Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiStocks plummeted on Wall Street even before the 228-205 vote to reject the bill was announced on the House floor.
Bush and a host of leading congressional figures had implored the lawmakers to pass the legislation despite howls of protest from their constituents back home. Despite pressure from supporters, not enough members were willing to take the political risk just five weeks before an election.
Ample no votes came from both the Democratic and Republican sides of the aisle. More than two-thirds of Republicans and 40 percent of Democrats opposed the bill.
The overriding question for congressional leaders was what to do next. Congress has been trying to adjourn so that its members can go out and campaign. And with only five weeks left until Election Day, there was no clear indication of whether the leadership would keep them in Washington. Leaders were huddling after the vote to figure out their next steps.
A White House spokesman said that President Bush was "very disappointed."
"There's no question that the country is facing a difficult crisis that needs to be addressed," Tony Fratto told reporters. He said the president will be meeting with members of his team later in the day "to determine next steps."
"Obviously we are very disappointed in this outcome," Fratto said. "There's no question that the country is facing a difficult crisis that needs to be addressed. The president will be meeting with his team this afternoon to determine the next steps and will also be in touch with congressional leaders."
Monday's mind-numbing vote had been preceded by unusually aggressive White House lobbying, and Fratto said that Bush had used a "call list" of people he wanted to persuade to vote yes as late as a short time before the vote.
Lawmakers shouted news of the plummeting Dow Jones average as lawmakers crowded on the House floor during the drawn-out and tense call of the roll, which dragged on for roughly 40 minutes as leaders on both sides scrambled to corral enough of their rank-and-file members to support the deeply unpopular measure.
They found only two.
Bush and his economic advisers, as well as congressional leaders in both parties had argued the plan was vital to insulating ordinary Americans from the effects of Wall Street's bad bets. The version that was up for vote Monday was the product of marathon closed-door negotiations on Capitol Hill over the weekend.
"We're all worried about losing our jobs," Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., declared in an impassioned speech in support of the bill before the vote. "Most of us say, 'I want this thing to pass, but I want you to vote for it - not me.' "
With their dire warnings of impending economic doom and their sweeping request for unprecedented sums of money and authority to bail out cash-starved financial firms, Bush and his economic chiefs have focused the attention of world markets on Congress, Ryan added.
"We're in this moment, and if we fail to do the right thing, Heaven help us," he said.
The legislation the administration promoted would have allowed the government to buy bad mortgages and other rotten assets held by troubled banks and financial institutions. Getting those debts off their books should bolster those companies' balance sheets, making them more inclined to lend and easing one of the biggest choke points in the credit crisis. If the plan worked, the thinking went, it would help lift a major weight off the national economy that is already sputtering.
The fear in the financial markets send the Dow Jones industrials cascading down by over 700 points at one juncture. As the vote was shown on TV, stocks plunged and investors fled to the safety of the credit markets, worrying that the financial system would keep sinking under the weight of failed mortgage debt.
"As I said on the floor, this is a bipartisan responsibility and we think (Democrats) met our responsibility," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md.
Asked whether majority Democrats would try to reverse the stunning defeat, Hoyer said, "We're certainly not going to abandon our responsibility. We'll continue to focus on this and see what actions we can take."
Several Republican aides said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had torpedoed any spirit of bipartisanship that surrounded the bill with her scathing speech near the close of the debate that blamed Bush's policies for the economic turmoil.
Without mentioning her by name, Rep. Adam Putnam, R-Fla., No. 3 Republican, said: "The partisan tone at the end of the debate today I think did impact the votes on our side."
Putnam said lawmakers were working "to garner the necessary votes to avoid a financial collapse."
But the defeat was already causing a brutal round of finger-pointing.
"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."
In her speech, Pelosi had assailed Bush and his administration for reckless economic policies.
"They claim to be free market advocates when it's really an anything-goes mentality: No regulation, no supervision, no discipline. And if you fail, you will have a golden parachute and the taxpayer will bail you out. Those days are over. The party is over," Pelosi said.
"Democrats believe in a free market," she said. "But in this case, in its unbridled form, as encouraged, supported, by the Republicans - some in the Republican Party, not all - it has created not jobs, not capital. It has created chaos."
120 Comments so far
Show AllThis is NOT over.
The media is in an all-out overdrive mode to resurrect this bailout as the appointed Goebbels of American MSM are on the march.
Today the NYT has a map of who voted no with detailed info about the reps. Yeah, point THEM out instead of the ones who voted FOR it.
One instance: Last night, Katie Couric, was about to have a fit right on the air...her lead story story was completely biased in favor of the bailout. Letterman & Ferguson (who constantly slammed the bailout last week) said little, or in the case of Ferguson, said nothing. Clearly, the word had come down from the top at CBS to either report in favor of the 2nd attempt to pass (it) or just say nothing. (Leno, to his credit, on the other hand mocked Washington)
Granted this is just one network, but to me, looks like they are going to ram this thing totally down our throats with their one-sided propaganda.
