House REJECTS Bailout Bill

I guess that Speaker Pelosi should have decided that being able to blame Democrats is more important than taking ownership of the problem.

The vote is still being held open.

So what did Pelosi say? Link?

I am looking for a link right now since it is a breaking story, the comments by Pelosi were referenced on CNN and MSNBC.

its failed

Well, there goes my post from this morning...

The only fault of Pelosi's was bringing a vote to the floor with enough to pass.

But this seemed a different scenario where she had to let members show their positions in the vote.

They'll re-huddle and try again. But the no votes are quite strong and the yesses need 13 more converts. Not easy.

Note that the left of the Democrats and the right of the Republicans both oppose it.

Pelosi is smart.

The Republicans wanted to skate passed their responsibilities and then in the future try to cruicify the Dems for any problems.

Pelosi won't let the House Republicans escape their accountability.

"Note that the left of the Democrats and the right of the Republicans both oppose it."

Yes. For completely opposite reasons. It's all fascinating.

Very interesting to see those two groups in the House.

Also interesting to see on the net and the various blogs how some people make it a partisan thing while others put politics aside.

So much for McCain's "I'm suspending my campaign so I can get this bill back on track" shtick. Looks like he wasted much of last week if he wasn't even able to get his own party in line.

I agree with continuum. Boehner got on CNN and blamed Pelosi's partisan speech and said it was a time to put partisanship aside, but Democrats know that Republicans never do that right before an election. They want to be able to point to this unpopular bill and say that it was a Democrat-led Congress that passed it-- while they stuck to principle. While they're sticking to principle, the regular folks are losing their shirts in the stock market.

JWeidner--- McCain did come back for the photo op, but did not support the alternative plan that Republican leaders came up with. So his return was basically a waste of time.

Patrick E,
Since 9/11 we've seen an acceleration of partisan warfare in Washington. The Republicans sought to politicize everything, including grave matters like national defense. They even had the temerity to blame 9/11 on Bill Clinton, while Democrats never sought to pin blame on Dubya.

Finally, after years of being national security punching bags, the Democrats have realized that they too have to politicize everything in order to stay at an even keel with the Republicans. It's regrettable, but necessary.

It amazes me kritt, that Republicans are going to go with that line of attack on this..."We were all set to pass this bill, then Pelosi HURT OUR FEELINGS! WAAAAaaaaahhhhhh"

Excellent! This compromise bill was almost as much a rush job as the original goal of the Bush administration, and there is no excuse for 100+ additional pages.

Not only are Republicans who voted No to be cheered, but what was it, something like ninety-plus Democrats?

Now the issue will have to be re-thought and re-worked. And it's plenty of opportunity for the Dems, as far as, say, Robert Kuttner of the American Prospect (on NPR a half hour ago) is concerned. Many on the Left want a massive welfare gesture, dwarfing anything for the Wall Street executives, and favoring people that are almost all equally undeserving (a greater moral hazard and misuse of public funds given the numbers involved). That is to say, they want to "favor Main Street instead of Wall Street" (which on its face has widespread appeal) principally in the form of bailouts for the homeowners, to let those facing default or foreclusore keep their homes. That is, a massive federal welfare gesture to many undeserving people paid for by those who have made good decisions and played by the rules, no better in fact than bailing out the executives on Wall Street. But that will get the votes of many homeowners and of those who view Washington as a money tree to be shaken, and the Dems may seriously try to rewrite a bailout bill now, _their_ way, as Kuttner emphasized. (Kuttner seems to misjudge how such a bill would really be viewed by so much of the _taxpaying_ public, as well as by more Republicans than those who rejected the current bill. If it's worse yet, more Republicans will reject the next bill!) It will be interesting to see now what the Dems in particular do, if they view this as a signal to seek more of what _they_ want in the next bill, more than anything Republicans concede to in any bill the Republicans may attempt to write. Will the Dems go to outright vote-buying (or as Kuttner put it much more euphemistically when talking about borrower bailouts, taking over mortgages, freezing rates -- stealing from financial institutions, that is, if the institutions aren't compensated for such freezes, and in any event resembling Third World dictatorial and petty "political risk" created by Dems in DC -- and so on: "attacking the problem at the root, trickle-up rather than trickle-down"). It's the Dems who are key much more than the Republicans to what happens next. That is, if they have enough votes to be able to resolve this now completely Their Way no matter how the GOP complains. If a Presidential veto can be overridden, that is.

JWeidner,
This picture seems appropriate: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/boehner2-...

too true Chris, too true.

