House Republicans Fail To Pass Bill

[Madame Vengier]

Awesome:

[url="http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/29/breaking-house-rejects-trillion-dollar-plus-croutons-sandwich/"]http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/29/break...utons-sandwich/[/url]

Anyone interested in viewing the link (Malkin gives all the vote tallies and who voted which way) please change the word "croutons" in your browser to "c**p". Sorry about that. Filters and all.

Thanks, Al.

Just so you know...the link is not crude. That reference to "c**p sandwich" is from a quote by a Republican House member who was greatly against the bailout and referred to it by that phrase.

Edited September 30, 2008 by Madame Vengier

[Aloysius]

[quote name='philothea' post='1666404' date='Sep 29 2008, 06:45 PM']Considering most of the value lost in Wall Street was out of ordinary people's 401K funds and pensions, I don't think this is really credible. The value went down because more people wanted to sell (because they are afraid) than wanted to buy (also because they are afraid).

"Wall Street" isn't just a bunch of hotshot traders or wealthy financiers, nowadays -- it's the capital for nearly every large business in this country, and much of the world, and it's owned largely by ordinary citizens. The hotshot day traders may skim the bucks off when the times are good, but they weren't the ones who lost money today.[/quote]
the panic was clearly caused by the no vote, the reason the no vote caused a panic was because the traders on wall street made the expectation of that money a necessity and when it didn't come, everyone paniced... the panic was caused by the people at the top as sure as the chief priests caused the outrage of the mob against Jesus.... that's what happened, congress was basically blackmailed by the promises of economic doom if they didn't pass this specific bill and when they didn't pass it, the trigger for panic was pressed.

I mean, don't get me wrong, the panic was not unjustified... ppl should be panicked about the coming economic meltdown... but the reason it occurred today was because a lot of ppl tried to blackmale Washington by saying "if you don't do this particular bill, things will fall"... and they did. not a concerted conspiracy by the traders, just that Wall street pressured congress in this way and today's fall occurred as a direct result of that pressuring.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1666551' date='Sep 29 2008, 08:55 PM']Awesome:

[url="http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/29/breaking-house-rejects-trillion-dollar-plus-croutons-sandwich/"]http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/29/break...utons-sandwich/[/url][/quote]
lol you have to change "croutons" in that to "c rap" when you click the link... fiddlers and filters lol

[Hassan]

[quote name='Kirisutodo333' post='1666395' date='Sep 29 2008, 04:36 PM']I believe the consensus is that Speaker Pelosi gave a partisan speech, like always, which caused the negative reaction to the bill. Figures someone would put a spin on this and blame it on the republicans.

[url="http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/29/house-republicans-blame-pelosis-speech/"]Lhttp://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/29/house-republicans-blame-pelosis-speech/[/url]

[url="http://www.breitbart.tv/html/184803.html"]Pelosi attacks Bush, Praises Clinton[/url][/quote]


That is such non-sense. If these republicans backed out of a bill they knew was vital for the economic survival of their country because Pelosi hurt their feelings they are utter disgraces.

McCain ripped the democrates and Obama.

The democrates have a majority. If worse comes to worse they will alter the bill (makeing it much more liberal) to bring those 60 or so democrates on board. If the republicans don't like this bill wait till they see that one.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1666557' date='Sep 29 2008, 07:02 PM']lol you have to change "croutons" in that to "c rap" when you click the link... fiddlers and filters lol[/quote]

Really?? I didn't know. Thanks.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1666556' date='Sep 29 2008, 07:00 PM']the panic was clearly caused by the no vote, the reason the no vote caused a panic was because the traders on wall street made the expectation of that money a necessity and when it didn't come, everyone paniced... the panic was caused by the people at the top as sure as the chief priests caused the outrage of the mob against Jesus.... that's what happened, congress was basically blackmailed by the promises of economic doom if they didn't pass this specific bill and when they didn't pass it, the trigger for panic was pressed.

I mean, don't get me wrong, the panic was not unjustified... ppl should be panicked about the coming economic meltdown... but the reason it occurred today was because a lot of ppl tried to blackmale Washington by saying "if you don't do this particular bill, things will fall"... and they did. not a concerted conspiracy by the traders, just that Wall street pressured congress in this way and today's fall occurred as a direct result of that pressuring.[/quote]


I honestly respect your oppinion, but in these matters I trust Warren Buffett's much more.

