Thanks for helping in this failure...

[dkd83]

Why would Democrats in the House spend time congratulating each other on their failure to pass the latest 'bail out' plan?

[Guest unreconstructed1]

Why would Democrats in the House spend time congratulating each other on their failure to pass the latest 'bail out' plan?

possibly because the entire idea of a "bail-out" is socialistic, unconstitutional, and borderline retarded ?

It was the Republican party that was pushing the bail-out this time around, not the Democrats. The Dems were just happy that they stopped the Republicans from being more Socialistic than they are...

[Guest JPH]

quote "No" votes came from both the Democratic and Republican sides of the aisle. More than two-thirds of Republicans and 40 percent of Democrats opposed the bill. end quote

I'm not sure where you guys are coming from - maybe I'm not understanding this -

the above quote supports the dems supporting and reps not

[greenego]

Government cannot solve this problem. It is the problem! The Dem. leaders and Bush wanted this to pass. They both lost.

[dkd83]

Actually I was referring to the aftermath of the down vote in the House. Pelosi, Frank, and co. congratulating each other in front of the press for their enormous bi-partisan efforts to save the American taxpayer from economic holocaust. I find it humorous that they tooted their own horns after completely failing to lead or follow on this issue.

[Guest jackdog]

Vote out every incumbent in November. from both parties. If you don't want to do that then quit crying about how bad these guys are.

[Guest Boomhower]

your welcome

[Smith]

possibly because the entire idea of a "bail-out" is socialistic, unconstitutional, and borderline retarded ?

It was the Republican party that was pushing the bail-out this time around, not the Democrats. The Dems were just happy that they stopped the Republicans from being more Socialistic than they are...

How do you figure? It was Republican opposition with a lot of democratic support that killed it?

[Guest 44M]

good job republicans...McCain and Obama were on the same boat..the wrong one

Db

[dkd83]

Wow...I am quite certain I am not crying about anything...just thought I would get other people's opinions on this travesty. Instead the ire is directed at me...quite unbelievable. The post vote press conference was my interest...it appears no one else shared this interest.

BTW 95 Dems in the House voted against the measure. Guess even new era socialism is distasteful to some on that side of the aisle. Nearly 70% of the Reps. voted for this bill, to them I say happy campaigning.

[Guest canynracer]

Dont mind Jack, he gets cranky after 9.

[fury2neon]

If they really wanted to end this problem they would repeal the regulations that caused this mess in the first place. But they wont do that because then they would have to admit that once again socialism FAILS! You can't as a government force businesses to make bad business decisions under threat of prosecution and not know that the system will collapse.

And then Obama goes and hires the two guys that made the biggest mess of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac as his economics advisers. Now that is just classic.

[Guest c.a.s.]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs[/ame]

As you'll see, REPUBLICANS warned the Democrats time and time again about FM and FM. And the Democrats refused that there was any problem at all.

Oh, and BUSH HIMSELF actually warned Congress around Seventeen Times that this would happen, and that Democrat-majority congress told him no every time.

Seems like it's a major Democrat problem, to me.

[Mark@Sea]

When Republicans were in control of congress, financial issues were the fault of the Republicans.

Democrats are now in control of congress, and financial issues are the fault of the Republicans.

How does that work, exactly?

[Guest m4coyote]

+1 c.a.s! This whole thing is the baby of the liberal policies of the Carter administration and the little thing called the Community Reinvestment Act or CRA for short. CRA was further pushed and deregulated by Slick Willy in the 1990's.

This act compels banks to make loans to low income borrowers, and what its supporters call "communities of color". Thanks to the CRA, these loans are made, even if an individuals finances do not fall within the "guide lines" or "rules" of a home mortgage.

[catsbackr]

Here's an idea. $700 billion, 200 million taxpayers, divide it up. $350,000 per person, $700,000 per most household, pay taxes on this income, then who needs help? Pretty simple solution.

[BrasilNuts]

700,000,000,000/200,000,000=3,500

Here's an idea. $700 billion, 200 million taxpayers, divide it up. $350,000 per person, $700,000 per most household, pay taxes on this income, then who needs help? Pretty simple solution.

$700,000 would be great, but you'd see $20 a gallon milk if you flooded the U.S with that kind of money per household.

[Smith]

700,000,000,000/200,000,000=3,500

$700,000 would be great, but you'd see $20 a gallon milk if you flooded the U.S with that kind of money per household.

and where does this money come from? Either we borrow it from the treasury (+ inflation, +deficit, etc) or we sell t-bills to China.Either way is bad, plus if they gave out that money they would just take it to get it back. If they borrow it they will tax us to get it back, even though they never had it in the first place.

