Republican Leadership: Because the Democrats hurt our feelings, we voted against an extremely important bill that we need to pass to save the American economy.
Jesus Christ. I swear to God, send them all home. None of them are worth a damn.
I know more about why the Cowboys lost yesterday than I do about what is going on with Wall Street. But even I can see that when the DOW drops 700 freakin pts at the same time as Nay votes increase...its bad.
We may have just committed economic suicide. I throw up a little bit in my mouth each and every time I say this; but I agree with the President on this one.
Banks are going to stop lending to each other. Credit will disappear, companies will not be able to operate and the entire economy may come to a standstill. It's like running an engine without any oil.
In the coming weeks, expect to see bank runs and general panic.
As much as the bailout package sucked (and I don't for one minute blame the general public for opposing it. After the bullshit they've been spoon-fed for the past 8 years; who can blame them?) it was the only thing staving off a massive panic.
My quick perusal of all the names suggests that this wasn't an ideological vote. It was a CYA vote. If you're from a safe district, vote YES, if not, vote NO.
The failure here lies in both our politicians and the media. Both of them spent far too much time turning this thing into a drama and far too little time explaining to the American public what exactly this bailout means.
I've come across more than one liberal educated friend who's opinion on the bailout is a) outrage over the incredible sum of money b) a misunderstanding of whats at stake and c)"I'm not going to put my lot in with the economists".
And these are highly educated academics! If you haven't convinced these guys, then who have you convinced!?!
Republican Leadership: Because the Democrats hurt our feelings, we voted against an extremely important bill that we need to pass to save the American economy. Jesus Christ. I swear to God, send them all home. None of them are worth a damn.
Ditto. The Republicans changed to a "no" vote because Pelosi gave a speech this morning they didn't like? Huh?
Vote on the bill based on merits. Vote on the bill based on what your constituency wants. But don't cast a vote based on a speech someone made.
As a follow up post, I'm also blaming Obama, because I hold him to a different standard.
He was reluctant to tie himself to closely with the bailout because it is politically unpopular. The main reason I support him is because I believe he has the ability to level with the American people and explain a complex situation convincingly, in a way that treats Americans as intelligent adults. In that respect, he failed.
My defense of Obama in this, is that right now he is a presidential candidate, and his main job is to win the election. It would be stupid to expect him to take strong positions on issues that would seriously hurt him from carrying out his main responsibility (win the election).
One bizarre way to look at this is to say that the vote failure provides political cover for all involved and could have been premeditated. Consider this hypothetical: the vote fails, stocks fall by 500 points today, stocks are feared to fall by another 500 tomorrow, a second vote is taken, the bill pasess. At the very least, this permits House Republicans and Democrats to go back and say, look, I voted against it, the market tanked and we really were faced with a crisis. So my colleagues and I voted for it, because it would have been 1929 all over again. That might be better than having voted for it the first time and having it pass.
In any case, if the above is true, it is truly disgusting. Regardless, I get the sense, as most likely do, that Congress is playing politics right now. They are not doing what is best for the country. The optics of the bill are/were too bad politically, and the blame for that goes to Bush for not doing a good job selling it once Bernanke and Paulson went to his door-step and said 1929 is knocking.
C'mon, people - this was a shitty bill and a shitty plan. Action is needed? Yes. Quickly? Yes. But does that mean we need to pass the first piece of crap legislation they throw out there, just because the administration throws out a bunch of scare tactics?
This was a good thing. Now let the big kids go back to the drawing board and put something responsible together. The world won't end this week, I promise you.
Yep. Rep Cantor from Va along with other GOPers was waving the text of Pelosi's speech saying that her partisanship was the reason the bill failed.
When asked about specifics in Pelosi's comments or whether his own comments were partisan, he retreated behind his fellow GOP House members without answering.
Gaucho, I think you're correct that this was a legacy bill - one that makes the scared more politician than statesman.
I suppose it never occured to the Speaker of the House that making a hugely partisan speech AFTER she thought she had the votes for passage wasn't such a bright idea.
That maybe it was a slap in the face to the Republicans that were supporting the bill for the good of the country, despite their own judgement it is a piece of crap, and that maybe seeing that Pelosi was going to use it to beat ALL of the Republicans over the head, some of them decided 'thanks, but no thanks'...
It also is hard to blame this on the Republicans when 40% of her own party refused to vote for this POS bill.
Thanks, gaucho! I'd just found it, but really do appreciate the help.
FYI, commercial real estate investments held by Lehman are starting to fold. The property management firms, developers, construction folks, plumbers, electricians, security and cleaning folks will pay (out of work until construction begins again, or until properties are active again). After liens are placed by developers on these properties no one will want to buy them due to the cost in litigation just to free them up, at leas not for a few years. For every commercial property that stalls out, an army of working class "support staff" and lower echelon white collar biz analysts and property managers are also put out of work.
This is a fucking disaster - we're not talking about some mythical welfare queen taking on a risky mortgage and having to pay for it, or an equally mythical "Gecko" type Wall St. shark who is also going to get a justified payback. These people just don't exist, and for the GOP reptiles (and even worse they're ignorant as fuck Dem partners in crime) to play games with the bailout like this and pretend that they're standing up for Main St. is just ridiculous. If the GOP yokels in the house want to play Hoover, let them. It's to be expected. Too bad a bunch of house Dems had to join them. When you live in a red state, it's a lot easier to get electoral retribution against a yokel Dem than a yokel GOP'er.
