Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

A Political Meltdown


A police officer patrols an empty hall on Capitol Hill in Washington, September 30, 2008. The House is not officially in session but meetings are continuing to deal with the failure of a bill to address the economic crisis. (Jim Young/Reuters)

By Dan Balz
There were no winners when the House voted down the economic rescue package on Monday. The collective breakdown of leadership in Washington left political wreckage rivaling that of the financial markets. The meltdown in Washington was no less dramatic than the meltdown on Wall Street -- and it spread across the political spectrum.

Who were the losers from Monday's debacle? Certainly President Bush, whose lame-duck status may understate the authority he appears able to exercise at this moment. The new Washington Post-ABC News poll taken Monday night showed another drop in his approval rating to the lowest of his presidency -- 26 percent, with 70 percent disapproving.

The president was slow to sound the alarms to the public as the crisis deepened and ceded most authority to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. When he finally stepped up, he was unable to rally either public opinion or members of his own party behind the rescue package that had his stamp of approval on it.

His speech last week was notable for the clarity with which he described the threat to the economy and equally notable for the lack of impact it had on public opinion or the politicians in his own party. For all he was able to do to put the crisis into understandable terms, he could not persuade enough Americans that the rescue package was aimed as much at protecting their economy as it was at protecting greedy financial firms and executives.

Next in line are the House Republicans, long the ideological outliers in a political party that aspires to majority status. A veteran of a past Republican administration could barely spit out his contempt Monday for the actions of the House Republicans. "They would rather be right in their views -- that ideology counts more, that ideology is crucial in any decision -- rather than making incremental progress," he said.

The vote Monday underscored the political disarray within the Republican Party as a whole. House Republicans reflect the ideological purity of the conservative movement, but they are not by any means representative of a governing majority in the country.

The party's nomination battle did nothing to resolve those divisions and probably simply papered them over through the election. If John McCain loses to Barack Obama in November, the party is in for a long period of infighting and introspection. If McCain wins, he may be confronted with many of the same problems Bush has faced through much of his second term -- a president in serious disagreement with at least part of his party.

The Republican Party is leaderless and lacking in cohesion. The president is certainly not in charge. McCain sought to exert power over the party to no avail, and in the process raised more questions about his own style of leadership. None of the congressional leaders have stepped up.

House Republican leader John Boehner's performance has been truly mystifying. Last Wednesday he issued a joint statement with Speaker Nancy Pelosi touting the bipartisan progress being made on the package. The next day, at the White House, he was promoting an alternative plan in the name of House Republicans that caught Democrats and Paulson totally by surprise.

On Monday he and House Republican Whip Roy Blunt were confident they had the minimum number of votes needed to pass the rescue package and turned out to be lousy vote counters. When the bill went down, he and Blunt and Rep. Eric Cantor all blamed Pelosi for scaring off a dozen of his colleagues with what he called an overly partisan speech.

Peter Wehner, a former Bush administration official, wrote Tuesday on the National Review blog that the Republican leaders' excuse was "foolish and irresponsible." "On one of the most important votes they will ever cast, insisting 'the speech made me do it' is lame and adolescent," he wrote.

Still, Pelosi deserves no praise for her leadership on Monday. Even stipulating that we are in the closing weeks of one of the most important political campaigns in a generation, her inability to rise above the tendency to score political points was inexcusable. Monday's vote was a moment to set aside those instincts and talk about the package as an example of Washington's ability to work cooperatively in a time of crisis.

Instead, Pelosi accused Bush of economic policies of creating "budgetary recklessness" and "an anything-goes mentality." And she closed with a partisan call to arms. "In the new year, with a new Congress and a new president," she said, "we will break free with a failed past and take America in a new direction to a better future."

Pelosi's partisan rhetoric has been echoed, though less prominently, by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who has sounded grudging in his comments about the Democrats' willingness to participate in finding a solution to a problem that he argues is wholly the fault of Bush and the Republicans.

Obama may bear less of the blame for what happened Monday than others, but largely because he put less on the line than McCain. Perhaps that was the right posture to take for a presidential candidate who has at best only limited authority to get into the thick of the negotiations. But he will get less credit when and if anything finally passes.

The voters will sort out the blame on all this in November. Anger at Washington will feed a hunger for change and it's likely to fall harder on Republicans as the party that holds the White House. But for the next president and the next Congress, whatever its makeup, Monday's performance should be looked at as an example of what it was, a performance designed to undermine public confidence in its elected leadership.

By Web Politics Editor  |  September 30, 2008; 12:10 PM ET
Categories:  B_Blog , Barack Obama , Dan Balz's Take , Economy , John McCain  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: McCain Takes to Radio Over Coal and Stem Cells
Next: New RNC Ad Dismisses Bailout as McCain Works for It

Comments

The public is angry, but what the public will be angry about on election is the dey quesiton. While there was alot of anger toward the bill, clearly this was do to the extremely poor job the Admin. and the Congressional leader did in explaining the why's and wherefore's of the bailout, which should have been called a rescue package. I have never heard such garbage come out of the mouths of otherwise educated people on these blogs when it came to the real costs and real necessity of the bill. Too many were just against anything and didnot have a responisible alternative, so many were yelling me, me , me, what is in it for me. Just appalling

But by election day, the real crunch should be feeling felt in the real economy as the credit crunch will continue, though hopefully not at currently extremes. Then the anger will be broader against Congress for screwing around and leaving Americans at risk. It is not until the credit crunch hits home will the anger really coalese against Washington of the Bush years. The Do nothing Congress will go down in history as one of the most worthless, especially during time of crisis.

Posted by: nclwtk | October 2, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

http://4thoffense.com/mc.html

John McCain sponsored this bill TEN MONTHS after it died in committee and more a year and a half after it was first submitted. He did NOTHING to revive the bill and is using this as an excuse for his efforts at regulation. This man has no shame.

Check out http://thomas.loc.gov and sarch for the bill S.190 for the 109th congress. There are 3 cosponsors. Two of them were real and one was fake.

COSPONSORS(3)
Sen Dole, Elizabeth [NC] - 1/26/2005
Sen Sununu, John E. [NH] - 1/26/2005
Sen McCain, John [AZ] - 5/25/2006

http://4thoffense.com/mc.html

Posted by: wunderwood | October 1, 2008 10:19 AM | Report abuse

To gator-ron:

As I said, we were cross posting, so my harsh response was to your first post, and I then saw your second post and changed my tack. I believe that my first response was justified, given the character attacks in your first post, but as I said, I quickly modified this after you changed you tone - but again, I am still waiting for details and for detailed arguments: with evidence and analysis- not just statements.

Let me respond in detail to a few of your comments from you last post:

"I do not engage in intellectual jousting with people who do not accept the principle's that this country is founded on."

Which principles are these? Slavery? (responsible for the rapid buildup of capital in this nation), genocide? (of the Native Americans - necessary for the genesis and expansion of the nation), or just the fact that wealthy white land-owning males (most slave-owning as well) should run this nation? or that only white, land-owning males should be able to vote? These are some of the principles that this nation was founded on - and in many ways continues to support today: towards Blacks in this nation, and the way the U.S. relates to the rest of the world: the war in Iraq has cost, most likely 400,000 to 900,000 Iraqi lives (Lancet 2 study), with about third causes by coalition forces directly. Throw in the sanctions in the Clinton era (responsible for over 500,000 deaths of Iraqi children), plus support for dictators in Guatemala, Chile, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Serbia ... just to name a few, and you can see that america has been keeping to those basic principles that I mentioned earlier.

The principles I stand for are equality, freedom, social justice, and decent work, housing, health care and education for all - and most basically a society and economy run by and for the people who actually create things of value - the working class. Why won't you argue with someone who stands for these principles? that is very closed-minded of you. But of course, that is an american principle - shut out anyone from the debate who doesn't fit the standard argument between democrats and republicans.

"I am concerned about the financial well being of our financial system. If you are interested in its collapse, then there is nothing to discuss."

On the other hand, I am interested in the well being of the masses of working people and poor in this nation and around the world - this well being is directly at odds with the well-being of the current economic system of capitalism, in the U.S. and around the world. Ever since capitalism emerged, it has been rocked by crisis, and every time, the leaders and the capitalists argue - we can't let the system fail, that would hurt everyone!

The current paradigm leaves no decent choice - let the system fail and fall into depression, which will disproportionately hurt the working class and poor - or bailout out wall street, on the backs of workers paying taxes, stave of the crisis (without solving it, because empirical evidence shows that these fixes NEVER solve crisis, and I claim they cannot because capitalism is now a system in crisis) for a larger crisis 8-10 years from now, and go through only a crippling recession instead, along with a brutal austerity program by the government (necessary to pay for the massive bailout - of course, with workers taking the brunt.)

What is needed is to overthrow this broken, unequal, and oppressive system, and replace it with actual participatory Socialism, not the stuff of Stalin, or Castro or peddled as socialism for decades. This will take billions of people around the world rising up and saying no to the system that oppresses them daily - if you wish to discuss how this is possible, I am willing to go into many details of how to work for such a change.

Sam R.

