Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
just passing thru
climber
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2008 - 11:05pm PT
|
weschrist, this will answer your questions...
Was the Bailout Vote a Partisan Set-Up?
Nancy Pelosi must be the most ineffective House Speaker of modern times. The Democrats have achieved virtually nothing since taking control of the House and Senate in 2006, and have consistently avoided the responsibility that goes with being the majority party. Which may explain why, until very recently, most Americans were unaware that the Democrats were actually in control of Congress.
Pelosi's ineffectiveness has been due, in part, to her unrelenting and strident partisanship, which brings us to today's vote on the bailout bill: suspicion is growing that Pelosi and the Democrats made no serious effort to pass the bill, and that it failed at least in part because Pelosi tried to misuse it for political advantage.
Everyone has heard about the weirdly partisan and inaccurate rant which Pelosi contributed to the debate on the bailout bill. But that speech did not take place in a vacuum. Public opinion is running strongly against the bill, and it required political courage to vote for it. If you look at the list of those who voted "No" in both parties, it is mostly members who are engaged in tough re-election campaigns. This is true on both sides of the aisle.
That being the case, and given the fact that the legislation was in fact a negotiated, bipartisan compromise, the first duty of the majority party is to line up its members to support the majority's bill. But evidence is growing that the Democrats did no such thing.
As of yesterday, the Democrats' House whip, Jim Clyburn said that he hadn't even begun "whipping" Democratic representatives, and wouldn't do so unless and until he got orders from Nancy Pelosi. Today, Democratic Congressman Peter DeFazio told NPR that he never was "whipped" on the bill. So Pelosi evidently left Democrats to vote their consciences--which is to say, vote against the bill if they thought it was politically necessary--while counting on Republicans to put the bill over the top.
This is a classic Charlie Brown and the football maneuver. Pelosi gives a speech that frames the issue, falsely, as the result of bad Republican policies, then allows her own threatened representatives to do the popular thing while expecting Republicans to take one for the team by casting an unpopular vote. Which, of course, their Democratic opponents would use against them, thereby increasing the Democratic majority in the House.
If this was Pelosi's plan it failed, in part, perhaps, because her over-the-top partisan diatribe tipped off Republicans as to what was afoot. If, as it now appears, it's true that the Democrats made no serious effort to pass the bailout bill, it is just one more example of the failure of leadership we have seen since they took control of Congress."
From www.powerlineblog.com
|
|
Sparky
Trad climber
vagabon movin on
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2008 - 11:21pm PT
|
There is a little thing called the Glass-Steagall act, a depression era law that restricted the activities of big financial firms. The Reagan administration relaxed parts of it and the Clinton Administration finished it off under heavy pressure from Wall street. Commercial Banks(like Chase) merged with investment banks(like J.P. Morgan). The remaining Wall street firms had new competition, increased their borrowing and made riskier bets, some had more than thirty dollars of investment for every dollar of capital. After the sub-prime mortgage collapse they were leveraged so heavy that they were hostage to a withdrawal of credit by their lenders. This stuff is all in the more thoughtful periodicals out there. You won't get good information from watching a partisan political-blaming video on u-tube. Both parties are responsible for caving in to pressures from lobbyists.
|
|
Jeremy Handren
climber
NV
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2008 - 11:25pm PT
|
It was passed with a veto proof majority, by a Republican congress. Clinton really had no choice but to sign it. Pretty hard to wag the finger at Clinton for that one.
|
|
just passing thru
climber
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2008 - 11:49pm PT
|
Everything lead up to a moment in time in 2004 when FM/FM got busted for cooking the books.
In 2004 The Republicans called for greater regulation and the Dems attempted to covered it up
CSPAN clips don't lie--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
|
Sep 30, 2008 - 12:13am PT
|
Undoubtedly some Dems are idiots, as are some Republicans. Yet in 2004 the Republicans are the ones who controlled both congress and the Presidency, so why didn't they do something then? Plus why did McCain say we needed more deregulation at the Republican convention?
You attempt to blame the Dems for doing nothing for the last 2 years, but they do not have enough votes to override Bush's veto power which he has threatened to do many times and the Repubs in congress certainly haven't wanted to help them override a veto.
Certainly the Dems have not all been great, but the biggest push for deregulation has come from the Republicans who didn't listen to the few Republicans who saw the looming problem. The republicans need to get rid of folks like Karl Rove who guide Republican policy and take that party away from its basis. Until they do that, I don't consider them to be true conservatives.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Sep 30, 2008 - 12:25am PT
|
Both parties are mostly bought and paid for by big power and money and only appeal as necessary to their larger constituents for support. (The GOP doesn't really care about abortion or gay marriage, and the Dems hardly support labor unions)
That's the problem we need to be bailed out of
Peace
Karl
|
|
dmalloy
Trad climber
eastside
|
|
|
Sep 30, 2008 - 12:27am PT
|
great, "just passing thru", what we needed was another mouthpiece of the thoughtless part of the conservative movement to post stuff around here....
the 2004 proposal would not have increased the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It would have moved that regulation from Congress to the White House. The proposed change was widely cheered by Fannie and Freddie executives, and I'm sure if they were for rooting for it so hard it would have really increased the oversight of the institutions they were (mis)leading at the time.
Do you have anything useful to say, or are you just here to try to blame the "other" side? Plenty of shared blame for everyone in this case, although the GOP certainly led the charge to deregulate investment banks, which is one of the reasons this small mess has grown to an enormous crisis.
Anyone who really wants a good take on how we got here....
http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=355
Interviews include someone who is defaulting on his mortgage, a mortgage broker, investment bankers, etc. Yes, it comes from "public radio", but it offers an entertaining and informative picture of why so many banks started offering mortgages to people who could not handle the payments, and how investment banks took the product of those bad loans and made the situation much, much worse.
|
|
Flashlight
climber
|
|
|
Sep 30, 2008 - 12:28am PT
|
Wow! I agree with a Karl post 100%!
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
|
Sep 30, 2008 - 12:41am PT
|
"Wow! I agree with a Karl post 100%!"
So you agree that the Dems haven't really done a good job of supporting labor unions against large corporations which is one reason that CEO pay scales are so much larger then the average worker? Great !
|
|
Jeremy Handren
climber
NV
|
|
|
Sep 30, 2008 - 12:44am PT
|
Or that money isn't free speech?
|
|
just passing thru
climber
|
|
|
Sep 30, 2008 - 12:52am PT
|
Everyday the body of evidence grows that the Dems used the success of our nation to leverage those, who could not otherwise afford homes, into the American Dream. It was a simple case of modern day Robin Hood meets Wallstreet, almost a perfect way to make the world fair, until it all came crashing down. Social engineering never works.
McCain saw this and attempted to pass a bill to regulate FM/FM in 2006:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Sep 30, 2008 - 12:56am PT
|
You are botherng to listen to Just Passing Gas again?
OK MORON, (That would be JPG) the dems don't have enough votes to override a filibuster. this is how rethuglicans have stopped several important fixes for the CRAP the rethugs have foisted on the American people at the behest of their owners, the fat cat lobbyists.
NOW, you can go look this stuff up, if you wish, but since you are about like the LEB, you won't bother, and anyway the facts don't have any effect on idiots like you.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Sep 30, 2008 - 01:19am PT
|
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aGUdAgJdBQL0&refer=home
U.S. Lawmakers Spurn Pleas From Leadership in Rejecting Bailout
By Nicholas Johnston and Dawn Kopecki
Sept. 30 (Bloomberg) -- Lawmakers from Texas, Arizona, and California helped defeat a $700 billion credit-market rescue in the U.S. House, voting more in line with their followers, or constituents, than their leaders.
The bill was a priority for President George W. Bush, yet 15 of 19 Republicans from his home state, Texas, voted against it. Republican presidential candidate John McCain left the campaign trail to help the measure, which didn't get a single vote from his state of Arizona. Almost half the usually loyal California Democratic delegation rebuffed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
For too many lawmakers, five weeks before Election Day, the threat of market calamity and arm-twisting from party leaders couldn't overcome impassioned opposition back home, where the rescue plan is drawing fire as a bailout for rich
Wall Street bankers.
``Americans are angry, and so are my colleagues,'' said Republican Leader John Boehner. ``They don't want to have to vote for a bill like this.''
A Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll last week showed that 55 percent of Americans were against using taxpayer money to rescue Wall Street, with 31 percent in favor. Opponents, far more vocal than supporters, have seemed like an even bigger majority in congressional offices, which have been flooded with critical calls and e-mails.
``The American people rejected this bailout, and now Congress did likewise,'' Indiana Republican Mike Pence said after the vote.
In yesterday's action, a compromise plan worked out by congressional leaders and the Bush administration fell 12 votes short of approval. U.S. stocks plummeted the most since 1987, losing $1.2 trillion in market value. The Dow Jones Industrial Average nosedived 778 points, the biggest point drop ever.
Republicans Buck Leaders
Members of Bush's own party in particular bucked their leaders, as more than two-thirds of House Republicans rejected the measure. In the immediate aftermath, some Republican leaders pointed fingers at Pelosi, saying the Democratic speaker turned off some potential Republican votes with a speech blaming ``failed Bush economic policies'' for the financial crisis.
The speaker's political jabs, however, weren't a factor to many conservative Republicans who just didn't want taxpayers ponying up $700 billion for Wall Street, said California Republican Representative Darrell Issa. The financial crisis left many lawmakers more frustrated with Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, and Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox, Issa said.
``They aren't pissed off at Pelosi,'' Issa said. ``They are pissed off at Paulson, they are pissed off at Bernanke, they are pissed off at Cox.''
`No Way to Sell This'
While most Democrats backed the proposal, 95 of them also voted no.
``There is no reason for us to go in there and bail out George Bush,'' Missouri Democrat Emanuel Cleaver said. ``I don't think anyone is going to step out on a limb,'' he said, because ``there is no way to sell this'' to voters.
Even so, before the vote, leaders of both parties were anticipating a narrow victory for the legislation. Adam Putnam, the House's No. 3 Republican, predicted a ``squeaker.'' Jim Clyburn, the Democrats' chief vote-counter, predicted Democrats ``are going to have enough votes.''
The bill failed 228-205, even after Democrats gave both parties' leaders an extra 23 minutes after time for the roll call had expired to implore colleagues to back the legislation.
``We did think we had a dozen more votes going to the floor than we had,'' said Roy Blunt of Missouri, the chief Republican vote-counter.
Patrolling the Floor
Pelosi and Illinois Representative Rahm Emanuel, the Democratic Caucus chairman, were among leaders patrolling the House floor for support.
At one point during the roll-call vote, Pelosi approached Representatives Bennie Thompson and Jesse Jackson Jr. Thompson shook his head ``no'' before Pelosi walked away. Thompson and Jackson both voted against the bill.
Many representatives opposed the measure after meetings with former Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Bill Isaac, who talked with groups of lawmakers over the past two days about alternatives to the steps outlined in Paulson's proposal, Issa said.
Isaac said he ``wasn't trying to get anyone to torpedo the plan.'' Some lawmakers wanted to add amendments to make the plan more palatable to them. House leaders, however, wouldn't allow changes, Isaac said.
Wisconsin Democrat David Obey said Republicans must take responsibility for knocking down the plan.
`Stepped Up'
``The fact is that Democrats delivered 60 percent of our caucus for this bill, despite the fact that this is a Republican president's bill,'' Obey said. ``There's a whole lot in that bill that we don't like either, but we stepped up to the plate as a caucus because it was the responsible thing to do.''
Some Democratic blocs rebuffed their leaders and opposed the bill: Members of the Hispanic Caucus rejected the measure 12-8 and Congressional Black Caucus members voted 21-18 against the bill.
``We do have a serious crisis,'' House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said after the vote. ``Clearly, a large number of members of the House don't believe that. Some had a different view. Some said there was no great crisis.''
Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd said the House's action represented more than just the failure of a bill. ``It was a failure to understand the import of the decision,'' Dodd said. ``It was a failure to step up and exercise the will.''
To contact the reporters on this story: Nicholas Johnston in Washington at njohnston3@bloomberg.net; Dawn Kopecki in Washington at dkopecki@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: September 30, 2008 00:01 EDT
END Quote from Bloomberg
Taking the train back from Facelift5 I read the NYT cover to cover. The constraints placed on Paulson and the administration by this bill are more apparent than real.
1. Unless there is actually a negative vote Paulson gets the full $700B.
2. A committee to oversee Paulson’s decisions is specified but there is no provision for enforcement at all. If the administration just continues to ignore Congress, this entire part of the bill becomes pointless.
3. Paulson is not required to hold an auction to determine how much we pay for securities. He just decides what we have to pay, and to whom. In effect, much like the billions in sole source contracts let to Halliburton.
4. There is no clause designed to assist the homeowners by allowing bankruptcy judges to modify mortgage terms. Nothing for us.
5. The bill allows Paulson to buy securities, as he deems necessary, whether they are secured by mortgages or not. The taxpayer can end up buying derivatives, that have no real collateral at all and whose value is even less known. Tuesday, tomorrow, a portion of hedge fund investors will be able to redeem their investments and according to NYT reports the hedge funds expect substantial withdrawals.
