cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 05:04 pm
@rosborne979,
This has been the "same" problem trying to correct the tax codes and social security. Our government is really scared of their jobs in Washington DC if they do anything to make their constituents angry like they are today.
Robert Gentel
 
  3  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 05:07 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
What are the politicians to do? It's the endgame of a two-year political campaign. They don't have the ability to remove partisanship from anything right now.


They could avoid the gratuitous partisanship. I don't expect them to disconsider political capital at all, but Pelosi shouldn't vote for the bill while trying to increase the political costs for others.

The country already sees this the way she wants to spin it, and Obama's numbers already reflect that. Publicly disowning the bill and tying it to partisan barbs isn't a great way to get it passed, and why else would she vote for it if it wasn't for the belief that it was a good thing to pass? She said it "has to happen" on Friday and said that it was their "responsibility" to pass the bill but then what's the point of the gratuitous idiocy by increasing the political cost to vote for it? She's not doing anyone (Democrats included) any favors by running at the mouth with populist lies about how the American people aren't responsible and it's all Republican's fault. Both because it's simply not true, and because she's preaching to the choir anyway.

I'm not asking politicians to ignore political cost, I'm just asking them to spend more effort trying to solve it than trying to pin it on the other party. Pelosi is an example of someone spending more time trying to spin the situation for political advantage than trying to solve it.
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 05:07 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
This has been the "same" problem trying to correct the tax codes and social security. Our government is really scared of their jobs in Washington DC if they do anything to make their constituents angry like they are today.


Please tell me that you don't have a problem with this result......you do support constitutional democracy as a form of government, yes?
hamburger
 
  5  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 05:07 pm
@Robert Gentel,
looking across from the northern border ... ...

i noticed that on several threads posters have asked : "where is the money going to come from ? " .
i've spent some time (probably too much time) watching and listening to what is going on in washington .
i have not heard any member of congress , senator , the secretary of the treasury or the president say : "we will raise the money by ... (fill in what you think is the right answer) " .
the possible answers might be : stopping the war in iraq , have specified tax increases , eliminate all subsidies to ... (again , you fill it in) .
to me all the talks are just a lot of hot air . i haven't heard anyone in washington make suggestions to truly deal with the crisis .
(btw i don't think there is even enough money in the "pork barrel" to make any difference at all , but it would send at least a signal to the citizens if all members committed themselves to "no more pork barrel " .
to me it sounds much like a prayer meeting asking for more rain - we can't do anything about it , so let's just pray
can't any lawmaker step up and make a sensible suggestion - or are they all just worried about their own chance of getting re-elected ? ) .
a puzzled observer .
hbg
Brandon9000
 
  2  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 05:17 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

John McCain is toast!

BBB

Oh, of course. Today's vote will certainly kill the McCain candidacy. <-- sarcasm

Even in a national crisis, you continue to display the same "us vs them" attitude which is probably responsible for Congress's general inability to act.


Coming from a guy who called Obama 'Osama' the other day? You're pathetic, Brandon.

Cycloptichorn

Her only thought, when speaking about a national crisis in progress, was how badly it might hurt the opposition. My post the other day, which was intended pretty much as a joke, by the way, was not specifically addressing a crisis situation. I never said that partisanship was unacceptable, I just said, and correctly so, that it isn't very admirable or useful when specifically addressing a crisis in progress.
msolga
 
  2  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 05:22 pm
@hamburger,
Quote:
i noticed that on several threads posters have asked : "where is the money going to come from ? " .
i've spent some time (probably too much time) watching and listening to what is going on in washington .
i have not heard any member of congress , senator , the secretary of the treasury or the president say : "we will raise the money by ... (fill in what you think is the right answer) " .
the possible answers might be : stopping the war in iraq , have specified tax increases , eliminate all subsidies to ... (again , you fill it in) .


Been wondering the same thing hamburger. (Also while keeping track election campaigning where raising taxes seems to be a major no no!) Where exactly is all this money going to come from? Something's gotta give, surely?
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 05:22 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

John McCain is toast!

BBB

Oh, of course. Today's vote will certainly kill the McCain candidacy. <-- sarcasm

Even in a national crisis, you continue to display the same "us vs them" attitude which is probably responsible for Congress's general inability to act.


Coming from a guy who called Obama 'Osama' the other day? You're pathetic, Brandon.

Cycloptichorn

Her only thought, when speaking about a national crisis in progress, was how badly it might hurt the opposition. My post the other day, which was intended pretty much as a joke, by the way, was not specifically addressing a crisis situation. I never said that partisanship was unacceptable, I just said, and correctly so, that it isn't very admirable or useful when specifically addressing a crisis in progress.


