Bush signs historic bailout plan after OK in House
Associated Press
Published October 3, 2008 at 5:39 a.m.
Updated October 3, 2008 at 4:17 p.m.
Photo by Charles Dharapak, Associated Press
President Bush is greeted by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson at the Treasury Department after the House passed the $700 billion financial bailout bill today.
Photo by Brendan Smialowski, Getty Images
President Bush signs the Wall Street bailout bill in the Oval Office today at the White House.
Photo by Mark Wilson, Getty Images
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., exhales after signing the bailout bill while, from left, Reps. James E. Clyburn, D-S.C., Steny Hoyer, D-Md., Rahm Emanuel, R-Ill., and John Larson, D-Conn., stand nearby on Capitol Hill today in Washington.
Photo by Bloomberg
Rep. Donna Edwards , D-Md., speaking, and Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., adress the media explaining why they will be changing their votes on the stimulus package bill on Capitol Hill in Washington, Friday, Oct. 3, 2008.
Photo by Jonathan Fickies, Bloomberg News
Pedestrians pass the New York Stock Exchange after the closing bell in New York on Thursday. U.S. stocks dropped for a second day as a jump in borrowing costs and reports showing a worsening economy spurred concern that the government's $700 billion bank bailout plan won't be enough to stimulate growth.
Colorado’s seven-member congressional delegation voted exactly as it did on the original version of the bailout bill. Voting yes were two Democrats, Reps. Diana DeGette and Ed Perlmutter, and Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo. Voting no were two Democrats, Reps. Mark Udall and John Salazar, and two Republicans, Reps. Marilyn Musgrave and Doug Lamborn.
WASHINGTON — They held their noses, held hands and voted "yes."
Now lawmakers in both parties — along with President Bush — are waiting to see whether their historic $700 billion bailout for the financial industry can stabilize the tottering economy and prevent a broader meltdown.
"We have acted boldly to help prevent the crisis on Wall Street from becoming a crisis in communities across our country," Bush said shortly after the plan cleared Congress, although he conceded, "our economy continues to face serious challenges."
Reluctant Democrats and Republicans banded together Friday to approve the rescue plan — the broadest government intervention in markets in decades — on a 263-171 vote. Bush swiftly signed it.
Just a month before elections in which the sour economy is the dominant theme, Congress pushed the package through in a striking turnaround from the measure's failure earlier in the week, which sent the stock market plummeting.
Friday's vote capped an extraordinary two weeks of tumult in Congress and on Wall Street, punctuated by urgent warnings from Bush that the country confronted the gravest economic disaster since the Great Depression if lawmakers failed to act.
And it was followed by somber reminders on Wall Street, where enthusiasm over the rescue gave way to worries about obstacles still facing the economy, sending the Dow Jones industrials dropping 157 points. The Labor Department said earlier in the day that employers had slashed 159,000 jobs in September, the largest cut in five years.
Scores of jittery lawmakers who opposed the measure Monday hopped aboard a revised version in the final vote, fearing a crushing economic contagion that was spreading to their constituents.
"Let's not kid ourselves: We're in the midst of a recession. It's going to be a rough ride, but it will be a whole lot rougher ride" without the rescue plan, said Rep. John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, the minority leader, as he prepared to cast his vote.
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson pledged quick action to get the program up and operating.
The bailout, which gives the government broad authority to buy up toxic mortgage-related investments and other distressed assets from tottering financial institutions, is designed to ease a credit crunch that began on Wall Street but is engulfing businesses around the nation.
"In these past two weeks, we've seen things we never thought we would see before in terms of the economic insecurity of our own country," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. She said the measure would "begin to shape the financial stability of our country and the economic security of our people."
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the Financial Services Committee chairman, said the rescue bill was just the beginning of a much larger task Congress will tackle next year: overhauling housing policy and financial regulation in a legislative effort he compared to the New Deal.
"We were the EMTs rushing to the rescue of an economy that suddenly found itself choking, but now we have to perform more serious reform," Frank said.
Just four days earlier, the previous version of the bill was sent down to defeat, largely at the hands of angry conservative Republicans. On Friday, a total of 33 Democrats and 25 Republicans switched from opposition to support. In all, 91 Republicans joined 172 Democrats to support the measure while 108 Republicans and 63 Democrats voted "no."
The reversal reflected a high-stakes political environment. Some lawmakers were worried about their own jobs, but others — mostly Democrats — focused on the prospect that a new president could have a far more significant effect on the economy than any one piece of legislation.