Posted by: SamR | October 1, 2008 6:14 AM | Report abuse

WILL GWEN IFILL ASK VP CANDIDATES ABOUT THIS...

THE FIRST-EVER ACTIVE DEPLOYMENT OF U.S. ARMY TROOPS INSIDE THE U.S. -- WHAT HAPPENED TO "POSSE COMITATUS?"

(From Democracynow.org, 9/22:)

Beginning in October, the Army plans to station an active unit inside the United States for the first time to serve as an on-call federal response in times of emergency.

The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent thirty-five of the last sixty months in Iraq, but now the unit is training for domestic operations.

The unit will soon be under the day-to-day control of US Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command.

The Army Times reports this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to Northern Command.

The paper says the Army unit may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control. The soldiers are learning to use so-called nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals and crowds.

*****

Do the candidates believe the President has the authority to use the armed forces for active duty in domestic deployment, what appears to be a violation of the 130-year-old "Posse Comitatus Act"?

Is it true that Biden, appearing on Fox News, endorsed that concept?

Is Sarah Palin familiar with the term "posse comitatus" and the principle for which it stands? Could she explain the concept and why it's important to the preservation of American democracy and civil liberties?

What the Army speaks of "non-lethal weapons," are they referring to "directed energy weapons" that emit silent bursts of various forms of radiation, such as microwaves -- energy that can induce illness, cause injury, and even death?

And what do Barack Obama and John McCain have to say about this?

Are they concerned that silent, dangerous "directed energy weapons", which have been imprecisely described as "non-lethal," could be used as a weapon against perceived POLITICAL "enemies?"

Posted by: scrivener50 | October 1, 2008 1:38 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: SamR | September 30, 2008 6:35 PM

Do not worry about my emotional welfare and I won't worry about yours. I am concerned about the financial well being of our financial system. If you are interested in its collapse, then there is nothing to discuss.

I do not engage in intellectual jousting with people who do not accept the principle's that this country is founded on.

You ignored the post that immediately followed and I will repeat it here. What I was doing was apologizing for the anger directed at you because you are not the problem. What I did not say then but will say now is your economics are irrelevant to me.

"I read more of SamR's posts and I realize that I did not pick up the subtlety. My emotions are high and I respond negatively to animal rage which I misinterpreted as the force behind you posts.:

Sorry Sam I will not pick up the gauntlet.

Posted by: Gator-ron | September 30, 2008 6:24 PM

Posted by: Gator-ron | October 1, 2008 12:46 AM | Report abuse

Those who say, "now is not the time to fix blame" is the one who is to blame.

Seems like a lot of angry right wing nuts here...and boy are they angry.

Posted by: jimmyminder | September 30, 2008 9:11 PM

Those who are to blame are the ones who accuse others to deflect their own culpability. What this person does not acknowledge that he is totally ignorant of the economic consequences of the drying up of credit.

I refer the reader who wants to understand this crisis in terms of what it means to them to read Martin Wolfe, a financial writer for the Financial Times (of London) who has no political affiliation.

Those who say, "now is not the time to fix blame" is the one who is to blame.

Seems like a lot of angry right wing nuts here...and boy are they angry.

Posted by: Gator-ron | October 1, 2008 12:27 AM | Report abuse

Those who say, "now is not the time to fix blame" is the one who is to blame.

Seems like a lot of angry right wing nuts here...and boy are they angry.

Posted by: jimmyminder | September 30, 2008 9:11 PM

Those who are to blame are the ones who accuse others to deflect their own culpability. What this person does not acknowledge that he is totally ignorant of the economic consequences of the drying up of credit.

I refer the reader who wants to understand this crisis in terms of what it means to them to read Martin Wolfe, a financial writer for the Financial Times (of London) who has no political affiliation.

Those who say, "now is not the time to fix blame" is the one who is to blame.

Seems like a lot of angry right wing nuts here...and boy are they angry.

Posted by: jimmyminder | September 30, 2008 9:11 PM

Posted by: Gator-ron | October 1, 2008 12:26 AM | Report abuse

Sen Obama deserves a lot of praise this past week or so for his leadership. Unlike his opponent, he never meddled in the negotiations, called for calm and restraint, then today, explained in detail, the problems to the American people. All while working in the background to get his issues in the bill. This is what the president should have done, well at least the president tried to make his case but failed.

Sen McCain attempted to cause anxiety by calling this a crisis (1 week after saying that the fundamentals of the economy is sound), suspended his campaign (sort of), rushed back to Washington (sort of), jumped into the fray (actually tried to meddle), jumped out of the fray when negotiations soured, attended the debate without securing the bill, took credit for the bill before the vote, then ate humble-pie behind a curtain in his plane after the vote. This is what a president should not do. For someone extolling the virtues of President Theodore Roosevelt, it seems that he was stomping around while bashing himself with a big stick.

Posted by: papaedde | September 30, 2008 10:31 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton: Dems resisted regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac!

http://mccain08-hillary2012.blogspot.com/

Posted by: dcpsychic | September 30, 2008 9:29 PM | Report abuse

Those who say, "now is not the time to fix blame" is the one who is to blame.

Seems like a lot of angry right wing nuts here...and boy are they angry.

Posted by: jimmyminder | September 30, 2008 9:11 PM | Report abuse

EVERY Senator has the right (and responsibility) to "get into the thick of negotiations" to protect America. The WaPo is in the tank for Obama. Blame, blame, blame; blame, blame McCain! At least he TRIED while Obama was "available by phone."

Posted by: MarkInAustin | September 30, 2008 12:28 PM
----------------------------
Obama and McCain were at the same meetings in Washington regarding the bailout. What exactly are you talking about?

Posted by: smc91 | September 30, 2008 9:07 PM | Report abuse

The winner is the American taxpayer. It is funny that this trickle down economy has worked perfectly well for Sen. Obama and his wife Michelle. There were no complaints there. I have not heard anything about Sen. Obama protesting the Wall Street largesse while he was in the US Senate. He has not protested the IRS tax code either, despite the fact that as a US Senator he could have done it. I have not heard him protesting the Bush bailout plan that favors the Wall Street spenders and speculators, on the contrary Sen. Obama, Speaker Pelosi, Majority leader Sen. Reid, and others were star struck when they sat next to President Bush. Thanks to Speaker Pelosi’s stupidity the bailout failed and now we have emerging rational plans that will deal with the problems without putting the taxpayers’ money at uncontrolled risk. The voters will have a chance to voice their opinion on November 4th and get them out of Washington.

Posted by: Wiel | September 30, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

again to gator-ron:

OK. we are cross-posting now, so I did not see your follow up before posting my most recent. I accept your modified postion, and am interested to hear what in my posts changed your mind - the subtlety you spoke of.

Yes, I am angry - as we have all have the right to be: living in a system that works us to the bone for the profit of the few. but my posts are not about rage - they are directed but focused anger at an unjust and oppressive system, at a time when our government is asking workers to foot the bill for those who have exploited and stolen from us.

Sam R.

Posted by: SamR | September 30, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

To Gator-ron:

oops. looks like I hit a sore spot. Someone is upset ... I certainly can think - and analyze, which you did not do in your post. I cited evidence and put out a theory about the failure of capitalism. All you do is attack my character without any arguments of your own, except the one about me offering no solution - which is false. Here is a quote from a previous post:

"What is needed is to overthrow this broken system and replace it with something rational - no, not like the fake socialism of Stalin and the east block - but a particpatory socialism, a state run by the working class for the working class - as opposed to the state now, run by the capitalists for the benefit of only the capitalists (if anyone can't see that this is what we are living in now, then you really need to wake up.)"

I also called for full nationalization of the U.S. banking and financial system, along with mass arrests throughout the financial system.

What I find beyond amusing is that you pick me out for a lack of thinking and for having a political agenda, while scores of posts on the list are from mindless supporters of Obama and McCain blaming one another and saying their candidate will solve this, when that is clearly a fairy-tale, and it is obvious that both parties are very culpable in this.

Of course I have a political agenda - we all do. I am honest about mine. I am against the capitalist system, which is clearly in trouble, and against both capitalist parties, that work against the interests of the working class and poor.

So gator-ron, either debate me on my points, and make some sense, or just leave it alone and sulk - stay at the shallow end of the pool.

Sam R.

Posted by: SamR | September 30, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Watch Sarah Palin Practice for Her Debate agaisnt Biden. http://www.watchdebate.com

See the Sarah Palin impersonator Joe Biden is using to practice the debate with http://www.theveep.com

Posted by: pastor123 | September 30, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

It scares me that there is so much pressure-1 from the President. After all, isn't that how we got into Iraq? Did he not see what has been going on since he De-Regulated this in the last 3 years? Why would we believe him? The urgency alone to save a market that has been dishonest and then will possible be contracting the same people back to manage it is a problem? Is there anything besides $700 Billion in the bill? Oversight? Penalties for the ones that mismanaged? Something for the tax payers to get their $$ back someday? Different rules & regulations? If not, NO is the answer to this urgent request from the President & others, as this won't affect him I'm sure!

