House Republicans Fail To Pass Bill

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='philothea' post='1666579' date='Sep 29 2008, 08:42 PM']Just curious -- who, exactly, was going to be rewarded if that bill had passed, who would not be otherwise?[/quote]


The people who gave loans to people who should not have been given loans.

This is simple, really.

[desertwoman]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1666568' date='Sep 29 2008, 08:16 PM']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.[/quote]

Nope. I'm talking about greed...period, and how it dismantles everything. Jackson's address addressed greedy bankers in the 1800s, and we are dealing with greedy bankers in the twenty first century. This reminds me of the Michael Douglas quote from Wallstreet that greed is good. No, its not.

Edited September 30, 2008 by desertwoman

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1666563' date='Sep 29 2008, 08:10 PM']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"[/quote]

what it comes down to, as always is the facts. true, this isn't a science, but we should be able to get enough facts to say how severe the problem is, for good judgment.

i think most would agree, that the pushers of the bill weren't giving much, at least that i heard, facts.

if the problem isn't going to be severe, then we shouldn't do anything, simply on principle that we let people go with their problems they created.
if the problem is going to be severe, then i'd say we should.
i'm not sure i understand the reasoning that says we shouldn't, other than those who insist no help as a matter of principle. ie, those who say a bailout... i prefer loan, as that's the only that that could or should fly... shouldn't occur cause we'd prolong the pain, i'm not sure i understand. i know vaguely what they mean, but i don't think it represents the way things are- tis is where a good debate would be fruitful.

i do know that some of tehse instituations represent at least 25% of the credit economy. it'd be like organ failure waiting for it to fix itself, instead of changing the organ sooner rather than later. this is just an analogy though, perhaps not representative of reality. again i'm not sure of the reasons of the opposition

while i'd be for a bailout depending on the situation, i'd have to be convinced that it's needed. even at this point i'm not, not that i'm an expert or that studied on it, and would have voted against it. we can't have perfect info, but we can have enough to make good judgments on.

[Domine ut Videam]

Question?

Just how bad is the economy right now?
What would it take to be as bad as 1929? How close are we to that reality?

[dairygirl4u2c]

i doubt the american gov helping some people get homes contributed much to the meltdown. they'd represent to my understanding a small fraction. most of it was just unregulated ponzi scheming, cause it was unregulated. bush etc could have prevented this problem, it was growing out of hand long before it popped.

you can say some blame goes with teh gov,,, but to be accurate and honest, youd have to qualify that not a lot was.

[Madame Vengier]

Just read Lounge Daddy's post. All people have to do is follow the money trail to see how we got in this hole and why certain people in the gov were determined to make this bailout happen.

Everything is connected. Cause and effect.

[philothea]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1666589' date='Sep 29 2008, 09:07 PM']The people who gave loans to people who should not have been given loans.

This is simple, really.[/quote]
I'm just not exactly sure which people those are, at this point. The loan officers? The bank managers? The board of directors of those institutions? The people who own shares of mutual funds which hold mortgage-backed-securities? The stockholders of the financial institutions?

At this point, as far as I understand, the people who would have benefitted (the owners of the illiquid securities) are not the ones who authorized the loans, which is largely why the problem exists. The risk got transferred to people/entities/groups who had no direct control over it, so it was easy to make bad decisions.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1666586' date='Sep 29 2008, 06:56 PM']"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).[/quote]
Lol. This was the Bush administration's brain child. But the Republicans in Congress know that if they are seen as connected with Bush, their re-election would effectively be shot. However, they knew that this needed to be done. So they crossed their fingers and hoped that the Democrats could push this through themselves, meanwhile pretending to be supporting the deal they claimed had been forged in a compromised fashion. But then they pulled their support at the last minute, so that if the bill passed, they could go back to their districts and say "look, we were against this because it put the burden on you. The Democrats pushed it through and are making life harder for you" while all along needing it to pass to save their asses. They were screwed either way. If It failed, it made them look to be at fault for the failed policies of Bush and thus the economy tanking. If it passed, they would be accused of breaking the backs of the taxpayers. So they hoped and prayed for the Democrats to pass it. But alas, it did not pass.

