House Republicans Fail To Pass Bill

[Hassan]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1666556' date='Sep 29 2008, 07:00 PM']the panic was clearly caused by the no vote, the reason the no vote caused a panic was because the traders on wall street made the expectation of that money a necessity and when it didn't come, everyone paniced... the panic was caused by the people at the top as sure as the chief priests caused the outrage of the mob against Jesus.... that's what happened, congress was basically blackmailed by the promises of economic doom if they didn't pass this specific bill and when they didn't pass it, the trigger for panic was pressed.

I mean, don't get me wrong, the panic was not unjustified... ppl should be panicked about the coming economic meltdown... but the reason it occurred today was because a lot of ppl tried to blackmale Washington by saying "if you don't do this particular bill, things will fall"... and they did. not a concerted conspiracy by the traders, just that Wall street pressured congress in this way and today's fall occurred as a direct result of that pressuring.[/quote]


I honestly respect your oppinion, but in these matters I trust Warren Buffett's much more.

[Hassan]

[quote name='desertwoman' post='1666483' date='Sep 29 2008, 05:51 PM']No to the Bailout: We Can’t Let Bankers Try to Blackmail America



[b]“Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time, and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God, I will rout you out.”[/b] Andrew Jackson, the seventh president of the United States, who said these fiery words to a delegation of bankers in 1832:



[url="http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/09/29/jpinkerton_0929/"]NO to Bailout[/url][/quote]

Andrew Jackson was a great, though criminal, General. He was not an econominist.

So you wish to base our economic policy on the excerpt of a President's speech over 150 years ago, in reguards to a radically different social and economic reality?

[Aloysius]

the bill would be terrible for our economic survival in the long run. and if you listened to some of the democrats who spoke against the bill, then you'd realize that NO, thankfully they wouldn't get on board if you added a bunch of liberal policies to it. there were some great speaches even by some democrats as to why this bill was a bad idea.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1666562' date='Sep 29 2008, 08:08 PM']the bill would be terrible for our economic survival in the long run. and if you listened to some of the democrats who spoke against the bill, then you'd realize that NO, thankfully they wouldn't get on board if you added a bunch of liberal policies to it. there were some great speaches even by some democrats as to why this bill was a bad idea.[/quote]


I'm happy to read anything you have on the matter. But you have given no proof for your claim that a collapse is unavoidable. Given the seriousness of the position I'd assume we should have overwhelming evidence before we say, "well, that's that, let the economey collapse"

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1666562' date='Sep 29 2008, 07:08 PM']the bill would be terrible for our economic survival in the long run.[/quote]

Right. Plus, our government simply should not reward bad behavior. This is lesson Number 1 we teach to our toddlers. If we can teach a baby responsibility, we should teach it to adults who abuse our financial systems.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1666564' date='Sep 29 2008, 07:11 PM']Right. Plus, our government simply should not reward bad behavior. This is lesson Number 1 we teach to our toddlers. If we can teach a baby responsibility, we should teach it to adults who abuse our financial systems.[/quote]

If it were just those who acted irresponsibly I would be in total agreament.

Everyone will be hurt, and hurt bad, if the economey collapses.

[desertwoman]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1666561' date='Sep 29 2008, 08:08 PM']Andrew Jackson was a great, though criminal, General. He was not an econominist.

So you wish to base our economic policy on the excerpt of a President's speech over 150 years ago, in reguards to a radically different social and economic reality?[/quote]


Merly stating that history repeats itself... and that greed spands from generations to generations.

[Hassan]

[quote name='desertwoman' post='1666567' date='Sep 29 2008, 08:14 PM']Merly stating that history repeats itself... and that greed spands from generations to generations.[/quote]


No it doesn't.

I'm sorry but that is simply false beyond the most generic sense.

This is not a repeat of America's early 19th century depression, we are talking about radically different situations.

[philothea]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1666564' date='Sep 29 2008, 08:11 PM']Right. Plus, our government simply should not reward bad behavior. This is lesson Number 1 we teach to our toddlers. If we can teach a baby responsibility, we should teach it to adults who abuse our financial systems.[/quote]

Just curious -- who, exactly, was going to be rewarded if that bill had passed, who would not be otherwise?

[Lounge Daddy]

"House Republicans Fail To Pass Bill, what a shock"

The partisan Democrat leadership in congress fail to get their ca-rap together, and then they blame Republicans. What a shock.

The truth is:

#1 - The Republican leader in the House was trying to rally support for the bill just as much as Palosi was. Both are among [url="http://pfds.opensecrets.org/092408.html"]the top 25 recipients of Fannie and Freddie campaign cash[/url]. No coincidence there. Obama is on the list too.

