BlogHer - Bailout Measure FAILS House Vote, Dow Falls, Next Steps Unclear - Comments

Sending The Wrong Message

thefrustratedfemale — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:36:26 -0500

I am convinced that rationally the bailout plan is necessary to avoid our economy falling into a bigger quagmire than it is already in. However, I strongly feel that by handing over $700 billion to the financial institutions we are sending a terrible message to the American people. The vast majority of us don't fully understand the ramifications of the situation and I have read enough well conceived of arguments from publications such as The Economist that the bailout is a terrible idea and will just prolong the agony. Emotionally, why should the American tax payer have to bail out the banks when every time the issues of social security and healthcare come up the government cries 'poor'. Maybe this is the best thing that could happen to America - we need a good shake up to bail us out of our general lethagy and inability to act to really get this country back on track.

Another resource

Maria Niles — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:47:07 -0500

Congressional Budget Office summary (on their blog - cool!)

ConsumerPop Marketing
PopConsumer (Politics, Current Events & Links)
Beyond Help (Music, TV & Pop Culture)

Interesting point Maria -- and I received

Lisa Stone — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:59:44 -0500

word of this op-ed via a Hillgram, which looks a lot like her campaign for president.
Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder
Surfette

BlogHer is non-partisan but our bloggers aren't! Follow our coverage of Politics & News.

Hobson's Choice and Other Resources

Gena Haskett — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:28:07 -0500

A Hobson's choice is basically take it or leave it. Since we don't know what is in the bill exactly how can we evaluate if it is good or bad?

We know Wall Street wants this. We know that Congress wants this out of the way before the elections. Non-partisan Open Secrets.org might provide an answer as to why - they have a money breakdown of how much the industry invested in both the Democrats and Republicans. What? You thought this action was for the good of the country?

What is in the bill? How much have we just been or about to be shanked?

Thomas.loc.gov is the portal to find out information about U.S. House and Senate Bills, Public Laws and all kinds of juicy governmental type stuff.

On the front page LOC has put a direct .pdf link to the amendment to the Senate Amendment HR 3997 Also known as Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. There are 109 pages of governmental English but if you pace yourself you can find out what is and isn't being said by the press or by members.

There are other plain English interpretation:

Public MarkUp will let you jump to the section you are interested in and if you want to comment on the section you can.

National Association of Credit Union Supervisors take is nice and short.

Open Congress.org has a more visual breakdown of what happened, how the vote was split and you can get as much or as little information as you want.

And if you really want to give yourself a headache and heartburn you can read the General Accounting Office's GAO’s Efforts to Assist the 111th Congress and the Next Administration.

See it is not just about this bail out. These are major events that the next president must deal with in addition to this bail out.

Nobody in their right or left mind would want to be president after reading that document.

Gena - Out On The Stoop

You Are Right Somehow I heard "Republicans"

Tacomamama — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:33:02 -0500

But she never actually said it. Having seen a little bit more of how things took place in the house, I think the vote would not have been substantially different without her speach. But of course the dems will be blamed by some, anyway.

Tacoma Mama

Kitchen Table Issues

I disagree

Leplusjeune — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:26:55 -0500

Because a bill of this magnitude should be decided by represenatives of all parties, not just those belonging to the party currently in power.

Why? There shouldn't be any reaping of anything, good or bad. The House is there to do one thing, represent the people. Have they represented the will of the people in their districts? Maybe they have. A majority of the public have expressed their feelings against it.

www.remodelle.net

Scare Tatic?

Mare33 — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:44:05 -0500

I have to say that I am glad that the bail out didn't pass. I totally agree with the comment of "Democrats have enough members to pass the bill without more Republican votes. " Why am I getting the feeling that we are getting set up for a bigger failure? I really don't like either way this is going.

I found this video on you tube (its not mine) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o

I have enough of an open mind to see and remember those dates in this. There are honest people that work on the stock market that are not getting the fair end of the deal, and there are people that cannot even afford to make ends meet and wish they could afford to even put some money in a 401k that are going to get the raw end of the deal. So either way this is not good. Every time the government sticks their nose into the free market, it ends up a cluster. I really am getting fed up with both parties on this, wondering..should we go back to the Wig party...(j/k)

Talking to teens about bank failures

Denise — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:21:00 -0500

Our beloved Wachovia, sniff sniff. Gone. Just spent 15 minutes discussing bank failures with Michelle. It wasn't fun.

I'm slightly afraid to call my banker daughter (the really old 25 year old who is trying to plan a wedding and not think about bank failures.)

