The speech he posted didn't include her ab-libs which is the part I saw. I guess she has to address the Speaker even though she is the Speaker (or more likely, who ever is acting as speaker when she is not).

Why do Dems dwell on the past? We are in Iraq, and we have to do it right. Did we screw up on it? Of course. However, we bought it, we broke it, now let's try to fix it. Learn from the past, but focus on the present and future. Same thing with the economy. I get this feeling from Obama (today's speech supported this).

What amazing to me is how duplicitous both sides are. The house republicans want no part of this because 80+% of their constituencies are for it. If you were elected by a community that is 80% against something, and vote for it, are you really reflecting the "will of the people"? It seems to me that a majority of the people are against it because of the size and all the "extras" thrown in.

Why not just do a bill for the $100-250 billion (dep on who you believe) that's needed now for the banking issue and pass that as a straight treasury loan (most likely payed back in 4-5 years). Then, people can debate the content and payout of the other $600 billion later. It seems that both sides know it has to be done and are trying to get as much political gain from the bill while also hoping for "the cover" of bipartisan support.

Interesting enough, sometimes the majority just has to stomach a bad pill for the good of the country. The republicans did it in the mid 90s and early 2000s, now it seems that is the democrats turn to do so. Welcome to the responsibility of being the majority.

As an aside, I'm finding myself hoping more and more for Obama to win the election simply for the fact that the media and political factions will start talking more positive about the country afterwords. For the past 18 months, the US has been beaten like a rented mule on nearly every aspect by the press (foreign policy, economics, you name it). If Obama is president, we'll have 9-12 months of the "new camelot" with a ton of uplifting stories. If McCain is president, it will be another year of negative beat downs. I don't know that the country can withstand that.

I think that is a good plan.

Arles, thats not enough $ to stem the blood short term. It truly isnt. PLUS you need to reinstill confidence that the amount is enough to help the country through this. If you dont effect the psychology youre missing a pillar of the issue.

But isn't that the amount this bill would actually give for the short term?

You're wrong.
You're wrong.
You're wrong.
You're wrong.
You're wrong.

Oh wait, you were right, but let's not focus on the past.

Heh.

Even the most generous of plans only had around $250 billion going out first (with the changed one now in the 150-200 range). So, if $200 billion isn't enough for the short term, the current bill that was just rejected won't do any good.

Watched CNN for most of the day, then flipped it over to Fox News. Wow. You know it is one thing for a commentator to say that this bill failed because of Obama's lack of leadership, but when it is a reporter stating it as fact....

The other thing interesting to me is it seems everyone they have had on (right/left, whatever) is for this getting passed.

yeah, it's quite amazing. Everyone is saying this needs to get passed but most don't want to vote for it ;)

That's because no one wants to be out in the cold without the political CYA. Bunch of bastards.. (both sides)

BTW, this whole thing of "Barak's not doing enough" and "McCain's not doing enough"....it is pretty evident what happened here. McCain thought he could at least appear to take charge and take credit for getting this plan done and be all Presidential. But a) He over-played his hand by suspending his campaign and trying to cancel the debate. It ended up being very unpopular. b) He got there and saw the deal that was and then wasn't. He wasn't forging any consensus among the house GOP and anybody. c) His people started pointing out to him this bill is very unpopular. If he leads the way on this, he will get the blame for it.

So now it is, "The Dems have the vote. Just let them pass it." The GOP would love Obama to go in to take the lead on this, and let be all over him. And as for Obama? He wants it passed, but don't expect him to openly stump on it. He doesn't want this to be the "Obama plan" any more than McCain wants this to be the "McCain plan".

I don't mean forget the past. But if your in a mess, put forth a plan to get out of it. Just don't dwell on it.

no, you left out the confidence issue. without the confidence issue the amount of $ goes up, exponentially. IOW, after today's debacle the amount needed actually goes up from yesterday. We lost a trillion in Mkt value, today.

And I thought this was to stop the bleeding on the credit issue, not artificially prop up the markets.

The markets are simply a window and for those who dont know (perhaps you Arles) the stock market is just a small window. the Credit Market, TAF/R auctions, Credit default swaps, the fact that 4 institutions were taken over today in foreign countries (not including N. Rock months ago), LIBOR rates, etc.. Watch when Asian markets open.