#2 – [url="http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/house-members-in-both-parties-divided-over-bailout-2008-09-22.html"]The dissent was bi-partisan[/url]. The Dems have a majority in the House and the Senate, but yet the Dems still place blame on the GOP. Among those who stood up to voice dissent on record were Rep. Marcy Kaptur and Rep. Dennis Kucinich. Both Democrats. Both Dems and Republicans had to vote against this bill to kill it.

#3 – [url="http://www.pbn.com/stories/35437.html"]The American people wanted the bill dead[/url]—and the Congressmen, both Dems and Repubs, are doing what we pay them to do (for once); and that is to listen to us. It was said on the news that all the congresspeople were hearing from the citizens like never ever before. A few stated that they had never seen this in their careers. And the common response from the American people was “no bailout.”

Considering that this was a simple 3 page bill, that became loaded with extra spending and bloated into a 40+ page bill—I'm glad that this didn't go through. Washington isn't learning their lesson, and they probably will never snap out of it. There is a case to be made here for term limits (as if there wasn't one to be made before).

Edited September 30, 2008 by Lounge Daddy

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='philothea' post='1666579' date='Sep 29 2008, 08:42 PM']Just curious -- who, exactly, was going to be rewarded if that bill had passed, who would not be otherwise?[/quote]


The people who gave loans to people who should not have been given loans.

This is simple, really.

[desertwoman]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1666568' date='Sep 29 2008, 08:16 PM']No it doesn't.

I'm sorry but that is simply false beyond the most generic sense.

This is not a repeat of America's early 19th century depression, we are talking about radically different situations.[/quote]

Nope. I'm talking about greed...period, and how it dismantles everything. Jackson's address addressed greedy bankers in the 1800s, and we are dealing with greedy bankers in the twenty first century. This reminds me of the Michael Douglas quote from Wallstreet that greed is good. No, its not.

Edited September 30, 2008 by desertwoman

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1666563' date='Sep 29 2008, 08:10 PM']I'm happy to read anything you have on the matter. But you have given no proof for your claim that a collapse is unavoidable. Given the seriousness of the position I'd assume we should have overwhelming evidence before we say, "well, that's that, let the economey collapse"[/quote]

what it comes down to, as always is the facts. true, this isn't a science, but we should be able to get enough facts to say how severe the problem is, for good judgment.

i think most would agree, that the pushers of the bill weren't giving much, at least that i heard, facts.

if the problem isn't going to be severe, then we shouldn't do anything, simply on principle that we let people go with their problems they created.
if the problem is going to be severe, then i'd say we should.
i'm not sure i understand the reasoning that says we shouldn't, other than those who insist no help as a matter of principle. ie, those who say a bailout... i prefer loan, as that's the only that that could or should fly... shouldn't occur cause we'd prolong the pain, i'm not sure i understand. i know vaguely what they mean, but i don't think it represents the way things are- tis is where a good debate would be fruitful.

i do know that some of tehse instituations represent at least 25% of the credit economy. it'd be like organ failure waiting for it to fix itself, instead of changing the organ sooner rather than later. this is just an analogy though, perhaps not representative of reality. again i'm not sure of the reasons of the opposition

while i'd be for a bailout depending on the situation, i'd have to be convinced that it's needed. even at this point i'm not, not that i'm an expert or that studied on it, and would have voted against it. we can't have perfect info, but we can have enough to make good judgments on.

[Domine ut Videam]

Question?

Just how bad is the economy right now?
What would it take to be as bad as 1929? How close are we to that reality?

[dairygirl4u2c]

i doubt the american gov helping some people get homes contributed much to the meltdown. they'd represent to my understanding a small fraction. most of it was just unregulated ponzi scheming, cause it was unregulated. bush etc could have prevented this problem, it was growing out of hand long before it popped.

you can say some blame goes with teh gov,,, but to be accurate and honest, youd have to qualify that not a lot was.

[Madame Vengier]

Just read Lounge Daddy's post. All people have to do is follow the money trail to see how we got in this hole and why certain people in the gov were determined to make this bailout happen.

Everything is connected. Cause and effect.

[philothea]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1666589' date='Sep 29 2008, 09:07 PM']The people who gave loans to people who should not have been given loans.

This is simple, really.[/quote]
I'm just not exactly sure which people those are, at this point. The loan officers? The bank managers? The board of directors of those institutions? The people who own shares of mutual funds which hold mortgage-backed-securities? The stockholders of the financial institutions?

At this point, as far as I understand, the people who would have benefitted (the owners of the illiquid securities) are not the ones who authorized the loans, which is largely why the problem exists. The risk got transferred to people/entities/groups who had no direct control over it, so it was easy to make bad decisions.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1666586' date='Sep 29 2008, 06:56 PM']"House Republicans Fail To Pass Bill, what a shock"

The partisan Democrat leadership in congress fail to get their ca-rap together, and then they blame Republicans. What a shock.

