Monday, September 29, 2008

Bloomberg: U.S. House Rejects $700 Billion Financial-Rescue Plan

Banking cartel bailout rejected by a vote of 228 to 205

By Dorothy Littrell

Three cheers for the Republican House members who defeated the $700 billion bill that was meant to save the Wall Street schemers who created our financial mess with the aid of the financial schemers in other countries:

U.S. House Rejects $700 Billion Financial-Rescue Plan

The Grass Roots spoke, and GOP House members responded (along with the needed number of Democrats. Ed.) That restores my faith in our system which I had lost long ago..

We have not become completely brain dead.

If the presidential candidates have any smarts they will take this message to heart.


Curmudgeon said...

Where this was a wise thing to do or not is still undetermined. Market dropped 700 points on the news. Still down 500. Markets falling all round the world. Citibank stock dropped 50% in early trading today.

I still think Warren Buffet may have gotten it right: "We can teach Wall Street a lesson, or we can act to avert a major economic catastrophe. We can't do both at once."

We shall see....

preshus said...

Credit also needs to be given the Democrats who opposed Pelosi and Reid to vote "no" on the bill.

They acted like Americans first and politicians second.

Curmudgeon said...

Oh, Lord... will it never stop?

Now we have Preshus claiming those who voted no "acted like Americans first and politicians second." Unless of course they were voting mostly to preserve their elections in four weeks. And those who voted "yea" were the ones "acting like Americans first and politicians second," putting the good of the nation first, even at some risk to themselves. I see no grounds for preferring one of those interpretations to the other.

Why do people immediately leap to claiming only those who vote the way they would have voted are acting out of conviction, while those who vote the other way have some base motive that is non-patriotic?

Here's a radical idea: some Dems and some Repubs thought the revised bailout provision was not likely to work and was not in the best interests of the nation, so they voted against it. And some Dems and some Repubs thought the revised bailout provision was necessary to avert a greater economic crisis and so was in the best interests of the nation, and voted for it.

But no... somebody voted in a way that Preshus would not have, and so that person must not be "acting American" and so must be motivated by personal political gain.

Jayusus, enough already. People can, and often do, disagree on closely contested matters without being unpatriotic [on either side].

ozboy said...

Ah come on Mr. Curmudgeon, you know as well as I do that some folks know's more about what's American and what Jesus would do than others. Even you called out, in apparent good faith, for "Jayusus" in your plea for sanity.

psych 101 said...

Mister Curmudgeon,

Your raw nerves are showing.

Take 3 deep breaths and say your Hail Mary to Zion.

You are a fascinating study.

Curmudgeon said...


Not so much raw nerves as exasperation. There's much to debate and discuss on this issue. Fingerpointing charges of "un American" do exactly zero to advance that discussion.

Sorry, psych. I'm one of those old reprobates that thinks important public issues need to be discussed, and argued about, but on the merits. Yes, even on blogs.

oldtimer said...

Curmudgeon must not be reading the same statement that I am that is being credited to Preshus.

The Preshus statement is that persons voting against the bill acted like Americans first and politicians second.

I find that position to be as it should be. In fact, I heartily endorse that position.

No representative should have voted party lines before voting his or her conscience on the validity of the bill and considering the consequences of that vote.

Maybe Curmudgeon should reread what the statement was. Nobody called anybody unamerican.

danny said...

I agree with oldtimer.

Also, while the Democrats are clearly the ones pushing this monstrous cash giveaway to their Wall Street fat cats, we note 1/3 of the Democrats voted against it, including Utah's own congressman Jim Matheson. Thank you Jim.

Rob Bishop also voted no. Thank you Rob.

(Of course the notorious Chris Cannon voted yes, but he is a lame duck, having been pitched in the primary for supporting Bush's open borders bill that John McCain also supported.)

But this is not over. The slimebags and power brokers will bring this back.

I ask everyone to call or email Rob and Jim and thank them, and ask them to stand firm if the vote comes up again. Hopefully the bill will be defeated by a wider margin each time they trot it out.

Curmudgeon said...

Old Timer:

Sorry, OT. When P. congratulated some for acting "as Americans" by voting "no," the clear implication is that those who voted the other way were not acting "as Americans." The clear implication is that those who voted "no" put country first and so those who voted "aye" put party first. That kind of branding, still seems to me, does no good and some damage to serious discussion of a closely contested issue.

Squirt said...

This credit crunch is going to hit "Main Street" very quickly. Be careful for what you wish for! When the hard times hit, someone will remind those that they opted for the Herbert Hoover solution, to do nothing!

danny said...


Actually, Hoover did a lot to stop the crisis, as did FDR, and it was all STUPID.

That's why the Crash of '29, instead of being just another panic that comes along every twenty years or so, became instead "The Great Depression".

Tell me, how'd you get to be such a fan of government fixit scams? Have you seen very many that have worked?

If you feel giving Goldman Sachs, Bank America, and Morgan Stanley $100 billion of public money apiece will make your life better, then perhaps we have nothing more to discuss.

daps said...

So you guys actually read the bill?

danny said...


I read summaries from sources I felt were credible.

The Paulson bill, and the Democrat one were functionally equivalent.

The Democrat one was more loaded up with BS, but was essentially the same.

Democrats the party of the little guy my hat.

danny said...

You members of the sellout Democrat party will love this, from your own:

Click Here

Click Here

Pure corruption. Beyond belief.

Scared Shitless said...

I'll draw you an analogy of what I think just happened.

