Patterico's Pontifications

9/29/2008

House Defeats Bailout

Filed under: Economics,Government — DRJ @ 11:22 am



[Guest post by DRJ]

The vote was 205-228.

UPDATE 1— Here’s the breakdown from the link:

Democrats — 140 FOR; 95 AGAINST
Republicans – 65 FOR; 133 AGAINST

UPDATE 2: Here’s a link to the House record of individual votes.

Fair or unfair, I think voters will blame Republicans for bad economic news in the near term because of this vote. So unless McCain convinces voters he can handle the economy (e.g., that he stands for something more than earmark reform), he can kiss this election good-bye.

— DRJ

112 Responses to “House Defeats Bailout”

  1. No surprise

    EricPWJohnson (c00a5d)

  2. “We’re all worried about losing our jobs,” Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., declared in an impassioned speech in support of the bill before the vote. “Most of us say, ‘I want this thing to pass, but I want you to vote for it — not me.’ “

    Does Mr Ryan mean that, by defeating this bill, the House [gasp!] somehow listened to the voice of the people? How unusual!

    The astounded Dana (3e4784)

  3. I can’t express my surprise and delight. Well done House Republicans. You have earned my respect. Bravo!

    Ropelight (1be620)

  4. Where is Obama’s leadership? He already took credit for passing the bill. What happened?

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  5. Dow down more than 500 points.

    aunursa (1b5bad)

  6. I don’t get it.

    The Dems could have passed this bill w/o a single Rep vote and some Reps apparently voted for it.

    Was this a bipartisan nay vote? Or did the Reps vote for it and the Dems ~killed it?

    Is there a vote break down yet?

    jim2 (6482d8)

  7. I would like to say that my calls to my elected representatives had some impact….but I live in CA.

    From your link at the Politico.

    “Republican defections proved fatal to the massive government intervention, which was rejected 228-205. “

    Interesting that it was the Republicans that killed it according to the author.

    435 Representatives

    140 Dems voted for
    95 Dems voted against
    65 Repubs voted for
    133 Repubs voted against

    Seems to me that the Democrats killed it with their 95 “No” votes. Just a few more of the Democrats could have swung the pendulum the other way if they really wanted this abortion to pass. 😎

    But notice that nowhere in the article does the author mention the 95 “No” votes from the Dems. I actuall got that from the C-span video. Can’t seem to find the breakdown in the MSM.

    I anyone really supprised by this?

    Jay Curtis (8f6541)

  8. This isn’t good news for anybody’s campaign.

    Which might be good news for American taxpayers, if they’re forced to go back and really clean up the mess.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  9. Jay Curtis – Seems to me that the Democrats killed it with their 95 “No” votes.

    Spot on.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  10. Thanks, Jay C.

    jim2 (6482d8)

  11. After the vote, Republicans claimed that the Democratic leadership had been warned that fewer than 60 Republicans would vote for the bill. Democrats denied the claim, saying they never would have brought the bill to the floor if they had been told there was so little Republican support.

    Again, I ask a question that seems to be technically possible at this point:

    Why are there no transcripts of such an important meeting?

    Apogee (366e8b)

  12. The comment that I left for all the politicians whose offices I was able to reach was:
    “This bill does nothing to correct the underlying reason this bailout has become necessary. Until the CRA is repealed, this is nothing more than a band-aid on a severed artery. Fix the cause, before you try to cover up the results with my hard earned dollars.”

    Jay Curtis (8f6541)

  13. Democrats voted 140-95 in favor of the bill.

    Republicans voted 65-133 against.

    aunursa (1b5bad)

  14. I’ve updated the post to show the vote breakdown:

    Democrats — 140 FOR; 95 AGAINST
    Republicans – 65 FOR; 133 AGAINST

    DRJ (c953ab)

  15. DRJ,
    Where did you find the vote total. I pulled it off or the C-span video as I couldn’t find it anywhere else. Shouldn’t it be showing 95 Democrats voted against?

    Jay Curtis (8f6541)

  16. Jay Curtis,

    1. I got the vote totals from the screenshot at the Politico link.

    2. In my initial update, I mis-typed that 65 Democrats voted against when it should have been 95 against. I’ve corrected that and I apologize for the confusion.

    DRJ (c953ab)

  17. I think the House.gov website is down. It must be taking a lot of hits.

    DRJ (c953ab)

  18. Yeah, Jay, and let’s repeal the Fair Housing Act too (although without the CRA we won’t have to) and the Voting Rights Act of ’65 and the Civil Rights Act of ’64. Let’s get rid of any legal safeguard which would enable the poor and minorities to have a seat at the table.

    Blaming the CRA for this is like blaming the entire mess on Glass-Steagall for being [mostly] repealed. Sorry to say, Jay, but we aren’t make red-lining legal again any time soon.

    timb (a83d56)

  19. Comment by timb — 9/29/2008 @ 12:02 pm

    Exercise hyperbole much? The Community Reinvestment Act IS responsible for this mess and should be repealed immediately.

    h2u (81b7bd)

  20. Yes. According to timb we have 2 choices in America:

    Free houses for the poor, or slavery.

    What a conundrum!

    What timb fails to realize is that the first is quickly leading to the second for all Americans.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  21. That idiot Pelosi gave a nice partisan speech before the vote blaming failed Bush econonic policies and lack of regulation for the current crisis which probably left a huge bitter taste in a lot of members’ mouths. There was not a hint of acknowledgement of accepting any responsibility in her speech, just partisanship.

    Heckuva job Nancy!

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  22. Well said, Apogee.

    Michelle Malkin broke out the problems with the bailout plan. It is an absolute traveshamocricy! I am absolutely gleeful that this crap didn’t pass the house, especially after hearing Nancy Pelosi’s ridiculous speech from the floor.

    We should never compromise our principles in order to have a quick fix that — more likely than not — wouldn’t have fixed anything at all.

    h2u (81b7bd)

  23. The Dow DID NOT FALL 500 points upon the defeat of this bill. Stop it!

    The Dow was down 300 as the vote began. As I type this, it is down 300 since the vote.

    If this bill is essential to the future of our country, why were 95 Democrats allowed to vote “no”? When a Speaker wants to effect party discipline, s/he gets what s/he wants. Obviously, this was a free vote within the Democrat Caucus.

    Again – if the future of this country rested on THIS vote, it is unconscionable that the Speaker failed to whip discipline within her own ranks.

    Ed (385e88)

  24. Dow down more than 500 points.

    Of course, the Dow should not be an indicator of good or bad economic times.

    The Dow went up when Nixon announced his policy of wage and price freezes.

    Michael Ejercito (a757fd)

  25. More Democrats were against it than Republicans were for it.

    Michael Ejercito (a757fd)

  26. The CRA is not the problem.

    In the mid-1990s, new CRA regulations and a wave of mergers led to a flurry of CRA activity, but, as noted by the New America Foundation’s Ellen Seidman (and by Harvard’s Joint Center), that activity “largely came to an end by 2001.” In late 2004, the Bush administration announced plans to sharply weaken CRA regulations, pulling small and mid-sized banks out from under the law’s toughest standards. Yet sub-prime lending continued, and even intensified — at the very time when activity under CRA had slowed and the law had weakened…

    Back to Sweden

    DeLong: “Bring Congress Back into Session After the Election and go for the Swedish plan: nationalize the insolvent large financial institutions: dare Bush to veto that after the election.
    This Republican Party needs to be burned, razed to the ground, and the furrows sown with salt…”

    And you might want to read Roubinitoo

    Readnek (105b91)

  27. I’m tempted to vote against any incumbent at this point, regardless of party.

    voiceofreason2 (10af7e)

  28. My favorite line of Pelosi’s was when she deemed it unpatriotic of House Republicans not to have shown up in the first place…. unfortunately, they have and the vote has not gone her way so that leaves only Bush to take the blame. Whatever.

    Its outrageous that there was such a concerted effort to rush this bill through. Of all the issues that required and compelled thoughtful consideration, time and meticulous disection of, it is our national economy.

    Dana (b4a26c)

  29. “Yet sub-prime lending continued, and even intensified”

    Readnek – You continue to show fundamental misunderstandings of the issues. The CRA got the subprime lending market jump started as your quotes indicate. Stating it is not at fault is blatantly dishonest.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  30. “Readnek – You continue to show fundamental misunderstandings of the issues. The CRA got the subprime lending market jump started as your quotes indicate. Stating it is not at fault is blatantly dishonest.”

    Exactly. The CRA is the problem and Readnek’s stupid analysis doesn’t change that fact.

    h2u (81b7bd)

  31. I don’t think this deal gets done unless the Democrats accept some responsibility for the crisis with Pelosi producing sound bites like that for the MSM.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  32. In Democratic commentary after the vote, Nancy Pelosi had the nerve to give effusive, fawning praise to Barney Frank. Barney Frank, who in large measure was responsible for blocking Bush and McCain’s efforts some years ago to stop the burgeoning growth of radioactive loans.

    dchamil (2bbdce)

  33. Is there a list of people who voted against the bailout?

    Michael Ejercito (a757fd)

  34. h2u – Great minds…..

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  35. Barney Frank, who in large measure was responsible for blocking Bush and McCain’s efforts some years ago to stop the burgeoning growth of radioactive loans.

    Is there a cite for this?

    Michael Ejercito (a757fd)

  36. Michelle Malkin has the vote list:

    http://michellemalkin.com/

    jim2 (6482d8)

  37. Readnek – You bring up Sweden repeatedly, and talk of nationalizing huge parts of the economy, while eliminating political opposition completely.

    I suggest you emigrate to the promised land. But skip Sweden, because even they tolerate an opposition party. Look’s like China’s more your speed, or Myanmar.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  38. Is there a cite for this?

    Are you new here ? There are lots of links here and at my blog.

    Mike K (51c18e)

  39. Fivethirtyeight has an interesting point: of the 38 Congressmen who are in close election races, 30 voted no.

    The rest of the House basically split 50-50.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  40. Why this thing failed, and should have!

    “I can’t tell you how many members of Congress were stunned at that news, and were stunned that none of their local bankers were calling them. And then they called their local bankers, as I called my local bankers, and my local bankers said, “I think things are just fine.” I talked to one banker who said, “Gosh, we’ve got money, and we’re liquid, and we’re making a profit. And we’re in the market selling loans, and we’ve got competitors trying to sell loans against us.” ”

    Can you say Disconnect?

    ********

    Personally, right now I’m glad a few folks in the house seemed to put some time into the weekend working at the job we hired them to do! Remembering WHO hired them!

    TC (f398ed)

  41. “Is there a cite for this?”
    Not a good one, no

    “He fumes about the criticism of his House colleagues. “All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this,” he says. “What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”

    The House bill, the 2005 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, would have created a stronger regulator with new powers to increase capital at Fannie and Freddie, to limit their portfolios and to deal with the possibility of receivership.

    Mr Oxley reached out to Barney Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the committee and now its chairman, to secure support on the other side of the aisle. But after winning bipartisan support in the House, where the bill passed by 331 to 90 votes, the legislation lacked a champion in the Senate and faced hostility from the Bush administration.

    Adamant that the only solution to the problems posed by Fannie and Freddie was their privatisation, the White House attacked the bill. Mr Greenspan also weighed in, saying that the House legislation was worse than no bill at all.

    “We missed a golden opportunity that would have avoided a lot of the problems we’re facing now, if we hadn’t had such a firm ideological position at the White House and the Treasury and the Fed,” Mr Oxley says.”

    And about my previous comment, it would help if you actually followed the link and keep reading. But yes i know, that’s no something you do around here, unless it’s something that tells you what you want to hear.

    Readnek (105b91)

  42. If Dems want GOP help, they could start by first removing Chris Dodd and Barney Frank from their chair positions on the revelant Senate and House committees, in order to show good faith.

    Otherwise it’s just the old Potomic 2 step.

    Ropelight (1be620)

  43. If the racist Republicans were not trying to bring back redlining and slavery, none of this would have happened.

    JD (5f0e11)

  44. “You bring up Sweden repeatedly, and talk of nationalizing huge parts of the economy, while eliminating political opposition completely.”

    Do you even know what they did in Sweden in 92″ From a comment at DeLong’s site, from a reader in Stockholm:

    “Glad that Sweden can contribute a positive example here. Just one thing. The swedish bailout plan was passed with a center-right government in place with a sympathetic socialist opposition.

    So this is not socialism but really an attempt to save the market economy. And it succeeded.”

    It was temporary, and it worked.

    Readnek (105b91)

  45. Readnek is a particularly dishonest troll.

    JD (5f0e11)

  46. Sweden’s tax rate is what, exactly?

    JD (5f0e11)

  47. As an aside, Congressman Weller of Illinois didn’t vote.

    Absent a good excuse, I find that pretty much inexcusable.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  48. I’ve updated the post with the individual votes from the House Clerk’s records as well as my immediate thoughts. I’m more of a long-term thinker so I may be wrong.

    DRJ (c953ab)

  49. Sweden has one of the most regressive tax schemes in Europe, so it’s irrelevant to this discussion -and if you think it’s so terrific, name one economic policy invented in Europe that has been adopted here successfully.

    As for the bill’s failure, McCain has no choice but to go after the Dems on this in the next debate – he must lay out where Frank’s responsibilities led to this eventual fiasco. Hell, even Clinton’s been laying this out for him, just last week. For goodness sakes, take the frickin’ hint and start body slamming Obama and his party – NOW.

    Dmac (e639cc)

  50. “The Legislation

    Shortly after Chairman Greenspan’s House testimony in February 2005–in which he reiterated the view that the portfolios of the GSEs should be limited to reduce the risks they create–key lawmakers in both the Senate and House pledged that they would consider his idea seriously. However, the only legislation on this question thus far introduced in either house is seriously deficient. That bill, introduced by Congressman Baker and House Financial Services Committee chairman Michael Oxley early in April 2005, authorizes the GSEs’ regulator “to dispose of or acquire any asset or obligation, if the Director determines that such action is consistent with the safe and sound operation of the enterprise or with the purposes of this Act.”[11]

    This language leaves the regulator with no useful standard, and arguably does not increase at all the authority, currently held by OFHEO, to force the GSEs to divest assets that threaten their safety or soundness. If this language were to be included in the final law, it would fail completely to provide a legal basis for the regulator to act unless he or she could show that the portfolios of the GSEs were a threat to their financial condition. Whatever its purpose, this initial draft was clearly not intended to implement the Greenspan recommendation.

    In testimony before the House Financial Services Committee on April 13, 2005, Secretary of the Treasury John Snow found this language deficient and outlined the Bush administration’s position on how the issue should be resolved. He proposed that the GSEs’ regulator be directed by law to reduce the size of Fannie’s and Freddie’s portfolios, and he proposed a standard for the regulator to follow. Arguing that Fannie and Freddie could do everything they currently do for the mortgage market through securitization–without the risks created by their portfolios–the secretary suggested that their portfolios should be reduced to the level necessary to assure the effective functioning of their securitization activities, and no more. Although the administration has not advanced specific language to embody this approach, Congress would be well advised to adopt it. ”

    ….

    “The Senate Banking Committee has not yet acted, but one must hope that the committee will take the Greenspan proposal seriously and adopt the administration’s approach. As outgoing regulator Armando Falcon said in what is likely to be his final appearance before this committee, “I believe the most prudent course of action would be for Congress to give the regulator explicit authority to regulate the size of the housing Enterprises’ portfolios, accompanied by specific statutory guidance on the exercise of such authority.”[12] That’s exactly what the administration’s proposal would do. “

    Read all about it, May of 05

    *********

    To think that Polosi actually said today that this “crisis” snunk up on the country like on kitty cat paws! Well I call BULLLLLLLL SHIIIIIIIT! on that. It was the 1000 D-9’s they CHOSE to IGNORE running down Wall Street!

    TC (f398ed)

  51. Readnek – Why do you think that Oxley bill you keep bringing up got so much Democratic support in the House? Why do you think he couldn’t find a sponsor in the Senate and the White House and Fed were opposed to it? The answer should be obvious to you by now if you weren’t braindead. The bill was terminally weak.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  52. Well, it was stopped…NOT IT’S TIME TO FLUSH THE TOILET IN DC AND GET THE FLOATING TURDS OUT… anyone who voted yes of this steaming pile of crap, needs to be “retired” from their seat in the House on November 4th…they don’t represent us, they don’t care about us – they’re only concern is for their friends on Wall Street…you failed to act on it 2,3 ,5 years ago – now it’s time to pay!

    The SECOND American Revolution starts TODAY!

    fmfnavydoc (0dd45c)

  53. 40% of Dems voted no

    33% of Repubs voted no.

    Therefore this was soundly defeated by the Dems.

    rls (e465df)

  54. It’s always vaguely amusing when people don’t want to admit that the root of the problem taking out mortgages they couldn’t pay. Or that the feds pushed a range of policies that fueled the market for unaffordable housing. Or that mortgage resets create a time delay from when the borrowing occurs and when the default happens.

    Karl (f07e38)

  55. No surprise as to why the Dems would sink the bill, either:

    A number of Republican House members and staff, along with others who are plugged in, are telling me that Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats will come back with a new bill that includes all the left-wing stuff that was scrubbed from the bill that was defeated today in the House.

    As this scenario goes, the House Democrats need 218 votes, and they have to pick up a number of black and Hispanic House members who jumped ship because the Wall Street provisions, in their view, were too benign. So things like the bankruptcy judges setting mortgage terms and rates, the ACORN slush-fund spending, the union proxy for corporate boards, stricter limits on executive compensation, and much larger equity ownership of selling banks through warrants will all find itself back in the new bill. Of course, this scenario will lose more Republican votes. But insiders tell me President Bush will take Secretary Paulson’s advice and sign that kind of legislation.

    Karl (f07e38)

  56. It looks like the Democrats wanted the issue, and now they’re going to have it. This may be one of those “be careful what you wish for, because you might get it” moments.

    Pelosi should have saved her denunciation of Republicans until the vote was closed, I suspect.

    htom (412a17)

  57. I’d like to see an above-the-fold discussion of the parliamentary law: what next?

    Can the House vote on it again (absent a Motion to Reconsider)?

    What good does it do for the Senate to vote on it? The House has already rejected it. (Stare Decisis)

    Larry Sheldon (86b2e1)

  58. “So unless McCain convinces voters he can handle the economy (e.g., that he stands for something more than earmark reform), he can kiss this election good-bye”

    What are YOU, PERSONALLY, DRJ, going to do to help him and the GOP House members weather this storm until 11/4? This failure was done in YOUR NAME; it’s now time for YOU (and most of the commenters here who railed against this) to step up to the plate.

    Brad S (9f6740)

  59. Readnek

    Have you ever been to Sweden?

    ML (14488c)

  60. AP at HA has an interesting take on the ramnifications of the GOP choices to vote no.HA

    voiceofreason2 (10af7e)

  61. Brad S doesn’t visit here much, is what I’m thinkin’.

    Karl (f07e38)

  62. Larry, the Senate bill only needs to be different from the House bill in the most non-substantive ways for it to be re-introduced. As a bill which passed the Senate (unless it is exactly like the defeated House bill) it can be voted on again. Kind of like a conference bill.

    timb (a83d56)

  63. Brad, time to breathe into a paper bag for just a few minutes, take some Vicodin, then pause before typing. Repeat.

    Dmac (e639cc)

  64. Brad S. – You are RIDICULOUS. I think thet should form a BIPARTISAN COALITION AGAINST THE BAILOUT so that a better deal can be crafted in OUR NAME. What are YOU going to do PERSONALLY?

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  65. RLS, I believe you need to recheck your math.

    40% of Democrats voted no.
    67% of Republicans voted no.

    I express no opinion as to which party is responsible for the bailout failing, because I think there was broad opposition in both parties.

    But your math is wrong.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  66. Larry – it will be very easy for this bailout to come back. The slightest modification is needed to file as a new bill.

    Where is JSM? It has been hours now. Fool. He really doesn’t get it. DRJ is 100% correct that if he doesn’t get out in front of this, he will lose by osmosis.

    Ed (385e88)

  67. #55 htom – Pelosi still condemned this as the fault of the republicans after the vote. She complained that “they” promised to deliver at least half of the vote in favor of the bill. I’m sure we’ll see even stronger language later tonight. But if only all the Dems voted in favor of this it would have passed…. so how’s it the GOP’s fault … oh wait, everything’s their fault, I forgot.

    MOG (c949f7)

  68. DRJ is 100% correct that if he doesn’t get out in front of this, he will lose by osmosis.

    Ed – Right. Meanwhile Barney Frank is up yo his old tricks, so to speak, and offering prostitutes for votes.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  69. The Dems killed this bill. The spin that the Republicans did or even could is specious. But the entire financial environment we live in is specious because for the most part corrupt Democrats cannot keep their thieving fat fingers out of the till and the some of the rest of us have forgotten what being responsible means.

    Let’s see if we can actually get a bill passed that punishes the bad actors and not just the good citizens who play by the rules. If not, I guess we’ll all find out what our parents and grandparents meant by “depression,” and it ain’t reaching for a Xanax. Then there really will be a revolution in this country, which has grown fat, happy and oblivious on the themes of faking it, scoring a high windfall and retiring early.

    Peg C. (48175e)

  70. MOG, on some level, if the bill failed, it is the Speaker’s fault; and in some societies, a failure of this magnitude would require her resignation. I don’t think we’d be better off dealing with the turmoil of electing a new Speaker right now, but on some level, I think falling on her sword would be the right thing to do to recognize the extent of her failure.

    That said, if Rep. Boehner promised a certain number of votes and failed to deliver, then he owns some of the blame, as well; either he knew he couldn’t deliver the votes and said he could, or he didn’t understand the extent of Republican opposition, or he thought he could win people over and then failed to do so.

    And I would submit this possibility: many of us (myself included) have been thinking that the Speaker wanted this to be bipartisan to provide political cover to Democrats who voted in favor of it; but given what happened, it seems possible that she wanted it to be bipartisan because she knew that more than 1/3 of Democrats would vote against it and that it couldn’t pass without Republican support.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  71. Of course it’s the House GOP’s fault. After all, the House Dems ignored their concerns, did not invite them to negotiations, called them unpatriotic and then tried to blame the GOP for the whole mess right before they were supposed to vote for this “crap sandwich” that is highly unpopular in their districts.

    That being said, the House will likely pass an even crappier sandwich now, but theat’s likely what Nancy wanted in the first place.

    Karl (f07e38)

  72. Everything is everybody else’s fault, in a Congresscritter’s mind (I insist that they have them, even though there is scant evidence.)

    htom (412a17)

  73. generally any legislation drafted in short order is bad.

    Joe - Dallas (d7c430)

  74. aphrael,

    It’s been pretty clear that the Speaker demanded GOP CYA and that there was significant opposition from the far Left of her party for at least a week. So now she’ll likely go the far Left, party-line route to pass it.

    Karl (f07e38)

  75. Like DRJ said, McCain might have just lost this election.

    Bill Failed = Economic Pain
    Republicans = Bill Failed
    McCain = Republican

    In the minds of voters: McCain = Economic Pain

    And it rhymes too!

    mj (c39ebb)

  76. Karl, I don’t think that will work; I suspect that if she does that, the blue dog Democrats bail. As it was, a disproportionate number of Democrats in close races for re-election voted against; if the bill moves more to the left, they’ll be no more likely to vote for it than they were this time.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  77. #57 Brad S., you keep going on about how all these actions were “Done in YOUR NAME”. While it may be true that the pols are doing things in our names, I think the congressional approval numbers indicate that these actions are not all done with our APPROVAL.