Two words. EPIC FAIL.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1666559' date='Sep 29 2008, 08:05 PM']Really?? I didn't know. Thanks.[/quote]

Why are you always so sarcastic and mean?


[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1666608' date='Sep 29 2008, 09:35 PM']Lol. This was the Bush administration's brain child. But the Republicans in Congress know that if they are seen as connected with Bush, their re-election would effectively be shot. However, they knew that this needed to be done. So they crossed their fingers and hoped that the Democrats could push this through themselves, meanwhile pretending to be supporting the deal they claimed had been forged in a compromised fashion. But then they pulled their support at the last minute, so that if the bill passed, they could go back to their districts and say "look, we were against this because it put the burden on you. The Democrats pushed it through and are making life harder for you" while all along needing it to pass to save their asses. They were screwed either way. If It failed, it made them look to be at fault for the failed policies of Bush and thus the economy tanking. If it passed, they would be accused of breaking the backs of the taxpayers. So they hoped and prayed for the Democrats to pass it. But alas, it did not pass.

Two words. EPIC FAIL.[/quote]

This is pretty cynical. Some people (even politicians) do follow codes of ethics and wont vote for a bill which they know will doom the future of the free market. The republicans voted in a republican fashion (support the FREE market) and some of the democrats followed suit. The others were trying as usual to destroy the free market and therefore the traditional way of american economics. They even drew criticism from european countries.

I dont think that the republican vote had anything to do with distancing themselves from bush, but I was very surprised to see Bush supporting such a stupid bill. Yeah, that comment is completely partisan and Im not even trying to back it up, Aloysius has done a much better job than i could.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1666616' date='Sep 29 2008, 07:47 PM']Why are you always so sarcastic and mean?




This is pretty cynical. Some people (even politicians) do follow codes of ethics and wont vote for a bill which they know will doom the future of the free market. The republicans voted in a republican fashion (support the FREE market) and some of the democrats followed suit. The others were trying as usual to destroy the free market and therefore the traditional way of american economics. They even drew criticism from european countries.

I dont think that the republican vote had anything to do with distancing themselves from bush, but I was very surprised to see Bush supporting such a stupid bill. Yeah, that comment is completely partisan and Im not even trying to back it up, Aloysius has done a much better job than i could.[/quote]
I'm against the bill, just for the record. I don't want to pay for the mistakes of greedy banks. However, I have a hard time believing that the sudden turn around in support was due to "ethical" differences or a partisan speech by Pelosi. They originally pledged support and then suddenly changed their minds.

And boy, a stupid decision by Bush? Who woulda thunk it?

[CatherineM]

I read an interesting piece in the St. Pete Times today about the 5 reasons behind this mess. The one that stood out for me is that somewhere along the way, someone rated these packaged sub-prime mortgages as AAA so that Insurance companies and overseas banks would actually buy the paper. That's what I'd really like to know is who did it, and why. What did they gain?

[Aloysius]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1666595' date='Sep 29 2008, 10:19 PM']i doubt the american gov helping some people get homes contributed much to the meltdown. they'd represent to my understanding a small fraction. most of it was just unregulated ponzi scheming, cause it was unregulated. bush etc could have prevented this problem, it was growing out of hand long before it popped.