McCain's the one who put himself out there and tried to get credit for a solution. He's the one who said that he was getting the House Republicans engaged and on board. And now they scuttled the bill. John McCain -- you have failed.
Just because this administration warns of dire consequences doesn't mean they're wrong. And if you don't believe them, listen to Krugman, DeLong, et al.
I agree that it's time for the Dems to come up with a better plan though. It's the House (lots of procedural tools at our disposal) and we are the majority after all. But then do we run into a filibuster in the Senate? Anyone who knows how to game the whole thing out right now is a political genius.
But it's going to take a lot more salesmanship to convince the public on the merits.
People are going to lose jobs no matter what, that is what happens when you have a financial "bubble" that is not based on reality. Eventually, reality catches up and everybody pays.
Too many houses have been built and they are overvalued. That means a lot of industries are going to take a hit, and no bail out is going to change that.
It is hilarious that John McCain is somehow still to blame...MAYBE if the debate had been postponed and both presidential candidates had done some lobbying and gotten their hands dirty to get a real bi partisan solution crafted, it would have passed.
But, the Democrats didn't want or need John McCain's involvement, it was 'counter productive'...
I have a friend who worked on Wall Street during the 80's crash. She's a CPA. She's convinced the bailout plan is totally unecessary. Is she right? I have no idea. But her opinions are reassuring me, a bit.
Libertarian writes: "It is hilarious that John McCain is somehow still to blame...MAYBE if the debate had been postponed and both presidential candidates had done some lobbying and gotten their hands dirty to get a real bi partisan solution crafted, it would have passed."
What's hilarious is that McCain was poised to try to take full credit for the bill passing. That's what all of his "on the phone" crap was about, chuckles.
What's even more hilarious is you pretending still to be a libertarian, when you're plain and simply a GOP operative who is 100% in the tank for McCain and his poodle/running mate. Do you actually think you're fooling anyone?
I am sort of glad this went down - though I do think that maybe Washington does need to get involved. This plan seems to have used the Paulson plan as a jumping off point. The problem was the Paulson plan - 3 pages of very little beyond "trust us" with a dash of no oversight - was incredibly flawed. Maybe now that this has failed the can scrape this premise and start over from scratch.
Libertarian, over the weekend, John McCain himself and all of his surrogates were claiming that "he saved the bill". They claimed that he brought the House Republicans on board, and that he deserved credit for the bill's passage.
Now, admittedly, this is a dubious claim, but it was one he was making. So, now that the Republicans have bailed, and have effectively sunk the bill, by McCain's own logic, he owns this failure.
Unless, of course, he was only posturing to get credit and a photo-op without accepting any real responsibility. Nah, couldn't be.
I'm not familiar with DeLong, but I am a weekly Krugman reader and freely admit that he is smarter than I am on economic matters. That being said, Krugman doesn't believe that any financial entity should ever be allowed to fail. In his mind the Bear Stearns bailout was a good thing, and Paulson was wrong to let Lehman Fail.
Look, I consider myself as progressive a Democrat as almost anyone. That being said, I don't feel that we need to artificially prop up institutions that are failing. Nor do I think we should prop up a system that is failing.
It would be much better for everyone to fix the damn system. I think that is a long, hard process, yes. And I think the economy is going to suffer for as long as it takes to fix.
But this bill would have put a bandaid on a sucking chest wound. It would have propped the system up long enough for the Bush Administration to get out of office and say "not my fault!"
At least I don't have to worry about a bank run. Got no money in it anyway thanks to the gas prices.
The market was over-valued. I was hoping for a slow decline so people have time to adjust. Looks like that's no longer in the cards. Dow is down ... looks like 640 as I type, will probably be 650 by the time the post hits.
Lots of people going to get a nasty reality check.
Also, as a veteran, I'm somewhat offended that this bailout is stuck into a bill entitled:
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide earnings assistance and tax relief to members of the uniformed services, volunteer firefighters, and Peace Corps volunteers, and for other purposes
Libertarian, you know as much as I do that this isn't true. The problem wasn't in the Senate. It was the House, and specifically the Republicans in the House. Obama and McCain sitting in Washington would not change that. In fact, the Presidential race is a HUGE distraction to this whole process.
This is a crisis of leadership and trust. It's indicative of just how broken Washington right now. I'm not happy about either side in this, but it's disingenuous to think that bringing Presidential politics into this would have helped it.
This observation may be a bit preliminary. McCain just days ago claimed credit for bringing Reps and Dems together to negotiate. So he claims credit for suspending his campaign and going to Washington to help and lead the negotiations. So, basicall saying if it passes, he was there to help it pass an claim leadership cred. Well, based on that, he should get part of the blame as well since it didnt pass. What the hell did he do then?
