There is no glory to go around here. Assume, arguendo, that most people in the House believed both that the bill would be passed, and that anyone who voted for it would suffer politically, except maybe in New York.
Pelosi screwed up royally. She is the Democratic Tom DeLay. Newt Gingrich was an ideologue, but Tom DeLay was simply a partisan, most keenly interested in maximizing his party's political power. Pelosi cut a deal in which, as far as I can tell, every single Republican in a safe seat had to vote yes so that the Democrats could maximize their no votes. Given that the Republican caucus is pretty much in open revolt, this was beyond moronic. She then spent a week openly and repeatedly blaming the Republicans and the Bush administration for the current crisis. The way she set things up, it was "Heads I win, tails you lose": vote for the deal and I'll paint you as heartless reactionaries bailing out your fat cat friends. If you're going to do that, you'd better make sure you have some goddamn margin for error in your own party. She didn't. Then she got up and delivered yet another speech blaming the Republicans for the bailout deal she was about to pass.
Being in power means that you get to give your party special favors on many occasions--but it also means that you, yes you, have the ultimate responsibility for getting things done. She didn't particularly try to bring her party in line, and so of course as soon as a few Republicans defected, hers stampeded. The ultimate blame for this failure has to be laid at her feet.
That doesn't excuse the Republicans; I've already expressed my opinion of their conduct. If they do not understand that there are some things more important than reelection, they do not deserve to be in Congress. I'm not sure they deserve to be let loose in society. But Pelosi is the one who was vested with the ultimate responsibility for shaping the legislative process in the House. She not only dropped the ball; she picked it up and drop kicked it through her own goal.
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
But the Democrats ended up bringing more votes to the deal than they were expected to. So this groundless and unsourced assertion about the contours of the deal Pelosi worked out falls apart.
And do you really think Tom Delay would have put so much on the line for Bill Clinton - or for an early 21st century Jimmy Carter?
I think Pelosi is working beyond her limitations as a legislator in this situation; still, I won't grant malign intent when she worked so hard to advance what is basically Paulson's baby.
Let's not excuse the President himself either, just because he's about three inches tall these days.
Responsibility for the fate of this bill starts with the GOP and ends with the GOP.
Oh, come off it.
Every so often the libertarian mask slips and the doctrinaire Republican is visible underneath. I think this is one of those times.
What rubbish.
If anything, Pelosi was too accommodating of the G.O.P.
She should have taken down her "wish list", which is what it appears the House Republicans want to do (no crisis so big that it cannot be solved by a ... tax cut. You can't make this sh-- up!).
Face it, the GOP are just apoplectic when it comes to handling crises of this sort. There is a track record. It includes Mexico.
Eh... I dunno. Let's agree she showed bad manners--but "crap sandwich" isn't exactly tea and crumpets either.
After all this is an unpopular Republican bill, badly marketed to the public, to fix a problem that most of the public blames the GOP for. And she brought the votes. Yeah, she ran her mouth. But the "ultimate blame" for the bill's failure? You sure about that?
I dunno, lampwick...the Democrats could have passed that bill without a single Republican vote. If they thought it was a priority.
The Republicans in Congress have proven to be idiots, though.
If you oppose corporal punishment, and then you have a chance to swat your child's hand away from the big cauldron of boiling oil on the stove that she is about to pull down on yourself, only an idiot would still refrain from saving the child out of a mistimed disdain for swatting. What kind of a moron would refuse to swat the child's hand away from the vat, citing moral hazard problems for the next child?
My own rant is posted here:
http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/2008/09/dc.html
I allow myself one anti-Republican screed per year. Hopefully this one is it for the year. And I can go back to excoriating libtards again.
And all will be right with the world.
Just doesn't work, Megan. Assume for a moment that both sides agree that a bailout was 1) 100% necessary and 2) politically damaging. Assume further that 3) people in an unsafe seat who vote yes will lose their seats.
Then the rational thing for both parties is to agree that all members in safe sets vote yes, and all in unsafe seats get to vote no. This leaves the landscape political unchanged while passing a deal.
Which is exactly what you say she did.
Then, acc. to you, "The way she set things up, it was 'Heads I win, tails you lose': vote for the deal and I'll paint you as heartless reactionaries bailing out your fat cat friends."
But this attack should only work in unsafe Republican districts (by def., the safe ones are, well, safe.) and in the safe districts, the congressperson can say "nope, not me." So it can't be that said attack caused the Republicans to vote no, b/c the attack wouldn't work on those in unsafe seats, by the terms of the deal you claim she forced on them above.
[That's why the deal would have worked. If both sides that promised to execute it, had done so. But one side didn't. and it ain't the one you are mentioning here.]
This post is superficial, factually incorrect, and disingenuously partisan for even this blog.
The GOP didn't have the votes. Drinking the "Pelosi's speech was mean" kool-aid is aggressive, intentional delusion.
Here is Pelosi's speech. Sure, it was the speech rather than a fear of voter retribution that tanked the deal.
The GOP obviously lied about the number of supporters the Bill had in the House. Their ploy is as patently obvious as it is divorced from reality. This is ex post facto attacking Pelosi, CYA bullshit. And I say that as someone who detests Pelosi and Reid.
Does Megan have any idea how incoherent she is?
It's such a horrible bill (I think Megan thinks that), yet people have the duty to vote for it even if it means political extinction? Or, is she for this bill on libertarian principle? And, of course it's Nancy Pelosi who is responsible for how Republican House members vote on a Bush-White-House-pushed initiative, the details of which (having not been provided b y the White House or Treasury) the Speaker negotiated in good faith with her Republican counterparts.
Keep going Megan. It's fun to watch. Palinesque.
Pelosi screwed up royally...The way she set things up, it was "Heads I win, tails you lose": vote for the deal and I'll paint you as heartless reactionaries bailing out your fat cat friends.
Not so sure I'd call that a "screwup." In the first place, the possibility certainly exists that a scaled-down, interim measure will be passed. You really seem convinced that Armageddon is upon us, Megan. But I have a feeling that Fed actions, plus the existence of a safety net (didn't have much in the way of that back in '29), plus private capital looking for bargains, plus a less ambitious, less costly interim measure, may see us through until after the election, or after the inauguration. Mark Cuban made a good point on his blog today: we don't know who the next Treasury Secretary will be. Do we really want to allocate $700 billion for use by an unknown? How about $200 billion to tide us over?
And anyway, from Pelosi's standpoint, this most definitely isn't a disaster. She got 60% of her side on board. The other side got a third. The Republicans will quite rightly get the lion's share of the blame in the media. And to the extent that the economy does worsen between now and the election, it helps her get a president and a bunch of congressional candidates elected. Who will then in turn put together a more sensible long term plan.
So the real Pelosi speech should have been a mea culpa for how the Democrats caused the crisis and begged the Republicans to please bail the country out of the resulting mess?
Democrats lined up to bail out the Republican's own Wall Street constituency. The fact is the GOP "leadership" isn't leading. Not Boehner or Blunt, not Bush nor McCain.
As one unnamed House Republican was quoted today by CQ Politics: “There’s a small group of [Republican] members who are intent on taking control, and people are scared of [them]... They’re vicious.” Today's GOP rebellion was the first shot in a Republican civil war that looming electoral defeat serves as cataylst.
wow, not sure where this comes from after the prior posts that seemed considerably more neutral, but this is way off base.
1) The framework was of Republican origin: Bush Treasury Sec. Paulson and Bush appointee Bernanke.
2) The revisions were firmly bipartisan; the left of the Dem caucus did not get much of what they wanted precisely because Pelosi, whether out of noble intent or raw politics, thought it important for something of this magnitude to be bipartisan. Yes, the Dems could pass a bill on a party line vote, but it would be a very different bill and no R's in Congress or the Administration would like it. THat hardly seems positive for the country.
3) Both Presidential candidates supported the bill, but the Republican candidate engaged in massive grandstanding on it, "suspending" (but not really) his campaign allegedly to make it happen.
4) Pelosi and Boehner worked out a deal where Pelosi was responsible for a heavier lift in both absolute and relative terms. Pelosi delivered with some to spare; Boehner could barely muster 1/3rd of the Republicans to support the Republican administration, Republican leadership, and the Republican Presidential candidate.
5) There is no hard evidence that a single House Repub changed their vote because of Pelosi; most of those voting against were of a type with those speaking out against the bill during floor debate for ideological reasons that had nothing to do with Pelosi.
So explain again how it is a Democratic failing when the Dems overperformed their commitment and doubled the performance of the Repubs in support of a Republican administration's bill?
Seriously? Is it now the Dems job to carry the Repubs?
You're dead-on, Meagan. Pelosi is incompetent.
That's said, I'm glad that moron steered her Titanic into its iceberg instead of getting the bill passed to bail-out those other morons who lent ass-loads of money to the American morons-at-large to "buy" McMansions and borrow against their "equity" to "buy" overpriced P.O.S. SUVs. Let them all go to hell. They earned it. All of them. I don't buy the "crisis" crap they're selling: Wall Street wants a hand-out and Washington sees the chance to spend a trillion dollars. My thanks to the bi-partisan coalition of Democrats and Republicans who proved the best kind of bipartisan behavior is the f@#$-him-before-he-f@#$s-you kind. Now if a few of the Senators from both parties sack-up like their lower-house buds, the lot of them can wrap up the session and get back to their districts where they won't be screwing anyone but their interns.
The democrats met their end of the bargain. On a bill and agenda defined by a republican administration, "saved" by the republican presidential candidate.
The GOP failed to meet their end of the bargain. They showed up at the vote and then bailed--finding an excuse--like your post. An excuse.
After so many years of Gingrich and Delay, we're lectured about how horrific Pelosi is? Give me a break.
This is just childish. You argue that voting for the bill would cause political suffering and then criticize the side that dealt with unpopular administration to come up with a compromise and voted for it almost 2 to 1 instead of the other side which against it by a similar margin. I know that the democrats unleashed some populist rhetoric implicating republicans even as republicans dealt in less plausible rhetoric implicating democrats.
Look it would be nice if you could trust the republicans not to play chicken with the global economy but really you should understand that this is a hostage situation where it is the duty of the majority party to make concession after concession to those who have as their only bargaining chip a willingness to court potential economic collapse. That's an opinion but it's probably actually crazy.
Pelosi sucks, yes. You're laying it on a little thick but she deserves a lot of blame. Still, I can't believe 90 Democrats voted against this. Regardless, if this bailout is so crucial to the economy, perhaps roll out the earmarks and buy off enough house members to seal the deal. I mean, we're talking about 650 billion dollars - why quibble over a few hundred million if it saves us from the abyss?
Again, 2/3 of the Democrats voted for this bill, 2/3 of Republicans voted against it. And this was for a bill fixing a problem caused by Republicans. Blaming Democrats is ridiculous. Republicans need to take responsibility for the bankrupt (literally!) free market, low-regulation policies that they've shoved down our throats for years. And yet, when Democrats rise to the occasion and vote against their own interests, they get attacked for not doing even more! Bit of a double standard, wouldn't you say?
Megan,
You're right. Pelosi did not do all she could to get this thing passed. Five committee chairs voted against this bill. That's hardly the support one would expect from the leadership. Seeing Pelosi grant members of her leadership permission to vote no, Republican members were supposed to vote yes? Not hardly.
Nathan (11:33) and others, I keep hearing this blaming of the Dems for having 90+ "No" votes, but no one has ever explained to me why that is so hard to understand while the same commenters are silent about the 130+ Republican "No" votes. It was a Republican administration's bill and the direct beneficiaries were mainly wealthy businesspeople, hardly the core New Deal constituency.
Why is it is surprise the Dems had so many nays when the Repubs had even more? My partisan heart is warmed that apparently it is expected that Dems rise to the occasion and do the right thing while no one bothers to expect such maturity or patriotism from Republicans, but this soft bigotry of low expectation still baffles me.
Pelosi delivered more of her caucus than she'd promised Boehner, is my understanding. Do you really believe the Republicans would have voted for it if only she'd fluffed their pillows a bit more?
Democrats run the house. The Bill failed. Democrats are at fault. End of story.
Pelosi is playing politics?
When you had such luminaries of the right as Newt Gingrich et al whispering to republicans that they could have their cake and eat it too: the democrats would be "responsible" and pass the bailout bill everyone wanted while republicans could use their opposition to the bill to strike up a populist revolt?
You can't dismiss the fact that a majority of republicans voting against the bill means that they DIDN'T SEEM TO CARE if the bill failed and we fell deeper into a recession. You can spin it however you want, but it's pretty futile.
Pelosi, screwed up.
If the democrats are so hot for this bailout (which they should be, seeing as they were the ones who caused the disaster by conspicuously interfering with regulators) then they should have stepped up and taken care of it.
But, Nancy Pelosi is too busy scoring cheap political points.
David W, you have it exactly backwards: Pelosi still made her commitment; once it became obvious the Republicans were not going to make theirs, but rather would try and hang an unpopular vote around the Dems and make them own it by themselves, Pelosi didn't try to move any of her remaining members. Why should she?
(BTW, in my list above at 11:27 I really should have forcused more narrowly on the conservative bloc in the House -- it puts an even finer point on it to note that it appears the Senate easily has the votes, including the votes of most of the Republicans)
Pelosi told a lot of her people to vote no-so much for wanting the bill to pass. She has got to be the worst Leader of the Houe in our history
You can blame the Republicans for whatever you want, but Pelosi gets the bulk of the blame as she's the leader in the House. If she couldn't come up with a plan to keep people in line, then it's her ultimate problem - and fault.
Just like a Navy captain loses command of the vessel for a major mistake, even if it wasn't attributable to his/her error, Pelosi needs to step down.
Pelosi is the leader of the House. She has the majority. She did not get the votes she wanted. She is at fault. Solely. Completely.
And the American people will see that, upon the soon-to-be-heralded destruction of the Media's stranglehold on anti-GOP stories.
Holy crap Megan. How can you consider yourself a libertarian or an economist if you don't believe people act in their own perceived self-interest.
65% of Republicans voted against this bill. An impressive 60% of Democrats voted for it - in spite of it being a pro-business bail-out requested by a Republican President.
How you go from these facts to assigning blame on Nancy Pelosi is most unfortunate, Ms. McArdle. And I say that in my archest, most disapproving faux-British accent.
This is what happened -- Pelosi argued she needed Rep votes to give cover and make the deal bipartisan.
THEN, she gave special permission to her cronies and Committee Chairs to vote no, and Dems started talking on the radio BLAMING Reps as Pelosi gave her speech ripping Republicans for the whole mess.
Conclusion: Pelosi is not stupid. SHE WANTED the deal to tank, so the nation would fall into recession or depression.
So Barack Hussein Obama is elected. And he has a crisis giving him unlimited executive power to exercise over the economy. Allowing Obama and Pelosi to choose winners and losers in the Economy.
Like, oh I dunno, her windfarm deal with T Boone Pickens. Worth billions if Obama is in office.
Megan,
I've had it with people blaming Pelosi's little speech. Yes, it was partisan. But guess what? She's a P-O-L-I-T-I-C-I-A-N.
If there were Republican members of the House who, knowing that a bailout was in the country's best interest in order to avoid financial catastrophe, decided instead to vote against the bill just to show Nancy Pelosi a thing or two, then those members are pathetic, childish assholes who don't deserve to hold the responsibility that voters have entrusted them wish.
Someone brought up the example of Newt Gingrich basically shutting down Congress because he didn't like the seat he got on Air Force One, and this is just as petty and irresponsible.
All politicians make partisan speeches. Good ones don't cast votes that are not in the best interest of the country or their constituents out of spite for other politicians.
Face it, Pelosi did this on purpose to scuttle. The Dems want the economy to tank (just like they backstabbed the troops) because they believe it will help put that lying, racist Obama in power.
Pelosi-Obama: a new evil for a new century!
The House Republicans should be commended for voted 2-1 to help bail out the US taxpayers by cutting off $700B of Wall Street welfare. Taxpayers will need a strong economy to pay for all the other bailouts already passed this year. Pouring more $100B's down Wall Street isn't going to help. If they think otherwise, then they will have to do a lot better that just having a lot of talking heads who stand to make a ton off money on the bailout just claim, "Oh, yeah, we need it bad."
Bush is the worst President and Nancy Pelosi is the WORST speaker of all time. It's fitting that these morons couldn't pass a single bill that had the whole economy in its hands. No excuses for Pelosi, none. The vote was too close for her to have one.
She allowed all of her committee chairs and personal friends to vote no. They needed 12 votes, just 12!!! She could have gotten that from the 90+ Dems who voted against it. Fact is the only thing bipartisan was the absolute repudiation of this bill. Where's Obama in all of this?!! You telling me that he couldn't get 12 members of the Congressional Black Caucus to vote for this. If he has that little pull in his own party with good friends, then he has no business being president or he's just thinking about his own political behind. Quite frankly both presidential candidates have been embarrassing in their gross lack of leadership and fundamental understanding of what needs to be done. Especially Obama. As the leader of his party, he had a great opportunity to truly rise above and he didn't. He's a coward and full of B.S.
The very fact that committee chairpeople were allowed to vote as they wish does strongly suggests that the Democratic leadership was not particularly interested in passing the bill this afternoon. I think the market turmoil will benefit them at the polls this November and it might not benefit Democrats to "save" the market before then. From a purely political point of view, I think this was a very well played maneuver on Pelosi's part if that was her intention all along- to subtly scuttle this bill. However, I don't think she is really that smart. I put her IQ at about 95, and no one with an IQ that low is very subtle in anything.
Good Lord, of course, Pelosi screwed the pooch.
She couldn't even get the Congressional Black Caucus to vote for the bill. (Hey, thanks for the help Obambi. Your unwillingness to call Jesse Jackson Jr. and get him on board was much appreciated.)
Check out the list of Democrats that Nancy Pelosi could have leaned on to vote yes, the black caucus that Obama could have leaned on plus Pelosi's rant and it is pretty clear that She had no intention of passing the bill but instead intended to blame Republicans for its failure and use it to help win the election. Karl Rove was quoting a House leader speaking to NPR saying exactly that they plannned to make it a big election issue.
Since the MSM was clearly going to blame any break down on McCain, Republicans and Bush, voting for the bill would have been an act of putting the nation first for the Democrats. They didn't.
hm. i've never been on here this late - who knew the normally intellectual Atlantic site became populated with such a delusional bunch at night?
1) You want to play the "buck stops here" game? Then instead of Pelosi, the President - whose administration submitted the legislation - "is at fault. Solely. Completely."
2) Pelosi delivered more than her share of the votes. See, there is this other guy called the Minority Leader. In our system, he is expected to share leadership. He failed. Miserably. Deal with it. If you want Dems to be solely responsible, give the Dems all 435 seats. Otherwise, live with the system we have in which your guys are expected to whip as well.
3) The American people will see what, exactly? That well-known anti-GOP rag the Wall Street Journal is even noting the Republican fault in this fiasco. All of the polling shows the general public blames the GOP for the economic mess. But I'm glad you're enjoying the kool aid. Hope tomorrow's glass isn't too sour for you.
If Pelosi wanted this sh*t burger she could easily have rounded up her cronies and got it passed. Come on people are your heads so far up your aholes that you over look the dems got us here? If they would have listened to reason and even Greenspan who called this in 2005 it wouldn't be as bad as it is today. Bush even saw this coming in 2003, sadly he didn't push the issue.
Stand tall Dems and take responsibility, thank Frank, Waters and the rest of the Caucus who swore nothing was wrong in 2006 with Freddie and Fannie. You only have your own leaders to blame.
So much for the first 100 days of Congress getting things done.
Learn to place blame where it belongs, your Dem Congress the Loser Pelosi and her cronies.
Go check out CRA, for those of you ignorant of your own programs that would be Community Reinvestment Act.
I haven't been happy with Bush the past few years myself but get over it people he is only a man and did not cause half the crap that has happened in the world. You give him much more credit then he really deserves.
When you need the minority's vote to put you over the top, it is more than just poor form to piss on them before the vote is in the bag.
Pelosi is the Speaker of the House that the Dems deserve.
Forget it - this was obviously entirely caused by the Democrats "regulating" the mortgage industry and forcing them into risky loans. So it is their problem. Let them fix it. Why do you think B. Frank has been making so much noise about this? He knows he is as guilty as anyone in causing this mess when the Republicans again and again tried to put a stop to it.
Besides, I would rather see a depression than to see this country become a fully socialist country.
In the spirit of this post, I would like to blame Cloris Leachman for this debacle. My logic, as follows:
Cloris Leachman continues to lurch around Dancing with the Stars owing to her awesome powers of persuasion. It was within her powers of persuasion to convince the 65% of Republicans who votd no, to vote in favor of the bill, but this she did not do. Shame on Cloris Leachman!
Bullseye Megal!
Peloci can talk all she want about bipartisanship, but it's all empty words now. 40% of Dems said NO. 40%! If they wanted to help people as they claim, they didn't need those Reps. True the NO Reps screwed up, but at least they had a reason. Even, after her "motivational" speech though 33% of Reps said YES. Peloci, well she's just a FAILURE.
I'm sorry, but are commenters here really arguing the Democrats would be bailing out Republicans with this bill?
If you really wanted to stretch you can blame both parties equally since both have acted irresponsibly, but to actually suggest that the Democrats... they of the push for Fannie and Freddie to make the sub prime loans for less than qualified applicants and subsequent denial of any risk.. are doing the saving from Republicans messes is quite a feat.
I am so happy this bill was defeated. It represented the worst in pressure sales, not fully knowing the pricetag and not fully knowing what you get for the money. All of you who are unhappy with your stock market losses today and blame Congress need only to look at yourself in the mirror. Your 401k, IRA and investments are YOUR responsbility. Greenspan warned as early as late 2006 that a massive liquidity crisis was coming. What were you reading then? You should have been listening and adjusting your portfoilios to weather the storm. YOU did not and took a bath. Now you expect the Gov't to bail YOU out with OPM (other people's money). We do not need the stock market to by supported by credit created on the taxpayer dime. Whine all you want about Nancy Pelosi, the fact is she and Democrats blame the lack of regulation on Bush and the Republicans. What have they been doing for the past two years? Barney Frank "didn't know" about 30-1 leveraging by investment banks? He did not understand CDS, SIV, CDO's and Option ARMs/ Alt-A etc.? If that is the case your Democrats are simply incompetent or complacent. Great anti-Bush demagouges but do nothing ir don't understand the issues once in the power.
BTW: The market will find a bottom soon and the world will not end. Guess what? It will be a better world too as a degree of caution/risk assesment will be part of an individuals approach to investing in capital markets.
How about we let a little economic Darwinism work here? The banks screwed this up and in a free market economy, weak businesses go out of business. The poor investors? You take risks to make money, maybe the market needs to reset itself below 10,000. Perhaps the folks who voted "NO" are the smart ones. Quit the rhetoric and look at the issue, that's the real problem with American politics.
Ofcoarse Pelosi screwed this up with her partisan tantrum right before the vote!!! I cant believe the democrats consider her a leader??
all the thinly veiled racists flooding in need to read a little more of this site - try Coates' blog where this CRA argument is repeatedly debunked.
anecdotally i can say that just down the street there is a development of McMansions owned by under-30 poseurs who got in on below-market ARMs and nothing down, leveraged to the hilt. every one of those that goes underwater is the equivalent of 4 inner city loans to try and revitalize communities (I don't think the exurban green space that is now paved with streets like "Timberline Trail" really needed revitalized. The deer were just fine, thank you.)
Hooray for rank partisanship! Let's spend all of our time and energy hyperventilating over who's to blame for everything and trying to win the weekly news cycle, and completely ignore the impending collapse of the financial system! Better yet, let's use any potential solution, regardless of its merits or whether we're for or against it, as a weapon against the other side!
God I hope the Mayans are right about 2012.
And to DanDaly, who said:
Please enlighten us further. This sounds suspiciously like a Hannity barking point.
Republican agenda?
NEITHER side worked together on this until after they started talking with each other late last week; even then, the Democrats blamed the House Republicans for not participating when they weren't invited (by Chris Dodd's admission).
This has gone far enough - everyone involved in this little play has forgotten who they work for -- all of us.
Even though they all should go in November - we all know that we won't do that because it's always "my rep is OK - everyone else's is a crook"
Are you people for real. The Speaker has all the votes she need; for crying out loud, the Democrats are the majority party. Oh, I see, if Republicans vote no, they are @#$holes only bent on keeping what precious little power they have, but if Democrats vote no, well they are just doing the right thing.
What are you people smoking?
Well, they gotta latch onto something, zeitgeist. They're operating under the Iron Rule that nothing is ever Bush's fault or responsibility, even getting a majority of his own party to support his own bailout of his own base after his own mindless support of the rich has led to yet another pathetic disaster on his watch.
Lampwick,
What universe do you live in?
Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Dodd, and Obama have been demagoging this all week, blaming the financial crisis on the eeeeeeeeevil RethugliKKKans. Forget about the post-partisanship, where is the intellectual honesty in all this?
The financial crisis by and large can be blamed on the collapse of Fannie/Freddie; a corrupt organization run generally by, and to generate contributions to, Democrats. Not only have Democrats blocked regulation efforts over the years, employing Mr. Obama's preferred tactic of labeling any criticism as Raaaaaaaaaaacism, they have consistently increased the rate of purchase for the sub-prime loans written each year-all in the name of fairness and diversity. Booooosh tried to institute stricter oversight, and even McCain co-sponsored a reform bill two years ago; and the Democrats killed them each time. When Obama says he warned of problems at the GSEs last year, the only problem he was concerned with was that they got his name spelled right on the campaign contribution check...
Mr. Carter started that redistributionist program in the 70's, Mr. Clinton expanded it's mandate, and now we are all expected to finally pick up the tab of all those years of drunken socialism and Democrat vote pandering. And their fifth column in the MSM have granted them cover, and much like with Mr. Obama's nefarious and mysterious past, refuse to investigate the actual historical record. And that's why Pelosi was so stupid when she chose to ratchet the screed up...
Let's hope that this whole kerfuffle forces the in the tank MSM to surface for a change and actually speak truth about power.
Otherwise, this will simply become the audacity of that new kind of politics that Obama is always palavering about...
She didn't particularly try to bring her party in line, and so of course as soon as a few Republicans defected, hers stampeded.
60 percent of Democrats voted for the bill. You think this was because Dems were eager to take regular taxpayers' money to bail out Wall St.? What are you raving about? Democrats are at least as furious at this as Republicans are, the more so because it's not a Dem constituency that's getting bailed out here. Obviously Pelosi "brought her party in line." Don't be ridiculous.
Pelosi is the "Leader" of the "Majority" Party in the House. There are enough elected Democrats in the House to have easily passed this bill.
Neither she nor any other Democrat can blame the Republicans for her failure to get her own Party members to vote for her shit sandwich.
Everyone get ready for the end of life as you know it. The depresion is soon to arrive. I'm looking forward to it!
This is (in marked contrast to most of Megan's work) an almost purely delusional post.
Pelosi delivered 60% of her caucus for a very unpopular administration bill. That's responsible and outstanding work. Boehner apparently gave it his best shot, but wasn't able to deliver.
To spin this as Pelosi's fault makes no sense.
In fact, the Democrats delivered MORE than the numbers they promised. The GOP "stampeded". You're really out to lunch here.
"it's not a Dem constituency that's getting bailed out here."
Perhaps you haven't heard, but Wall Street is most definitely a Dem constituency. That's why Republicans have no problem asking them to fix their own problem.
If only the people that repealed the Fourth Amendment and Habeas Corpus had the power to override Barney Frank and reform Fannie and Freddie, Wall Street would not have been forced to invent derivatives and insurance for derivatives and Greenspan knows what else in a frantic effort to get black people into home ownership.
Damn you, ACORN! And of course, you, MSM, with your interviewing and your cameras and your determination to undermine every decent impulse Goldman Sachs ever had!
Pelosi could only deliver 60% of her caucus. Epic fail.
If this was a good and important bill I blame everyone who voted against it. Which means more republicans. If it wasn't then I don't know. I don't blame Pelosi for losing game of chicken to people who have no problem courting economic calamity.
Let the markets correct it self. No to the bailout. My mortgage is paid every month, my money is safe for a poor white girl. I do not want the government any deeper into my pockets as it is just to fill anothers pocket, sorry dude but that is Socialism.
I support myself let others learn how, OOPs my bad if they did the democRats would not be needed anymore.
Yes to Capitalism, NO to Socialism
Peter:
Even Ambinder said Pelosi's speech was lame as far as hyper-partisanship goes. And Ambinder is a water carrier for the Republicans.
yo, Bob, with the "Fannie and Freddie are corrupt Democratic supporters" argument rollin' up there. . . ever heard of Rick Davis?
Or maybe UBS' massive subprime portfolio? Or their lobbyist Phil Gramm?
just checking to see if you're as uninformed as you are dogmatic. although i'm pretty sure i know the answer.
Yes to Capitalism, NO to Socialism
This IS Capitalism, as practiced in this glorious republic with its glorious Republicans.
1. This is not a Wall Street bailout. The underlying problem was caused by government inaction in properly regulating Fannie and Freddie, both of which misrepresented their finances and lending practices under a leadership largely composed of Democratic party operatives. This is a credit market bailout, to relieve stress caused by bright young things with computer models, relying too greatly on the greater fool theory, and on the implicit guarantee of the U. S. government not to allow the underlying mortgages to go south.
2. Wall Street is not a Republican bastion. Check where the contributions to the political parties come from. New York and Wall Street is majority Democratic.
3. A number of the Democratic committee and sub-committee chairmen voted against the bill. A number of Barney Frank's Democratic committee members voted against the bill.
4. 'One catches more flies with honey than vinegar.' Don't insult the other side, if you want their help. Pelosi has called the Republicans unpatriotic when they didn't attend a meeting to which they were not invited, and in the speech before the vote on this bill attacked their beliefs without any acknowledgement of her own party's shortcomings.
5. There are times when leadership is knowing when to be silent, hopefully Pelosi has learned that now.
6. This isn't to say the Republicans are covered with glory. They need to learn to ignore insulting behavior from Democrats. Since they couldn't, they just lost the Presidential election, will be blamed for (though only partly deserving it) the resulting financial meltdown, and will be licking their wounds for several years to come.
BAIL US OUT!!! Yeah, great idea, because without the bailout, what will happen...? It amazes me that it took a weekend to put together a deal that "fixes" a problem that has been developing for years. They (both sides of the aisle)are really great at throwing blame, too bad they were asleep at the switch for years. Bailouts do not work, because the institutions that get bailed out are FAILED institutions....the government is not capable of running a business...and it's not supposed too. Keep allowing people and businesses to give up personal responsibility and liability...get a clue people.
It is beyond amusing to read the comments here from people that verge on going into a frenzy when Democrats claim that their patriotism is being questioned (even when it is not) now claim that the actions of the Democrats are totally acceptable.
This whole issue is a Democrat problem. It was started by Carter, magnified by Clinton and not allowed to be diffused by Democrats in Congress. This is the end result of the Federal Government forcing itself into the marketplace. Just like every other area it has messed with this area has gone south.
If the "Media" was actually worth anything there would not be a single safe Democrat seat. It is true the Republicans shut down the bill, with the help of NINETY FIVE - 95 - Democrats.
If Pelosi had any leadership ability she could have gotten the votes she needed out of those 95. But the fact that this Congress has gotten the least done out of any in memory is a telling sign of her ability to lead.
It is also amusing to see the same pattern of a major screw up caused by Democrats being blamed on the Republicans one more time. Every time a Government program that is started by Democrats, run by Democrats and defended by them is revealed for the cancer it is suddenly it is the GOPs fault and responsibility.
The GOP is pathetic in that it keeps falling for the same crap every time, always playing the dunce role and just accepting blame.
Thank heaven I am in neither party. Unlike too many people here I am not blind to who and what caused this.
Dash:
Bush pushed for it too. Get your facts straight!!
I think some of you are under-estimating the power of the Speaker. If Pelosi wanted the bill to pass, she has the power to make 12 Noes vote Aye. She can remove committee memberships and she can hold the power of bill assignment over the heads of naying Democrats.
The Republicans in the House have been saying for a week that the bill was unacceptable. They don't want the bail-out done this way, in this rushed manner. They got a few concessions in the bill to make it a little palatable, and then Pelosi pulls out the "Hey, look at how the Republicans screwed us!" card in her speech.
She explicitly called out Bush's squandering of the Clinton "surplus" during the first two years of his Presidency. You know, the two years that the Republicans controlled the House and Senate while Bush was President. If you don't think the House Republicans took that as a slap to the face, then, I can't explain anything to you.
Plus, Bush and the House Republicans have been trying for years to get Fannie and Freddie under control....
temporal proximity does not equal causation.
this is not a Fannie and Freddie problem. they are a symptom, not the disease.
the problem is that some hotshots got too clever with pie-in-the-sky theories that if you (a) take a big enough pool of risky mortgages, you can dilute the risk like an insurance pool does and so the impact any normal volume of defaults is negligable; (b) you can then take this pool and slice it up into little fractions and sell them to people with real money - small slices of mitigated risk magically turned into currency and everybody wins; (c) the holders of these novel fractions of mortgage risk can collateralize them in their own transactions by providing a form of insurance to the counterparty via CDS'. Voila! We've eliminated all risk in mortgages, so we can go out and offer them at unrealistic terms, we can fraudulently falsify application materials, and because the housing market always goes up anyway (we're too young to remember the business cycle!) appreciation will create enough collateral to cover any mistakes we've made.
this crisis is the product of massive hubris throughout the mortgage, investment banking, and financial market communities. it is way beyond Fannie and Freddie. this is life imitating art, Oliver Stone's Wall Street to be exact.
This thread is beyond parody.
Once again, we hear from the poor benighted Republicans who had absolute control of this country for years that they were helpless in the face of the MSM (so easily rolled in the leadup to the Iraq War), poor black people, hapless Democratic pols, Fannie and Freddie Mac lobbyists, and even ACORN for Christ's sake.
It's hilarious to see this party implode. I just wish it weren't so expensive for all of us.
Get off the damn stage! You've completely worn out your welcome and by your own admission you're hopelessly inept and useless to prevent any disaster or improve any situation.
This is a HUGE Democratic scandal, making ENRON look tame. Not only does Pelosi want cover for her cronies actions, she is up-front that she wants to put the blame on the people that were screaming reform/regulation of fannie Mae and freddie Mac for years.
If anyone should be marched to jail, it isn't the folks on wall Street, but the likes of Chris Dodd and Barney Frank.
zeitgeist:
It is easy. The head honcho of this blog hates Democrats. It is as easy as that. She also doesn't understand how politics works, especially in a case like today. While Pelosi came up small, Bush and Paulson came up even smaller.
For a woman of 68, and despite the ludicrous amount of plastic surgury Pelosi has done, she looks remarkably good.
She might just be the oldest woman around who is still attractive. Older than Laura Bush and Cindy McCain.
Face it, Pelosi is the worst house leader in history. This whole problem begins and ends with the Democrats. They caused it and continue to screw it up further!!!
I see Bob took notes during Limbaugh and Hannity today, and is trotting out the tired "Fannie, Freddie and the CRA did it", wherein we're to believe that during the last 8 years of Republican rule, bankers were forced to loan money to brown people. This is ridiculous on its face. First of all, the CRA loans have performed quite well over the years. Most of the subprimes that are failing were made by the new species of mortgage broker like Countrywide, who had no CRA obligations.
Likewise, most of Fannie and Freddie's loan perform well and have value. F&F's problem was undercapitalization.
You're barking up the wrong tree. While subprimes are a problem, the real disaster lies in the way that they were sliced up, bundled, and re-securitized, all of it guaranteed by credit default swaps that the issuers of the swaps could never back. This is the $50T shadow banking industry that was created in the wake of Phil Gramm's Commodity Futures Modernization Act.
