Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Bailout vote FAILS in House

Rate this topic


brian0918

Recommended Posts

As of 1:45pm EST the bailout vote failed in the House. It needed 218 votes, and only has 202, with 8 votes left to count. The Dow plummeted several hundred points in response.

The total came to 207. However people can still change their vote, and a few did change to Yes :) .... just have to wait...

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NYT says that bill supporters will try to bring the bill to vote again, so we should definitely be as diligent as possible and write our representatives LETTERS and FAXES. I wouldn't trust an email to make it through a political spam filter.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically, the American voter said no to the boondoggle 10-1! YES! There is hope for this country after all!

"But many lawmakers continued to oppose the plan for a variety of reasons, including the massive price tag that would expand the national debt, and GOP members said constituents were calling 10-1 in opposition to the bill, which had been described as too much government intervention. Of 235 Democrats, 141 supported the legislation. Of 199 Republicans, 132 opposed it."

If the Democrats did not support it given the outcry against it, then it is a message that we do not want bureaucracy governing our economy, which is a positive sign of the American sense of life.

Just hope it doesn't pass the Senate, since I guess it could still become law.

TELL THEM NO!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't been so elated by a piece of news from Washington in the last 5 years. Unbelievable declines in all the markets, even oil!!!! It really fuels my soul to know that, for wahtever reasons, the root of the opposition to this bailout package was the American people.

Edit: Without short sellers covering, the stock market has no bids and is taking the biggest dump I've ever seen.

Edited by adrock3215
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this point I have a question. If President Bush's 700b plan is not the answer despite his attempt to jam it down our collective throats, what if anything should be done? I've heard about lowering the capitol gains tax as an option but am unsure what that implies economically. I think the vast majority of every day Americans are against the bailout for one reason or another. I'd argue that some that are for it, are simply for it only because they see no alternative offered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at Pelosi here. She's the one who killed the bill because of this stupid speech.

EXCERPTS:

"700 Billion: Only a part of the cost of the failed Bush economic policies..."

"Bush inherited Clinton budget surpluses, with his reckless economic policies, within 2 years, he turned that around"

"Republicans claim to be free market advocates, when it's really an 'anything goes' mentality...If you fail, the taxpayer will bail you out. Those days are over."

"Democrats believe in a free market. We know it creates many good things in our economy.."

I actually like the one I bolded. Hah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A quote from representative Thaddeus McCotter from earlier today:

"In the Bolshevik Revolution, the slogan was 'Peace, land, and bread,'" McCotter said. "Today, you are being to choose between bread and freedom. I suggest the people on Main Street have said they prefer their freedom, and I am with them."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/29/...in4485790.shtml

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A quote from representative Thaddeus McCotter from earlier today:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/29/...in4485790.shtml

He makes me have pride in the name "Thadius" (even it it's spelled differently). Brilliant. I wonder what Ms. Rand would have said to that, considering she lived through that revolution.

The whole situation faintly reminds me of a reverse "Equalization of opportunity bill". Remember in AS, when a bill to help out newer businesses at the expense of older, more productive ones was reluctantly passed with a grim sense of duty? It seems like this was voted down reluctantly with a grim sense of duty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this point I have a question. If President Bush's 700b plan is not the answer despite his attempt to jam it down our collective throats, what if anything should be done? I've heard about lowering the capitol gains tax as an option but am unsure what that implies economically. I think the vast majority of every day Americans are against the bailout for one reason or another. I'd argue that some that are for it, are simply for it only because they see no alternative offered.

The free market.

Write down bad debt.

Orderly, rapid bankrupcies of failed institutions.

Liquidate capital assets (homes, etc) at lower prices.

Once assets have shifted to solid balance sheets, and the income they generate can go to bottom line results in new better managed companies, then banks can start lending again.

Note this all delivers justice throughout the system. Well run banks will be winners. Poorly run banks are losers (along with their management teams, and their equity holders).

With this mechanism the pain will be short (1 yr, maybe 2), and the economy will take off again. With the bailout, get ready for the Great Depression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The free market.

I definitely agree with Kendall here. Of course, in a free market, we wouldn't be here in the first place, but given what is out there, setting the markets free would solve the problem in a few years, and housing prices would come way down (if you were buying, that would be good; if you were trying to sell, it would be difficult).

Unfortunately, however, we don't have a free market (and I don't think a bloated bureaucracy is the answer to that), so how long it will take to produce our way out of this is anyone's guess -- maybe 5 years; but that is better than stagnation and maybe stagflation over the next ten to twenty years.

Without reversing the laws that got us here, though, I don't know how it is going to be getting better quickly -- there are still people buying homes they can't really afford, so more fuel is being added to the meltdown. The Community Reinvestment Act and others like it need to be reversed, and the sooner the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit: Without short sellers covering, the stock market has no bids and is taking the biggest dump I've ever seen.

I'm not sure how short sellers would have saved the plummet, except perhaps that they would have signaled it ahead of time, so it might have been 300 down Friday and 300 down Monday. Unless you are talking about something else.

This news story states how short-sellers are long-range thinkers and don't move the market but rather predict it in the long-run.

Edited by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I received a reply from one of my senators - it appears to have been written specifically for the House bill failure.

Thank you for expressing your concerns with the problems in the financial sector and proposals to address them. With the House’s rejection of the legislation on Monday, the situation is unsettled.

A lot of Ohioans, including me, are angry at the thought of bailing out people who made a lot of money making bad business decisions that created problems in neighborhoods across Ohio. I agree that we need to avoid rewarding excessive risk taking. These institutions made unwise decisions, and taxpayers should not be expected to simply cover their losses.

On September 20th, Treasury Secretary Paulson sent a proposal to Congress that would have given him almost unfettered authority to spend $700 billion purchasing troubled assets from financial institutions. A few days later, my colleagues on the Banking Committee and I held a hearing at which Secretary Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke, and others testified.

They made a strong case for the need to act quickly to prevent further damage to our economy. The turmoil in the credit markets has the potential to do great damage to a lot of innocent bystanders. I am afraid that if we do not act, the economic instability could affect thousands of American jobs and the savings of countless middle class families.

But Secretary Paulson’s proposal is not the right answer. No Secretary should be given a $700 billion blank check. Taxpayers must be given an opportunity to recover their money, and assurances their tax dollars will not fund lavish pay and golden parachutes. We need strong rules to guard against abuse and we need ensure that Ohio is helped and not just Wall Street.

In the days ahead, we need to focus on containing the damage to middle class families and local businesses as much as possible. In the months ahead, we need to take a hard look at how financial markets are regulated so we never find ourselves in this situation again.

Thank you again for contacting me. I will certainly keep your views in mind as Congress debates how to restore strength to our economy.

Sincerely,

Sherrod Brown

More than anything, it sounds like the only thing saving us from destruction is partisan bickering. Both parties want more regulation - they just can't agree about what should be done, and none of them want the other party's changes to succeed. In that case, I don't know if I should be thanking them.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...