On the hand...cool, reasoned, calm, understanding his place in all of this Barack Obama. Now, he finds himself in a sweet position where he doesnt take credit or blame and he can now work with Congress on another plan. Win again for BHO...he is mis-underestimated everytime.
t is hilarious that John McCain is somehow still to blame...MAYBE if the debate had been postponed and both presidential candidates had done some lobbying and gotten their hands dirty to get a real bi partisan solution crafted, it would have passed.
Why couldn't they do both? And why shouldn't I expect them to?
If Obama and McCain both worked on the bailout bill, they both agreed to it..not "in principle" but in all its details as it was written, and they both lobbied their respective party it would take politics OUT of the equation, because both future presidents and both Republicans and Democrats would be FULLY on board...and everybody could take credit, or if it turns out to be a disaster, nobody could point fingers.
My reaction to your comments is that if folks like you weren't on board, then the sale just wasn't properly made. Though I think given the timeline, that would have still been a tall order.
My view was that the bill was strong enough to probably (I use that word specifically--anyone that tells you they know everything that will happen is a fool.) get us to a new Congress. Pass the bill now, avoid a catastrophe, and amend it later when we hopefully have a Pres. Obama, and even more solid majorities in both houses.
What bothers me is that it seems that every member made the same calculation: I'm going to take a hit on this, and can I survive this? The noes are populated with a lot of freshman Dems, swing district Dems, and numbskull Republicans.
Maybe expecting better out of the House was simply wishful thinking. But I just have an awful feeling about this vote.
N.B. I would guess that the reason the bill was put with that resolution was to skip certain procedural rules that would slow down the bill's progress through the House (committee votes? markups?).
Libertarian, word is now coming out that over the weekend that the Democratic leadership promised 140 votes. Republican leadership promised 80. The Democrats delivered exactly 140 yes votes. Republicans came up well short, despite McCain's "best efforts".
Again, I'm not happy with this situation. Truth be told, I'm not exactly sold on the plan myself in its current form. But it was much better than it was when it was presented by Paulson two weeks ago, and is ridiculously better than doing absolutely nothing at all.
There's a lot of blame to spread here, but it's the hight of intellectually dishonesty to try to pin today on Obama not agreeing to McCain's stunt last week.
If Obama and McCain both worked on the bailout bill, they both agreed to it..not "in principle" but in all its details as it was written, and they both lobbied their respective party it would take politics OUT of the equation, because both future presidents and both Republicans and Democrats would be FULLY on board...and everybody could take credit, or if it turns out to be a disaster, nobody could point fingers.
Dunno if you're speaking to me. Yes. I understand your point. My point is why couldn't that have been done AND debates, which hold great importance re who to chose to lead, particularly in a time of financial crisis. They are interconnected. I do not see how or why one must preclude the other.
If, as you suggest, McCain's idea to not debate was wise and based on concern for the crisis, then he should have stuck to his maverick guns and stayed in Washington and hammered out what he believed was the best deal and the pall could then fall on Obama for not participating to the full extent.
Bottom line: Nancy Pelosi is one pathetic excuse for a speaker.
Hold the party ranks, something both parties and particularly the Dems used to be good at, and the thing passes. Instead, she gets some Republican votes, loses 40 on her side and the whole thing goes down in flames.
The last time I saw the Dems show this kind of disarray on a floor vote, they ended up losing the House for 12 years. Things are different today but this is pretty bad.
Walking home I was reminded of a very prescient piece of political analysis from back in fall of 2006. It was a pair of guests on NPR, I believe two pollsters, one D one R. One stated, and the other agreed, that what the long-term strategists of both parties would really like is for both houses of Congress to be in the control of the other party by about one seat. Because clearly the next 2 years were not going to fabulous in Iraq or domestically, and as a setup for 2008 you wanted as much blame on the other party as possible.
Imagine how gleeful the Dems would be if they didn't have to answer why they didn't turn back the 2003 banking reforms, or put together a minority bailout package--if this entire thing rested on uninterrupted Republican rule. Instead, as Eve Fairbanks notes, we have the biggest prisoner's dilemma ever, in which everyone would like something to pass while they vote against it. Whatever crawls forth from this will be truly, truly bipartisan, even if it's a bipartisan failure to do anything and the worst case scenarios are on target.
For the record I've been glad to have a Dem legislature, however squichy, because I'm certain we would have been at war with Iran in 2007 without Dem brakes on the Bush/Cheney "but my gut is gettin' that feelin' again..." dramatics.
I live in GA's 4th district, a reliably Dem district made up of lower income folks and highly educated in-town types (Atlanta). When Cynthia McKinney got a little too batshit crazy for us we handed the torch to Johnson. Johnson has a pic of him and the O-man on his website. Curious that he would be one of the 40 Dems to vote against the bailout. He can talk all he wants about how he didn't feel like "bailing out Wall St. for Main St." That shit might fly with the low info voters, but it's the in-town types that have been registering voters for Obama and actually vote in the primaries, and it's the in-town folks that are working six days a week and scared shitless about the tanking market and additional bank failures. Honestly, most of the low info types don't even know who he is, let alone what district they live in. If our freshman congress critter wants to play stupid and bite the hand that feeds him, fine. The low info folks might not know him, but they sure do love Obama - and for good reason. He really is remarkable. Guys like Johnson on the other hand are a dime a dozen, and his decision this week proved it. I wonder what the low info folks will think next week when Obama volunteers start handing out anti-Johnson literature that shows how he's opposed to the Dem/Obama financial rescue plan? Apparently Johnson, like McKinney, doesn't appreciate or understand his constituency.