Maybe its time to start taking over some news outlets & studios as well as giving personal addresses of where these sellouts live so the people can get the message across: NO BAILOUT, A-HOLES. They still don't get it.
The Fed has everyone addicted to crack (low cost money), their supply of the drug dried up, and now they're afraid to tell everyone we're addicts.
I think the Fed is the pimp, the Sovereign Wealth funds are the suppliers, and the Americans are the addicts.
Cold Turkey won't be pretty.
Instead of a "bail-out" bill, we need rehab.
Look at the DOW and the rest of the world, the stock market is rebounding on its very own. Dow is up 290 points at 11:AM Canada TXS is up over 330 points UK up as well. I say leave it alone for 2 weeks and see where it goes. I not saying don't do some small changes but nothing like 700 billion. Change the rules so these companies can't get greedy in the future
Even the most gullible suckers become suspicious when the mulit-millionaire con-men start desperately begging for more loot to keep on gambling with. As it goes against all American myths, the plain reality that everything in a modern economy is interconnected and everything that happens affects everyone does not hit home for some until it becomes obvious there are those making tens of millions without contributing anything of substance who, for the purpose of continuing their scams, can convince the congressional "leadership" to rob those barely making it on Main Street.
Though both Democrats and Republicans will try their best to placate the financial industry and Wall Street, I do not find the parties or their members to be indistinguishable. As this crisis gets worse, as expected, over the coming months, if there are massive demonstrations and there is considerable public unrest, then a Democratic president would most likely move left, reluctantly and maybe even kicking and screaming, but move left and try to form compromises between the elites and the people that would address the most serious concerns on Main Street. A Republican president would never move left, but would instead call out the National Guard and possibly use the US military to maintain order in the streets, implement modern surveillance technology to track and shut down all dissident groups, and employ other "war on terrorism" measures to create a police state.
What makes you think "a Democratic president would most likely move left"? He would be more likely to TALK left than a Rep, but MOVE left? I don't think so. Bill Clinton was an excellent case in point and is the best illustration of where the Dems are now, including Obama. Make no mistake, Obama's battle with Hillary/Bill was NOT over substance, it was over personal control.
Democratic politicians, because of the current political and economic environment, are virtually all political opportunists. If they can maintain power by turning left, they will do it, just as they will turn right if that offers them better returns. Republican politicians, on the other hand, are mostly committed fascists, who will turn further right if given the opportunity, but who will in no instance turn left. That is the political reality today. There is no guarantee that a Democrat will turn left, even if the political conditions warrant it, but there is a guarantee that a Republican will not turn left.
I don't necessarily dispute this dismal, seedy "realpolitik", but I'll lowball it a bit further by pointing out that "turning left" in this context is hardly distinguishable from "faking left"-- pretty much as Democratic candidates are wont to do in the early stages of campaigns, before acquiring sufficient mainstream support to shed "left"ish views as a dog sheds fur in the summertime.
They won't ACT "left" any more than they absolutely MUST to appease and manipulate a left-leaning constituency. It's only marginally better than nothing, as usual.
Certainly Dems will "fake left" if they believe that will satisfy the masses while their clients on Wall Street know what's really up. But at some point they may recognize that no fake is sufficient and may actually have to consider and implement policies to the left. And of course a President Obama may, in resistance to pressure to make such a move, order the Guard or the military to fire on protestors on the streets. However, you can take it to the bank that McCain would order such a slaughter if he thought it might end the threat to the status quo.
You speak of this "Police State" as if it could only be created by a Republican. If or when the Elite decides to enforce the police state it will not matter what party is in office.
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
--Sinclair Lewis
And now it seems you cannot get in touch with house members. Every email I have sent has been responded to with a failed to send email, and the house email service is: "currently experiencing an extraordinarily high amount of email traffic. The Write Your Representative function is therefore intermittantly available. While we realize communicating to your Members of Congress is critical, we suggest attempting to do so at a later time, when demand is not so high. System engineers are working to resolve this issue and we appreciate your patience."
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts."
-- John Keats
Yes... been out for a long time. The fact that I can't reach by phone or leave voicemail either leads me to believe that there's something dirty about it all.
Totally pisses me off, especially since my Rep. was one of the cowards and traitors who voted for that cow smore... when he previously gave every indication that he wouldn't.
We need a third and fourth political party for these divisions, red, blue, purple, ?
This is like stopping the Iraq war.
Who is really guilty of causing this financial breakdown?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU6fuFrdCJY&channel=TheMouthPeace
Fascinating! The only problem is that it neglects the equal contribution of the Reps, as sponsors and pushers of the repeal of Glass-Steagall, etc., e.g. Phil "you guys are whiners" Gramm, a key McCain advisor. Or Henry "make me financial emperor" Paulson, an alumnus of Goldman-Sachs (as is Robert Rubin, key Obama advisor).
