Bipartisan Bailout Plan Isn't Playing in Peoria

[Realitycheck]

Paying your mortgage to the government, what will they think of next? They were supposed to nationalize healthcare first.

[Pangloss]

So the two parties hammered out an agreement over the weekend, which goes to the House today. Passage is described in this article as "uncertain". The bill includes quite a number of compromises and changes from the original Paulson plan, but no earkmarks or amendments, per se.

 

The 110-page bill that goes to a House vote today and a Senate vote as soon as Wednesday contains key measures demanded by both parties. Among them: curbs on executive pay, an oversight board and a chance for taxpayers to share in potential gains.

 

"No longer will the U.S. taxpayer bail out the recklessness of Wall Street," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco).

 

"You've heard all this hyperbole . . . that we're throwing $700 billion at Wall Street. That simply isn't true," said Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee and one of his party's lead negotiators. "We may lose some money, we may break even or we may make some money. My gut tells me we'll make money."

 

Presidential nominees Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) both tentatively endorsed the plan in appearances on Sunday news programs.

 

Politically it's a fascinating situation, with both parties and their presidential candidates endorsing the bill and pushing for it to pass, and yet most of the country opposed. I'm quite enthralled by the whole thing, completely aside from the economic implications. We live in interesting times.

[npts2020]

I fail to see how people say there are two American political parties in anything other than name. The core of both parties solidly represent business interests over individual and societal interest. With this view it should be no mystery that they dont want the same things the rest of us want. American politics is a case study on how to get people to vote against their own self interest. Combine lack of electoral options with a poorly educated public and you have our present situation. Anyone who doesnt toe the party line (i.e. Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, et.al.) is marginalized and attacked as being on the "fringe" regardless of how much sense they might make.

[Pangloss]

That's an interesting point.

[Realitycheck]

Wow. The House shut down the deal. (drum roll ... what happens next? The world is going to end?)

[Pangloss]

About 60% of the Dems voted for it, and about a third of the Repubs. Maybe fiscal conservatism isn't quite dead yet. CNN article here:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/news/economy/bailout/index.htm?cnn=yes

[iNow]

I wonder what happens now...

[Pangloss]

Now I post a reply!

 

The Dow just set a new all-time drop record, momentarily breaking the -722 record from just after 9/11. Good work, Nancy!

[iNow]

Now I post a reply!

 

The Dow just set a new all-time drop record, momentarily breaking the -722 record from just after 9/11. Good work, Nancy!

 

How is this Pelosi's fault? Republican House members voted against the bailout by a more than 2-to-1 margin. A majority of Democrats voted in favor.

 

Democrats FOR: 140

Democrats AGAINST: 95

 

Republicans FOR: 65

Republicans AGAINST: 133

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/washington/ROLLCALL.html?currentChamber=house&currentSession=2&currentCongress=110&currentRoll=674

 

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml

 

Seems somewhat slanted of you to say, "Way to go, Nancy."

[swansont]

How is this Pelosi's fault? Republican House members voted against the bailout by a more than 2-to-1 margin. A majority of Democrats voted in favor.

 

Republican leaders who had pushed their reluctant members for the bill blamed Speaker Nancy Pelosi' date=' D-Calif., saying that her speech during the floor debate drove away about a dozen Republicans they thought they could get to support the measure.

 

"I do believe we could have gotten there today if it had not been for this partisan speech the speaker gave on the floor of the House," said Boehner.[/quote']

 

But CNN fails to report what Pelosi said that might have caused this. Can't tell from this angle if that's just blamethrowing or if there's substance to it.

[Pangloss]

She did make a partisan speech just before the vote; it was a "blame the Republicans" speech when a "forget the blame let's get this done" speech was called for. More to the point, House Republican leadership was in favor of the bill, so House leadership (which happens to be Democrats) is responsible for its failure today.

 

They'll fix it tomorrow, I expect. Probably following a less partisan speech from Pelosi. If there's one thing's for sure, it's that all 535 of the jokers have had their travel plans screwed up, which is probably more important to them than the plunging Dow.

[iNow]

So, does anyone have a video or transcript of the speech so I can decide for myself if this is empty political drama or true lawmaking gladiatorship?

[Pangloss]

I was just about to add this to my last post:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2008/09/why_the_bailout_bill_failed.html

 

It's a pretty good rundown on what lawmakers were thinking, basically dividing it up into five categories:

1) Poor salesmanship

2) Re-election issues for members (unpopular bill)

3) Power vacuum in leadership

4) Ideological issues (e.g. House Republicans)

5) Partisanship, vis-a-vis Pelosi's speech and Republican reaction to it (interesting quote from Barney Frank in there)

[bascule]

Well, the Dow just suffered the worst single day point loss ever, down 778 points. Black Monday still remains the worst percentage loss:

 

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/markets/markets_newyork/index.htm?cnn=yes

 

She did make a partisan speech just before the vote; it was a "blame the Republicans" speech when a "forget the blame let's get this done" speech was called for. More to the point, House Republican leadership was in favor of the bill, so House leadership (which happens to be Democrats) is responsible for its failure today.

 

What's more partisan, making a "partisan" speech, or not voting for needed legislation because the other party made a "partisan" speech?

 

The content of the speech is not incorrect, although its timing was rather poor.

 

If the speech is the reason the Republicans rejected the bill, their partisanship is a thousand times worse than Pelosi's.

[Realitycheck]

What I read is that most of the representatives wanted each other to vote for it, but didn't want to vote for it themselves due to all of the backlash from their constituents, especially right before election day.

[ParanoiA]

And for some of us...

 

Yay!! The bailout failed! Yay!!

 

And I'm with bascule, the republicans are way super duper more partisan than the democrats here.

[iNow]

So, does anyone have a video or transcript of the speech so I can decide for myself if this is empty political drama or true lawmaking gladiatorship?

 

I found this in the article Pangloss shared:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey3ZlsmIkz4

[Realitycheck]

While there was some partisanship wrangling in there, I think she really hit the nail on the head. It sounds a lot like she wasn't really for the bailout, though she probably voted for it.

[swansont]

5) Partisanship, vis-a-vis Pelosi's speech and Republican reaction to it (interesting quote from Barney Frank in there)

 

I think he pegged it, though there were a whole lot of dems that helped repeal Glass-Steagall. There's plenty of blame to go around, I'd have some respect for anyone who had the brass ones to admit their complicity. Pelosi didn't (in the clip I saw), and Bush sure didn't in his remarks last week.

[Pangloss]

I more or less agree with the above.

 

Bascule, House Republican objections, at least prior to Pelosi's speech, were ideological, not partisan. I would agree that that was petty if they responded in that manner, and the article I linked said the same thing. But she set the stage for that, and frankly anyone defending Pelosi's speech (or any of those other idiots at the moment, Democrat or Republican) is making a partisan play out of a universally bad situation. She had an obligation and an opportunity to talk about the common good, and she chose instead to sell the Democratic party. Face it: She screwed up.

 

Incidentally, politically speaking, Democrats have lost the opportunity to convince the 20% of this country that actually thinks independently, and perhaps a few of the 40% that always vote Republican, that the financial crisis and economic threat a problem that only Republicans created and that only Democrats can solve. That ship has sailed. The current crisis put the truth very much in focus, and the truth is no more flattering to Democrats than it is to Republicans.

 

I wonder if it's actually possible for the congressional approval rating to go even lower.

 

---

line[/hr]

 

Just got off the phone with my dad, who's never voted Republican in his life and spent 98% of the conversation railing at the Bush administration, but he attacked Barney Frank's hypocritical statements quoted by bascule above because 95 Democrats also voted against the bill.

 

I don't really think any of this matters at this point. What clearly happened today is that the country showed the government what its approval ratings really mean.

[iNow]

Face it: She screwed up.

 

Oh, please. Something THIS important... Something THIS huge... You'd damned well better be very convinced in your convictions. You'd better be most certain in your approach that you are either FOR or AGAINST the bill. This is of monstrous significance... History in process.

 

If the words of somebody in the opposing party are enough to change your vote, and that's the best reason you can come up with to explain why you voted no, then you are a complete and total dumbass loser who should be forcibly removed from office and shot.

 

Something this big... your convinctions should be strong, and have absolutely zero to do with hollow and vapid political games. That's my two cents, anyway.

 

"I didn't vote for it because of what Pelosi said."

Oh, STFU!

 

 

 

---

line[/hr]

 

And for some of us...

 

Yay!! The bailout failed! Yay!!

 

As scary as this is, I am sort of with you on this. A bailout like this is not what should happen to make things "better," as it needs to bottom out before people trust that things have stablized. However, I (like many others) am rather anxious and nervous about what may happen.

 

I think I said this before, but I'd rather they do it "right" than do it "quickly."

 

 

Speaking of fear, though... Did anyone catch this? Strange the similarity.

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=186052&title=clusterf#@k-to-the-poor-house

Edited September 30, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[bascule]

Face it: She screwed up.

 

Sure, I'll happily concede that if you concede that the Republicans did something ten times as "partisan".

[Pangloss]

Sure, I'll happily concede that if you concede that the Republicans did something ten times as "partisan".