I'll chime in a "me too" at the Republican house members who were so put out by a Pelosi speech that they switched their vote on vital legislation because their widdle feelings are hurt. Grow. A. Pair. If we need the bill, pass it. Yes, the other side will try to hang everything unpopular on you--holds for both--that's how elections work.
From Libertarian on the above, "Republicans that were supporting the bill for the good of the country, despite their own judgement it is a piece of crap," makes no sense. If it's a piece of crap, it's not good for the country.
But I'll diverge from most people on what Obama and McCain can do. The problem is the House, in which everyone up for re-election (which is everyone) would rather have no part of this mess hanging about their neck. As gaucho says, those in safe districts are voting yes. That suggests they think this bill should pass, even if unpopular. The critical bit seems to be getting anyone facing a tough reelection to vote yes. That would be a job for the president to convince the country, but he has no credibility left when he cries "it's a crisis, and I need extraordinary powers to keep us safe." Or Paulson, but, as noted, no one is managing to explain this very well.
Deborah,
In my district we don't even have a challenger, that's how reliably Dem and safe the district is, and our dumb ass rep still voted against the measure! It makes absolutely no sense! His office is issuing standard talking points about "not wanting to bail out Wall St." It's completely insane.
Considering all the political cowardice we are seeing, I am pleased ot be able to report that some (perhaps few) individuals actually did the courageous thing.
Two years ago, Jerry McNerney (D-CA11) managed to win in a district that was designed to be safe for Republicans. (Helped, it must be said, by opposing an exceptionally corrupt Republican incumbant.) He's been hammered by ads all summer, because the Republicans think they ought to be able to win the seat back -- even this year. But he still voted for the bill.
Just want to make the point that, for all the (large number of) cowaerdly scumbags in Congress, there are still some good men and women who have somehow sneaked in.
Here is what is great, Mr. Conscience of Liberalism, Paul Krugman, blames the defeat on Republicans; however other liberals celebrate the defeat of this bill (Stoller, Sirota, Kos Kiddies, Michael Moore, the progressive wing in the house).
The democrats are the majority party, if they were really for this, then they should have produced the votes. If they were against this, they shouldn't have had to rely on Republican votes to kill it.
If I had to pick a side, I would go with the grown ups like Krugman rather than the childish like Stoller. I realize the experts can be wrong, but some on the left seem to be following McCain-like advice: "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Wall Street".
And for the right, this plan you voted against was favored by all your boys. I am not sure where the end game is for the Republicans who voted against this. I somehow smell the stench of Buchananism in all this for the right side of the ledger.
I’m hoping to buy a home someday instead of renting an apartment. In fact, my fiancee and I almost bought our first home during March of 2007. We were very excited at the time because it was going to be our first house and we even drove over to see other similar houses in the same neighborhood at 3:00am! However, we decided in the end to not put any offers in because we thought the housing downturn would get drastically worst.
Fast forward 9 months, and we are experiencing one of the worst housing slump in US history. Being in California, our decision to hold off on buying a house saved us at least $50,000 and might turn into $100,000-$150,000 when it is all said and done. One side of me is relieved because of the fact that I didn’t buy the house yet, but another side of me really want to live in a nice house that I can call my own. Should I look at the house as an investment? Or should I forget about the ups and downs of my potential house price and be happy that I will leave in a nice home?
Do you consider your primary home as an investment? Take the poll and let me know what I should do!
I am new to this forum ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com and hope that somebody can
give me an advice on the forex - I am looking for an introduction
for beginners. I have already a little knowledge about shares. (Hope this is the fitting category.)
I have the expectation that the recent turbulences in the forex exchange promise
easy money not only for the experts. What is your opinion about that site - [url=http://www.make-forex-money.info/forex/how-to-scalp-the-forex-market]how to scalp the forex market[/url] ?
I recently registered to this forum ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com and hope that somebody can
give me an advice on the forex market - I am looking for an introduction
for beginners. I have already some knowledge about shares. (Hope this is the fitting category.)
Help is so much appreciated. Most important question: can a noob make money on the forex market?
Here's a piece no one cared about. Meh, whatever, probably the most enjoyable article I did during my stint at TIME. Premiered a month before I got laid-off. The nail in the coffin? Ya think?
Here's me going after Al. I didn't so much have a problem with him, as I had a problem with media acting like this dude was the go-to guy for everything black.
This was my first real story at time. I was writing for the Business section, a real change of direction for me. At any rate, it's about Wal-Mart's attempts to colonize the inner-city. As much as I enjoyed this piece, I mostly enjoyed going out to Chicago, which is a beautiful, beautiful city.
This a piece I did about the cops just outside our nation capitol, in Prince George's County, a few years back. I wanted to offer a counter to the dumb, conventional wisdom that if you paint your police force black, you could eradicate police brutality. In fact, Prince George's--one of the richest, blackest counties in the country--also had one of the most brutal police force's in the country.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
I was in my office listening to TVoTR when the news broke. I instantly had to change to Maxwell. Calm.. Calm... Will the world end in fire or ice?