See, here's the problem. I agree that the Dems (with a few exceptions) are in this whole mess up to their hemorrhoids, but they are PARTNERS with the Reps - same contributors, same school of advisors. Both candidates supported this bailout for the same reasons. With either one you will get a continuation of corporate welfare, just with different colored ribbons attached at various points. If people REALLY want to rebel against this system that is dragging us all down, reject BOTH of them and their cohorts at the polls - that is the surest way to continue this rebellion.
snydly
THE TOP 1% HAS DECIDED TO SAVE THE TOP 1%.
I CAN'T REMEMBER ANOTHER TIME WHEN THE MSM WAS SO CANTED TOWARD AN ISSUE.
PERHAPS NOT SO SURPRISING---EVERY ONE OF THOSE PUNDITS LOST AT LEAST A MILLION YESTERDAY.
THIS VOTE HAS SHOWN US THAT THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM IS NOT A LINE WITH TWO ENDS, BUT A BROKEN CIRCLE WITH THE ENDS CLOSER TO EACH OTHER THAN TO THE "MIDDLE".
LOOKS LIKE A WINNING COMBO---DENNIS/RALPH/RON TRIUMVIRATE PRESIDENCY.
THE THIRD PARTY IS PURPLE...WITH A HEAVY GREEN TINT!
They are trying to push the idea that the American people don't understand the consequences.
Well, what about the over 100 economists that signed a letter and sent it to Bush explaining why they are against this bill, including a few Nobel Prize winners? That seems to have been buried.
This morning I have not seen a single one of them on MSM explaining why this bill is a bad idea and won't fix the problem.
The powers that be are at it again, controlling the debate by controlling the MSM they own.
This is class war..
The People are in a street brawl with Wall Street. The People whose backs were to the wall came out swinging and knocked the Wall Street bully down. Round one to the People.
Round 2 strategy: While the bully is dazed and protecting his head we body punch harder and break his ribs. This is no time for sissy's we are fighting for the defeat of American Fascism and the Banks are the key to killing it. It's time to "Rock Their World."
Stone,
So...Whuz up? You on to the struggle, dude? You be Ali, da 'heavyweight?' Hey, homie? You be watchin' dem HBO fights, eh?
"the government to buy bad mortgages and other rotten assets held by troubled banks and financial institutions". Lets see...Bank of America buys up Country Wide for pennies on the dollar...JPMorgan-Chase gobbles up WaMu for pennies on the dollar.Now we take over all their Bad Debts.....sounds good to me. What's happening is the largest consolidation of power since WWII and The Great Depression.
We are allowing the Bankers to PRIVITIZE PROFITS and SOCIALIZE LOSSES.
I believe it is a mental illness to cause harm to another to make gain. This country has an epidemic of mental illness. I want for this country to find a cure for this dis-ease, fast! In the meantime could these people be removed from society so that they can't cause anyone any more harm? Please???? Pretty please....with sugar on top???
Key progressive House members wrote a letter laying out their criteria for a good bailout. Here are two links to the letter PDF file:
http://pdamerica.org/misc/financialbailout.pdf
http://cpc.lee.house.gov/uploads/09%2025%2008
%20financial%20bailout%20letter%20to%20House%20Dem%20Leadership.pdf
The long link above is split into two parts to keep the line length low.
I hate it when CD goes down while I'm editing my comments. Now I have to paraphrase.
I was for it because it proves the economy requires the populace to prosper, and would eventually tend to their having more claim on it. I am greatly heartened by the public rejection of the proposal. The shituation bodes ill for most people whether the bailout is passed or not. We should credit those who have decided to take it on the chin instead of just taking the easy way out by selling our children.
So what we need to do is gear up for the task, and I think that alone provides a fix. If there is $700 billion for Wall Street, there is $700 billion to invest in ourselves. We could use a Manhattan Project geared toward our CommonWealth rather than toward the personal wealth of the well-to-do. We can invest in education with an eye to restoring it to the pre-eminence it once held. Even Wall Street ponders who will replace scientists who will soon retire. General Motors could compete if we invested some of the $700 billion in Universal Health Care so they didn't have to pay for it with the price of every car they make, and a healthy citizenry is more able to contribute. Our infra-structure is collapsing around us, providing the possibility of many jobs creating CommonWealth. We need to rebuild our energy system and the effort to deal with climate change and address our role in that will also require massive capital investment and comparable labor. Since it is clearly our collective capital which will be invested, it just makes sense to invest it in our CommonWealth.
The Treasury Department could open a new division and hire former brokerage workers to provide the same financial servicing (?) provided by the failed for-personal-profit firms whose collective effort got us here, instead of subsidizing those failures. Those workers will have learned by sad personal experience that when "improvident" passes through "dubious" to become "absurd", they must blow the whistle. We could move towards a rational economy based on values other than simple greed, and return to a government of by and for rather than for the purpose of concentrating obscene levels of wealth on fewer and fewer people who are fundamentally at odds with each other from the beginning.
So if we're willing to engage directly, and get through some hard times, we can take this higher road -- or we can just roll over for more business as usual and bandaides forever for a failed system.