    Maybe it is time for the politicians to pay attention to what is good for the country rather than what is good for their careers. I would like to see politicians taking positions that they believe strongly in rather than the “safe” road of taking a poll and changing direction at a moments notice. Had these politicians had an ounce of integrity at any point in the past 30 years, we would probably not be in the situation we are in now.

    If I actually believed that a politician held the beliefs that they espouse because they thought those beliefs were the way to improve our society as a whole, I would gladly vote for him/her. However, when you look at their actions verses their statements, it becomes apparent that the ideology is nothing but a method of dividing the population into many smaller groups, playing them off against one another, in order to keep their positions of power for powers sake. Unfortunately, this applies to almost all politicians.

    Jay Curtis (8f6541)

  78. Racists

    JD (5f0e11)

  79. If we blame the Dems for voting against this, we give them credit for correctly NOT passing this travesty. Let’s not help the enemy here people

    HusseinWillFail (6c3739)

  80. Is it possible that Pelosi was trying to sink the compromise bill with the inflammatory speech, so that she could come back with the Christmas tree version and force it through with the votes from the far left?

    htom (412a17)

  81. What are you going to do, personally?

    Well, personally, I’m going to call my representatives, all of them Republicans and Democrats alike, and praise the ones who voted against the bailout and promise that if they hold firm, even against President Bush and their Party’s leadership, I’ll send them a check, and I’ll not only vote for them, but I’ll also put up a yard sign and walk a precinct in November.

    I’m also going to call the ones who voted for the outrage and tell them if they continue to support any form of taxpayer funded bailout, I’m going to send their opponent a check and work against them this year and in subsequent elections.

    Ropelight (1be620)

  82. Also don’t be too quick to think this will go poorly for McCain. All he has to say is that he took time from his campaign to put a stop to that version of the bill.. A good leader knows a good bill -and this was NOT a good bill

    HusseinWillFail (6c3739)

  83. JSM speaks.

    Weak as hell.

    Palin is gonna have to work another miracle. Thursday can’t get here soon enough.

    Ed (385e88)

  84. Well, it’s nice to know Ropelight will make the effort. Not surprising Jay Curtis won’t. Nor, apparently, will Karl or DRJ.

    Being a pundit is so easy, ainnit?

    Brad S (9f6740)

  85. Brad S.,

    The American people overwhelmingly opposed the bailout last week when it first came on their radar, but yesterday’s polls paint a different picture:

    “A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey conducted Sunday found that 33% of Likely Voters now favor the plan while 32% are opposed and 35% are not sure.”

    DRJ (c953ab)

  86. Anyway, Brad S., I’m covered. I have one family member who adamantly opposes the bailout, one in favor, and one on the fence. Someone at my house will be happy no matter what happens.

    DRJ (c953ab)

  87. #84 You don’t even bother to read the posts in the thread, do you? Please read #12. I spent more than 2 hours this morning making phone calls as well as sending e-mail to vaious senators and Representatives and the President’s comment line.

    But you are right, I would never actually take the time out of my day to try and influence the argument with the people who might actually be able to make a difference. /sarcasm off

    Jay Curtis (8f6541)

  88. I am curious whether the AP will issue a correction to this article.

    House ignores Bush, rejects $700B Bailout bill

    “More than two-thirds of Republicans and 40 percent of Democrats opposed the bill. In all, 95 Republicans joined 140 Democrats in voting “yes,” while 133 Republicans and 65 Democrats voted “no.””

    I contacted the AP news desk to point out that the author transposed the number of Republicans who voted for it with the number of Democrats who voted against it. I am curious whether they will reissue the story, post a correction or how they will handle the situation.

    Jay Curtis (8f6541)

  89. This thread seems like the congress, there is no consensus at all on whether any big bailout is necessary or desirable etc.etc.

    The finger pointing is typical, it’s always someone else’s fault right?

    Most regular people I talk to hate any kind of bailout and they aren’t interested in hearing about how saving big corporations is a necessary evil in order to save themselves/the country. They think it’s a huge con job…. but maybe more than that…. if you have to agree to save some huge corporation or industry, no matter what that industry does, to salvage the economy that keeps your personal situation good, then in a sense the corporations in that industry own you and you no longer are truly a free person. I don’t think the majority of Americans are willing to allow that to be their reality. Thank God for that.

    I heard a guy on some news show today who was completely against the bailout. He worked for a still solvent housing lender of course. He was looking forward to not having to compete against some institutions whose lending practices he disagreed with.

    EdWood (c2268a)

  90. Jay (@2:41): They’d better fix that, or any reader who can do simple math will wonder how that vote count would translate to “not passed”…

    PCachu (e072b7)

  91. Jeb Hensarling (R-Tx) has the better idea:
    No direct funding, use a suspension of Cap-Gains, and Corp. Income-taxes to encourage the private equity players to rescue Wall Street, and the economy.

    Another Drew (dfc67f)

  92. Another Drew:

    Are you the Drew that sent a fax to Congressman Pearce’s office last week, telling of a commenter named Leviticus on a site called Patterico’s Pontifications, and suggesting that Mr. Pearce do some research on my political beliefs?

    Leviticus (41975c)

  93. Fair or unfair, I think voters will blame Republicans for bad economic news in the near term because of this vote. So unless McCain convinces voters he can handle the economy (e.g., that he stands for something more than earmark reform), he can kiss this election good-bye.
    DRJ.
    Enough said.

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  94. Aphrael wrote:

    I express no opinion as to which party is responsible for the bailout failing, because I think there was broad opposition in both parties.

    The “party” that was responsible for the failure of the bill is the American people who were letting their elected representatives know that they did not like this bill. It is arguable that the people were wrong, and that this loathsome bill is simply, regrettably necessary, but our elected representatives in Congress really are representatives.

    Edmund Burke wrote on the problem: our representatives really supposed to represent the will of the people, or are they delegates, sent to the legislature to exercise their own judgement? Mr Burke concluded that the representative owed the people his judgement, and that he shortchanged his constituents if he failed to exercise it, even over their opposition.

    But it is interesting, at least semantically, that while some legislatures — the Virginia General Assembly being one — have Houses of Delegates, the Congress has a House of Representatives.

    The concerned Dana (556f76)

  95. “Can you say Disconnect?”

    Yes, there is a disconnect.

    There is a hurricane over the horizon, the WLI is way down, the stock market is way down, but because local lenders in some places are okay, that means there is not a crisis.

    It is unfortunate that Paulson over-reacted and created a sense of panic to get this done. However, doing nothing now is a dangerous sport.
    $1 trillion in market value wiped out in one day because they were 10 congresscritters short of an ‘aye’ vote.

    Travis Monitor (9e3371)

  96. Mr Burke concluded that the representative owed the people his judgement, and that he shortchanged his constituents if he failed to exercise it, even over their opposition.

    That would depend on how large the opposition is.

    Michael Ejercito (a757fd)

  97. Is there anywhere on TV that has an honest discussion of this issue?

    JD (5f0e11)

  98. #88 The article was replaced with the correction as the only change. If only The LA Times would respond as quickly and reasonably. 😎

    Jay Curtis (8f6541)

  99. #97 Surely you jest? There is no such think as honest journalism on television anymore. Well, there are maybe a hand full of honest fair journalists in the entire industry.

    Jay Curtis (8f6541)

  100. I think this was a mistake by House Republicans. The next bill the Democrats offer will be much more hard-line Marxist.

    http://conaffredux.blogspot.com/2008/09/moonbat-economics.html

    I pray I’m wrong about this.

    Willmoore Kendall (476a8b)

  101. Kendall, Pelosi can’t get the votes together for any bill evidently. She can’t lead a one man band.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  102. Kendall, Pelosi can’t get the votes together for any bill evidently. She can’t lead a one man band.

    Sixty-five Republicans went along with the bill.

    Only one hundred fifty-three Democrats needed to vote for this, and yet not enough of them did.

    Michael Ejercito (a757fd)

  103. SPQR – Ninety Dems voted against the bill because it wasn’t *Leftist enough*. Barbara Lee, Dennis Kucinich – they didn’t oppose the bill out of a love of free markets. Pelosi wanted Republican votes as *ss-cover, if you will pardon the term. Now she can ram any socialist bill she wants through. (The Senate, admittedly, will be tougher, and Bush may still remember he’s supposed to be a Republican.) And if they increase their majorities and take the White House in November, it will be even worse,

    You should listen to the way supposedly ‘centrist’ Leftist economists are talking about this now. Obama at least hides his radicalism. No one else in the ‘responsible’ Democrat party is bothering anymore. They have been seething and radicalizing for 8 years now, and they can almost taste victory. I wish more conservatives were paying attention.

    Willmoore Kendall (476a8b)

  104. “Is there anywhere on TV that has an honest discussion of this issue?”

    CNBC was pretty hilarious.

    imdw (e3c655)

  105. Kendall, I don’t think that Pelosi has another bill in her pocket. She plainly did not want any GOP votes for cover, as she intentionally pissed off GOP votes with her lies over the weekend about the GOP and her incoherent partisan rant during the debate today.

    If she wanted a bill to pass with Democratic pork, she could have offered that. I don’t think she has such a bill to offer, and it is unlikely to pass the Senate.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  106. A question for the group.

    I have read a couple of good succinct articles on the roots and history of the NINJA loans at the heart of the current financial mess.

    Can you recommend an article that discusses how they are actually causing the current crisis?

    I think I read it is a fallout of the Sarbanes Oxley Act that assets have to be carried what at the market will currently pay for them rather than a more intelligent valuation.

    This would seem to indicate it is as much phsycological as anything.

    How many bad loans are there? 3%? 5%? 10%?