Megan, if you want to see why Republicans killed this bill, I suggest you read FedUp's comment above:
"Let the markets correct it self. No to the bailout. My mortgage is paid every month, my money is safe for a poor white girl. I do not want the government any deeper into my pockets as it is just to fill anothers pocket, sorry dude but that is Socialism."
That is the threat to the US's financial system. It is a right-wing threat, and currently votes Republican. Defecting Republicans were scared that people like FedUp would revolt, stay home, and start voting Libertarian next time around.
New York and Wall Street is majority Democratic.
New York City is Democratic. People who work on Wall Street have classically voted Republican, and many do not live in New York City. The industry gives large amounts of money to New York's Democratic Senators because they sit on the finance committees, for obvious reasons.
Again, 2/3 of the Democrats voted for this bill, 2/3 of Republicans voted against it. And this was for a bill fixing a problem caused by Republicans.
This would be astute, except it's backwards. The Dems were the ones who refused to allow more oversight for Fannie May and Freddie Mac, the Dems were the ones who blasted the auditor who first revealed that Franklin Raines was cooking the books.
Their greasy fingerprints are all over this debacle.
The consitutent factor plays heavily here. All congress were bombarded with calls saying don't do it. So politicians listened to their constituents... I also think that there was still more that had to be done to the bill before it could pass. The Republicans didn't like the bill ENOUGH to pass it. Let's get something better and if Pelosi puts earmarks in the new bill, then I will personally set up a PAC to make sure she is thrown out of her seat.
Problem solved! Let's fix it!
Even though this problem was caused and made worse by Democrats, they dont ned to worry. The media wil continue to cover for Obama,Reid,Pelosi,Dodd, Frank, Schumer, Etc. You wont hear about it in the MSM, your secrets are safe!!
"Being in power means that you get to give your party special favors on many occasions--but it also means that you, yes you, have the ultimate responsibility for getting things done."
Isn't it Bush then, and not Peolosi, that is responsible?
Whatever happened to that "unitary executive?"
Please. This bill had to be bi-partisan. Democrats are not going to pass such a thing at the request of the Republican administration without Republican support in Congress. Pelosi delivered the majority of her party, the great majority, as she promised. Republican leaders at *every* level failed to deliver what they promised.
And yet it's Pelosi's fault? That's just laughable.
Zeitgeist,
It is a Fannie and Freddie problem. They were underwriters for 5 TRILLION dollars in mortgages. And, as Government Sponsored Enterprises, they became the de facto standard for all other underwriters.
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/07/fannie_mae_and.html
"The ultimate blame for this failure has to be laid at [Speaker Pelosi's] feet."
HAHAHAHA!!!......
How did Sarah Palin get a blog for The Atlantic?
I love reading the comments here, virtually no one is concerned about anything other than who is to blame. Keep playing the fiddle and let the city burn...AWESOME!
This is a HUGE Democratic scandal, making ENRON look tame. Not only does Pelosi want cover for her cronies actions, she is up-front that she wants to put the blame on the people that were screaming reform/regulation of fannie Mae and freddie Mac for years.
Ever hear of Rick Davis? You know, John McCain's campaign manager. You might want to check who else was paying him this year(or in years prior).
The reason we're arguing about blame is because Megan deliberately phrased her post in order to provoke the maximum possible partisan rancor. She did that in order to ensure a long and energetic comment thread.
In contrast to the ridiculous attempt to blame Democrats for killing the bill by voting for it, or something, here is some sense from Rex Nutting at MarketWatch:
"Politicians who had cut their teeth on free-market principles couldn't accept the idea that the federal government should back up the banks who had foolishly bet everything on the housing bubble. Or they didn't want to face the voters in six weeks and explain why a Republican would vote for the biggest government bailout ever."
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/story.aspx?guid=%7B6FCA5CAB%2DBFB5%2D41ED%2D8FBB%2DB4005F4169DA%7D&siteid=djm_HAMWRSSFirstH
I only read the first 10 or so posts to this blog and clearly the trend is to bash Megan's take.
Pelosi tried to play the republicans period. If you look at the 94 nay democrats you will see that there are easily 12 she could wink at for the votes needed to pass the bill, but what did happen is they went to 12 republicans to change their votes and not one of the safe incumbants on the dems side who have nothing to fear.
I am glad it failed, and I hope the next socialist effort fails as well. The government has no business bailing out Wall Street or Financial institutions who have plenty of 'expertise' to manage their problem.
Fewer flat screen tv's, cell phones and Escalades in the hood would mean more food on the table and money in the bank. Most people live far beyond their means, its about time for a good dose of medicine and a correction. Let the chips fall where they may.
Pelosi is a failed leader on all accounts.
regards.
Again, Megan, read Beddgelert above:
"I am glad it failed, and I hope the next socialist effort fails as well. The government has no business bailing out Wall Street or Financial institutions who have plenty of 'expertise' to manage their problem."
He votes Republican, and people like him are why the bill failed.
Yes brooksfoe I am from NYC no revolt either. I do not believe in my money helping those who should not have been buying homes in the first place
Pelosi wanted the vote on this before any changes were made, ACORN had no place in that bill, period. She had enough dems to vote on this but some do not want the bill passed without ACORN other dems are afraid of losing their seats if they voted this in. Get real
Feast on this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
Xmas:
You've heard of Golden West, right? No one put a gun to Wachovia's head and made them buy Golden West. And the Republicans were just as responsible re: Fannie and Freddie. Or do you forget about Bush's "Ownership Society"?
FedUp, let me get this straight. You are saying it was a mistake for her to allow some money for ACORN in the bill to get a few Democrats to vote for it, but that she should have done more to get Democrats to vote for it.
What you're saying doesn't make any sense.
And there you have it people..."HE'S A REPUBLICAN...SOOO" In times of national crisis, political gain should be set aside. The problem is that in this age of information, so many people choose to be ignorant. Understand the issue COMPLETELY before you feel the need to choose a side. If you vote the "Party Line" without thought, then yes, you are a fool. American, then democrat or republican. The fact is, market manipulation doesn't just happen on Wall St folks. Open your eyes
Your right Megan. It was a 'heads I win, tails you loose'. This was a "crisis" vote, yet she let FIVE of her committee chairs vote NO. She let her fellow Dems from California vote NO. Barney Frank said he'd make nice with 12 Republicans in order to change their vote. Odd, Barney couldn't make nice to 11 Dem members of his own committee. Nancy thought this was wrapped up, with minimum exposure to HER PEOPLE. The Dem Whip admitted that he whipped NO ONE to vote yes. The balance of the votes would be bi-partisan from the Republicans. But Nancy decided to rub salt in the wound with a 5 minute vicious untruthful diatribe, undoubtable smirking on the inside while doing so. Talk about dumb, she should have at least waiting until after the vote before crowing. Even if she comes back Thursday with a Dem packed bill of favors, there are not enough Dems that will vote to pass it.
And, as Government Sponsored Enterprises, they became the de facto standard for all other underwriters.
And in 2004, 2005 and 2006, during the worst of the bubble they stopped buying mortgages and became unimportant players. It was a sign that things had gotten out of control, but the Republicans were all about OMG Teh Market! and thought this spelled the death of the GSE's (Hooray!). What it really meant is that mortgages had gotten so out of control that the GSE's couldn't purchase them DUE TO THEIR REGULATIONS! It wasn't until 2007 did they start being forced to buy crummy mortgages in an attempt to prop up the mortgage market, the first failed attempt at a bailout.
Also, FedUp, when you say your money is "safe", I'm assuming it's in a savings or checking accout. So the reason it's "safe" is because the Federal government insures it, in case your bank fails, which it's more and more likely to do as the financial system comes under increasing stress. In other words, if your bank collapses, the taxpayer -- that is, me -- will have to pay you back the money that was in your account.
Now, why should I have to give you money because you put your money in a bank that failed? It's not my fault your bank failed. This is socialism, right?
Wake up. Your money is safe because the government protects it. The government tried this week to keep the economy safe. People like you stopped it from doing that. If a severe recession hits, and you lose your job, think back to this moment and ask yourself whether you were looking at things correctly.
Megan, you're being ridiculous. Don't lose yourself in exaggeration.
brookefoe if you want to bail out people who weren't capable of fulfilling their obligation to pay their mortgages then why don't you take a few dollars every week or two out your pay and send it to help them.
Obviusly Frank was a little upset they were taken out of the original bill.
I hope they don't pass any bailout bill the market will correct, they always do.
ACORN has NO right getting any money.
I agree with Megan.
Rep. DeFazio was on NPR this afternoonn, and said Pelosi had no idea where her caucus was, and that she wasn't whipping.
If you have the power, the plum assignments, and the legislation that represented the position of your party more than the other, then you have the responsibility to get it passed - even if no Republican votes for it. The most pathetic performance was turned in by the Congressional Black Caucus. They absolutely do not respect the House leadership. Pelosi should strip them of there plum assignments.
She had 80 safe Democratic members who sat out. Pathetic.
Further thoughts:
1. The GOP have long acted as a monolithic body. Those who strayed from the party line were punished. There's a good way to describe this: inbreeding. Hence the party is failing.
2. The Democrats delivered the vote they promised today.
3. What exactly did Pelosi say that made the GOP cry?
"So the real Pelosi speech should have been a mea culpa for how the Democrats caused the crisis and begged the Republicans to please bail the country out of the resulting mess?"
No, it should have simply been about how this is necessary, right now, without pointing fingers at anyone, nor apologizing for anything.
Assuming, of course, that she really wanted to pass it.
Pelosi tried to play the republicans period. If you look at the 94 nay democrats you will see that there are easily 12 she could wink at for the votes needed to pass the bill, but what did happen is they went to 12 republicans to change their votes and not one of the safe incumbants on the dems side who have nothing to fear.
You sir, are an idiot(Yeah, I know, so sue me). Pelosi got 2/3 of her caucus to vote for this mess of a bill. Bonehead only got 1/3 of his caucus. If you knew anything about this bill, Pelosi wasn't going to leave her caucus out to dry on it. Bush and Paulson want this plan to pass, so it is going to have to pass with Republicans votes. Why should Pelosi stick her neck out for Bush when Bonehead and his caucus won't? Republicans never did it for Clinton. They'll never do it for Obama.
Pelosi could have passed it without a single R vote. So say the posters here. Epic fail.
There is one thing no one denies about this bill: it is political poison. Some believe it is necessary, others don't. That doesn't break down along partisan lines, however.
To suggest it is unreasonable for the Speaker to protect her caucus by insisting on majorities on both sides of the aisle is just an insanely one-sided view. Someone explain again the Dems' unique responsibility to pass this Bush bill self-sacrificingly as a one-party majority?
The scoundrels here are those who voted nay out of political fear. The knavery of the remaining nays will have to be their historical consolation.
I will say, judging by facial expressions at the Dem press conference, they were not terribly chagrined at the outcome. I do wonder what their plan now is.
I hate to break it to the Dems, but if 100% of the Republicans voted against the bill, and 100% of Dems voted against the bill, the vote passes and the President promised to sign it!
Therefore, the Republicans had no ability to block it from the start unless Democrats were given permission to defect, which they did.
Well...now I understand why Congress has a 9% approval rating.
After today and this past week I think everyone would agree that the House and Senate is in desperate need of new leadership..starting with Madame Pelosi.
Savings, mutuals whatever brooksfoe, the market will correct itself. I'm retired hon, and ready to go back to work as I am so bored being so young to just sit around. If there are no jobs I'll just stay in school and continue to pay my tuition off, without any help from the gov't.
Trust me you wont be bailing me out, I take pride in my abilities and if we hit a recession or a depression I am still in good standing to know I will survive. I saw this coming back in the winter.
But thanks for your concern/sarc
Dan Shapiro:
You. Still. Do. Not. Get. It. Nancy brought her promised votes. The Tan Man didn't. Nancy isn't going to carry water alone for Paulson and Bush. And why should she? Especially when vulnerable members of her caucus can expect to face attacks on their votes(if they voted yes) from Republicans challengers.
Democrats blaming Republicans. Nothing new here. How about showing the blame to be where it lies, including the real roots of the problem. Democrat socialist engineering of the worst type.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU6fuFrdCJY
Damn straight it's a failure of Pelosi's leadership, such as it is. She, Harry Reid, and most of the rest of the Democrats were too busy pointing fingers, shifting blame, playing the usual spiteful partisan games and padding the bailout legislation with pork and giveaways to Democrat pressure groups to worry about actually reaching a compromise with the Republicans.
Among other things, Pelosi allegedly "forgot" to invite House Republicans to a "bipartisan" confenence on the market crisis...and then called them "unpatriotic" because they didn't even know when to show up.
Then - after one final cheap shot on the very verge of the vote by Pelosi - she, Barney Frank and the rest of the House Democrats were on TV after the vote failed cracking jokes.
Crisis? What crisis? Just business as usual for this do-nothing Congress. And business as usual for spiteful, hateful Democrat congressional leaders who have proven themselves absolutely incapable of reaching across the aisle even when the very future of the nation is at stake. Or even seeing their political opponents as fellow human beings.
If this market meltdown is as serious as it is billed, is it too much to expect the majority party in Congress to ACT like it is a serious problem? To set aside finger-pointing until the crisis is past?
Frankly, it's time to clean house. At a minimum, the entire Congressional leadership ought to be replaced - both houses, and both parties. Also, every member of both the House and Senate Banking Committes ought to be forced to resign en masse for the multiple failures of legislation, ethics and oversight that have brought us to this point.
And Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid should be the first to go.
So montysano you basically are admitting that over time people get bolder till the bubble bursts? Your evidence that CRA worked is it started out well? Pretty lame. How many people have diagrammed the evolution of the whole mess over time? Can't you read?
People weren't forced to loan to brown people? That is laughable. You dems like to trot out 1968 arguments into 2008 to cover your a$$ whenever you need the race card to have it's 1968 value. Businesses and Banks have been under pressure from politician and lawyers and hack groups like ACORN for decades now. F*ck you if can't take that some of us are upset with the fact you forced the free market to override it's proven risk models to lend "fairly" and starpped us with this mess. All Wall Street did was try and rewrap the sh*t burger because something had to be done with it. The whole thing doesn't happen without democrats playing God.
I just can't figure out why Nancy Pelosi issued a partisan blast just before the vote. I don't know if that tipped the vote; I doubt I'll ever know.
But why did she do it?
And now a little reminder about who's really responsible for this mess... dreaded by the fascists who call you "thinly veiled racists" because... you judge the man by his character or should we say the lack of it? Ladies and gentlemen... ok and haters, drum roll for "Burning Down the House, or how socialists screwed up America and by the way the world".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRmB93McZeI&feature=user
For those whining about mean words from Speaker Pelosi, I think you've forgotten a lot about these past 7 1/2 years. Forgotten about all the name calling Bush did and yet often times Democrats voted for his bills. To blame anything on Democrats now is foolish.
Zeitgeist:
It's not Oliver Stone's wall street. It's idiotic social engineering by socialist Democrats and their refusal to do oversight on their watch, and refusal to accept the needed changes in oversight that were proposed by Republicans. Imagine that, Republicans trying to rein in wall street. Who'd a thunk it. Obviously not partisan hacks like you. Dood, Frank et al. took care of their friends and sheltered them in spite of naked corruption in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Clinton meant well when he strengthened the penalties in 1995 or so to stop redlining, but the overzealous Justice Department hammered banks that were making sound business evaluations of risk. The Democrats piled on like pigs after slop (campaign donations etc.) and even Clinton realized it had gone to far.
Frederick Michael:
Get over it!!!!! Would you like me to digg up all of Bush's vile rantings calling Democrats unpatriotic and traitors over the last 7 1/2 years?
Jonathan Weisman of the WashPost:
"In truth, few Republicans were on the floor to hear that speech, and those who were there showed no signs of discomfort, as they often do. Republican leaders backed away within hours, conceding they never had the votes they had promised."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/29/AR2008092900623_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008092903526&s_pos=
This is all bull. The GOP voted against it because they and their constituents thought it was socialism, as do many of the commenters on this thread. Nancy Pelosi had fuzz-all to do with it.
Bullseye PGA301!!
This entire mess began as a ploy by the Democrats to buy votes through their attempt to get everyone a house no matter the risk.
And now dammit those same people that claimed the sky was not falling are the ones trying to fix their own created mess.
I'm mad as hell!!
The blame is on the president and John McCain to the extent he actually intended to bring House R's along for failing to produce the votes needed to pass muster with Pelosi. She under no circumstances is going to tie her party to Bush and let R's flee on something with the guaranteed blowback this has. It's nuts to expect her to do that. Ridiculous. Megan should not comment on Congress if she is going to hold that position. Everyone here who thinks this is a failure on Pelosi's part just came from an Objectivist camp. Zero knowlege base. If I'm wrong, post your resume, so we can all see your deep experience as Capitol Hill vote counters.
When it was clear that if it passed it would be a one-party majority, the only question was: call the question or hold up? But there was no session until Thursday; without action who knows what the market would do? And based on what could you expect votes to materialize At least with a fail, we would know where we stood in the markets and it would light the fires. So she made it tougher rather than easier, and some more R's were like, we outtie. Now there will either be a bill Dems can take back to their districts or it'll get cut up and enough R's will come around.
Or it just won't get done, and voters will remember the unsafe Dems who voted nay, while blaming the 2/3rd of Rs that killed it. Voters are where Congress is -- they think they want it but they hate it. Or at least they though it was inevitable. If it doesn't happen and things go south, they'll have no problem blaming Congress -- who killed it again? Oh 2/3rds or R's? John McCain tried to "lead"? Epic fail.
Nancy did fine today.
Here smartsy I saw this earlier today on another blog, enjoy...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dib2-HBsF08
I'm out, play nice everyone
Savings, mutuals whatever brooksfoe, the market will correct itself. - FedUp
After 1929, the market reached its previous levels again in 1954. 25 years.