I think we can do it, but there will be a fight and lots of threatening tactics. Mostly, we just have to thumb our nose at the bailout and invest comparably in ourselves. A simple policy statement.
My original comment rang like a bell. Please CD, fix your system to save everything in the works before you pull the plug.
"I hate it when CD goes down while I'm editing my comments."
Create your post in a different application, Bob. I use an email workspace... allows spellchecking as well. When you are satisfied with your post, just copy and paste into CD and click on the "post comment" button. Many of us have experienced that particular frustration you've expressed, either here or elsewhere. You have some available safeguards. Use them.
I agree with you post. We are the solution... not Crime Street.
.Dude, you lost your paragraphs....
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
I've thought the same thing. And all these things...health care, education, alternative energy...are forward looking and won't be a drain on the children to come. Instead of a quick fix, they have a long term vision.
I think I've figured out how economics works! Individuals make as much as possible, those who make more, good for them! So all you working stiffs, work harder, re-educate yourselves. Be all that you can be! Don't forget, when you have a healthy stash, when you can't eat another bite, when you feel a little hollow, shoot a few pennies to the starving people, it's the religious thing to do. You want to go to heaven, don't yah?
What is ironic and perversely amusing about this whole debacle is watching the SA wing of the Republican Party screw the Country Clubbers. The spiritual children of Grandpa Caligula (Jello Biafra's apt description of Ronald Reagan) have come home to roost ever since the Repugs made their House of Saud / Wahhabism style corrupt bargain with nut bag evangelicals in the late 70's.
Time for a French revolution.
I love watching this collapse, it's fascinating. I enjoy seeing the big players sweat and shake with fear. Unfortunately the real hurtin is going to be the poor and those already at the margins of survival, even many in the dwindling middle class. But nothing like hitting the pocketbooks to get people to wake up. Maybe this is the proverbial straw that finally mobilizes a lethargic population to see the power of their numbers.
rebelnow,
Seriously, what affect will this have on you? Do you live in the U.S.? If so, what's your income, and all that? I'm just curious. No offense or suspicion. I mean, I guess, would it hit you in the pocket book, out of your lethargy?
Will this supposed "... Republican revolt against Bush and McCain..." translate into support for Democrats or will people just stay home? I'm beginning to think that Obama is a shoe in, especially considering the idiot that McCain chose as running mate.
Don't think for one minute that CheneyOilCo doesn't have a few more slices of fear to hand out befor November.
... and NO... I refuse to vote for Obama. He did it to himself and continues to prove that my assessment of him is correct. He is NOT worthy of the position.
Problem is, Obama is a member of the corporate crowd also. How else would he get his name on the ballot? Remember...we don't make the choice of who winds up a viable candidate. Corporate America does. That way, no matter who wins the election, the corporations come out well represented.
True, but he's the only candidate with the brains to do it, and the right stuff to restore the hope necessary for it to occur. We have to do our job, which is to prevent anything like the current bailout scheme from happening. He'll read the handwriting, and it is improvident to tell the terrorists where we'll go after them. Even those who worship Mammon cannot prosper, as their plea for a bailout shows, without our strangth. We are the true wealth of our country. Even the green stamps get their value from our participation.
Bob, you are correct. I can't say I like Obama, in fact I don't, but I do believe he is the lesser of the two evils (*sigh* once again we have no real choice.) Mc Altzheimer would turn the economic mess Bu$h has created innto a nightmare the world never has had seen or ever will see again.
Beside, we will likely have some SCOTUS justices appointed during the next term, and I would much rather Obama be making the appointments that either Mc Altzheimer, or more likelly yet, Frau Palin (wolves howling.)
"A White House spokesman said that President Bush was "very disappointed."
My wife and I have not had a great deal of opportunity to celebrate of late... it's been a long dry spell.
We spent the day with friends and celebrated this (perhaps short) victory. The rest of you who have applied yourselves... should take the time to do so as well.
It may be a short lived victory, but we all know how few and far between they have been in the last eight years... so give yourself credit.
We intend to renew efforts starting tomorrow morning... but today is cause for a bit of cheer.
The only real feeling that we could muster for the monkeypuppet's "disappointment", was that perhaps dying from a broken heart was a plausible alternate reality... something we could look forward to.
If he thinks this is a disappointment... wait until he reads a factual account of his "legacy".
Let's see what happens on MARCH 2009 when the House is back regardless who's in the White House. My guess is that the "bailout" will be done in installments.
