Bailout bill fails

[rickier55]

It was the timing..... She could have simply announced the bill was ready for vote and asked for bipartisan support. Then, after it passed, gave the speech demonizing the Republicans, etc. etc.

A head up her butt move to say the least. She acted/sounded like she didn't want it to pass. And she's the leader....... soooo......

I watched her speech on C-Span and was pretty surprised. I had thought she supported the bill until that speech. Strange.

Rick

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I think they all want it to pass, but in all the jockeying to either take credit or assure a foundation for laying blame depending on the outcome, they all overdid it a little bit.

 

[Goonie]

Here's the roll call....link courtesy of the NY Times

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml

Well I'll be darn. My congressman voted yes.

See down there at the bottom, the lone congressman to NOT even bother voting.....That would be the waste of flesh from my district (Illinois’ 11th District), Jerry Weller. He was probably down in Guatemala visiting with his relatively new father-in-law, former dictator General Efrain Rios Montt.

 

[statsman]

I think they all want it to pass, but in all the jockeying to either take credit or assure a foundation for laying blame depending on the outcome, they all overdid it a little bit.

A bit? I would say a lot! They were doing this before any plan was finalized. And what's amazing is that the final bill voted on had a lot less special interest pork in it than the bill heading into the weekend.

My wife, who's been part of banking (banks and credit unions) for over 31 years, says they are tackling this problem the wrong way. I'm certain that her opinion wouldn't sit well with many here wanting the stock market to go up so their portfolios would rise. But she honestly thinks that the voted on bailout plan was destined to failure down the road, and maybe not too far down the road.

 

[Martha]

My wife, who's been part of banking (banks and credit unions) for over 31 years, says they are tackling this problem the wrong way.

Can you give as a run down on what she thinks is the right way? I'm curious. I've avoided calling my old banker friends/clients.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

A bit? I would say a lot!

Well, I have this tendency to be a bit understated.

Can you really blame them? Look at the shellacking the last few rounds of candidates have had to endure over what they voted and when with regards to the war. "You voted (For/Against) it HERE, so you're a bad person!".

So this time around, nobody wants to have voted for or against anything this big. Whether its needed or not is debatable. What isnt really likely is that it'll solve all of our pending economic issues.

Given that the average joe doesnt even understand what the hell is going on, or what this bill will fix, and that we're going to have a year or two of less than economic happiness, I can see why the trained professionals on capitol hill are a little encouraged to make sure they have at least one vote for AND a vote against it, so that on election day they can say they voted for it but were talked out of it, or that they voted against it and were talked into it.

Pols as usual.

 

[Lusitan]

heh heh heh - at least Mr Market and Congress are giving us something to talk about. This too shall pass - Right?

Uncle Mick, good to see you're still here, in good spirits, and signing off with your trademark laugh; I still have faith in the markets.

 

[statsman]

Can you give as a run down on what she thinks is the right way? I'm curious. I've avoided calling my old banker friends/clients.

I sent her an email asking for a short list of what she thinks needs to be done. I may not find out for a few hours, so I may post it sometime later.

She has said that she is quite nervous with the growing, short list of bank monopolies. She says that we are falling into the same trap as the 1920's.

 

[Texarkandy]

Can you give as a run down on what she thinks is the right way? I'm curious. I've avoided calling my old banker friends/clients.

That's a good question - if this is the wrong way (& I tend to think it is) - what are the "other" ways - surely there are some alternative actions the federal government could take, all with their own pros, cons, & probabilities of positive effect.

Why didn't Paulson & Bernanke lay out the various alternatives to the Administration & Congress along with the pros, cons, & their recommendation as to which option they thought was best?

I only heard one plan from them & it was presented pretty much as a take it or leave it deal. with the only alternative being a "Great Depression" - and perhaps this is a big part of why the bill failed.

 

[FinanceDude]

I sent her an email asking for a short list of what she thinks needs to be done. I may not find out for a few hours, so I may post it sometime later.

She has said that she is quite nervous with the growing, short list of bank monopolies. She says that we are falling into the same trap as the 1920's.

Let us know..... Your wife isn't the only person worried about a few giant banks and the govt controlling the mortgage business in the US............

 

[audreyh1]

I'm still voting for providing more direct short term financing to American non-financial companies to get them through this credit crunch. Streamline it! Banks are getting all sorts of short term cash infusions from the Fed, but they are not willing to lend!

Yes, the bank consolidation is getting big time scary!

Oh - and - the FDIC limits are way too low. If they continue to stay this low people/companies who actually have cash are going to park it in treasuries instead of providing it to municipalities and commercial markets.

Audrey

 

[socca]

But she honestly thinks that the voted on bailout plan was destined to failure down the road, and maybe not too far down the road.

One problem with the bill was that it gave the Treasury Dept so much flexibility of implementation that it was impossible to make any credible predictions at all. For example, we didn't even know how much money was going to be devoted to 'trickle-up' homeowner assistance vs. 'trickle-down' bad debt purchases. This was all left as TBD.

I would support some type of gov't assistance program if it were narrowly targeted so you could at least argue meaningfully over whether or not it would work. You could also make a reasonable guess as to how many people would be covered under the proposed program, so you could estimate its cost. The Paulson bill covered a mind-bogglingly wide range of 'impaired' people and institutions, making its ultimate cost difficult to determine.

 

[youbet]

they all overdid it a little bit.