Deflation or Hyperinflation. Either way its a great time to hold debt.
Anyone know where to go for the names of Dems that voted against this?
Republican Leadership: Because the Democrats hurt our feelings, we voted against an extremely important bill that we need to pass to save the American economy.
Jesus Christ. I swear to God, send them all home. None of them are worth a damn.
I know more about why the Cowboys lost yesterday than I do about what is going on with Wall Street. But even I can see that when the DOW drops 700 freakin pts at the same time as Nay votes increase...its bad.
We may have just committed economic suicide. I throw up a little bit in my mouth each and every time I say this; but I agree with the President on this one.
Banks are going to stop lending to each other. Credit will disappear, companies will not be able to operate and the entire economy may come to a standstill. It's like running an engine without any oil.
In the coming weeks, expect to see bank runs and general panic.
As much as the bailout package sucked (and I don't for one minute blame the general public for opposing it. After the bullshit they've been spoon-fed for the past 8 years; who can blame them?) it was the only thing staving off a massive panic.
May god have mercy on this nation.
@Take Names
Here you are.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml
I guess all of this is still so surreal it's comical. Canada anyone? I've got family there. I speak French!
Gutless. All of them.
My quick perusal of all the names suggests that this wasn't an ideological vote. It was a CYA vote. If you're from a safe district, vote YES, if not, vote NO.
Profiles in courage. I'm sick.
The failure here lies in both our politicians and the media. Both of them spent far too much time turning this thing into a drama and far too little time explaining to the American public what exactly this bailout means.
I've come across more than one liberal educated friend who's opinion on the bailout is a) outrage over the incredible sum of money b) a misunderstanding of whats at stake and c)"I'm not going to put my lot in with the economists".
And these are highly educated academics! If you haven't convinced these guys, then who have you convinced!?!
Republican Leadership: Because the Democrats hurt our feelings, we voted against an extremely important bill that we need to pass to save the American economy. Jesus Christ. I swear to God, send them all home. None of them are worth a damn.
Ditto. The Republicans changed to a "no" vote because Pelosi gave a speech this morning they didn't like? Huh?
Vote on the bill based on merits. Vote on the bill based on what your constituency wants. But don't cast a vote based on a speech someone made.
What are they, five years old?
What the F is going on?
As a follow up post, I'm also blaming Obama, because I hold him to a different standard.
He was reluctant to tie himself to closely with the bailout because it is politically unpopular. The main reason I support him is because I believe he has the ability to level with the American people and explain a complex situation convincingly, in a way that treats Americans as intelligent adults. In that respect, he failed.
My defense of Obama in this, is that right now he is a presidential candidate, and his main job is to win the election. It would be stupid to expect him to take strong positions on issues that would seriously hurt him from carrying out his main responsibility (win the election).
One bizarre way to look at this is to say that the vote failure provides political cover for all involved and could have been premeditated. Consider this hypothetical: the vote fails, stocks fall by 500 points today, stocks are feared to fall by another 500 tomorrow, a second vote is taken, the bill pasess. At the very least, this permits House Republicans and Democrats to go back and say, look, I voted against it, the market tanked and we really were faced with a crisis. So my colleagues and I voted for it, because it would have been 1929 all over again. That might be better than having voted for it the first time and having it pass.
In any case, if the above is true, it is truly disgusting. Regardless, I get the sense, as most likely do, that Congress is playing politics right now. They are not doing what is best for the country. The optics of the bill are/were too bad politically, and the blame for that goes to Bush for not doing a good job selling it once Bernanke and Paulson went to his door-step and said 1929 is knocking.
Is my house now worth half what I paid for it?
C'mon, people - this was a shitty bill and a shitty plan. Action is needed? Yes. Quickly? Yes. But does that mean we need to pass the first piece of crap legislation they throw out there, just because the administration throws out a bunch of scare tactics?
This was a good thing. Now let the big kids go back to the drawing board and put something responsible together. The world won't end this week, I promise you.
Yep. Rep Cantor from Va along with other GOPers was waving the text of Pelosi's speech saying that her partisanship was the reason the bill failed.
When asked about specifics in Pelosi's comments or whether his own comments were partisan, he retreated behind his fellow GOP House members without answering.
Gaucho, I think you're correct that this was a legacy bill - one that makes the scared more politician than statesman.
I suppose it never occured to the Speaker of the House that making a hugely partisan speech AFTER she thought she had the votes for passage wasn't such a bright idea.
That maybe it was a slap in the face to the Republicans that were supporting the bill for the good of the country, despite their own judgement it is a piece of crap, and that maybe seeing that Pelosi was going to use it to beat ALL of the Republicans over the head, some of them decided 'thanks, but no thanks'...
It also is hard to blame this on the Republicans when 40% of her own party refused to vote for this POS bill.
Thanks, gaucho! I'd just found it, but really do appreciate the help.
FYI, commercial real estate investments held by Lehman are starting to fold. The property management firms, developers, construction folks, plumbers, electricians, security and cleaning folks will pay (out of work until construction begins again, or until properties are active again). After liens are placed by developers on these properties no one will want to buy them due to the cost in litigation just to free them up, at leas not for a few years. For every commercial property that stalls out, an army of working class "support staff" and lower echelon white collar biz analysts and property managers are also put out of work.