"The Republicans wanted to skate passed their responsibilities "

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT

There is _no_, absolutely _no_ obligation of the federal govenrment to bail out _anybody_ affected by this financial disaster. ** YOU STAND CORRECTED. **

Congressional leaders finally listening to their constituents. Amazing!

Here's a list of votes for and against the bill.

I said the Democratic Left and Republican Right opposed it. That's largely but not entirely true.

Centrist/conservative Democrats like Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Lincoln Davis and Nick Lampson opposed the bill. And relatively moderate Republicans like Bud Shuster (PA) and Candace Miller (MI) voted against it as well.

But the bulk of the nays reads like a who's who of Congressional ideologues.

Maybe Senator Obama should now take ownership of a problem that wil dominate the beginning of his administration. Instead of trying to pin blame, maybe Senator Obama should come out and support a plan and ask all Democrats to support the plan. The Democrats must demonstrate that they can lead without giving themselves an out.

Actually it's those who won't want to disenfranchise their Wall Street sugar daddies.

I agree we can't rush in where angels fear to tread- but something has to be done.

If we the people float these cascading failures then we need a bond of assurance we're not gonna get the proverbial shiv in the back two , three, five terms from now- otherwise we the people should collectively say F**k You to these banks as a thank you gift if they don't.

Payback can be a real biotch.

It sucks for my portfolio that this shizz isn't going through. But I would rather have a plan that prevents Wall Street from just pocketing 700 billion taxpayer dollars as "punishment" for being reckless.

The Republicans blame Pelosi...

Well, let's see. The Republican WH and Treasury and Fed Reserve supported it, as did the Republicans (apparently in Congress). I assume McCain would have voted for it since he didn't come out with any opposition (that I can find). The Dems in Congress (obviously) supported it as did the Dems (apparently) in the Senate.

As I posted earlier on elrod's piece, McCain can't even unite his party in Congress on the most important issue facing this country.... How is he suppose to continue to campaign as someone who can reach across the aisle and come to bipartisan agreement if he can't even whip up the votes in his own party.

I understand fully that McCain is in the Senate but he aligned himself with the House last week when he landed in town and threw a wrecking ball into the process after both the House and Senate said they were close to a deal. McCain used the House discontent for his own political purposes. And he is seen in Congress by many to be the leader of the GOP since Bush is a lame duck. Furthermore McCain did claim he would come up with an agreement on this.

Well, this time he failed. Let's see how he handles this situation. If he continues to work on the bill and try to get his party in line, that's great! That's what he should be doing. But if he blames the Dems, then he is only playing politics. Blaming the Dems is not a good way to gain bipartisan support, on either this or future endeavors.

Oh... I guess it's really the Dems fault....

Personally I think a lot more needs to be done to get the economy back on track. This bill is (was) just a bailout of Walls St.

JWeidner- Yes, isn't that amazing? How many times has President Bush insulted Congressional Democrats, yet most have gotten behind Paulson's bail-out package.

Boehner and Blunt know that most Americans think this bailout stinks and hope they can bash Democrats over the head with it next month, and regain the majority. Pelosi is being smart.

DLS- Yes there is no obligation to bailout Wall St-- or to regulate it either. Republicans can sit by and watch as the recession becomes a depression and feel good about sticking by their principles.

The Great Depression taught us that in extreme times of global economic collapse, the government needs to stimulate the economy.

The real problem is that Bush, Paulson, Bernanke and Cheney have no clout left on Capitol Hill. Too many Republicans have seen their fortunes rise and fall due to this administration's mistakes and they are rebelling- as they did with Bush's immigration bill. They aren't going to risk making their constituents unhappy a month before the election.

Stockboysf,

Why didn't Senator Obama get all of the Democrats to support something that his administration is going to have to implement. There were 95 nay votes from the Democrats. Senator Obama should have taken owner and shown himself a leader instead of his avoidance and hedging that mark him as a Harvard lawyer instead of a leader.

I found it extremely amusing to watch Boehner get up on stage, huff and puff and play partisan politics, pointing fingers of blame at Nancy Pelosi as the key reason for the failure of the vote. He basically said that about a dozen Republicans changed their vote based on Pelosi's speech.

Perhaps Boehner could help identify these twelve Republicans who decided to base their vote on a single speech instead of the merits of the bill. Instead of deciding to vote based on two weeks of discussions, compromise, and negotiations, these dozen Republicans decided to be small-minded, vindictive and petty enough to vote based on a speech instead. Screw the country, these dozen Republicans wanted to play politics!

