Pelosi Screws the House Vote

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous' started by pettyfog, Sep 29, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Jan 4, 2005
    So far.. the vote is 205-228 nay

    Dem 2-1 for, GOP 1-2 against and nays by 20votes.

    And the Dow is tanking.... rotating around -500, light trading, though.


    - -- - - -- - - - - - -
    Boehner says he had the votes lined up. Then Pelosi opened her mouth.
    He said 12 members switched to 'nay'.

    I missed her kickoff speech. But it doesnt surprise me a bit that that fucking bitch had to politicize it.

    I'm gonna post it here when I can get it.

    You remember on the weekend... Someone 'forgot' to invite GOP to a meeting. Then Pelosi said they were "Unpatriotic" for not showing up.

    UPDATE - Here's what turned the GOP vote over:
    Pelosi Part 1

    Pelosi Part 2
  2. jmh

    jmh New Member

    Jul 2, 2006
    Brooklyn, NY
    "screws" implies that passing this measure would've been a good thing. I'm not convinced it would have been.
  3. HatterDon

    HatterDon Moderator

    Mar 18, 2006
    Peoples Republic of South Texas
    Just after I read the Reuters article on the vote -- highlighting the fact that the House Dems supported the president and the House Republicans voted 2-1 against, I knew I'd have to see how you were going to blame Nancy forscrewing up the agreement made between her troops and Secretary Wall Street. You will always find it impossible to blame Republican "leadership," and so now, according to what I'm seeing above, the House Republicans WERE going to vote for the resolution they've been been bitching about all weekend, but were stopped by something Pelosi said? The bill would have passed except for something Pelosi said? The House Republicans petulantly stamped their collective little foot and screwed up the country because of something Pelosi said?Please. Even YOU don't believe that. But, you're ever so much smarter than the rest of us. Whatever happened to Country First? It is to laugh.

    And, speaking of "politicizing the economic situation," how about Senator McCain's attempt to do exactly that and the Republican House leadership's response to the fact that McCain couldn't process a 3-page memorandum in three days? They asked him to butt out.

    'Fog, the House Republicans did the right thing, according to their lights. How are they going to go home and tell their consituents that they rubber-stamped the socialistic nationalization of the economic community and put it all in the hands of a former Wall Street CEO? They used up all their "yes, I know; but I had to give up every tenet of conservative Republican philosophy to support the president -- regardless of the cost to the nation," with the war with Iraq and the Patriot Act.

    First, the government provides as much excess capital to rich people and rich corporations as possible via tax cuts, then they loosen regulations and castrate oversight to allow them to make buttloads of money while producing nothing. Then, when all the rewards have made them even richer, YOU WANT TO TAKE AWAY THE RISK OF THEIR BAD INVESTMENTS AND PUT IT ALL ON THE TAXPAYERS?

    Face it; voting for this would have made House Republicans complicit in a massive fraud on the voters. It would also have made them partners in the biggest ever big-government takeover of private capital. Also face this, if the president of the day was named Kerry, Gore, or Obama, you'd have just made all the points I made in these last two paragraphs.
  4. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Jan 4, 2005
    Neither was I. But I'll take the word of a broad view of people. The citizens were GREATLY against it..

    May I remind you that it was supposed to be bipartisan, at least for this vote.

    So now Nancy, at this moment, is praising all the DEMS including FRANK. Who is largely to blame.

    "We must work in a bipartisan manner' Then STFU!
    - - - - -- - -- - - - - -- - -
    Dammit, Don.... why dont you WATCH HER SPEECH nad tell me exactly why Republicans should eat her shit and then vote in her favor?

    Go ahead .... just keep it up.

    You dont give a fuck about anything except for seeing your side win and blaming Dubya. JUST LIKE NANCY


    And now Barney fucking Frank is covering his own ass:

    "So you're telling me they got their feelings hurt and they hurt the country?"
    - you arent funny you asshole!

    Rahm Emanuel: Same thing.

    "Why dont they eat our shit and vote Yay."

    Just so you understnad. It wouldnt have bothered me, and proabbly not those who changed their votes, either.. if one of the other Dem pre-vote speakers had given Nancy's shit-sandwich speech.

