because I don't think you can. That would be a level of knowledge that can't be covered by talking points. It requires making an effort to understand. You do not wish to do so.

And you're still stuck on the "Pelosi hurt their feelings" meme (another astroturf from Axelrod) that you repeat. I and Wildwillie have given you a cogent answer on that. They were bullied, cajoled and presseured to vote for a bad bill. Pelosi's rant brought them back to their senses. That they voted on principle would seem that they placed country above party - I make a point of this because you obviously missed it the first time. They went against the leadership, the Republican leadership, on principle. If you believe that your principles are good for governing the country, that is putting "country first".

And you're still stuck o... (Below threshold)
Brian:

And you're still stuck on the "Pelosi hurt their feelings" meme (another astroturf from Axelrod) that you repeat. I and Wildwillie have given you a cogent answer on that. They were bullied, cajoled and presseured to vote for a bad bill. Pelosi's rant brought them back to their senses.

Your meme is falling apart, even among true conservatives.

[T]he assertion by Republican leaders in the House that as many as a dozen of their members who were leaning toward voting for the legislation ended up voting against it because of Pelosi's speech is extraordinary.

...
After the legislation was defeated and only one-third of House Republicans backed the plan, John Boehner and Roy Blunt took to the microphones and indicated that Pelosi's speech had been so alienating and offensive that a significant number of House Republicans changed their mind and voted against the bill.

Can they be serious? Do they realize how foolish and irresponsible they sound? On one of the most important votes they will ever cast, insisting "the speech made me do it" is lame and adolescent. The vote, after all, was on the legislation, not the speech. And to say that a dozen members of your caucus voted not out of principle but out of pique is a terrible indictment of them. I hope we learn the names of these delicate figures whose feelings were so bruised and abused.

...
But yesterday's vote, and the excuses that followed the vote, have made me reassess my judgment. Watching Boehner, Blunt, and Cantor blame the outcome on the Pelosi speech was an embarrassment.

Brian, why are you using a ... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

Brian, why are you using a conservative blog entry without quotes from the representatives for "proving" your argument?

I know. That's wha... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
I know. That's what's so amusing about this thread.

Brian, when I say "that doesn't make sense", it means logically and grammatically, you are rambling. It doesn't give you a free pass to go from dumb to dumber.

Brian~Here is the no... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

Brian~
Here is the nonsensical rambling of yours:

"and are upset that the Dems didn't sufficiently outvote the Republicans like you."

In the above quote, you are suggesting that I sufficiently outvoted the dems, and the republicans did not. What? Did I vote? Now, that is just plain stupid of you to type that and not proofread before submitting it. You can bet when you're saying something to me, I won't skim over it like hope I will. So, to clarify, no I did not vote because I am not a member of the house and I am not upset at the means to which the bill got defeated. Nonsensical statements are a waste of bandwidth, not a cool trick to try to confuse everyone else.

Over and over again, I see ... (Below threshold)
a:

Over and over again, I see the public discussing both sides of a completely false dialectic process.... ($700 Billion dollar bailout). Again the federal reserve is a private entity that has never been audited in its entire history, and can create this needed money from thin air. The banking system can easily be bailed out by federal reserve notes - so why did they need Congress to pass this bill?

The real answer is they DIDN'T.

But what they did need is an excuse to collapse the economy and the $700 Billion dollar bill is nothing more than a dog and pony show for everybody to get all chatty about, it changes NOTHING. But it gives the ruling the elite the excuse they need. While the puppet media is howling (because they realize they are going for the ride as well) - everything is going just according to plan, and that plan is to put you into poverty. It cannot be stressed enough - the bill is only an excuse to create an crisis, and use this crisis as a guise to tighten liquidity on the banking system and seize your assets.

It is no different than a farmer who waters his crop (loosens liquidity) and watches his crop grow (economy flourishes.) Then at the time of harvest he halts liquidity (stops watering to dry the wheat out for harvest). Then he comes in and cuts his crop down (asset seizure after credit tightening.) After taking everything fresh seeds are planted (a new economy is started) and it is watered (liquidity is reapplied) and the cycle repeats. Your grandparents were a good example of this in action as the real cause of the financial crash was the tightening of liquidity.

The Congress voted against the bill because if they had not - the ruling elite would not have an excuse to create a crisis. This is a long term plan being craftily played out. Remember AGAIN the federal reserve can create this money from nothing, they never needed the $700 Billion. As you kill a deer you hang in the garage for a week to drain out its blood. As you kill an economy you tighten currency for a prolonged period until all the businesses and people are on their knees. Then you come in and buy all the businesse for pennies on the dollar, and take control of everything.

It works great:
- You make America a 2nd world country and the people work for free.
- Through various subsidiary corporations you quietly buy up all the industries and control EVERYTHING.
- Through the guise of an economic recession you can start labour camps and raise taxation to crippling levels.

And while this is being done to you - people can feel relieved that they 'fought the good fight' and convinced their senator to vote against the bill.

What should have been on the bill is the abolishment of the Federal Reserve and the right for them to create currency. Again everybody needs to watch the documentary The Money Masters which can be seen for free at video.google.com.. Write your senator ONLY ABOUT THE ABOLISHMENT OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE AND THEIR RIGHT TO ISSUE CURRENCY. It is the only issue that matters.

Why Are People Going for Senators That Voted For This Bill?

The bigger question is why are people not trying to get rid of ALL THE CORRUPT SENATORS, and keep people like Ron Paul that know the real cause of the problem. Email this to everybody you know - start a wake-up chain today!

Ron Paul is a good guy, but... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

Ron Paul is a good guy, but he should never be President. I think he has a pretty sound mind, regardless of the people that think he is off his rocker.

Another reason the bill failed, that people won't talk about, is our foreign creditors don't trust us any more. Sure, we can inject more money, too, and be like Zimbabwe where they carry their worthless currency in bulk around in wheelbarrows. The money the Fed printed might as well be a bunch of little I.O.U.s. Meanwhile, Chinese investors are buying up U.S. companies because they are such a bargain right now.

True, the corruption needs to be removed, but we can't really wait a month for an election to get the financial problem in order.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy