Today's House vote

Post Reply New Topic

Anyone else hear about this? I'm still nauseous. When we were talking yesterday about the Asian market opening at 6:00 PM eastern I really thought they were crossing the t's and dotting the i's on something that both parties had made enough concessions on to be acceptable, boy was I wrong. The funny thing about all this; this could have been passed as well by the democrat majority but, it looks like both parties are terrified of ratifying a bill without mutual support because if not both parties - the party who's ultimately the majority in favor of the bill will take the fall if this whole bail-out measure doesn't work. At the same time the respresentative's phone's have been ringing off the hook with people calling and telling them not to sign it (and of course, they're afraid of not being reelected by their constituents).

I'd put the order from best scenario to worst scenario:

1). Finding a way to make this work without the 700 billion lump sum

2). 700 billion lump sum with added accountability and without the added bankruptcy protections and funding for ACORN

3) the 700 billion as it was

4) doing nothing.

We had a shot at option 2, instead we're looking more at 4 for the time being. I'm just wondering how much money will have to flow out of our country and how many thousand points the DOW will fall before they get their acts straightened out.

most of the opposition to the bill came from republicans. the democrats showed less resistance and pelosi wants it passed.


quit being in denial: you're a big government, socialist democrat.

And yourself?

The free market system does indeed have the potential to lead to economic ruin-the example being the great depression. That does NOT mean that socialism is good alternative! It means there is need for goverment regulation. So I want free markets and free enterprise, but NOT laissez-faire!

If our country does go that way I'd imagine it'll be the shortest phase our country will ever have, right between where capitalism collapses under the weight of its allowances to leftism (Barney Frank and Christ Dodd, two truely beautiful and swell individuals; and Pelosi, and Reid, and the media, and MTV, and the sophisticates of higher education, and activist judges...grrr...I digress) and where leftist utopia is eaten by outside forces and becomes either a totalitarian dictatorship or a theocratic dictatorship under Islam. It'll be one beautiful world to live in, hopefully I'll be conveniently relieved of my life somewhere along the line. Not so sure I want my hand forced to the kitchen stove by all the slow-learners, and I *really* don't want to have a wife and kids if the world is going to be anything as f'd as I think it may be in the next 20 or 30 years.

Its part of why this election means so much to me and with this crisis, it won't matter who's leading congress; most people don't think that deep into it - they just look to see who's commander and chief of the military and figure that he/she is also judiciary and legislative all in one.

(PS: Sorry I didn't sugarcoat if for ya but seriously, I'm still too stunned for words; by congress, by yes - the stupidity of my own party even).

You Americans need to correct your system. Those that so foolishly loaned unsecured money at rates that were not prudent need to be accountable; to pay a price for their foolishness.

No. Its not even about punishment. Its about accountants behaving in ways that dont make financial sense. Average people shouldnt(and dont) live that way, nor should they.

We need to have our laws based on standards rather than compassion. When laws are based on compassion they ignore quite literally 'What works?' and goes for what feels right - in the end its horridly destructive. We have a *big* victim-mentality and victim-politics problem in our culture fueling a lot of this. How *dare* society tell people to take personal responsibility .



Fannie and Freddie were an extremely stupid idea, combining the worst of both government and private. I also blame all the people who were buying houses with no money down, buying on flex-rate or flex-arm mortgages, and knowing it would only work for them if housing values keep going up.

And yes, I realize that with our current credit/liquidity problem we're taking from the world supply - we're f'ing everyone else; makes me even more angry because the world now really has a reason to be angry with us and we have far more reason that ever to be furious with our legislature.

I think what we should do is just take that $700,000,000,000 and split it equally among all US citizens. Why just give it to bankers?

stupid would be rewarding those who failed.

Same thing as just leaving it in our pockets; wish we could.

Pretty much everyone:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt78572.html

don't care about that. just care about the failing banks and the government's response right now. preferably to NOT give free money to those banks that failed and to not assist private entities in taking over companies.

Selective regulation led to this problem. the Sorbaines-Oxley Act was supposed to bring more accountability to all publically-traded corporations; but Fannie-Mae, Freddie-Mac, and a host of other financial institutions were specifically (and quietly) left out of Sorbaines-Oxley, and were thus allowed to operate unregulated. This led to lack of regulation throughout the entire home-mortgage industry, and to lenders taking on unsecured and high-risk loans from people that could not afford to pay them off.

Result: A crashing home-mortgage market, massive layoffs, and ruined credit ratings; all rippling through the entire global financial system.

Thanks a lot, President Bush. You and your cronies are living large off of the people whose lives you've ruined with your new economic feudalism, and now you want to reward your friends with a bailout for ruining the economy. If there is no such thing as Hell, then I hope that one is created just for you.

Last edited by Fnord on 29 Sep 2008, 7:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

We're stuck. It goes to show I think that you can have capitalism, you can have socialism, but blending the two has some major drawbacks - not only as a remedy but how its originated a lot of these problems.

Quasi-government is a status that shouldn't exist.



If you keep saying it was Bush, keep telling everyone around you it was Bush, people will just believe it - and I'm guessing you've been marinading in the mantra for a long time; it just sounds and feels right at this point, doesn't even have to be true.

^^ Okay ... but somehow, "Thanks a lot, Starbucks Coffee" just doesn't carry the same caché as blaming a no-good, lame-duck, Constitution-rewriting, dry-drunk, new-kew-lair war-loving, water-boarding, soon-to-be-ex-president.

Naaa ... you're right ... no connection ... too much like a conspiracy theory to place the blame for the current economic fiasco squarely on the shoulders of the one man who set the administrative policies that led to the perversion of the Sorbaines-Oxley Act ...

I agree panda. Though techstep, I dont think that it is the same as leaving it in our pockets. Especially when we can no longer depend on the administration of "our" government to allocate these resources wisely. I am not saying that our citizenry would be any more adept at how our resources are directed. Though I would hope if this actually transpired that renewable energy would be our priority. I think we all should become independent in the sense of power generation. Imagine not having to ever pay a utility bill again. Imagine everyone being able to have a place to call home.