Bailout bill failing in House

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Excellent... we finally have one of those amazing buying opportunities that I've been waiting for!

I think that I'm going to buy a shitload of Apple stock tomorrow while it's cheap.

I don't think tomorrow is the day to buy. I'm of the feeling that the worst has yet to come.

I'm waiting for the DOW to drop below 10k.

I think that the market will rebound once they come up with a practical bailout package later this week. The time to buy is soon!

That's what I'm thinking - dumbed a little more into my Roth IRA a few minutes ago (so it will be about 2 days before the transfer is completed). Plus, being in it for the long run, I'll still be buying lower relative to when I'll retire in 40+ years.

 

[Lemon law]

Lets see if I can get my arms around this, according to Boenher, if Polosi had kept her big yap shut, the bail out would have of passed.

Oh dear, what can the matter be, Boehner has locked Pelosi in the lavatory, and no one knows she is there. Oh Barney you can't save her there, the GOP 12 will waver there, and now one can find them there.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: Drakkon
Theory friend and i were discussing:
At last minute Pelosi did her speech to make the bill fail. She knew the numbers on her side and the rep side. She knew if she threw a bomb it could throw the reps off. By doing so shes thrown the issue to the forefront. She brought her dems to the table...delivered 2/3rds. The republicans couldn't ban together and it makes McCain look like his party is in disarray as they said they were at the table all along. Obama gained 5 points this weekend. So long as the economy is at the forefront Obama seems to gain. By making this bill fail the first time Pelosi has given the dems a huge advantae this week. The economy becomes the discussion, the debate this week will focus on economy no doubt, and Obama if he can manage to keep keep his people in line will gain a signifigant advantage.

She brought 60% to the table. 60% of the majority party coming to the table is an ABYSMAL job for a House Speaker and Majority Leadership.

How is 30% for the Republican leadership, for a bill from their own party's White House?

I say again, your call for leadership to be able to force these votes is calling for corruption.

The bill isnt from the White House. The Bill is very much democratic written. This isnt about Bush. We all know hes incompetent.The House GOP started breaking away from Bush long ago. And for the last damn time its not corruption. Its called negotiating.

Promises, promises.

First, it's a White House plan. It was created by them, and then adjusted in negotiations, maintaining its main components, and continuing to have strong White House agreement.

Second, you are calling for members who have 100 to 1 public opinion against the bill, to have the leadership 'offer them carrots' to change their vote.

You insist that's not corruption but negotiation. Negotiation is when Pelosi says "I'd like there to be funding for ACORN, but I see you Republicans are strongly against that, and since it's not critical to the bill, I'll remove it to get you to agree to voting for the bill instead of letting ACORN block agreement, as long as you agree to the CEO pay caps democrats want."

That's not what you're calling for. You're calling for "carrots" that ask members to vote against their principles and/or strong constituent wishes. I.e., Bribery.

An example? In the Medicare drug bill vote that Republicans hels open unlike any bill in American history, all night to try to arm twist the votes needed, you had one Republican say the leadership had told him they'd destroy his son's chances to run for office if he didn't change his vote but would back him and offer $100,000 to the campaign if he changed his vote. That's corruption, and it's what you're calling for.

Call it what you want, but if you want to get elected, stay elected, move up, and get the good committee assignments, you vote with your party when the leadership tells you to vote with your party.

Chet Edwards probably got 500 calls against for every 1 for. He voted yes.
Al Green has no republican opponent in November. He voted no.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Excellent... we finally have one of those amazing buying opportunities that I've been waiting for!

I think that I'm going to buy a shitload of Apple stock tomorrow while it's cheap.

I don't think tomorrow is the day to buy. I'm of the feeling that the worst has yet to come.

I'm waiting for the DOW to drop below 10k.

I think that the market will rebound once they come up with a practical bailout package later this week. The time to buy is soon!

That's what I'm thinking - dumbed a little more into my Roth IRA a few minutes ago (so it will be about 2 days before the transfer is completed). Plus, being in it for the long run, I'll still be buying lower relative to when I'll retire in 40+ years.

Yeah, except every day they delay could potentially cost billions of dollars. Friday, WaMu went down. Today, Wachovia went down. That's billions of dollars that the government is now absorbing. The bailout package will cost nothing compared to this continued bickering.

 

[Insomniator]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
I agree with Jeffrey Miron's view.

I've been saying all along don't bail them out. Why should the government provide funds to incompetent people who couldn't run these institutions properly to begin with? A bailout is not going to solve the problem. In the spirit of tough love, I hope the bailout does not pass.

:thumbsup:

this

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Roll Call for the House vote: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml

Im suprised at some of the Dems voting no...

Of course you are, because the only thing you know about the dems generally are the straw men you have.

If a little old lady fell down in the street and a dem stopped to help. you would probably be surprised they didn't grab her purse, start to run, go back and kick her, then run.

I know more about Texas Politics than you do. And yes it is very suprising that certain Texas Dems voted no.

Well, why don't you post the reasons they gave for their vote, and the theory you have for why they would not vote no?

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Lets see if I can get my arms around this, according to Boenher, if Polosi had kept her big yap shut, the bail out would have of passed.

Oh dear, what can the matter be, Boehner has locked Pelosi in the lavatory, and no one knows she is there. Oh Barney you can't save her there, the GOP 12 will waver there, and now one can find them there.

Frank needs to go ask, Green, Green, and Jackson-Lee why the fuck they voted no before bothering a single republican.

Again its ludicris to expect a minority party to bring out the vote, if the majority party cannot even muster 60%.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
I agree with Jeffrey Miron's view.

I've been saying all along don't bail them out. Why should the government provide funds to incompetent people who couldn't run these institutions properly to begin with? A bailout is not going to solve the problem. In the spirit of tough love, I hope the bailout does not pass. No further enabling necessary. :roll:

Thanks for the link. :thumbsup:

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Wreckem
[Call it what you want, but if you want to get elected, stay elected, move up, and get the good committee assignments, you vote with your party when the leadership tells you to vote with your party.

Chet Edwards probably got 500 calls against for every 1 for. He voted yes.
Al Green has no republican opponent in November. He voted no.

Now I understand. Because the members get election assistance and good committee assignments for voting against principles and/or constitutents, it's not corruption.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Drakkon
Theory friend and i were discussing:
At last minute Pelosi did her speech to make the bill fail. She knew the numbers on her side and the rep side. She knew if she threw a bomb it could throw the reps off. By doing so shes thrown the issue to the forefront. She brought her dems to the table...delivered 2/3rds. The republicans couldn't ban together and it makes McCain look like his party is in disarray as they said they were at the table all along. Obama gained 5 points this weekend. So long as the economy is at the forefront Obama seems to gain. By making this bill fail the first time Pelosi has given the dems a huge advantae this week. The economy becomes the discussion, the debate this week will focus on economy no doubt, and Obama if he can manage to keep keep his people in line will gain a signifigant advantage.

Looks like your tinfoil hat is too tight and starting to pinch off the blood supply.

Do you have a better explanation for her total lack of judgment and complete lunacy?

Yeah, that she honestly believes that Bush has been a lousy President and that "Main Street" should not be forced to suffer for the faults of Wall Street.

This shit is pretty weak. You hacks are falling on kindgergarten tactics. Grandstanding speeches are a common everyday thing in the House, and whatever Pelosi said did not change what was already in the bill.

LOL Mr. "Malign-Both-Sides" is the worst apologist of them all. NO ONE should stand for what happened today, Democrat or Republican. The fact that you're willing to only sheds light on how truly biased you are. We're *all* a bunch of hacks, but you're our leader.

:roll:

Thanks for the duh-version for a stupid conspiracy theory, but I had already taken note that my Democratic congressman, David Wu, voted against the bill. He probably thinks he can get away with it because he is running unopposed this year (literally, the Republican candidate got booted off the ticket by his own party after he endorsed Obama, and he's now running as an independent).
Still, he's lost my vote for what good that will be.

I will repeat again, whatever Pelosi may have said in her little speech before the vote did not change what was in the bill. Certainly not enough to make 67% of the Pubs vote against it after McCain and Bush promised to bring their votes on board.

Is this clear, or does unbiased to you mean that I have to be fair to both parties even when reality clearly demonstrates unequal levels of blame? Is this to be 'fair' in the liberal grade school teacher definition then?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Lets see if I can get my arms around this, according to Boenher, if Polosi had kept her big yap shut, the bail out would have of passed.

Oh dear, what can the matter be, Boehner has locked Pelosi in the lavatory, and no one knows she is there. Oh Barney you can't save her there, the GOP 12 will waver there, and now one can find them there.

Frank needs to go ask, Green, Green, and Jackson-Lee why the fuck they voted no before bothering a single republican.

Again its ludicris to expect a minority party to bring out the vote, if the majority party cannot even muster 60%.