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

Flamingo House Happenings

Good, but

Maria Niles — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:58:41 -0500

It's a tad frustrating to read of a proposal to create a new HOLC as if it is an original idea when Barney Frank and Chris Dodd have been trying to do that for months. Why not support existing efforts rather than trying to claim credit?

ConsumerPop Marketing
PopConsumer (Politics, Current Events & Links)
Beyond Help (Music, TV & Pop Culture)

Hillary Clinton in Friday's WSJ

Lisa Stone — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:24:49 -0500

Did everyone see her op-ed?

Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder
Surfette

BlogHer is non-partisan but our bloggers aren't! Follow our coverage of Politics & News.

No, banks won't lend money

Suzanne Reisman — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:10:47 -0500

I wish it were as easy as it sounds, but banks literally cannot lend money because they have too many loans outstanding and not enough cash reserves. It is impossible for them to lend money until they free up some cash. The way to do that is to sell their outstanding loans, which is what the bailout would buy.

Suzanne Reisman, Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants

Because a bill of this

shelleyp — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:10:41 -0500

Because a bill of this magnitude should be decided by represenatives of all parties, not just those belonging to the party currently in power.

If the bill is truly a bi-partisan bill, succeed or fail, both parties either reap the rewards, or suffer the consequences. That's what the term "bi-partisan" means.

McCain couldn't whip in his own party

Morra Aarons Mele — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:03:57 -0500

I think his blustering show of "leadership": flying back to DC as if he was going to solidify support singlehandly was very risky, and it failed. It shows he doesn't have the control over his party that say, a Tom DeLay did.

Which perversely, might make him more popular among independents, since Congressional Republicans are even more vilified than GW Bush.

Morra Aarons-Mele
www.womenandwork.org

Why did it need to be bi-partisan?

Leplusjeune — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:44:35 -0500

Yes, Democrats stated it had to be bi-partisan to be meaningful. Because they said that it's true? I suspect they wanted Republicans votes so in case the bill doesn't work to help the markets then Democrats don't have to take full blame for it. In fact, if Nancy Pelosi's rantings today prove anything, it's that she won't hesitate to pass the blame on Republicans even if they were in the minority voting 'yes.'

There's no good reason, imo, that it had to be bi-partisan. If it's a good bill, and they were convinced it would work, or at least help, then they should have voted it in without Republicans. It doesn't have to be meaningful, it has to work...if it'll work the markets don't care who voted for it. Unless, you're saying the markets only trust Republicans???

LePlusJeune - proud Independent

www.remodelle.net

The Democrats stated from

shelleyp — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:31:20 -0500

The Democrats stated from the beginning that this bill would have to be bi-partisan to be meaningful, with a majority of both Republican and Democratic Congressional members voting in support.

The Democrats delivered their end of the bargain.The majority of Democrats voted for the bill.

Bailout Measure FAILS House Vote, Dow Falls, Next Steps Unclear

Erin Kotecki Vest — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:44:01 -0500

In a very tight vote, the house has defeated a $700 billion emergency rescue package despite pleas from bipartisan congressional leaders for approval.

The plan was called the most sweeping government intervention in markets since the great depression and would have created federal programs to buy up bad assets and loans.

Bloggers like Liza from Culture Kitchen had been lobbying for more time to review the proposal, "In my case it's Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton and your Carolyn Maloney. Am asking them to give the people time to take a look at this proposal and comment on it."

As it stands, the next steps seem very unclear, but CNN reports supporters of the bill are scrambling to put it up for another vote.

'What was supposed to be a 15-minute vote stretched past the half-hour mark as leadership scrambled for support. Investors who had been counting on the rescue plan sent the Dow Jones industrial average down as much as 700 points while watching the measure come up short of the necessary support, before rebounding slightly. The key stock reading was down more than 500 points."

MSNBC is reporting "global markets hammered" and House republicans are blaming the failure on a "partisan speech given by the speaker on the floor of the house."

Megan and others have been using the term "Corporate Welfare" when it comes to the proposal,

"You hear them saying that without the $700 billion, people will lose their jobs, banks won't lend money, Wall Street companies will go out of business.

My response?

Let 'em!

'Cause you know what? As soon as we give them that $700 billion, they're going to cut mid-level employees like you and me anyway. The upper-echelon will be just fine.

Banks won't lend money?

That's a blackmail tactic. They don't lend money, they don't make money.

Wall Street companies will go out of business?

They should! Isn't that what free market business is supposed to be all about?

Remember the SNL crisis? Remember Enron? Sound familiar? The only thing different is the price tag you and I are supposed to pay."

What do YOU think about the now rejected bailout plan? Do you agree or disagree with what just occurred on the house floor?