Bailout Fails to Pass: We're All Gonna Die!

It really depends on what having a "few bad years" of the economy are like. Either way, the common man that had little to do with this mess is suffering.

If we go into a full depression, I dont think its worth it. A depression, unlike a recession, is not very capable of self-correcting. While the New Deal was great, if we didnt have World War 2, the Great Depression mightve been prolonged.

I am for a New, New Deal and a return to the progressive policies of FDR, but not at the price of a depression.
 
[quote name='darthbudge']Honestly, I am really glad that this bill didn't pass.

While it might mean a few years of having a really bad economy, it is the only real way to make things better. Why should banks who were taking extreme risks and then losing be bailed out? If they are, it sends the message that no matter what they do, they aren't gonna be allowed to go out of business.

Hopefully this will teach a lesson, in that banks should be more conservative in their loans. Also, this will hopefully get people to start living in their own means, and not getting everything on credit.[/QUOTE]

This is kind of how I feel on the issue as well... The government hasnt come running to help with all the people losing their homes, why now for the banks?

Clean out the uncapable and start over. Its not going to be easy except for the lucky or financially sound people, but we will get through it.
 
[quote name='SpazX']What a bunch of jackasses. We want to do what's good for America, but not if people are giving speeches like that!![/quote]

While the Republicans should have just rolled with the punches, she did pick a fine time to give her self righteous speech.



I didn't see people blaming the dot-com crisis 100% on Clinton.
 
[quote name='darthbudge']Also, this will hopefully get people to start living in their own means, and not getting everything on credit.[/quote]

Do you honestly think that most people could get a house or even a car without any loans?
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']seems to be taken out of context... should be noted that 40% of house dems shot the bill down as well.[/QUOTE]
This is Bush's, Bernanke's, and Paulson's bill. This is a Republican bill, and the Democrats voted almost 2/3rds in favor of it. They brought the goods. The Republican leadership thought they had at least half of their party on board and they weren't close.

And their explanation for not having the votes was Pelosi's speech. Thats embarrassing. And John McCain did not switch 60+ votes, the compromise in the bill was largely responsible for that. Bush and McCain simply could not deliver their own party on something they both support.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']This is Bush's, Bernanke's, and Paulson's bill. This is a Republican bill, and the Democrats voted almost 2/3rds in favor of it. They brought the goods. The Republican leadership thought they had at least half of their party on board and they weren't close.

And their explanation for not having the votes was Pelosi's speech. Thats embarrassing. And John McCain did not switch 60+ votes, the compromise in the bill was largely responsible for that. Bush and McCain simply could not deliver their own party on something they both support.[/QUOTE]

sure its embarrassing. but its just a soundbit that has no bearing on reality. i mean cmon, does anyone honestly think that pelosis 4 minutes of talking before the vote swayed republicans into voting no. i strongly doubt it. the reailty is the votes were never there. ill admit that i was wrong saying it was taken out of context, after watching the video it isnt, but that doesnt mean that its factual either. were talking about one guy scrambling to say something in front of the press thats all.
 
They needed...12 votes at one point to get that thing passed. They were expecting 70-80 Republicans to vote for the bill (a Democratically revised Paulson bill). Could the Pelosi speech have swayed 12 fence-sitting Republicans to vote no? Yes. It's certainly not out of the question. If you think it is, you haven't been around politics very long, at least not Washington, where a simple re-wording can change a person's mind.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']They needed...12 votes at one point to get that thing passed. They were expecting 70-80 Republicans to vote for the bill (a Democratically revised Paulson bill). Could the Pelosi speech have swayed 12 fence-sitting Republicans to vote no? Yes. It's certainly not out of the question. If you think it is, you haven't been around politics very long, at least not Washington, where a simple re-wording can change a person's mind.[/QUOTE]
So you're on the floor, you're ready to vote on what could be the most important legislation of your career, and you're ready to support it, but a single speech changes your mind? You probably don't belong in politics if you're that sensitive or petty enough to put your feelings above the needs of the American people. I doubt anyone even listened to Pelosi's speech with all the arm twisting and politicking that was going on in the moments before the vote.

The poster above you is right, they never had the votes. Pelosi and the Democrats did all they could, if a presidential administration with the support of a presidential candidate can't deliver more than 1/3rd of their own party on their own bill, they have no hope of ever passing it.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']It really depends on what having a "few bad years" of the economy are like. Either way, the common man that had little to do with this mess is suffering.

If we go into a full depression, I dont think its worth it. A depression, unlike a recession, is not very capable of self-correcting. While the New Deal was great, if we didnt have World War 2, the Great Depression mightve been prolonged.

I am for a New, New Deal and a return to the progressive policies of FDR, but not at the price of a depression.[/QUOTE]

fuck yeah! Bring it on. FDR was like a God and a lot of his policies would actually do a lot of good in modern times. He believed that all Americans needed was a helping hand not a hand out and they would gladly work so instead of just giving people money he hired tons of men to plant trees. I think many people today are just lazy and prefer not to work....but would still gladly take a job from the government over welfare if offered even a halfway decent wage. And I think the planting trees thing is perfectly relevant too. We are trying to move forward on this green initiative and there is going to be a lot of basic grunt work that needs to be done. Instead of contracting it out why not give it to the wave of people that are about to loose their jobs and already lost their job.
 
Get ready for CAG 3.0 being reduced to a single page of HTML and the new URL: brokeassgamer.com.

I joke to cope.
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']Am I the only one who is extremely pleased that it didn't pass?[/quote]

No, but you're probably the only one who just enjoys people being miserable.
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']Am I the only one who is extremely pleased that it didn't pass?[/quote]Given that this situation most likely strengthens Obama's chances this November, you might like it less than you think.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Do you honestly think that most people could get a house or even a car without any loans?[/quote]

I am not talking about houses or cars... I am more talking about luxury items that people buy on credit.

Also, they could easily get a nice small loan for a used, mid range car, instead of getting whatever expensive car they want.

This also applies to houses, you don't need anything extravagant, just something that will fit your needs. The whole reason we got into this mess was because people were taking loans they couldn't payback, and instead of denying them, the banks were just handing them out.

[quote name='Liquid 2']Am I the only one who is extremely pleased that it didn't pass?[/quote]

As I said before, I am pleased it failed. While it may make things tough for awhile, it is the only to way actually fix the situation.
 
[quote name='darthbudge']I am not talking about houses or cars... I am more talking about luxury items that people buy on credit.

Also, they could easily get a nice small loan for a used, mid range car, instead of getting whatever expensive car they want.

This also applies to houses, you don't need anything extravagant, just something that will fit your needs. The whole reason we got into this mess was because people were taking loans they couldn't payback, and instead of denying them, the banks were just handing them out.
[/QUOTE]

Yep, the key is to not take out loans you can't easily afford to pay the montly payments, and preferably pay more than the minimum. And that really just applies for cars and houses. A big problem is people buy more house than they need/can afford or nicer cars than they can afford.

And people really should never take loans to buy true luxury items (i.e. running up credit card bills etc.) like TVs, video games, etc. etc.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Given that this situation most likely strengthens Obama's chances this November, you might like it less than you think.[/QUOTE]

Like he wasn't going to win anyways. :whistle2:?
 
The whole situation can basically be boiled down to one big fact.. Greed..
both with housing loans (banks & realtors) corporations

corporations cut jobs, and costs in USA by out sourcing to other countries to make them more money, they don't care about the USA, they've milked the country for all they can and now they have there money..
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']Like he wasn't going to win anyways. :whistle2:?[/quote]
What? Its gonna be crazy close. A few swing states will be stolen by vote fraud. Recounts and the legal system are pretty much guaranteed to be involved.
 
