BAILOUT: Yes or No?

I find it very hard to believe that Pelosi's speech had a major imapact on the vote. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, the big dividing line was between people who are up for re-election in tough districts and those who aren't. This was all about Congresscritters who were more afraid of you and me than they were of their own leadership. Which is as it should be.

Here's what kills me — it's possible that the bailout was a good plan. But nobody made a case for it. If we had a President whom more than 15% of the population trusted, it might be a different story. But hey, if you want us to fork over a sum of cash equal to the Gross National Product of the Netherlands, you have to make a case. You have to sway us.

Nobody did that, so tough on them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Come on. If George Bush had stated "And because the Democrats left the White House so woefully unprepared to prevent such an attack, and their failed foreign policy invited Al Queda to breed in Afghanistan, we must now go in and drive their Taleban hosts out of Kabul", do you really think a single Democrat would have voted for the Afghanistan resolution?

If I agree to go along with something I don't like, and somebody stands up and says "And by going along, you're admitting just how wrong and stupid you were for disagreeing in the first place", I'm going to take issue.

Now, I view the failed vote as a GOOD thing, so I don't feel a need to defend them. But I do think you guys are expecting an awful lot of people. They have to vote for something they don't like AND publicly lick Nancy's boots?

Like I said, I think she did it on purpose.

---

Don, come on. The Democrats have been called out as everything from traitors to "wanting to extend therapeutic understanding to our attackers" to being against the troops. And that did not stop them from voting in significant numbers in support of all kinds of things Bush and his admin insisted were absolutely important or necessary for our security, even if they turned out to be bad laws in retrospect. Even when the Dems ever did try to put their foot down and say no on something the President wanted, his rubber stamp, lockstep Republican Congress just changed the rules of Congress and started threatening the nuclear option to cloture and silence any filibuster. And any Democratic led opposition or subcommittee meetings on any issue got banished to sub-basements. So let's not get into whose party plays petty politics.

Don't give me this garbage that the Dems vote lockstep against Republicans on petty grounds. It isn't true. Way more of our party has voted with Bush on things we wish they hadn't than we care to think about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Changed, no. But dragged kicking and screaming to vote for something they don't agree with, then have her fling pooh like that?

---

you vote on the issue. completely inexcusable for a congressman to do otherwise in this case. someone that was 1) cowed into voting for something they didn't want and then 2) flipped because mean ol' nancy gave a dime-a-dozen partisan speech is doubly reprehensible. i wouldn't want that type of person in charge of trimming my shrubs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I find it very hard to believe that Pelosi's speech had a major imapact on the vote. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, the big dividing line was between people who are up for re-election in tough districts and those who aren't. This was all about Congresscritters who were more afraid of you and me than they were of their own leadership. Which is as it should be.

Here's what kills me — it's possible that the bailout was a good plan. But nobody made a case for it. If we had a President whom more than 15% of the population trusted, it might be a different story. But hey, if you want us to fork over a sum of cash equal to the Gross National Product of the Netherlands, you have to make a case. You have to sway us.

Nobody did that, so tough on them.

---

the case made for the bailout was astonishingly bad. your average cable news financial guru could have made a strong case in about 2 minutes of airtime (most of them did), but no one seemed to notice in congress that 80% of america 'don't want no bailout for wallstreet!'. the white house's only attempt, beyond having public enemy #1 get on tv, was to ask the news networks to stop calling it a "bailout" and start calling it a "rescue plan". can't blame them for thinking simple semantic tomfoolery would work, though.

Kogo: Never said Democrats voted along party lines against the best interests of the country. I'll actually give them credit for passing more resolutions than I would have expected them to (and probably more than they should have). But W didn't stand there like a gate-keeper and say "bow and admit you were wrong" on the way by either...

Big John: I'm not arguing that they're in the right. I'm arguing that it's human nature. Let me try putting it another way. Let's say your boss comes to you and says "alright, I've mismanaged the funds around here. In order to stay solvent, you're going to have to sign a document the HR manager will pass around in which you'll voluntarily take a 10% paycut". As the HR rep comes around, they announce "and by signing this document, you admit that you're lazy and stupid and only deserve 90% of what we're currently paying you".

Do you still think you'd sign?

Again, I'm happy the bill failed. I'm trying to get you guys to see that if you really wanted the bill to pass, you should be ticked at Nancy for failing to keep her fool mouth shut.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Kogo: Never said Democrats voted along party lines against the best interests of the country. I'll actually give them credit for passing more resolutions than I would have expected them to (and probably more than they should have). But W didn't stand there like a gate-keeper and say "bow and admit you were wrong" on the way by either...