Posted by: solsenz | September 30, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

COSPONSORS(3), ALPHABETICAL

Sen Dole, Elizabeth [NC] - 1/26/2005 Sen McCain, John [AZ] - 5/25/2006
Sen Sununu, John E. [NH] - 1/26/2005

Posted by: wunderwood | September 30, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Watch Sarah Palin Practice for Her Debate agaisnt Biden. http://www.watchdebate.com

See the Sarah Palin impersonator Joe Biden is using to practice the debate with http://www.theveep.com

Posted by: pastor123 | September 30, 2008 6:32 PM | Report abuse

http://www.4thoffense.com/mccain_deregulation.html

John McCain sponsored this bill TEN MONTHS after it died in committee and more a year and a half after it was first submitted. He did NOTHING to revive the bill and is using this as an excuse for his efforts at regulation. This man has no shame.

Check out http://thomas.loc.gov and sarch for the bill S.190 for the 109th congress. There are 3 cosponsors. Two of them were real and one was fake.

Posted by: wunderwood | September 30, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

I read more of SamR's posts and I realize that I did not pick up the subtlety. My emotions are high and I respond negatively to animal rage which I misinterpreted as the force behind you posts.

Posted by: Gator-ron | September 30, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

The score:

Democracy: 1
Bush, McCain, Obama, Pelosi: 0

Capitalism: -1.2 trillion


Sam R.
Posted by: SamR | September 30, 2008 4:12 PM

What SamR is interested in is winning. He has a political agenda. What SamR is not interested in is the economy because he does not offer a solution. Just because Sam can type does not mean he can think. But surely he knows how to react.

Posted by: Gator-ron | September 30, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

HOW DID WE GET IN THIS MESS??

Democrats forced Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Banks to issue a quota of sub-prime mortgages or pay big penalties. They made mortgages affordable by using schemes like:
"100 percent financing . . ."
"No down payment . . ."
"Interest only loans . . ."
"No income . . .
"No job . . ."
"No assets . . ."
"No credit scores . . ."
"Low credit scores . . ."
"No SSN required . . ."
"ITIN identification accepted . . ."
"Undocumented income . . . even if you don't report it on your tax returns . . ."

WHAT CAUSED OUR ECONOMIC CRISIS??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiXwZI_YqHY

Now watch democrat Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, and his gang of democrat misfits argue with republicans that more regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is not necessary because they don't have a problem:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

Posted by: eureka60 | September 30, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

What's in a Vote?

The following Democratic Representatives voted against the bailout package:


1. Rep. Brad Sherman, CA
2. Rep. William Lacy Clay, MO
3. Rep. Joe Baca, CA
4. Rep. Stephen F. Lynch, MA
5. Rep. David Scott, GA
6. Rep. Al Green, TX
7. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, MO
8. Rep. Lincoln Davis, TN
9. Rep. Paul W. Hodes, NH
10. Rep. Andre Carson, IN
11. Rep. Don Cazayoux, LA
12. Rep. Travis Childers, MS

What is the significance of these 12? They all serve on the House Committee of Financial Services, chaired by Barney Frank! That was the difference between passing the bailout.

Posted by: Verrazzano | September 30, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

to dee5:

"Winner: Barack Obama, whose calmness, professionalism, intelligence, and foresight now loom large in this election season. In a series of speeches over the past year, he outlined a sensible plan for re-establishing the regulatory system for Wall Street that McCain and Phil Gramm had dismantled.

Winner: the American people. We now have a clear and incontrovertible indication of how to vote in November if we want to save our nation's economy and status in the world."


you cannot be serious. you are talking about voting for a democrat: the party that voted in a majority for the bailout - that the american people did not want!!! Obama was calm and cool as the U.S. economy went into the tank. What is needed is radical solutions, but Obama and McCain offer none. Supporters of both candidates seem silly when they refuse to admit that politics as usual will not work anymore. you cannot regulate a system that is fundamentally broken.

Obama ... McCain - enemies of working people and the poor, neither has a real solution to the financial crisis.

Sam R.

Posted by: SamR | September 30, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

to mlimberg:

Mostly agree. Except that Obama and McCain are not on the take. They are just doing their job - the job of the Democratic and Republican parties: to represent the capitalist class and oppress the working class and poor, and to try and convince us that this is not what is happening (the democrats especially on that last part.)

Sam R.

Posted by: SamR | September 30, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Losers: House Republicans especially Boehner, Blunt and Cantor who came off looking like whiney children with their excuses of hurt feelings for defeating the bailout bill. What a bunch of unpatriotic, fanatical cowards.

Loser: John McCain, whose stunts and tricks to try to save his floundering campaign by claiming to parachute into Washington to save the bipartisan negotiations backfired spectacularly. He looks like the erratic, clueless liar that some have long suspected he was.

Loser: Nancy Pelosi, whose partisan truth-telling has gotten her in temporary hot water.

Loser: George Bush, whose status as a monumentally lame duck has now been glued on to his reputation for deceit about WMD, heartlessness about Katrina, and cluelessness about 9/11. What a maroon.

Winner: Barack Obama, whose calmness, professionalism, intelligence, and foresight now loom large in this election season. In a series of speeches over the past year, he outlined a sensible plan for re-establishing the regulatory system for Wall Street that McCain and Phil Gramm had dismantled.

Winner: the American people. We now have a clear and incontrovertible indication of how to vote in November if we want to save our nation's economy and status in the world.

Obama/Biden '08

Posted by: dee5 | September 30, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

“In the midst of all the accidental and ever fluctuating exchange-relations between the products, the labor-time socially necessary for their production forcibly asserts itself like an over-riding law of nature. The law of gravity thus asserts itself when a house falls about our ears.”

-Karl Marx

Posted by: SamR | September 30, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

The American working class won in the bailout defeat. But Wall Street and Washington think we lost...

How about personal responsibility. Pay your own damn way Wall Street and Washington, Americans have to.

The WaMu CEO was on the job 17 days and received a package offer of $15 million. How can anyone justify that?

McCain and Obama are both on the take the way they talk... I trust no one anymore.

Posted by: mlimberg | September 30, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Serve god: Beat up a Republican

Posted by: abigsam | September 30, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

The score:

Democracy: 1
Bush, McCain, Obama, Pelosi: 0

Capitalism: -1.2 trillion


Sam R.

Posted by: SamR | September 30, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Wow. People keep using this comment list to shill for Obama or McCain. I am impressed. This financial crisis makes both candidates look extremely small. Neither of them has any ability to fix this, and because of the crisis neither will be able to keep any of their campaign promises.

McCain is, of course, a murderous, pro-war candidate (as is Obama) now pandering to the right-wing, but I will save most of my anger for Obama, since he pretends to represent working people and the poor.

To those of you writing that Obama will somehow save us from this disaster and that he will somehow bring change to this nation and improve our lives: you must be kidding me. Obama is a major democrat, and just like all major democrats, he is tied to the system - and works against working people and the poor. He is deeply tied to wall street, and had been getting huge donations from the capitalists of this nation - because they want a change. 8 years of Bush has been enough to ruin america's image at home and abroad. They don't want to change what america does - they want america to have better cover for the same oppressive and murderous policies - a better PR campaign, a facelift - and that is Obama. Obama proposes no solution for the crisis that supports working people and the poor - he can't, he needs to defend the capitalist system.
Obama will give the american system a new lease on life- because people will believe the lie. As he cuts programs and attacks workers and the poor (as Clinton did), people will accept it, because it is coming from Obama. When america attacks Iran or Pakistan, the world will accept it, since it is not Bush, but Obama.

Obama has denied racism, thrown his lifelong friend under the bus for saying things that were mostly true (except the AIDS stuff - but the rest was more true than anything Obama or McCain have said during the entire campaign), said he would attack Pakistan, supported the brutal and murderous state of israel in its attempt to annex more of Palestinian land, opposed gay marriage. wow ... change.

Sam R.

Posted by: SamR | September 30, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

debera109:

Most Democrats are in a hurry to act now so that people with retirement savings in 401(k)s don't loose everything they've worked for. Do you even know what socialist means? How is wanting to protect your retirement savings being socialist?

-----------------------------------------
The government taking my money (taxes) to boost your 401K is socialism. Why should I fund your 401? The stock market is a risk for your money. If you choose to use it, why do I have to bail you out when it doesn't work out?

The government ownership and control of banking and credit institutions is a prime example of socialism.

Posted by: debera109 | September 30, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Zack2 wrote:

"I am a free-market capatalist and still believe strongly in the free market. But free-market capatalism is not economic anarchy. For a free market to exist, there must be laws and there must be a government to enforce those laws."

Come on. People say this all the time, after each scandal and collapse - fix the laws, more oversight, more transparency ... blah blah blah ... but it keeps happening, every 8-10 years. why is this, because it is not a side effect, it is how the system works. After a certain amount of time, you have to look at the mounting evidence and just say that the system doesn't work.

And even if, theoretically, you could come up with the right framework, you will never get it into effect, because capitalism has grown so large, and capitalists have so much power, that the government exists to service them - that is the nature of the capitalist state. Yes, when there is a crisis, the capitalists realize they need to tone it down a bit and let the government clamp down for a bit, but the only reason for this is to persuade the people that something has been done - it doesn't stop the process.