You board on a plane which takes off and climbs to 40,000 feet. While up there the pilot of the plane does something that extremely pisses you off. You pull out a gun and shot him in the head. Then you realize that you don’t know how to fly the plane.

People think, we all have our life savings, our retirements, our employment and our ability to provide for our children’s futures at stake here. Think if tomorrow the Dow is down a 1,000 or 2,000 more points and this keeps up until the market sits a half or a third of what it did a year ago. I don’t get any warm and fuzzy feeling about sticking it to the man right now. Not when what I and the rest of you have at stake. To add insult to injury Congress has taken off for a holiday tomorrow which will keep them from addressing the issue until they get back, most likely next week. If they didn’t like what Poulson put together I would have felt much better had they stayed behind in DC to come up with an alternate plan. I have more disdain for those reps that took off for the holiday rather than sticking around to fix our problem than I do for those that didn’t vote for the plan.

I wonder how many of these guys voted the way they did to ensure re-election since it seems clear that it was not going to be the popular vote. I also wonder how many congress men / women really understood the gravity of our situation or the complexity of the financial relations between money flow, derivatives and liquidity. The system that relies on TRUST and when that’s gone you can loose the whole system. An inter-related monetary system that is 100 to 250 times bigger than the TARP package was to be. The 700 billion was a transfusion to reestablish the trust by getting the flow of cash moving again. Timing is important relative to the size of the fix. There’s a point when there’s enough blood let out of a body that it stops being a living thing and becomes a corpse.

If they didn’t like the plan, fine, but come up with a new one and fast. There comes a point where all the blood transfusions in the world are not going to revive the patient.

Larry Zini said...

danny, under ordinary circumstances, the free market process should rule, but the ripple effect of this could be devastating to almost all Americans. If we are going to teach the speculators and fools on Wall Street a lesson, now may not be the time. Cutting off our nose to spite our face could bring a serious recession or worse.

RudiZink said...

LOL! It's evident that several of our readers have been cowed by the fearmongers.

The House defeat of the bailout seems to have NOT resulted in the end of the world.

This from my desktop realtime trading screen as I type this:

Dow: Up 191 (+1.84%)
NASDAQ: Up 34 (+1.82%)
S&P: Up 24 (+2.38%)

Oil Futures prices are w-a-a-a-y down, too.

Of course it's still early in the trading day.

The end of the world may still happen later today ;-)

Squirt said...

I think the up move in the markets this morning is due to certain buyers who always jump in after a big down day. I hope it is sustained, and there is anticipation that something will be passed regarding the credit crisis. I think that most of us want the same thing, stability in our financial worlds, not chaos. It should not have happened, but it did, and now we have to deal with the mess.

CPA Jane said...

Sept. 30th-

I continue to be amazed at the political gurus in Washington that now want to abandon the "mark to market" rule that was passed to compel financial firms to accurately present the value of their assets and the firm's value.

Now Wall Street is crediting the fall in the markets to this accounting rule requirement so they want the rule put in suspension for another 60 days.

This is ridiculous. The "mark to market" rule compels firms to write down the value of worthless assets on their books at the present time which then properly reflects the firm's value to stockholders.

In other words, the big guys on Wall Street still want to present an inflated value of what they and their stocks are worth.

They want to continue to hoodwink the public, their own stockholders and the world in general, as to the true value of their businesses.

Completely ridiculous.

ozboy said...

The greed and recklessness was not exclusive to Wall Street. It is spread through out the economy from the top to the bottom. Bailing out those who got caught up in their own get rich quick schemes - whether it is Wall Street banks, or local individuals who over bought their own budgets with "liar loans" is wrong. I say let em take their lumps and learn their lessons. In the end there is no free lunch! Even at a trillion bucks or so, it is still a relatively small number compared to the total economy. The vast majority of house and business loans are still current. It is only the fast buck artists, big and small, who are in trouble. Why bail out greed? It will only promote more greed in the future. It is just more greedy propaganda that claims the sky will fall if the greedy are not bailed out by the tax payers who did not play the get rich quick games.

George said...

If You're Looting the Treasury, Give it To Us:

If the government is looting the treasury to the tune of of $700 billion plus, give the American people the money, not the con artists who got us into trouble in the first place.

We'll use the money to pay off our mortgages, credit card and other debt, and to stabilize the economy.

Instead of the peanuts the government gave us in the "stimulus package", this would have a real benefit, and would largely solve American's economic problems.

Say it Congress, phone it into talk shows, put it in emails and bumper stickers and freeway blogs:

"If You're Looting the Treasury, Give it To US"

The last official act of any government is to loot the treasury. If they're looting the treasury, give it to the people.

As a reader named Ron puts it, distributing money to the taxpayers instead of the fat cats has many benefits:

"Pay off your mortgage - housing crisis solved.
Repay college loans - what a great boost to new grads
Put away money for college - it’ll be there
Save in a bank - create money to loan to entrepreneurs.
Buy a new car - create jobs
Invest in the market - capital drives growth"

Bottom line: If the loot is given to the financial elite, it will probably be the last official act of the government. But if it is distributed to the American people, it could create a true and sustainable economic recovery.

Power to the People, Right Arm! said...

The richest fucks on Wall Street paid Congress to cut the taxes on the wealthiest and then moved massive amounts of that loot to TAX FREE offshore havens in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland.

All of these Wall Street programs fucked over this country, with less taxes to pay for health care, little money for infrastructure maintenance and less for schools.

We're supposed to give tons of our money to a motley collection of Wall Street con artists, pimps, grifters and hustlers and feel bad if we don't?

Eat the rich!

Post a Comment

© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved