Bail out doesn't pass!

[joviroxx]

No it was childish, just like the Republican's response to it - both are childish. THESE PEOPLE CANNOT BE TRUSTED WITH THE WELFARE OF THIS COUNTRY.

And we are supposed to trust them with $700 billion dollars? Scary isn't it?

 

[Josh125]

Writing a blank check to try to delay the inevitable is ludicrous. Most every news story I have read stated that the public did not agree with this, and as representatives of the public I would have expected it to be defeated.

 

[brittsmum1998]

Oh, it wasn't also caused by people buying more house than they could afford, taking out equity worth 110% of their property value, and living beyond their means?

The government did drop the ball, but it isn't their job to protect us from our own stupidity.

One of the main reasons why I am thrilled this didn't pass. I would so have loved to bought something better than a plain old split level when all these beautiful mcmansions were being built. We made sacrifices, I wanted to stay home w/ dd. Jeesh I FINALLY got my first new car in my whole 43 yrs of life 2 yrs ago. People (companies) need to be responsible for their consequences.

 

[rie'smom]

Get ready to be bailed out by China. They financed the war in Iraq and they are the only 'people' with enough CASH to buy the failing banks.

this is very very bad.

China said they don't want to buy anymore.

You keep missing the point, in order for it to be bipartisan it needed as many Republicans as Democrats. Two-thirds of the Democrats voted for it, only one-third of the Republicans voted for it. The Republicans could not deliver their part of the deal.

The Dems didn't deliver either, apparently 1/3 didn't go along.

Oh, it wasn't also caused by people buying more house than they could afford, taking out equity worth 110% of their property value, and living beyond their means?

The government did drop the ball, but it isn't their job to protect us from our own stupidity.

Right.
I think haste is a big mistake in something this enormous. They need to be rational and not shoot from the hip for the quick fix, that in the end, won't be too helpful. If they think it through, they'll come up with something, such as the insurance, that won't cost us, the taxpayer, 700 billion $$$$$.

 

[jenfur]

NO!

Yes, actually.

Alos, WOW, I just listened to Pelosi's speech. What a partisan !@#$*What she said was completely uncalled for.

 

[Chuck S]

[QUOTE="Got Disney";27875762]Do you honestly think that is the only reason...I hope not....because than we are in more trouble than we all think. This has never been a true done deal...even before Pelosi.....tell me... do you not think what pelosi did was being vindictive...or at the least childish...[/QUOTE]

Honestly, I don't know if I even fully support this bailout.

But if Republicans are truly using a Pelosi speech as an excuse to not vote for any legislation, not matter what the legislation may be, they are acting like children. And yes, it was just as stupid for Pelosi...I think the Dems could have come up with a LOT better Speaker of the House.

But 2 wrongs don't make a right. The Republicans could have put on their Big Boy Pants if they had agreed to support this bill before her stupid speech.

 

[SwedishMeatball]

No it was childish, just like the Republican's response to it - both are childish. THESE PEOPLE CANNOT BE TRUSTED WITH THE WELFARE OF THIS COUNTRY.

Exactly. Which is why people don't like this bill that would give them even further opportunity to abuse their power and our trust.

 

[UConnJack]

NO!

Ok, thanks, that really cleared things up for me. Didn't realize the blame for this thing was so simple and obvious .

 

[marybet]

When I first heard that Paulson wanted to no oversight in how he spent the $700 billon I emailed my Senator and Congressman to tell them that I wanted oversight on this bill, no big paychecks to the CEO's. I did not ask them not to support it but to put limits on it.

I think the bill needed bipartisan support so that the country would get behind the bill. Just look at this thread. We all want to spread the blame around, and there is enough blame to go around. I think all the deregulation got us into this spot and I think that there are more Republicans that voted for deregulation, but I also think a lot of Democrats went along with it. I also agree that they need to make changes but right now we need to stop the bleeding in the economy. It didn't happen overnight and it's not going to go away overnight. But we have to start somewhere.

 

[UConnJack]

Honestly, I don't know if I even fully support this bailout.

But if Republicans are truly using a Pelosi speech as an excuse to not vote for any legislation, not matter what the legislation may be, they are acting like children. And yes, it was just as stupid for Pelosi...I think the Dems could have come up with a LOT better Speaker of the House.

But 2 wrongs don't make a right. The Republicans could have put on their Big Boy Pants if they had agreed to support this bill before her stupid speech.

I agree, the Republicans could have made the point in a speech after their vote to that effect, rather than use their votes for retaliation.

I am truly disgusted with our politicians today.

 

[JARNJ3]

You know, if you expect help from someone, it's usually not advisable to give them a big verbal "middle finger" right before you need the help.... I'm just saying.

From MSNBC:

"We could have gotten there today had it not been for the partisan speech that the speaker gave on the floor of the House," House Minority Leader John Boehner said. Pelosi's words, the Ohio Republican said, "poisoned our conference, caused a number of members that we thought we could get, to go south."

Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., the whip, estimated that Pelosi's speech changed the minds of a dozen Republicans who might otherwise have supported the plan.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., scoffed at the explanation.

"Well if that stopped people from voting, then shame on them," he said. "If people's feelings were hurt because of a speech and that led them to vote differently than what they thought the national interest (requires), then they really don't belong here. They're not tough enough."