[Smith]

Wow...I am quite certain I am not crying about anything...just thought I would get other people's opinions on this travesty. Instead the ire is directed at me...quite unbelievable. The post vote press conference was my interest...it appears no one else shared this interest.

BTW 95 Dems in the House voted against the measure. Guess even new era socialism is distasteful to some on that side of the aisle. Nearly 70% of the Reps. voted for this bill, to them I say happy campaigning.

If they really wanted to end this problem they would repeal the regulations that caused this mess in the first place. But they wont do that because then they would have to admit that once again socialism FAILS! You can't as a government force businesses to make bad business decisions under threat of prosecution and not know that the system will collapse.

And then Obama goes and hires the two guys that made the biggest mess of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac as his economics advisers. Now that is just classic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

As you'll see, REPUBLICANS warned the Democrats time and time again about FM and FM. And the Democrats refused that there was any problem at all.

Oh, and BUSH HIMSELF actually warned Congress around Seventeen Times that this would happen, and that Democrat-majority congress told him no every time.

Seems like it's a major Democrat problem, to me.

When Republicans were in control of congress, financial issues were the fault of the Republicans.

Democrats are now in control of congress, and financial issues are the fault of the Republicans.

How does that work, exactly?

+1 c.a.s! This whole thing is the baby of the liberal policies of the Carter administration and the little thing called the Community Reinvestment Act or CRA for short. CRA was further pushed and deregulated by Slick Willy in the 1990's.

This act compels banks to make loans to low income borrowers, and what its supporters call "communities of color". Thanks to the CRA, these loans are made, even if an individuals finances do not fall within the "guide lines" or "rules" of a home mortgage.

Where were you guys in the other thread about this!?????

[dkd83]

I started this thread to specifically find out what people thought about the press conference AFTER the no vote....that lasted about 2 posts though.

[Guest nj.piney]

message to wall street......you started this fire. you can put it out yourself or burn up in it. dont throw my money on it.

[Guest unreconstructed1]

as a couple of folks pointed out, I was wrong in my original post. I misread the original source that I gained my info from.

of course, the truth of the matter does actualy make more sense, with the Dems supporting the socialistic schemes..

unfortunately, it ain't over yet....

WASHINGTON - In a surprise move to resurrect President Bush’s $700 billion Wall Street rescue plan, Senate leaders slated a vote on the measure for Wednesday — but added a tax cut plan already rejected by the House.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26953481/

[strickj]

Guys,no one would be giving money away. It would be lent to the company's,and paid back within 5 years(methinks)

The tax payers would also own a chunk of stocks.

Worst comes to worst we would break even.

[Guest unreconstructed1]

Guys,no one would be giving money away. It would be lent to the company's,and paid back within 5 years(methinks)

The tax payers would also own a chunk of stocks.

Worst comes to worst we would break even.

actually, the bill ( H.R. 3997, originally the "Defenders of Freedom Tax relief act of 2007, but ammended into the current bailout bill) would have authorized the creation of a fund (permanent, since I have found no reference to a sunset date) that would be set up to buy ANY domestic financial institution that began to be endangered by "troubled assets".

-This part of the bill is purely socialist.-

it would have also created an FDIC like "insurance" program to guarantee financial institutions against losses from "troubled assets" purchased before 3/14/08.

-what's next? recouping losses from the stock market? securities and stocks of this nature are a financial risk. always have been. why should I have to owe more national debt to ensure that some fat-cat CEO doesn't have to downgrade from a lamborghini to a porsche, just because he made bad bussiness decisions?-

here is a link to the ammendment to the bill.

http://www.govtrack.us/special/econstimbill/pdf/AMEND001.pdf

[Warbird]

Guys,no one would be giving money away. It would be lent to the company's,and paid back within 5 years(methinks)

The tax payers would also own a chunk of stocks.

Worst comes to worst we would break even.

Actually it is not a loan, but a purchase of assets. We could either sell them back to the lender or hold them for 5-7 yrs and when values go back up, sell them off. Most of thee companies, like AIG, are not broke, their problem is they have no liquidity. These are the same companies that offer the short range, 1 day to 30 day loans to corporations who use it for emergency procurement or wages. This is why it is so dangerous, w/o that short term capital the economy comes to a huge grinding halt.