bailout dead

I'm not a fan of golden parachutes, but one of the big reasons they exist is so that the guys at the top don't make decisions that are bad for the company out of personal concerns.

I don't want the public writing laws to limit my compensation, so I don't advocate laws to limit that of others private individuals. You can't take away their rights without eroding all of ours.

You don't really wanna play tonight, do you?

I'm primed...

(even Okie kinda sorta gets it...)

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

But what, Pelosi's speech did?

You are missing the forest for the trees.

Step outside yourself about 3 levels, and think...

There are more than two sides.

Two sides is going to kill us all.

I'll click my heels, and go back to Kansas...

(I still hate the Elephants, but I'm in the middle getting squeezed)

Congressional sources tell ABC News that what they're talking about right now are three or four basic baskets of options:

# 1 -- Muscle Bailout Bill Through House: Some leaders suggest those House Republicans on the fence will be swayed by seeing what the markets do tomorrow, which could be more bad news. The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped over 700 points today as the administration's bailout bill failed in Congress This option would see House leaders try again to muscle through the votes they need to get the $700 billion bailout bill passed.

#2 -- Pass Bailout in Senate First: Some Senate and House leaders have been talking about letting the Senate go first and pass the bailout package, ABC News has learned. There appears to be broader support in the Senate for the bailout package. This option would see the Senate vote first which would increase the pressure on the House to pass the Bush administration's bailout bill.

#3 -- Make Small Tweaks to the Bill: Congressional leaders wonder if perhaps there are a couple of small tweaks they can make to the package that would bring along the 12 votes they lost the vote by. Option A, sources say, could be adding a line that some economists have said is absolutely necessary for the FDIC to guarantee all deposits in transaction accounts, not just up to $100,000. That would deal with the credit crunch and it would be quite popular, some on Capitol Hill argue. Option B would be eliminating the mark-to-market rule that many Republicans and conservatives complain about, which ensures financial decision-makers must show their losses in real time.

#4 -- Get More Democrats On Board: Finally, one other unlikely option talked about on Capitol Hill is to try to pass the bill almost entirely with the Democratic majority in the House. That would require adding a major stimulus package favored by Democrats, infrastructure spending, unemployment insurance spending, and heating and food stamp assistance for low-income Americans.

I'm sorry, I just believe that the companies in question didn't innocently make a mistake, and whoops, we just have too many over-leveraged securities hanging about, how embarrassing, and now can we have your public money please?

Without some sort of action taken against those at the top, they'll just come with their hats in hand again here in a few years, and are we going to pay them next time too?

There are several ideas for getting the system working again, or even scaled-back parts of the Paulson plan which would have worked just as well. The link I showed you earlier gave the lie to much of what the plan said it was going to do, and that's not acceptable to me.

I understand you have a different opinion about the necessity of enacting change at the top, and that's okay with me - I just feel differently about the importance of it then you do.

If Pelosi thought it was her duty to pass the bill then she acted badly by playing politics instead. And the component of stupid classism that we've been discussing has nothing to do with whether or not you think the bill would have been good or not.

Once the public is paying the bills, it's not private compensation any longer, Robert. That's the whole point.

It's the other way around - the parachutes allow the executives to make decisions which are bad for the company without being concerned about their personal finances.

They have no reason to really care. Why should they? They will get millions either way.

I don't mind if there is legislation written limiting my or anyone's compensation. I've long been a fan of exactly that legislation. So why am I upset by the idea of doing so, again?

I understand the 'blame all around' model and even applaud it. I'm not just trying to hang those at the top.

I just think it should be a part of the overall bill and it saddens me to see that there was never any real intention of doing so, even though the Treasury negotiators assured us there would be.

Right. I don't think that Pelosi thought it was her duty to pass this bill, and I'm not sure it was anyone's duty to do it. To do something, okay; but not to have a noose hung around your neck by the other side.

Does anyone have a link to the vote by individual House member?

The data suggest that this bill was far from a political winner for members of Congress set to face voters in 36 days.

It's no coincidence then that of the 205 Members who voted in support of the bill today, there are only two -- Reps. Chris Shays (R-Conn.) and Jon Porter (R-Nev.) -- who find themselves in difficult reelection races this fall. The list of the 228 "nays" reads like a virtual target list for the two parties.

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. [..] 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?

The weirdest case in favor the bill came from Minority Leader John Boehner, who yesterday called the bill a "crap sandwich." "Nobody wants to vote for this," he yelled. "Nobody wants to be anywhere near it. ... You all know how awful it is. I didn't come here to vote for bills like this!" But, he went on, "I believe the risk in not acting is much higher. ... These are the votes that separate the men from the boys and the girls from the women. What's in the best interest of our country? Vote yes," he concluded and dashed away from the podium in tears.

Rockhead wrote:

You are missing the forest for the trees.

Step outside yourself about 3 levels, and think...

There are more than two sides.

Two sides is going to kill us all.

I'll click my heels, and go back to Kansas...

(I still hate the Elephants, but I'm in the middle getting squeezed)

Okay, I understand what you are saying.