But you're missing the larger point: The problem wasn't full disclosure, or making sure the right laws were in place, or the fact that the government did or did not enforce these laws.

The main point is that these bubbles are the only way the market works now. your assumption that the free market somehow works defies all empirical evidence, and is based on an image of capitalism that has not existed for over 100 years. There is no such thing as free competition (and there cannot be) when huge corporations basically form monopolies and trusts (not necessarily just 1 company, but a small number who dominate the market). We live in an era of overripe capitalism - as this goes on, it is harder and harder to generate profit through production - that is why all the growth in the U.S. economy, for the last 30 years, has been based on the speculative bubbles. It is not greed (although greed is a local mechanism in the process), or lack of oversight, or anything like this - this is how capitalism works now - it cannot run without these bubbles, because these bubbles are all the system has.

Sam R.

Posted by: SamR | September 30, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

So far, the new millenium is making me feel nostalgic toward the old millenium.

Laundry issues on a blue dress seem to pale in comparison.

Posted by: kban495 | September 30, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

When all the shouting and finger-pointing has ended we'll be left with this fundamental truth:

Our elected representatives listened to their constituents and decided the plan presented by the Treasury Secretary and the Bush Administration was not in their people's best interests.

When someone is in a rush to "close" a deal you can bet that they are acting in their OWN best interests, not yours.

The more heads that are involved in the ultimate package, the better the package is likely to be.

Gird your loins, folks. "It ain't over till it's over...."

Posted by: gauntowl | September 30, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Britain has nationalized its banks. The U.S. has nationalized Wall Street and will do the same for U.S. Oil when it hits $6.50 a gallon in two years. Oil is too crucial for speculators' private greed. The United States greed based society is over. We will copy Britain or Germany’s mixed economy system based heavily on the People government oversight. Speculators and gamblers cannot be trusted with the American economy. Wrong is wrong and wolves cannot be hired to protect cash cows. Today you can gamble in Las Vegas with your credit card (money that you don’t have); Wall Street high leverage speculation is the same thing.

Three weeks ago, some Americans stupidly said that we don’t need to consider World Opinion during the 2008 presidential election. It is now clear that America and The World are closely connected and that we need to consider how the World perceives our decisions. The World does not like John McCain and will not cooperate with McCain.

No one wants another Cold War, except McCain. Palin’s childish perceptions are not worth mentioning, especially with the World watching and laughing at McCain’s choices. Russia does not want another Expensive Cold War, but it will play ball if McCain kicks off. While Bush and McCain are building military bases in Poland, Russia is speaking with Latin American Oil Nations about refining and cutting out U.S. Oil Companies. Next Russia will build military bases in Latin American in response to U.S. bases in Eastern Europe. McCain and Wall Street weapons manufacturers are the only ones who want to profit from a new Cold War. In reality, no one benefits from a new Cold War. The American People, Russian People and World People will be injured by a new Cold War. Expect European demands to be rid of all U.S. bases in Europe. The American People, Russian People and World People want peace and cooperation from the United States led by Barack Obama.

The World loves Barack Obama and has signed a letter of intent to cooperate with America under Barack’s leadership. Throughout the World young presidents are emerging and none of them want to return to the bad days of the Cold War (bomb shelters, high interest rates, disproportionate military spending, nuclear buildup, general fear). Nobody wants the return of the Cold War, except McCain and Wall Street weapons manufacturers. The American People are nationalizing Wall Street to prevent weapons manufacturers from dictating unfavorable terms to our economy. Again the American middle class must see pass their ignorance and the emperor with no clothes (Bush, McCain, Palin, Guiliani). Americans must vote for it’s best interest, which includes a favorable World Opinion. America And The World Will Vote Obama to avert financial and military catastrophes.

Let’s not forget that China, Saudi Arabia and India together hold over $1 Trillion in American currency. Do you think that China, Saudi Arabia and India have votes in the 2008 American election? The CEOs of American companies and Wall Street Banks heavily invested with funds from China, Saudi Arabia and India know that foreign governments will be exercising their strong votes in our election. You can thank McCain deregulations and GOP Republican American job outsourcing for dissipating Our American votes.

Obama has 8 years experience as a State Senator, 4 years in the US Senate, taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago, etc. Obama’s very high intellectual capacity allows him to analyze situations and make sound decisions. How can you even compare Palin’s GED from Moose Community College credentials to these?

Posted by: dwashington1 | September 30, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Rescue? Who are we rescuing… the Saudis? The current bailout plan rewards bad market behavior and helps out the like of Citigroup, which is 60% owned by the Saudi King. Now that they have taken over Wachovia, they own a considerable amount of bad debt that this bailout would restructure. I don’t covet the idea of oil giants, and known financiers of terrorism, getting even more of my money.

Any package to save the US economy needs to save it from the bottom up and should apply across the board to everyone, not just the risk-takers. Legitimate home-buyers, those who plan on actually living in them, buy their home based on the maximum payment they can afford on a monthly salary. If the government simply backed those with decent credit and the desire to refinance or buy a home, it would make homes more affordable, protect home values, and infuse money into the economy (that would have been applied to monthly mortgage). One problem is that home values have dropped much quicker than people can pay them off, greatly exceeding outstanding mortgage balances. For instance; If I paid $400,000 for my house and paid it down to $340,000 at around 7%, I would want to refinance when the rates fall to 5% or below, which they will likely do in this recession. However, I wouldn’t be able to refinance, in spite of doing everything right, because the value of my home has dropped near or below the remaining mortgage. Furthermore, in “declining markets”, banks require 30% equity to refinance (instead of the normal 20%).

I don't doubt the economy needs intervention. Let's just make sure we patch the leak instead of just getting bigger buckets.

Posted by: TheTruthAccordingToBuzz | September 30, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

SamR said:
"So the vote to deny the bailout was certainly some sort of victory for democracy (rule by the people, in a nation where that rarely comes close to happening), but it surely wasn't a victory for the "free-market". The free market has already lost - proven itself unstable and unworkable. No one has any confidence in it."

============

I am a free-market capatalist and still believe strongly in the free market. But free-market capatalism is not economic anarchy. For a free market to exist, there must be laws and there must be a government to enforce those laws.

First and foremost, if an orgainzation is going to take risks with borrowed money, there must be full disclosure to the lender as to the risks. There must be laws to insure this happens. Otherwise many executives will correctly determine that they can take big gambles with borrowed money, keep a share of the winnings, and stick the lender (or worse the taxpayer) with any losses.

There is no problem taking big risks if the lender understands and agrees, and presumably is compensated appropriately. What happened here is that huge risks were taken, and sufficient obfuscated such that the lenders thought they were buying triple-A bonds. Thats where businesses put money they can't afford to lose. When businesses lose money thay can't afford and didn't expect to lose, they must lay off people fast and dump assets at below cost.

So fix the accounting rules, prohibit derivatives whose complexity prevents lenders from assessing the risk. But don't blame the free-market for the failures of government.

Posted by: zack2 | September 30, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

McCain was confused in this bailout crisis he thought he was the president. We know that is not true. But in ineptitude in leading his party McCain was Bush's equal.

Apparently house Republicans have no more respect for McCain either,

Posted by: Gator-ron | September 30, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

pimpinbenzo73 wrote:

"The real winners of yesterday's vote were ... the free market system. Simple as that!"

That may be the funniest thing I have ever read.

To spin this as a victory for the "free market"? wow. The free market has two choices (given our political climate):

1. collapse.
2. get bailed out by working people.

I am for neither.

Sam R.

Posted by: SamR | September 30, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Dan, help me out here. I should believe Paulson and Bernanke who kept telling us everthing is okay until a week ago. Now they expect the American citizen to believe them. Trust us, we know better. All the experts know better than the average American citizen. Well I guess the American citizen let Congress know they understand what this bail out will cost us and future generations. Smarter than the average expert.

This was main street reminding Congress who actually elects them. Main street (the American citizen, voter, remember them) finally waking up. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with your newspaper and the media? Why can't you/they see the majority of Americans understand exactly what this bail out is for; Wall Street, with no consequences for their actions.

You are wrong there was a winner. The American citizen/voter finally making their voice heard with their constitutional right; the right to vote.

We are the champions

Posted by: AmericanWinner | September 30, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Wrong again Dan! You miss the point that the people's pressure forced many of these puppets to vote against the bill. The people have won, temporarily! These representatives of the wealthy will find the 12 votes and support their masters unless the people rise up again!

Posted by: grn123 | September 30, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Idealogy trumps governance. The true believers are now in charge and have decided idealogical purity is to be achieved at all costs. They win and the public loses.

Posted by: bobfbell | September 30, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

One final shot - about democracy. It looks like the house, as a majority, for once listened to the people of america instead of the interests of capital. Here are some stats:

The Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign donations,
said House members who supported the bailout bill on average received 50
percent more in campaign contributions from the finance, insurance and
real estate sectors during their congressional careers than did those
who opposed the measure. That gap was particularly pronounced on the
Democratic side, CRP said.

