Axis Mundi X discussion

Bailout Bill Fails To Pass, Dow Sheds 600 pts

Comments Showing 1-50 of 96 (96 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1

message 1: by Xysea (new)

Xysea  (xysea) ::sigh::

Well, now we get to see what happens when we do nothing.

message 2: by Not Bill (new)

Not Bill | 1062 comments Sometimes, doing nothing is in this case. That bill was pure BS.

Pelosi mismanaged this thing bigtime. Apparently, she used her time before congress to issue a bile-filled scathing attack against Bush and Republicans. She offered nothing in terms of solution. (Boehner interviewed in MSNBC). It was so bad that a couple dozen Dems bolted as well, and changed their vote.

Final tally: 228 - 205.

Still not sure if this provided a kill for CRA.

First round is history. Round 2 coming up.

message 3: by Xysea (new)

Xysea  (xysea) I don't believe this is Pelosi's fault. That bill was wildly unpopular with the American public as it stood, no matter what the compromise. And it wasn't as good as any of the parties claimed it was.

But now, who knows what will happen?

Down 714 points now.

message 4: by Xysea (new)

Xysea  (xysea) Like Barney Frank said, someone hurt your feelings so you're going to hold the country hostage?

How's that for pettiness and vindictiveness.

message 5: by Paul (new)

Paul Bryant It's called cutting off your nose to spite your face. I always liked that gruesome old saying and I've been looking for a good example of what it describes for ages. Now I've got one.

message 6: by Jackie "the Librarian", Cool Star Trek Nerd (new)

Jackie "the Librarian" | 1818 comments Mod
Here's the article Paul just posted over in True North, in which it appears that we have the House Republicans to blame for the bill not passing, not Speaker Pelosi:

The dramatic and unexpected show of political opposition came largely from the Republican benches, where a majority of congressmen opposed the measure citing concern among the public about the cost of the bail-out. The White House said Bush was "very disappointed" by the outcome.

Shares plummet as US Congress rejects $700bn bail-out plan from The Guardian.

message 7: by Xysea (new)

Xysea  (xysea) I am almost certain any other incarnation of this bill will simply be worse.

message 8: by Not Bill (new)

Not Bill | 1062 comments That's right was a bipartisan kill. No sense it trying to point fingers.

BunnWat - it is true that Pelosi's rant turned off several voters. If there is a 5 yr old in DC, most likely it's Pelosi.

The more I hear about the bill, the more glad I am they killed it.

I love the article Jackie quotes. It turns reality on its head. The surprise was the number of Democrats who opposed it, and such large numbers.

message 9: by RandomAnthony (new)

RandomAnthony I think it's really interesting that the media has focused somewhat on how angry many Americans were about this bailout. That's a good thing...could it mean something bigger for our country in the long run?

message 10: by trivialchemy (new)

trivialchemy NB I've never heard you say anything reasonable or convincing about the bill that was up for vote. You just continue to repeat that it was "BS" for no apparent reason except for some totally irrational (at this point) faith in the market. Me? I'm actually pretty ambivalent about the bill not passing. But with the DOW down 777 points at closing bell, I'd love to hear all the good reasons to have it killed off.

message 11: by Cyril (new)

Cyril It will pass, in one form or another. Then we can make plans for bailing out FDIC (possibly another $200-400 billion).

message 12: by Charissa, That's Ms. Obnoxious Twat to You. (new)

Charissa (dakinigrl) | 3620 comments Mod
KD... I heart you.

message 13: by Lori (new)

Lori That's a great link, Bunny. In WA, the Dems voted yes, the Reps No.

Servius  Heiner  | 1980 comments Mod
I can not believe there are people hear still playing politics. Do you really not understand the gravity of this? I hope nobody here was planning on retiring in the near future. By Friday the market will be worthless unless they close the market. This is more then slinging mud in the eye of some fat cat. This credit is payroll, inventory, and employee benefits. Shame on everyone here trying to make this a finger pointing competition. The simple truth is the republicans enabled the democrats to do this. They are both guilty, and they should all be booted from office. Barney frank and Dodd need to go to jail. I mean that.

Servius  Heiner  | 1980 comments Mod
I think it is accurate to say the repubs, and dems both voted yes and no Lori. They only needed 12 more votes, and yet... how many dems voted no? They had the majority; they could have passed this if they wanted to. It failed the public opinion because I don't think people realize the full impact this is going to have. But we will see. I have been wrong before, but I don't think I am this time.

message 16: by Rusty (new)

Rusty (rustyshackleford) What he said.

message 17: by Jackie "the Librarian", Cool Star Trek Nerd (new)

Jackie "the Librarian" | 1818 comments Mod
Nick, Lori means the Washington state delegation, rather than Washington D.C.

message 18: by Lori (new)

Lori Nick, I don't see this as politics at all.