    It sounds like no one really knows and everyone is saying it is a crisis so we won’t buy anything. Paulson say it is a crisis so the panic sets in. Even the US Mint has run out of gold coins. What changed last week from the week before?

    Maybe we need to change how the assets are carried on the books rather than trying to fix an unknown problem.

    Regarding bailing people out on their loans, we should take an equity cut. If you paid 400K and you get restructured with a 300K loan we take a 25% cut of the selling price when it sells. That may be tough but you get a roof over your head and you still get a shot at some equity.

    Anyway, again, I don’t have time to wade through political rhetoric and BS so I (and I assume others) would be interested in a good succinct article on what the actual problem is with the financial situation. One may have already been posted, and if so I apologize for not reading every comment here.

    Thank you in advance.

    jeff (8c850e)

  107. SPQR – You are badly misreading things. With the DOW down by a record amount today, Pelosi is pinning the blame squarely on the Republicans for her own “failure” – if, indeed, she had not hoped for this bill to fail all along. The next bill – and there will be another one – will be much, much worse. Our only hope is for the Republicans get some spine and somehow get a capitalist, free market bill up for a vote. But I think the Democrats are happy to have the economy flounder, as long as they can blame Republicans for it. And I think a lot of conservatives are in deep denial about what the Democrats want, and how far they are willing to go to get it. You should read the leftist blogs and the leftist political magazines. They are angry, and more radical than I have seen since the early ’70s. Please don’t kid yourself. We are on the brink.

    I do agree that Pelosi will be restrained by the Senate, which is more conservative and circumspect by nature. For a few more months, at least.

    Willmoore Kendall (476a8b)

  108. Kendall, I think you are the one misreading things, there is no chance of a GOP bill getting a vote at all, much less passing.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  109. I fear you are right about that, SPQR – the Republicans would have to form a vigorous and united in front in order to embarrass the Dems into giving in, but they are too fearful to mount any kind of real attack. I miss Newt and DeLay more each day. I fear the bill that just failed was the best deal we could have hoped to get. Here’s hoping I’m wrong about that – but I don’t think I am.

    Willmoore Kendall (476a8b)

  110. Karl Rove was on the John Gibson radio show today analyzing the failed vote. He pointed out that even after Pelosi’s suicidal partisan speech that she didn’t even have significant committee chairs, subcommittee chairs and senior members lined up to vote in favor of the bill. Most of the Congressional Black Caucus voted no. Thanks for the leadership Senator ACORN. In an atmosphere like that, watching all those no votes trickle in, how many Republicans are going to be motivated to risk their seats to vote in favor of an unpopular bill?

    The worst Speaker in history strikes again.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  111. #110

    I saw that too… but it just said “set up” to me.
    So did Pelosi’s speech.
    Those people voted with Pelosi.. this failure was intentional

    SteveG (71dc6f)

  112. Jeff Wrote: “Can you recommend an article that discusses how they are actually causing the current crisis?”

    Read #50.

    I gained allot about the causes from that writing. Granted I think that most folks and too many congress critters fall asleep when Greenspan, and others, begins to speak. The subject is not on a level with Springer or even Letterman! Some very important things in life are not very interesting to learn about in depth! I know I’m guilty as hell for channel swapping when such comes on. Even today I’m far from even a student in the area.

    My understanding of the subject is that congress created legislation that forced lending institutions to loan money to folks that almost clearly could NOT afford to pay the money back! Such is no better than you lending me money on a promise to pay, knowing I have no job and have not had one in the last few years, with no evidence that I can actually generate the revenue to pay you.

    The industry got creative, no money down, interest only payments, balloon payments and such. The actual lenders sold this bad paper off to larger lenders, so they could sell more loans.

    The big boys super greed to be the biggest, purchased bad paper at unreasonable prices, because lenders bundle all their fees and other services into the loan. At point of purchase, they are worth less than papered value!

    I recently read that the costs to a lending institution to reposes and dispose of a default home is averaged at 70 grand! So short selling is a norm for the lenders. Write off anything up to the costs of repossession! Renegotiate the loan and life goes on at real values for both consumer and lender.

    But the big boys don’t negotiate, they just throw you out, and this bailout would not stop one single repossession in the next six months.

    Borrowers are foolish! But much like the farm crisis of the 80’s, they got in trouble by lenders offering them more than the lenders knew they could afford to pay back, and if a crop failed? Well your family farm for 150 years got lost to some lender. This situation is really no different!

    I purchased a home in 2000, cost too much, but actually handling the payments was not a real problem, but the lender said we did not actually qualify for the loan on stated declared income! SO HE FUDGED THE NUMBERS!!!!

    I’ve no doubt the same was SOP across the lending world up until two weeks ago. After all these guys all get paid up front via fees and such. They will but sell the paper off to freddie or fanny anyway and have no long term responsibility to either the homeowner or the purchaser of the paper. Just like a car salesman, get the sig, go find another buyer for the next.

    TC (f398ed)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4509 secs.