    But it wasnt just somebody. It was the Speaker of the House saying EAT MY SHIT AND LIKE IT!

    Anyone who knows the least thing about human nature could figure it out!
  5. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Jan 4, 2005
    Lemme just vent something else... where the fuck do you get off, coming on here in a thread about this vote, which I ASSUME we both wanted to pass to avoid a possible economic meltdown and start in... just like Pelosi.. enumerating everyone's sins of the past!

    I have my own view of that, as I know you know, and I can back it up. But I've been explaining in several threads and places just how important it was to pass and we can argue about the 'who did what's' later.

    The fact you come on here and spin it as 'Republican had valid concerns' doesnt matter. Their concerns dont matter for this vote. My ecomiomic views dont matter for this vote. The only thing that was important was it would put a measure of confidence in the markets.

    Because, just like politics, the markets have an emotional quotient. Will the smart traders see that the sky isnt falling, I dont know.

    But the Point is we could have had a deal to maybe stop-gap panic and now we dont.... just so the worst Speaker in History in the worst Congress in history could make points for SOMEONE!
  6. nevzter

    nevzter Well-Known Member

    Mar 5, 2007
    A City by a Bay
    This thing has me flummoxed to no end. I abhor the unheard of control placed in an unelected official, yet, Mr. Buffet has expressed his concern if the bill wasn't passed and I respect him more than any living being when it comes to money matters. I imagine some of you have read this already, but if you're concerned, bored, or merely need a sedative, read the proposed-bill. ... 68_xml.pdf

    I keep trying to get through it, but this damn work thing keeps getting in the way. But who knows, I may not have to worry about this working thing much longer?!?
  7. WhitesBhoy

    WhitesBhoy Active Member

    Jul 9, 2008
    The Beach, For Now
    If the Republicans can't get beyond Pelosi possibly pushing their buttons, they have much bigger problems. Or is it a much smaller problem, individually?
  8. FulhamAg

    FulhamAg New Member

    Apr 5, 2008
    San Antonio, Texas
    Relax, they'll put together a better package and the market will recover upon it's announcement. It's already bounced back a little from the initial low.

    Then again, you're the self-proclaimed resident econ genius, panic if you prefer.

    Either way.....BOTH sides are playing politics with this and to argue otherwise is naive at best.
  9. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Jan 4, 2005
    I never said I was an Econ Genius. I got a 'C' in 101. But it doesnt take genius, does it? Or does it?

    I know I've lived through one {or 1 1/2} of these. Better hope to hell all the trading houses have their programmed trading turned off and Securities Analysts are making the decisions. I do believe that's the case as they said the trading volume was lighter than you'd expect.

    If the software was running it, we'd already be in financial hell.

    Now this has gone to politics as a theme.

    Let there be no doubt, I think.... and a lot of those Republicans think.. the best thing would be to just let those financial houses who bought and sold all that junk crash and burn. Send those execs to prison.

    That would solve this problem for at least a decade.
  10. HatterDon

    HatterDon Moderator

    Mar 18, 2006
    Peoples Republic of South Texas
    'fog; what Ag said.

    1. No, I did NOT think that the bailout was a good idea.
    2. No, I did NOT see how the House Republicans could support this and have any conscience.
    3. This "we'll worry about the details after the bill is signed into law" nonsense is bad government -- proven over and over during this administration.
    4. Where do I get off criticizing? The same place you get off criticizing me ... I'm a citizen.
    5. Why am I against the bill? Because I've been convinced over the last few years that "evildoers" need to be punished. Bailing out the very people whose reckless disregard for the American people and the American economy brought the market into panic -- AFTER THEY'VE GOTTEN THEIR PLATINUM PARACHUTES -- is nothing more than rewarding malfeasance. How does that give ANYONE confidence in the market and in our economy?
    6. Why am I pointing fingers at the administration? Because this meltdown is the ultimate end of two basic tenets of this administration -- reduced regulation and oversight, coupled with tax cuts. We've been told since 1980 that the free market would operate more efficiently and more responsibly than the government. And that all we had to do was make sure "those who know better how to take care of our money than us" had huge tax cuts while we cut all that hamstringing regulations.