PEAK "FREE" MARKET 2009 !
the way i see it, george just offered all his buddies one last dip into the public purse just as he and the rest of his gang "ride off into the sunset"..
only that isn't a sunset, it is the bonfire in the middle east, lately being fed with highly flammable and toxic pieces of fuel called derivatives, now main street is filling with smoke from the "big fire",against this background, the arsonists throwing this fuel into the fire, now want us to give them 700 billions of dollars so they will stop throwing stuff into the fire...instead of throwing them in jail for fraud and extortion.
i never thought i would see the day when a sizable core of "modestly wealthy" republicans, along with their democratic cousins of "modest wealth" were the ones to stand up and say no to this obvious scam.
the top politicos, with frantic gesturing and portents of doom and gloom, pressing hard for this bail out to be passed , to me, seem to be the ones who stand to lose.. not the average joe and jane.. joe and jane don't own $500,000,000 stocks in goldman sacks like bernake is reported to own.
where is the conflict of interest in this whole thing..
most of the players in the top rungs of either party are so financially interwoven into the whole mess, they are the last people who should be in charge of cleaning it all up, let alone making the rules of the game as they go along.
one would not be able to sell this whole bail out idea as the plot in a movie, no one would believe the premise.
I have a slightly different take on this bailout:-
I think that wars have increased the national debt to the point where it
is large enough to bring down the economy, bailout or no. Bush and
McCain need a scapegoat for why the economy went down. Now they have
one. They will claim that those who rejected the bill are responsible
for the economic nosedive.
The clause in the bill which permitted spending with no jurisdictions by
any court or any parliamentary oversight is the sort of thing that the
Bushies love. You could guarantee that it WOULD have been be abused.
It WOULD have been abused because the law says that the abuser is immune
from prosecution. It was basically money up for grabs, and much too
tempting for zionist bankers. If the bill passed, then blank cheques
have been written. Free money for the rich at the taxpayers expense.
Man they would party.
But if the bill fails, then they have their scapegoat for the economic
nosedive. Either way, they had nothing to lose.
"The clause in the bill which permitted spending with no jurisdictions by
any court or any parliamentary oversight" may have been an intentional poison pill.
If your take isn't spot on, it's sure close. But let's use the shituation to make lemonaide by retaking control of our nation's wealth.
I have a slightly different take on this bailout:-
I think that wars have increased the national debt to the point where it
is large enough to bring down the economy, bailout or no. Bush and
McCain need a scapegoat for why the economy went down. Now they have
one. They will claim that those who rejected the bill are responsible
for the economic nosedive.
The clause in the bill which permitted spending with no jurisdictions by
any court or any parliamentary oversight is the sort of thing that the
Bushies love. You could guarantee that it WOULD have been be abused.
It WOULD have been abused because the law says that the abuser is immune
from prosecution. It was basically money up for grabs, and much too
tempting for zionist bankers. If the bill passed, then blank cheques
have been written. Free money for the rich at the taxpayers expense.
Man they would party.
But if the bill fails, then they have their scapegoat for the economic
nosedive. Either way, they would not lose.
I have a slightly different take on this bailout:-
I think that wars have increased the national debt to the point where it
is large enough to bring down the economy, bailout or no. Bush and
McCain need a scapegoat for why the economy went down. Now they have
one. They will claim that those who rejected the bill are responsible
for the economic nosedive.
The clause in the bill which permitted spending with no jurisdictions by
any court or any parliamentary oversight is the sort of thing that the
Bushies love. You could guarantee that it WOULD have been be abused.
It WOULD have been abused because the law says that the abuser is immune
from prosecution. It was basically money up for grabs, and much too
tempting for zionist bankers. If the bill passed, then blank cheques
have been written. Free money for the rich at the taxpayers expense.
Man they would party.
But if the bill fails, then they have their scapegoat for the economic
nosedive. Either way, they would not lose.
How I wish Lina Newhouser were here to see Bush get this 'reward!'
How I wish Lina Newhouser were here to see Bush get this 'reward!'
Can we please include Ralph Nader in the next two presidential debates?
Does anyone notice how incredibly slanted this AP piece is?
It calls the No vote 'mind-numbing'.
Huge parts of the article are full of why this should be approved. There is very little mention or quotes from the people who had the majority in the Congress and won this vote. Wouldn't a good bit of reporting be to tell us what the people who voted are saying about WHY they voted this down? But the piece doesn't do that. Instead, after paragraph after paragraph of people saying this must be done, it then jumps to bizarre little bit where it blames a speech by Pelosi for the defeat, and does so without quoting anything from that speech.
I'm guessing most people here no not to trust the AP. But just in case some people haven't caught on to how slanted they are, this is a wonderful example.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
I'll bet all the public people who present themselves to us every day are heavily invested in the forpersonalprofit economy, and they are certainly blinded by assuming it to be the way, truth and light. Katie Couric's characterization of Congress' refusal was almost obscene in it's myopic pronouncements. They just don't see any alternative to what got us here. It doesn't make them bad people, just very sort of ethno-centric.
OK, they did quote the speech with one sentence right at the end. But it was in the last paragraphs of the piece so I didn't see it at first.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Check out the quote from Pelosi at the bottom of the item: "They claim to be free market advocates when it's really an anything-goes mentality: No regulation, no supervision, no discipline. And if you fail, you will have a golden parachute and the taxpayer will bail you out. Those days are over. The party is over."
So, she implies that taxpayers ought not to bailout these failed companies that followed BushCo doctrine, yet she voted for just such a bailout!!