This is a fucking disaster - we're not talking about some mythical welfare queen taking on a risky mortgage and having to pay for it, or an equally mythical "Gecko" type Wall St. shark who is also going to get a justified payback. These people just don't exist, and for the GOP reptiles (and even worse they're ignorant as fuck Dem partners in crime) to play games with the bailout like this and pretend that they're standing up for Main St. is just ridiculous. If the GOP yokels in the house want to play Hoover, let them. It's to be expected. Too bad a bunch of house Dems had to join them. When you live in a red state, it's a lot easier to get electoral retribution against a yokel Dem than a yokel GOP'er.
McCain's the one who put himself out there and tried to get credit for a solution. He's the one who said that he was getting the House Republicans engaged and on board. And now they scuttled the bill. John McCain -- you have failed.
@MagnoliaFan
Just because this administration warns of dire consequences doesn't mean they're wrong. And if you don't believe them, listen to Krugman, DeLong, et al.
I agree that it's time for the Dems to come up with a better plan though. It's the House (lots of procedural tools at our disposal) and we are the majority after all. But then do we run into a filibuster in the Senate? Anyone who knows how to game the whole thing out right now is a political genius.
But it's going to take a lot more salesmanship to convince the public on the merits.
People are going to lose jobs no matter what, that is what happens when you have a financial "bubble" that is not based on reality. Eventually, reality catches up and everybody pays.
Too many houses have been built and they are overvalued. That means a lot of industries are going to take a hit, and no bail out is going to change that.
It is hilarious that John McCain is somehow still to blame...MAYBE if the debate had been postponed and both presidential candidates had done some lobbying and gotten their hands dirty to get a real bi partisan solution crafted, it would have passed.
But, the Democrats didn't want or need John McCain's involvement, it was 'counter productive'...
Hilarious in a black commedy sort of way.
I have a friend who worked on Wall Street during the 80's crash. She's a CPA. She's convinced the bailout plan is totally unecessary. Is she right? I have no idea. But her opinions are reassuring me, a bit.
Libertarian writes: "It is hilarious that John McCain is somehow still to blame...MAYBE if the debate had been postponed and both presidential candidates had done some lobbying and gotten their hands dirty to get a real bi partisan solution crafted, it would have passed."
What's hilarious is that McCain was poised to try to take full credit for the bill passing. That's what all of his "on the phone" crap was about, chuckles.
What's even more hilarious is you pretending still to be a libertarian, when you're plain and simply a GOP operative who is 100% in the tank for McCain and his poodle/running mate. Do you actually think you're fooling anyone?
I am sort of glad this went down - though I do think that maybe Washington does need to get involved. This plan seems to have used the Paulson plan as a jumping off point. The problem was the Paulson plan - 3 pages of very little beyond "trust us" with a dash of no oversight - was incredibly flawed. Maybe now that this has failed the can scrape this premise and start over from scratch.
Libertarian, over the weekend, John McCain himself and all of his surrogates were claiming that "he saved the bill". They claimed that he brought the House Republicans on board, and that he deserved credit for the bill's passage.
Now, admittedly, this is a dubious claim, but it was one he was making. So, now that the Republicans have bailed, and have effectively sunk the bill, by McCain's own logic, he owns this failure.
Unless, of course, he was only posturing to get credit and a photo-op without accepting any real responsibility. Nah, couldn't be.
Gaucho -
I'm not familiar with DeLong, but I am a weekly Krugman reader and freely admit that he is smarter than I am on economic matters. That being said, Krugman doesn't believe that any financial entity should ever be allowed to fail. In his mind the Bear Stearns bailout was a good thing, and Paulson was wrong to let Lehman Fail.
Look, I consider myself as progressive a Democrat as almost anyone. That being said, I don't feel that we need to artificially prop up institutions that are failing. Nor do I think we should prop up a system that is failing.
It would be much better for everyone to fix the damn system. I think that is a long, hard process, yes. And I think the economy is going to suffer for as long as it takes to fix.
But this bill would have put a bandaid on a sucking chest wound. It would have propped the system up long enough for the Bush Administration to get out of office and say "not my fault!"
The truth is that if BOTH OBAMA AND MCCAIN had been vested in the bill, it would have passed, because then neither side could blame the other.
The fact that you don't appear to understand the realities of how American politics actually works says a lot more about you than me.
At least I don't have to worry about a bank run. Got no money in it anyway thanks to the gas prices.
The market was over-valued. I was hoping for a slow decline so people have time to adjust. Looks like that's no longer in the cards. Dow is down ... looks like 640 as I type, will probably be 650 by the time the post hits.
Lots of people going to get a nasty reality check.
Also, as a veteran, I'm somewhat offended that this bailout is stuck into a bill entitled:
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide earnings assistance and tax relief to members of the uniformed services, volunteer firefighters, and Peace Corps volunteers, and for other purposes
Libertarian, you know as much as I do that this isn't true. The problem wasn't in the Senate. It was the House, and specifically the Republicans in the House. Obama and McCain sitting in Washington would not change that. In fact, the Presidential race is a HUGE distraction to this whole process.
