No $700B Bailout

bigbadbill

It failed to pass today, 228-205 in the House.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080929/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown

PJ_Saluki

My rep, Jerry Costello (D-IL 12) voted no.

eekamouse

PJ_Saluki wrote:

My rep, Jerry Costello (D-IL 12) voted no.

How can you find out? My rep is Bill Sali from Idaho.

cubbieblue82

Someone posted the link in the other thread...

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml

Looks like your Rep voted against it as did mine (Dan Lipinski IL-3rd District). I've already been on the phone to his office. I would encourage everyone to contact your representatives office and encourage them to get this bill passed.

eekamouse

cubbieblue82 wrote:

Someone posted the link in the other thread...

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml

Looks like your Rep voted against it.

Thank god. At least he's good for something.

mammasan

Well my Rep voted for it. I personally know of about 30-35 people who wrote him not to support the bill but I guess he doesn't give a shit about our votes.

NMyTree

cubbieblue82 wrote:

I would encourage everyone to contact your representatives office and encourage them to get this bill passed.

Why?

Explain why and how this bill, in it's current form, serves my interests and the interests of the American citizens? Please explain how this helps us.

screamingPJ

mammasan wrote:

Well my Rep voted for it. I personally know of about 30-35 people who wrote him not to support the bill but I guess he doesn't give a shit about our votes.

Remember that come election time in just over a month.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

i'm having a hard time seeing this as anything but delaying the inevitable and wasting taxpayer money.

mammasan

Ledbetter9 wrote:

Remember that come election time in just over a month.

He wasn't getting my vote to begin with.

cubbieblue82

NMyTree wrote:

Why?

Explain why and how this bill, in it's current form, serves my interests and the interests of the American citizens? Please explain how this helps us.

Well, as I understand it, there is a severe shortage of available credit due to the failure of the top level banks that is effecting small businesses and other potential borrowers accross the country. While a lot of money, I feel that the cost may wind up being a lot higher if we don't get credit flowing again.

Not sure if this will work, but I have seen some people I respect (ie Warren Buffet) come out in support of the bill. Also, similar situations have happened in the past in other countries (Scandinavia). The government was able to turn it around with a similar strategy, and did eventually recoup their expenses when the market turned around. Thus, based on my limited understanding, I would say that it is a necessary evil.

Can you tell me why you think it should NOT happen? I haven't heard any better ideas, only people trashing this one. It seems clear to me we need to do something.

mammasan

cubbieblue82 wrote:

Well, as I understand it, there is a severe shortage of available credit due to the failure of the top level banks that is effecting small businesses and other potential borrowers accross the country. While a lot of money, I feel that the cost may wind up being a lot higher if we don't get credit flowing again.

Not sure if this will work, but I have seen some people I respect (ie Warren Buffet) come out in support of the bill. Also, similar situations have happened in the past in other countries (Scandinavia). The government was able to turn it around with a similar strategy, and did eventually recoup their expenses when the market turned around. Thus, based on my limited understanding, I would say that it is a necessary evil.

Can you tell me why you think it should NOT happen? I haven't heard any better ideas, only people trashing this one. It seems clear to me we need to do something.

If the problem is small and medium sized businesses not being able to obtain loans then instead give some of that $700 billion to the small business administration to hand out loans. If we are concerned about people loosing their homes then have the government but a freeze on all foreclosures and have people apply to the government for financial aid to pay off the foreclosures. Instead of this being a handout, the money can buy out their existing mortgage and the home owner can negotiate a new loan with the government. By taking this path we will spend far less than $700 billion dollars and the money we do spend will be going directly to the people who need it most.

cubbieblue82

mammasan wrote:

If the problem is small and medium sized businesses not being able to obtain loans then instead give some of that $700 billion to the small business administration to hand out loans. If we are concerned about people loosing their homes then have the government but a freeze on all foreclosures and have people apply to the government for financial aid to pay off the foreclosures. Instead of this being a handout, the money can buy out their existing mortgage and the home owner can negotiate a new loan with the government. By taking this path we will spend far less than $700 billion dollars and the money we do spend will be going directly to the people who need it most.

Those ideas sound good. Why is no one on Capital Hill presenting any real solution then? It just frustrates me to no extent that they are more concerned about getting re-elected than doing something constructive for the economy.

I don't really believe we would be handing out the money though. Wouldn't we be getting equity as a result? It almost sounds like the government is "buying low" and could even recoup the money once there is some turn around.

I read that something like 4-5 congresspeople on either side that were involved in close re-election campaigns voted for the bill. Just pathetic if you ask me.

mammasan

cubbieblue82 wrote:

Those ideas sound good. Why is no one on Capital Hill presenting any real solution then? It just frustrates me to no extent that they are more concerned about getting re-elected than doing something constructive for the economy.

I don't really believe we would be handing out the money though. Wouldn't we be getting equity as a result? It almost sounds like the government is "buying low" and could even recoup the money once there is some turn around.

I read that something like 4-5 congresspeople on either side that were involved in close re-election campaigns voted for the bill. Just pathetic if you ask me.

Yes I'm sure if the government buys these assests they can make money off of them. My problem is not about making money my problem is about accountability. If we bail out Wall St no one will be held accountable for what happened. They will have their slate wiped clean and can continue on their merry way. Meanwhile the countless number of people who have lost jobs, lost pensions, 401ks, stocks, etc... will have to struggle to get back on their feet. Fuck no! They should suffer as well. Help the home owners and help the small to medium sized business. the rest of them can fuck themselves.