[Hassan]

[quote name='desertwoman' post='1666483' date='Sep 29 2008, 05:51 PM']No to the Bailout: We Can’t Let Bankers Try to Blackmail America



[b]“Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time, and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God, I will rout you out.”[/b] Andrew Jackson, the seventh president of the United States, who said these fiery words to a delegation of bankers in 1832:



[url="http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/09/29/jpinkerton_0929/"]NO to Bailout[/url][/quote]

Andrew Jackson was a great, though criminal, General. He was not an econominist.

So you wish to base our economic policy on the excerpt of a President's speech over 150 years ago, in reguards to a radically different social and economic reality?

[Aloysius]

the bill would be terrible for our economic survival in the long run. and if you listened to some of the democrats who spoke against the bill, then you'd realize that NO, thankfully they wouldn't get on board if you added a bunch of liberal policies to it. there were some great speaches even by some democrats as to why this bill was a bad idea.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1666562' date='Sep 29 2008, 08:08 PM']the bill would be terrible for our economic survival in the long run. and if you listened to some of the democrats who spoke against the bill, then you'd realize that NO, thankfully they wouldn't get on board if you added a bunch of liberal policies to it. there were some great speaches even by some democrats as to why this bill was a bad idea.[/quote]


I'm happy to read anything you have on the matter. But you have given no proof for your claim that a collapse is unavoidable. Given the seriousness of the position I'd assume we should have overwhelming evidence before we say, "well, that's that, let the economey collapse"

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1666562' date='Sep 29 2008, 07:08 PM']the bill would be terrible for our economic survival in the long run.[/quote]

Right. Plus, our government simply should not reward bad behavior. This is lesson Number 1 we teach to our toddlers. If we can teach a baby responsibility, we should teach it to adults who abuse our financial systems.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1666564' date='Sep 29 2008, 07:11 PM']Right. Plus, our government simply should not reward bad behavior. This is lesson Number 1 we teach to our toddlers. If we can teach a baby responsibility, we should teach it to adults who abuse our financial systems.[/quote]

If it were just those who acted irresponsibly I would be in total agreament.

Everyone will be hurt, and hurt bad, if the economey collapses.

[desertwoman]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1666561' date='Sep 29 2008, 08:08 PM']Andrew Jackson was a great, though criminal, General. He was not an econominist.

So you wish to base our economic policy on the excerpt of a President's speech over 150 years ago, in reguards to a radically different social and economic reality?[/quote]


Merly stating that history repeats itself... and that greed spands from generations to generations.

[Hassan]

[quote name='desertwoman' post='1666567' date='Sep 29 2008, 08:14 PM']Merly stating that history repeats itself... and that greed spands from generations to generations.[/quote]


No it doesn't.

I'm sorry but that is simply false beyond the most generic sense.

This is not a repeat of America's early 19th century depression, we are talking about radically different situations.

[philothea]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1666564' date='Sep 29 2008, 08:11 PM']Right. Plus, our government simply should not reward bad behavior. This is lesson Number 1 we teach to our toddlers. If we can teach a baby responsibility, we should teach it to adults who abuse our financial systems.[/quote]

Just curious -- who, exactly, was going to be rewarded if that bill had passed, who would not be otherwise?

[Lounge Daddy]

"House Republicans Fail To Pass Bill, what a shock"

The partisan Democrat leadership in congress fail to get their ca-rap together, and then they blame Republicans. What a shock.

The truth is:

#1 - The Republican leader in the House was trying to rally support for the bill just as much as Palosi was. Both are among [url="http://pfds.opensecrets.org/092408.html"]the top 25 recipients of Fannie and Freddie campaign cash[/url]. No coincidence there. Obama is on the list too.

#2 – [url="http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/house-members-in-both-parties-divided-over-bailout-2008-09-22.html"]The dissent was bi-partisan[/url]. The Dems have a majority in the House and the Senate, but yet the Dems still place blame on the GOP. Among those who stood up to voice dissent on record were Rep. Marcy Kaptur and Rep. Dennis Kucinich. Both Democrats. Both Dems and Republicans had to vote against this bill to kill it.

#3 – [url="http://www.pbn.com/stories/35437.html"]The American people wanted the bill dead[/url]—and the Congressmen, both Dems and Repubs, are doing what we pay them to do (for once); and that is to listen to us. It was said on the news that all the congresspeople were hearing from the citizens like never ever before. A few stated that they had never seen this in their careers. And the common response from the American people was “no bailout.”

Considering that this was a simple 3 page bill, that became loaded with extra spending and bloated into a 40+ page bill—I'm glad that this didn't go through. Washington isn't learning their lesson, and they probably will never snap out of it. There is a case to be made here for term limits (as if there wasn't one to be made before).

Edited September 30, 2008 by Lounge Daddy