Several of the Democratic switchers were members of the Congressional Black Caucus who said they changed course after securing commitments from presidential candidate Barack Obama that he would back legislation to help struggling consumers and homeowners facing foreclosures if he wins the White House.
"It's not too often you get the future president telling you that his priority matches your priority," said Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., one of 13 black lawmakers who switched from "no" to "yes."
Republican presidential candidate John McCain also lobbied for the measure, according to aides who declined to say whom he called.
Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., the party vote-counter, said McCain phoned Rep. John Shadegg, a fellow Arizonan who switched to "yes."
The legislation's roller-coaster ride through Congress began at a somber meeting in Pelosi's office in mid-September, where Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke frightened senior Democrats and Republicans with their warnings of an impending economic collapse without quick legislative action.
As lawmakers scrambled to draft a bill, they were barraged by angry calls from constituents to reject what many saw as a huge giveaway to the very financial institutions that helped cause the subprime mortgage meltdown at the root of the economic crisis — with nothing to help its ordinary victims.
"Pray for our republic," intoned Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, a leading opponent of the measure. "She's being placed in very uncaring and greedy hands."
Supporters said the prospect of economic disaster superseded their political fears.
"I may lose this race over this vote, but that's OK with me," said Republican Rep. Sue Myrick of North Carolina, who switched her vote to favor the measure. "This is the right vote for the country."
After the breathtaking House defeat on Monday, Senate leaders took custody of the rescue, adding on $110 billion in tax breaks designed to attract additional support. They attached the overall measure to a popular bill mandating broader mental health coverage in the insurance industry.
The rescue measure was changed to lift, from $100,000 to $250,000, the cap on government bank deposit insurance — a key priority for Republicans. Also key to winning GOP support was a decision by the Securities and Exchange Commission to ease accounting rules that require financial institutions to show the deflated value of assets on their balance sheets.
The revised measure won Senate approval Wednesday night, 74-25, setting up a furious round of lobbying in the House as the administration, congressional leaders, the presidential candidates and outside groups joined forces behind the measure.
The maneuvers worked — augmented by a shift in public opinion that occurred after the stock market took its largest-ever one-day dive on Monday.
The plan — initially a three-page request from the Bush administration for unlimited power to use $700 billion any way it saw fit to stabilize markets — swelled to more than 450 pages as negotiators added restrictions for the administration and sweeteners for anxious members of Congress.
Lawmakers added greater supervision over the $700 billion — including a process where Congress could vote to block half the money — measures to protect taxpayers, and steps to crack down on "golden parachutes" for corporate executives whose companies benefit from the bailout.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Denver turns 150
Read about the city's history, look at old photos and see a list of influential Denverites.
-
Mount Crushmore
Which four Broncos greats should be immortalized on Mount Crushmore? Vote here.
-
Winter Escapes
Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.
-
Rocky Multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Weekend plans?
Figure out things to do this weekend with the help of our entertainment calendar.
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's pregame rant on the Raiders.
-
Season To Share
The Post-News Season To Share campaign provides grants to area nonprofits.
-
The Rocky @ 150 Years
The Rocky was there when Colorado became a state in 1876. Read our coverage.
-
A Dozen on Denver
And the winner is... Robert Ziegler! See the whole fiction series by clicking here.
October 3, 2008
6:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
vudumom writes:
This "new" version of the bailout is wrong, wrong, wrong! Call the morons in Washington and tell them to vote no! Make them go back and get it right. Until they do get it right people have got to continue to fight against any bailout that hands our money over to a bunch of greedy morons.
The only thing in that bill that makes sense is raising the FDIC insurance level to $250,000.
A few more days or a week is not going to break America. Send them back to the table until they get it right.
The "new" version is exactly why the political system is so broken and they don't care one bit about the voters. They took a bill, a $700 billion bailout, voted no supposedly because the constituents flooded them with calls and they "listened" to the voters.
They then kept the SAME bill and added another $150 billion dollars of PORK to it. They now are trying to actually make the public believe that they have given us TAX BREAKS in their new bill.
Here is a few of the "tax breaks" for Americans.
1. Do you own a motor speedway?
2. Do you own a business in New Samoa?
3. Do you manufacture and sell toy wooden arrows?
4. Are you in the wool industry?
Step right up mainstreet America! I know lots of people who are Samoan and own racetracks that sell wooden toy arrows and wool coats, How about you?
Obama and McCain both said last week in the debate they would not allow pork barrel spending. Now is the exact time to put up or shut up!
October 3, 2008
7:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
LingLingfor_prez writes:
I read about 30 pages of the bill and it already looked worse than before. