Bailout vote

[VABills]

A majority is 50% + 1. Why couldn't the Republican leadership and Bush get 14 more votes out of 133? That's only 11% of the votes against.

The dem leadership brought it to the floor.

 

Not the repub responsibility.

 

The dems control congress. They were given the power by the people to forge spending bills. if they can't get something passed, maybe it's time for new leadership in the house.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

The bailout, essentially is an efficient way to create a super good bank/bank bank structure among the US financials. This would be the fastest way to return the capital markets back to business. The advantage that the government has is time and can sit on the mortgage paper until the markets stabilize. Another way this could be fixed is by eliminating mark to market accounting. But that is a far worse long term outcome, even though it won't require the large initial capital outlay.

I heard a couple people say the fed should temporarily eliminate the mark to market accounting and temporarily replace it with something like a 3 yr rolling average, with the ability to revert or adjust as the market reacts. Seems like a relatively simple change that could have a huge effect. What's your take?

[pBills]

The dem leadership brought it to the floor.

 

Not the repub responsibility.

 

The dems control congress. They were given the power by the people to forge spending bills. if they can't get something passed, maybe it's time for new leadership in the house.

 

 

 

So I guess it should be the dems responsibility to gain the rep vote for a bill from their sitting president?

[DC Tom]

A majority is 50% + 1. Why couldn't the Republican leadership and Bush get 14 more votes out of 133? That's only 11% of the votes against.

 

I think after Pelosi opened her trap, the Republican leadership was screwed.

 

I also think that's not an excuse, but a condemnation. "You hurt our feelings, so we're going to throw the global economy under a bus"? Friggin' morons.

[John Adams]

I'm rewording my question from last week that didn't get answered then.

 

If it was so good a plan , why didn't it pass with just the dem votes????

 

It got answered 3x dimwit.

[VABills]

So I guess it should be the dems responsibility to gain the rep vote for a bill from their sitting president?

No. The president only votes with his pen

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

Seriously, you read the Pelosi speech?

 

The only tangent mention of House Republicans was this:

 

"Today we must act for those Americans, for Main Street, and we must act now, with the bipartisan spirit of cooperation which allowed us to fashion this legislation."

 

Blaming Pelosi is as cowardly as it comes. But during a tough vote it might be natural to find what political cover you can before leadership threatens to put you on the Commitee of Natural Resources next Congress.

umm not sure which speech you read, but there were prepared remarks, and then she deviated from that, with several zingers...

 

$700 billion. A staggering number. But only a part of the cost of the failed Bush economic policies to our country. Policies that were built on budget recklessness. When President Bush took office, he inherited President Clinton’s surpluses — four years in a row, budget surpluses, on a trajectory of $5.6 trillion in surplus. And with his reckless economic policies, within two years, he had turned that around.

 

and

 

Those days are over. The party is over in that respect. Democrats believe in a free market. We know that it can create jobs, it can create wealth, it can create many good things in our economy. But in this case, in its unbridled form, as encouraged, supported, by the Republicans — some in the Republican Party, not all — it has created not jobs, not capital, it has created chaos.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

I think after Pelosi opened her trap, the Republican leadership was screwed.

 

I also think that's not an excuse, but a condemnation. "You hurt our feelings, so we're going to throw the global economy under a bus"? Friggin' morons.

Very likely chain of events. It's also possible they couldn't deliver the votes they thought they had and ducked for cover, using the speech as the reason.

 

There's a report by Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC that several Republican leaders told her that Newt Gingrich was actively lobbying House GOP reps to vote against it, then when the vote was in, he made a statement that he reluctantly supported it.

[pBills]

No. The president only votes with his pen

 

 

Point is it in a sense is a republican bill coming from the GOP (republican sitting president). The dems made concessions on it. Let's face it the reps blew it.

[DC Tom]

Seriously, you read the Pelosi speech?

 

The only tangent mention of House Republicans was this:

 

"Today we must act for those Americans, for Main Street, and we must act now, with the bipartisan spirit of cooperation which allowed us to fashion this legislation."

 

Blaming Pelosi is as cowardly as it comes. But during a tough vote it might be natural to find what political cover you can before leadership threatens to put you on the Commitee of Natural Resources next Congress.

 

I heard Pelosi's speech. There were a lot more mentions of Republicans than that one.

 

Really, her speech was far more obnoxious, condescending, and arrogant than the transcript implies. And to announce an important bi-partisan bill? It was really little more than a campaign speech, more appropriate to the chair of the DNC than the Speaker of the House.

[bills_fan_in_raleigh]

Very likely chain of events. It's also possible they couldn't deliver the votes they thought they had and ducked for cover, using the speech as the reason.

 

There's a report by Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC that several Republican leaders told her that Newt Gingrich was actively lobbying House GOP reps to vote against it, then when the vote was in, he made a statement that he reluctantly supported it.