What, is BBB addressing the UN? Sitting in Congress, working on a compromise? Lobbying the public to support or be against the plan?

C'mon, Brandon. She's writing on an internet message board. Not exactly earth-shaking stuff. And the 'national crisis' doesn't invalidate the election one whit.

You, on the other hand, think it's funny to compare Obama to Osama bin Laden. F*cking pathetic, Brandon, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself. That comment was beneath you and was obviously written in a moment of anger at the way politics have been going lately; why don't you just apologize for saying it?

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 05:23 pm
@msolga,
msolga wrote:

Quote:
i noticed that on several threads posters have asked : "where is the money going to come from ? " .
i've spent some time (probably too much time) watching and listening to what is going on in washington .
i have not heard any member of congress , senator , the secretary of the treasury or the president say : "we will raise the money by ... (fill in what you think is the right answer) " .
the possible answers might be : stopping the war in iraq , have specified tax increases , eliminate all subsidies to ... (again , you fill it in) .


Been wondering the same thing hamburger. (Also while keeping track election campaigning where raising taxes seems to be a major no no!) Where exactly is all this money going to come from? Something's gotta give, surely?


It's all loans, period. The money will come from loans from China and other countries. Even if we ended the war in Iraq, it would STILL be loans, b/c the war is paid for by loans too.

Geez, the whole thing sucks

Cycloptichorn
littlek
 
  3  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 05:24 pm
someone (soz?) asked how individuals voted. I dunno if anyone responded, but I found this: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/09/29/bailout.rollcall.0929.pdf
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 05:25 pm
The fact of the matter is that the Democrats could have passed the bill without the help of the Republicans, and they didn't.

I understand why they wanted a "bi-partisan" bill, but this what leadership is all about.

If the worst happens and the economy completely tanks, even more companies fold and unemployment sky rockets, how will the Democratic leadership explain that they could have passed the solution but chose not so they wouldn't lose a political battle?

Sure the Republicans could have assured the bill passed, but they are the minority, not the majority.They no longer lead congress.

Pelosi isn't worthy of her leadership position. She just had to deliver a partisan tirade. Republicans using it as an excuse are idiots, but she is the Leader of the House.She had to piss off her political opponents? That's what one of the foot soldiers do, not one of the leaders.

Unfortunatel party leaders seem to be chosen for their partisan political skills and fervor, not their leadership qualities.

The country is in real trouble and these jackasses (Dems and Repubs alike) are squabbling like a pack of brats.

We don't tolerate this behavior in our employees nor our kids, and yet not only do many of us tolerate it in our elected officals, we celebrate it. Anyone who thinks the Democratic leadership distinquished themselves today, in any way, is a fool.

We don't know what the Republiican leadership would have done if the tables were turned, and I'm certainly not about to express any assurance that they would have done the right thing, but this time around, they are not in control, the Dems are.

It's what leadership is all about.

Because the other guy may have behaved as poorly doesn't make your poor behavior OK.

The Republicans are not without blame for this dangerous outcome, but when it all gets boiled down, the Democrats could have told their opponents to screw themselves and then done the right thing. They didn't.

Why should we tolerate any one leading who sees leadership as a means to grabbing and punishing, but not a responsibility to actually lead?

It was a bad day for America not only because a very serious problem was left unaddressed, but because it exposed the rotten parisan nature of our elected representatives.

And make no mistake, we don't have time to address this problem. Every day it is unaddressed is a blow to the economy.

Shameful.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 05:26 pm
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
I think what happened is that democrats promised a certain number of votes and republicans promised a certain number of votes, but each side counted on the other to deliver while they each tried to sneak in their own "no" vote so they would look good to their constituents.


That is pretty close to my take on what happened. On Friday people like Pelosi made clear that they wanted Republicans to come up with the votes.

"Pelosi and her fellow Democrats have said that President George W. Bush has to deliver a large number of Republican votes for the politically unpopular bailout to pass Congress."

But this wasn't a sneak deal, they all had the opportunities to change their votes and they all knew that it wasn't passing. Pelosi make a decision to pin the blame on Republicans instead of try to get it passed (and perhaps be seen as a primarily "Democrat" bill) with a dozen or so Democrat votes.

Quote:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had been promised that 80 or 90 Republicans would vote for the bill. That way, both parties could share responsibility. But in the end, just 66 Republican votes materialized.

According to my sources, once Pelosi learned of the double-cross, she told the Democratic whips to make it a conscience vote on the Democratic side as well. With the likelihood of voter indignation and the strong possibility that this bill would not fix what was broken, Pelosi was not prepared to make this primarily a Democratic bill. Knowing that the Republicans were walking away from the deal, she held the roll-call anyway, to make clear just whose failure this was.