Dont prop up a strawman when one doesnt exist. Take your queues from going to mall if you want or drive up and down the street and look at vacancies in strip malls, how about foreclosures (look closely, the lawns are overgrown, no blinds in the windows, business cards stuck in the fram of the front door), and you can file that in your journal. If you want it easier just watch CNBC.

I believe until I shut down the Financials thread I said the dollar would strengthen (it did), I said oil would pop (it has), I warned NoSkillz on the commodities bubble (i was right), my problem isnt knowledge it's patience and bankroll.

Anyways, how this effects the Pres. race? IMO, CRUSHING to McCain.

It does not. The amount is the bad loans, not market inflation. I didn't leave ouot the confidence issue either. Reread the proposal Arles gave. Paulson is asking for 250 billion right now. Give him that. Then you work on the rest and have it when it is needed.

Based on the recent polls, Obama appears to be pulling away in Pennsylvania with an RCP average now at +5.5. Despite his gain in national polls over the past week, though, most of the other toss-up states appear to be pretty much as close as ever. The most surprising thing to me is that both the recent North Carolina polls are Obama +2.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2008 - North Carolina: McCain vs. Obama

Im sorry, I disagree. He asked for 700b and they countered w/ 250b tethered which he said, 'ok' to. We lost 1.4 trillion in mkt cap and an immeasurable amount of confidence, today. The tab just went up IMO.

Fox News/Rasmussen (LV)

PA: Obama 50-42
OH: McCain 48-47
FL: Tie 47-47
VA: Obama 50-47
CO: Obama 49-48

For Obama, it's looking pretty good. He has to hold PA (and the rest of the Kerry states) and just win one of these other four states. (This is assuming he's already gonna steal IA and NM, which seems very probably at this point.)

For McCain, not looking quite as good. He's got to win those bottom four states or find a Kerry state to pick off. NH is looking possible at this point, but that won't be enough (the best it will do is give him a 269-269 tie.)

Of course, I expect things to shift wildly over the next few days as the public reacts to the financial crisis and then the VP debate on Thursday.

VP debate is Thursday, I think.

The RCP averages react slowly since state polling is done so infrequently that old polls are still on the books. For instance, Obama only recently took the RCP lead in North Carolina because a +17 McCain poll from Sep 10th finally fell off the averages.

Yeah. Gonna be interesting. I hope they both say something really stupid.

As someone who works for a US arm in a Japanese company, I'm well aware of the impacts to Asia. As you should know, the Asian markets already opened and it wasn't nearly as bad as many had predicted:

World markets fall as US bailout seen taking time - Yahoo! News

That's OK, I prefer to talk down to people when discussion things. It makes me feel more "right" :p


I bolded the important part. Just get enough cash into the situation to start the credit cleanup (as many said, $200 million would be plenty) and then hammer out the rest over the next few months. Regardless of what congress does in the next three days, the Dow will be back over 11,000 by Thanksgiving and all will be fine. The world markets will also recover independent of whether it's a $100-200 billion now and a different bill later or whether it's the full $700 billion.

The biggest issue is to the world right now is fear about US unemployment going up (which was there before this whole banking thing started). If US demands on imported goods go down, that will hurt the world.

I'm just glad to see you can be objective on all this and not take sides when looking at the facts. :D

Arlie: Except that with 25% more of people trusting Obama over McCain when it comes to economic issues, you have to think that this IS a problem for McCain

Another interesting thing on RCP is their current electoral map has Obama at 249 without tossups. That means he has a RCPO average of +3 or higher in states with 249 electoral votes. They currently have him winning IA, NM, and CO among Bush states. From there, his winning scenarios would be:

*Florida by itself gives him 276
*Ohio by itself gives him 269 and the House elects him.
*NC and Nevada gives him 269 and the House elects him.
*Winning any two of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Virginia, and North Carolina gives him between 269-277 electoral votes.

What's interesting is that many of these scenarios come without Minnesota, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire, all of which are currently listed as tossups. So there are plausible winning scenarios where he could lose three Kerry states and still win the election. That would have been unthinkable earlier on.