Again, full disclosure - I am not a democrat or republican - I am a Trotskyist. I am not for the bailout - it saves the thieves and attacks working people. I am for full nationalization (not the crap in the current proposals) of the banking and financial industry (with a hopeful phasing out of the financial industry, since it is just a middleman dragging society down) - since if they cannot run themselves, the people need to take them over for the sake of a sane society, and arrests across the board for the financial and banking sectors.

Sam R.

Posted by: SamR | September 30, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

debera109:

Most Democrats are in a hurry to act now so that people with retirement savings in 401(k)s don't loose everything they've worked for. Do you even know what socialist means? How is wanting to protect your retirement savings being socialist?

Posted by: birdaa | September 30, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

If people in this country are actually stupid enough to still believe the Republican party line after war, economic and military ruin and increasing unemployment, then maybe we deserve to be a third-world country. Let's keep the Repubs in power so they can take us all the way down the drain and there will not longer be any question even in the minds of the most dimwitted.

Posted by: justathought3 | September 30, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

It is impressive to see what a joke these comments are. Democrats and Republicans pointing fingers at one another as the walls come falling down around you.

I am a Marxist - a Trotskyist. I support neither Democrats or Republicans, since both are capitalist parties that, no matter what they say, work as enemies of working people. Marx predicted that capitalism would be rocked by crisis after crisis. Isn't is clear to see that this economy is fundamentally broken, unable to grow effectively? The only growth in the last 30 years has been in bubbles that then collapse - the S&L bubble, the dotcom bubble, and now the housing bubble. Values are finally starting to return to something approximating reality. Capitalism needs depression to cleanse the old and renew, but depressions are too unstable - they open the way to political upheaval and possibly revolution. Anyway, the government has intervened so many times to stave off crisis (and make no mistake - without government intervention, there would have been another great depression by now - one that made the last look small), that economic entities are huge and bloated - if they tanked now, they would take the entire economy with them - leading to an even greater depression.

What is starting to become obvious to many people now is that our economic system is fundamentally flawed - the chaos of capitalism leads to crisis and depression. Late capitalism is a ponzi scheme, based on bubbles - it cannot produce and growth in a healthy manner - only based on the capital of fiction.

come on all of you ... surely you feel it ... maybe you won't admit it consciously, but you feel it ... something is very wrong .. very broken.

So the vote to deny the bailout was certainly some sort of victory for democracy (rule by the people, in a nation where that rarely comes close to happening), but it surely wasn't a victory for the "free-market". The free market has already lost - proven itself unstable and unworkable. No one has any confidence in it.

The Bailout is no solution, it will not work. It will rescue the thieves and put the bill on working people - with no benefit to us. What is needed is to overthrow this broken system and replace it with something rational - no, not like the fake socialism of Stalin and the east block - but a particpatory socialism, a state run by the working class for the working class - as opposed to the state now, run by the capitalists for the benefit of only the capitalists (if anyone can't see that this is what we are living in now, then you really need to wake up.)

Sam R.

Posted by: SamR | September 30, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

"Credit Card limits on what they can charge for interest rates. Like nothing more then 15%.
Even the loan sharks can't get away with what MBNA charges. The scoundrels"
--------------------------------------------

Thank you so much steve_real. I totally agree. There should be a national usury law. No bank should be able to charge anything like what they do today. If that means less credit for some, then so be it. If it had been harder to get some of this credit a lot more people would have a lot less debt. On top of that, you could actually pay it off if there was such a law.

Posted by: ObamaWins1 | September 30, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Pelosi is speaker of the house and would be in line to be President which should scare people to death. You think Palin is not experienced Pelosi is as dumb as they come but the media never puts the spotlight on her so most voters don't realize how stupid she really is. She is to blame for the failure in the house.

Posted by: sque1 | September 30, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Dan,
While you're right that there are no winners in this, there are some clear losers. Boehner could not deliver the votes. Bush could not deliver the votes.

And more ominously, despite phoning it in, McCain could not deliver the votes. Clearly he carries no weight with House Republicans. He's already poisoned the well with the Democratic Party by "virtue" of the campaign he's run.

I think this tells us two things: most House Republicans believe McCain will not win the election. In the event he does, they don't believe he will have any coattails. So they will owe him nothing, which makes it safe to cross him on the vote.

The second thing tells us is there is little hope for a bipartisan consensus in Congress, which would destroy any hope McCain has of governing from the center. Pelosi can deliver the Democrats necessary, but McCain can't deliver the Republicans.

Posted by: dpc2003 | September 30, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Esaily your same arguement could be said for the Dem side of the aisle. Those locked in tight elections were told by Pelosi to NOT VOTE for the bill. I believe over 33% of the Dems did not vote for it either. If it is really all a GOP mess I guess Pelosi and the Dems could have fixed it but they couldn't get it done...
----------------------------------------
Do any of you Republicans take any responsibility for anything? If the Democrats delivered 2/3 of their party for a bill they hate and a president they detest, why couldn't the Republicans do anything? The question really is, "how aren't they at fault?"

Posted by: ObamaWins1 | September 30, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Personally, I'm glad the bill was not passed. Where in the world is all this money coming from to pay off this debt? We also have the Jubilee Act and the Global Poverty Act - they total $920 Billion to pay off 3rd World Debt.

$700 billion - socialist takeover of Wall Street
$920 billion - payout for 3rd World Debt (co-sponser Obama)

When did we turn into a socialist country? And why is the Democratic Party in such a hurry to sell out the United States?

Posted by: debera109 | September 30, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

I know it is fashionable to try and make everything look like everyone's equally guilty, however that isn't the case here. This is the Republicans fault. They decided to stick with a failed philosophy that endangers the long term health of this economy and decided to give a bigger middle finger to this country on Monday. Democrats are always held to a double standard where they must put politics aside and be the adults whereas Republicans get to act as immature and retarded as ever and never pay a price. That isn't the case this time. This is what the Republicans have sown for over 40 years and now they finally reaping.

Posted by: ObamaWins1 | September 30, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was great.
Two years ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) Unemployment rate was 4.5%.
4) DOW JONES hit a record high--14,000 +
5) American's were buying new cars, taking cruises, vacations overseas, living large!...
Then, American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress and yes--guess what? We got 'CHANGE' all right.
In the PAST YEAR:
1) Consumer confidence has plummeted!
2) Gasoline is now close to $4 a gallon & climbing!
3) Unemployment is up to 5.5% (a 10% increase);
4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS and prices still dropping;
5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
6) THE DOW is probing another low
7. $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM PEOPLE'S STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUND INVESTMENTS PORTFOLIOS!
YES, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE...AND WE SURE GOT IT! ....
REMEMBER THE PRESIDENT HAS NO CONTROL OVER ANY OF THESE ISSUES, ONLY CONGRESS.
AND WHAT HAS CONGRESS DONE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
NOW THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT CLAIMS HE IS GOING TO REALLY GIVE US CHANGE ALONG WITH A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS!!!!
JUST HOW MUCH MORE 'CHANGE' DO YOU THINK YOU CAN STAND......Oh yeah, I forgot.....700 billion to get us out of the mess created when the new congress mandated that big mortgage companies give sub prime loans to families who could not afford them and then failed to vote for the oversight requested by the President in 2006.

Posted by: prhornbeak | September 30, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

What a lot of partisan nonsense. This is not about Republicans versus Democrats. It is about big money wall street and the politicians of both parties whom they support versus the rest of the country who is being asked to pay the bill.

The reps who voted against this bill did so because their constituants are screaming for them to do so. Imagine the common folks actually having a say in national policy!

Big government is saying that we must avoid at all costs the fincial collapse having collateral damage to the larger economy. The taxpayers are saying the avoiding a recession at all costs is not necessarily as important as making sure the financial burden is born by those who made the unsound investment. Especially when the cost is so large.

Posted by: zack2 | September 30, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse


For God's sakes, listen to your own party.

House Republican Leader John Boehner's performance has been truly mystifying. Last Wednesday he issued a joint statement with Speaker Nancy Pelosi touting the bipartisan progress being made on the package. The next day, at the White House, he was promoting an alternative plan in the name of House Republicans that caught Democrats and Paulson totally by surprise.

On Monday he and House Republican Whip Roy Blunt were confident they had the minimum number of votes needed to pass the rescue package and turned out to be lousy vote counters. When the bill went down, he and Blunt and Rep. Eric Cantor all blamed Pelosi for scaring off a dozen of his colleagues with what he called an overly partisan speech.

Peter Wehner, a former Bush administration official, wrote Tuesday on the National Review blog that the Republican leaders' excuse was "foolish and irresponsible." "On one of the most important votes they will ever cast, insisting 'the speech made me do it' is lame and adolescent," he wrote.

Posted by: monk4hall | September 30, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Dear Omyobama,

Showing how Obama moves crowds as a reason to make one President is scary..... Hitler was a great mover of people too! So was Jim Jones!