The Republicans shoud base their vote on the Democrats, and the more the Democrats are in favor, the more the Republicans should then be in favor?

As I said before, you are simply attacking demcorats because of your orientation, and not on any facts or logic.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Wreckem
[Call it what you want, but if you want to get elected, stay elected, move up, and get the good committee assignments, you vote with your party when the leadership tells you to vote with your party.

Chet Edwards probably got 500 calls against for every 1 for. He voted yes.
Al Green has no republican opponent in November. He voted no.

Now I understand. Because the members get election assistance and good committee assignments for voting against principles and/or constitutents, it's not corruption.

Do you even understand the concept of Politics?

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Lets see if I can get my arms around this, according to Boenher, if Polosi had kept her big yap shut, the bail out would have of passed.

Oh dear, what can the matter be, Boehner has locked Pelosi in the lavatory, and no one knows she is there. Oh Barney you can't save her there, the GOP 12 will waver there, and now one can find them there.

Frank needs to go ask, Green, Green, and Jackson-Lee why the fuck they voted no before bothering a single republican.

Again its ludicris to expect a minority party to bring out the vote, if the majority party cannot even muster 60%.

The Republicans shoud base their vote on the Democrats, and the more the Democrats are in favor, the more the Republicans should then be in favor?

As I said before, you are simply attacking demcorats because of your orientation, and not on any facts or logic.

Nope, its all based on American Party Politics.

As for Republicans basing their vote on Democrats? Are you stupid? I never said that. But it is only logical if you cannot get one ideology to agree , you probably wont be getting the opposing ideology to agree either.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Excellent... we finally have one of those amazing buying opportunities that I've been waiting for!

I think that I'm going to buy a shitload of Apple stock tomorrow while it's cheap.

I don't think tomorrow is the day to buy. I'm of the feeling that the worst has yet to come.

I'm waiting for the DOW to drop below 10k.

I think that the market will rebound once they come up with a practical bailout package later this week. The time to buy is soon!

That's what I'm thinking - dumbed a little more into my Roth IRA a few minutes ago (so it will be about 2 days before the transfer is completed). Plus, being in it for the long run, I'll still be buying lower relative to when I'll retire in 40+ years.

Yeah, except every day they delay could potentially cost billions of dollars. Friday, WaMu went down. Today, Wachovia went down. That's billions of dollars that the government is now absorbing. The bailout package will cost nothing compared to this continued bickering.

What billions is the fed absorbing from those two banks being bought by other banks? Honest question.

 

[Glavinsolo]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Excellent... we finally have one of those amazing buying opportunities that I've been waiting for!

I think that I'm going to buy a shitload of Apple stock tomorrow while it's cheap.

I don't think tomorrow is the day to buy. I'm of the feeling that the worst has yet to come.

I'm waiting for the DOW to drop below 10k.

I think that the market will rebound once they come up with a practical bailout package later this week. The time to buy is soon!

That's what I'm thinking - dumbed a little more into my Roth IRA a few minutes ago (so it will be about 2 days before the transfer is completed). Plus, being in it for the long run, I'll still be buying lower relative to when I'll retire in 40+ years.

Yeah, except every day they delay could potentially cost billions of dollars. Friday, WaMu went down. Today, Wachovia went down. That's billions of dollars that the government is now absorbing. The bailout package will cost nothing compared to this continued bickering.

Wachovia and WaMu were bought. Nothing has changed. Nothing has hit the FDIC.

If you want to truly fix the problems we are having, the best thing you can do is educate yourself on how we got here and how those in power during the great depression got out of it.

Personal gain should be at the back of everyone's mind. We are all responsible and we all need to work together to fix this.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Drakkon
Theory friend and i were discussing:
At last minute Pelosi did her speech to make the bill fail. She knew the numbers on her side and the rep side. She knew if she threw a bomb it could throw the reps off. By doing so shes thrown the issue to the forefront. She brought her dems to the table...delivered 2/3rds. The republicans couldn't ban together and it makes McCain look like his party is in disarray as they said they were at the table all along. Obama gained 5 points this weekend. So long as the economy is at the forefront Obama seems to gain. By making this bill fail the first time Pelosi has given the dems a huge advantae this week. The economy becomes the discussion, the debate this week will focus on economy no doubt, and Obama if he can manage to keep keep his people in line will gain a signifigant advantage.

Looks like your tinfoil hat is too tight and starting to pinch off the blood supply.

Do you have a better explanation for her total lack of judgment and complete lunacy?