The truth is:

#1 - The Republican leader in the House was trying to rally support for the bill just as much as Palosi was. Both are among [url="http://pfds.opensecrets.org/092408.html"]the top 25 recipients of Fannie and Freddie campaign cash[/url]. No coincidence there. Obama is on the list too.

#2 – [url="http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/house-members-in-both-parties-divided-over-bailout-2008-09-22.html"]The dissent was bi-partisan[/url]. The Dems have a majority in the House and the Senate, but yet the Dems still place blame on the GOP. Among those who stood up to voice dissent on record were Rep. Marcy Kaptur and Rep. Dennis Kucinich. Both Democrats. Both Dems and Republicans had to vote against this bill to kill it.

#3 – [url="http://www.pbn.com/stories/35437.html"]The American people wanted the bill dead[/url]—and the Congressmen, both Dems and Repubs, are doing what we pay them to do (for once); and that is to listen to us. It was said on the news that all the congresspeople were hearing from the citizens like never ever before. A few stated that they had never seen this in their careers. And the common response from the American people was “no bailout.”

Considering that this was a simple 3 page bill, that became loaded with extra spending and bloated into a 40+ page bill—I'm glad that this didn't go through. Washington isn't learning their lesson, and they probably will never snap out of it. There is a case to be made here for term limits (as if there wasn't one to be made before).[/quote]
Lol. This was the Bush administration's brain child. But the Republicans in Congress know that if they are seen as connected with Bush, their re-election would effectively be shot. However, they knew that this needed to be done. So they crossed their fingers and hoped that the Democrats could push this through themselves, meanwhile pretending to be supporting the deal they claimed had been forged in a compromised fashion. But then they pulled their support at the last minute, so that if the bill passed, they could go back to their districts and say "look, we were against this because it put the burden on you. The Democrats pushed it through and are making life harder for you" while all along needing it to pass to save their asses. They were screwed either way. If It failed, it made them look to be at fault for the failed policies of Bush and thus the economy tanking. If it passed, they would be accused of breaking the backs of the taxpayers. So they hoped and prayed for the Democrats to pass it. But alas, it did not pass.

Two words. EPIC FAIL.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1666559' date='Sep 29 2008, 08:05 PM']Really?? I didn't know. Thanks.[/quote]

Why are you always so sarcastic and mean?


[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1666608' date='Sep 29 2008, 09:35 PM']Lol. This was the Bush administration's brain child. But the Republicans in Congress know that if they are seen as connected with Bush, their re-election would effectively be shot. However, they knew that this needed to be done. So they crossed their fingers and hoped that the Democrats could push this through themselves, meanwhile pretending to be supporting the deal they claimed had been forged in a compromised fashion. But then they pulled their support at the last minute, so that if the bill passed, they could go back to their districts and say "look, we were against this because it put the burden on you. The Democrats pushed it through and are making life harder for you" while all along needing it to pass to save their asses. They were screwed either way. If It failed, it made them look to be at fault for the failed policies of Bush and thus the economy tanking. If it passed, they would be accused of breaking the backs of the taxpayers. So they hoped and prayed for the Democrats to pass it. But alas, it did not pass.

Two words. EPIC FAIL.[/quote]

This is pretty cynical. Some people (even politicians) do follow codes of ethics and wont vote for a bill which they know will doom the future of the free market. The republicans voted in a republican fashion (support the FREE market) and some of the democrats followed suit. The others were trying as usual to destroy the free market and therefore the traditional way of american economics. They even drew criticism from european countries.

I dont think that the republican vote had anything to do with distancing themselves from bush, but I was very surprised to see Bush supporting such a stupid bill. Yeah, that comment is completely partisan and Im not even trying to back it up, Aloysius has done a much better job than i could.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1666616' date='Sep 29 2008, 07:47 PM']Why are you always so sarcastic and mean?




This is pretty cynical. Some people (even politicians) do follow codes of ethics and wont vote for a bill which they know will doom the future of the free market. The republicans voted in a republican fashion (support the FREE market) and some of the democrats followed suit. The others were trying as usual to destroy the free market and therefore the traditional way of american economics. They even drew criticism from european countries.

I dont think that the republican vote had anything to do with distancing themselves from bush, but I was very surprised to see Bush supporting such a stupid bill. Yeah, that comment is completely partisan and Im not even trying to back it up, Aloysius has done a much better job than i could.[/quote]
I'm against the bill, just for the record. I don't want to pay for the mistakes of greedy banks. However, I have a hard time believing that the sudden turn around in support was due to "ethical" differences or a partisan speech by Pelosi. They originally pledged support and then suddenly changed their minds.

And boy, a stupid decision by Bush? Who woulda thunk it?