Big John: I'm not arguing that they're in the right. I'm arguing that it's human nature. Let me try putting it another way. Let's say your boss comes to you and says "alright, I've mismanaged the funds around here. In order to stay solvent, you're going to have to sign a document the HR manager will pass around in which you'll voluntarily take a 10% paycut". As the HR rep comes around, they announce "and by signing this document, you admit that you're lazy and stupid and only deserve 90% of what we're currently paying you".

Do you still think you'd sign?

Again, I'm happy the bill failed. I'm trying to get you guys to see that if you really wanted the bill to pass, you should be ticked at Nancy for failing to keep her fool mouth shut.

---

There are people besides Kush who wanted it to pass? *Doesn't know anyone*

Maybe try blaming the President who basically ruined his own credibility and then went out and stumped for this without explaining it, and admitting the number was pulled out of thin air. Instead of blaming us that the case made for this bailout was so incredibly poor that 90% of the calls to Congressional offices were "hell no"s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Big John: I'm not arguing that they're in the right. I'm arguing that it's human nature.

---

then we are talking past each other. i never said no one would have done it (though i am inclined to believe scapegoat argument much more, since i imagine those fragile dears hear similar talk everyday in congress). i simply said anyone that did change their vote not based on the issue but based on pelosi should be deported (and i was being kind, in that).

Quote:

---

the Let me try putting it another way. Let's say your boss comes to you and says "alright, I've mismanaged the funds around here. In order to stay solvent, you're going to have to sign a document the HR manager will pass around in which you'll voluntarily take a 10% paycut". As the HR rep comes around, they announce "and by signing this document, you admit that you're lazy and stupid and only deserve 90% of what we're currently paying you".

Do you still think you'd sign?

---

that's a weird and bad analogy. but if the choice is between accepting a smudge on your honor (which may or may not be deserved), and watching your livelihood collapse....

Quote:

---

Again, I'm happy the bill failed. I'm trying to get you guys to see that if you really wanted the bill to pass, you should be ticked at Nancy for failing to keep her fool mouth shut.

---

i guess i think thick-skinned professional politicians are 1) thick-skinned enough to withstand a partisan tirade and 2) professional politicians enough to quickly seize a scapegoat when it presents itself.

As many pundits have said... Nancy Pelosi gave a partisan speech. This is news, how?

Besides, there wasn't a darn untrue thing about what she said, but that's a whole other barrel of worms. I concede it wasn't politic, but it was still true.

And one from the peanut gallery

Its all because of testosterone

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

And one from the peanut gallery

Its all because of testosterone

---

lets assume the worst for a moment. if testosterone is the root of the collapse of the world economy and ushering in of a madmax-style dystopia... that would be so super awesomely hilarious.

Yeah, if it turns out to be true... or even vaguely true... I'll never see the Corleone checkbook again.

Because regardless of whether testoserone leads to riskier financial behavior or not, there is unparalled evidence, through millenia of study, that shows that estrogen plants the phrase "I told you so" on the lips. :laugh4:

So here I was watching MSNBC, where they were interviewing Senators about the new bailout bill when I hear one mention one of the good things in the bill is subsidies for "alternative energy". What???

So I do some googling around, and yeah, it looks like the Senate has still never seen a bill that they aren't willing to tack pork onto.

Quote:

---

Here are some of the special-interest provisions that are now part of the Wall Street bailout legislation. The bill started at 3 pages, grew to 106 pages, and is now 451 pages.

* Film and Television Productions (Sec. 502)
* Wooden Arrows designed for use by children (Sec. 503)
* 6 page package of earmarks for litigants in the 1989 Exxon Valdez incident, Alaska (Sec. 504)
* Virgin Island and Puerto Rican Rum (Section 308)
* American Samoa (Sec. 309)
* Mine Rescue Teams (Sec. 310)
* Mine Safety Equipment (Sec. 311)
* Domestic Production Activities in Puerto Rico (Sec. 312)
* Indian Tribes (Sec. 314, 315)
* Railroads (Sec. 316)
* Auto Racing Tracks (317)
* District of Columbia (Sec. 322)
* Wool Research (Sec. 325)

---

Fine work. That ought to just about kill it for good.

Best input I heard all day was Barney Frank, after someone off-screen observed that failing banks were being bought up by other banks, and the stock market was apparently recovering from the first "No Bailout" vote, and Warren Buffett was buying up tons of GE stock (paraphrasing; he trying to be sarcastic) "Well, good, maybe I should just go home for the rest of the year!"

Fine advice, I think.

-edit-
I googled youTube for the clip, but haven't found it yet; I thought I saw it on CNN.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

So here I was watching MSNBC, where they were interviewing Senators about the new bailout bill when I hear one mention one of the good things in the bill is subsidies for "alternative energy". What???

So I do some googling around, and yeah, it looks like the Senate has still never seen a bill that they aren't willing to tack pork onto.

---

Most of that list isn't pork. Pork is like, funding for a sewing club. Not mining safety equipment or railroads.

No it is pork.

When the amendment has nothing to do with the act and it is there purely to buy the vote of the Rep who then uses the amendment to buy votes for themself.

If it was an act for say a decrease in mine taxes with an amendment for mine safety it would not be pork.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

No it is pork.

When the amendment has nothing to do with the act and it is there purely to buy the vote of the Rep who then uses the amendment to buy votes for themself.

If it was an act for say a decrease in mine taxes with an amendment for mine safety it would not be pork.

---

You are right. I think the common perception, though, is that pork is sheer waste. Whenever politicians trying to rile up a crowd against pork bring it up, they mention things like "genetic testing on polar bears." They don't mention that a lot of important things tend to get included through what is technically pork too.

And, getting about 400+ people to all vote on something just cause it's the right thing to do.... eh well none of us are children anymore are we? :) We could get serious about campaign finance reform so that politicians didn't have to spend half their terms fundraising for the next re-election campaign, and suckling up to special interests and corporations. But no one, in general, seems enthusiastic to do campaign finance reform, least of all the ones most benefitting from it.

Here's an article from the AP that touches on a similar theme:

Quote:

---

The White House and congressional leaders already have made up their minds. Confronted with the defeat of an earlier measure in the House this week and increasingly urgent warnings of economic hardship, they've begun rounding up votes the old-fashioned way.

They're buying them.

A revised bailout bill includes tens of billions of dollars in tax breaks for the middle class, for homeowners who don't itemize their deductions, and for property owners in Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming.

Add on the $3 billion funding dollop for rural school programs over the next five years. And another $8 billion over the same period in disaster aid, much of it for Midwestern states. And toss in unrelated legislation, far-reaching in its own right, requiring insurance plans to provide better benefits for mental health.

---

I heard an (unconfirmed) figure that claims the unrelated addons to the bailout bill could themselves top $100 billion over 10 yrs. Bear in mind, the bill still has to make it through the House, where the members will no doubt want their taste too before they'll promise their votes. :sweatdrop:

Pork and/or unrelated add-ons = buying votes. Unfortunately that seems to be the system we are stuck with.

As unpalatable as paying for the sins of others may be for those of us that didn't foolishly buy more house than we can afford or leverage the family budget beyond the max with credit card debt for material bling bling; in other words lived within one's means...I guess the one saving grace in this mess is that we are in a much better position to weather this storm, and in the long run should even profit from it.

All this pork that has been added to the bill to get it to pass makes me thankful I live in a Parliamentary system... things get done because the party is (Almost always) unified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

So here I was watching MSNBC, where they were interviewing Senators about the new bailout bill when I hear one mention one of the good things in the bill is subsidies for "alternative energy". What???

So I do some googling around, and yeah, it looks like the Senate has still never seen a bill that they aren't willing to tack pork onto.

---

Good grief. :wall:

Financial disaster looms over America, and these special interest-bots spend their time porking up the bill.
I did not fully understand what Americans meant by 'pork' until just now. My oh my.

Gah! Americans should get on their horses, ride to Washington, and hang the lot of them on the nearest trees.

Have the US started to question their political system yet?

No?

Ok, I'll check back later:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Have the US started to question their political system yet?

No?

Ok, I'll check back later:)

---

We always question our political system. The real question is "when are we going to do something about it?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Good grief. :wall:

Financial disaster looms over America, and these special interest-bots spend their time porking up the bill.
I did not fully understand what Americans meant by 'pork' until just now. My oh my.

Gah! Americans should get on their horses, ride to Washington, and hang the lot of them on the nearest trees.

---

That's a tall order when you consider that our nation's elected leaders come from the same tide pool that spawned their constituency. The percentage of Americans who exhibit any semblance of common sense is shrinking with every passing day. I daresay such folks are clearly in the minority nowadays.

If any action is taken by the populace it will be too late to save the existing system. Historically the mob has a bad tendency to take action only when the crisis has proceeded beyond the point of no return.

Bailout passes in Senate.

Looks like it's gonna get passed in the House, too. I hope there's a bloodbath come November.

In all my haste to disseminate doom & gloom predictions and launch tirades against my favorite generation in this forum I forgot to mention this sweet little gem which was recently passed by Congress and signed by the President...

In the midst of reckless spending spree of the last six months I present to you the $25 billion dollar 'not a bailout' subsidy bailout for US automakers...

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Government loans awarded to three major US automakers are justified as they need them to meet new environmental regulations, Ford chief executive Alan Mulally said Thursday.
"This is not about a bailout," the Ford chief executive told AFP in an interview at the Paris auto show.

"It was very insightful what they did with the recent credit tightening, otherwise it would have really slowed down all efforts to being new technology into fuel-efficient vehicles."

Critics have alleged the US firms received an unwarranted subsidy.

US President George W. Bush signed a new energy bill Tuesday after it received approval from Congress.

It includes a 25-billion-dollar (17.8-billion-euro) loan package to help Ford, General Motors and Chrysler adapt to new emissions regulations.

Mulally said the cost of meeting new regulations could be as much as 110 billion dollars.

The money will be used to retool and adapt factories to make smaller, more fuel-efficient cars. Mulally said the extra cash could also be used to develop cars that will be sold in Europe.

"When we make a 'global' car for the United States, they will also be vehicles that will be sold in Europe," he said.

The former Boeing chief executive rejected the argument that Ford had focused too heavily on larger, gas-guzzling vehicles and failed to anticipate the developing trend towards smaller cars.

"We weren't pushing these larger vehicles, we were just building what our customers wanted," Mulally said.

Although SUVs and larger cars are less fuel-efficient, they carry bigger profit margins that can significantly boost an automaker's bottom line.

This is because they can charge more for larger vehicles, better covering development costs.

The Ford chief executive said that the challenge for his company was to make sure that every vehicle in its lineup makes money.

While the three big US companies have requested government cash, Japanese automakers Nissan, Honda and Toyota have said they would not seek to access funds from the 25 billion dollar package.

Ford however badly needs the cash injection. In the second quarter of 2008, it posted a net loss of 8.7 billion dollars, down from a net profit of 750 million dollars for the same period in 2007.

Its Detroit rival GM lost 15.5 billion dollars in the second quarter of 2008, compared with a profit of 891 million in 2007.

Chrysler is now owned by private equity group Cerberus and is no longer obliged to make its results public.

Ford announced its latest US sales figures on October 1.

New car sales plunged 35 percent in September to 116,734 vehicles, down from 176,204 in September 2007. Sales for the year to date fell 17.3 per cent to 1.5 million vehicles.

The former Boeing chief executive rejected the argument that Ford had focused too heavily on larger, gas-guzzling vehicles and failed to anticipate the developing trend towards smaller cars.

"We weren't pushing these larger vehicles, we were just building what our customers wanted," Mulally said.

Ya, blame your misfortunes on the customer you short sighted ninny.

Remember kids, it's not a gift... it's a loan which will help these private corporations meet those emissions standards they knew were coming down the pike for an eternity. That's all well in fine but you gotta love our elected leaders for being so quick to fork over another check backed by funny money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Financial disaster looms over America, and these special interest-bots spend their time porking up the bill.
I did not fully understand what Americans meant by 'pork' until just now. My oh my.

---

And now Louis you also understand the true meaning of the term "buypartisanship".

Pork is nothing new to get a bill passed. It's tradition going back to the beginning of the country. If we want to get angry about pork, don't get angry at the system. The system is just doing what the voters allow it to do. Blame the fact that 90% of people out there are far more concerned with American Idol and picking up a latte before work than checking the papers (past headlines) to see who's voting on what, and vote in or out the relevant Congresspeople accordingly. Most people don't know, and don't care. And wouldn't change how they live or think or vote even if they did know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

Pork is nothing new to get a bill passed.

---

Well, I think, in the US, the concept goes back to the 1800's, but if the people who were complaining about pork-barrel legislation then had an inkling of how blatant it would be today, I suspect they would've dropped dead on the spot. :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Well, I think, in the US, the concept goes back to the 1800's, but if the people who were complaining about pork-barrel legislation then had an inkling of how blatant it would be today, I suspect they would've dropped dead on the spot. :beam:

---

Well cutting pork is the cornerstone of McCain's economic plan. And he couldn't get the Reps on board to vote for a bill he stumped for, but they will vote if pork is added affecting the AMT tax and such.....

Does this pass the smell test? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

Well cutting pork is the cornerstone of McCain's economic plan. And he couldn't get the Reps on board to vote for a bill he stumped for, but they will vote if pork is added affecting the AMT tax and such.....

Does this pass the smell test? :)

---

Actually, no it doesn't. The AMT hasn't been adjusted for inflation in it's 38 years, so you listing it's adjustement as "pork" smells pretty bad. The original AMT only covered 155 households, BY DESIGN. Now approximately 20% of all households qualify. It's not supposed to be another "gouge the not-so-rich, but richer-than-me" kick to the groin.

The IRS themselves have identified it as the single worst thing about the U.S. tax code. Last year, the exemption was passed on 12/20/2007, requiring the IRS to reprint and redistribute the 2007 IRS tax forms, to the cost of about $40 million.

I will agree with you that it has nothing to do with the financial bailout bill, but it's not pork. Paying people $3.5million to study wool modification, that's pork. Silly me, i thought we had the spinning wheel nailed down, oh I don't know... 3000 years ago?????