That's because the banking, credit and monetary crises of the early 1930s, caused by the government's failure to address the problem, DESTROYED the productive capacity of the economy. People who had been farming, working in factories, driving trucks and buying cars were instead building shacks out of leftover plywood and standing in line at soup kitchens. Unemployment hit 25%.
The economy got back on track once the government shifted to an inflationary monetary policy, created the FDIC to restore confidence in the banks, and launched massive infrastructure projects to put people back to work.
We've already got a market that's at a lower level today than it was in January 2001. So if we're lucky maybe we've already had the first 8 of our 25 years of stagnation, and we can look forward to a market "correcting itself" by 2026.
This is ridiculous! The GOP leadership blaming Pelosi for Republican ambush of the bailout is like blaming Georgia for the Russian aggression. Yes, Pelosi is as bad tempered as McCain or Saakashvili, but that in itself is not a good reason to suddenly yield to the fright of the "specter of communism" as many House Republicans did this afternoon. The only schadenfreude moment is that McCain has already announced all over the world how his leadership had facilitated the bailout sabotaged by his party. The GOP would actually get on the moral high ground (their long cherished and yet distant goal), if they reprimanded Pelosi's partisanship AFTER passing the modified bailout bill. (Not to forget the first atrocious version was even more "communist" and it came from the GOP president himself.)
(I know I am posting this after the plea for no more metaphors, but I already had the thing written prior to it. Sorry, Megan; I'm not doing this on purpose...)
And one more thought. Conservatives and libertarians argue that the free market is always superior to government because the market rewards success and punishes failure.
Well, democratic government rewards success and punishes failure, too. Slowly, inefficiently, but in the end, inevitably.
The movement-conservative GOP has failed. It is about to be liquidated. The Republican Party will no doubt survive, but within a couple of years, its shell will be inhabited by new hermits.
That doesn't excuse the Republicans; I've already expressed my opinion of their conduct. If they do not understand that there are some things more important than reelection, they do not deserve to be in Congress. I'm not sure they deserve to be let loose in society.
I'm not sure how you, as a Democrat, can fault the Republicans. Sixty-five of them voted against their convictions to help the Democrats clean up their CRA mess. On the other hand, more than ninety Democrats voted against their party leadership to block this socialism bill.
Let's try to remember, the Republicans in Congress right now are powerless to block anything. This bill required only a simple majority, and if the Democrats wanted to pass it, they would have. The only people you have to blame for your failed coup attempt is your own party's defectors.
Mike,
As true as your comments may be regarding the politics of this debacle in the House today, I think the voters have truly become cynical about the lack of leadership the past two years.
Do the people of this country deserve this? NO! I'm beginning to believe that term limits are the answer.
At least 8 Democrats on the House banking committee headed by Barney Frank voted nay. If the Chairman of the banking committee cannot get his own party members to vote in favor, the problem doesn't lie only with the Republicans. There were several other Dem leaders who voted no. You can't blame either party for voting no if the leaders won't lead. Also the public was voting with their phone calls and emails at a rate of 1000 to 1 against in some cases. That's a stiff wind to vote against. Who are these guys representing anyway. Here's hoping they can revise and get a successful revote Thursday.
smartsy:
Who talked about the "Ownership Society"? President Bush, that is who. Don't go laying all the blame on the Democrats. Who was one of the top lobbyists for Fannie(or was it Freddie)? Why it was Rick Davis(aka the campaign manager for the train wreck known as McCain-Palin 2008). I have a piece of advice for you. Stop advertisin' your ignorance!!
As true as your comments may be regarding the politics of this debacle in the House today, I think the voters have truly become cynical about the lack of leadership the past two years.
What about the lack of leadership from the White House the past 7 1/2 years?
At least 8 Democrats on the House banking committee headed by Barney Frank voted nay. If the Chairman of the banking committee cannot get his own party members to vote in favor, the problem doesn't lie only with the Republicans. There were several other Dem leaders who voted no. You can't blame either party for voting no if the leaders won't lead.
Read up thread. Pelosi brought the votes to the table that she said she would. Boehner didn't. Pelosi isn't gonna go to bat for the deeply unpopular President of the opposing party by herself. No House Speaker in their right mind would do it either. To put it all on her is dumb. It doesn't matter that other members of Frank's committee voted against the bill. They might be members of districts that aren't safe districts. Again, Pelosi fulfilled her side of the bargain. Boehner didn't That is all there is to it.
Joe Kliens conscience response:
"You sir, are an idiot(Yeah, I know, so sue me). Pelosi got 2/3 of her caucus to vote for this mess of a bill. Bonehead only got 1/3 of his caucus. If you knew anything about this bill, Pelosi wasn't going to leave her caucus out to dry on it. Bush and Paulson want this plan to pass, so it is going to have to pass with Republicans votes. Why should Pelosi stick her neck out for Bush when Bonehead and his caucus won't? Republicans never did it for Clinton. They'll never do it for Obama."
No sir, I actually read the bill http://www2.nationalreview.com/dest/2008/09/28/ayo08c04xml.pdf. 12 democrat votes would not have changed the 2/3 caucus you pathetic idiot, it would have passed the bill, she already hung them out to dry dumb sh$t. My point however, since your so clever, was aimed at the 6 dem committee chairs that voted nay as well the entire dem ACORN caucus which have absolutely nothing to fear voting in favor of the bill, they'll be re-elected regardless.
Let's get one thing straight: Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker of the House of Representatives, not the House Majority Leader. It not her job to take partisan shots at the other side of the aisle: It is her job to assemble the votes for a bill or, failing that, to pull the bill from the schedule.
If Steny Hoyer wanted to go off on a partisan rant when the bill was introduced on the floor that's his job: no one would think ill of him for it. But Pelosi was SUPPOSEDLY trying to get the thing passed. You don't go kicking sand on people you've asked for support. It shows bad faith. Her rant cost her the 13 or so GOP votes she needed to convince her own caucus she was serious about passing it. As Megan said once the Democrats saw Republican bailing they bailed, too.
This was pure incompetence on Pelosi's part. It's like the Botox really has penetrated to her brain and ruined her reasoning facilities. Her own personal fortune, built on real estate and stock manipulation, is at risk w/o it. She's so poisoned with partisan venom that she can't think rationally anymore.
Mr. Joe Conscience,
Outside of your play card of Rick Davis, I rightly put the blame where it belongs: The Democrats.
During a 2004 Congressional hearing, OFHEO tried to gain more regulatory oversight for Fannie and Freddie, but guess who was crying against oversight?
Maxine Waters
Barney Frank
Gregory Meeks
Lacy Clay
Try reading this article: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2005/01/24/8234040/index.htm
And who got busted for fraud?
Franklin Raines
a crony hanging out with Obama now.
Please don't lecture me on my intelligence. I have all the ammunition to bury you.
"Well, democratic government rewards success and punishes failure, too. Slowly, inefficiently, but in the end, inevitably."
Guess you forgot history. The inefficiency of government controlled markets died last century, along with that entire failed political ideology, when people got sick of being enslaved to politicians. The hacks that are trying to revive it, and their enablers in the media, are shameless and corrupt.
That's the ruse present in the socialists' argument on this topic. It's their failed policies that got us into this mess. CRA? FM/FM? Never would have existed if it wasn't for delusional socialistic meddling with the populace.
Poor Nancy Pelosi. If she had any principle and felt that the bill was toxic waste, she never would have brought it to vote. Instead she tries to strongarm her party against doing what's right and fails. They only make 'em this incompetent in SanFran.
Vote these hacks, and their bought-and-paid-for party, OUT.
What about the lack of leadership from the White House the past 7 1/2 years?
The White House that had been warning of the problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for 7 1/2 years, tried to pass corrective legislation but was told to get -ucked by the Democrats, who blocked them at every turn? Let's get this straight: There is NO BLAME TO BE FOUND IN THE BUSH WHITE HOUSE ON THIS ONE.
Only simpletons (aka, "you") think Presidents wear Superman Underoos. When GW Bush takes off his shirt he's got a white T-shirt under that. To repeal a law he has to ask Congress. To modify a law he has to ask Congress. If 40 Democrat Senators tell him to get stuffed he's stuck. Bush warned many times about the danger that ultimately ran us aground: he was ignored.
When he FINALLY got their attention last week, because investment banks and lenders were failing all over the place, he presented a recovery plan. Until then Pelosi and Reid were going to adjourn Congress w/o action, claiming "no one has any idea what to do!"
Why were the Dems so buoyant at their conference and Rs so pissy toward Nancy? Cuz she snookered them out of their bid to tie the this around Dems' necks. Pelosi obviously gave word to dial back Dem support to kill it and pitched in with her speech once it was clear there was nowhere near an R majority of yeas. This was a suicide pact that one side tried to wriggle out of but got caught. That would be the Republicans. Fight's on right now in htis thread ho will get blamed if chaos ensues. One thing's sure, there's not going to be a Bush-Pelosi bailout without a majority of R's recorded for it. Call her unpatriotic (they already do), I say it's tough.
Frederick Michael:
Get over it!!!!! Would you like me to digg up all of Bush's vile rantings calling Democrats unpatriotic and traitors over the last 7 1/2 years?
Sure, go ahead,
[listens to crickets chirp]
Well, now that a fool is off on a fool's errand maybe the grownups can talk w/o interruption again.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were bit players in the mortgage debacle. The CRA had absolutely nothing to do with it. But the movement-conservative crowd will adopt whatever potted partisan garbage explanation of a situation is pumped out by their taskmasters in the McCain campaign and at FOX News. This makes it impossible for them or their elected representatives to vote rationally, because they're not living in the real world the rest of us inhabit; they're still living in Gingrich-land. In contrast, as the willingness of Democrats to vote for this bill shows, Democrats still basically live in the real world.
Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker of the House. The Democrats are in control of Congress. 90 Democrats voted AGAINST this craptastic bill. If Nancy can't even get her own party to vote for this bill, how the hell can anyone bitch about the Republicans not supporting it! The people don't support it either. Screw Pelosi, Reid and the record low approval rating they are sitting on. Hey, Nancy: gonna call the Dem "nays" unpatriotic too?
Brooksfoe,
I'm sorry that facts have you so flustered. Your ranting is pure folly.
Hey, smartsy, you know the word "folly". Good for you.
Now go read an economics textbook.
Brooksfoe,
I think the history book explains the mess nicely.
So let me get this straight Brooksfoe, you say "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were bit players in the mortgage debacle. The CRA had absolutely nothing to do with it." and your advice is for smartsy is to read a textbook on economics?
What an idiot!
"not living in the real world the rest of us inhabit; they're still living in Gingrich-land. In contrast, as the willingness of Democrats to vote for this bill shows, Democrats still basically live in the real world."
That's an awful pathetic attempt at logic there, pard'ner.
You and Cap'n Hopeychangey relinquished any claim on reality when you bought into the socialist moral equivalency scam.
Beddgelert, you wrote this:
"I am glad it failed, and I hope the next socialist effort fails as well. The government has no business bailing out Wall Street or Financial institutions who have plenty of 'expertise' to manage their problem."
To write this is to fail to understand the building blocks of the modern financial system. I'm not saying you're a bad person. I'm sure you're kind to animals. But your head inhabits a world that ceased to exist 80 years ago or more. The only economies in the modern world which function on the principles you embrace here are those in failed states with no functioning government, such as Somalia. In every prosperous advanced society, government creates, guarantees and regulates the financial markets. There are no prosperous first-world countries that do not have government bank takeovers, government deposit insurance, etc. That is part of why we are prosperous first-world countries.
"the socialist moral equivalency scam" does not mean anything.
I had forgotten quite how unctuously dishonest McArdle is. Perhaps she might contemplate the reality of the last 8 years, recognize that she is in no position to lecture others, and start trying to offer something constructive, rather than these arrogant and self-pitying rants that are now her sole stock in trade.
Bush put forth a plan that is decidedly socialist. That is the donks cup O tea. But they were too cowardly to pass it on their own. They wanted conservative cover for their foray into socializing our financial system. So McCain comes to the hill and gets the house reps to play ball. It is a bitter pill for a conservative to vote for socialism and against the overwhelming public angst against this bill, but they bite the bullet and agree. Then Pelosi decides to crap in their Wheaties 5 minutes before the vote.
The woman is a moronic partisan hack that has been playing politics with every issue she could for the last 2 years. She did it with funding the troops and now this. Think about it....this sack of crap is two heartbeats away from the presidency and she can't even get the house together. How in the heck does anyone think she would be up to the job of president?
No. This belongs at the feet of Pelosi. She bears every bit of the responsibility. That is the price of being the leader.
Sorry dems, there are too many recorded testimonies of Frank, Dodd, Waters, other dems badgering witnesses testifying about the coming disaster for taxpayers if something wasn't done, back in 2004, and even the NYT called it in 1999.
Face it, people aren't going to trust the democratic media that looked the other way on John Edwards but now, when a republican needs investigated, they fly a hit team to Alaska to search high and low to find all the dirt they can dredge up.
You think you have that much credibility left if you lie about this calamity to November? You think if we abandon our allies we'll have enough money to spend on increasing entitlements that will require the entire federal budget years from now? You think if the government owns everybody's income, and tried to spend it better than they could, that all will be right with the world?
After this past few weeks, people will laugh in your face.
I believe in tax cuts because the government doesn't know what its doing! Their experts are FOOLS!
Let me get this straight, Big Al. Bush's plan was "socialist". And Pelosi, being a "socialist", wanted to pass it. (To take lots of money from taxpayers and give it to Wall Street bankers. Wasn't that part of the Communist Manifesto somewhere? OK...) So, in order to do this, she gave a partisan speech, which led Republicans to vote against it, and she also failed to encourage Democrats to vote for it, thus defeating her socialist bill.
What are you even trying to say here? What are you even talking about? This makes as much sense as a Sarah Palin interview.
Please don't forget with all this blame shifting to Bush and "8 years" of republican control that come November it'll be two years of a democratic congress. Or have they been a helpless majority all this time, unable to do anything but say it wasn't their fault?
They were present since this credit scheme was hatched with the CRAs and lobbyist money was being passed out and multiple efforts at regulating the growing crisis needed to be stopped. Did this stuff just magically happen on its own? You can't run anything if you don't take responsibility for any of the consequences. And if the press does cover up for the dems on this issue and help them win the election, you will get your just reward when you enable the architects of this calamity to be the engineers of your "salvation".
"What are you even trying to say here?
Posted by brooksfoe"
Is putting the government in charge of bailing out private companies a socialists ideal? Yes.
Pelosi and her socialist pals loved this bill and their first inkling was to pull 20% of the profits and funnel them to another socialist entity. ACORN.
Do conservatives detest socialism and embrace the free market? Yes.
Did the house reps decide to talk after McCain showed up? Yes.
Before McCain showed up, FOUR (4) reps wanted this bill. On Monday, 66 voted against their principles for this socialist pile of crap bill.
Pelosi gave a partisan speech because she is an idiot. Do you actually think that because Pelosi is in the position of a leader that by the fact alone she is automatically able to lead? I have been training adults how to be leaders since the early 90's. Pelosi broke one of the very first lessons taught in management training....know and understand the characteristics of those in your group. She knows the nature of conservatives and that they are galled at this. (The liberals were galled too, but only because the socialism didn't go far enough. They wanted total forgiveness for home owners and they wanted the ACORN provisions left in.) At any rate, she asked the reps, not only to give her party cover on this and vote against their values, but she wanted they to lick her boots also. In that second that she injected hyperpartisan rhetoric into the job of managing people, she lost all credibility and her group bolted.
So, yeah, you got it right, but your partisan blinders are preventing you from seeing the truth. Do the world a favor....don't ever try to be a leader of adults. At least until you call me and go through one of my courses.
Paulson keeps saying this is a purchase of toxic debt to be based on some magical formula that he and the Fed will conjure with the help of financial wizards. If there are such great wizards to begin with, why is the system so screwed up? It will still be a pig no matter what lipstick they prescribe.
The US is a great country and its economy will regain its footing, but it may take a little longer this time.
Not everyone is unhappy that the proposal failed. I know several foreign fund managers are just hoping/waiting for the market to shed perhaps a further 10-15% and then buy into the market and wait for the up tick.
"Not everyone is unhappy that the proposal failed"
Yesterday the market was dropping long before Pelosi delivered her divisive speech on the House floor indicating the bailout would not have made any difference regarding the free-market's natural course of events.
Secondly, if the 'crisis' needed this bailout why then did Pelosi not use this as a media moment to say the Democrat Party joined together to sign this bill to save America while the Republicans voted no.
It's a CRISIS we are told, the majority in the House is Democrat yet House Majority Leader could only get 60% of her causus?
This reminds me of when Democrats promise their voters they'll to stop the the war all the while they continue voting for the war; since 2006 the House Majority so why do they not vote to end funding?
It appears once again the Democrat voters are bamboozled by the overlords who use Republicans to cover the Democratic Party's con job.
Funny to watch.
Re: they do not understand that there are some things more important than reelection, they do not deserve to be in Congress.
Realistically, how many of the GOP congressmen were in any danger of loosing their seats? Most of them are in districts gerrymandered to be safe for the GOP. The notion that their constituents, however much they frothed at the mouth over this bill, would vote for a Democrat beggars belief.
Democrats have gone beyond partisanship ... they're now on a quest to bury the Republicans and the American two-party system that has held this country together politically almost from it's inception. If they think that's a winning crusade to be on ... I say ... keep it up. It's going to blow up in their faces.
Foolish Megan.
This was a bipartisan bill, and Pelosi delivered more than what was required. This was an abject failure of bipartisanship on the part of House Repubs.
The repubs have screwed themselves and screwed Septugenarian guy to boot.
Now the dems can lard up the original bill and pass it on a party line vote AND look like heroes because of the tanking market.
The blame is WHOLLY on the house repubs that couldn't get those 12 votes.
Get ready for the liberal realignment.
538 has Obama at 329 electoral college votes.
There is a corrupt center in this country that no one talks about because that center and the partys have so expertly pitted the left and the right against each other. While those on the left believe in something and those on the right believe in something the middle that voted for this bill are really the culprits. This middle (Rinos and centrist dems) are always willing to sell out their "beliefs" to enrich themselves and reward their friends.
The middle left is owned by trial lawyers and Wall street and the middle right is owned by oil and Wall street. Anyone notice something similar? You can scream about bogeymen all you want, we are being played.
While we carp about abortion and gay rights somebody's getting rich and they are buying off our government to get rich. Wake up.
Honda, sorry, but the country has been in the grip of a republican alignment since the 1980s.
And frankly, it just isn't working.
Jim Manzi on the prospect of a liberal realignment.
here
I reccommend Douthat too.
You chose an elderly scam artist as your candidate. McCain has nothing....poor Palin and his debate posturing were just fresh horses for a dying campaign.
All you have is the failed policies of the past. And trashing the markets is a direct result of the old alignment.
That is why I'm voting for Obama.
I choose the future.
You guys are the past.
Ross!
I'll take door number three for the Liberal Realignment, please!
Regardless of what Pelosi said, The republicans voted down a bill that was put forth by their own president - BEAUTIFUL !!!!!!!!!!!
Cut off your nose to spite your face.
I hated the bailout idea to begin with - let those wall street pigs jump out the window for all I care !!!!!!!!!!!
I'm amazed at anyone who blames only the other side. If you take the partisan glasses off, you will see that government failed. It wasn't the so-called "fat cats" on Wall Street. Our government encouraged and even required higher risk loans be made (starting in the 90's, when Clinton was President), and Fannie and Freddie started buying up these risky loans lenders made. Since Fannie and Freddie were buying the loans and they were considered to be US backed, banks continued to make more loans. The real problem was with Fannie and Freddie and the fact that the people overseeing them are taking money from them. Take a look at the donations accepted by politicians on the various finance committees. Some have taken over $500k from Fannie and Freddie.
This problem could have been prevented by Bush and the Republican congress in the years 2001 through 2006, and it could have been prevented by the Democrat congress in the last 2 years. Both parties have been in control at one time or another, and both were aware of the issue.
I personally think it's time we completely overhauled our government by throwing out the majority of the incumbents. We need to get some people in government who will work truly for the people.
Your future is just as corrupt as the past. Obama's got the same rich scum that caused this. You are trapped in partisanship. Blind to the truth. You'll get some scraps griefer but the dems and pals will still make their money just like the repubs did. We've got to stop going to Washington to solve problems. We could all have what we wanted if everything was left to the states.
Leave abortion, school choice, gay rights to the states. We can live however we choose then, not how Washington chooses for us. All the side issues are just pawns to those that make themselves rich! "Banking is more dangerous than standing armies" -Thomas Jefferson (founder of the democrats)
Now how much did Obama get from banks??? We are all being played.
The democrats fulfilled they're end of the bargain? What a load of crap you democrats are selling today.
If the democrats were ever interested in leading in this situation they would have passed the bill on their own.
They didn't need the republicans other than for political coverage. If this was truly a crisis they would have acted.
They ignored republicans every step of the way, only including them at the last minute, and then begrudgingly. Even then, they spent the entire time partisanly attacking conservatives.
The irony in all of this is that the same dems in leadership are the same that lead to this problems we're experiencing today. Franks, Dodd, Schumer, etc.
All of the dem comments on there blaming republicans for not "whipping" more support up for this is laugable. Democrats didn't need republican support.
It has been reported that, unlike what many of you have stated (the new dem talking point obviously), many of the dem house chairpeople and leaders were told not to whip their people into support for this bill. This was all politics and no leadership.
Pelosi didn't "do all she could do" and "fulfill her promise" by only bringing 60% of her side to the table. She fully left of 40% and didn't even try to lean on them to pass this bill.
She wanted political cover by having the republicans provide enough votes to pass it. When republicans stood up on their principles (I personally would have voted for the bill) and voted against, all the democrats can do is whine that their feelings were hurt. While I suspect many repubs didn't appreciate her comments, I argue fewer votes were a result of meetings that lasted through the night and into the morning with the former head of the FDIC that informed many of other options. It swayed people's votes and republicans to reconsider for other options - more free-market solutions.
So, the democrat liberals on this site whining and complaining can focus their energy on their do-nothing leaders that have now successfully gotten almost nothing done since their takeover of power in 2006.
This is the largest deficit of leadership for the democrats since 1993/94. I will give dems that I think Bush's lack of leadership is a contributor as well, but he's a lame duck president. And now, the dems are tied to the bush bill. Love the recent Drudge Picture shots - Bush and Nancy side-by-side. Who woulda thunk? It's Dems, Nancy, and Obama that are pushing Bush's agenda now.
Hilarious.
"Today's GOP rebellion was the first shot in a Republican civil war that looming electoral defeat serves as cataylst."
where do I sign up?
Or, maybe the will of the people was done.
With phone banks full of Non-support for the bill, perhaps our representatives just voted what the citizens wanted.
Just a thought, of course, because why else would a political representative go to DC to vote?
I AM SO GLAD WE VOTED THIS DOWN !
WHAT exactly does a "community organizer" do? Barack Obama's rise has left many Americans asking themselves that question. Here's a big part of the answer: Community organizers intimidate banks into making high-risk loans to customers with poor credit.
In the name of fairness to minorities, community organizers occupy private offices, chant inside bank lobbies, and confront executives at their homes - and thereby force financial institutions to direct hundreds of millions of dollars in mortgages to low-credit customers.
In other words, community organizers help to undermine the US economy by pushing the banking system into a sinkhole of bad loans. And Obama has spent years training and funding the organizers who do it.
THE seeds of today's financial meltdown lie in the Commu nity Reinvestment Act - a law passed in 1977 and made riskier by unwise amendments and regulatory rulings in later decades.
CRA was meant to encourage banks to make loans to high-risk borrowers, often minorities living in unstable neighborhoods. That has provided an opening to radical groups like ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) to abuse the law by forcing banks to make hundreds of millions of dollars in "subprime" loans to often uncreditworthy poor and minority customers.
Any bank that wants to expand or merge with another has to show it has complied with CRA - and approval can be held up by complaints filed by groups like ACORN.
In fact, intimidation tactics, public charges of racism and threats to use CRA to block business expansion have enabled ACORN to extract hundreds of millions of dollars in loans and contributions from America's financial institutions.
Banks already overexposed by these shaky loans were pushed still further in the wrong direction when government-sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began buying up their bad loans and offering them for sale on world markets.
Fannie and Freddie acted in response to Clinton administration pressure to boost homeownership rates among minorities and the poor. However compassionate the motive, the result of this systematic disregard for normal credit standards has been financial disaster.
ONE key pioneer of ACORN's subprime-loan shakedown racket was Madeline Talbott - an activist with extensive ties to Barack Obama. She was also in on the ground floor of the disastrous turn in Fannie Mae's mortgage policies.
Long the director of Chicago ACORN, Talbott is a specialist in "direct action" - organizers' term for their militant tactics of intimidation and disruption. Perhaps her most famous stunt was leading a group of ACORN protesters breaking into a meeting of the Chicago City Council to push for a "living wage" law, shouting in defiance as she was arrested for mob action and disorderly conduct. But her real legacy may be her drive to push banks into making risky mortgage loans.
In February 1990, Illinois regulators held what was believed to be the first-ever state hearing to consider blocking a thrift merger for lack of compliance with CRA. The challenge was filed by ACORN, led by Talbott. Officials of Bell Federal Savings and Loan Association, her target, complained that ACORN pressure was undermining its ability to meet strict financial requirements it was obligated to uphold and protested being boxed into an "affirmative-action lending policy." The following years saw Talbott featured in dozens of news stories about pressuring banks into higher-risk minority loans.
IN April 1992, Talbott filed an other precedent-setting com plaint using the "community support requirements" of the 1989 savings-and-loan bailout, this time against Avondale Federal Bank for Savings. Within a month, Chicago ACORN had organized its first "bank fair" at Malcolm X College and found 16 Chicago-area financial institutions willing to participate.
Two months later, aided by ACORN organizer Sandra Maxwell, Talbott announced plans to conduct demonstrations in the lobbies of area banks that refused to attend an ACORN-sponsored national bank "summit" in New York. She insisted that banks show a commitment to minority lending by lowering their standards on downpayments and underwriting - for example, by overlooking bad credit histories.
By September 1992, The Chicago Tribune was describing Talbott's program as "affirma- tive-action lending" and ACORN was issuing fact sheets bragging about relaxations of credit standards that it had won on behalf of minorities.
And Talbott continued her effort to, as she put it, drag banks "kicking and screaming" into high-risk loans. A September 1993 story in The Chicago Sun-Times presents her as the leader of an initiative in which five area financial institutions (including two of her former targets, now plainly cowed - Bell Federal Savings and Avondale Federal Savings) were "participating in a $55 million national pilot program with affordable-housing group ACORN to make mortgages for low- and moderate-income people with troubled credit histories."
What made this program different from others, the paper added, was the participation of Fannie Mae - which had agreed to buy up the loans. "If this pilot program works," crowed Talbott, "it will send a message to the lending community that it's OK to make these kind of loans."
Well, the pilot program "worked," and Fannie Mae's message that risky loans to minorities were "OK" was sent. The rest is financial-meltdown history.
IT would be tough to find an "on the ground" community organizer more closely tied to the subprime-mortgage fiasco than Madeline Talbott. And no one has been more supportive of Madeline Talbott than Barack Obama.
When Obama was just a budding community organizer in Chicago, Talbott was so impressed that she asked him to train her personal staff.
He returned to Chicago in the early '90s, just as Talbott was starting her pressure campaign on local banks. Chicago ACORN sought out Obama's legal services for a "motor voter" case and partnered with him on his 1992 "Project VOTE" registration drive.
In those years, he also conducted leadership-training seminars for ACORN's up-and-coming organizers. That is, Obama was training the army of ACORN organizers who participated in Madeline Talbott's drive against Chicago's banks.
More than that, Obama was funding them. As he rose to a leadership role at Chicago's Woods Fund, he became the most powerful voice on the foundation's board for supporting ACORN and other community organizers. In 1995, the Woods Fund substantially expanded its funding of community organizers - and Obama chaired the committee that urged and managed the shift.
That committee's report on strategies for funding groups like ACORN features all the key names in Obama's organizer network. The report quotes Talbott more than any other figure; Sandra Maxwell, Talbott's ACORN ally in the bank battle, was also among the organizers consulted.
MORE, the Obama-supervised Woods Fund report ac knowledges the problem of getting donors and foundations to contribute to radical groups like ACORN - whose confrontational tactics often scare off even liberal donors and foundations.
Indeed, the report brags about pulling the wool over the public's eye. The Woods Fund's claim to be "nonideological," it says, has "enabled the Trustees to make grants to organizations that use confrontational tactics against the business and government 'establishments' without undue risk of being criticized for partisanship."
Hmm. Radicalism disguised by a claim to be postideological. Sound familiar?
The Woods Fund report makes it clear Obama was fully aware of the intimidation tactics used by ACORN's Madeline Talbott in her pioneering efforts to force banks to suspend their usual credit standards. Yet he supported Talbott in every conceivable way. He trained her personal staff and other aspiring ACORN leaders, he consulted with her extensively, and he arranged a major boost in foundation funding for her efforts.
And, as the leader of another charity, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Obama channeled more funding Talbott's way - ostensibly for education projects but surely supportive of ACORN's overall efforts.
In return, Talbott proudly announced her support of Obama's first campaign for state Senate, saying, "We accept and respect him as a kindred spirit, a fellow organizer."
IN short, to understand the roots of the subprime-mort gage crisis, look to ACORN's Madeline Talbott. And to see how Talbott was able to work her mischief, look to Barack Obama.
Then you'll truly know what community organizers do.
Wait a minute you guys. The DEMS control congress and could have passed this WITHOUT ONE REPUBLICAN. I see a lot of dishonesty on this board. If this was SUCH a great bill, why didn't Pelosi get all the DEMS in line? The Republicans didn't want to get stuck with the blame, which is what Pelosi wanted. Why else wouldn't she whip her party to vote for it. And why else would she blame the Republicans, who she DIDN'T need votes from, and not her own party where she could have gotten them. Political posturing. And let's not forget that it was Frank, Dodd and other Democrats who are to blame for this mess anyway by blocking ANY regulation of Fannie and Freddie. Don't believe me? Just look at the House hearings on these two institutions in 2004/2005.
drasbold, the objective was bipartisan passage.
Pelosi did her part.
McCain and the house GOP had an epic fail.
newagegop, I am what you call a "hereditary republican".
guns, dogs, and Pony Club.
The last thing my grandfather ever said to me was always vote republican.
I'm a legacy.
Now...the republican party is the party of anti-abortion and anti-samesex marriage, which are anti-libertarian positions. the republican party is the party of "compassionate conservatism", which is social engineering and pork products in disguise.
The republican party is now the party of witchcraft (poor Palin's church) and demonic exorcism (Jindal's church).
Heres your 2012 ticket!
PALIN/JINDAL 2012
casting out demons for America!
you wont get people like me back until the Republicans can stop being a joke.
And the first step would be to acknowledge that this was a bipartisan effort that McCain and the GOP utterly flunked.
What a great morning, the sun is dissipating the fog and my pension was in my account this morning, my mortgage was paid along with my other bills, can't be all that bad.
THis is how it will play off if Barry becomes POTUS:
Adolph Hitler (Obama) formed the Nazi (Democrat Socialist) party after the World War 1 (the 2008 Election). During the crisis situation of Germany (America) after its defeat in the World War1 (2008 elections), The Nazi (Democrat Socialist) party gained power due to the charismatic speeches of Hitler (Obama). Adolph Hitler’s (Obama's)speeches of that time were full of anti-semitism (Racism) and nationalism, which really enthralled the Germans (Americans). After becoming the Fuhrer (POTUS) Hitler (Obama) suppressed almost all his opponents either by murdering or arresting them (with his truth squad).
Yes people let's face it, we are doomed to socialist life if Barry wins, say goodbye to your 1st amendment (your right to feee speech) and 2nd amendment (to protect yourself and property)
Where on earth did you find this many stupid people to comment? A "Republican bill"? "For Bush"?
You pansies are not to be taken seriously. Megan's analysis is nearly right on, and maybe a little hard on the GOP House. No competent Speaker would attempt to shape such a bill as someone else's project that she is accomodating, and you can add to that the fact that the underlying causes to this mess are bona fide liberal Democrat social engineering and affirmative action pap.
That decades of GOP Presidents have let this nonsense continue is to their shame, but let's not ignore the "root causes" as they so love to say on the left.
what was wrong about her blaming it on republicans was that the disaster is a democrat project. not "wall street" democrats, but wrought from the highest ideals of the progressive faith.
so, she lied.
some conservatives feel that it's nessesary to firewall this infection, but most don't want the bailout on principal.
progressives want the bailout and they want to pre-earmark the possible returns already to reinvest in the same bad-mortgages-for-people-who-can't-afford-them scheme. the disaster is good for progressives - here the statists have maneuvered the public sector into a situation where it will essentially buy the housing market at a steal (to say nothing of what they reap politically from lying about this being a failure of free markets) - and they will connive to repeat this scheme in the future.
no bailout. let them fail.
What a ridiculous post. Frankly, I'm glad the bailout failed, but the votes either were there or they weren't (here's a clue: they weren't), and Pelosi's floor speech was irrelevant. Yet you say that Pelosi was out of line for placing the blame for the financial meltdown just where it belongs: on Bush and the Republicans. Pelosi was merely stating the obvious and she was perfectly entitled, indeed expected, to do so. She is the Speaker but she is also the leader of the House Democrats. She delivered two-thirds of her caucus; the Republicans didn't come close to matching it, even though the bill was sought (demanded) by a Republican president.
Until the root causes of this mess are addressed, no solution offered is going to work and the people on "Main Street" are going to keep hammering phone lines and servers at the capital. Both parties are to blame. Both have to accept responsiblity then move on. Put on your big boy and big girl panties and do the job you're in D.C. to do. I am sick and tired of this crap. Repeal the CRA, change mark to market, and go after the ones responsible. I don't know about anyone else, but seeing the disgusting pig-at-the- trough salaries, bonuses and golden parachutes the ones responsible for this mess are getting makes me furious. They should be placed in stocks on the Mall for 24 hours to get pelted with rotten food, have their assests stripped and used toward the bailout, then taken to jail!
Look all you nutty libs and dems you can use statistics all you want...we voted 2-1 for, you voted 2-1 ney, we did our part...blah blah....answer this number...the bill needed less than 20 votes to pass, your majority spent 90 shooting it down, you are the majority, your leader Pelosi couldn't get 20 more votes, Your Canidate Obama, as reported in the NYT didnt call to persuade anyone. YOU PARTY LEADERSHIP FAILED! Why did GOP vote it down 2-1, this is socialism...on the LIB agenda....not a GOP principle...Do you even wonder, why Pelosi called for the Vote....when she knew it would fail??? I think she wanted it to fail....so if ther is Fiscal meltdown, you all can push more of your social agenda....so you should be happy....further your schizo...you blame the GOP for following Bush and for causing this for 8 yrs, then the GOP goes against the grain, and you stomp your feet and are mad as hell and blame them, you are nutty! Follow Bush's lead your wrong, go against him your wrong??? Huh??? That whole post about voting for or against if you "safe" or "Not safe", thats not leadership, and thats why politics is such a mess!
OUCH
Secret, Foreign Money Floods into Obama Campaign
http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/Obama_fundraising_illegal/2008/09/29/135718.html
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ordered her Majority Whip, Jim Clyburn, to essentially not do his job in the runup to the vote on Monday according to House Democrat leadership aides.
This was not going to be a Democrat-passed bill if the Speaker had anything to say about it," one dem congressional aide said.
Good article on the politics of the situation. Pelosi failed as a leader but was smarter by 1/2. I disagree that the bill is needed. The market is artificially inflated with valuation based on faulty loans. Funny thing is.....Government required (under threat of prosecution) banks to loan money to people that could not pay it back....Government lowered Debt to income ratio standards so that people could buy a bigger house than they could afford....Now the govt wants us to hand over the checkbook so they can "Fix", as only they can, the economy.