    Congratulations. Trickle-down economics now equates to unfettered "virtual capital turned into real debt trickling down upon the individual taxpayer." Or, let's keep those people who get rich solely on the market healthy and penalize those whose income comes from actual work.

    Thank god Bozo the Brushclearer didn't get to privatize Social Security.
  11. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Jan 4, 2005
    Doesnt have a fucking thing to do with 'trickle down' economics PERIOD!

    DOES have to do with zealous populist HUD priorities in pushing mortgages to those who cant keep paying them WHILE the housing market is superheated by artificial market forces in the mortgage industry. And yes, Dubya's as much at fault for that as Clinton.

    But it ALSO DOES have to do with head-up the ass avoidance of warnings from the conservative side and denial by Dodd, Frank with a nervous sideglance toward the Congressional Black Caucus.

    You're not an idiot... you have your fingers dead on what's what with any soccer thread I've ever read. The only conclusion I can draw is you dont believe in the markets.. even Government Supervised markets. Thus I have to conclude you're some kind of socialist, by economic bent.
    I'm a Neo-Con... WTF are you?
    Just come out and say it so we dont have to go over and over this Bush-Wa crap.

    Dems STILL blaming Bush on TV... Saying the Repubs are letting down their own constituents. If that's right, then how does this cottonmouth explain the 20-1 protest against. This was the time that those close to the issue have to make the hard decisions.
    Tell me this you Dem assholes. If you control congress and are doing the right things and Bush is so awful why is he approval-rated 15% higher than you are?
  12. HatterDon

    HatterDon Moderator

    Mar 18, 2006
    Peoples Republic of South Texas
    Well, since you asked sooooooooooo nicely: My definition of capitalism is:

    1. someone makes something
    2. someone sells something
    3. someone buys something

    When I look at capitalism, I look at mom-and-pop barbershops, nail shops, grocery stores. I don't look at betting on the rise and fall of stocks [and influencing the rise and fall of their value in order to create more revenue] as capitalism. I believe in markets. I believe that people [and their proxies -- banks] investing in business to provide capital. I believe that the normal rise and fall of stocks should be based on the value and demand for the products and services represented by the stock price. What I DON'T believe in is the creation of false values and false wealth. I don't believe in manipulating money as if IT were a product. I don't believe that the rise and fall of stock prices at the end of the day says a god damn thing about how productive the American worker does.

    I also don't believe that government should be in the business of creating loopholes for rich fatcat criminals to prosper. I don't believe in giving billion-dollar no bid contracts to your cronies. And, when these rich fatcat criminals look like they might have to sell one or two of their yachts because they can't manage the fake wealth they've created, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD THEN WRITE LEGISLATION THAT ALLOWS THEM TO GET AWAY WITH IT. I ALSO DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD PROVIDE MORE POWER TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH THAT ALLOWED ALL THIS MALFEASANCE TO OCCUR IN THE FIRST PLACE WHILE WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF BAILING THESE CRIMINALS OUT.

    Now, go ahead and call me a socialist. You may not believe this, but your lack of education is more obvious at times than others. It's REAL obvious at this particular time.
  13. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Jan 4, 2005
    That's right Don... my lack of education is showing.

    I havent been indoctrinated PROPERLY

    Excuse me, I had to - rather, decided to- read up and decide for myself, rather than fawn over some ass like the idiots I had in college. They didnt even make sense when I was liberal.

    What you DIDNT say there is that all major enterprises and corporate entities should be state owned.
  14. HatterDon

    HatterDon Moderator

    Mar 18, 2006
    Peoples Republic of South Texas
    Pettyfog sez
    That's because I don't believe it. That's also why I haven't supported the Administration's reaction to the economic crisis -- because they HAVE nationalized corporate entities. Remember? It was me pointing that out that so pissed you off.

