|
Post by PushyGuyFanClub on Sept 29, 2008 15:22:29 GMT -5
Paging Pushy Guy Fan Club, Pushy Guy Fan Club to the white courtesy phone... I don't think you need my perspective to know what the market/investors think of this. This bill had some flaws and was poorly communicated (partly because I think a lot of the government reps don't have a full handle of what's going on here), but, and this is speaking as a libertarian kind of guy, I think its aims were needed. I don't know what happens next. One of the more unfortunate parts of this was in the framing of this was Wall Street vs. Main Street. I can understand folks getting upset about lavish executive pay packages, but credit markets aren't just some high-fallutin' finance mumbo jumbo. I heard today that counterparties were willingly defaulting on swaps and telling their counterparties to sue them to get their money. That means there is no trust in the system. It's like going into Chipotle (I know people here love Chipotle examples) and them telling you that you can only pay with cash. Chipotle will still do some business, but they won't do nearly as much.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Sept 29, 2008 15:36:15 GMT -5
Paging Pushy Guy Fan Club, Pushy Guy Fan Club to the white courtesy phone... I don't think you need my perspective to know what the market/investors think of this. This bill had some flaws and was poorly communicated (partly because I think a lot of the government reps don't have a full handle of what's going on here), but, and this is speaking as a libertarian kind of guy, I think its aims were needed. I don't know what happens next. One of the more unfortunate parts of this was in the framing of this was Wall Street vs. Main Street. I can understand folks getting upset about lavish executive pay packages, but credit markets aren't just some high-fallutin' finance mumbo jumbo. I heard today that counterparties were willingly defaulting on swaps and telling their counterparties to sue them to get their money. That means there is no trust in the system. It's like going into Chipotle (I know people here love Chipotle examples) and them telling you that you can only pay with cash. Chipotle will still do some business, but they won't do nearly as much. I like the Chipotle reference. I actually prefer independent restaurants more than chains, but as chains go, Chipotle is pretty good. The first one I ate at was in Las Vegas, but we've had one here in G'ville now for several years. What baffles me are all the clowns eating at Moe's. I mean, why in the hell would you go to Moe's when there is a Chipotle in town? They are the same place, except Moe's isn't as good, but charges more money for less food.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Sept 29, 2008 15:36:25 GMT -5
I can think of about 565 people who can all share some blame for this. More if you add in the administration & agency leaders. But Bando's right, sorry to say. McCain has left himself one -- and only one -- out. He has to go back to Washington now. He can't not go. I don't care if everyone and their mother calls it a stunt, it's the play he has to make. If he doesn't, you might as well have the election today & get it over with. He doesn't have to supend his campaign, but he has to be there. Palin, ads & surrogates can camapign for the next week or so. On the flip side, I don't see how this episode demonstrates Obama's leadership qualities, but that's just me and it ignores the political realities of the situation. McCain placed himself at the center of this and now he has to go back and see it through. Obama didn't and though I might fault him for that, he is relatively unscathed politically as a result. Can I ask an honest question though? For the Democrats/liberals on this board, do you really like Pelosi and Reid? I don't mean do you agree with their political philosophy, but do you really like them as your leaders in government? I promise I'm not trying to be snarky, but I just can't see anyone really supporting those two, regardless of whether you agree with them on policy or not. No, I don't. Reid has a tougher job (as the Senate's close, and without 60, it's hard to get something done), but he still constantly seems to get outmaneuvered by the Republicans, which is inexcusable. Pelosi is slightly better, in that she generally can get the votes she needs while providing cover to more conservative Dems, but the House hasn't really done anything this term. My bigger problem is their agenda. After the 2006 elections, the House passed a number of progressive legislative items, which were then effectively stymied in the Senate. After that, the Dem leadership seemed content to simply wait for Senate gains and a Democratic White House that would come in 2008. I understand their stance, as without 60 votes in the Senate nothing can pass. I feel, though, that they didn't have to give up on their agenda entirely, and they could have at the least held up any legislation the Bush administration wanted passed (e.g., the FISA bill). Ideally, I'd love to see Hillary Clinton as Senate Majority Leader and Rahm Emmanuel in the House leadership (he's a bastard, but he gets stuff done). That said, I prefer Pelosi and Reid to any Republican leadership
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Sept 29, 2008 15:38:08 GMT -5
I don't think you need my perspective to know what the market/investors think of this. This bill had some flaws and was poorly communicated (partly because I think a lot of the government reps don't have a full handle of what's going on here), but, and this is speaking as a libertarian kind of guy, I think its aims were needed. I don't know what happens next. One of the more unfortunate parts of this was in the framing of this was Wall Street vs. Main Street. I can understand folks getting upset about lavish executive pay packages, but credit markets aren't just some high-fallutin' finance mumbo jumbo. I heard today that counterparties were willingly defaulting on swaps and telling their counterparties to sue them to get their money. That means there is no trust in the system. It's like going into Chipotle (I know people here love Chipotle examples) and them telling you that you can only pay with cash. Chipotle will still do some business, but they won't do nearly as much. I like the Chipotle reference. I actually prefer independent restaurants more than chains, but as chains go, Chipotle is pretty good. The first one I ate at was in Las Vegas, but we've had one here in G'ville now for several years. What baffles me are all the clowns eating at Moe's. I mean, why in the hell would you go to Moe's when there is a Chipotle in town? They are the same place, except Moe's isn't as good, but charges more money for less food. Holy non sequitor, Batman!