Yeah, that she honestly believes that Bush has been a lousy President and that "Main Street" should not be forced to suffer for the faults of Wall Street.

This shit is pretty weak. You hacks are falling on kindgergarten tactics. Grandstanding speeches are a common everyday thing in the House, and whatever Pelosi said did not change what was already in the bill.

LOL Mr. "Malign-Both-Sides" is the worst apologist of them all. NO ONE should stand for what happened today, Democrat or Republican. The fact that you're willing to only sheds light on how truly biased you are. We're *all* a bunch of hacks, but you're our leader.

:roll:

Thanks for the duh-version for a stupid conspiracy theory, but I had already taken note that my Democratic congressman, David Wu, voted against the bill. He probably thinks he can get away with it because he is running unopposed this year (literally, the Republican candidate got booted off the ticket by his own party after he endorsed Obama, and he's now running as an independent).
Still, he's lost my vote for what good that will be.

I will repeat again, whatever Pelosi may have said in her little speech before the vote did not change what was in the bill. Certainly not enough to make 67% of the Pubs vote against it after McCain and Bush promised to bring their votes on board.

Is this clear, or does unbiased to you mean that I have to be fair to both parties even when reality clearly demonstrates unequal levels of blame? Is this to be 'fair' in the liberal grade school teacher definition then?

Well, we disagree on one fundamental point, and that's whether or not Pelosi's speech changed anything. I believe it took was was going to be a marginal pass to a fail. But regarding you specifically, the fact that you've given her a complete pass is rather shocking. Not the time and place for her grandstanding.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Wreckem
[Call it what you want, but if you want to get elected, stay elected, move up, and get the good committee assignments, you vote with your party when the leadership tells you to vote with your party.

Chet Edwards probably got 500 calls against for every 1 for. He voted yes.
Al Green has no republican opponent in November. He voted no.

Now I understand. Because the members get election assistance and good committee assignments for voting against principles and/or constitutents, it's not corruption.

Do you even understand the concept of Politics?

Yes, and you don't but think you do, and that's why there's disagreement. Here's a hint for you: democracy does not mean a Congress filled with rubber stamps for leadership.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Glavinsolo
how those in power during the great depression got out of it.

by bombing the crap out of the rest of the industrialized world.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Wreckem
[Call it what you want, but if you want to get elected, stay elected, move up, and get the good committee assignments, you vote with your party when the leadership tells you to vote with your party.

Chet Edwards probably got 500 calls against for every 1 for. He voted yes.
Al Green has no republican opponent in November. He voted no.

Now I understand. Because the members get election assistance and good committee assignments for voting against principles and/or constitutents, it's not corruption.

Do you even understand the concept of Politics?

Yes, and you don't but think you do, and that's why there's disagreement. Here's a hint for you: democracy does not mean a Congress filled with rubber stamps for leadership.

Congress isnt a Democracy.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Insomniator

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
I agree with Jeffrey Miron's view.

I've been saying all along don't bail them out. Why should the government provide funds to incompetent people who couldn't run these institutions properly to begin with? A bailout is not going to solve the problem. In the spirit of tough love, I hope the bailout does not pass.

:thumbsup:

this

The simple fact that banks will become extremely conservative in lending after they go into bankruptcy blows his argument out of the water.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Drakkon
Theory friend and i were discussing:
At last minute Pelosi did her speech to make the bill fail. She knew the numbers on her side and the rep side. She knew if she threw a bomb it could throw the reps off. By doing so shes thrown the issue to the forefront. She brought her dems to the table...delivered 2/3rds. The republicans couldn't ban together and it makes McCain look like his party is in disarray as they said they were at the table all along. Obama gained 5 points this weekend. So long as the economy is at the forefront Obama seems to gain. By making this bill fail the first time Pelosi has given the dems a huge advantae this week. The economy becomes the discussion, the debate this week will focus on economy no doubt, and Obama if he can manage to keep keep his people in line will gain a signifigant advantage.

Looks like your tinfoil hat is too tight and starting to pinch off the blood supply.

Do you have a better explanation for her total lack of judgment and complete lunacy?

Yeah, that she honestly believes that Bush has been a lousy President and that "Main Street" should not be forced to suffer for the faults of Wall Street.

This shit is pretty weak. You hacks are falling on kindgergarten tactics. Grandstanding speeches are a common everyday thing in the House, and whatever Pelosi said did not change what was already in the bill.