you can say some blame goes with teh gov,,, but to be accurate and honest, youd have to qualify that not a lot was.[/quote]
this is a great video (except for the political posturing blah blah, it's not changing my vote or anything but it's really informative about one main immediate cause of the housing crisis) [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU6fuFrdCJY"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU6fuFrdCJY[/url]

it was under the Clinton Administration that they removed safeguards that were put in place after the great depression for the sake of trying to help poor people get housing, it was in the Clinton Administration that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were told to start these sub prime mortgages. and people like Bush and McCain for all their faults had enough shreds of intelligence to warn that these things were dangerous. I'm not trying to do political posturing; there were democrats warning against this as well... one in particular I watched his speach on the (house or senate I forget which) floor the other day where he quoted himself over the years warning about these specific things. the "Bush de-regulated and everything fell apart" scapegoat is the knee-jerk response that has no basis in reality. not to say that there isn't plenty of blame to go all around Washington on both sides (and more blame to come when larger crises show up), but the fact of the matter is many of these sub-prime mortgages came as a result of democrats trying to get banks to offer people mortgages who couldn't afford them.

of course, this whole banking problem is just one aspect of it... students of Austrian Economics like Ron Paul see a larger crisis brewing of which this is simply one aspect and it all centers around monetary policy. [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhB_0yeHm8U"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhB_0yeHm8U[/url] haha so true, you cannot place value in assets that are worthless... anyway...

[philothea]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1666624' date='Sep 29 2008, 09:57 PM']I read an interesting piece in the St. Pete Times today about the 5 reasons behind this mess. The one that stood out for me is that somewhere along the way, someone rated these packaged sub-prime mortgages as AAA so that Insurance companies and overseas banks would actually buy the paper. That's what I'd really like to know is who did it, and why. What did they gain?[/quote]

I KNOW. What the heck!?!? I have been boggling at that for.... well, as long as I've heard about it.

Part of the problem, I think, is that "sub prime" means anything but a completely standard mortgage -- even a jumbo. (And in a lot of areas you couldn't get [i]anything[/i] for less than a jumbo mortgage.)

When things can get that mixed up, it's no wonder no one realized what that security might mean.

Research shows Wells Fargo did a whole lot of the lobbying to get stuff de-regulated. And... they didn't offer much in the way of sub prime mortgages. They're snapping up the competition now.

Edited September 30, 2008 by philothea

[Aloysius]

yep. this current crisis was a direct result not of de-regulazation, but of bad regulating... it was regulation that forced banks into sub-prime lending (because democrat's hearts bled for the people who couldn't afford mortgages so they decided banks should give them mortgages even if they couldn't afford them)

now, I don't have much to offer you in the way of reading that I can think of... I am sure there are thigns out there. I'm forming my opinions based upon watching congressional speeches, paying attention to the media (and trying to cut through all the political spin)... I tend to trust Ron Paul's analysis of this a lot... seeing as he saw this coming and sees even worse things on the horizen. basically what it boils down to is that the problem is being presented by Bernanke, Paulson, et al as something which could lead us to a Depression and then I look at this bailout and see a few things.

1) its effects will be similar in the way of price fixing as government intervention during the Great Depression was (it'll keep housing prices inflated beyond what they should be) which
2) Bernanke himself admitted was one of the things which prolonged the Great Depression; in fact he said it was generally agreed to have done so by historians when talking to Ron Paul during the recent congressional hearing on the subject
3) the assets which will be purchased by the Federal Government here are assets that are worthless and will not stop being worthless just because the government buys them, meaning the problem will not go away
4) much of the money for the bailout will be printed (as was some of the money for other recent buyouts), the inflation this will cause is going to add to the meltdown by destroying our currency while the markets tank (because the markets will continue to tank, it'll just take a

basically, the main problems of the bailout will be the inflation of currency and the continued inflation of housing prices and since the mortgages will still be worthless in government hands, the crisis will not be solved but shifted to an already deep-in-the-red government. the money pumped into the credit market will allow them to move around the chairs on the Titantic.

do I know for sure this is going to happen? no, but from the experts I've listened to and read the coming collapse seems to be happening quite predictably according to Austrian Economics and it seems a pretty safe bet that this 700 billion which isn't helping anything systemically won't do anything for the long term and all these things I fear it will hurt in the long term are at least legitimate concerns.

[zabbazooey]

This is so depressing.