IMO, McCain's pretty much done unless the "I won't vote for a black guy" thing is way under blown. If the republicans continue to handle this the right way, he will probably lose. IMO, that's fine. It's more important to make sure we don't panic and make a terrible decision on this bailout and have Obama as president than quickly get a bill through to help McCain.

This bailout is becoming the economic version of going into Iraq back in 2003. Once it's done, we have to face the bill and it won't be pretty. I'd rather get this right and have Obama as president than rush through and get an albatross around our neck for the next 4-7 years.

It has nothing to do with anything other than my consistent analysis that aligns with the polling that the economic crisis hurts McCain. this was doubled down upon by his 'pausing the campaign' move. IMO it didnt work and over the next week that will get more and more airtime in the mainstream media. Hence the 'crushing' part. Honestly I dont know he'll shed that since most American's polled already viewed it in this light prior to the past week.

My analysis of the situation as I see it.

thank you. It wasn't bias, it was analysis and polling (if you call the polling factual).

I didnt see this post before responding to your partisan comment. We agree I see and you see it isn't bias.

I'm totally with you (except I am a Obama supporter, so that's a good bonus).

What ticks me off reading the reports today is all the finger-pointing, especially by Dems at Repubs. Dems, you CONTROL the House, and only 60% of your side voted for it. You could have past this all on your own without a single republican voting for it. Why did 40% of your own party's reps reject it?

because the entire house wanted it to be bipartisan (maybe for 'who's willing to walk the plank' sake) and somewhat of a mandate to the US (confidence, I dont know if you all understand it's importance) and to the world.

Already answered. It was a brokered deal that both parties would vote 50-50, so that it is a bipartisan effort. The Dems did, and Rep didn't.

because it's not a 'sure thing' that it will save us (Y2J) but it's the best thing we have going at the moment and the moment is very very very tenuous and short.

Btw, I was just watching Rove rant on that point. "Peloise couldn't even get so and so to vote this bill..." etc. etc. The thing is, she by agreement wasn't supposed to need their vote. It is actually becoming pretty clear the Republicans wants this to become completely on the the Dems to help steal seats in the House. What's more important, doing the right thing or getting more power? In politics, the answer is always power.

Even though the bill was going to pass before Republicans took their ball and went home after Nancy Pelosi was mean to them?

Prior posters have good points, but don't underestimate the political end. If every day this bill wasn't passed hurt Obama instead of McCain, the democrats
probably would have forced it through. However, they now can say they are "trying" and wait for a full bipartisan bill knowing most of the full fallout will impact McCain.

What? They delivered more than the votes needed on their side of the "bargain already brokered". They did MORE than the agreement called for. The GOP balked at the moment of no return which is crazy since they couldve balked hours prior. The conspiracy theory would be the GOP sabotaged McCain. Tonight would be completely different if the GOP just did what they said they'd do.

No doubt. They decided to save their own asses, and left McCain hanging.

So there was a deal where neither side hung their ass out on the line while still passing the bill? Fabulous stuff.

If you don't believe in the bill, don't vote for it. If you do, vote for it. It's a simple system. The Democrats put a bill out there that their own party couldn't even fully support, then bitched when it didn't pass and pointed fingers. There's only one party in Congress that could decide to block or pass this bill and it was the Democrats. If the bill was all that, they should have voted for it. Instead, they tossed up a half-ass bill with half-ass support and acted shocked that it didn't pass. It rings very hollow.

youre ignoring a very critical thing, convenientally. this bill needs to be passed by equal sides to instill confidence to the people (who dont pay attentioin to the intricacies) like we do, and those in the rest of the world, that the entire gov't, both parties, are paying attention, and neither side wants to assume total risk since the bill isn't a 'sure thing'. Think what you want, blame whomever you want, but that is a fact and the fact that the GOP didnt deliver what they said they would in the back hall will have us all suffer the consequences, unless something gets passed quickly, and when i say quickly, i mean Quarter ends in the next week and numbers report the following.

