-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Pelosi vs house republicans
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I think her point was that the then Republican-controlled congress basically rubber-stamped whatever the Bush administration wanted to do for six years. Among the mistakes they made that made it harder for us to react to economic pressures was a fairly simple one of decreasing tax revenues while simultaneously, and dramatically, increasing government spending. And putting aside for a moment whether or not each of us thinks that the spending was justifiable (i.e. the war-related expenses, in particular) I don't understand how anyone who's even heard of economics, let alone studied it, could fail to recognize that it's a bad idea to take in less and spend more.
That said, I think that politics is like comedy... it's all about timing. If (and it's a big if) the primary concern for a majority of congressmen was the passage of this bill, then both sides needed to save their pot-shots and attempts at making political points for another time and place. And if those who voted against it felt that the bailout (this bill and/or any other) was a fundamentally bad idea, then they should have had the conviction and courage to say so.
Some of us in the citizenry were for a bailout, others among us were dead set against it. But one thing that I'd bet most of us could agree on is that we wanted to see our elected leaders actually lead... to tell us what they're proposing and/or doing about the economic crisis and to explain to us why their approach well represents our interests. And that, at the end of the day, is what just about everyone involved, Republican and Democrat alike, has failed to do. They're so damned worried about remaining "reelectable" and pleasing their perceived constituencies that they end up failing to represent them/us.
It's too bad this thing didn't have a reboot button it so that we can just scrap the whole lot of them and start with a fresh batch everytime they got so entrenched in the politics that they lost site of the public service.
If we could actually believe that line of crap she has a point. Except the legislation that this is being pinned on was passed and enacted in 2000. And Bush only had a total rubberstamp for 4 years with a partial for 6. And exactly what has she done about this since coming to power 2 years ago?
This is the problem I have with trying to play partisan politics about this. There is enough blame to go around. To get up on your pedestal and act like your shit doesnt stink is horseshit with such a grave situation.
Sadly you are correct. Politics can be comedy gold. Unfortunately I dont find this situation very funny. :|
Really? All I saw was her telling the truth and the Republicans reacting to negative e-mail from back home to vote against the bill that would save the country, so they did and tried to blame their interest on getting reelected and screwing the country on her. Hey, and she was on the Republican President's side taking his word the bill was needed to save the country. You can see who had the real balls. The Republicans said, "No way I'm saving the country if it means losing my job."
AstroManLuca
Lifer
When in doubt, reach back in history and blame the past presidents from the party you hate.
Also, always blame only the other party instead of realizing that both parties fucked up this time. Pelosi only got 60% of Democrats on board, but Republican leaders in support of the bill (including the President and their presidential candidate) were only able to get 33% support. Those are both pretty poor figures. The economy is not a particularly politically divisive issue - nowhere near as much as most issues are. Those congressmen and women (from both parties) who voted against the bill mostly did so because they wanted to safeguard their ability to get reelected.
Also, always blame only the other party instead of realizing that both parties fucked up this time. Pelosi only got 60% of Democrats on board, but Republican leaders in support of the bill (including the President and their presidential candidate) were only able to get 33% support. Those are both pretty poor figures. The economy is not a particularly politically divisive issue - nowhere near as much as most issues are. Those congressmen and women (from both parties) who voted against the bill mostly did so because they wanted to safeguard their ability to get reelected.
Politicians are pile of crap, but there a limit to everything. What the fvck is wrong with her. All this while Nancy wise and beautiful woman Pelosi was yelling all over the TV that its bipartisan? its bipartisan, then at the last moment she just could not control herself just like her legs, she just could not keep her mouth closed. Now its probably going to cost mils of jobs?
That's utter bullshit. The bill, itself, is piss poor. It bails out the big money guys, but it falls far short of providing meaningful, enforcable protection for real people provides no adequate oversight of Paulson and whoever follows him.
A fix that doesn't fix the problem is just more Congressional jacking off. I don't give a rat's ass which avaliable excuse any particular member of Congress gave for voting against it. I'm just glad they did.
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
"Eight years of weakened regulation of our nation's financial system -- including a failure to regulate risky, and often predatory, lending practices -- by the Bush Administration and Republicans in Congress have led us to this point, and could further erode our nation's economic health." - Nancy Pelosi
"All I saw was her telling the truth..." - Moonbeam
You've got to be kidding...she told a big fat lie dude !!! Come on...you're smarter than that...right?
theeedude
Lifer
I am gonna take Republicans at their word that they voted against this bill based not on their convictions but on Pelosi's speech. Which of course means they are PATHETIC, and need to be tossed out of their seats. They need to either stand by their votes and stop blaming Pelosi for their own decisions, or get the hell out and let someone else make decisions based on merits, not some emo BS.
ranmaniac
Golden Member
Given the opposition from the public, a lot of these representatives are obviously nervous about losing their seats in an election season. If this bailout plan had been presented two months from now or last year, it probably would have passed without as nearly much resistance.
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
I heard that there were approximately 12 (R) Senators "on the fence" who's votes "may" have swung based on Pelosi's partisan diatribe. I haven't seen anything concrete (just conjecture0 saying they all voted against it based solely on her inflamatory comments. Pelosi is a complete idiot and if anyone's pathetic in this whole debacle...it's her. Take off those rose colored glasses dude and get real.