This 'bailout' would not at all have prevented the economy crashing only a slight slowing of the big event. The ensuing crash might be even worse, you cannot claw the dollar's value back by devaluing it even further.

message 19: by Lori (new)

Lori It seems like the govt is just trying to erase a bad debt. That doesn't seem smart, frankly. Haven't we fooled around with slashing, erasing and moving columns that signify nothing?

Servius  Heiner  | 1980 comments Mod
That is the point Lori. This DOES represent something. How many small businesses are going to go under in the next month or so? There is no warren buffet for small business. This crash will hurt the middle class. Fat cats will feel a pinch but at the end of the day they are going to walk away clean.

The government isn’t erasing anything. They are buying what now has no value. Give the financial markets time to adjust. When things bounce back they will sell them back. We will never get all the money back because many of the houses were sold over value.

message 21: by Lori (last edited Sep 29, 2008 08:13PM) (new)

Lori OK thanks for explaining all that.

I think that some rendition of this bill will pass come the end of the week, hopefully. From what I understand, there were far too many allowances in it at present, especially for the fat cats who propogated this whole thing. The whole thing was too rushed.

I wish there was a article laying out for the simpler economic minds, like me. The way I saw it was that the govt was going to buy this, but with what money? On credit. That's why I say it's just paper. And then trying to get loans/selling it overseas right? Another gamble.

message 22: by Cyril (last edited Sep 29, 2008 09:13PM) (new)

Cyril We are in a death spiral. The mortgage backed securities have devalued so much, that financial institutions are forced to use funds to cover their losses. They don't have money to loan. Banks are having difficulty keeping enough cash on hand. If they could get rid of the MBSs, they might improve their balance sheets and get people to invest in them.

Part of the problem is that sentiment is so poor, the MBSs can likely be sold only at a horrendous loss. The feds propose to buy these MBSs at higher prices, limiting the loss incurred by financial institutions. Once relieved of this toxic debt, they might be able to get back on track to business as usual.

In the future, the feds hope to make their money back, or even make a profit, as people pay off their mortgages and bring the value of the MBSs to the level (or higher) the feds payed in the first place. When market sentiment improves, they might be able to sell the MBSs at higher prices.

Will this work? Who knows. It is not intended to be a cure-all. It will hopefully slow the death spiral. If nothing is done, we are virtually guaranteed an economic disaster.

This article is pretty good in explaining things:

message 23: by trivialchemy (new)


David Brooks also articulates the rest of my sentiments today fairly well:

message 24: by Lori (new)

Lori Hey Cyril, that article was just what I was asking for. Thanks alot.

message 25: by Not Bill (new)

Not Bill | 1062 comments Gee Isaiah - I'm full of BS, yet you don't provide any further proof for your position than I do. Are we both full of shit? Or, do we both have valid points that perhaps need further exploration? Believe me, I'm closer to your and Nick's point of view than you might imagine.

The model presented for relieving the situation isn't all bad, but there is bad contained in it. We need to be clear on this plan because we are going to live with this for a very long time - even after assets are sold off and the costs recovered, other provisions are going to live on. What are we passing on to our grandkids and great-grandkids? Sure, let's solve the problem, but let's do it right. The fact that the same asshats are trying to larden this thing with the same ol' pork, is good evidence that congress hasn't gotten the message. It's no wonder that their approval rating is half that of W's.

..oh and yes, once again the king of pork is Stevens(R) of Alaska. Same ol, same ol. Maybe we do need some pain to get it through our skulls to stop electing the same fuckwits to congress. I'm proud that my local representative, Woolsey(D) voted against the bill. We don't agree on much, or anything really, but we do have a good relationshop via email communication. Her office has responded to every one of my emails. I understand and agree with her position. Fuck, I'm even in agreement with Barbara Lee....frikkin Barbara Lee! Jeebus I'm gonna be sick. But there it is.

DakChar...break out the popcorn and print this out. Me n Barbara Lee in cahoots. It's a sick world fer sure.

message 26: by Not Bill (new)

Not Bill | 1062 comments And lastly, I do feel we need some pain here. The more pain we feel, the more we'll demdand to know how we got here. People ought to be going to jail over this, no doubt. If any one of us tried to run our financial affairs thus, we'd certainly be doing time.

Servius  Heiner  | 1980 comments Mod
NB don’t even get me started on Stevens! I can not believe he won the primary. Granted his support base is not an informed lot. (Stevens has brought billions of federal dollars to the “bush” communities in Alaska.) The native population will never vote against the man, ridiculous!

What has pissed me off about this bail out/ duct tape fix is that everyone (politicians, media, anyone talking about it) keep trying to spin the shit out of it. Leave the politics out of it; all parties concerned are guilty (financial institutions, dems, repubs).