Could you point me to a couple of things that were unpopular at the time that the GOP did from, say, 1997-2005, for the good of the country? I'm just looking for, let's throw out there, 3. And not something that was popular at the time and unpopular after (like Iraq). But something unpopular with the whole country (not just Dems) where the GOP congress bravely bit the bullet?

SI

'Ill find one and get back to ya.' - Tina Fey

Flasch - you'll never convince those on the right of the necessity of it being a brokered deal. they will continue to buy into the "spin" of the right that the dems shoulda passed it on their own without any republican involvement, notwithstanding the fact that a 50/50 deal was agreed upon and the house republicans essentially backed out at the last minute.

you can talk till you're blue in the face but there will be continue to be a segment that thinks that the party in power should have pushed it through without the other side.

Neither party comes out of this with any credit. Two thirds of Republicans put their ideology and a third of democrats their re-election before the interests of the American people. The American people themselves appear to be staggeringly ignorant of the seriousness of the current financial situation.

It's like watching a train wreck - unfortunately I suspect I'm on one of the later carriages just waiting for the impact! :rolleyes:

700 billion? You just lost 1.2 trillion in one day! Even if you don't have shares then your pension plans, health schemes etc. are all paying for this.

I was referring to the government shutdown of 1995, which many attribute to costing Gingrich re-election and Dole a real chance at the presidency.

I think you've officially become the court jester of this thread. Well done!

oh comeon that scene was funny as heck, you gotta admit.

That's not at all what happened. The bill was negotiated between the WH, the Senate and the House. The bill voted on today contained concessions designed to placate each group. When it came time to vote the House Republicans either couldn't carry out their promised number of votes or backed out.

If the Dems want to pass a bill they can, but it will contain a hell of a lot of language that House and Senate Republicans would find unacceptable. I still don't know if the bill was worth passing, but the days of negotiations were aimed at getting enough of a unified front so that nobody would take the entirety of the heat.

Hey, court jesters are funny. But their main role is to instigate ;)

I've been thinking of something lately. One of my main distrust of what a Democratic Congress will push through in a one-party government is the fear (real or imagined) of punitive legislation. In other words, to swing the pendulum to the opposite side, they will go after enemy industries (like energy and computer companies, for example). I have always been set against that for I believe in promoting technological and industrial advancements and changes to make things better. Encourage the developments of alternative ways of making existing energy exploration and production much cleaner and safer. Having assholes like Al Gore calling for civil disobedience will not help and is a turn-off. I am also reminded of the resources that were spend to go after Microsoft in the previous decade. I am a believer in technology and we need promoters, not attackers.

At risk of a threadjack.. the sanctions on Microsoft are not NEARLY enough. Thought that would be clear by now.

:rolleyes: Yes. Al Gore is such an asshole.

It was an assholish thing to say.

Well there is a reason why Tennessee doesn't like him.

Because the American people haven't yet grasped the seriousness of the situation and the party that pushes it could be punished at the polls. They wanted it to be passed 50-50 so that it would be seen as non-partisan.

analysis

Analysis: House vote against bailout wounds McCain - Yahoo! News

nice article flasch, although it doesn't reference the fact that we spent all afternoon discussing, that it was a brokered 50/50 compromise -- which for an AP article you'd think it would.

Getting back to the topic of this thread, Obama has made substantial gains in the polls over the past two weeks, and the RCP electoral college projection now stands at Obama 301 McCain 237.

You're aware that no matter how many times Obama says he was right about Iraq before we invaded, his stated plan for a hasty is still wrongheaded. Yes you get credit for being right back then, although I'm not so sure his exact position was as accurate as he now frames it in hindsight. I'm going to vote based on what you are going to do, quit belaboring the point.

Wow. Obama over 330 EV on the Intrade predictions (Including Indiana, which has gone Democratic.. since like well.. never... 2004 was Bush with 60%). There's still a month to go, McCain has to do SOMETHING soon, or he'll be crushed by the spector of runaway momentum.

And I'm telling you that I find that to be a load of sh%&. The Democrats are the ones in power. They have the votes to pass legislation and should do so to force Bush to either sign it or veto it. When did the majority leadership suddenly become a bunch of pussies (to borrow a phrase from a poster on this board)?