    The fact is, there's not an ounce of socialism in that last post of mine. Do you disagree with everything I posted? Did you disagree with any of it? Can you cite anything IN THAT POST that you'd classify as socialist? Conversely, do you think that this administration taking over AIG, FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC is an example of the free market in action, or do you agree that it is socialism? Is that why you had to attack what I didn't say and don't believe in?

    Here's a little news flash for you. There's not a lot of REAL socialists running around any more, 'fog; but if your definition of a socialist is someone who criticizes this president, his administration, and their policies, then I suppose YOU think there are a lot more. I hope you don't mind me stating that this overly-simplistic view of the world and events is evidence of you not having an open or very inquisitive mind. Deciding whether something is good and evil, right and wrong, capitalist and socialist, or even conservative and non-conservative isn't as simple as determining if the person expressing an idea is also in favor of or against a Republican president. Now, I'll accept that it's real easy to live your life that way -- to live in a world where there's only right-thinking patriots and socialist America hating sufferers of Bush-derangement -- but it doesn't earn you any credibility as a thinker. Neither does denigrating people who help bring new knowledge and nurture critical thinking skills for a living. Life isn't that simple, and if you act like you think it is, you don't give us any evidence of there being an intellect there.

    Now I have seen how logically your mind works when you're analyzing new events in technology and science. I admire how you can cut through the jargon and see both pluses and minuses in those fields. You also continually show good judgement and a positive spirit in giving advice valuable advice to people on this site -- including me. Having said that, your basic intolerance of any political or social idea that you don't personally hold is a shattering anomaly.

    Don't be afraid to listen to opposing ideas with a view towards learning something new, pard. Don't be afraid to acknowledge that you don't have all the answers. And don't be so insecure as to ascribe any ideas that don't conform with yours as idiotic. Opening yourself up to welcome opposing viewpoints makes you seem more intellectually curious, helps you refine your personal philosophy, and helps you make more telling arguments. Not doing so makes you just repetitive and seem so ... I don't know ... unlearned.
  15. Clevelandmo

    Clevelandmo Active Member

    Sep 13, 2007
    Congress SUCKS!!! It's infuriating to see politics when our economy is tanking. It's infuriating to see blaming when there is plenty of it to go around. It's infuriating to see Nancy Pelosi blaming the Bush Administration when they tried to get congress to regulate Mae and Mac years ago, as did Greenspan. It is just plain lying to paint Barney F. Frank as some sort of fast-acting hero when he blocked the legislation to reign in Mae and Mac to begin with. Also, the major banking deregulation legislation was passed in 1998 - before Bush, but by a Republican Congress.

    I'm not saying Bush doesnt deserve his share of blame - it's happening on his watch after all. He also bragged about US home ownership being higher than ever not so long ago and I see that as a symptom of this crisis. But I havent seen him on TV whining about how nobody did what he asked them to do. I see him trying to address the issue. Meanwhile Congress plays politics, as always they apparently veiw their re-election as paramount to any responsibility they owe the American people.

    And you know what, while all this blaming is going on why dont we blame the American people - buying and buying on credit, buying what they cant afford, and expecting something for nothing. It's sick and we (I mean our culture not me because I dont owe anyone a cent) deserve what we get. There is no free lunch and there never has been. I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore :wink:
  16. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Jan 4, 2005
    I'll tell you why we dont blame the american people, Mo. It's because they dont have time to read and investigate deeply and determine when they are being lied to.

    Especially when it comes to mortgages on the biggest deal they will ever make. They have to assume that those pushing those mortgages want them to be able to pay them back. And up until recently that's what the loan officer did.

    But something happened, starting 30 years ago, which set the ball rolling towards the easy mortgage credit. It created a new model for housing credit and seemed to work really well.. so congress kept fooling with it to make it even more utilized.

    Then financial instruments were created so that those loans that were seen as 'risky' could be distributed along with sound loans and every bank and investment house could share the risk load. Still all well and good. It was voluntary after all and a wise funds manager would make sure that their company wasnt overexposed in case of a severe economic crisis.

    It was about this time that the person counseling the buyer no longer cared whether or not the buyer could pay. Their job was to put through as many loans as possible. That loan was not going to be held at the local bank, or even administered by a local bank. It was in some far away place.