PJ_Saluki

I don't want an unelected government official -- Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson -- buying up bad debt, overseen only by other unelected government officials (chairman of the Federal Reserve, the SEC chairman, the Housing Secretary and the Federal Home Finance Agency chairman). Sure, Congress gets to review the thing in five years, but the thing is basically a blank check and who's to say what the financials will be like in five years? Add that to the $200 billion already spent on bailouts and that's close to a $1 trillion. That figure boggles the mind. I read somewhere that if a person stacked 1 trillion $1 bills it would stand 790 miles high! We're also supposed to believe all these no-regulation guys are suddenly going to get their heads together? Kick a poor person off welfare; bail out a company that gambled above its head to line the pockets of a few executives. It just stinks and I'm glad Rep. Costello voted "no." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, "The party is over." She should have added: "For now."

Here's a link that will make you want to puke when you think about the AIG bailout: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/business/28melt.html?scp=1&sq=aig%20london&st=cse

PJTEXAS

I thought John McCain "suspended" his campaign to ride into Washington and play "Maverick" and get this bill passed. Turns out, he made it worse. And then today, Minority Leader John Boehner comes out AFTER the vote and says it's Nancy Pelosi's fault for speaking in a partisan way right before the vote. The stock market loses what esentially adds to 1.2 TRILLION dollars today in the BIGGEST drop in Wall Street history and a few Republicans decided to change their vote at the last minute because someone said something mean to you??!!!! WTF!!!!

It also pisses me off that John McCain wants to take credit for getting Republicans to vote YES to this bill and then it doesn't pass. then Democrats came up with 140 votes to Republicans 65. They only needed 24 more votes to pass this. He then has the audacity to say that Obama just "sat on the sidelines and did nothing". What a jackass!!!

HE was the one that made this a political issue. HE's the one that suspended his campaign, HE'S the one that lied to David Letterman and said he had to rush off to Washington to fix this problem and had to rush to the airport, then went to do a interview with Katie Corric, had dinner with friends in New York that night, stays to give a speech at the CGI meeting the next day, THEN got to Washington by 12:00 noon??!!! Guess it wasn't that important, huh.

Then he injects himself in the process, misses things up, leaves Washington for Georgia and the debate, flys back to Washington and decides not to go to Capital Hill and speak to people in person, but decides to go to his campaign office and call people on the phone.

I just can't wait until Thursday, not only because it's my birthday but for what I hope to get as a gift, that finally everyone will see how much of a fruad and how incompetent Sarah Palin and this whole ticket really is.

meistereder

PJTEXAS wrote:

I thought John McCain "suspended" his campaign to ride into Washington and play "Maverick" and get this bill passed. Turns out, he made it worse. And then today, Minority Leader John Boehner comes out AFTER the vote and says it's Nancy Pelosi's fault for speaking in a partisan way right before the vote. The stock market loses what esentially adds to 1.2 TRILLION dollars today in the BIGGEST drop in Wall Street history and a few Republicans decided to change their vote at the last minute because someone said something mean to you??!!!! WTF!!!!

It also pisses me off that John McCain wants to take credit for getting Republicans to vote YES to this bill and then it doesn't pass. then Democrats came up with 140 votes to Republicans 65. They only needed 24 more votes to pass this. He then has the audacity to say that Obama just "sat on the sidelines and did nothing". What a jackass!!!

HE was the one that made this a political issue. HE's the one that suspended his campaign, HE'S the one that lied to David Letterman and said he had to rush off to Washington to fix this problem and had to rush to the airport, then went to do a interview with Katie Corric, had dinner with friends in New York that night, stays to give a speech at the CGI meeting the next day, THEN got to Washington by 12:00 noon??!!! Guess it wasn't that important, huh.

Then he injects himself in the process, misses things up, leaves Washington for Georgia and the debate, flys back to Washington and decides not to go to Capital Hill and speak to people in person, but decides to go to his campaign office and call people on the phone.

I just can't wait until Thursday, not only because it's my birthday but for what I hope to get as a gift, that finally everyone will see how much of a fruad and how incompetent Sarah Palin and this whole ticket really is.

And the worst part about it is everyone is expecting Palin to be horrible on Thursday, and she'll probably "hold her own." Then people will say she won.

gozzo5058

we're all screwed one way or the other...even up here in canada.

SuzannePjam

So the republicans decided not to vote for the bill because they didn't like the tone of Nancy Pelosi's speech? Like they have never said anything nasty or hurtful towards a democrat? Just ridiculous. The markets dropped almost 800 points this afternoon alone. I hope the people who voted against it get a slice of bread on the bread lines when the economy goes under.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wyl9Ml7bsps

PJTEXAS

SuzannePjam wrote:

So the republicans decided not to vote for the bill because they didn't like the tone of Nancy Pelosi's speech? Like they have never said anything nasty or hurtful towards a democrat? Just ridiculous. The markets dropped almost 800 points this afternoon alone. I hope the people who voted against it get a slice of bread on the bread lines when the economy goes under.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wyl9Ml7bsps

It's gonna get worse tomorrow because they will be off til thursday because of a Jewish Holiday. Unfortunately, the market will still be open and we will see the same thing tomorrow.

SuzannePjam

PJTEXAS wrote:

It's gonna get worse tomorrow because they will be off til thursday because of a Jewish Holiday. Unfortunately, the market will still be open and we will see the same thing tomorrow.

I totally agree. The difference is that everything will plummet, and then all of the senators who said no will rush back to the table to vote the bill in, because they will be afraid of the huge backlash from voters. But who knows to what extent the damage will be from these silly political games?