Bailout fails in House 6

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Russ Posted 6:23 am
   29 Sep 2008

   GOODI've been thinking alot about this proposition that Wall Street needs $1 trillion+ bailout because otherwise they're going to feel bad and crash the world economy, and it's been making me more and more sick.
   To me they look like a gang of terrorists holding us all hostage, threatening to blow up the world if we don't hand over the loot.
   What other way is there to look at them?
   I say, if they want to commit suicide, let them, and we'll see how bad it really is for the rest of us.
   Paying this ransom wouldn't have worked anyway. Next week it would've just been another thing. Auto loans, credit cards, who knows?
   I bet they'll end up pulling themselves together anyway.

   Permalink

2. 

   Jon Rynn Posted 7:18 am
   29 Sep 2008

   Has anyone noticedthat more Democrats voted against this than Republicans?  Why has noone in the mainstream press -- or any press that I can find -- not been interviewing the Kucinich's and DeFazio's, the very liberal members of Congress, who are against this, and all they do is interview Republicans?  This would have passed if the left-wing of the Democratic caucus had voted for it, no?

   Permalink

3. 

   Bob Wallace Posted 8:11 am
   29 Sep 2008

   Don't think so...I understand that when it became obvious that the Republicans weren't delivering the 90 or so votes that they had promised a number of Democrats changed their votes to Nay.
   This thing is obviously political dynamite ane we're only a few weeks from all of these folks having to stand for reelection.  Terrible timing.
   We the elections several months away this would be easier to do.  
   --
   We can let some financial institutions fail and we have.  But we can't stand back and do nothing.  We tried that approach during the Great Depression.
   It obviously wasn't a good idea.

   Permalink

4. 

   Jon Rynn Posted 8:24 am
   29 Sep 2008

   ApparentlyDems that were in "safe" seats were pressured to vote with the plan, according to Robert Borosage, while those in tough races could vote however they wanted, thus there were 140 (actually 141) Dems that voted for it.  Borosage notes that the Progressive Caucus, a group of the most left Dems, split their vote 50-50.  I thought Borosage's post pointed to a good solution -- it may be that the Dems should try to come up with something that they all like, see if Bush will go for it, and then pass it -- something like taking over failing firms (as opposed to bailing them out), transaction tax, redoing failing mortgages, etc.

   Permalink

5. 

   Bob Wallace Posted 9:05 am
   29 Sep 2008

   I'm not sure that's a good solution...If the Dems vote this past the Repugs then they would pay a price in the upcoming elections.  
   It's going to be a while to see if any bill that would pass would fix things.  And it easily could be a flawed bill that will take subsequent fixes.
   For the next few weeks it's going to be easy to claim that the people who voted for the bill voted against America.  
   BTW, people really should read the dastardly attack Pelosi made on the Republicans.  If you do you will be easily able to see why they withdrew the support they had promised.
   She made such boldfaced attacks as...
   "Let us be clear: This is a crisis caused on Wall Street. But it is a crisis that reaches to Main Street in every city and town of the United States."
   "Over the past several days, we have worked with our Republican colleagues to fashion an alternative to the original plan of the Bush Administration."
   "Today we must act for those Americans, for Main Street, and we must act now, with the bipartisan spirit of cooperation which allowed us to fashion this legislation."
   Under fire from such outrageous attacks one can see why the Republicans had to go back on their promise to support.
   Read the rest of this incredible attack for yourselves....
   http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/09/rep_pelosis_rem ...
   
   

   Permalink

6. 

   stevenearlsalmony Posted 12:36 am
   30 Sep 2008

   Why are only American taxpayers bailing out..............the whole global economy?
   A billion members of the human family exist on resources valued at less than one dollar per day.  Africa is suffering from "slow drip" problems.  Europe is getting warmer fast.  Arctic ice is retreating and the arctic coast of Alaska is eroding.
   Where are the new ideas, the financial backing, and the innovations needed to address these problems?  There are tens of trillions of dollars in the global human economy.  Where has all that money gone?
   The front page of the NYTimes tells the family of humanity that we are on the verge of a global economic catastrophe.  Are the taxpayers of the American family, acting alone, to become responsible for the problems now presented to the human community by the greed of a small group of rich and powerful people worldwide?
   Why are an astonishingly small number of greedy people, holding hundreds of billions of dollars of ill-gotten gains from what are now recognizable as failed business models and Ponzi-like financial schemes, not taking responsibility for their avarice?
   Who are the people behind the mess we see splashed across the front pages of newspapers around the world this morning?  Perhaps they need to be named, shamed and held to account.
   Some greedy people are easy to identify.  They are ones who have proclaimed themselves "Masters of the Universe" or Bohemians or the Greedy Boys of Greenwich or the Bilderbergers or members of The Trilateral Commission or the many too many outrageously enriched 'experts' and politicians who say and do anything to enhance wealth and power of themselves and their benefactors.
   At least to me, it appears the problems in the global economy  we are seeing today are the results of greed having reached its limits or, to put it another way, having "hit the wall" of unsustainability.  That is to say, greediness of  self-proclaimed Masters of the Universe and their minions has reached the point of greed's unsustainability.   The global economy can no longer support the conspicuous, patently unsustainable behavior of a small segment of the family of humanity.
   Yes, definitely yes, something new and different needs to be done.  Bold action is needed; but, more of the same, old business-as-usual behavior appears insufficient. Limits need to be placed on patently unsustainable behavior.  People who are responsible for the mess need to account for their behavior.
   The American family is not responsible for the world's economic mess; but at the moment American taxpayers are being held solely accountable.  There is something not quite right about such unfair and inequitable circumstances.
   Steven Earl Salmony
   
   AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population,
   
   established 2001
   
   http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/index.php

   Permalink