Now is not the time to pacify people. Now is the time for the Democrats to take a stand and create a bill that will make them the hero in this situation. The fact that they are looking for an agreement that allow them to pass the blame if it fails is very concerning. Pass a partisan bill and take a chance that you may actually be right and the Republicans are wrong.

Good to see at least one market going up. :D

fixed, but essentially you cant see it was already a brokered bill. And youre completely ignoring the importance of confidence. ok.

HEY! You can't call me partisan in a post and then take it out in an edit! This is what I'm talking about with Democrats! Stick to your guns! :D

Its not that. Usually when I type a post I am filled with piss and vinegar and then I read it and edit it to be nice because I didnt mean to be attacking. I do that ALLLLLL the time. And it is partisan for you to say Dems could just pass it and ignore many FACTS. One it was a brokered deal. so the GOP went against their word. The GOP got their feelings hurt and put the entire country at risk. This will effect McCain and it already has according to the polls.

Nice leadership McCain showed there. THAT'S what is killing him. As was mentioned in the thread earlier. Obama is widening the gap. We need some more debates where McCain just looks like an angry old man, and we can put this puppy to bed.

But, if the Dems were that set on the bailout, make a partisan bill and shove it down the GOPs throat and see if they like it. I mean they could take a chance.

CONFIDENCE.

No one got their feelings hurt. Pelosi gave them an out to blame it on her when the true reason the bill didn't pass was that it was a lousy bill and the general public hammered the phone lines of their given congressman. If you believe that the 100+ Republicans voted against it because their feelings were hurt, what does that mean the 90+ Democrats who voted against it were doing? Was it a bi-partisan effort by Pelosi to hurt feelings on both sides?

So, to summarize, your argument is that the public wouldn't buy into the bailout if it was passed along party lines? So we're now judging the quality of a bill/law based on the level of support on both sides rather than whether it's a quality bill? That's rich.

this has probably been posted before, but reading the transcript i almost spit my coffee out.



pretty much speaks for itself IMO

The GOP didnt use the same language but admitted so immediately following the vote.

What im saying is that the bill encompasses more than just dollar dollar bill ya'll. You dont get that, which is fine, but it is a cornerstone of the bill as well so without the confidence the bill instills it would have less of a successful impact. Until you admit this, we might as well stop talking about it.

Once again, we are dealing with a Democratic-lead Congress with a 9% (probably less after yesterday) approval rating. If the above logic is truly what the Democratic leadership believes, we're far worse off than I ever imagined. That's leadership that should be tossed to the curb in favor of another Democratic senator/congressman who will do what's needed to take a stand for the Democratic Party.

When it's reported in the media that Pelosi was trying to secure extra Republican votes so some of the Democrats in the House could vote against it to further their election hopes and Bohner is using Pelosi's speech as cover for those who voted against it for perfectly legitimate reasons (i.e. their voters were opposed to it) rather than just saying they opposed it, we've really reached the point where the government has totally forgotten the reason they were elected to the offices they hold. Judging from the backlash by the public over the crisis and partisan actions on both sides of the aisle, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a lot of incumbants get nailed this November no matter which side of the bill they voted on. Just being in Congress at this point makes them guilty by association. We need a clean start.

No, they can't just pass a partisan bill. The Republicans could filibuster in the Senate and the President could veto. I'm not sold on the bill, but everyone in this acted in good faith except the House Republicans.

But why is that a problem? If the Republicans filibuster, then the blame for the delay falls squarely on their shoulders alone. If they don't and Dubya vetos it, the blame falls squarely on his shoulders.

As I said, if they keep playing this game, they're all going to lose out in the end. We need leadership in Congress and the White House and it's becoming blatently obvious that Dubya, Reid, and Pelosi are the last people we need in charge right now. Dubya holds no power over his party and Reid/Pelosi are more concerned about the elections and pissing contests than getting something done and showing true leadership in a time of trouble. It's pathetic.

How is passing a bill in the House knowing that it will get filibustered or vetoed, "showing true leadership"? The points of this bill were negotiated in good faith amongst all of those involved. When it came time to vote, four of the five parties involved in these negotiations acted in good faith and one didn't.

If it's a bad bill, say so and present an alternative, don't whine about your hurt feelings.