I hope Cindy uses this quote to beat Pelosi over the head, along with all the other great material she has to use against her.
THE "BAIL OUT THE TITANIC" PLAN
OK Everyone.
You Steerage passengers..here are your buckets...now go down to the lower decks and start bailing....
...us 1st Class passengers will be waiting for you in the lifeboats..honest!!
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
[Steny] Hoyer said, "We're certainly not going to abandon our responsibility.”
He's not talking about the responsibility to his constituents, the people that actually are in charge of electing him. Steny Hoyer has gotten more than $35,000 from JPMorgan Chase, see link.
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00001821&cycle=2...
As far as the bailout that will eventually happen, plan for that to appear after the election, when they are all safely entrenched in their seats. I bet it will happen on the sly, probably as a rider attached to a minor bill. And none of us will notice, certainly not the corporate press.
The Wall Street thugs are not hurting. There are several articles on the web about how “small” banks are still lending, how the financial elite are planning on how they can exploit any coming bailout. Check the AP for starters.
It won't happen if we can make the pressure be to fund a Manhattan Project for an economy oriented towards the true wealth of our nation, us. Use the money to gear up, to invest in our CommonWealth instead of making those who got us here feel all safe and sound in their predictable world with our wealth.
If we MUST have a bailout, why not have the richest Americans—the people who have gained the most from this system—do it? The wealthiest 400 Americans—FOUR HUNDRED PEOPLE! --are worth $1.5 trillion. They could put up the first $250 billion and see how it goes. They could put up the whole $1 trillion and still have a billion dollars each to play with. Or we could have the wealthiest 10% of Americans put up 5% or so of their collective $40 trillion in wealth to save Wall Street. The rich can spare 5%, hell they could spare 90% and still have far more than you and me.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
Galbraithe offered that we tax stock transactions (you know, like the sales tax which attaches to most other transactions), so that purchasing these derivative goods would be taxed like buying a new pair of shoes. Speculators would be the most burdened, and long-term investment would be the least burdened. It would also provide real-time data about the market for more sophisticated regulation. These economic movers and shakers can only exist because of the context our society provides, and they can therefor be expected to provide more support for it.
Why have them "donate" it? Confiscate it and apply it towards the "bailout" of the financial firms...AFTER the victims of these scam artists are given resititution for the money they lost as a result of these fraudulent deals in the first place. These billionaires are likely involved in this mess to begin with. Come on...fair is fair. If law enforcement suspects someone of using or dealing illegal drugs, they can confiscate their property without any due process whatsover, then sell the confiscated property and use the funds to support their own law enforcement agency. Sure, it appears to be unconstitutional, but if it is for them, then it is for us too. Can't we do the same thing to these people, or are they more equal than we are because they are rich and have a different system of laws pertaining to them by chance?
It's so extensive that a systemic change is required. Causing them to regurgitate their pelf is something we can do in time. Right now we need to invest this bailout money in our CommonWealth so that we're geared up to tackle a Manhattan Project on the failure of the economy.
We should use the stimulus package Bush vetoed the other day as leverage. It had all kinds of goodies that would have benefited "we the poor people" like infrastructure that would create jobs; school programs, and things like that,and the cost was a drop in the bucket compared to $700 billion. Sign that Mr. Bush, and we'll get your bailout package signed.
Nancy Pelosi's speech torpedoed the bailout she voted for? WTF? I'm delighted the damned thing didn't pass, but I am SO not understanding what Madame Speaker is thinkiing - or not, as the case may be? Can anyone enlighten me?
Have no idea what she is thinking in this case, but in many ways this is standard operating proceedure for her. In other words, her words, her actions as speaker, and her votes often seem very different.
For instance, in this case she acted as speaker to bring this to the floor quickly. Notice what happened to Kucinich's impeachment resolutions to see what happens to a bill the speaker doesn't like. Just the fact that this came up for a vote at all indicates her full support.
Then, since the wealthy are screaming for our money now, and since it was obvious that yes votes would be in short supply, she also voted yes.
Note this is different from say her war votes where she shepparded the bill the floor for the vote, but then voted no herself. The only difference is that this time they were short on votes so she had to vote yes instead of pretending to oppose something.
But, since her constiuents and others are screaming and protesting about the big bailout for wall street, she gave a speech where she was critical of the plan. Note of course that the words matter nothing in comparison to her actions as speaker and her votes.
You see this often with her. She works to do the bidding of her wealthy contributors and to screw the rest of us. But she has to find ways to pretend to be on our side. Especially with Cindy running hard in her district. Thus, the speech where she pretends to be critical of something she obviously supports.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
.Both Pelosi and Bohner agreed to support this unpopular bailout and both said they would share in the blame, then Bohner told his folks to "vote their conscience" apprently intending to stick all the blame with the Dems. Typical GOP tactic, typical Democratic leadership crisis.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
According to NPR she allowed the vote because the Leader of the Repubs told her he had the votes to get it passed. Apparently 12 of the Repub votes he thought would be in favor weren't.
