Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

House votes down bail-out package

  1. Sep 29, 2008 #1

    Art

    User Avatar

    Why would a Republican sponsored bill supported by most democrats be voted down by Republicans?

    What are the motivations of the folk who voted against it? Partisanship? Too much for Wall St? Too little for Wall St?, a combination of all of these things or something else entirely?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 29, 2008 #2

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I had heard the other day that the House Republicans were going to vote against it. I don't have the article, but I'm sure someone here knows the answer.
     
  4. Sep 29, 2008 #3

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    There are many Republicans/Conservatives opposed to the bill partly on principle and partly because elections are only 5 weeks away, and they don't want to go back to their districts being accused of bailing out the big guys on Wall Street on the backs of the little guys in their district.
     
  5. Sep 29, 2008 #4

    LowlyPion

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    At this point it may be that they will go back to their districts and have to explain why they didn't do the right thing instead of the politically expedient thing.
     
  6. Sep 29, 2008 #5

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080927/pl_politico/14015

    And today

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-09-29-bailout-congress_N.htm
     
  7. Sep 29, 2008 #6

    LowlyPion

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    If this serves to flush these rats out of Congress, then this ill wind will leave us its silver lining.

    Now if only they could take Fox News with them and ride out on that horse they came in on.
     
  8. Sep 29, 2008 #7
    It sounds like idiot Pelosi threw a wrench in the spokes by making a very partisan statement. You would think by the time you get to her level you'd know you get more bees with honey than vinegar. Maybe Pelosi will learn to keep her mouth shut, and maybe ACORN will be dropped as a beneficiary of the next bill.
     
  9. Sep 29, 2008 #8
    Yeah, right, if only Pelosi hadn't given a speech that nobody listened to, all those Republicans would have committed electoral suicide by voting for a bill that their lame-duck President staked the whole weight of his administration behind. It has nothing to with them being stuck between a rock (economy failing right before an election as a result of policies they pushed) and a hard place (long-standing ideological opposition to government bail-outs).

    Still, there's got to be SOME way we can blame the Democrats for this...
     
  10. Sep 29, 2008 #9

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I am glad that this misguided bailout did not pass. Paulson and Bush came up with a piece of crap proposal with a price tag that nobody could justify, and the Dems cobbled together a "compromise" that is absolutely toxic. The neo-cons were on show after show screaming with hair-on-fire urgency about how the Paulson plan had to be passed NOW lest the world end. Maybe now, adults with some semblance of rationality will try to parse the nature of our financial weaknesses, and come up with a plan to address them with an approach that does not involve throwing billions at investment banks.

    Every time a Dem tries to address a deficiency, the Reps accuse them of "throwing money at a problem" - maybe this time the Reps will come up with a way to re-regulate and stabilize the financial market without "throwing money at the problem"... nah!
     
  11. Sep 29, 2008 #10

    LowlyPion

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    That had nothing to do with Pelosi. It was a total cheap shot. It is a stupid excuse. If their interest, is supposedly bi-partisan and patriotic, setting the country and the people ahead of ideology, then if they balked at walking their own talk over a supposed partisan speech, they weren't thinking so much for the country as for themselves and what they think will get them elected.

    Except the problem is that if things worsen any more, these bums hopefully will be out on their ears, (or other parts of their bodies that are appropriately more painful).

    These Republicans are still suggesting capital gains tax cuts and the problem with that will be is at this rate there won't be any capital gains to tax.
     
  12. Sep 29, 2008 #11

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The Congresspersons still have to go back to their districts and explain why they didn't see this coming, or why they let Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the deficits get so out of hand.

    Republicans and Democrats are co-dependents with respect to the current situation.
     
  13. Sep 29, 2008 #12

    Art

    User Avatar

    Before worrying about fixing the fire alarms and emergency exits and installing other fire suppressant measures in your house it is always a good idea to put out the fire already raging through it.
     
  14. Sep 29, 2008 #13

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    We are seeing the death of the Republican party as we know it.

    The Republican naysayers can't let go of fundamentalist economic conservatism, even if they would destroy the nations economy, which they have or nearly have done already. It was their philosophy that got us here, and they would hang us all before admitting to their error. The Southern extremists now stand alone.
     
  15. Sep 29, 2008 #14
    By pouring oil on the fire? That's what this plan does. It rewards the behavior that caused the problem. The plan was to buy $700 billion worth of bad loans. Does anyone know what the discount was? Was it 80 cents on the dollar, 40 cents on the dollar, what? Were we going to pay 100 cents on the dollar for bad loans? And why $700 billion worth? Why not $600 billion or $800 billion? It bothers me that I don't know the answers. Do you know the answers? If not, does it bother you?
     
  16. Sep 29, 2008 #15

    Art

    User Avatar

    What value did the markets worldwide lose today? I'd hazard a lot more than $700 billion, more like $2-3 trillion, and how much will it continue to lose if the financial sector is not stabilized? That's real accumulated wealth wiped out, affecting pensions and savings, and soon will translate into people's jobs, whereas over the next 5 years or so most if not all of the $700 billion would be recovered as the real estate market recovered.

    At this time making the banks suffer for their excesses is cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

    The $700 billion figure is mostly a confidence building measure. With the restrictions proposed on banks who avail of it I would be surprised if the whole fund was even accessed. Just knowing the sum was available would be enough to halt the wildfires spreading through the financial community.
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2008
  17. Sep 29, 2008 #16
    Making me suffer for their excesses will teach them a lesson they won't soon forget.
     
  18. Sep 29, 2008 #17

    Art

    User Avatar

    So you favour the nuclear option of mutually assured destruction? Well okay......:uhh:
     
  19. Sep 29, 2008 #18

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  20. Sep 29, 2008 #19
    That's Bush's message. Be afraid, be very afraid. I'm not buying it.
     
  21. Sep 29, 2008 #20
    No one has made it clear in a way that the average person can understand, just exactly what the crisis is. As one caller to C span mentioned: "I feel like a mushroom, I have been kept in the dark and fed steer manure."
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?