When the vote came up short, she held it open a few minutes but made rounding up additional supporters the Republicans' problem. When the votes did not materialize, she banged the gavel, and the bill went down.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=what_now_08


She put her foot down and put partisanship first and made an inflammatory speech to make it even harder to get the needed votes from Republicans.



Now what pisses me off, is how she says how important it is that this get passed but is willing to play such stupid games with it anyway. With Bush coming out that strongly for it, it was clearly not just a Democrat bill to begin with. The party leaders had already agreed to it. She didn't need to pull these stunts and could have tried to save the bill first, and spin later.
Lambchop
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 05:26 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
When you get home and the curtains are on fire, it's not the time to try to figure out which kid lit the match. It's time to put the curtains out.


Yes, and we were a mere twelve votes away from resolving this thing (even though it's like taking medicine that tastes bad and makes you gag).

Apparently, there were at least twelve politicos who were too worried about whether or not they'd get re-elected. So forget about the welfare of the country.

"Gentlemen, we've got to protect our phoney-baloney jobs!"
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 05:35 pm
@littlek,
'twas me, l'k. Thanks.
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 05:35 pm
@JPB,
You're welcome, JPB.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  5  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 05:39 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Okay, here's the text of what Pelosi said:

Quote:
Rep. Pelosi's Remarks on Floor Ahead of House Bailout Vote

"Madam Speaker, when was the last time someone asked you for $700 billion?

It is a number that is staggering, but tells us only the costs of the Bush Administration's failed economic policies--policies built on budgetary recklessness, on an anything goes mentality, with no regulation, no supervision, and no discipline in the system.

Democrats believe in the free market, which can and does create jobs, wealth, and capital, but left to its own devices it has created chaos.

That chaos is the dismal picture painted by Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke a week and a half ago in the Capitol.

As they pointed out, we confront a crisis of historic magnitude that has the ability to do serious injury not simply to our economy, but to the American people: not just to Wall Street, but to everyday Americans on Main Street.

It is our responsibility today, to help avert that catastrophic outcome.
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.

It is a crisis that freezes credit, causes families to lose their homes, cripples small businesses, and makes it harder to find jobs.

It is a crisis that never had to happen. It is now the duty of every Member of this body to recognize that the failure to act responsibly, with full protections for the American taxpayer, would compound the damage already done to the financial security of millions of American families.

Over the past several days, we have worked with our Republican colleagues to fashion an alternative to the original plan of the Bush Administration.

I must recognize the outstanding leadership provided by Chairman Barney Frank, whose enormous intellectual and strategic abilities have never before been so urgently needed, or so widely admired.

I also want to recognize Rahm Emanuel, who combined his deep knowledge of financial institutions with his pragmatic policy experience, to resolve key disagreements.

Secretary Paulson deserves credit for working day and night to help reach an agreement and for his flexibility in negotiating changes to his original proposal.

Democrats insisted that legislation responding to this crisis must protect the American people and Main Street from the meltdown on Wall Street.

The American people did not decide to dangerously weaken our regulatory and oversight policies. They did not make unwise and risky financial deals. They did not jeopardize the economic security of the nation. And they must not pay the cost of this emergency recovery and stabilization bill.

So we insisted that this bill contain several key provisions:

This legislation must contain independent and ongoing oversight to ensure that the recovery program is managed with full transparency and strict accountability.

The legislation must do everything possible to allow as many people to stay in their homes rather than face foreclosure.

The corporate CEOs whose companies will benefit from the public's participation in this recovery must not benefit by exorbitant salaries and golden parachute retirement bonuses.

Our message to Wall Street is this: the party is over. The era of golden parachutes for high-flying Wall Street operators is over. No longer will the U.S. taxpayer bailout the recklessness of Wall Street.

The taxpayers who bear the risk in this recovery must share in the upside as the economy recovers.

And should this program not pay for itself, the financial institutions that benefited, not the taxpayers, must bear responsibility for making up the difference.

These were the Democratic demands to safeguard the American taxpayer, to help the economy recover, and to impose tough accountability as a central component of this recovery effort.

This legislation is not the end of congressional activity on this crisis. Over the course of the next few weeks, we will continue to hold investigative and oversight hearings to find out how the crisis developed, where mistakes were made, and how the recovery must be managed to protect the middle class and the American taxpayer.

With passage of this legislation today, we can begin the difficult job of turning our economy around, of helping those who depend on a growing economy and stable financial institutions for a secure retirement, for the education of their children, for jobs and small business credit.

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.

This not enough. We are also working to restore our nation's economic strength by passing a new economic recovery stimulus package--a robust, job creating bill--that will help Americans struggling with high prices, get our economy back on track, and renew the American Dream.

Today, we will act to avert this crisis, but informed by our experience of the past eight years with the failed economic leadership that has left us left capable of meeting the challenges of the future.

We choose a different path. In the new year, with a new Congress and a new president, we will break free with a failed past and take America in a New Direction to a better future."


The idea that anything in this speech was so partisan, so offensive in nature, as to cause someone to change their vote? That is plainly ridiculous on it's face. This isn't that partisan a speech. Her references to Bush are passing at most.

It's just an excuse, from the Republicans who wanted to pull a stunt on this bill - and got one. They thought that Pelosi would cover their ass afterward, and it didn't work out.

Cycloptichorn
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 05:42 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
It was much harsher to see than it reads. She was playing games, no doubt about it.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  2  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 05:44 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Re: msolga (Post 3419487)
msolga wrote:

Quote:
i noticed that on several threads posters have asked : "where is the money going to come from ? " .
i've spent some time (probably too much time) watching and listening to what is going on in washington .
i have not heard any member of congress , senator , the secretary of the treasury or the president say : "we will raise the money by ... (fill in what you think is the right answer) " .
the possible answers might be : stopping the war in iraq , have specified tax increases , eliminate all subsidies to ... (again , you fill it in) .


Been wondering the same thing hamburger. (Also while keeping track election campaigning where raising taxes seems to be a major no no!) Where exactly is all this money going to come from? Something's gotta give, surely?


It's all loans, period. The money will come from loans from China and other countries. Even if we ended the war in Iraq, it would STILL be loans, b/c the war is paid for by loans too.

Geez, the whole thing sucks

Cycloptichorn


And don't forget Afghanistan! Talk of more funds & troops needed there, too.
Crikey, what a mess. All these loans will have to be paid back, deals with the lenders will need to be done .... the mind boggles. This is (obviously) going to have a huge impact on the US's standing in the world.
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 05:46 pm
@hamburger,
hamburger wrote:

i noticed that on several threads posters have asked : "where is the money going to come from ? " .
i've spent some time (probably too much time) watching and listening to what is going on in washington .
i have not heard any member of congress , senator , the secretary of the treasury or the president say : "we will raise the money by ... (fill in what you think is the right answer) " .


There has been endless talk about how to get the money back from the politicians. In the defeated bill the money comes in an exchange for bad debt, equity and warrants that can (at least in theory but likely in practice) be eventually sold.

I don't see the cash outlay as inherently problematic if we can get our money back. That's a big if, but only if we can't is the "where does the money come from" hugely important because there are a variety of ways to float it in the meantime.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  3  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 05:54 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
The idea that anything in this speech was so partisan, so offensive in nature, as to cause someone to change their vote? That is plainly ridiculous on it's face. This isn't that partisan a speech. Her references to Bush are passing at most.


Nonsense, the speech was just a symptom of the problem, she'd decided to let the bill fail instead of letting it be seen as primarily a Democratic bill, and it was plenty partisan in tone (she sounded positively incredulous about the 700 billion figure that she had just said was their "responsibility" to pass days earlier).

The problem wasn't that she made a mean speech, but with giving up on trying to solve the impasse at all and deciding instead to pin the blame on Republicans. She could have gotten 12 votes if it was more important to her than how the parties would be perceived.
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 06:10 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:

By Steven Pearlstein
Tuesday, September 30, 2008; Page D01

Oy vey.

That is the technical economic term that best sums up a day in which the House of Representatives refuses to pass a $700 billion rescue plan pushed by the White House and congressional leaders from both parties, Wachovia is taken over in a deal that will have the government potentially owning 10 percent of Citigroup, a few European banks fail, the Federal Reserve and other central banks are forced to inject an additional $300 billion into the global banking system, the Dow Jones industrial average plunges 777 points, and investors everywhere rush to the safety of gold and short-term Treasury bills.

The basic problem here is that too many people don't understand the seriousness of the situation.

Americans fail to understand that they are facing the real prospect of a decade of little or no economic growth because of the bursting of a credit bubble that they helped create and that now threatens to bring down the global financial system.

Politicians worry less about preventing a financial meltdown than about ideology, partisan posturing and teaching people a lesson. Financiers have yet to own up publicly to their own greed, arrogance and incompetence. And leaders of foreign governments still think that this is an American problem and that they have no need to mount similar rescue efforts in their own countries
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/29/AR2008092902762.html?hpid=topnews
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » bailout dead
  3. » Page 4
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 09/24/2021 at 04:03:13