(And I'm no fan of the concept of a 'bailout' plan myself - As a general rule I fall on the side of free market capitalism over government intervention. But principles be damned, we're not looking for a solution here -- we're doing BATTLEFIELD TRIAGE - the bailout plan is really a bandage that will provide enough time to start looking at real solutions. I'll hold my nose and support it as an exception rather than the rule)

sd,
Why should they take responsibility for a bill that grants Paulson unlimited power to do something that economists aren't even sure will solve the problem?

If the Democrats are going to own the political ramifications of a bailout bill, they might as well write their own. This was an attempt to do things the Republican way, and apparently the Republicans weren't really on board.

Maybe it is time to strip out the gifts to lobyist, the gifts to minority groups, and the other social engineering and just have a plain bill without earmarks or gifts to special interest groups.

Chris -- don't be such an ideologue. [grin] And a whiner.

Yes, imagine that -- some members of Congress voting to correctly indicate and respond to what the overwhelming majority of the US public thinks of this bailout.

Now what will be done? The Dems can't hope for doing anything more ambitious that would result in more GOP rejection votes -- unless they believe they can pass what they view is a better bill (mainly homeowner-oriented and less public bailout of Wall Street itself). Maybe do the GOP insurance scheme (it's still a government program, not "free market" at all) on mortgage loans in exchange for tighter regulations and even interest rate limits (and GOP-driven income minima, with Dem subsidized loans to Dem voters who would be left out of loans thereby).

Consider what a slap this was, not to Pelosi, but to Treasury Sec and to BUSH.

Thanks, Superdestroyer. Yes, by all means, prune the damn thing. Maybe Bush's and Paulson's version was way too short (and "unregulated"!) but the bill voted on and rejected was way too long.

DLS,
They don't need GOP votes to pass bills in either House of Congress. Let the Republican's filibuster all they want, and then let Bush veto the bill while the S&P 500 tumbles.

If we're going to nationalize the losses, we *need* to nationalize the profits until the system has recovered. Otherwise the moral hazard, to employ a recently overused phrase, is too great.

DLS,
Isn't it a wee-bit silly to oppose a bill because of its page count?

Well why isn't McCain on the job?

I thought the whole point of his dramatic sweep into Washington was to see this crisis through? He apparently supports the bailout- but just like the immigration bill-- his colleagues are not standing with him.

The biggest problem with it is that it gives EVEN more power to the executive branch- while that executive branch contributed mightily to the original problem. But Congress seems reluctant to tackle anything controversial this close to Election Day- and prefers to merely point fingers across the aisle.

Well, I hope all you partisans have fun with your finger pointing and whining. It's not going to make a lot of difference if the economy goes completely in the toilet.

This is a rock and the hard place situation. The Paulson plan sucks, but not doing anything may suck worse or not. That's the problem with the whole situation, no one knows what the outcome will be either way.

I'm just glad I'm not in the Congress on either side of this.

I'm still asking "Where are the moderate folks around here?"

Edsel_F,
What "moderate" or party-less proposal do you suggest Washington enact?

For better or for worse, Washington is run by people belonging to political parties. It's run by people beholden to corporate interests and to a lesser extent, their voters. You just can't expect any part of Washington, especially the Congress, to enact a plan that doesn't reflect those corporate interests, electoral realities or party loyalties.

SD, it is utterly ridiculous for the Republicans to say, "Dems, we want this bill passed and if you don't pass it then we will tell all the voters that you blocked this most important piece of legislation which will help save the economy. If you don't pass this bill we could end up in a Great Depression. By the way, we Republicans don't intend on supporting it, it's up to you to pass it or else."

The Dems came through with more then enough support for it to pass if even 50% of the Republicans had supported it. Yet the GOP could barely get 1/3 of the House Republicans to vote for it....

What backwards partisanship! The Republicans wanted the Dems to pass something they, the Republicans weren't even willing to support and if the Dems didn't pass it then the Dems would be blamed!

Total disaster.

I think this situation sucks. I also think that three mainline conservative Republicans I know quite well who are all well steeped in the financial markets strongly tell me there is little or no choice that this bill or something damn close to it needs to be passed immediately.

I think that House Republicans are total sh*ts for playing election time politics.

I think the House Democrats are spineless for not stepping up and passing the damn bill. I understand wanting 100 Republicans but just pass the damn bill already.

Here in NoVa fiddling while Rome burns ...