This is a crisis of leadership and trust. It's indicative of just how broken Washington right now. I'm not happy about either side in this, but it's disingenuous to think that bringing Presidential politics into this would have helped it.
T-Coates:
This observation may be a bit preliminary. McCain just days ago claimed credit for bringing Reps and Dems together to negotiate. So he claims credit for suspending his campaign and going to Washington to help and lead the negotiations. So, basicall saying if it passes, he was there to help it pass an claim leadership cred. Well, based on that, he should get part of the blame as well since it didnt pass. What the hell did he do then?
On the hand...cool, reasoned, calm, understanding his place in all of this Barack Obama. Now, he finds himself in a sweet position where he doesnt take credit or blame and he can now work with Congress on another plan. Win again for BHO...he is mis-underestimated everytime.
Why couldn't they do both? And why shouldn't I expect them to?
Why not?
If Obama and McCain both worked on the bailout bill, they both agreed to it..not "in principle" but in all its details as it was written, and they both lobbied their respective party it would take politics OUT of the equation, because both future presidents and both Republicans and Democrats would be FULLY on board...and everybody could take credit, or if it turns out to be a disaster, nobody could point fingers.
MagnoliaFan, I knew you were a vet, when I saw "sucking chest wound".
@ MagnoliaFan
My reaction to your comments is that if folks like you weren't on board, then the sale just wasn't properly made. Though I think given the timeline, that would have still been a tall order.
My view was that the bill was strong enough to probably (I use that word specifically--anyone that tells you they know everything that will happen is a fool.) get us to a new Congress. Pass the bill now, avoid a catastrophe, and amend it later when we hopefully have a Pres. Obama, and even more solid majorities in both houses.
What bothers me is that it seems that every member made the same calculation: I'm going to take a hit on this, and can I survive this? The noes are populated with a lot of freshman Dems, swing district Dems, and numbskull Republicans.
Maybe expecting better out of the House was simply wishful thinking. But I just have an awful feeling about this vote.
N.B. I would guess that the reason the bill was put with that resolution was to skip certain procedural rules that would slow down the bill's progress through the House (committee votes? markups?).
Libertarian, word is now coming out that over the weekend that the Democratic leadership promised 140 votes. Republican leadership promised 80. The Democrats delivered exactly 140 yes votes. Republicans came up well short, despite McCain's "best efforts".
Again, I'm not happy with this situation. Truth be told, I'm not exactly sold on the plan myself in its current form. But it was much better than it was when it was presented by Paulson two weeks ago, and is ridiculously better than doing absolutely nothing at all.
There's a lot of blame to spread here, but it's the hight of intellectually dishonesty to try to pin today on Obama not agreeing to McCain's stunt last week.
Dunno if you're speaking to me. Yes. I understand your point. My point is why couldn't that have been done AND debates, which hold great importance re who to chose to lead, particularly in a time of financial crisis. They are interconnected. I do not see how or why one must preclude the other.
If, as you suggest, McCain's idea to not debate was wise and based on concern for the crisis, then he should have stuck to his maverick guns and stayed in Washington and hammered out what he believed was the best deal and the pall could then fall on Obama for not participating to the full extent.
Bottom line: Nancy Pelosi is one pathetic excuse for a speaker.
Hold the party ranks, something both parties and particularly the Dems used to be good at, and the thing passes. Instead, she gets some Republican votes, loses 40 on her side and the whole thing goes down in flames.
The last time I saw the Dems show this kind of disarray on a floor vote, they ended up losing the House for 12 years. Things are different today but this is pretty bad.
Walking home I was reminded of a very prescient piece of political analysis from back in fall of 2006. It was a pair of guests on NPR, I believe two pollsters, one D one R. One stated, and the other agreed, that what the long-term strategists of both parties would really like is for both houses of Congress to be in the control of the other party by about one seat. Because clearly the next 2 years were not going to fabulous in Iraq or domestically, and as a setup for 2008 you wanted as much blame on the other party as possible.
Imagine how gleeful the Dems would be if they didn't have to answer why they didn't turn back the 2003 banking reforms, or put together a minority bailout package--if this entire thing rested on uninterrupted Republican rule. Instead, as Eve Fairbanks notes, we have the biggest prisoner's dilemma ever, in which everyone would like something to pass while they vote against it. Whatever crawls forth from this will be truly, truly bipartisan, even if it's a bipartisan failure to do anything and the worst case scenarios are on target.
For the record I've been glad to have a Dem legislature, however squichy, because I'm certain we would have been at war with Iran in 2007 without Dem brakes on the Bush/Cheney "but my gut is gettin' that feelin' again..." dramatics.
