Bailout plan rejected

[margomaps]

It's scary that it only failed passing by 13 votes, isn't it?   I wonder what the next move is going to be.

probably to just rework it a little, then everyone else will vote yes

I think this is the most likely scenario.  It seems that some of the "nay" votes may have been Republicans who didn't like Pelosi's partisan grandstanding speech just before the vote.  There must be at least 13 Republicans or Democrats who will cave into peer pressure on this thing and vote "yea" in the next couple of days, overriding whatever supposedly principled stand that caused them to vote nay in the first place.

BTW, did anyone notice that NH's own Republican Senator Judd Gregg led the charge on the minority side of the house to get the deal passed?  Apparently he didn't like the bailout overmuch, but was more afraid of the consequences of no bailout.

I also couldn't help but notice that, almost exclusively, the Republicans had the better rhetoric on the debate over this deal.  There was a little bit of "we have to protect the taxpayer" talk coming from some of the Democrats, which I'm still chuckling about.  Democrats...protecting...taxpayers...?  When Democrats talk about protecting taxpayers, that must be doublespeak for something else entirely.  At least a lot of the Republicans were saying the right thing: that this gives the federal government unprecedented control over the once-free market, and it amounts to using taxpayer money to rescue big banks with bad investments.

[memenode]

I'm not in US, but I'm closely monitoring what's going on for months (and am personally tied to the US economy via the US dollar which my biz still depends on), so this is only something I know via my US friend.

What I meant was that they could incorporate a bail out plan in some other bill that isn't as obviously an economy "rescue plan". Thus the public would not be entirely aware of what's going on or they would demonize the rejection of the bill as a whole based on the other parts of it content aside from the bailout related content. In other words, it's a "backdoor", the bailout plan would ride through by means of another bill.

That said, correct me if I'm wrong.

As for the Fed pumping 650 billion, sorry it's actually 630 billion and here's the source: Fed Pumps Further $630 Billion Into Financial System.

[Bill St. Clair]

...  There was a little bit of "we have to protect the taxpayer" talk coming from some of the Democrats, which I'm still chuckling about.  Democrats...protecting...taxpayers...?  When Democrats talk about protecting taxpayers, that must be doublespeak for something else entirely. ...

It's hard to fleece the sheep to pay for your favorite socialist program if they've already been fleeced to rescue the bankers.

[John Edward Mercier]

They'll probably push this for now rejected bail out plan in some other way (through the "backdoor" as it's said). Fed already injected freaking 650 billion!

That said, for what it's worth, don't let this CNBC poll flip to the wrong side: Vote YES! (Yes, House was correct when it voted to defeat the $700 billion rescue package!).

Edit: Digg it too!

Thanks

You mean currency swaps.
Currency swaps don't inject money... just liquidity.

[John Edward Mercier]

Not really. A few changes and the credit markets are back on track.
But I don't think we're going to get those changes for months.

i meant that in the context of all the socialism coming to an abrupt end. should have made that clear

To fix the problem... socialism and military intervention would need to be curtailed severely.
The credit market would begin to correct as fiscal policy would become more disciplined.

[Sam A. Robrin]

It's hard to fleece the sheep to pay for your favorite socialist program if they've already been fleeced to rescue the bankers.

But . . . but these sheep instantaneously grow new fleeces immediately upon shearing.  If they don't, they're just greedy and selfish and want to see s*o*c*i*e*t*y regress back to the dog-eat-dog days of the robber barons . . .

[Raineyrocks]

It's scary that it only failed passing by 13 votes, isn't it?   I wonder what the next move is going to be.

probably to just rework it a little, then everyone else will vote yes

I think this is the most likely scenario.  It seems that some of the "nay" votes may have been Republicans who didn't like Pelosi's partisan grandstanding speech just before the vote.  There must be at least 13 Republicans or Democrats who will cave into peer pressure on this thing and vote "yea" in the next couple of days, overriding whatever supposedly principled stand that caused them to vote nay in the first place.

BTW, did anyone notice that NH's own Republican Senator Judd Gregg led the charge on the minority side of the house to get the deal passed?  Apparently he didn't like the bailout overmuch, but was more afraid of the consequences of no bailout.