What does SSH want to see:

Government purchase of the toxic debt (default house loan bundles) When the market stabilizes sell these bundles back at fair market value (not the inflated false value place on them by the bubble) this is why we will never recoup all the funds, the loans were disproportionate to the actual value of the homes. This is a better then the alternative.

Legislation making these kinds of unethical financial practices a federal offence with some real time spent behind real bars. It must be a federal law otherwise there could be state by state safe havens.

Then get a group of wahoos allot smarter then me to re-write the books to fit the economy of today instead of 1908.

I would also like members of congress to burn. How many have been paraded across the political commentary shows this week. They all say the same thing “I knew about this years ago.” Oh ok ass. You knew and did nothing. I suppose this should not surprise me.

Then there is Barney frank and Dodd. To me there is none more responsible then these two. Granted it was Republican deregulation that enabled what they did. But it was they who pushed it. I would like to see heads roll, the more the better. And then we have the board members, and CEO’s. Public hangings anyone?

message 28: by Not Bill (new)

Not Bill | 1062 comments Yo SSH...outstanding!

We do need action, but we need heads to roll. I'm afraid that this bill is more about congressional CYA than protecting the taxpayer. If there is sufficient pain, people will want to know. At that point, Frank and Dodd are meat.

I'm torn. I don't want to see unneeded suffering finanically, but I also see a chance to clean out the pigpen that is congress. Short of term limits, this might be our one, best shot.

Makes me wish I'd actually listened closer during finance classes.

Sack the lot of em. Sack em all, and start anew.

message 29: by Cyril (new)

Cyril I think this article is right on target about what happened:

The collapse of the proposed rescue plan for the teetering financial system was the product of a larger failure — of political leadership in Washington — at a moment when the world was looking to the United States to contain the cascading economic crisis.

Servius  Heiner  | 1980 comments Mod
Ok here is a question… Why is congress taking time off for a Jewish holiday? Do nothing congress doesn’t even begin to describe that lot.

Get to work you fucks!

message 31: by Xysea (new)

Xysea  (xysea) I think if Dodd and Frank need to go to jail, so do Bernanke, Paulson and Bush. Also Phil Gramm. And possibly John McCain.

All the dominoes would fall then...

I agree there is no part clean of this thing, and they've been hiding things (the Dems have to have been complicit in passing the stimulus packages) for some time now. I think they've known the crap was going to hit the proverbial fan for at least a year, if not for 2-3 years, and Bush wanted to leave it to be someone else's mess. I'm not sure he cared if it was McCain or Obama, just hoped it would happen on another's watch.

Yes, this isn't funny or political. It's jobs, retirement, college education - our way of life is under attack. We will find ourselves unable to be competitive in the global markets, too. If this happened because our elected officials and this Administration made bad choices, including the 'War of Terror'™ then I hope we can save ourselves before the terrorists have won.

Servius  Heiner  | 1980 comments Mod
I’m not sure I’m following you Xysea. How do you go from Bernanke, Paulson and President Bush, to McCain, and Graham? Frank and Dodd directly played a part in this, and even went as far as running static defense. So how does that relate to the rest?

message 33: by Charissa, That's Ms. Obnoxious Twat to You. (new)

Charissa (dakinigrl) | 3620 comments Mod
::::eats popcorn and watches the ruckus::::


message 34: by Xysea (new)

Xysea  (xysea) Are you kidding me? Seriously.

You don't think Bernanke and Paulson knew this was coming? You think this is all the fault of House Democrats?

Wow. Just wow. I know a lot of folks put ideology and politics above country and sound policy-making but your idea that Democrats are the sole people here who should be criminally prosecuted is breathtaking in its intellectual dishonesty.

Remember, this was a bi-partisan measure - first proposed by Henry Paulson and George W. Bush. This was THEIR bill to 'save the economy.' Phil Gramm's deregulation of banking is instrumental in this crisis - he's literally the Ken Lay of Wall Street. He encouraged and legislated opportunities for shady banking practices that enabled these mortgage-backed securities. The Democrats, if anything, are guilty of being weak and not knowing what they were voting on - and by trying to angle a bit for their base through greater home ownership at the cost of looser loan qualifications.

John McCain also supported virulent de-regulation of the markets and is complicit with the industry in permitting lax qualifications and accepting lobbyist monies from the banking and finance industry. In this climate, that should be a crime. It's the Keating 5 all over, and while America accepted an apology without prosecution the first time, this time I hope the scandal plagues him, to be honest.

"McCain Says He Wants Tough Lender Standards—But Votes Against Them. McCain has called for strict standards and greater transparency for lenders, and for cracking down on predatory lenders. But he voted against a measure to discourage predatory lending practices and failed to vote on a bill that would overhaul the mortgage lending practices of the Federal Housing Administration. (McCain’s Remarks on Economic Woes, 3/25/08; St. Petersburg Times, 1/24/08; S. 256, Vote #22, 3/3/05; S. 2338, Vote #432, 12/14/070)"

"McCain Has Ties to Finance, Banking and Real Estate Industries.