I live in GA's 4th district, a reliably Dem district made up of lower income folks and highly educated in-town types (Atlanta). When Cynthia McKinney got a little too batshit crazy for us we handed the torch to Johnson. Johnson has a pic of him and the O-man on his website. Curious that he would be one of the 40 Dems to vote against the bailout. He can talk all he wants about how he didn't feel like "bailing out Wall St. for Main St." That shit might fly with the low info voters, but it's the in-town types that have been registering voters for Obama and actually vote in the primaries, and it's the in-town folks that are working six days a week and scared shitless about the tanking market and additional bank failures. Honestly, most of the low info types don't even know who he is, let alone what district they live in. If our freshman congress critter wants to play stupid and bite the hand that feeds him, fine. The low info folks might not know him, but they sure do love Obama - and for good reason. He really is remarkable. Guys like Johnson on the other hand are a dime a dozen, and his decision this week proved it. I wonder what the low info folks will think next week when Obama volunteers start handing out anti-Johnson literature that shows how he's opposed to the Dem/Obama financial rescue plan? Apparently Johnson, like McKinney, doesn't appreciate or understand his constituency.
I'll chime in a "me too" at the Republican house members who were so put out by a Pelosi speech that they switched their vote on vital legislation because their widdle feelings are hurt. Grow. A. Pair. If we need the bill, pass it. Yes, the other side will try to hang everything unpopular on you--holds for both--that's how elections work.
From Libertarian on the above, "Republicans that were supporting the bill for the good of the country, despite their own judgement it is a piece of crap," makes no sense. If it's a piece of crap, it's not good for the country.
But I'll diverge from most people on what Obama and McCain can do. The problem is the House, in which everyone up for re-election (which is everyone) would rather have no part of this mess hanging about their neck. As gaucho says, those in safe districts are voting yes. That suggests they think this bill should pass, even if unpopular. The critical bit seems to be getting anyone facing a tough reelection to vote yes. That would be a job for the president to convince the country, but he has no credibility left when he cries "it's a crisis, and I need extraordinary powers to keep us safe." Or Paulson, but, as noted, no one is managing to explain this very well.
Deborah,
In my district we don't even have a challenger, that's how reliably Dem and safe the district is, and our dumb ass rep still voted against the measure! It makes absolutely no sense! His office is issuing standard talking points about "not wanting to bail out Wall St." It's completely insane.
Dear 4th District GA:
Vote for who you will but please, please don't send Cyndy back. She's no good for the 4th District and no good for Congress.
Considering all the political cowardice we are seeing, I am pleased ot be able to report that some (perhaps few) individuals actually did the courageous thing.
Two years ago, Jerry McNerney (D-CA11) managed to win in a district that was designed to be safe for Republicans. (Helped, it must be said, by opposing an exceptionally corrupt Republican incumbant.) He's been hammered by ads all summer, because the Republicans think they ought to be able to win the seat back -- even this year. But he still voted for the bill.
Just want to make the point that, for all the (large number of) cowaerdly scumbags in Congress, there are still some good men and women who have somehow sneaked in.
Here is what is great, Mr. Conscience of Liberalism, Paul Krugman, blames the defeat on Republicans; however other liberals celebrate the defeat of this bill (Stoller, Sirota, Kos Kiddies, Michael Moore, the progressive wing in the house).
The democrats are the majority party, if they were really for this, then they should have produced the votes. If they were against this, they shouldn't have had to rely on Republican votes to kill it.
If I had to pick a side, I would go with the grown ups like Krugman rather than the childish like Stoller. I realize the experts can be wrong, but some on the left seem to be following McCain-like advice: "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Wall Street".
And for the right, this plan you voted against was favored by all your boys. I am not sure where the end game is for the Republicans who voted against this. I somehow smell the stench of Buchananism in all this for the right side of the ledger.
I’m hoping to buy a home someday instead of renting an apartment. In fact, my fiancee and I almost bought our first home during March of 2007. We were very excited at the time because it was going to be our first house and we even drove over to see other similar houses in the same neighborhood at 3:00am! However, we decided in the end to not put any offers in because we thought the housing downturn would get drastically worst.
Fast forward 9 months, and we are experiencing one of the worst housing slump in US history. Being in California, our decision to hold off on buying a house saved us at least $50,000 and might turn into $100,000-$150,000 when it is all said and done. One side of me is relieved because of the fact that I didn’t buy the house yet, but another side of me really want to live in a nice house that I can call my own. Should I look at the house as an investment? Or should I forget about the ups and downs of my potential house price and be happy that I will leave in a nice home?
Do you consider your primary home as an investment? Take the poll and let me know what I should do!
www.moneyning.com
Laura Kauffmann
"Seven Oceans Investments Club"
Hi people,
I am new to this forum ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com and hope that somebody can
give me an advice on the forex - I am looking for an introduction
for beginners. I have already a little knowledge about shares. (Hope this is the fitting category.)
I have the expectation that the recent turbulences in the forex exchange promise
easy money not only for the experts. What is your opinion about that site - [url=http://www.make-forex-money.info/forex/how-to-scalp-the-forex-market]how to scalp the forex market[/url] ?
Any help is so much appreciated.
Thanks,
Jim
Hi people,
I recently registered to this forum ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com and hope that somebody can
give me an advice on the forex market - I am looking for an introduction
for beginners. I have already some knowledge about shares. (Hope this is the fitting category.)
Help is so much appreciated. Most important question: can a noob make money on the forex market?
Thanks,
Jim
Hi people,
just want to introduce myself on ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com, hope this is the right category for that purpose.
Greez,
Max