Had the bill been approved, as far as I can see, it would have caused the taxpayer also to bail out the $2 Trillion entirely unregulated hedge fund industry and left us holding paper for which there is presently no apparent way to establish value.
All of the provisions put in to protect the taxpayer appear unenforceable to this observer. In another instance in the event the taxpayers lose money on a firm’s securities we are supposed to be able to recover some of those monies from the firm. No indication as to how this is to be done legally without endless litigation even given a decision that the firm is liable and assuming the firm has any assets that may be attached.
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Sep 30, 2008 - 01:24am PT
|
Well maybe now they will add those protections in and make a better deal.
they sure need to.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
|
Sep 30, 2008 - 01:27am PT
|
"Taking the train back from Facelift5 I read the NYT cover to cover. The constraints placed on Paulson and the administration by this bill are more apparent than real.
1. Unless there is actually a negative vote Paulson gets the full $700B.
2. A committee to oversee Paulson’s decisions is specified but there is no provision for enforcement at all. If the administration just continues to ignore Congress, this entire part of the bill becomes pointless.
3. Paulson is not required to hold an auction to determine how much we pay for securities. He just decides what we have to pay, and to whom. In effect, much like the billions in sole source contracts let to Halliburton.
4. There is no clause designed to assist the homeowners by allowing bankruptcy judges to modify mortgage terms. Nothing for us.
5. The bill allows Paulson to buy securities, as he deems necessary, whether they are secured by mortgages or not. The taxpayer can end up buying derivatives, that have no real collateral at all and whose value is even less known. Tuesday, tomorrow, a portion of hedge fund investors will be able to redeem their investments and according to NYT reports the hedge funds expect substantial withdrawals.
Had the bill been approved, as far as I can see, it would have caused the taxpayer also to bail out the $2 Trillion entirely unregulated hedge fund industry and left us holding paper for which there is presently no apparent way to establish value.
All of the provisions put in to protect the taxpayer appear unenforceable to this observer. In another instance in the event the taxpayers lose money on a firm’s securities we are supposed to be able to recover some of those monies from the firm. No indication as to how this is to be done legally without endless litigation even given a decision that the firm is liable and assuming the firm has any assets that may be attached."
.............
Thanks JStan for the analysis. I agree. I'm sorry I didn't get to meet you at the facelift. For some reason we didn't cross paths.
John
|
|
Wayno
Big Wall climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Sep 30, 2008 - 02:21am PT
|
Bilderberger; they all belong. Our "leaders" have sold us out long ago. It's just now that it is coming to fruition. It will get worse. What about the "Northern Command" that was recently deployed stateside. What is that all about? The globalists need America to go down to fulfill their agenda. Next comes our guns.
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Sep 30, 2008 - 02:35am PT
|
WOW Karl, that was interesting.
He might be a little off here and there, but generally it made a bit of sense.
whatever finally happens, I hope the little people are protected, and the fat cats can ride at their own risk.
That executive pay thing is a real gripe.
|
|
Curt
Boulder climber
Gilbert, AZ
|
|
|
Sep 30, 2008 - 02:58am PT
|
Moore is off point, as usual--but oddly enough correct that this POS legislation should fail.
Curt
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Sep 30, 2008 - 03:25am PT
|
Hey Curt, I'd like to know why YOU specifically think it should fail, and if you think the gov should bail em out at all.
Seems to me the gov could just save people's HOUSES for em, and let the firms that let greed rule die. IN other words, bail out ONLY the poor tax payers.
Let the execs who ran those companies into the ground go to the poor house, and let some other better guys buy up what's left for ten cents on the dollar, LOL.
But what do I know?
Maybe it's true that without a bailout, we are all doomed. BUT maybe the bailout needs a LOT more attention given to puting the money in the right hands, and attaching the right strings, and making DAMNED sure that nobody who had a hand in screwing this stuff up benefits very much.
Bush said he wanted Americans to own their homes, LOL, here's his chance to make good on that. The provision that banks have been fighting tooth and nail is one where a court would be able to reset the mortgage and interest rate for someone caught in a bad sub prime deal, LOL, NO WONDER the banks don't like that idea!
When they sell you a pig in a poke, they want to keep it that way. And Those who think it's buyer beware and people should be smarter etc etc, well, yeah, they should, but they are not, and lots of not so smart but honest people get screwed out of their houses every day by sneaky underhanded folks-- and it is entirely legal, if not moral. Check out the documentary, "Maxed Out", for some seriously sick examples of this.
Anyway, Curt, I'd like to hear your opinion on what should be done.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!