Her head's on the block in November, and since she can't be at home campaigning because of this bailout thing, she's gotta get her digs in where she can? She probably figured no one would care what she said about bush?
If you like the idea of "Throw all the bums out", this isn't a bad thing.
If the people can keep blocking this with their pressure, that helps to keep all the bums up in DC. That's a benefit to anyone running against them. And especially for any independent candidates who are running low-budget campaigns against them.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
"More than two-thirds of Republicans and 40 percent of Democrats opposed the bill."
Why was there a higher percentage of Republicans against this bill than Democrats?
Perhaps it's that Republicans know a tax hike when they see one, even if it's disguised. Then there's the libertarian aspect that was injected into the Republican Platform saying NO to bailing out failing financial institutions. The politics of the whole shebang are quite intriguing.
One thing I notice in these comments is a complete lack of ability to understand who the conservatives really are. There seems to be a cartoon-like image of incredible simplicity about the Republicans that avoids all reality. Repulicans are neocons. Republicans are bad. That's about as far as the ability to think goes.
I'm both older to remember some of the pre-Bush Republican party, and also to have grown up in an area that was very conservative. As such, there's nothing in the Republicans voting against this that surprises me.
Republicans used to be fiscally conservative. Once upon a time, before Dubya, they used to oppose deficits on general principle.
Republicans used to be more committed to the free markets. The ones today still use the rhetoric, just like the Democrats still use FDR-like rhetoric. But the modern Republicans don't follow this as strongly. In other words, to oppose a bailout like this is a very traditional Republican position. Back in the 70's when the bailout of Chrysler was proposed, it was Republicans who largely opposed this on this sort of principle.
Now, today's DC Republicans are probably as corrupt as today's DC Democrats. Ie, both will do what the money wants. But, that doesn't mean that their constituents hold that position. I'd guess that their conservative constituents still hold these old-school positions and have been vocal about this over the weekend.
Note that there is a key lesson here for people on the left. The people on the right are not cartoon stereotypes. And if you look closely at what they think and what they believe, you can often finds points where they oppose the same policies we do. For instance, there is a long-standing tradition amongst conservatives to oppose sending troops overseas for 'nation-building'. When opposing the war, we've probably got allies on the right that we usually ignore. In fact, the Paul campaign showed that as a certainty. As does the 5% or so of support that Bob Barr is getting.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Real Republicans are almost extinct. The Republicans today are just a different kind of Democrat, only difference is they are socially conservative, but they are neo-liberal economists like the Democrats, who believe in Big Government, Wars and Corporate Welfare, same as the Democrats. Democrats talk the talk on social welfare, and pretend to be anti-business, anti-war.
Forget what they say, judge them based on what they do. The verdict is clear to all but party loyalists (20% for Republicans, 20% for Democrats) who support their team, no matter what they do.
The other 60% must put aside our differences and vote against both parties nominees, especially anyone who voted for this abomination.
The sad thing is they just need to change 12 congressmans minds to get this passed. Money will rule in the end. This bill, with a slight change, will pass Tuesday or Wednesday.
Yes, there used to be those types of Republicans. They were fiscally conservative and even pro-civil rights. Alas, that sort of Republican representation hasn't been seen for many years.
I do think the reaction of the House Republicans was a surprise. Their loyalty to party has been firm over the past seven years even as Bush busted the budget and created new bureaucracies and pushed out the biggest deficits on the planet. Not a peep came from the faithful even though all of this supposedly contradicted their philosophy.
It's possible that House Republicans fear their base before an election, but the base is pretty loyal. Republicans risk losing the support "Reagan Democrats" or libertarians, maybe - and that could mean losing in Diebold-style "close races."
I don't think progressives see Republicans in simplistic terms. Republicans really are followers, and they'd just as soon follow their party off a cliff than change their thinking (although that's true of loyal Dems too).
Some observers, such as George Lakoff, have tried to suggest that Republicans are human beings. Republicans, he argues, just like that whole "strict father" mentality, Lakoff says. It's splitting hairs to make that argument, I think.
If your philosopy is savage, then it really does move you away from your humanity.
The bailout is a lot of money. However, if that $700 billion were going to "defense," there probably wouldn't be as much of an objection from Republicans. The idea of helping bankers maybe is just as repugnant to Republicans as helping the poor. It's the philosopical idea of "helping" that they hate, maybe.
In the Republican view, we're not all in the same lifeboat. Those who want a helping hand up can sink and die. They have no problem with this view. I don't think that's an exaggeration.
Rather than put the burden on progressives misunderstanding Republicans, it's probably more fair to say that the rightist agenda that passes for Republican values these days is a mass of contradictions. In the end, it really is a puzzle how so-called states righters can have cheered on Bush's strong budget-busting Federalism. The bailout is just another indication of that. Why are Republicans just now complaining about massive deficit spending?