Posted by: tbastian | September 30, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

And George Bush's inability to lead mice to cheese is ... inspiring? You point to Hitler, I'll point to Churchill, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, JFK, Gandhi, MLK Jr, Abraham Lincoln, and, yes, Ronald Reagan whose "city on a hill" convention speech still ranks as a rhetorical gem. These men moved people to change, to courage and to action. We need that leadership now, not someone who can't inspire enough people to fill up a telephone booth, who swings erratically from one "solution" to another in the midst of a crisis. Yeah, I'll take calm, persuasive leadership any day ...

Posted by: Omyobama | September 30, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

First there's Nancy Pelosi making incendiary comments before anyone voted. That didn't sink the vote, but gave everyone a great alibi.

Then John McCain give a five minute tirade that it's "Obama and his allies" fault, but that we shouldn't be partisan. A laugh out loud line.

And these are supposedly America's leaders? Oh my.

Posted by: amaikovich | September 30, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Dear monk4hall ,

Esaily your same arguement could be said for the Dem side of the aisle. Those locked in tight elections were told by Pelosi to NOT VOTE for the bill. I believe over 33% of the Dems did not vote for it either. If it is really all a GOP mess I guess Pelosi and the Dems could have fixed it but they couldn't get it done... and where was the Savior Obama the Chosen One??? He is so awesome he cold have waved his hand and fixed it and the rest of the world in an instant.

The hatred you spew is amazing. Neither party is innocent here, you know it deep down inside, and some really want to fix it and do the right thing. Unfortunately DC makes politicians on both sides care more about reelection than doing the right thing.

Posted by: tbastian | September 30, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Maybe if Republicans were really supporting their president and 2008 candidates for president/vice president in votes on the house floor, Nancy Pelosi wouldn't have to cover bases by reminding everyone where and how this started: a Bush/Cheney/McCain/Phil Gramm induced mess anyway you look at it.

Was Hoover reelected in 1932? What do the Republicans want here, praise? Guess again.

Posted by: BarryOR | September 30, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Oh poor baby your credit limits get cut? After all these years of living large on easy credit and now you can't do that no more?

Your 401K is what motivates you today? Not God and country?

And giving 700 billions of borrowed money to the same gang who created this mess in the first place will do it for you? We will swap 700 billions of good clean US bonds for these toxic mortgage bonds and that will fix it?

Tell us, what happens when the US bonds themselves become toxic? What happens to us then? Who will bail out the bailer? Will you get to keep the roof over your head, let alone your 401K?

The road we are on and the road all you experts insist we keep on is the road that will lead to the mother of all financial crises - the collapse of the US dollar. And with it the full faith and credit of the United States government.

Posted by: bobte | September 30, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Obama is right about one thing, this is the time for the grown ups to keep an eye on the markets.

The Republican mantra of "deregulation" really put the American people in a jam.

but hey
the Democrats voted this national debacle into law too.

So either the Conservatives vote to bailout Wall Street, and in turn they save Main Street or they'll vote in the Great Depression and the most massive job loss the nation has seen since 1930.

The Democrats voted by an overwhelming majority for the Bush/ Paulson/Republican plan.
Let's see if the so-called conservatives can vote the plan in and not blame it on some emotional B.S..

1.
But what I want is a serious effort to charge criminal malfeasance to these bankers who knowingly and willingly defrauded the American public by issuing phoney mortgages to people who clearly could not afford it.

2.
A limit on CEO pay.
Lehman Brothers gave out 6 Billion dollars in bonuses in 2007. Now brothers this is clear that Lehman was giving bonuses they clearly could not afford.

3.
Credit Card limits on what they can charge for interest rates. Like nothing more then 15%.
Even the loan sharks can't get away with what MBNA charges. The scoundrels

good luck

Posted by: steve_real | September 30, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Bush wants to spread democracy around the world, so why isn't it good enough for America? Paulson's bailout is Bush's going-away present to Wall Street.

Posted by: hamishdad | September 30, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse


Hey vgailitis, moron, let's say this again, slowly, so even Sarah Palin dimwits like yourself can understand. THE REPUBLICANS VOTED DOWN THE BILL AFTER PLEDGING TO VOTE FOR IT.

You want to blame someone, look at Newt Gingrich who -- as usual--puts the good of himself before the good of the country, and who whipped up opposition --even as he expressed public support.

Look at McCain who couldn't get a single person from his state's congressional delegation to vote for the bill. NOT A SINGLE ONE!

Some leadership. No, you dimwit, the democrats did not back out. the republicans did.

Then again, delusion and hypocrisy are planks one and two of your party, which has brought this country to the brink of ruin.

Why did this bill fail? Simple. Your republican "leaders" --locked in tight election battles--saw how furious their constituents were over it and bailed.

Country first, my a**

Posted by: monk4hall | September 30, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Dan, Dan,Dan! The vote missed by 12? What's the number of dems on Barney Franks Committee who voted NO? Let me help you 12! It is not both parties fault, it is dems fault. Purely, and simply, the democrats had no intention of getting this done, and wanted the cover of the Republicans passing it so they could point the finger again! Pelosi's comments were stupid, but she's not overly intelligent to begin with. Democrats created, promoted and protected this financial mess for at least ten years, until the little letter leaked by Schumer started the cow pie rolling down hill in this never ending dem effort to save Obama's Marxist hide and an election!

Posted by: vgailitis | September 30, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Ummmm... genius ... this was a REPUBLICAN plan, from a REPUBLICAN president, begged for by a REPUBLICAN treasury secretary, to undo 8 years of REPUBLICAN FAILED ECONOMIC POLICY. We had a surplus when George Bush was elected, supported by REPUBLICANS in both houses of Congress. We now have an $11 Trillion deficit and dems have not had a veto-proof majority even since taking control 2 years ago. Democrats had 67% of their membership behind the REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT'S PLAN. House REPUBLICANS reneged on their promise to bring 80 members to the yes side and instead only got about 30% in favor. Don't even THINK about laying this egg on a Democrat's doorstep ... and check out the report that the paragon of virtue Newt Gingrich was the real spoiler, who went behind the back of the Republican leadership, got Republican House members to vote against then went out in public and supported the bill at the last moment. Liars. Cheats. Thieves. Incompetents ... no more Reaganomics, no more failed leadership. No more John McCain, phoning it in from his campaign headquarters. Nov. 4 can't come fast enough.

Posted by: Omyobama | September 30, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

If our government is going to invest our money so that it can be re-invested into our economy, why can't Congress just invest it in our economy DIRECTLY and cut out those greedy sob's on Wall Street as obscenely overpaid "middlemen" in the process?

How simple could that be? (Except the fact that those middlemen have powerful friends - in Congress.)

Posted by: miraclestudies | September 30, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Dear Omyobama,

Showing how Obama moves crowds as a reason to make one President is scary..... Hitler was a great mover of people too! So was Jim Jones!

Posted by: tbastian | September 30, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse


The Republican party is a complete mess. McCain is going off half-cocked, taking wild swings at every thing he sees -- with noone listening to him. He's out their bragging about his Great Leadership in bringing about a bill that his party promptly rejected.

Don't even start with the dreadful, unfathomable Palin -- who is, even now, holed up and cramming like mad so that she can sound like something other than a complete airhead. This, while a growing chorus of uber conservative pundits bay for her to step down.


Posted by: monk4hall | September 30, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: ac11 | September 30, 2008 1:33 PM is spot on, so is Pogo, "we have met the enemy and he is us."

Posted by: caramello51 | September 30, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Dan, Dan,Dan! The vote missed by 12? What's the number of dems on Barney Franks Committee who voted NO? Let me help you 12! It is not both parties fault, it is dems fault. Purely, and simply, the democrats had no intention of getting this done, and wanted the cover of the Republicans passing it so they could point the finger again! Pelosi's comments were stupid, but she's not overly intelligent to begin with. Democrats created, promoted and protected this financial mess for at least ten years, until the little letter leaked by Schumer started the cow pie rolling down hill in this never ending dem effort to save Obama's Marxist hide and an election!

Posted by: vgailitis | September 30, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

-------------------------

vgailitis - This is interesting. Do you have a link of the breakdown of the votes that shows the committee members? This is fascinating.

Posted by: Verrazzano | September 30, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

RIDICULOUS this pointing at dems or repubs for 'blame' on a flawed proposal from Bush/Paulson/Bernanke...guess what....it is Bush/Paulson/Bernanke's fault. It is absured to think that either McCain or Obama could "save the bill" (particularly since the bill itself is stupid). McCain unfortunately pulled some PR stunts that were shallow and contrived and made him look pretty dumb overall, again.

Posted by: frayedcat | September 30, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

The real winners of yesterday's vote were the American people, Democracy, and the free market system. Simple as that!

Posted by: pimpinbenzo73 | September 30, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

By the way, review the votes on a state by state basis.... Western Republicans won this one, not Bush's base of Southern Republicans. I strongly suspect there will be a formal schism in the Republican party by 2016 on that basis. Laws regarding abortion and stem cell research don't mean jack if the country goes bankrupt in the meanwhile.

Posted by: AustinRob | September 30, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

The real truth of the matter is that Democrats didn't need the Repub vote to get this passed. If they believed in it they could have passed it easily. I found it amazing that Dem's in close races this fall ( freshmen ) were told to vote no and top cabinet posts were told to vote no. However, Pelosi gets up there "smears" the Rep's and is surprised they don't embrace her.

If the tables were turned the media would be all over this. Where are you?????

One thing I will say it is a sad day when both parties are more concerned with how a vote will be used against them in the future and less concerned with serving the poeple who put them there.

It may be a good idea to completely clean house and start over!

Posted by: tbastian | September 30, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse


Hey mwhoke, dummy, it was the REPUBLICANS who voted this down. This, after McCain crowed about how his "leadership" brought about a deal. This after McCain could not deliver a single vote from the republican delegation to HIS OWN STATE.

Jesus. Get a clue.

Posted by: monk4hall | September 30, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Why on earth would I listen to the economic prescriptions of the people who got us into this mess -- amongst both Republicans and Democrats...? Oh, suddenly they are competent, are they?

Why is the media is not focusing on the economic prescriptions of the people who WARNED us for YEARS that this would surely happen...? Why isn't the government focusing on their recommendations? Wouldn't this seem like a good time to take them seriously...?

Those are the people I want to hear. I'm not interested in the silly opinions of the more stupid short-sighted, self-serving members of congress.

It's like this: The people who warned us for years that this would happen are also warning us how catastrophic a bailout would be. Hard times will definitely come for a season -- but the bailout will mean the collapse of the dollar and with it the world economy. The problem will last for much longer and be much worse.

Posted by: carolm62 | September 30, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Dan,

The political fallout is still under review. If the economy deterioates quickly over the next 5 weeks, then the Republicans will be in a shocking wake-up call on November 4th!

The stock market can go up and down by 250 pts on a day-by-day basis that anyone can see, the real danger is in the credit market where the average American has no clue about until it is too late. Once the unemployment rate goes up or many businesses fail or go into bankruptcy, it is too late to offset it.

Posted by: AJ2008 | September 30, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

I beg to differ slightly. You call Minority leader John Boehner's change from a Wednesday statement of bipartisanship with Speaker Pelosi to digging in his heels Thursday and torpedoing a deal "mystifying." There's no mystery -- John McCain on Wednesday afternoon decided to roll craps with America's future. He threw partisan presidential politics into the mix and rode into Washington to stick his mug into a process that had been quietly putting the Country First. He blew it up, said he wouldn't debate if it weren't put back together, but did, took credit for passage of a bill, that didn't and now blames ... Sen. Obama?? Who has been calmly calling for bipartisan action? Lol ... amazing.
I also put this at the feet of George Bush and the boy who cried wolf one too many times. Leadership, judgment and credibility DO matter. Everyone who has scoffed at Sen. Obama's ability to inspire and move crowds should take a gander at what happens to a leader whose people aren't impressed ... who doesn't have the power to move them. Everybody wants to "stick it" to Wall Street ... but isn't anybody noticing that THEY are all on Wall Street too??? My 401K that I've worked on for 30 years is about the size it was in 1980 now. My home value has tanked. The administration's failure to explain exactly what will happen with a credit freeze is what's mystifying here. A credit freeze doesn't just mean you can't get a mortgage ...it means your lines of credit get frozen (along with those of your favorite businesses); your credit limits get cut; your bank can't get funds; your grocery store can't keep inventory on the shelves. As Paul Krugman noted ... "we've become a banana republic with nukes." And both the far right and left are strutting around as if they've won the lottery.
I am about as liberal a person as there is but this crisis has to be dealt with and we all have to suck it in. Then we need to go to the polls on Nov. 4 and sweep Reaganomics into the dustbin along with Herbert Hoover so we can get back to peace and prosperity.

Posted by: Omyobama | September 30, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Obama was a loser because he failed to show any leadership qualities regarding this problem.

He could of contacted his close friends from the south side of Chicago and asked them to vote yes if he desired the bill to pass.

Instead Jesse Jackson Jr. and Bobby Rush voted no.

Obama probably was happy the markets collapsed!

Posted by: mwhoke | September 30, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Gee, Dan, as others have pointed out, the American people won yesterday and Wall Street lost. It's a GOOD thing an election is coming up or our legislators would NOT have listened to us. Given the first proposal was 3 pages long, and given the resultant legislation was drafted in what, 3 days, how much thought went into it? Whose side are you on, buddy?

Posted by: AustinRob | September 30, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was working aggressively behind the scenes to defeat the Wall Street rescue plan minutes before he himself released a public statement in support of the package, NBC's Andrea Mitchell reported on Tuesday.

Gingrich was whipping up votes for the opposition, Mitchell said, apparently without the knowledge of the current GOP leader, John Boehner, who was responsible for recruiting enough support from his caucus to help ensure the bill's passage. Ultimately, the GOP was only able to rally roughly a third of its members.

"Newt Gingrich," she said on MSNBC, "I am told reliably by leading Republicans who are close to him, he was whipping against this up until the last minute, when he issued that face-saving statement. Newt Gingrich was telling people in the strongest possible language that this was a terrible deal, not only that it was a terrible deal, it was a disaster, it was the end of democracy as we know, it was socialism -- and then at the last minute [he] comes out with a statement when the vote is already in place."

Indeed, as Mitchell noted, shortly before the bill's failure, Gingrich "reluctantly" came out in favor of its passage: "Therefore, while I am discouraged at the final collapse of the Bush Administration, and frustrated by the Democrats' passion for the taxpayer's money, I would reluctantly and sadly vote for the bailout were I still in office."

The rest of the set of Morning Joe had some interesting takes on the news nugget. Joe Scarborough called Gingrich's backstabbing of John Boehner "undercutting his own."

Mike Barnicle offered his own bit of reportorial insight: "Andrea, I could hug you for saying that, because I was told last night by two or they members of Congress that this was the opening salvo of Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign four years hence."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/30/report-gingrich-stabbed-b_n_130487.html

Posted by: AverageJane | September 30, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Unfortunately, I agree with AC11. Osama has gotten everything he wanted and we've handed it to him on a silver platter. For all of the commentators who point to the defeat of the bill as a win for America, I fear y'all are sadly mistaken. It is not a win for older Americans, small business owners, college students or folks with kids in college. It is, simply, a debacle.

Posted by: mrmoogie | September 30, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Dan, Dan,Dan! The vote missed by 12? What's the number of dems on Barney Franks Committee who voted NO? Let me help you 12! It is not both parties fault, it is dems fault. Purely, and simply, the democrats had no intention of getting this done, and wanted the cover of the Republicans passing it so they could point the finger again! Pelosi's comments were stupid, but she's not overly intelligent to begin with. Democrats created, promoted and protected this financial mess for at least ten years, until the little letter leaked by Schumer started the cow pie rolling down hill in this never ending dem effort to save Obama's Marxist hide and an election!

Posted by: vgailitis | September 30, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

The DOW is up 350 points. None of this makes sense. The winner may just be those members of the House that voted nay yesterday. The biggest loser is Pelosi. She holds the majority and her own members voted against her. Bush is a lame duck, so it does not matter. He has no respect from anyone.

Posted by: Verrazzano | September 30, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Conservatives do not trust McCain and Palin.

Posted by: walker1 | September 30, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

LOL calling Bush the biggest screw up in modern history is now partisan? I always took it as the truth.

And how come there is no mention of Newt Gingrich in this mess? From what I've been reading he was working behind the lines to get Republicans to vote against the bill. Something stinks to high heavens there.

Posted by: AverageJane | September 30, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

The shills and drones are working overtime to try to create divisions among the American people. If we are busy fighting amongst ourselves, they can pull the wool over our eyes again. There is no point in mocking individuals on the left or the right. It is all just an illusion. Both sides are part of the problem. They are all filthy rich and completely out of touch with the needs of ordinary people. The only thing that politicians understand is fear. We need to make them afraid of losing their jobs. Only then will they obey the will of the people. Call your representatives and tell them to oppose the bill on Thursday. Keep up the pressure!

Posted by: newdoggie | September 30, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Missing the point - the package presented was flawed - a panic vote in favor of a defective bill is a bad thing (remember Iraq?)

The President and Secretary should NEVER have presented the proposal they did in the manner they presented it - they created a panic after a long period of denial that there was any problem at all... a denial joined in by lapdog honorable candidate McCain with his "fundamentally sound" economy.

The bill voted on Monday would not solve the problems (its proponents the Secretary and Fed fail to even focus on, identify, or quantify the problems). Can congress come up with a solution? Not likely, after hearing them speak - doesn't seem likely many of them have read it, or even know what a mortgage backed security is.

Probably the market will have to correct itself on this one, not due to any righteous politician's position, but rather due to politician ineptitude - I think we'll have to add government ineptitude as an economic variable of the free market - "supply, demand and incompetence"

Posted by: frayedcat | September 30, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

hummm ... I hate to point out the obvious ... but hasn't bin Ladin won? When he supposedly plowed two planes into the World Trade Center ... the U.S's symbol of financial supremacy and dominance ... wasn't it his intention ... or someone's ... to bring the U.S. to its knees one way or another? His mission appears to have been accomplished from his cave in Pakistan while the U.S. withers about leaderless in death throes mired in a war whose mission has yet to be accomplished ... a needless, senseless war that's contributed to the bankruptcy of the country and which has destroyed its reputation and clout abroad. I'd say if bin Ladin set out to destroy the U.S. he must feel he's succeeded beyond his wildest dreams with the help of an utterly incompetent administration. So yah, sure, lets give Palin a pass at the debates ... let's go easy on her. Let's join the craps game John McCain seems bent on playing with the country with his reckless and irresponsible actions and judgments. I mean, what more do we have to lose?

Posted by: ac11 | September 30, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

I doubt the Republican leadership expected the outcry from their base over the prospect of a bailout. Certainly Boehner didn't, nor McCain. Now they're faced with a bunch of incumbents who are terrified they will lose their next election if they vote yea.

It's clear the real threat comes from inside the GOP. Every incumbent without a 100% safe seat is worried about a primary challenge from some novice who says the right things about abortion, taxes, gays, and the flag. You don't want to be defending your record against some right-wing ideologue.

Yep. I'm talking about Sarah Palin.

She's the real Republican political nightmare.

Why should she bother boning up on the issues? She can hire experts later. Her talent is for winning elections. And increasingly that's all that counts (especially in the GOP, where they were never that interested in governing anyway.)

Posted by: Samson151 | September 30, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Republicans are saying they do not trust McCain.

Posted by: walker1 | September 30, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

For those saying Obama did nothing, what do you propose he should have done? Declare a pseudo-campaign suspension while pretending to need to cancel a debate to "work" to solve the problem? Give me a break!

Obama did exactly what he should have done. Worked behind the scenes gathering and analyzing information. Calling his peers and reaching out to understand where they stood. He also put out four points that he believed were necessary to the bill in totality (which McCain quickly adopted as his own). Unlike McCain, he didn't take a presumptuous stance to ACT like he's the President. He worked behind the scenes to get things done.

Furthermore, isn't the current President a Republican? Why aren't you backing him up? Why couldn't YOUR current President get enough votes for the bill he deemed essential to the American economy and people? Why couldn't your President get votes from his own party? I would love a genuine and well thought-out response to those questions.

Before you go criticizing my Presidential nominee--maybe you should look at your current President.

Obama/Biden '08

Posted by: DinahS | September 30, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

There was one big winner in yesterday's House vote: the American people.

Conservatives and socialists banded together for the best interests of everyone.

Kinda reminds me of when He-Man and Skeletor joined forces to defeat a common enemy :)

Posted by: info42 | September 30, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

lost 2k yesterday in my retirement and god knows how much in my daughters college savings plan while McCain plays footsie with politics.

Posted by: JRM2 | September 30, 2008 1:13 PM
?????????????

JRM2-

Thank your Democrat Legislators for resisting additional regulations in 2004-6- see McCain ad on Redstate.com AND soon on yout tv screen- But don't believe me...see ABC news for Bill Clinton's appearance on GM America last week.


Chris Cuomo, ABC News: "A little surprising for you to hear the Democrats saying, 'This came out of nowhere, this is all about the Republicans. We had nothing to do with this.' Nancy Pelosi saying it. She signed the '99 Gramm Bill. She knew what was going on with the SEC. They're all sophisticated people. Is that playing politics in this situat
President Clinton: "Well, maybe everybody does that a little bit. I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

http://www.politico.com/playbook/

Posted by: thecannula | September 30, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

No winners? Oh I beg to differ: America won.

The Bush/Paulson plan is a Trojan horse and no tinkering around the edges of it is going to turn it into anything that will help anyone other than the Wall Street CEO's who brought this disaster about.

Bush's plan went down in flames. McCain's showboating saw to that (and divided his party irreparably). And now the Democrats in Congress have an INCREDIBLE opening to do something GREAT: look to the interests of the American PEOPLE and find another, BETTER plan.

Better - and tested - plans ARE out there but were shouted down by the Paulson "panic" scam. Deja vu all over again...

(Remember the panic shouting down reason in the lead up to Iraq? Or to the new "intelligence" plan?)

Call your representatives asap and tell them they need to listen to OTHER voices and check out the Swedish plan while they're at it. Or Japan's in a similar crisis.

Posted by: miraclestudies | September 30, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Maybe no winners, but plenty of (us) losers. In all likelihood, some deserving Representatives will also prove losers on November 4th. In the meantime we will have the ripened opportunity to understand, to see and to feel, how our material worth declines every day that the House takes its break and Bush-McCain fail to take active steps to ease this momentous threat that has been allowed to grow unchecked.

"Pelosi made me do it" won't suffice to pin blame. Greater transparency is overdue. How was this plan, associated with Poulson's name, concocted in the first place, and why was process and product enshrouded in such secrecy? Precisely who were the other 11 doomsday Republican Congressmen (besides the one who stepped forward as spokesman)? Don't they owe all of us an explanation and some of us (as their particular constituents) accountability for their juvenile deed and words of justification?

Posted by: FirstMouse1 | September 30, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Isn't it disgusting how the typically pitiful government dependent needy slugs in this country with the Socialist party buying their votes with taxpayer money are destroying this country?

What is about the Lib Dem Socialist party that wants America dependent on their fat butts big spending corruptive policy?

Why is that? Well, ask LBJ. As he once said .... "my Great Society will have minorities voting for the Dem. party for ever."

Yep. Socialism is at the heart of the Lib Dem Socialist platform.

And those that support the Marxist are ignorantly blind to the fact.

Posted by: ChangeWhat | September 30, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

As plenty of others have already said.... there were clear winners yesterday. The American people won a great victory! But the fight is not over. Don't be fooled by the scare tactics being pushed by the mainstream media shills. Democrats, Republicans and Independents must all stand together. Our government has betrayed us. Call your representatives and tell them to oppose the bill on Thursday.

Posted by: newdoggie | September 30, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

If Obaby is such a leader why doesn't he get the 95 Dems who voted "no" to change their votes to "yes?" I guess Pelosi forgot his number so she couldn't call him.

Posted by: AugustWest1 | September 30, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

"No winners"? Except the American people. Remember them?

Posted by: ketz87 | September 30, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Pelosi's tone wasn't too helpful yesterday, but I can't seperate McCain's political posturing last week from everything that's happened since. He threw this process off track and then it got real political real fast. And the fact that hardline GOP let their position on a bill of such great consequence be affected by a Pelosi speech is unforgivable. Obama is the only one left unscathed by this, and I have to say that, at this point, those who accuse him of 'standing on the sidelines' just don't get how screwed up Washington is these days.

Posted by: ChrisDC | September 30, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Great article!

Posted by: Jeff-for-progress | September 30, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Pelosi is a twit. She could have made those remarks after the vote. Shame on her for putting politics ahead of the interests of the nation.

Shame on the republicans for not having any backbone to vote for it. If this vote was held after the elections this bill would have passed.

Posted by: mwesty11 | September 30, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

what would happen down the road if we kept saying we would pass a bill and we don't...and the economy improves on it's own...why don't the institutions that are going to fail go bankrupt...America will bounce back most of the time, the time it doesn't is because obama is in office...

Posted by: DwightHCollins | September 30, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse


AVEINU McCAINU!

Posted by: thecannula | September 30, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

You're wrong. There was a winner: American democracy. Yes, I'm surprised too. Regardless of whether you think that this plan was a flawed necessity or a knee-jerk bad reaction, a cursory look at the responses among the population shows that the vast majority of Americans did NOT want this passed. Despite the President and his lackeys trying to ram it through immediately, Congress actually listened (out of fear, I imagine) and blocked a bill that would put our country into greater debt for decades and give the law of unintended consequences another chance to play.

Good for them. Maybe we'll see some economic damage; maybe for once we can be willing to deal with the immediate effects instead of throwing more credit at the problem to stave it off for another 5 years.

Posted by: fake1 | September 30, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

EVERY Senator has the right (and responsibility) to "get into the thick of negotiations" to protect America. The WaPo is in the tank for Obama. Blame, blame, blame; blame, blame McCain! At least he TRIED while Obama was "available by phone."

Posted by: MarkInAustin | September 30, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Pelosi thought that getting Republicans to swallow the "mud sandwich" that the bailout bill represents would go down better with a large helping of crap sauce to go along with it.

Posted by: edbyronadams | September 30, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

10 new reasons why peeeuuu Palin will not be at the debate on Thursday night.......

10. 900 mile wide head of Putin crossing into Alaska..

9. Field dressing a Carribou

8. Earpiece for the debate was broken

7. Lost way to the debate

6. Unable to go to debate beacuse of her Witch Doctors appointment

5. Speechless after not knowing what McCaints Veteran voting record is

4. Shotgun Wedding

3. Needs more time to read

2. No matter how hard she pulls, she's unable get McCaints hand out of her back

1. Bridge to Nowhere Collapses


"Thanks but no thanks to more lies that bridge America to absolutely nowhere..."

Posted by: AlexP1 | September 30, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company