    Of course, if you're not changing and advancing you're falling back and every so many years and administrations there was someone who wanted to make sure no one was left out of the American dream so somehow regulations were forged that FORCED loan offerers to write more and more risky loans.
    Now, if you wanted to play in the pool at all you had to play all the games, and you didnt get to make up your own rules.

    So more and more risky loans... more people thought they could get away with being house-poor a few years and when that ARM came time to uptick, they'd have the money/income to refinance.

    OR when that balloon payment which was the stick to that low interest 5 year loan came due, they'd just get a new one.. or a different loan.

    All this time, demand is overheating the housing market and prices are getting out of hand.
    Meantime, the pool of available house hunters with any credit worthiness at all ran out just at the same time.

    So while I certainly think that companies whose product is money speculation should go broke, what some dont seem to understand is that those are creatures of the problem. Not the cause of it.

    There wouldnt have been a need to trade in those junk mortgage security packages if there wasnt so much junk.
  17. Spencer

    Spencer Active Member

    Jul 1, 2005
    Wow, I just got home and saw this. I'm shocked. Can't believe this.
  18. FulhamAg

    FulhamAg New Member

    Apr 5, 2008
    San Antonio, Texas
    Just for perspective since you won't hear it from the chicken little media and their "Record Point Drop In The Market" headlines:

    1987 - 22% drop
    2008 - less than 8% drop

    Not nearly as catastrophic as many made it out to be. Make no mistake, Washington does need to react, but rushing into printing up $700B with a bill that kept getting add-ons faster than people could read the damned thing is the equivalent of kicking the can down the road. Here's a novel thought for Washington, think beyond the next election cycle when trying to develop a solution.

    When the politicians who voted no today came out and explained why they voted no without playing the blame game (not many of those, btw), there were some very good reasons for not passing this thing. Lack of judicial review, lack of enforcement and the powers given Paulson being chief among them. Of course there's always the "other alternative" side of insuring the loans instead of a massive bailout. Insuring them would purportedly cost the govt drastically less.

    We'll see what the market does tomorrow.
  19. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Jan 4, 2005
    True on the % drop. And market futures {another of the money speculators} are up.
    But what remains murky about this is the effect on credit. It doesnt look good there and many claim the flow of working capital is locked up

    It turns out that Pelosi evidently didnt care too much whether or not the thing passed, there was no arm twisting on the Dem side and she specifically released many of her friends to vote no. The Dems win either way.
  20. andypalmer

    andypalmer Active Member

    Jun 4, 2007
    Baltimore, MD
    I'm pretty angry about this thing myself. Unfortunately, however, I understand our economy enough to understand why this bailout plan, however painful and undesirable, was NECESSARY. While I acknowledge that most Americans are against the bailout plan, I believe that most Americans don't understand the economy well enough to make an informed decision on the subject.

    Let me put it in terms easier to understand: unless something SIGNIFICANT is done very very soon, we will see unemployment, nationwide, exceed 10% within 6 months. Both Corporate America and American small businesses need credit in order to operate; there are whole sectors of the marketplace that make 65% of their revenue in the 4th quarter and use the rest to time focused on creating new products to sell. Without the ability to get a line of credit, they will have to cut cost (i.e., employees), resulting in them having fewer new products to sell, resulting in more cuts, etc. Plus, as company's fold, new entrapeurs will be unable to get the credit needed to start new businesses. 10% unemployment in 6 months; we could see 15% in 12.

    We're about to hit a major recession that could be prevented by some GOP Congresmen being men enough to admit that trickle down economics and de-regulation isn't always the right answer.
Similar Threads: Pelosi Screws
Forum Title Date
Miscellaneous Foreign Minister Pelosi sides with Chavez on Colombia Mar 3, 2008
Miscellaneous Pelosi followup: Yes, the US DOEs seem to influence.. May 21, 2007
Miscellaneous Pelosi is a piece of work! Mar 30, 2007
Miscellaneous Pelosi II: Winds of gruntlement Nov 17, 2006
Miscellaneous Pelosi laughs at 'Culture of Corruption' Nov 15, 2006

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page