I posted a link to the article looks like Newt is playing politics as well and beginning to prime the pump for 2012.

[X. Benedict]

The dem leadership brought it to the floor.

 

Not the repub responsibility.

 

The dems control congress. They were given the power by the people to forge spending bills. if they can't get something passed, maybe it's time for new leadership in the house.

 

the Paulson/Bush bailout is evidence that the dems lack party discipline. Okay...but last time I checked Treasury is still part of the Executive.

 

Is today the day we can re-name the Reagan Tax Cuts the Tip O'Neil Tax Cuts?

 

Call it whatever you want....but Bush couldn't sell this to his own party. Too many people watching in an election year.

[bills_fan_in_raleigh]

I heard Pelosi's speech. There were a lot more mentions of Republicans than that one.

 

Really, her speech was far more obnoxious, condescending, and arrogant than the transcript implies. And to announce an important bi-partisan bill? It was really little more than a campaign speech, more appropriate to the chair of the DNC than the Speaker of the House.

Shes a dumb ass and maybe a revolt will oust her but the republicans who's feelings were hurt acted like a bunch of whiny sissies as well. A real leader would have stood up brought in the votes and let the people know it was all done even though the witch was dissing them along the way.

[DC Tom]

Shes a dumb ass and maybe a revolt will oust her but the republicans who's feelings were hurt acted like a bunch of whiny sissies as well. A real leader would have stood up brought in the votes and let the people know it was all done even though the witch was dissing them along the way.

 

I already said that the Republicans' reported reaction to Pelosi's speech is a condemnation of them. But neither does the Republicans' "I'm taking my ball and going home!" attitude excuse Pelosi. They're all a bunch of !@#$ing children.

[bills_fan_in_raleigh]

the Paulson/Bush bailout is evidence that the dems lack party discipline. Okay...but last time I checked Treasury is still part of the Executive.

 

Is today the day we can re-name the Reagan Tax Cuts the Tip O'Neil Tax Cuts?

 

Call it whatever you want....but Bush couldn't sell this to his own party. Too many people watching in an election year.

Not sure if ya saw the stat but of the 22 reps retiring from congress they voted in favor of the bill 18 - 4!!! The majority of reps that voted against the bill were thosewho either trail in the polls or faced close elections last time around.

[PastaJoe]

Boehner knew they didn't have the votes they had promised the Dems even before Pelosi spoke:

 

By Monday afternoon, staff members in the offices of Republican leaders were blaming one another for the failed vote.

 

Blunt said he had come to the floor thinking 75 Republicans would support the plan. He was off by 10 — just short of the 12 that were needed to turn defeat into victory.

 

But Boehner told a different story. He said that the GOP leaders never thought they’d get more than 68 Republicans to support the bill — and that he sent Blunt to tell Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) as much nearly two hours before the vote.

 

“I sent [blunt] down to talk to Hoyer, 11:30, quarter to 12, somewhere in that time frame,” Boehner said. “We had a pretty good idea where we were, where we thought we could get to. And Hoyer knew.”

 

Boehner added: “I did not talk to [Hoyer], so I don’t know what their conversation was. [blunt] and I had that conversation. We talked about ‘Should we just rise [walk out]?’ It wouldn’t have been good, but I thought it would have been better than this. It really doesn’t make any difference.”

 

Democrats, for their part, said they assumed Blunt was lowballing his whip count to force Pelosi and the Democrats to line up more votes from their members.

 

In the end, as Pelosi and her team tried to flip votes in favor of the proposal, there was little Boehner or his Republican leadership team could do to entice those who voted “no” to switch their tally in support of the controversial measure.

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/14107_Page2.html

[SDS]

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13967

 

"Clyburn was not whipping the votes you would have expected him to, in part because he was uncomfortable doing it, in part because we didn't want the push for votes to be successful," says one leadership aide. "All we needed was enough to potentially get us over the finish line, but we wanted the Republicans to be the ones to do it. This was not going to be a Democrat-passed bill if the Speaker had anything to say about it."

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13967

this is ugly, but it sounds a little too partisan. I'm totally guessing here, but it sounds more like the Speaker refused to twist arms. She wanted her people to vote with their conscience, not because some Democratic leader told them they needed to support the bill.

[DC Tom]

this is ugly, but it sounds a little too partisan. I'm totally guessing here, but it sounds more like the Speaker refused to twist arms. She wanted her people to vote with their conscience, not because some Democratic leader told them they needed to support the bill.

 

Good thing I'm wearing my boots today, because the "leadership" is getting a bit deep here in DC...

[bills_fan_in_raleigh]

this is ugly, but it sounds a little too partisan.

No the spectator is the most non partisan rag ya ever saw