Wrong as usual.
FNC
? Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN): ?We are not babies who suck their thumbs.?
? Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO): ?I think you don?t want to give too much blame to that speech.?
? Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ): ?It was embarrassing for leadership on both parties to lose the bill, so they went out and made a stupid claim.?
? Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN): ?That speech was not the reason I voted against the bill.? [MSNBC, 9/30/08]
Link
But you don't really care what's right or wrong, you can't accept the fact that your heroes, champions of deregulation, had a very, very large hand in what we are dealing with today.
AstroManLuca
Lifer
No kidding.
Say what you will about both parties, Doc Savage Fan, but I don't think it's a very good idea to try to DEFEND your precious Republicans by saying that it's all Nancy Pelosi's fault for giving a mean speech that made some of them jump ship. Doesn't that reflect much more poorly on the Republicans than on the Democrats? I mean, what you're saying is that while the Democrats might be needlessly partisan, the Republicans are hopelessly stupid and weak-minded.
I know you think you're doing them a favor by deflecting criticism away from the Republicans who voted against the bill and directing it toward the hated Pelosi. But it doesn't really work out. As the above-quoted Republicans state, they are not "babies," and the speech didn't change their minds.
Seriously. If these people were going to vote for the bill before, then they must have thought it was a good idea. If someone gives a speech that makes you mad so you change your mind about such an important issue you don't deserve your seat in the House. In fact, I wish there was a way we could remove them immediately instead of having to wait for November.
As I said before, I don't believe it's true. It was just Boehner trying to find a way to pin it on Democrats. If it is true, then it is some of the most pathetic governance I have ever seen. First of all, I listened to the speech and it wasn't that big a deal. Even if it was though, I don't care if Nancy Pelosi is goose stepping up and down the aisles, on a bill this important you vote how you think is right, not because someone took away your lollipop.
AstroManLuca
Lifer
At most, the speech hardened a few representatives' resolve to vote against it. Not sure if anything could have made them change their minds. The fact that the Republican president endorsed the bill tells me that they probably wouldn't have budged unless the bill was changed.
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
Then you totally missed my point...I used the word "may" and the phrase "I haven't seen anything concrete" to point out how little we actually "know" vs. what is shear speculation. And we'll never know for sure will we? My point was directed solely at Pelosi for saying something incredibly stupid. Kapeesh?
Why would you say that I don't care what is right or wrong? You twist my words into a meaning I never intended and then conlude I don't care what is right or wrong? WTF. Did I hurt your feelings when I criticized Pelosi? Is she your hero?
BTW...over the years both Reps and Dems have had a large hand in what we're dealing with right now. And Dems have zero room to solely criticize Reps on this issue since they shot down Rep efforts to more strictly regulate this industry on at least two occasions. If you do your homework...you'll find that the Dems wanted less strict financial constraints while the Reps wanted more. But that little fact may elude those that truly don't care about what's right or wrong.
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
Well...it's not true.
Here's a cut/edit/paste job from my post in the "The Financial Crisis - it's the Bushwack?" Much of the info is from Wowwiki and the links are in the original post. Here's a little history that may interest those who actually want to know a little more about what happened:
The Community Reinvestment Act was passed by the 95th United States Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1977 as a result of national grassroots pressure for affordable housing, and despite considerable opposition from the mainstream banking community
Congressional Changes of 1989
The Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) was enacted by the 101st Congress and signed into law by President G. H. W. Bush in the wake of the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s. It increased public oversight of the process.
Clinton Administration Changes of 1995
In early 1993 President Bill Clinton ordered new regulations for the CRA which would increase access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities. This substantially increased the number and aggregate amount of loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans, some of which were "risky mortgages".
Clinton Administration 1999
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.
Bush Administration 2003
Recommended significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. A new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
Congressional Democrats opposed it fearing tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
GW Bush Administration Changes of 2005
Bush Administration recommended that a new Department of the Treasury agency should supervise the primary agents guaranteeing subprime loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Democrats opposed it and the proposal eventually failed.
*******************************
This is why I'm pissed off at Pelosi for blaming the crisis totally on the Republicans?and it's mind boggling that people actually take her lie at face value without checking any facts !!! Partisan politics FTL...as usual.
So Doc, why did you ignore the Republican sponsored repeal of regulations at the end of the Clinton presidency, why did you ignore the relatively small amount of the bad loans that were CRA related, and why did you neglect to mention that CRA only covered community banks instead of the large mortgage firms that did the vast, vast majority of the subprime lending?
In short, stop presenting one side of the story.
EDIT: From someone who claims to be nonpartisan your previous post is shameful.
EDIT again: This isn't to say that the Democrats don't share plenty of blame for what happened, but your post seems to cut out an awful lot of blame that the Republicans richly deserve. I for one am getting pretty sick of the finger pointing when both parties are so obviously guilty.
In short, stop presenting one side of the story.
EDIT: From someone who claims to be nonpartisan your previous post is shameful.
EDIT again: This isn't to say that the Democrats don't share plenty of blame for what happened, but your post seems to cut out an awful lot of blame that the Republicans richly deserve. I for one am getting pretty sick of the finger pointing when both parties are so obviously guilty.
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
My point was not to solely blame Dems...it was to expose Pelosi's lie. I've said all along that both Dems and Reps were responsible for this fiasco.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