Well.... I screwed up again. Damn. I gave out the youbet understatement of the day award this afternoon to FD thinking no one could possible outdo him today. I was wrong. This is the understatement of the day! I guess I'll declare co-winners. Nice job guys!

 

[capjak]

She has looked pretty good all through this. Actually, she looks good period!

Ha

Good one, she really did a great job today and her history lesson was the best fiction I read in a long time......Ha just add the liquor,blue pill and your good to go (she's definitely got Horns)

 

[REWahoo]

Many House members who voted against the bailout today said they did so because they didn't want the American taxpayer to be on the hook for the mismanagement and failure of financial institutions. This Time article says it's too late, they already are:

"But there's a catch: taxpayers are already on the hook for the failures of financial institutions, and it's possible that the bill will actually be larger without bailout legislation than with it. That's because the regulators who mind the financial industry — the Federal Reserve, Treasury and FDIC — will keep doing what they've been doing: stepping in to prevent the chaotic failure of banks and other large financial institutions. This means continuing to put hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars at risk, but in a way that adheres to no clear plan of action and doesn't require members of Congress to explicitly approve their actions."

 

[Marquette]

This too shall pass - Right?

Like the lactose-intolerant kid with the gallon of ice cream

 

[Gone4Good]

I sent her an email asking for a short list of what she thinks needs to be done. I may not find out for a few hours, so I may post it sometime later.

She has said that she is quite nervous with the growing, short list of bank monopolies. She says that we are falling into the same trap as the 1920's.

Except in the 1920's Herbert Hoover, on the advice of Treasury Secretary Melon, said . . . "Let it be. The market will sort itself out"

Oh never mind, it is just like the 1920's.

 

[Gone4Good]

Many House members who voted against the bailout today said they did so because they didn't want the American taxpayer to be on the hook for the mismanagement and failure of financial institutions.

Nice spin.

The NBC political analyst took a look at the votes and concluded that one factor explained almost all of the votes. Congressmen who were in very close elections in the recent past or near future voted against it. Those who were not, voted for it.

So as it turns out they voted to save their own jobs, not yours.

 

[Gardnr]

Nice spin.

The NBC political analyst took a look at the votes and concluded that one factor explained almost all of the votes. Congressmen who were in very close elections in the recent past or near future voted against it. Those who were not, voted for it.

So as it turns out they voted to save their own jobs, not yours.

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! That also helps explain the weird mix of those voting for and against this thing.

Maybe they were also shorting the market and will go long on Thursday

 

[novaman]

after listening to a replay of Pelosi's speech I thought she did a fabulous job of urging members of congress to not vote for the bill and to make sure that it wouldn't pass.

 

[socca]

"But there's a catch: taxpayers are already on the hook for the failures of financial institutions,[/I] and it's possible that the bill will actually be larger without bailout legislation than with it. That's because the regulators who mind the financial industry — the Federal Reserve, Treasury and FDIC — will keep doing what they've been doing: stepping in to prevent the chaotic failure of banks and other large financial institutions. This means continuing to put hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars at risk, but in a way that adheres to no clear plan of action and doesn't require members of Congress to explicitly approve their actions."

+ they haven't been stepping in to prevent the chaotic failure of ALL banks and other financial institutions. Some have failed.
+ the Paulson bailout bill had no clear plan of action. It was a swiss army knife of tools, with a huge number of implementation details left unspecified.
+ maybe I missed it, but I saw plenty of oversight in the bill but didn't see any pre-approval of Treasury bailout actions. Instead, Treasury simply had to report what it had done after-the-fact.

The Paulson bailout bill greatly widened the scope of people/institutions eligible for assistance, so the idea that it would actually be cheaper relies upon the outrageously speculative (even insulting) prediction by Pelosi that the Paulson bailout would make taxpayers money. The Paulson bailout is too vaguely specified for such a prediction to be credible.

 

[Htown Harry]

Here's the roll call....link courtesy of the NY Times

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml

Great graphic and tables showing the breakdown by district / state / party etc.:

The No Votes - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com

 

[Texarkandy]

In presentation of his solution perhaps Paulson was of a corporate mindset that he is a CEO presenting a broad action plan to the Board of Directors (congress) for approval and that he would be given free reign as CEO to implement the plan (consent of the shareholders (voters) not necessarily being a big factor in the corporate world)

He seems to have not recognized that half of the "Board of Directors" are up for election - each by very small individual groups (congressional districts) of shareholders and that there are other people who will be actively campaigning to replace them on "the Board".

This indicates a political miscalculation or oversight on the part of the Administration. Bush should have sent a team of good salesmen to present the problem and sell the plan to congress and the people (with Paulson & Bernake brought along as mere "impartial" expert witnesses.)

(In any case - I'm still personally opposed to the plan.)

 

[laurence]

The loss in equity in the markets today was $400 billion more than the cost of the bailout package. We (family) are more in the red due to the "no" vote than the $2,300 x 4 people in debt burden the bill represented. Panic indeed.

 

[bright eyed]

Did anyone around here read the bill? Seems like some of the people who did, didn't seem to find it as it was represented. Like the CEO caps weren't really caps etc...

They put the fear of the great depression in everyone, said they had to pass this quicky, that didn't happen. In the mean time, we could have had proper hearings and analysis by at least a few experts, rather than just politicking and closed room dealing...

I'm also increasingly concerned as the #xx bank is swalled by the #x bank to make it the 3rd, 2nd, whatever largest bank...isn't that feeding into the problem?