I'm going to vote for John McCain because I think Sarah Palin is good looking and if I vote for them I probably have a shot with her! :cool:
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']Am I the only one who is extremely pleased that it didn't pass?[/quote]

Well I'm not one to trust our current leaders (both parties and in all branches) to save us from this mess mainly because of the same reasons I'm not a politician. I believe they are all crooks and have taken money in one form or another for favors in the future. This time it blew up in their faces and now they are trying to save face and save their buddies on wall street.

Do we need to do something? Sure, but each step better be under a microscope and better not tack on any extra funding due to lobbyists and the sort. That would be the reason I would be extremely pleased.

[quote name='mykevermin']Oh man, NYT headline is all caps: BAILOUT REJECTED.

We're so much closer to my dream headline: HOLY fuckING SHIT: (byline: we're all doomed!)[/quote]

That and I want to see the same headline.

Now, don't get me wrong. I love the U.S. mainly because I can say this and not get dragged off and killed. But this looks like it was a mess a long time coming and as they say "you reap what you sow"
 
I vote for the McCain. The other guy seem to be ummm how to say this " good at only taking shit and made promise that too good to be true " and this dude will tax me to death with all of his what so called "plan". Oh and Isn't he the one who want to make illegal alien to be US citizen and give them all the benefit of US. citizen ?
 
t83gx1.jpg
 
[quote name='nonggame']I vote for the McCain. The other guy seem to be ummm how to say this " good at only taking shit and made promise that too good to be true " and this dude will tax me to death with all of his what so called "plan". Oh and Isn't he the one who want to make illegal alien to be US citizen and give them all the benefit of US. citizen ?[/quote]

ENGLISH MOTHERfuckER! DO YOU SPEAK IT!?
 
[quote name='nonggame']I vote for the McCain. The other guy seem to be ummm how to say this " good at only taking shit and made promise that too good to be true " and this dude will tax me to death with all of his what so called "plan". Oh and Isn't he the one who want to make illegal alien to be US citizen and give them all the benefit of US. citizen ?[/quote]

I dunno what a "tax to death" would be, really, but if you make more than $200,000 or so then you'll pay more taxes. And that was McCain's immigration plan, but he would apparently now vote against it, so yeah.
 
My understanding of economics is SEVERELY limited.... but how is it that the government can take our money (that doesn't exist yet) and spend it without explaining how it WILL work to the people?

Wouldn't we be better off NOT bailing out those that failed, and instead using our own money to support the companies that are actually doing it right?

Hell, what do I know.
 
[quote name='QiG']My understanding of economics is SEVERELY limited.... but how is it that the government can take our money (that doesn't exist yet) and spend it without explaining how it WILL work to the people?

Wouldn't we be better off NOT bailing out those that failed, and instead using our own money to support the companies that are actually doing it right?

Hell, what do I know.[/quote]

Well if it was just a few companies failing then it wouldn't matter. The ripple effect from such huge companies failing is what they're trying to avoid.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']They became "too big to fail", in which case, they should have been too big to exist.[/quote]

I would agree with that. What's funny is with these other buyouts you're getting even bigger companies that can't fail...
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
'course, what happens when this $700B is ostensibly exhausted in 8 months?[/quote]

Money only has value to citizens. The government and its institutions just print more or borrow from China when the printer is being serviced by maintenance.
 
So, if Pelosi puts the blame of this crisis at the feet of the administration and it's "failed policies", it's recklessness, golden parachutes, and anything goes philosophy, then why is she in favor of the bailout?

A striking contradiction, IMO. I'm sure you leftist dems eat that shit up.
 
Pelosi's speech was totally out of line and inappropriate given the scope of the crisis. The nation could be on fire and sinking into the ocean, and she'd put priority on televising a blame-republican speech before taking action.

That said, any Republican that really blames her speech on not letting the bill pass that they wanted, is retarded.
 
We can focus on how awful Pelosi is, but in the meantime, that legitimizes the very political maneuver of those on the right who wanted to behave like WATBs and took their stance in the form of not voting, and thus fucking up the expediency of this bill.

Pelosi was being politically opportunistic just like McCain and his "I'M HERE TO sit down and be quiet SAVE THE DAY!" actions of last week - but she didn't force any petulant child of a Congressperson to not vote for it.

Let's not fool ourselves; Pelosi used words to be a problem. Republican members of congress who were committed to voting were the people who forgot the old "sticks and stones" adage and decided to take it out on American economic policy.

So who's the bitch? Pelosi or the "butthurt" members of Congress who have cried all the way to stalling/killing a bill?

Whatever happened to the party of "up or down vote," man?
 
Well, the up or down vote happened, and it went down, hard. Democrats can spout '60% of us voted for it' all they want, but 40%, 94 Democrats voted against it. They only have themselves to blame, because they couldn't get their own people in line. This would've passed if they got their own people to vote down party lines.
 
How many members of Congress with an "R" next to their name have admitted to not voting because of Pelosi's speech?

Is it more than 5? Or is this whole thing being blown out of proportion by one interview with one man?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']How many members of Congress with an "R" next to their name have admitted to not voting because of Pelosi's speech?

Is it more than 5? Or is this whole thing being blown out of proportion by one interview with one man?[/quote]

Also, 3 House Republican leaders who speculated after the vote.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']So, if Pelosi puts the blame of this crisis at the feet of the administration and it's "failed policies", it's recklessness, golden parachutes, and anything goes philosophy, then why is she in favor of the bailout?

A striking contradiction, IMO. I'm sure you leftist dems eat that shit up.[/QUOTE]
Not quite. Democrats have traditionally been more inclined to regulate the market, which is what this is and why a lot of free market Republicans are against it.

It will be disastrous if the credit markets freeze. You'll see some more banks go, then companies will start not making their payroll. If there is no borrowing, there is no business. This bailout has serious ramifications, including severe inflation, but the alternative is much worse, and will impact Joe Schmoe on Main St. far more.

I'm not willing to lay the blame completely on the Republicans for this, a lot of this started with Greenspan and his cheap money, and yes, certain Democratic policies with regard to minority lending were a contributing factor. But the Republicans have controlled Congress for 12 years and the White House for 8. A lack of oversight does not constitute a free market.

Also, I believe a shift in corporate philosophy played a large factor. Corporate executives no longer care about the long term, its all about the next quarter and the stock price. By the time the consequences of their decisions come to pass, they've moved on to another company.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Well, the up or down vote happened, and it went down, hard. Democrats can spout '60% of us voted for it' all they want, but 40%, 94 Democrats voted against it. They only have themselves to blame, because they couldn't get their own people in line. This would've passed if they got their own people to vote down party lines.[/QUOTE]
Why should they? Its not their bill. The administration introduced this legistlation, and McCain supported it enough to 'suspend' his campaign to get it passed. Bush and McCain combined could not get more than 1/3rd of their own party to vote in support of their own bill. The Democrats did what they had to do.

Having the Republican treasury secretary going to the Democrats on bended knee to help save the economy because the Republicans won't, is a stunning revelation of how little unity there is in the Republican party right now.
 
I'm surprised but not shocked that this failed to pass in the House. No one likes the idea of a bailout, the price tag is huge at a time when the deficit is already sky-high, and the timing is terrible. I actually think the whole thing has been surprisingly bipartisan, overall. Both parties have been negotiating and giving ground, and the end result has been an improved bill that no one likes but both sides can hold their noses and vote for.

I think this last minute revolt by House Republicans is more about election year politics than anything else, and the bill will pass the next time they vote on it. I think unanimous support by either party is close to impossible -- there are always going to be representatives who simply can not vote for this given the sentiments of their districts (which I think is as it should be), but they'll sway enough to get it through while still saving face for those who switch sides.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top