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Sept 29, 2008 15:56:51 GMT -5
I am not surprised at the spins being proposed to explain what happened. Fact: the Democrats control the House. They needed zero Republican votes to have the "bailout" pass. It failed. Now to attempt to "blame" the Republicans is dishonest. In fact, I salute the many Democrats and Republicans who voted against one of the largest transfers of power to the government in history. Remember the public is opposed to the "bailout". Hope the vote holds up so we don't just transfer the shock to the future. Let's make systemic changes to the regulations of financial institutions and let the chips fall where they may. Otherwise all we are doing is shoring up the system rather than solving the problems. Of course I'm being unrealistic because some Reps will cave and we'll have some monster bill.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Sept 29, 2008 16:13:39 GMT -5
Maybe if all of us here on the board get together, we can take care of it ourselves. I'm good for a couple $Bil. give or take. Anyone else?
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Sept 29, 2008 17:47:01 GMT -5
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Sept 29, 2008 17:57:36 GMT -5
No, he's not. Please stop trying to pin the financial crisis on poor people, or claiming that a 1977 law somehow magically only went wrong as it reached it's thirtieth birthday. Robert Kuttner in The American Prospect:
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Sept 29, 2008 18:19:28 GMT -5
Im glad that you "proved" one of that articles many points wrong (a point that is mentioned, not as a cause of the crisis, but only has a tangent to it, and occupies about ten words of the entire article).
Fact is, the government did it and they are only going to make it worse.
|
|
vcjack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,875
|
Post by vcjack on Sept 29, 2008 19:32:35 GMT -5
Considering that the opponents were a mixture of hard core conservatives and and hard core liberals, there's no chance that the Nay votes will ever provide an alternative solution together.
Now watch as they make ammendments to get it passed just for some clown senator to have a month long fillabuster
EDIT: Not related but man have the profanity filters gotten sophisticated. I'm impressed that it automatically changed my use of the alternative name of a donkey into clown
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Sept 30, 2008 1:13:08 GMT -5
This "bail out" needs to happen and it needs to happen quickly.
This is not a case of bailing out rich Wall St. types. It is essential to keep the US and Global economies functioning. THose who suggest that long term structural and regulatory changes are necessary could not be more correct. But it is one thing to work out those changes within a functioning economy. it is another to toss out the whole thing, create a huge and very expensive crisis and spend years trying to dig our way out.
It is also very ironic that some are treating this bail out bill as a Democratic bill and Democratic failure. Is it really necessary to point out this crisis... happening under a Republican administration and directly attributable to Republican economic policies... has motivated the Republican Administration to seek the support of Congress to come to the aid of our economy?
Just to point out what has actually happened:
Republican Admin calls for $700 Billion Bail out bill. Congressional leaders from both houses and both parties work together to improve the bill.
Support for this bi-partisan emergency aide bill is as follows:
Republican US President supports it Republican Sec. Treasury supports it Republican Senate Leadership supports it Reoublican Senate rank and file support it Democratic Senate Leadership supports it Democratic Senate rank and file support it Democratic House Leadership supports it Democratic House rank and File support it Republican House Leadership supports it Republican House rank and file -- the only group that does NOT support it.
There is absolutely zero basis to say this bill is a Democratic bill, Nor is there any basis to say this Republican bill did not pass because of a lack of Democratic support.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,607
|
Post by DanMcQ on Sept 30, 2008 6:36:13 GMT -5
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Sept 30, 2008 6:39:45 GMT -5
My unsophisticated question - why take $700B from taxpayer's pockets and give it to a bunch of tools who haven't earned a dime of it? do you know how many government programs you could be talking about?
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Sept 30, 2008 7:06:37 GMT -5
There is absolutely zero basis to say this bill is a Democratic bill It was a bipartisan bill, negotiated by leadership of both parties. Yes there is. In the end, a Speaker should never lose a vote on the floor, ESPECIALLY one like this that would cause such a huge run in the stock market. If she wasn't 100% sure that she had the votes, whether they were Republican or Democrat, then SHE SHOULD NOT HAVE HELD THE VOTE. The Republicans held the Medicare vote open for four hours in order to pass it a few years ago--Pelosi could have done the same, or postponed the vote until later in the day in order to give her and Boehner time to break some of the R's / D's on the fence resolve. And she's the Speaker, she can do pretty much whatever she damn well pleases. Now, some blame has to go to Boehner for not delivering the 80 votes he said he would. HOW-EVAH, Pelosi should have made sure he had them, or been ready to get the necessary votes from her own caucus if he couldn't come up with them. And she could have if she wanted to--she's made powerful, senior members of her own caucus vote against their district's interests before--she could have gotten the votes. And it's my understanding that she didn't need 10 votes, she just needed 5-7 Dems to switch and there were enough R's on the fence that that would have made them switch too.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Sept 30, 2008 7:12:21 GMT -5
Also, I don't know if I believe that it really had any impact on the vote, but I'll admit that Pelosi's pre-vote speech was BONEHEADED. Pass the damn thing, and THEN explain how the Republicans F-ed things up. She celebrated at the 10 yard line and fumbled at the 2. Leon Lett would be proud.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Sept 30, 2008 7:29:09 GMT -5
Also, I don't know if I believe that it really had any impact on the vote, but I'll admit that Pelosi's pre-vote speech was BONEHEADED. Pass the damn thing, and THEN explain how the Republicans F-ed things up. She celebrated at the 10 yard line and fumbled at the 2. Leon Lett would be proud. Agree with that. What good could that have possibly accomplished? There was no upside--only a downside. That being said, any member who changed their votes because of the speech should be run out of office on a rail. (And Republican Leadership should just quit complaining and get back to whipping their membership so they can deliver the 80 votes they promised)
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 30, 2008 7:43:58 GMT -5
Nice to see Barney Frank's reasoned take on the situation.
Let me get this Straight (no slur there Barney):
Democrats (95) voted against the bailout out of conscience.
Republicans voted against it in a fit of pique.
If anyone would know a hissy fit, it's Barney.
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Sept 30, 2008 7:58:10 GMT -5
Nice to see Barney Frank's reasoned take on the situation. Let me get this Straight (no slur there Barney): Democrats (95) voted against the bailout out of conscience. Republicans voted against it in a fit of pique. If anyone would know a hissy fit, it's Barney. Mods- Please suspend this homophobic troll.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 30, 2008 7:59:54 GMT -5
Grow up.
Barney whined like a baby about Republicans having their feelings hurt.
What about his 95 Colleagues who voted the same way?
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,603
|
Post by hoyatables on Sept 30, 2008 8:04:31 GMT -5
There is absolutely zero basis to say this bill is a Democratic bill It was a bipartisan bill, negotiated by leadership of both parties. Yes there is. In the end, a Speaker should never lose a vote on the floor, ESPECIALLY one like this that would cause such a huge run in the stock market. If she wasn't 100% sure that she had the votes, whether they were Republican or Democrat, then SHE SHOULD NOT HAVE HELD THE VOTE. The Republicans held the Medicare vote open for four hours in order to pass it a few years ago--Pelosi could have done the same, or postponed the vote until later in the day in order to give her and Boehner time to break some of the R's / D's on the fence resolve. And she's the Speaker, she can do pretty much whatever she damn well pleases. Now, some blame has to go to Boehner for not delivering the 80 votes he said he would. HOW-EVAH, Pelosi should have made sure he had them, or been ready to get the necessary votes from her own caucus if he couldn't come up with them. And she could have if she wanted to--she's made powerful, senior members of her own caucus vote against their district's interests before--she could have gotten the votes. And it's my understanding that she didn't need 10 votes, she just needed 5-7 Dems to switch and there were enough R's on the fence that that would have made them switch too. True, though the side column in the Post this morning seemed to suggest (at least to me) that Boehner REALLY misjudged his votes but chose not to pass that information on to Pelosi. "Boehner and House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), recognizing the danger of the situation, discussed whether to urge Democrats to pull the bill from the floor rather than have it go down in defeat. Instead, less than three hours later, the gavel fell on a stunning rebuke to Capitol Hill leaders on both sides of the aisle. "
|
|