The common thread that holds them together is that Republicans love authority. The emotional appeal of a strong leader is much more important than fiscal responsibility.
If the poor were just going to take it on the chin, Republicans would have no problem with this bailout. This time, though, it's personal. The rich will "suffer" a little too.
Republicans haven't reached some epiphany. It's just selfish self-preservation. They probably suspect (correctly) that the bailout won't stop the red ink, and only a small set of Wall Street execs will get the public largesse. Normally, pushing public monies to the upper classes doesn't raise Republican objections.
I think the House Republicans rejection is a real mystery. The shameful Democratic support for the bailout is more predictable and requires less explanation perhaps. The Democrats once were thought to be the party that would stand up to protect the interests of the middle class and poor, but no more.
-TIA
There is plenty of blame to go around. Painting any group in black and white is stupid, given that most issues are many shades of grey and the world, many colors. Republicans come as many varieties as do Democrats. Unfortunately, the most obvious offenders on either side become the caricature for all.
Why have the CD Editors taken down comments for Michael "The Fake" Moore's last minute "letter" thats posted here?
Well what do you know...The Eye of Providence on the back of the Bush Buck just blinked!
If the Democrats were the party we need now Kucinich and Senator Sanders would write an alternative economic plan, Obama would endorse it, and all Democrats in House and Senate would pass it.
Bu$h the inferior would veto it and the lack of Republican support would prevent overriding the veto.
The Democrats would bash the Republicans over the head with each part of the bill right up to election day.
Universal health care, conservation, alternative energy, environmental clean up, and end of the occupation of Iraq would be included and the identical bill would be passed and signed on Day 1 of Obama's presidency.
On day 2 Bu$h the inferior, Shotgun Dick and the whole gang would be arrested to be tried in the US and then turned over to the world court for crimes against the rest of the world.
Unfortunately, American politicians once bribed stay bribed so we are still screwed.
Double or even triple the phone calls tell those who voted for this bill Dems or Reps they are out of a job in 5 weeks if they vote to save these greedy bastards. Buy a phone card and use a pay phone if you have to but keep it up 24/7 and don't stop PHONE PHONE PHONE PHONE PHONE PHONE PHONE PHONE PHONE PHONE PHONE PHONE PHONE PHONE PHONE get the message now send the message to these sell outs of America
biwee, don't assume the next vote will pass. The majority of Americans don't wamt this bailout. Good for the House that it didn't pass! Now we have to keep vigilant and not let them sneak it back in sometime in the middle of the night.
The stock market is only down six percent of its worth, so don't panic. It will bounce back again when it adjusts.
This is a victory for true conservatives who honor the Constitution.
It's a victory for all of us, not just for conservatives. This is something which will require all of our efforts and give us a chance to work together to build or CommonWealth instead of just making an offering to the godss of Mammon so that they can feel all warm and secure enough to dole it out in their magnaminity. It's our money! Let's invest it in gearing ourselves up to accomplish a functional economy instead of feathering the malfeasants' pockets. The only way we can fire these folks from "servicing" our economic needs is to not bail them out. So let's not bail them out while we have the chance!
Congress must again learn to fear the People. Let them know that if they vote to bail out the Banks they had better not return to their home states, and if they do, greet them with a homecoming that will shatter their sleep for the remainder of their lives.
KEEP THIS BITCH OFF THE TABLE!
Keep the pressure up.
If they vote for the bailout, it is a vote against the people. Kick them out of office. If they do not leave, you use the old fashion method. You run them out on a rail tar and feathered.
Keep it up Dogface. You're doing a good job. If we stop doing it, the money merchants will win.
Oops, something went wrong with the posting. My apologies.
progressiveparty, what if nobody voted for him?
Nancy Pelosi, the House of Representatives speaker, said: "... the legislation has failed and the crisis is still with us."
Now that the Dems find themselves UNDER the table perhaps it is time to put IMPEACHMENT back ON the table - and not just for the Bush Mis-Administration.
Mendo Chuck
Check and find out how your rep voted.
If they voted NO say Thank You
If They voted YES . . . Then you are voting for there opponent.
Don't let up now. Keep pushing and take advantage of the pressure.
Keep pushing . . . .
My congressperson voted for it but is running unopposed. We can't get rid of him.
What if nobody voted for him?
What if nobody voted for him?
What if nobody voted for him?
The bill will be "tweaked" and resubmitted. The next time, it will pass. You do not think that the Wall Street gang behind this disaster is going to give up, do you?? No, they will have their way; you and your family will suffer either way. However, the era of the NeoCon came to an end today.
We will suffer either way, so let's use our money to invest in ourselves by gearing up for the task. We'll take more than a few lumps, but we've got ingenuity and the possibility of hope. Plausible Deniability will just have them back at the trough with another set of threats somewhere probably not very far down the road. Let's invest in a Manhattan Project to fix the economy rather than just refeathering the nests of them that got us here.
From the folks who got to power promising "NO TAXES"...
...a tax like you've never seen before.
At last, unmasked the "fuquecracy."