My suggestion - get the govt out of the economy. Let the markets correct. People will lose money (it's a market). You cannot privitize profit and socialize losses.
Look all you nutty libs and dems you can use statistics all you want...we voted 2-1 for, you voted 2-1 ney, we did our part...blah blah - BigR
Yeah, you pointy-headed liberals with your nutty statistics.
I know there's no minimum IQ to vote, but I am reassured that it takes some minimal intelligence to register, to drive to the polling place, and to walk down the sidewalk and enter the building without knocking yourself out on a lamppost.
Hey brooksfoe.........cant answer the part about needing less than 20 votes......and not getting them......I said nutty.......you used the pointed head.......like you said it will take a little..brainpower to get to the vote....so can I give you a ride.
The Community Reinvestment Ac tis a federal law that requires banks and savings and loan associations to make loans throughout their entire market area and prohibits them from targeting only wealthier neighborhoods with their services. The Act was passed in 1977 under the Carter administration. That would be a democrat administration with democrats controlling both houses.
In early 1993 President Bill Clinton ordered new regulations for the CRA which would increase access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities. The new rules went into effect on January 31, 1995 and featured: requiring strictly numerical assessments to get a satisfactory CRA rating; using federal home-loan data broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race; encouraging community groups to complain when banks were not loaning enough to specified neighborhood, income group, and race; allowing community groups that marketed loans to targeted groups to collect a fee from the banks. Prior to the CRA expansion authorization under President Clinton and the Democrats, home prices increased with inflation, but after the CRA expansion authorization, home prices became unhinged from inflation. The CRA caused home prices to rise too fast as economicfundamentals did not support the “wedge” or spread between the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and the price of homes. What supported the high home prices was regulation motivated credit.
Banks were forced to loan to consumers who were not credit worthy with "no verification of income or assets; little consideration of the applicant's ability to make payments. The people losing their homes are victims not of 'predatory lenders,' but of government-sponsored -- in fact government-mandated -- political correctness. The Senate Banking Committee has estimated that, as a result of CRA, $9.5 billion so far has gone to pay for services and salaries of the nonprofit groups involved." Activist organizations such as ACORN get shakedown payments, community influence and stature from being a reliable source for loan money and get what amount to "broker's commissions" for doing so. Lending decisions were removed from bankers and handed over to activists as the activists were given a powerful seat at the table. ACORN in part, not banks alone, now controlled who got CRA mandated loans.
As the amount of subprime loans went up, and home prices increased, the country’s overall mortgage portfolio began to deteriorate and become inherently more risky. Bankers began making loans that were 90 percent, or even 100 percent of the value of the property. Appraisal firms were pressured to over-value properties, justifying a loan amount that would give the borrower the money he or she needed. Whether the borrower could afford the payments, or whether the real underlying value of the property justified the loan, were completely different matters. “Stated income” loans were made that merely required the borrower to tell the bank how much he or she made—no supporting documentation needed. Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMs) that initially required interest only payments enabled borrowers to qualify for bigger mortgages. Of course, when payments were adjusted upwards at a later date to provide for principal repayments or higher interest rates, they often became too high for the borrower, leading to payment defaults. And finally, so-called “Ninja” loans were made to borrowers with “no income, no jobs, and no assets.”
Because bankers could sell off loans to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or Wall Street underwriters anxious to underwrite MBS and CDOs, the bankers no longer had to live with the loans they had made. They could simply make the loans, collect the associated origination fees (the higher-risk loans typically carried the highest fees), and then pass on the responsibility for the future performance of the loans to others. By bundling a group of mortgages together, the risk of any one loan going bad was reduced, or so the theory went.
With so many risky new loans being made, though, it was only a matter of time before delinquency rates began to increase and real estate values to crack.
In 2003, the Bush Administration proposed a new agency to oversee and regulate Freddie Mac and Fanie Mae, (the government sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry) This would have been the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the S and L crisis a decade ago.
The Democrats stopped it…supporters of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under the proposed agency might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families.
Barney Frank (D-MA)
“The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies (Freddie and Fannie), the less we will see in terms of “affordable housing.”
Melvin Watt (D-NC)
“…and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get “affordable housing.”
In 2005, John McCain warned of the pending mortgage collapse. He co-sponsored a bill…The Housing Enterprise Regulatory Act of 2005.
(Google it at www.govtrack.usBillS-190)
The bill would have regulated Fannie May and Freddie Mac, but again the Democrats blocked it and it never became law.
This is a democrat party problem pure and simple.
bestweather......you know these people don't let FACTS get in the way of their REALITY!
I know
Lucy Ramirez is here with the cia agents hat that John Kerry had during his Christmas in cambodia
"seared in my memory"
BigR:
The GOP...says it couldn't...vote...for bill...cuz of nasty Nancy speech...even though bill was...needed...for economy...like Barney Frank says...if there are 12 GOP Reps who would have voted for the bill...he will personally...come over to their house and...be uncharacteristically nice to them...and maybe then they...will start thinking about...the country...instead of their...hurt feelings...
Unh...ribs...aching...arm...cracked...must...use...ellipses...b
FINALLY....someone willing to tell it like it is. Thank you Megan!!!!!!
Nancy Pelosi is the worst Speaker our country has ever had. What is wrong with this bitter meanspirted woman!?
Brooksfoe.....typical lib/dem move we couldn't do the job so we will blame others... a little news flash for you.....since you like numbers 80% of the GOP could have said "NO" and this still could have passed....(again DEM majority)..Pelosi failed.....period...it doesnt matter what the GOP says or does...this was a DEM Bill.....Bush/Paulson (3pages) was not what was voted on....the DEM bill (110 or so), constructed by DEM leadership, FAILED because...they didnt get 20 more votes...because they are not really Leaders...they DID not want their (DEM) names on it, Like Obama wants to be tied to nothing, so do the Pelosi Dems. Pelosi didn't even use her whip to get 20 more votes....DEM Majority DEM BILL....DeMs failed at LEADING...you should be embarrased!
All Pelosi did was tell the TRUTH — that this disaster was caused by the corruption, stupidity and irresponsibility of the Republicans who controlled Congress and the White House from 2001-2006.
But Republicans think telling the Truth is a strongly Partisan act — because, as Steve Colbert has noted, Reality has a Liberal Bias.
133 Republicans voted against it. 133. Against a bill demanded by George Bush and his Treasury Secretary. And you're going to blame Pelosi because SHE couldnt round up enough votes? And because she gave what was essentially the usual boilerplate partisan speeches that you hear before a big bill goes to vote? And hurt the delicate feewings of 12 Republicans? Give me a break.
Let's see, a Republican president submits a Republican bill before congress and somehow it's the Democratic House Leader's fault that 70% of Republicans voted against it? Yeah, right.
You guys are going to need new talking points if you expect anyone to buy that sack of BS.
DON WILLIAM...get you head out of the sand....another one who refuses to let FACTS get in the way of HIS reality.......Waks up Don...your life is calling......
Nancy Pelosi should be forced to step down as speaker. This debacle is merely the latest in a 2 year long history of failure to accomplish anything - not anything of importance, mind you, anythng at all! The venomous partisanship with which she conducted this bailout vote indicates one of 2 things; either she is moronically stupid and incompetent or breathtakingly arrogant. Maybe both, God nelp us. If she could not muster her own subcommittee chairpeople and her own state caucus to vote yes, then something is seriously wrong.
Again...if your GOP with Bush your and Idiot and If you are GOP and against Bush....you are an idiot...will you Dems make up your mind....Maybe this was a bad bill.....maybe only the fat cats you always cry about...are the one who really need this...maybe we (Mainstreet)dont need this...maybe....we don't need more of you social eng. Maybe everything is just over inflated....you see gas was down like $10.00 a barrel???? every time they say this crap will pass gas goes up....it fails gas goes down...see any correlation....Brooksfoe???
(no flatulence jokes were intended)LOL
1) I am glad the bailout bill was defeated , however. Because compromise by the Democrats had resulted in a bad bill.
2) What Pelosi needs to do is to include a $2 Trillion Income Surtax on the 3 percent richest part of the Population to pay for the trainwreck they have created.
3)After all, the top 3 percent of the population own much of the national wealth and hence are the ones at risk of loss in this trainwreck. ( Top 1 percent alone owns 33 percent.)
4) The top 3 percent Superrich are also the people whose irresponsibility and greed caused this mess. Does anyone think Wall Street works for Joe Sixpack?
5) Bush is trying to do the same thing he did in 2001 and 2003. Transfer $2 Trillion to the Superrich with a tax cut. Transfer the Iraq oil reservoirs to the Superrich at a cost of $1 Trillion for military operations.
Pay for the above by stealing $3 Trillion out of the workers Social Security/Medicare accounts.
6) The same thing will be attempted with this bailout for the Rich, if the Surtax is not made a condition of the Bailout.
Mitch McConnell will filibuster any post-Bailout attempt to raise taxes on the Superrich.
7)Why should low paid blue collar workers have to pay for the debts of Superrich Wall Street gamblers? Any losses in middle class 401Ks will be more than outweighed by the $31,000 in debt this will dump on middle class households.
It wasn't that Pelosi's speech hurt their feelings - it was the timing and content of the speech. She was saying that everything bad that ever happened was all the fault of the Republicans and Bush, and that this awful bill would fix it. For a lot of the GOP members, to vote for the bill would have been to ratify Pelosi's interpretation of history, and it would have been very hard to undo it later. John Boehner didn't give a speech castigating Barney Frank for his kid glove treatment of Fannie and Freddie, the friends of Angelo mortgages and the prominent Dem ties to the housing mess like Johnson, Raines and Gorelick. He knows all that stuff, but he is also smart enough to know when to keep his trap shut to try to get a difficult bill passed. Nancy (i) is not that smart (very possible - botox in the brain), (ii) is so rabidly partisan that she simply could not help herself (awesome trait in a "leader", or (iii) wanted to blow up the deal. Whatever the case, the Republican leadership voted for the bill and did not go out of their way to antagonize the Dems prior to voting - unlike Pelosi.
As a conservative I am usually quite grateful for Pelosi's gross incompetence, but this time not so much.
1938- FDR (Democrat) creates Fannie Mae
1968- LBJ (Democrat) privatizes Fannie Mae to remove it from the Federal Budget due to fiscal pressures of Viet Nam War
1970- Nixon (Republican) Freddie Mac created
1977- Carter (Democrat) Community Reinvestment Act
1992- Congress grants HUD Secretary A. Cuomo (D) under Clinton Administration (Democrat) power of regulation of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, beginning of over-priced, unsupportable, no money down loans through FHA
2001- Bush (Republican) FY02 Administration Budget declares that FMae and FMac as potential problem
2002- Bush (Republican) calls for FMac and FMae follow same rules as as outlined in his 10-point plan of corporate responsibility
2003- Bush (Republican) Treasury Secretary John Snow (R) testifies before House Financial Services Committee
2004- Bush (Republican) Admistration calls for new regulatory supervision for GSE's.
2005- Bush (Republican, John Snow (R) repeats call for GSE reform
2007- Bush (Republican) calls on Congress to reform FMae and FMac
IT'S ALL BUSH'S FAULT, JUST ASK NANCY "I'M TOTALLY CLUELESS" PELOSI
Re BigR's comment "Again...if your GOP with Bush your and Idiot and If you are GOP and against Bush....you are an idiot...will you Dems make up your mind...."
--
I already made up my mind. Republicans are crooks whose dishonesty caused this national disaster -- and they are also crooks who are trying to evade their obvious responsibility and who are dragging the country into the abyss by refusing to fix the mess they caused.
Megan: "The ultimate blame for this failure has to be laid at her feet."
There are plenty of actors who contributed richly to the failure of the bill, and Pelosi certainly shares some of the blame. To select her as the "ultimate" culprit is crude at best.
I greatly enjoy Megan's posts on the economy, but her anti-politician fury is shallow and banal. It is supremely easy to find examples of foolish behavior from politicians facing this crisis. How about all those financial experts who assured the customers and the public that everything was fine? I am sure Megan could write much more interestingly on this subject.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/29/AR2008092903523_pf.html
read it and retract Meg!
Pelosi committed and delivered more then what she promised to the minority leader. What the hell else was she supposed to do?
The GOP owns this one, and making excuses for them doesn't change that.
BigR:
...A...bill...to...bail...out...Wall...Street...is...neither...a...socialist...bill...nor...a...Democratic...priority.
And now, I will return to correct English punctuation, rather than your preferred Batman-style ellipses.
This bill is a Republican priority. That's why George W. Bush, Henry Paulson, and John McCain fought for it. Democrats went along with it because the Democrats are the majority and there was a sense it was a national economic priority. But the bill was a painful necessity which everyone knew would be unpopular, because low-information voters who don't understand the financial system, such as yourself, would not approve of it. (High-information voters might also disapprove of it, but for different reasons.)
That creates what is known in game theory as a "free rider problem": it is in every individual congressman's interest to vote against the bill, in order to evade responsibility for it, so long as they're sure it will pass. The problem for a political leader in this situation is to ensure the bill passes without allowing one party to free-ride on the other party's responsibility.
The GOP free-rode on the Democrats' responsibility so hard they killed the horse. Now, the GOP can pass the bill tomorrow if it comes back in some version. Or they can accept responsibility for killing the bill, and the economy: they voted against it. But they can't say "I voted to kill the economy, but it wasn't my fault."
This is a simple thing. The Democratic Party voted for this bill, reluctantly. The GOP voted against it, defiantly. The GOP killed the bill. They bear the consequences. I'm not sure why you even care, since you obviously think it's a good thing the bill was killed.
Of course the Democrats have a majority in the House and could easily have passed the bill, but 95 Democrats voted against it. So much for Party Leadership.
P.S. "Home ownership isn't for everyone", Paul Krughman 2008
To be clear, as much as I blame the Dems for nurturing manyt/most of the policies and institutions that led to this crisis, I also blame the GOP for not being the adults and taking a harder line to prevent it. For not truly calling Freddie and Fannie on the carpet back when it might have made a difference. The GOP lost congress in 2006 because they deserved to - they weren't being conservatives and they weren't being good representatives. They were a long way from the 1994 "Contract With America". Most of the idea guys like Gingrich were gone, replaced by guys who were just in it for the power and perks, like DeLay (all politicians are in it for the power, but some also have other, lkess venal reasons). Anyway, the voters quite understandably handed the GOP its walking papers in 2006, but they were replaced with a congress that was really no better - while it took the GOP 12 years to descend to the place where voters wanted a change, the Dems have been corrupt and hyper-partisan from day one, detirimined to run out the clock on the Bush Admin and sabotage the economy to ensure the election of Obama this November. Instead of trying to work with reformer GOPers on basic good governance issues, they have sheilded the most corrupt among them (Jefferson, Frank, Rangel, etc) and have in fact let them keep their high-profile chaimanships). As long as Bush is around to be blamed for everything, the Dem Congress never has to actually take responsibility.
And with this, Megan cements her reputation not as a real intellectual but as a GOP appliance programmed to speak predetermined talking points at predetermined times.
Madam Speaker Pelosi was too clever by half.
The fact is that she didn't want her Democrats in contested districts voting in favor of the bill. She did want Republicans (at least 100) voting for the bill, especially those in contested districts, to vote for the bill.
Then, she would blame the Republicans for creating the problem and then voting for the questionable solution. A solution that no one is certain will do as much harm as good.
Personally, I don't believe Madam Speaker's highly charged speech was the decision maker in the vote. The fix was in by the Democrats and, as typical, she simply was speaking from her dark heart.
Thanks for this post Megan. It helps remind me why I dropped my subscription to The Atlantic.
After two years of not allowing House Republicans to have any meaningful input into any major legislative action by the House (most closed rules in history, locking House Republicans out of conference negotiations, etc.) -- it's pretty damn rich to all of sudden insist that House Republicans have to shoulder their share of the burden.
Even given that history, the House Republican leadership strongly supported the bailout in the face of widespread opposition in their caucus. A Republican leadership that - I would add - is certain to be challenged for their posts after the election by the very same Members of their caucus who opposed the bailout.
Hahahahahahahaha.
You're so full of crap, you can't even keep track of when you're lying anymore.
May the GOP go the way of the Whigs now. Good Bye!
Gotta love bestweather at 9:35 AM: the reason for the crisis is that Carter and Clinton forced banks to lend money to the darkies!
Pelosi is looking haunted today. She has that look like, "Oops, I fucked up royally and now the economy is going to go down in flames."
This is why people don't really like women leaders. They can't get over the elementary school playground games. She just HAD to shoot her mouth off. The beeyotch just couldn't STFU for the good of the country.
yo, Bob, with the "Fannie and Freddie are corrupt Democratic supporters" argument rollin' up there. . . ever heard of Rick Davis?
Yea, Zeitgeist, I've heard of him and that his firm were among the firms employed to lobby for the now failed GSEs...
Have you ever heard of Franklin Raines, Jim Johnson, and Jamie Gorelick..?
Or maybe UBS' massive subprime portfolio? Or their lobbyist Phil Gramm?
Yea Zeitgeist, I've heard about a lot of firms that have massive subprime portfolios. As I mentioned, the now-failed GSE's heartily encouraged those type of loans by buying them up as fast as they could; mostly so they could point to the re-bundling and sale of those loans as profitably fullfilling their raison d'etre and not only falsely increase their in house bonuses but to push off that toxic paper throughout the system.
And, while not very politic and unable to ever achieve regulatory success, just what does Phil Graham have to do with any of this..?
just checking to see if you're as uninformed as you are dogmatic. although i'm pretty sure i know the answer.
Yea Zeitgeist, you smug Obama trolls always know the answers to your rhetorical and asinine questions. And as far as dogmatic...Well I dont see any of Mav's bunch sabotaging websites, overloading phones lines and e-mail boxes in order to cut-off discussion of any inconvenient truths, using law enforcement officials to intimidate political opponents, and engage in all types of shout down behavior; you all are the new brownshirts being encouraged to get in the face of opponents by a callow empty suit candidate, who comes from the locus of these stron-arm tactics in our country...
