The Republicans' intransigence kills the bailout bill—and possibly McCain's electoral chances.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'm trying to wrap my head around the whole situation as I'm sure most Americans are...it's incredibly complicated and lots of finger pointing in all directions.

And you should do so with a healthy dose of scepticism divorced from political partisanship - this bailout would cost each person (not taxpayer, person) somewhere around $40,000. Lot of money to buy a house or send your son to college. You should not allow our politicians to treat you as a mug because it's a little complicated. And if you are getting your information on this from an NBC station who have been totally on-message and cheerleading for this bailout? Bear in mind that half of parent company GE's business is in financial services. Read up a little bit on people like Jim Kramer's entanglements with the SEC.

Paulson in July:

"It's a safe banking system, a sound banking system. Our regulators are on top of it. This is a very manageable situation."

It's right there on his wikipedia page.

I agree some kind of intervention is necessary but this was the wrong bill.

I never took a position on any of the proposed bills - the point of the OP was the apparent rift within the Republican Party that ultimately is hurting McCain's chances electorally. That's a separate argument...to which this thread has been mutated into talking about the bail out...which is fine.

On that note...found this interesting:

As part of the stimulus package passed earlier this year, the caps on the size of mortgages Fannie and Freddie were permitted to back were lifted, from $417,000 to $729,000. And as lenders have disappeared from the field, Fannie and Freddie have reassumed their leadership roles. In the second quarter of 2006, Fannie and Freddie accounted for 37.7 percent of mortgage bonds issued, a record low. But in the first quarter of 2008, the two firms accounted for nearly 70 percent of all new mortgages.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/145741/page/2

....

What the hell was Washington thinking???

[Heracles 417]

Good to see politicians listen to their constituents for once. Most did the right thing.

Lobbyists and large corporations, operating in stealth, have now been put back in their place and may start to realize that you the people should be in charge and not them. They are not the ones protected by the constitution.

I believe this situations shows that we have a huge problem when corporations become too large to fail. No company should yield that much power.

The other thing that should raise an eyebrow is the emergence of three super banks.

[Heracles 417]

If I had one single power to use right now over the government it would be to entirely kill lobbying money. I don't care how many whine about freedoms. Right now this government is being ruled by money, and the people who have the most of it to give to them, not the people.

The US chamber of commerce has spent close to $400,000,000 in lobbying alone. Basically the few using stealth like tactics to promote their agenda, behind closed doors.

Lobbying should either be illegal or should be made in an open arena for all Americans to hear and see.

Edited September 30, 2008 by Aficionado

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If I had one single power to use right now over the government it would be to entirely kill lobbying money. I don't care how many whine about freedoms. Right now this government is being ruled by money, and the people who have the most of it to give to them, not the people.

The US chamber of commerce has spent close to $400,000,000 in lobbying alone. Basically the few using stealth like tactics to promote their agenda, behind closed doors.

Lobbying should either be illegal or should be made in an open arena for all Americans to hear and see.

WWAD?

[Heracles 417]

WWAD?

What Would Australia Do?

What Would Asia Do?

[Pooky 3,792]

Maybe the Republican and Democrat Congressmen listened to their constituents, the majority of whom OPPOSED the plan.

Yes, incumbents of both parties—especially those incumbents facing tough re-election campaigns—don't want to be on the hook for this vote. But consider the big picture: Despite all the hemming and hawing, investors and analysts seem to think there will eventually be a deal—because there has to be.

So basically, in that one statement, you are agreeing with the money men and calling the American electorate stupid. That there is a good reason why most of the GOP supporters on this forum describe Democrats as elitist.

Saying that their representatives (and Congressman are titled Representatives for a good reason) should basically spit in the eye of their constituents and vote for a bill that the majority of the people they represent do not want is a perversion of the Democratic (yes, the word that is used to describe the party you support) principles this nation is supposedly founded upon.

Nice way to go.

Edited September 30, 2008 by Pooky

[one...two...tree 2,762]

WWAD?

What Would Australia Do?

What Would Asia Do?

[Heracles 417]

...

Is that your mom or something. Or the animal with the closet intelligence to that of your own.

Edited September 30, 2008 by Aficionado

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

"One of the messages I have to Congress is: Get this done," Obama said. "Democrats, Republicans, step up to the plate, get it done."

he's not even president and he's a lame duck.

If that's the measure, then there are two lame ducks running.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Life is good sometimes. Not often that Congress actually does something that I wanted.

Now tell me. Which party do I have to thank for this?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

The Republicans' intransigence kills the bailout bill—and possibly McCain's electoral chances.

Wow. The only 'NAY' votes were republicans. Hook me up with some of that smoke Steve.

[luckytxn 2,264]

The Republicans' intransigence kills the bailout bill—and possibly McCain's electoral chances.

Wow. The only 'NAY' votes were republicans. Hook me up with some of that smoke Steve.

Surely there had to be Democrats that voted against this too. They are the Majority and if they lock stepped then it would have passed.

[luckytxn 2,264]

I am curious though. If it was Republican intransgience that killed this bill as the title implies. And most of the electorate was against the bill. How does it hurt McCains electoral chances?

Edited September 30, 2008 by luckytxn

[Pooky 3,792]

I am curious though. If it was Republican intransgience that killed this bill as the title implies. And most of the electorate was against the bill. How does it hurt McCains electoral chances?

It hurts McCain, because unlike those Republicans that voted against the bill, he supported it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The Republicans' intransigence kills the bailout bill—and possibly McCain's electoral chances.

Wow. The only 'NAY' votes were republicans. Hook me up with some of that smoke Steve.

Surely there had to be Democrats that voted against this too. They are the Majority and if they lock stepped then it would have passed.

The majority of Democrats supported it, the majority of Republicans did not. Hence, it failed. I much rather have Congressional Representatives of either party that vote their conscience over their party. The deal wasn't all that good to begin with. They'll have to work harder to come up with something that will earn the majority of both parties. The little bit of window-dressing on some of the essential points wasn't enough. I rather have Congress gets it right - it's not a bag of peanuts we're talking about here.