 

Well yes, we do agree on that, and really you've already said that her timing was off, so I think we have common ground there. It's my fault, I shouldn't have mentioned Pelosi at all, and it's taken us off track here when I think we basically agree.

 

This is not about Democrats or Republicans being wrong. Like I said above, I think most intelligent Americans are willing to accept that the bailout may be necessary. The problem is that they don't trust the government to handle it.

 

You want to hear something really freaking crazy? The best plan here may well have been the original proposal from Paulson! No no, hear me out, I realize the absurdity of that statement, but consider this: The terms of the proposal are that we buy up high risk loans and reinvest them, right? And the idea is that that be done with two primary goals in mind: #1 Saving the economy, and #2 recovering that money. There is no #3 -- any other considerations are only after #s 1 & 2 are met. Right? So, between the following two authorities, who do we all think has a better motivation to follow those two goals without straying?

 

Authority 1 (Paulson):

- Cannot profit from the endeavor in any way

- Has his entire reputation riding on the success of these measures

- Has a very small chance of actually being a secret Halliburton employee in disguise

 

Authority 2 (the 535 elected members of Congress):

- Most currently running for re-election by popular vote

- Bringing money home for your district has a big impact on voting

- Actions based largely on popular perceptions of issues because of the above

- Currently harboring a single digit approval rating

 

So who do we think will be better able to avoid sopping up the mortgages of those $9/hr, single-mom, mother-of-three hairdressers who got suckered into $350,000 mortgages, Authority #1 or Authority #2? Good christ -- they'll vanish that money faster than Blackwater in a war zone! Oversight my freaking ass -- are we INSANE?!

 

I'm not actually suggesting that Paulson be put in charge of this stuff without accountability -- that's just not a realistic thing to do, even if the only reason not to do it is political. What I'm really pointing out here is how ludicrous a situation we've put ourselves in with our complete and utter inability to look past the blame game. We made this bed, and now we have to sleep in it. This is an ridiculous situation, the likes of which we have never seen in the entire history of this country.

 

You know what, you were right -- can it have only been a week ago?? -- in calling this an economic crisis, and I was wrong. And that's not the only thing I agree with you on -- my personal approval rating of the Bush administration is as negative as it has ever been. But if there's one thing this situation is not, it's the fault of Republicans or Democrats alone, nor will pinning the blame on one party or the other get us out of this mess. I think we all agree on that, but with 30-something days to the election that is exactly what is happening in Washington. It's un-freaking-believable.

 

Today I called the district office manager of a member of congress that I happen to know personally (was in our wedding party, in fact). Not once in all the time that I've known this person have I actually forced them to listen to something I had to say on a political matter as part of their job. I gave them an earful about how their boss is playing partisan politics (prominently so, in the news yesterday), and that it was wrong and it needed to stop. And I got the distinct impression I wasn't the only one who did so.

 

People need to get MAD about this, and they need to stay mad about it even if this bill is passed. EVEN AFTER THE ELECTION. We contributed to this mess with our ignorance and our allowance of partisan politics and K Street influence. And now we're paying the price. We have to let Washington know that's not acceptable.

 

---

line[/hr]

 

GovTrack has the vote results, if you want to see how your members of congress voted:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-674

[padren]

How important is the timing of this bill's execution? If the House voted to pass a bipartisan bill committing to "some comprehensive level of relief within [x] time" would that allay wall street fears enough for it to stop diving at record levels?

 

I am somewhat concerned that we are rushing so quickly to attempt to fix such a large problem - I understand the need for triage but, considering how unprecedented this crisis is in size I am not even sure what kind of effort is required to spend that amount of money in precise enough of a way to fix this problem.

 

A friend of mine volunteered after Katrina and at least according to him, the amount of money that was going out inappropriately (to literally fraudulent) was almost physically sickening.

 

Can it really be hammered out already to the point that checks, balances and safeguards are in place, or is getting liquid funds out there as fast as possible actually more critical?

[john5746]

A friend of mine volunteered after Katrina and at least according to him, the amount of money that was going out inappropriately (to literally fraudulent) was almost physically sickening.

 

Can it really be hammered out already to the point that checks, balances and safeguards are in place, or is getting liquid funds out there as fast as possible actually more critical?

 

Yes, anytime you have that much money that quickly, there will be waste and fraud. Best we can hope for is that most of the money will shore up the financial sector until stability is reached. With a new election and the holidays coming, this might help consumer morale and get us on the way to a long recovery.

 

While the waste of money with Katrina was bad, the inaction was far worse. That is what we want to avoid. I think it will be far worse than people realize.