I just wanna know, do you get paid by the letter, word, post, or flat salary; or perhaps you are one of those zealots that are working pro-bono...
Posted by zeitgeist | September 30, 2008 12:16 AM
Before you finger wag at anyone over being dogmatic of uninformed, you better put down the kool-aid, son, open your eyes, and see the world as it really is...
Absolutely, Pelosi is to blame.
One doesn't negotiate a delicate cease-fire and then deliver a SPECTACULARLY incindiary speech just before the peace treaty is to be signed.
She knew what she was doing. She didn't become Speaker of the House through a lack of understanding politics.
She is playing politics with this crisis! Remember how mad it made Democrats when the Republicans were 'playing politics with 9-11'? This is no different. She is relying on the publics' knee-jerk reaction of blaming Republicans for this crisis to bury their chances in the upcoming elections. (See most of the comments here, for example.) And she's willing to bleed all Americans to do it.
How cynical!
I'd be willing to bet that 90% of the readers on this board have NO IDEA how this crisis came to be or who and what is responsible.
I'd say Pelosi agrees with me.
If CNN, FOX, and MSNBC don't spell it out, it's like it never happened. Right?
Please, start asking questions!! Find the facts!!
"How and why did this happen?"
"Who made such a crisis possible?"
It started with the subprime loans mess.
But what STARTED the massive quantity of subprime loans?
Find the answer to this question and discover just how cynical and arrogant Pelosi was to destroy the bill that Paulson, literally, got down on his knees and begged her to pass.
So far, it's cost us $1 trillion+ with no end in sight. Don't wait until you're in the bread lines to wonder "gee, how did I end up here?".
Free yourselves of the chains of partisanship and demand action!!! The well-being of all Americans depends on this.
Prove The Atlantic isn't just a magazine that people read to feign intelligence and put on airs.
Megan's makes a point worth reviewing. Regardless of how you analyze all the peripheral issues, Pelosi's delivery in the well was pointless and wanton. It is reasonable to believe that Pelosi's speech polarized a few undecided Republican members that ultimately voted to defeated the bill.
Not only is Megan McArdle wholly incompetent, but now she's a Republican tool. Nice combination: Stupid and partisan.
Last time I looked, Nancy Pelosi was the House Democratic leader. I listened to her speech and read her speech. She got off a few shots at Bush and his policies yesterday. Not only is that her job as the Democratic leader, but Bush is one of the worst presidents in American history. He has done a horrible job, and the bailout can (and should) be laid at his doorstep.
The idea that the Republicans can excuse their failure by pointing at that speech is preposterous enough, but for McArdle to accept it and repeat it is outrageous. The Atlantic Monthly might as well just slap the Republican Party's press releases onto the Internet and be done with it.
Come on, Atlantic. Get an "economics columnist" who knows the first thing about the subject, and who isn't some Fox News bimbo in print. This is ridiculous.
Re JoeB's comment "Find the answer to this question "
---------
The answer to the question is that Republicans are corrupt dumbshits who think that theft is not discovered -- and that lying will let them evade be held accountable for their incompetence.
HERE is what the Republican Congress said in 2006 about the housing bubble:
"“Over the last several years, the housing and real estate sectors have experienced `bubble-like’ conditions. After increasing rapidly and persistently for a number of years, housing permits, starts, existing and new home sales, and other housing-related indicators breeched new record territory. Real estate prices increased dramatically.
Many economists have predicted a `bubble-like’ adjustment to this run-up in asset prices. Others point out that real-estate `bubbles’ are largely regional and not national in nature. Therefore, there is little the national government can or should do to rectify these problems, aside from maintaining the central bank’s role as a lender of last resort. Additionally, financial firms can better manage risk than was earlier the case. And bank portfolios are in better shape than they were previously. These considerations, together with the fact that the current decline in real estate asset prices has not yet produced the many serious problems pessimists have predicted, has led others (including former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan) to contend that our real estate problems are mostly behind us. ”
-------
ha ha ha
Source for above: 2006 Joint Economic Report (Majority Opinion) issued by the House and Senate Banking Committees in the 109th Republican Congress , from section titled "Brief Overview"
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&maxdocs=500&variant=y&sid=TSOPZqrb4&refer=&r_n=hr726.109&db_id=109&item=&&w_p=Joint+Economic&attr=0&sel=TOC_4803&
Available at
Find the answer to this question and discover just how cynical and arrogant Pelosi was to destroy the bill that Paulson, literally, got down on his knees and begged her to pass.
So far, it's cost us $1 trillion+ with no end in sight. Don't wait until you're in the bread lines to wonder "gee, how did I end up here?".
Free yourselves of the chains of partisanship and demand action!!
If you're such a big fan of the bailout, then why don't you have anything to say about the 133 Republicans who oppose it?
Why are you preoccupied with Pelosi, who supported it?
Is it because you're *gasp* playing politics?
I'm shocked! Bread lines are coming and you're playing politics making anonymous comments on a message board! This is really shocking!
I was going to vote for John McCain but I don't think I can anymore. I will never vote Republican again after this shocking incident.
"It is reasonable to believe that Pelosi's speech polarized a few undecided Republican members that ultimately voted to defeated the bill."
That it is. It's also reasonable to believe that those who were dissuaded by Pelosi's speech have no business being in the House.
Whoops, I screwed up the italics.
JoeB wrote:
Find the answer to this question and discover just how cynical and arrogant Pelosi was to destroy the bill that Paulson, literally, got down on his knees and begged her to pass.
So far, it's cost us $1 trillion+ with no end in sight. Don't wait until you're in the bread lines to wonder "gee, how did I end up here?".
Free yourselves of the chains of partisanship and demand action!!
If you're such a big fan of the bailout, then why don't you have anything to say about the 133 Republicans who oppose it?
Why are you preoccupied with Pelosi, who supported it?
Is it because you're *gasp* playing politics?
I'm shocked! Bread lines are coming and you're playing politics making anonymous comments on a message board! This is really shocking!
I was going to vote for John McCain but I don't think I can anymore. I will never vote Republican again after this shocking incident.
– Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN): “We are not babies who suck their thumbs.”
– Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO): “I think you don’t want to give too much blame to that speech.”
– Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ): “It was embarrassing for leadership on both parties to lose the bill, so they went out and made a stupid claim.”
– Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN): “That speech was not the reason I voted against the bill.” [MSNBC, 9/30/08]
Already this morning the RNC has released an ad for swing states bashing the Democrats for supporting this (Republican) plan. They must have had it in the can even before the vote yesterday.
This is precisely why you will not get the Democrats to pass your clean-up bill without a matching Republican majority, and why you are either naive or duplicitous to even suggest we should.
TAX THE RICH TO PAY FOR THE BAILOUT.
THEY MADE THE MOST OFF THIS "MARKET"
LET THEM PICK UP THE PEICES.
Ever notice how its "do nothing" or "cut all govt. services", But theres endless money for Georgia or Iraq. Strange how the RICH PEOPLE who appear on TV or write collumns never breach the idea that the bailout should have a dedicated tax to pay for it.
When the Oligarchs screw up the peasants have to pay?
TAXTHERICHTOPAYFORTHEBAILOUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This whole crisis is the fault of Republicans like Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Franklin Raines !
If Pelosi is incompetent, then lets all share her incompetency pills (Sarah Palin should sure try a few).
Who'se been blamed for all this? Not Nancy.
The Republicans tried to set her up to pass what would seem a Dems only bill. Then they would attack the principles behind the bailout.
Sounds to me like Nancy had a Plan B for this eventuality and put it into effect.
Sure, any GOP House member who voted NAY just because of Pelosi's speech is a fool, but if the speaker really wanted this bill passed, why did she make remarks that would alienate the key GOP votes she needed to do it? That simply makes no sense, and is equally foolish. There was plenty of time for her to give a statement to this effect AFTER the vote. Either Speaker Pelosi is a fool (and I believe few fools would ascend to the third highest office in the land), or she is an adept politician wanting to sabotage Bush's bill and blame it on his GOP colleagues. What else could be achieved by her obviously inappropriately partisan remarks than to reduce the number of votes for the measure?
I think I can sum it all up for everyone:
10% approval rating for Congress. That's what it's become since Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid took over.
These assclowns would have been ridden out of town by the Founding Fathers.
Nancy Pelosi is not qualified to be the speaker of the house, she should resign.
These conservatives are so intellectually dishonest, it's what destroying the GOP. This is about the third piece I've read today that basically blames the real culprits the Republicans but is always prefaced by several paras of abuse of Pelosi. Now let me see... Pelosi has been busting her ass for two weeks to pass this necessary stinker that came from a Republican administration, is overwhelmingly supported by a Republican president, Republican senators and the Republican house leadership. She delivered two thirds of her party to vote for it while two thirds of the Republicans voted against it. And she screwed up....what's wrong with this picture. This didn't get passed because of Republican obscurantism which as David Brooks points out in this morning's NYT is destroying the GOP. The public knows whose responsible for this as the new ABC poll shows and as the recession deepens I and David Brooks know who is going to pick up the tab and it won't be Pelosi. And for the lamebrains trotting out the usual 12% bumper stick slogans replete with the standard obscenities they need to ask themselves why the Republicans are in a blue funk about their house and senate seats in November.
If the GOP really wanted to do the responsible thing, free of politics, why were they CUTTING ADS PINNING THE BILL ON THE DEMOCRATS even as they postured about being in favor of the bill?
What fucking hypocrites you Republicans are. Luckily, the current leadership is also arrogant and stupid, so their machinations are finally becoming obvious to the public at large. It's pitchfork and torch time for the people who brought this crisis on.
I hope you enjoy the next decade or so you'll be spending in the political wilderness.
Pelosi is not blameless (her speech before the vote was unneccesarily partisan), but I would like to know what McCain promised the Republicans who voted NO. The bill was on track to pass before McCain showed up.
Hmmmm. If Comrade Peloskivich is so damn good, who didn't she and her fellow comrades just write a good bill that 100% of them could vote for and then just tell the Republicans to sit on it? What am I missing?
well...proximate causes dont really matter at this point.
you simply cannot persuade the same people that think poor Sarah Palin is an "adequate" VP candidate that intellectually the dems caused this with legislative machinations.
there is an IQ-gap operating here.
the downballot fallout from this is going to cost more republican seats than dem seats.
I for one welcome Our New Liberal Alignment Overlords.
lol
Pelosi is such a jerk.
Listen to Rep. Beohner's impassioned speech on the floor and then listen to Pelosi. What a contrast.
Pelosi is a political hack and this is her failure period. This crisis is every bit a fault of Democrats as Republicans period....Check out the fact from every source and don't make dumb statements like Pelosi about who is to blame. If everyone who failed the American people were to resign from Congress their would be very few left.
This failed by 10 votes. 13 Democrats from Barney Franks Banking Committee, the committe which has direct oversight of Fannie and Freddie, did not vote for this package. You have got to be kidding if you think Republican are solely to blame for this...Grow up and wake up. Any politician in a tough re-election race from both parties except for 1 Dem and 1 Repub voted against this. This was reported on numerous media outlets including ironically MSNBC and FOX.
Pelosi wanted this to pass but wanted to be able to beat up everyone else for passing it as it is very unpopular with the average person.
Oh please, 9 Republicans spoke on the floor after Nancy and not one of them commented on her speech. They were so upset yet couldn't express their outrage until they were in front of a reporter? I just don't buy it.
Let me just add my voice to those crying "bullshit." Pelosi brought 2/3rds of her members on board for this unpopular bill, more than expected. Bush and McCain saw 2/3rds of their members bail--even after McCain's theatrics last week. Tell me again how this is Pelosi's failure of leadership?
The GOP is backing off this ridiculous claim.
Will you?
If Comrade Peloskivich is so damn good, who didn't she and her fellow comrades just write a good bill that 100% of them could vote for and then just tell the Republicans to sit on it? What am I missing?
Go read Jon's comment at 11:49 AM.
My opinion of all this is that Ms. Pelosi did not accomplish anything good in her little tirade, other than to make 232 people voice their opinion here. It didn't have to be said - it really served no purpose. Her pant suit was nice, however.
Wow, this is piss poor analysis. This was absolutely the best outcome for Pelosi and the Democrats (and is, arguably, a better outcome for the country).
1) The bill was not great as is, hopefully they will make some changes and take some different measures (for instance, what Dodd is proposing with the FDIC in the House).
2) The original plan was for there to be an equal number of D and R votes, and the Ds did more than their share on the vote count. Hence, the Rs are saddled with the burden of having killed the bailout bill and inciting the sell-off yesterday.
3) Because of the sell-off yesterday, public opinion on the idea of a bailout has turned quite a bit. While people are still more against it than for it, it is no longer 5/95, and more like 30/40/30. So, when the bill does pass, the Ds will not get saddled with the burden of pushing through something unpopular.
This was a complete disaster for the Rs. If they had given up those extra 12 votes, the market would have rallied and the populist revolt would have gotten even stronger. The Rs would have pledged many less votes than the Ds and would have thus been able to pin the bill on the Ds. It would have been an astounding political victory.
Pelosi played this absolutely brilliantly.
Of course it was Nancy Pelosi's fault. She runs this 110th Do Nothing Democrat Congress doesn't she?
When the GOP ran the House they got all the blame because "they" ran it. NOW the Democrats run it so they are have to be the responsible ones. The Dems didn't need (1) Republican vote they have the majority.
FYI...... Folks need to get the FACTS of this story because it's the Democrats that are responsible for this mess.
It didn't START on Wallstreet..........This CANCER started in Fannie and Freddie that held over 50% of all mortgages and both were run by liberal Democrats, Jim Johnson, Obama's veep vetter was one of them.
Fannie and Freddie are quasi-government agencies.......FYI again.
The "bad moves" that were made by the liberal Democrats running Fannie and Freddie has brought Wall Street and our economy to their knees.
The last thing this country needs is a President that hate "business" too...........
I do give Pelosi credit for cancelling a Botox session yesterday.
wow -- did any one listen to the speeches given by Republican representatives? They were much more unyielding, partisan and ideological than anything Pelosi said.
The Democrats are right to challenge the Republicans to produce the name of a single person who changed his or her vote because of what Pelosi said on the floor. No one has -- or will -- come forward, because to do so is to admit to profound pettiness, or what Brooks rightly dubbed nihilism, at a gravely serious time in our nation's history. I think the public can deal with someone who has a deep belief that assisting the free markets is unhealthy in the long term, and also someone who says, "My constituents were simply against this bill, so I was too."
But to say, "I was willing to vote for it, but I didn't because I wanted to punish the speaker for her 'partisanship'" is so extraordinarily selfish and small-minded that it boggles the mind. Which is why no one will admit to having done that. No one.
I predict Kantor's moment of holding Pelosi's speech up to the camera and blaming it for the bill's failure will go down as epic -- and politically fatal -- blunder. It was a moment that made one want to cry out: where are the grown ups?
A true free marketeer would say that if this is the kind of leadership Americans choose for themselves, they deserve what they get.
Pelosi is pond scum. Had she just kept her Fat Mouth shut, she might have passed this bill. See You Next Tuesday, Nancy.....
Everyone hear seems to have knowledge of everything that went on behind the scenes, Who was going to deliver what, what the actual agreement was, etc... Unless you were there, all one ha is the accounts by partisans involved and the media which today reports the news but only after adding their own spin.
Bottom line, the party in power sets the agenda. If the votes weren't there, this should not have been brought to the floor for a vote yet. Ultimately, when there is failure, it falls on the leader, in this case Pelosi. Lets assume that 10 this bill truly needs to be passed and 2) those R's that (supposedly) changed their vote did so due to Pelosi's speech prior to the vote. Only an idiot would make the comments Pelosi made prior to the vote. Those comments could have been made after the vote was taken and the bill passed. This would have avoided most doubt and made it easier to assess blame if the measure had still failed.
Pelosi simply showed her partisan face (because she can't control herself), her lack of judgement, and demonstrated she lacks the leadership skills necessary for the position she holds.
You DEMONcrats amaze me!!!! Your precious Bill Clinton hit squads forced the banks to do business "their way or the highway" and now we dumb Americans are forced to pay for those mistakes. The DEMONcrats conveniently forget their 2004 vehement defense of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac when REPUBLICANS desperately tried to warn them. Maxine Waters and Barney Frank denied there were ANY problems and claimed the REPULICANS were striking fear in a perfect and sound program. I am so SICK of hearing those disgusting morons Frank, Dodd and that freak Pelosi try to blame the REPUBLICANS. I hope every damn one of them running for office get ousted in November and when John McCain gets in office I want him to name names and start prosecuting!!!!!!!!!!!!
How are the repubs quilty? Who controls both houses? Who protected Fannie Mae for years? You kool-aid drinkers really don't care about the facts. Tip o0'Neill would never have brought a bill to the floor without a cover.
At the end of the day, despite the god-awful work by the leadership on both sides, the country was saved from a bad bill. I hate to say it, but the most-conservative members of the Republican wing have it right in this case--use the stroke of a pen to implement a couple of key stop gap measures, primarily doubling, or even tripling, the amount of any single party's money that is FDIC insured, and then go from there . . .
Ther should be more Lehman's and fewer AIG's . . . . .
Nancy Pelosi knew exactly what she was doing. She can count votes. She knew that republican votes would be as scarce as hen's teeth on this one. She didn't want this pig to pass, and she wanted to blame its failure on the republicans. She succeeded on both counts.
Whiskey had it right at beginning. Either Pelosi knew what she was doing ... causing the republicans to cause the failure ... and wants things to look bad so Obama wins
OR, if she really wanted it to pass because she thinks it is necessary ... then she is putting her need to get in a jab at the Republicans ahead of the well-being of the country. Either way, she is a mennace at this point.
It was laughable seeing the Republican "leadership" in front of the cameras blaming Pelosi for their failure to get their members in line. Let me get this straight, these grown men, elected officials no less, abdicated their constitutional responsibility to do what they think is best for the country because the mean lady from California said some mean things about them. That's what happened, right? What a freakin' joke.
@ Sheila: Anyone who thinks this mess was caused by free market principles is a fscking moron. Period. This was caused by the do-gooders deciding that "the poor" need access to loans they can't possibly pay because they are....guess what? Poor.
Hey, let's force banks to give loans to people who by definition can't pay them back. That's brilliant. No one saw the bottom falling out of that idiotic proposition did they?
So yeah, it was the "free-market" that caused this. Moron.
Nanct Pelosi is nothing more than the usual invective throwing Democrat who should admit that House Leader is just way past her pay grade. That she could not resist trashing Republicans one more time all the while begging for their support....well it just shows that she is as partisan as she is ineffective.
Now,if the Democrats think this is such a great deal for us then why don't they just go ahead and pass it. Note to Nancy: Nancy. Baby. You hold the power in the house. Just do it. Oh I know, I know, many Democrats would go down with this in the next election. Pity.
If Democrats do not understand that there are some things more important than getting elected they do not deserve to be in Congress. I am not sure they deserve to be let loose in society
Isn't anybody on here upset about the real crime committed? Manipulating the individual votes to allow certain representatives to be able to vote yes or no depending on whether they are in tight races or vulnerable seats so as to be able to save themselves. They should all play russian roulette with a full cylinder....
It was Pelosi's job to get enough votes. She failed, and the buck stops with her and her alone. You can't blame others.
The simplest explanation is that Pelosi is too stupid to lead. Someone please put her out of our misery.
Also, should her leadership have all voted for the bill? How about those on the banking committee?
She didn't count her votes and you're right, she kicked the people who don't like her and whose votes she needed.
Perhaps she could get another vote and those extra 12 votes if she offered up Barney Frank as a sacrificial lamb. Considering his abject failure as a leader in running cover for Fannie and Freddie as they created this mess, he should lose his chairmanship and seniority on the committee.
no Mike, it was a bipartisan deal, worked out in advance.
Megan is right about one thing...Pelosi had an opportunity for personal greatness.
She could have gone down in the history books as a savior.
She could have stopped the market bleed and harvested all kind of bipartisan street props for the future.
She didnt.
Like McCain, she went for tactics instead of strategy.
The bailout is tactical. We need it.
So that there can be strategy.
;)
What Pelosi did was simply the bidding of "The Obama'. Everyday that the economy is on the front pages is a bad day for the party in the White House and a Good day for the party outside of the White House. Pelosi simply played brutal partisan politics on behalf of "The ONE" Anybody who has taken time to actually explore Obama's background and watch him in action for the past year has no doubt that he is determined to be President. No matter the cost. Losing a war, crashing the economy...no matter! A man that would out is own Grandmother as a racist is not a man that is overly concerned with whether the economy colapses. After all "He is the one we've been waiting for". I'm sure if the economy fails he think he can put it together in no time when he is President. Just think...."The ONE", Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid running the country. And we appear to be going in exactly that direction? Its like having a seat on the Titanic!
There are a couple of "Mike"s in here. Just in case anyone's confused.
Think about this a different way. Think of Pelosi’s speech as perhaps a feint-within-a-feint. If she realized that she was going to get sabotaged by Boehner and his cronies, wasn’t this the smartest thing she could have done? I.e., call the Republicans’ bluff, give a speech with some tempting partisan bait and then, once the Republican saboteurs sprung their trap and “blamed” Pelosi’s "too-partisan" speech, they come off looking like ridiculous idiots and the American people blame the Republicans for the whole mess. A pretty shrewd Aikido move, in my estimation.
Actually the approval rating for Congress is ONLY 9%.. and has fallen under Pelosi's leadership from the high of 35% when the Democrats took over to now. Thats the facts ma'am, just the facts.
i agree on your take on pelosi and reid, they made the house repubicans -- cantor, boehner, ryan -- look like grownups.
but here's the thing. i keep on hearing the sky is falling but this isn't money we have. where are the $700 billion coming from? and why are the markets resuring today? and why did the price of oil go down? and why did the market go up when we declined to bail out lehman brothers.
this reminds me of the pre-iraq war craziness. everyone said there WMD. and it's the same gang. and the DEMS who have made a career the last two years of saying they were lied to are trusting the same people.
why didn't they have a few full fledged hearings with some economists and industrialists outside of govt.
Impeach Pelosi, Dodd & Frank.
The Democrates have had the majority in Congress for two years now. Where are all the promises they made. What accomplishments can they claim.
Nancy and her cronies new exactly what she was doing. The people did not want this bill so she tried to railroad the Repubs into passing it so they(Dems) would not get blamed for passing an unpopular bill. IMPEACH this dictator..
The analysis was right on, until that bit about republicans not acting like adults, putting aside their partisan rancor, at least for the sake of the country; and the democrats have been responsible adults while committing acts of treason during war, because it hasn't been a Romper Room war of perfection for liberals raised in Mr. Roger's Neighborhood?
This is suposed to be the gov't "of the people, for the people, and by the people". The people spoke. Let's just leave it at that and have some faith in the free enterprise system we used to be so proud of. Why should we, the people, be required to bear the responsiblity for the bad decisions and greed of others in their business dealings?
The sky is not going to fall in.
Old Dude
Some other comment here states that "responsibility for the failure of this bill begins and ends with the House GOP", to which I say...
THANG GOD THERE'S A HOUSE GOP.
It's about time someone in Washington actually listened to the people they represent. America doesn't WANT this "crap sandwich" and those who would receive the funds don't deserve it. There are a hundred other, better ways to bring relief to this situation. Increasing the size and scope of the government is the only one the Democrats know, but as usual that's the worst option and we're fortunate the House GOP decided to explore better ones.
The initial proposal as presented to the Congress and the nation by Paulson and President Bush did nothing to elevate the credibility of the president and the administration, which was already quite diminished. It was devoid of substance except for the attempt to run roughshod over the constitution. If you wanted to stimulate opposition to a bill which would be difficult to swallow under any circumstances, this would be one way to do so.
The larger context, however, is that no one has a good grasp of the full dimensions of the crisis nor do they have an idea of what might be required to address it, other than bailing out a lot of bankrupt paper.
The radical free marketeers insist that on principle they can't support it because it violates their concept of government non-intervention in the markets. Yet it was precisely that failure of government to oversee and regulate the markets that led to the crisis to begin with.
The markets became speculative casinos where any form of speculative financial instrument could be created and traded. Anything could and was "commoditized." Banks abandoned their traditional function and jumped headlong into this new speculative binge; and it is not by any means confined to only the mounds of bad mortgages that have triggered the current crisis. It goes way beyond that.
The bailout might temporarily forestall a collapse of the financial system and economy but it won't solve the underlying crisis.
Many of them voted against the bill, for reasons different from (or in addition to) reelection.
Its not as if they all start with your opinion of the bailout bill, but then don't vote for it because of political calculations. While I'm sure political calculations played a roll, as they normally do, many Republicans where against this bill as a matter of principle and/or for what they see as pragmatic ideas about what's best for the country.
Hey, Megan, even the GOP has dropped those talking points as being too ludicrous for words. Bwahahaha, you hurt my feelings so I will trash the economy just doesn't cut it as a rationale for the GOP vote.
Indictment coming! Well Mr. Obama should have been vetted by the msm. Mr. Rezko is cooperating with the feds and turning on the messiah as well as the Gov. of Illinois. You heard it first from me, a little birdie told me this will happen in the next few weeks! Maybe now people will realize why Bill Clinton has been so smug the last few weeks.
Pelosi, and that moron Barney Frank wanted to give everyone a house they could not afford. And you idiots support this crap sandwich. Thank GOD the Republicians held firm and dumped this communist bailout.
I continue to oppose the bill, as written. There is a private sector solution. There are trillions of private dollars that could be incentivized to buy the underlying real estate, if Congress would get off the idea of spending our money. Wall Street is filled with fear, right now. But Wall Street is also motivated by greed. If Congress would provide sufficient incentives (i.e. appeal to investor greed) we could get away from the need for the 700 Billion.
What we need is the following: incentives sufficient to motivate the investor class to buy all the unsold RE inventory, as investments. If ALL the unsold RE inventory were eliminated, the value of all that toxic paper would start to improve. We are a capitalist nation. Let's have a capitalist solution!
Megan, you're a very smart journalist and blogger, but you've attracted a bunch of very stupid, fact-challenged commenters.
This problem was not "caused by the Republicans." There is no credible explanatoin of what went wrong that doesn't start with the Community Reinvestment Act revisions and Congressional pressure to the financial industry to make more loans to more and more unqualified borrowers for home mortgages. Past that, the blame mostly falls on Wall Street itself, the leaders of companies who didn't understand what so much of their store of securities were based on.
There were some who saw this coming even a decade ago, who wrote about it, proposed legislation and tried to head it off. They are almost all Republicans or conservative pundits and they were opposed by leading Democrats, including Chris Dodd and Barney Frank.
The beneficiaries of the bailout are not "mostly Republicans." Wall Street has for many years been Democratic territory in terms of campaign giving. But setting that aside, the point of the plan is to allow key parts of the world's credit infrastructure to function so that you and I can get our kids' student loans, or buy a car, or meet payroll.
Of course, it's ridiculous if there were Republicans who voted against the bill because of Pelosi's speech. But how would you feel if you heard that the leader of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee pledging to use any GOP 'yes' votes against them? That's what he did, yesterday. I'm sure those comments were circulated widely in the halls of Congress. That's sheer bad faith.
Pelosi has demonstrated many times the ability to use the Speaker's powers to twist arms to get votes for organized labor, for the environmental movement, for the trial lawyers, and for the anti-war netroots. From all available reporting, she didn't even try. And that's why Megan's post is correct. Either she's incompetent or she acted in bad faith.
Hey Megan - take a look at what your commenters from the left like to write: "Not only is Megan McArdle wholly incompetent, but now she's a Republican tool. Nice combination: Stupid and partisan.. . . Come on, Atlantic. Get an "economics columnist" who knows the first thing about the subject, and who isn't some Fox News bimbo in print. This is ridiculous.
- Posted by Magic Dog | September 30, 2008 11:38 AM
I dare you to find a conservative commenter like this. We may often disagree with you here, but do we throw personal insults? I don't think so, since we are trying to convince people who seem to be in the middle, whereas for these lefties you are a true believer, a heretic or an apostate (stop me if this sounds like a certain religion). Since you voted for Obama in the primaries, and often voice at least some support for the Dems, writing a column like this makes you the most hated of all three, the apostate.
As someone who worked on The Hill for 18 years, I agree with everything Megan said -- and I don't always.
Here are the facts: The Republicans are in disarray but in the House, by design, the majority rules. Nancy Pelosi is the leader of the majority. If she and her leadership apparatus could not guarantee passage of a bill everyone said was vital to the survival of the Free World or whatever, she should not have brought the thing to the floor. And she can stop that; she's the speaker.
If this dog is worth owning, she has to turn around 12-15 votes. That's eminently doable. She's the speaker. She can strip chairmanships and seniority. She can urge her approps chairmen to look harshly on appropriations requests. If she can't do that for a bill she says/agrees is needed, she should resign as speaker and turn the gavel over to Hoyer, a guy who knows what he's doing and when to keep his mouth shut.
This Congress was elected saying it would get us out of Iraq. That hasn't happened. It hasn't passed a single appropriations bill this year. And now it can't get its act together over this. As the Wall Street Journal said today, this Congress has earned its 10 percent approval rating.
The last time I checked, the Democrats were in the majority. If they thought it was such a fantastic bill, they could have passed it. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will go done as two of the worst congressional leaders ever. The Reps and Dems both deserve blame. Obama did nothing except be "cool". McCain tried to lead and failed. Palin is hidden. Biden does nothing but lie and make gaffes. The media is up Obama's as*. They all SUCK!
WAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!
After we spent decades slandering them as a party of welfare queens and special interests, the Democrats wouldn't deliver EVEN MORE votes for a bailout of failed Republican Wall Street executives.
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!
Every member of the House is responsible and the leaders did a terrible job. Competent leaders on both sides had a responsibility to the country in general and their constituents in particular to bring a bill to the floor knowing they had the votes.
It is ironic that both sides deride the financial industry for behavior that has endangered the country, then go to the floor and endanger the country.
Megan,
Today, you are the stupidest woman in the whole wide world. Better luck tomorrow.
Hugs,
Sam
The last time I saw the Democratic leadership screw up a vote this bad, they ended up losing the House for 12 years.
Pelosi screwed up and the Democrats have no courage. If she believes its the right thing to do than she needed to push for passage. She didn't. Basically she was setting up the Republicans to "solve" the problem by voting for a solution that is extremely unpopular. The Democrats could then say.... "Hey.... its not our fault...." What should the Republican's hold out for? Let the free market work! Close down bad banks. Sell off the assets; payoff the account holders; pay off other creditors; and let the stockholders suck it up. It will painful for awhile but we will get through it. Next, let the Congress pass real regulations(not voluntary)that allow for oversight of the mortgage industry. This means removing getting the banks back to loaning money only to those that are credit worthy. If you can't afford to buy RENT!!!!!!!! Paying out $700,000,000,000 for assets that no else wants is not an acceptible answer.
Who exactly are you trying to kid? The truth hurts, but it sets you free. Why should Pelosi be held responsible for ensuring passage of a corporate welfare bill that is patently obvious the majority of Americans do not support. Moreover, for other commentators, the Community Reinvestment Act has been around since 1977 and some would argue a disaster occurred some 31 years later? Forgive me, but are you on glacial time, or what? In fact, the higher percentage of risky loans being granted and the default on them began and ended in the last 5-6 years. Follow this logic instead: Alan Greenspan left interest rates way too low for too long creating a huge pool of cheap money. Investors placed pressure on brokers to find better investments for their cheap money . . . aha . . . real estate was doing very well . . . however, Greenspan also ignored the housing bubble and sub-prime crisis . . . so more and more mortgage brokers and independent mortgage institutions (who are unregulated and/or lightly regulated) THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE CRA continued to pursue risky loans because the returns (high risk, high reward) were higher as were the commissions. When those risky loans started defaulting, the housing bubble burst and the crisis began. With housing prices static or sinking, there is now very little if any reward in investing in housing. By the by, those banks and thrifts actually subject to CRA contribute only 25% of mortgage loans to the mortgage market. So . . ., nice try but no cigar.
I'm sure your comments are sincere, but they're sincerely over the top.
Having said that, I wish the Speaker position were non-partisan, as it is in parliamentary democracies.
I'm not sure the House rejection was all negative. It wouldn't be such a bad idea for an idle blogger to take a closer look at the imperfections of the rejected bill in order to craft a better one.
Because she's the speaker. Because she got up there with Barney Frank and Hank Paulson and John Boehner and Harry Reid over the weekend and said she they had an agreement and it was important and that they were going to pass this. In the context of The Hill, that's a commitment.
Maybe it's best the thing blew up. Every time these guys push something through in a hurry, e.g. the PATRIOT Act, Katrina aid, it ends up blowing back on them. Of course, I expect this thing will be up before the weekend, with practically no changes.
Plenty of blame to go around. Unfortunately, the averagae Joe won't get the truth unless it favors a certain party.
Yes, whenever Republicans vote against a bill that a Republican administration is pushing, it is obviously the fault of Democrats. Much like the Iraq War. And 9/11. And everything else that has happened that puts the Bush GOP in a bad light.
Unfortunately for you, though, several Repubican members of Congress have come out today and unequivocally called your argument BS, and, well, stupid.
Tricky wrote: "Hmmmm. If Comrade Peloskivich is so damn good, who didn't she and her fellow comrades just write a good bill that 100% of them could vote for and then just tell the Republicans to sit on it? What am I missing?"
That is obviously the next step, if Republicans can't get their shi*t together and start acting like a responsible entity.
In the meantime, obviously -- as in, a blind man could see it -- "emergency" means "we need exactly this right now so don't stop to think about it, just pass it," or, as your president put it, "this sucker is going down."
Ah, but clearly anyone who is throwing around trite marxist allusions in 2008 is still reading newspapers from the 1950s and not quite aware that American's biggest threat these days is not a vast international communist conspiracy.
We recently were fairly united in thinking our major current threat was Islamic Terrorism.
But I think a lot of people are coming around to the idea that the biggest threat facing the U.S. today is the deadly combination of mindless ideological dependency, abject incompetence, and desperate flailing that characterizes today's Republican party.
There's no need to go hunting for communists, buddy. American is amply capable of providing its own demons. Look in a mirror.
She is the Democratic Tom DeLay
Anyone who says such a thing and honestly believes it, rather than just saying it for political effect, is so in the darkness, so 'out of touch' with reality that you just have to mark them in your mind as 'compromised' and 'inferior'. Megan, you have an inferior mind if you honestly belive this. All I can think is that you have been reading way too narrowly in your libertarian qua conservative circles for too long and have taken in too many subtle untruths to be able to make an informed opinion.
You know, last time I checked, Pelosi hadn't turned the Congress into a K street whorehouse the way Mr Delay did and she is not serving a term in the penatensury. Christ on a stick Megan, the woman bleeds bipartizanship, the whole bail out bill was a bi-part thing. Why can't you see it? I'm betting on learned ignorance. Are you dating a senoir republican party member or something? I don't get it.
I'm not a fan of Pelosi, but singling her out for blame is a pretty big leap.
1)The bill is hugely unpopular. Sure she could deliver the votes. But why should this crapfest have the Democratic brand?
2)The Democrats have much more reason to be suspicious of Bush's competence than the Republicans. Why should they hand his appointee a bag of money?
3)Are the Republicans assumed to be so incompetent that they have no responsibility for mustering even 45% of their members? McCain put his campaign 'On Hiatus' to broker the deal. Bush is still president to the Republican voters.
Pelosi is expected to turn out her people, but they get an A for effort?
4)Who was it who came to the Friday negotiations with an entirely different plan with no heads up? The Republican leadership.
Certainly her finger-pointing could have waited, but thats hardly enough justification to say "Its your fault Pelosi!"