+1

if the house republicans had behaved there wouldn't have been a need to worry about a filibuster and the bill would already be signed. it takes an enormous amount of spin for somebody to try to argue they weren't the problem, and frankly i find it insulting to my intelligence

So the Democrats in the House who voted against it 'acted in good faith' while the Republicans who voted in accordance with the wishes of their voting public were out of line for failing to cast their 'yea' vote so the House Democrats could appease their voters?

The picture you're painting only furthers my argument that this Congress is far more f'd up then we even realize. Representing your voters wishes or voting in the best interest of the public has now taken a back seat to playing politics to get elected. That's fine that you're OK with that, but I'm not. The Republicans and Democrats can go fu%$ themselves if they think that they can pull this kind of a stunt while the nation is watching them.

Then consider it an insult. Anyone who claims that only the Republicans or Democrats were responsible for the debacle that occured yesterday in the house is so caught up in the web of polical PR/deceit that they can't see the truth in front of their nose.

Amazing that some repubs are criticizing the dems for trying to act bipartisan. The spin on this is amazing.

What's heartening to me at least is that I don't see the spin getting much play outside of this thread tbh. seems to be pretty universally being shown for its true colors by the media (which isn't to say that Pelosi shouldn't have been nicer, but is to say that the media recognizes and is presenting the story as "the house repubs refused to live up to their end of the agreement"

Yes, because that was what was negotiated. You can disagree with them, but if they lived up to their bargain, they acted in good faith.

Once again, consider this an insult. Anyone who finds any part of this 'heartening' is way out of touch with reality and the general public's feelings on this whole mess.

Thankfully, we all know that the media is the true arbitor of truth when it comes to the political game.

By all means then, put them on their 'Horse of Good Faith' and let them ride away with their conscious fully clean.

+1

(apply to every situation in every election).

+1

But I think the magnitude of the power play varies from situation to situation. This one is of a pretty high order when it comes to importance of resolution in a timely manner.

*shrugs* not going to get drawn into a name-calling, insult-fest with you MBBF. Not worth it.

Edited for correctness

SI

Absolutely true. But objectively speaking, I think this clinches the election for Obama. (Perhaps the safely employed Democrats sought out this debacle for that reason).

And I think this also gives a bump to every Congressional challenger v. every incumbent up for election, whether the challenger be Democrat or Republican.

Possibly, sterlingice, but they do have an ideological objection to government interference and I suspect some of them are sincere even if I don't agree with them. Never underestimate the debilitating power of ideology :)

Complete and utter crap. Completely.

If this were not 5 weeks before an election, the vote would be completely different. Now, if you want to argue that being in a GOP dominated district means they have to vote one way ideologically to not get thrown out on their ass, then you'd be right.

But please, don't even try to make the argument that more than a handful are doing this because they believe it is wrong. There are going to be a few, and I mean less than 20, on the far extreme of each side that would have voted against it because it went too far or not far enough. However, those were not the "swing" votes that disappeared yesterday.

SI

You're the one that brought in the insinuation that if someone didn't agree with your partisan position that it was an 'insult to your intelligence'. I've been about as non-partisan as I'll ever get when I point out that both sides have royally f'd this up from a political perspective. I was just confirming that if you take that kind of a position, it's no wonder you feel insulted.

I'm not sure if I'd use the word 'clinch' on your first point as there are still a few weeks left for some screw-up, but I'd agree that it's by far in his favor at this point. I made the same point earlier in the thread as your second point, so I definitely agree with that.

LOL.......I decided to tune into a train wreck and listen to Rush Limbaugh to see what his take would be on all the excitement yesterday. Imagine my surprise when he took the exact same position I took. He stated that the Democrats were playing politics with these votes and got burned and the Republican should stop pretending that Pelosi's speech had anything to do with their 'No' votes.

Did you feel that a partisan like Rush Limbaugh would actually tell both sides to quit with the politics? I was surprised. Although he has now gone into bashing Dodd and Frank for their role in this mess, so the non-partisan comments didn't last terribly long. :D

Shouldn't it make you ask that if you were agreeing with someone you called a train wreck that maybe your position is flawed?

SI