More than a repudiation of Democrats, Frank said, Republicans' refusal to vote for the bailout was a rejection of their own president.

"The Republicans don't trust the administration," he said. "It's a Republican revolt against George Bush and John McCain."

 

[corndog]

Ok, thanks, that really cleared things up for me. Didn't realize the blame for this thing was so simple and obvious .

I am here to help!

The blame lies squarely at the feet of the federal reserve board, but for some reason (which is beyond me) they have yet to be called on it.

 

["Got Disney"]

I have lots more money than you can imagine in all my investments for the 3rd time...yes 3rd.....as mentioned before in the 80's, 2000, an now....

but......we will prevail again. IMO we have had to much greed in this country for way to long. When the housing market started booming I saw the crash coming like 5 years ago when the houses sky rocketed in prices...than with all theses unsecured loans and so on...

When we bought our house we needed great credit and at least 20,000 down.....

so if we could all see it why not the GOV.....we know they did and they did not work hard enough early enough to take care of it. So here we are paying the price...not just DEMS not just REP not just IND......Americans.....

There is so not unity in our senate....if anything it is farthest from the truth. And I dont think anyone candidate will bring unity at this point....unless they want it and it clearly seems that they dont...

Pelosi is one that truly does not.....

 

[crazyforgoofy]

Nice try to try to blame the Democrats on this one, but I can't believe that anyone but hardcore Republicans are going to buy it. If a partisan speech by Nancy Pelosi was enough to get the Repubicans in a snit to kill the bill, then they weren't ever going to give the bill the support that was their share to give. The fact is that the Republicans wanted to force the Democrats to pass this bill so that they could blame the Democrats if the public wasn't happy. The agreement was to pass a bipartisan bill with bipartisan support. The Democrats honored their agreement. The Republicans didn't.

Bolding in bright red for those who refused to pay attention when you posted it.

 

[NotUrsula]

Just FYI, for those interested, here is the bill as it went to vote this morning:

http://www.rules.house.gov/110/text/110_hr3997_amnd_samnd.pdf


You can always find the latest published version of any Congressional bill on www.thomas.gov.

 

[ntsammy5]

The blame lies squarely at the feet of the federal reserve board

That's a great start......

I'm not sure how I felt about this bill - but I know one thing, if we don't do something to free up the credit markets a little we're in for a very interesting ride! We're totally in uncharted waters now, with or without the bill.

 

[SwedishMeatball]

From MSNBC:

What's your point in quoting a partisan comment such as that??

 

[dennis99ss]

I would like to hear from ladyjayhawk, manning, etc. and those who say insurance will work, exactly how insurance will work. Frankly, insurance, repealling the capital gains tax, and reducing taxes on comapnies doing business overseas is not likely addressing the problem. This is the republican plan.

The problem is liquidity. Banks and other financial institutions have held onto mortgage and other backed security, and have attempted to sell it. They cannot sell it. The prices have fallen like a rock. As a result, they are holding onto cash, instead of loaning it between themselves, and to companies, because of the drain placed on them because of the markets failure to absorb the securities. Thus, the fact that the securities cannot be sold causes the available funds of the institutions to dry up. As a result of there being no liquidity in the credit market, things like car loans, mortgage credit and business credit (including lines of credit, commercial papers, etc.) dry up. This means that your paycheck might not be good because of the line that funds it is not being honored. Anyone else heard that Paychex may have difficulty meeting their customers' pay check requirements because of the commercial paper market. Anybody heard the McDonalds franchises are out of luck for upgraded equipment on credit?

Banks lend funds to each other every day. Every day, based upon the banks books, they either buy or sell funds for the day to match what their numbers are. In the negative, borrow. In the positive, sell. Howevere, because the daily market dried up because of the amount of borrowing needed, and 2, the fact that banks have decided to keep it for themselves in stead of lending it out, because they know when they need to borrow the funds, they wont be there, there is no avenue to jump start this liquidity crises than to infuse capital. The 700b would have infused capital by purchasing these loan assets, which would take them out of the credit market, and thus free up the capital that had been stymied by them. It works, if, the institutions then turn around and begin the loan process based upon the new liquidity. The foreign investors also need to look at the process and decide to become involved again as well.

It does not work if the loans are not made after the infusion. When the creidt market dries up, things grind to a halt. Homes, autos and big ticket items are not sold. People loose their jobs, which causes additional big ticket items not to be sold, etc. It spirals down. The way the county got itself out of the depression, spending--infusion of capital both on the corporate side as well as the individual side. The way it got itself out of recessuion in 1980, spending, from the top down--infusion of capital. This is the same theory, although the mechanism is different.

So, how does insurance put liquidity back? It does not. In fact, it does the opposite, it saps liquidity. It seves the wall street bottom line in the long run. It does nothing for main street. It does not pass on liquidity past wall street. Any wonder it was proposed by republicans who also wanted to repeal capital gains tax, and increase tax cuts to companies with foreign footprints. Nothing to help the crisis as it now exists.

Please tell me how insurance is going to solve this problem. Please tell me how insurance is going to allow institutions to lend money, which in turn will fuel the economy.

No, really, I want to hear the reasoning behind it, besides "we shouldnt spend 700b".

 

[c4a]

For those interested in what Market Watch is saying:
link

 

[Davey48]

Pathetic!!!!!