McCain advisers and fund-raisers have lobbied for firms connected to the crisis. His campaign hired a lobbyist for Ameriquest, the nation’s largest subprime lender, which agreed to pay $325 million to settle an investigation into its lending practices by 49 states. It also includes three lobbyists whose firms have made $2,078,000 in contracts from JP Morgan, two lobbyists whose firms made $1,940,000 from contracts with Washington Mutual and the in-house lobbyist for Citigroup. (Politico, 3/4/08; Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act Database, accessed 3/25/08; Consumer Affairs, 1/23/06; Office of Massachusetts Attorney General Press Release, 1/23/06; Center for Responsive Politics; Center for American Progress)

McCain has 120 registered ‘bundlers’ from the finance, banking and real estate industries. According to, a site that tracks bundlers of contributions for the presidential candidates, McCain has 120 registered bundlers from the real estate (51), securities and investment (40), commercial banks (13), finance (11) and insurance (5) industries. He leads among presidential candidates for bundlers from the real estate and commercial banking industries. (, accessed 2/5/08)"

President Bush should have been impeached for crimes against the Constitution long ago. He should have been impeached for incompetence; and his malfeasance may well be a criminal matter. History will tell.

Sorry, but these guys are criminals - and Gramm as Secretary of Treasury should frighten people as much as the prospect of Sarah Palin as Vice President.

message 35: by Xysea (new)

Xysea  (xysea) Oh, wait, I forgot - 'Personal responsibility' is only for the liberals and the Democrats - never the Republicans...

:) Silly me.

message 36: by Rusty (new)

Rusty (rustyshackleford) What Xysea says:

Oh, wait, I forgot - 'Personal responsibility' is only for the liberals and the Democrats - never the Republicans...

:) Silly me.

What Rusty hears:



message 37: by Xysea (new)

Xysea  (xysea) Yes, I hear the same thing when you speak, Rusty. :)

message 38: by Rusty (new)

Rusty (rustyshackleford) Xysea, how long must we dance this dance, before you realize you love me?

message 39: by Xysea (new)

Xysea  (xysea) Well Rusty, it's the love that dare not speak its name...

message 40: by Rusty (new)

Rusty (rustyshackleford) .........

message 41: by Xysea (new)

Xysea  (xysea) No. I'm attached and Rusty is speechless. :)

message 42: by Rusty (new)

Rusty (rustyshackleford) I'm more terrified than fascinated.

message 43: by Xysea (new)

Xysea  (xysea) So am I, Rusty, so am I.

message 44: by Cyril (new)

Cyril I heard this quote on NPR, supposedly from Churchill: The United States invariably does the right thing, after having exhausted every other alternative.

I think this describes our current situation.

Some other quotes possibly from Churchill:

Lady Nancy Astor: Winston, if I were your wife, I'd poison your tea.
Churchill: Nancy, if I were your husband, I'd drink it.

Bessie Braddock: Sir, you are drunk.
Churchill: And you, madam, are ugly. But in the morning, I shall be sober.

Young man (after seeing Churchill leave the bathroom without washing his hands): At Eton they taught us to wash our hands after using the toilet.
Churchill: At Harrow they taught us not to piss on our hands.

Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?
Socialite: My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course...
Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds?
Socialite: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!
Churchill: Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.

message 45: by Not Bill (new)

Not Bill | 1062 comments I love those Cyril...thanks for the reminder.

We're still waiting on round two. Thursday Night At the Fights is nearly upon us. This could very well be more entertaining than the previous. Seriously - keep your intake of fluids to a minimum during this one, unless spit-takes are your thing.

message 46: by Xysea (new)

Xysea  (xysea) I thought Churchill was a hoot. :)

I'm looking forward to watching Scrappy Doo and Scooby Doo. (I'll leave you to decide which is which)

message 47: by Lori (new)

Lori Can someone please explain to me how adding to our deficit and creating more tax breaks makes the New! Improved! bail out bill better?????

message 48: by Not Bill (new)

Not Bill | 1062 comments It's Bailout v2.0, it's gotta be better...sez right there on the box.

message 49: by Cyril (new)

Cyril The changes in the bill were measurable by volume. The initial proposal from the Treasury Department ran just three pages; the latest version exceeds 450.

There are more pages! It has to be better!

message 50: by trivialchemy (new)

trivialchemy On Monday, with the information available, a Congressman not voting for the bailout was irresponsible. Almost unbelievably, through politicking, jury-rigging, and general pandering to the uninformed, the Legislature has somehow managed to reverse that. This bill has turned into deficit-spending-laden nonsense. I am truly astounded at the consistency with which government manages to do precisely the wrong thing.

« previous 1
back to top