Discomfort With The Bailout

[flyingdonkey 0]

Everyone should take the 8 minutes to watch this!!!!

K, but take 2 minutes to watch this. LoL at Barney!http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/29/f...u_n_130328.html

[85suited 0]

Barney was funny...It is too bad he is right of the heart of this problem and refuses to admit any wrong doing

[Nimue1995 1]

This is just an comment and in no way means that I'm happy about this particular result possibly coming to pass. But I think that any hope McCain has is now fatally tied to the Dow Jones Avg. That seems to be akin to tying oneself to an anchor. The dems, probably by accident, positioned themselves perfectly. First, had the bailout PASSED, they could explain their vote for it by claiming they had to clean up the "Bush/McCain mess". Even had the market still crashed, they could claim it would have been worse, without their noble "bipartisan" bailout effort. But, if it was NOT passed, the dems are in an ideal position: ANY detrimental effect on the market or broader economy can NOW be totally blamed on the gop: "They created the mess, and lacked the political courage to clean it up". Now, if a hardware store in Scobey, MT goes down, the dems can point to the failure of the bailout plan. This leaves the McCain to simply whine that HE wanted to bailout, but couldn't persuade his own party in congress. If the economy tracks even remotely the predictions being made, I think we've seen the end of gop influence for a generation. Ouch. Consider the gop stallwarts who voted against the bill, in anticipation of the 2008 elections. If the Dow average is below 5,000, and their constiuents have seen the value of their IRA evaporate, how much luck are they going to have in pointing fingers at a dem opponent? The dem opponent will be prepped with a lot of bullshit about just how the nifty bailout would have "protected main street". While the gop was in something of a no-win situation, their fate in 2008 and beyond has now been securely tied to an economy that everyone says is on the verge of a huge recession. If the impending consequences are even close to how folks are predicting, we may be witnessing an eclipse of the gop that will rival the 1930's. No, I'm not happy about it. First, I have seen nothing from the dems which indicates, to me, they deserve any credit or benefit from this. Second, a one-party system tends to wildly steer into excess and corruption. Third, I'm always something of a closet republican, in the Ike sense of the party, before it was putrified by zealous imbeciles like Bush. Being a romantic, I still like to think of it as the party of Ike, or TR. I'm all about long-term pragmatism in leadership, I guess. It looks from here that you can hang the "IP" behind the "R"'s that are running for a while.Now have fun telling me how wrong I am.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

..If the economy tracks even remotely the predictions being made, I think we've seen the end of gop influence for a generation...

I remember very clearly thinking something similar during the end of George H. W. Bush's term in 1991 or 92. His approval ratings were Sky High. I mean SKY high. He seemingly could do no wrong. The Dems were in disarray. There were a bunch of boobs trying to figure out who would be the one to lose to GHWB in 92. The Democratic Contenders were being called the 7 Dwarves by the media. They eventually nominated a nobody named Clinton. People were talking about the end of the Democratic Party as it was then known. There was no end in sight for how the Republicans were going to dominate for a generation. Just remember that a few months ago Democrats were cooing about how could the Republican Party be such a mess - then it took the Democrats months of ugly fighting just to pick a nominee. And a see-saw of momentum since.Things change.Fast.You have at BEST ESTIMATES 50% of the country's voters RIGHT NOW deciding to vote for BHO.50%50% isn't exactly a Landslide indicating total dominance.Don't get too ****ing high on yourself.

[Nimue1995 1]

I remember very clearly thinking something similar during the end of George H. W. Bush's term in 1991 or 92. His approval ratings were Sky High. I mean SKY high. He seemingly could do no wrong. The Dems were in disarray. There were a bunch of boobs trying to figure out who would be the one to lose to GHWB in 92. The Democratic Contenders were being called the 7 Dwarves by the media. They eventually nominated a nobody named Clinton. People were talking about the end of the Democratic Party as it was then known. There was no end in sight for how the Republicans were going to dominate for a generation. Just remember that a few months ago Democrats were cooing about how could the Republican Party be such a mess - then it took the Democrats months of ugly fighting just to pick a nominee. And a see-saw of momentum since.Things change.Fast.You have at BEST ESTIMATES 50% of the country's voters RIGHT NOW deciding to vote for BHO.Don't get too ****ing high on yourself.

I think you have a reading comprehension problem if you think my post said that at all.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

I think you have a reading comprehension problem if you think my post said that at all.

...and if you don't think you come across a crowing about a Republican funeral you need to retake written communications 101

[Nimue1995 1]

This is just an comment and in no way means that I'm happy about this particular result possibly coming to pass. No, I'm not happy about it. First, I have seen nothing from the dems which indicates, to me, they deserve any credit or benefit from this. Second, a one-party system tends to wildly steer into excess and corruption. Third, I'm always something of a closet republican, in the Ike sense of the party, before it was putrified by zealous imbeciles like Bush. Being a romantic, I still like to think of it as the party of Ike, or TR.

...and if you don't think you come across a crowing about a Republican funeral you need to retake written communications 101

If that says to you that I'm crowing then you have a REAL reading comprehension problem. I stated what I saw as likely results of what's happened today and you take it that I'm trying to put you down or something. This is the friggin' problem that I was talking about in the other thread. Good grief!

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

If that says to you that I'm crowing then you have a REAL reading comprehension problem. I stated what I saw as likely results of what's happened today and you take it that I'm trying to put you down or something. This is the friggin' problem that I was talking about in the other thread. Good grief!

I guess when you use terms like "Zealous Imbeciles" I should consider you to be completely impartial.Whatever.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

Double posting is fun... for every-one

[85suited 0]

http://www.forbes.com/home/2008/09/29/mark...29gingrich.htmlinteresting op ed piece on Mark to market accounting...just wonder what you financial guys think of this

[Nimue1995 1]

I guess when you use terms like "Zealous Imbeciles" I should consider you to be completely impartial.Whatever.

I will not apologize for disliking Bush and where he's taken the Republican Party the last 8 years. If you think he's a success then we have no common ground on that issue.

[El Guapo 8]

John Kerry is an Idiot.He is literally blaming Bush on national television for Fannie/Freddie.

[copernicus 0]

John Kerry is an Idiot.He is literally blaming Bush on national television for Fannie/Freddie.

I nearly through my chair through the TV when he was on BOR if thats what youre watching. BOR didnt let him skate though.

[El Guapo 8]

I nearly through my chair through the TV when he was on BOR if thats what youre watching. BOR didnt let him skate though.

Yes. Exactly. And people think Bush did a bad job, good lord if that guy was pres....

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

John Kerry is an Idiot.He is literally blaming Bush on national television for Fannie/Freddie.

More of a bitter, broken poltical hack and shill.

[brvheart 1,752]

John Kerry is an Idiot.He is literally blaming Bush on national television for Fannie/Freddie.

I nearly through my chair through the TV when he was on BOR if thats what youre watching. BOR didnt let him skate though.

The problem, as we all know, is that when Kerry and Pelosi say things like that... a huge chunk of Americans believe it. They have no clue. Even people that appear intelligent, successful, and own their own websites buy into this crap that they don't understand.

[copernicus 0]

The problem, as we all know, is that when Kerry and Pelosi say things like that... a huge chunk of Americans believe it. They have no clue. Even people that appear intelligent, successful, and own their own websites buy into this crap that they don't understand.

thats why JSM needs to go on the attack and show some passion. He needs to spend some time reading DN and DG posts, that should rile him up.

[vbnautilus 48]

thats why JSM needs to go on the attack and show some passion make another rash, impulsive decision

[copernicus 0]

His decision was a good one. The way Pelosi was treating the House Republicans there was no chance of a deal without him involved. If she hadnt tried to set up the Dems with a no risk proposition it wouldnt have blown up in her plastic filled face.Take a look at the Dems who voted no. They sat down and figured out who needed to be safe and vote against because they knew the public didnt like the deal. They gambled and lost. Her speech was irresponsible, knowing she had the slimmest of margins.

[85suited 0]

It is interesting that Barney Frank would rail against the republicans who voted against the billHere are 12 NAY votes that are Democrats and SERVE ON HIS COMMITTEE, The House Financial Services CommitteRep. Al Green, TX NayRep. Andre Carson, IN NayRep. Brad Sherman, CA NayRep. David Scott, GA NayRep. Don Cazayoux, LA NayRep. Joe Baca, CA NayRep. Lincoln Davis, TN NayRep. Paul W. Hodes, NH NayRep. Stephen F. Lynch, MA NayRep. Travis Childers, MS NayRep. William Lacy Clay, MO NayRep. Emanuel Cleaver, MO NayDiscuss amongst yourselves

[85suited 0]

Also interesting to Note, These Californian's voted against the billPelosi couldn't deliver her own stateNay CA-1 Thompson, C. [D]Nay CA-6 Woolsey, Lynn [D]Nay CA-9 Lee, Barbara [D]Nay CA-13 Stark, Fortney [D]Nay CA-27 Sherman, Brad [D]Nay CA-29 Schiff, Adam [D]Nay CA-31 Becerra, Xavier [D]Nay CA-32 Solis, Hilda [D]Nay CA-33 Watson, Diane [D]Nay CA-34 Roybal-Allard, Lucille [D]Nay CA-38 Napolitano, Grace [D]Nay CA-39 Sanchez, Linda [D]Nay CA-43 Baca, Joe [D]Nay CA-47 Sanchez, Loretta [D]Nay CA-51 Filner, Bob [D]

[copernicus 0]

It is interesting that Barney Frank would rail against the republicans who voted against the billHere are 12 NAY votes that are Democrats and SERVE ON HIS COMMITTEE, The House Financial Services CommitteRep. Al Green, TX NayRep. Andre Carson, IN NayRep. Brad Sherman, CA NayRep. David Scott, GA NayRep. Don Cazayoux, LA NayRep. Joe Baca, CA NayRep. Lincoln Davis, TN NayRep. Paul W. Hodes, NH NayRep. Stephen F. Lynch, MA NayRep. Travis Childers, MS NayRep. William Lacy Clay, MO NayRep. Emanuel Cleaver, MO NayDiscuss amongst yourselves

Yeah, but the Republicans were the reason it was defeated!

[copernicus 0]

Also interesting to Note, These Californian's voted against the billPelosi couldn't deliver her own stateNay CA-1 Thompson, C. [D]Nay CA-6 Woolsey, Lynn [D]Nay CA-9 Lee, Barbara [D]Nay CA-13 Stark, Fortney [D]Nay CA-27 Sherman, Brad [D]Nay CA-29 Schiff, Adam [D]Nay CA-31 Becerra, Xavier [D]Nay CA-32 Solis, Hilda [D]Nay CA-33 Watson, Diane [D]Nay CA-34 Roybal-Allard, Lucille [D]Nay CA-38 Napolitano, Grace [D]Nay CA-39 Sanchez, Linda [D]Nay CA-43 Baca, Joe [D]Nay CA-47 Sanchez, Loretta [D]Nay CA-51 Filner, Bob [D]

Pelosi couldnt deliver pizza well enough to get a tip. And for two economic wizards like the Sanchez sister to even have a vote on this makes me wonder whether the House powers should be limited.

[Nimue1995 1]

Sigh, the idea and this has been commented on before was that it was to be a bi-partisan effort. This means that Pelosi had to deliver over half the democrats which she did. And Cantor & Blount had to deliver half the republicans which they didn't. What's worse is that it's known that a bill is almost never sent to the house floor if the leadership believes it will be defeated. So the fact remains that both sides thought they had the votes to get it passed. And if the republican leadership had delivered their side, it would have been. Almost nobody wants to have to vote for this unpopular bill especially if they're up for election this year. The citizens hate it. So the idea that 94 democrats didn't vote for it isn't surprising. It's a fair assessment that these are the dems up for election this year. It sucks that it's political consideration involved but it's the reality. A third of the Republicans are also up for election as well. And I'd figure that the Republican leadership wasn't going to ask them to vote for this bill either. Regardless there are 2/3 of the Republicans that aren't up for reelection and the Republican leadership couldn't deliver enough of those to get this bill passed. So you can sit there and list the Democrats that didn't support it all day long. But it comes down to the fact that without the Republicans on board this bill was DOA.That's what makes it the perfect storm for the GOP. IF it had passed, the proponents could constantly remind us of how much worse it COULD have been without the wise and noble "plan" that the dems urged us to pass. You can debate that, but it didn't happen, anyway... Even if the bailout did nothing, the proponents could claim it did. Most of all, the dems were already positioned to call it a "bipartisan effort to correct the gop mess". But, that doesn't hurt the dems. Not when the gop prez candidate is pimping for the bill, for crying out loud! No blood. But, NOW, there's no debate about the bill. Now, the dems can just plain CLAIM the bill could have solved everything, and anyone missing skin from the crash is sure as s**t going to be inclined to believe it. The guys (dems and gop) who voted against the bill have now tied their political fate to the economy. But, it's gonna be the gopers who get picked off. Or maybe not. But, say you are the gop rep in a district that gets devastated by the crash. Imagine you had voted against Paulson's plan. Your constiuants are PISSED OFF, hurting, and desperate for anything. In the manner of people who lose their homes, they are desperate to fix the blame, and put faith in any unlikely solution. Your dem opponent is funded with canned ads about how you caused the devastation with your short-sighted vote. Everything bad about the economy has now been painted as the "Bush/McCain: depression of 2008. I'm not arguing logic, here, guys. Just politics. I'm thinking that you need a game plan on HOW you explain to the dull-average constiuants that there really WASN'T this magical bill that would have kept them in the home, employed, and buying all the stuff they wanted. But, here's the really cool/frusterating part. Suppose the economic downturn gets worse and worser. s**t really hits the fan, right? The recalcitrant gopers NOW feel the heat of the election, or next election, and change their votes (if not in a month, then before the 2010 elections). They cave, and support the bailout. Well, what can THEY say if the bill doesn't work THEN? And, you can believe that the dems line will be that the bill was passed "too late to do much good".

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

Sigh, the idea and this has been commented on before was that it was to be a bi-partisan effort. This means that Pelosi had to deliver over half the democrats which she did. And Cantor & Blount had to deliver half the republicans which they didn't. What's worse is that it's known that a bill is almost never sent to the house floor if the leadership believes it will be defeated. So the fact remains that both sides thought they had the votes to get it passed. And if the republican leadership had delivered their side, it would have been. Almost nobody wants to have to vote for this unpopular bill especially if they're up for election this year. The citizens hate it. So the idea that 94 democrats didn't vote for it isn't surprising. It's a fair assessment that these are the dems up for election this year. It sucks that it's political consideration involved but it's the reality. A third of the Republicans are also up for election as well. And I'd figure that the Republican leadership wasn't going to ask them to vote for this bill either. Regardless there are 2/3 of the Republicans that aren't up for reelection and the Republican leadership couldn't deliver enough of those to get this bill passed. So you can sit there and list the Democrats that didn't support it all day long. But it comes down to the fact that without the Republicans on board this bill was DOA.That's what makes it the perfect storm for the GOP. IF it had passed, the proponents could constantly remind us of how much worse it COULD have been without the wise and noble "plan" that the dems urged us to pass. You can debate that, but it didn't happen, anyway... Even if the bailout did nothing, the proponents could claim it did. Most of all, the dems were already positioned to call it a "bipartisan effort to correct the gop mess". But, that doesn't hurt the dems. Not when the gop prez candidate is pimping for the bill, for crying out loud! No blood. But, NOW, there's no debate about the bill. Now, the dems can just plain CLAIM the bill could have solved everything, and anyone missing skin from the crash is sure as s**t going to be inclined to believe it. The guys (dems and gop) who voted against the bill have now tied their political fate to the economy. But, it's gonna be the gopers who get picked off. Or maybe not. But, say you are the gop rep in a district that gets devastated by the crash. Imagine you had voted against Paulson's plan. Your constiuants are PISSED OFF, hurting, and desperate for anything. In the manner of people who lose their homes, they are desperate to fix the blame, and put faith in any unlikely solution. Your dem opponent is funded with canned ads about how you caused the devastation with your short-sighted vote. Everything bad about the economy has now been painted as the "Bush/McCain: depression of 2008. I'm not arguing logic, here, guys. Just politics. I'm thinking that you need a game plan on HOW you explain to the dull-average constiuants that there really WASN'T this magical bill that would have kept them in the home, employed, and buying all the stuff they wanted. But, here's the really cool/frusterating part. Suppose the economic downturn gets worse and worser. s**t really hits the fan, right? The recalcitrant gopers NOW feel the heat of the election, or next election, and change their votes (if not in a month, then before the 2010 elections). They cave, and support the bailout. Well, what can THEY say if the bill doesn't work THEN? And, you can believe that the dems line will be that the bill was passed "too late to do much good".

How can something be Cool and Frusterating (sic)? Again - to characterize the defeat of this bill on "recalcitrant gopers" is just not sensible. Why are the 12 votes from the Republicans somehow more responsible for the Bill's defeat than the 94 Democrat or the other 121 Republican "Nays" This was a Bi-Partisan defeat of the Bill - over 90 Democrats voted against the bill. Around 80 Republicans were apparently ready to cross party lines to Vote for the Bill – in an Election Year.It was a bad bill and 2/3 of Republicans and 94 Democrats had the guts to vote against it - this time. I still fear that the final "solution" will be more of the same with just some more $ tacked on in other areas to soothe the opposition.