I also couldn't help but notice that, almost exclusively, the Republicans had the better rhetoric on the debate over this deal.  There was a little bit of "we have to protect the taxpayer" talk coming from some of the Democrats, which I'm still chuckling about.  Democrats...protecting...taxpayers...?  When Democrats talk about protecting taxpayers, that must be doublespeak for something else entirely.  At least a lot of the Republicans were saying the right thing: that this gives the federal government unprecedented control over the once-free market, and it amounts to using taxpayer money to rescue big banks with bad investments.

Well so far so good I guess with not passing the bailout plan at least for another day.   I hear what your saying about democrats vs. republicans but I still think the governments sucks as a "whole".     

[Raineyrocks]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7645470.stm

US senators to vote on bail-out

George Bush says the cost of not acting will be higher than the $700 billion rescue deal

US senators will vote on Wednesday on a revamped financial rescue package after the House of Representatives rejected an initial $700bn (£380bn) plan.

The new package is expected to be similar to the initial plan, but will include some new measures to ease its passage through Congress.

One of those new clauses will raise the government's guarantee on savings from $100,000 to $250,000.

The vote comes after senior Democrats pledged to find a bipartisan solution.

Senator Harry Reid and House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi wrote to President George W Bush saying they expected a bipartisan rescue plan to soon be approved.

"Working together, we are confident we will pass a responsible bill in the very near future," they said.

Earlier President Bush had warned that the consequences would be "painful and lasting" if a rescue deal was not agreed.

Possible momentum

The Dow Jones index closed up 4.7% on Tuesday, recouping some losses from Monday's rout, after the markets reacted favourably to the president's statement.

Markets in Japan and Australia saw gains as they opened on Wednesday morning, with the Nikkei climbing 1.2%.

   
We're facing a choice between action and the real prospect of economic hardship for millions of Americans
President Bush

Q&A: US $700bn rescue plan

Analysts say the Senate is more likely to pass the bill because senators are not facing the same pressure from voters as members of the House.

All representatives face re-election in November compared with only one-third of senators.

The BBC's Jonathan Beale, in Washington, says a positive vote in the Senate is likely to give the bill momentum when it goes back to the House.

Presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama, who both support Mr Bush's efforts to bail out the economy, say they will return from campaigning to vote in the Senate.

'Not the end'

Mr Bush said at the White House: "We are in an urgent situation and the consequences will grow worse each day if we do not act."

The economy was depending on "decisive action on the part of our government", he added.

He said he wanted to "assure our citizens and citizens around the world that this is not the end of the legislative process".

"Our country is not facing a choice between government action and the smooth functioning of the free market," he said.

"We're facing a choice between action and the real prospect of economic hardship for millions of Americans," he warned.

[memenode]

"Our country is not facing a choice between government action and the smooth functioning of the free market," he said.

That is exactly the choice your bloody country is facing.

[margomaps]

It's scary that it only failed passing by 13 votes, isn't it?   I wonder what the next move is going to be.

probably to just rework it a little, then everyone else will vote yes

You nailed it!

Bush signs bailout bill

[Jared]

It's scary that it only failed passing by 13 votes, isn't it?   I wonder what the next move is going to be.

probably to just rework it a little, then everyone else will vote yes

You nailed it!

Bush signs bailout bill

bunch of spineless assholes. they should all be impeached...and i don't even say that as an anarchist. i say it because they all took an oath to uphold a certain document, and failed to do so. the sad part is how many of them will get re-elected because everyone will just forget about this after they turn on the idiot box tonight.

[Lindsey]

It's scary that it only failed passing by 13 votes, isn't it?   I wonder what the next move is going to be.

probably to just rework it a little, then everyone else will vote yes

You nailed it!

Bush signs bailout bill

bunch of spineless assholes. they should all be impeached...and i don't even say that as an anarchist. i say it because they all took an oath to uphold a certain document, and failed to do so. the sad part is how many of them will get re-elected because everyone will just forget about this after they turn on the idiot box tonight.

I'd say we're lucky we still have the original document to prove that it says what it does.  Otherwise we'd be even further up shit creek.   

[Lloyd Danforth]

I remember a Lindsey from my short stay at the FTL forum.

[David]

Their original opposition to it was political grandstanding.  It is after all, an election year, about 4 more weeks in fact. 

[margomaps]

Their original opposition to it was political grandstanding.  It is after all, an election year, about 4 more weeks in fact. 

That's probably true.  But many of the same reps who originally made a big fuss about opposing it now turned around and voted in favor (once a little more pork was added, of course).  Didn't those reps just screw themselves by 1) flip flopping and 2) voting for something that a vast majority of their constituents were strongly opposed to?