LOL Mr. "Malign-Both-Sides" is the worst apologist of them all. NO ONE should stand for what happened today, Democrat or Republican. The fact that you're willing to only sheds light on how truly biased you are. We're *all* a bunch of hacks, but you're our leader.

:roll:

Thanks for the duh-version for a stupid conspiracy theory, but I had already taken note that my Democratic congressman, David Wu, voted against the bill. He probably thinks he can get away with it because he is running unopposed this year (literally, the Republican candidate got booted off the ticket by his own party after he endorsed Obama, and he's now running as an independent).
Still, he's lost my vote for what good that will be.

I will repeat again, whatever Pelosi may have said in her little speech before the vote did not change what was in the bill. Certainly not enough to make 67% of the Pubs vote against it after McCain and Bush promised to bring their votes on board.

Is this clear, or does unbiased to you mean that I have to be fair to both parties even when reality clearly demonstrates unequal levels of blame? Is this to be 'fair' in the liberal grade school teacher definition then?

Well, we disagree on one fundamental point, and that's whether or not Pelosi's speech changed anything. I believe it took was was going to be a marginal pass to a fail. But regarding you specifically, the fact that you've given her a complete pass is rather shocking. Not the time and place for her grandstanding.

Where did I give her a complete pass?

More like you're giving the Republicans a complete pass. They need to take some responsibility for their actual votes, instead of whining and passing blame about some stupid speech that changed nothing about the bill itself.

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Excellent... we finally have one of those amazing buying opportunities that I've been waiting for!

I think that I'm going to buy a shitload of Apple stock tomorrow while it's cheap.

I don't think tomorrow is the day to buy. I'm of the feeling that the worst has yet to come.

I'm waiting for the DOW to drop below 10k.

I think that the market will rebound once they come up with a practical bailout package later this week. The time to buy is soon!

That's what I'm thinking - dumbed a little more into my Roth IRA a few minutes ago (so it will be about 2 days before the transfer is completed). Plus, being in it for the long run, I'll still be buying lower relative to when I'll retire in 40+ years.

Yeah, except every day they delay could potentially cost billions of dollars. Friday, WaMu went down. Today, Wachovia went down. That's billions of dollars that the government is now absorbing. The bailout package will cost nothing compared to this continued bickering.

What billions is the fed absorbing from those two banks being bought by other banks? Honest question.

The bought out banks are not going to be involved in being bailed out. This is a normal process where salvageable institutions get bought by stronger banks. Let the others go bankrupt and do not bail them out. What is salvageable will be acquired by the private sector without needing to involve the government and create new debt and tax burdens for Americans.

 

[Wreckem]

Wow what leadership the Democrats are showing. The House is adjourned until Thursday.

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Insomniator

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
I agree with Jeffrey Miron's view.

I've been saying all along don't bail them out. Why should the government provide funds to incompetent people who couldn't run these institutions properly to begin with? A bailout is not going to solve the problem. In the spirit of tough love, I hope the bailout does not pass.

:thumbsup:

this

The simple fact that banks will become extremely conservative in lending after they go into bankruptcy blows his argument out of the water.

Conservative lending is what this country might need for awhile, vs. making agressive loans to people who are not qualified borrowers. In your view I hear that things should be business as usual, even though that's what got us into this mess? Do I understand you correctly?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Glavinsolo
how those in power during the great depression got out of it.

by bombing the crap out of the rest of the industrialized world.

When the labor organizations are overpowered, the project needs massive labor - workers, assistants, supervisors, supervisors for the supervisors.

When the finance industry is overpowered, it's all about finance, with big cuts each step along the way, with plenty of exotic financial products creating yet more cycling of dollars.

When the tech industry is overpowered, the project needs state of the art computerization, with all kinds of systems replacing cheaper and simpler processes.

When the 'process people' are overpowered, there are central committees issuing guidelines and 'systems' for everything, step by step, with lots of monitoring.

Today, it's the finance industry that's overpowered (while labor struggles), and we see finance haivng years of big influence on government policy, allowing them to monopolize.

Anyone who has had access to public companies' executives has understood how the companies are designing the company strategy around Wall Street's dictates, for the short term quarterly profits, and not the interest of the company's longer term planning, so Wall Street can make a little more money faster.

You make more when you leverage more - and it goes well. Wall Street has abused leverage, it seems, and now wants the taxpayer to pay for it.

I'm not saying that it's not a real issue we're being warned about, but I'm not seeing enough yet of how to fix the excess of power and abuse as part of the bailout.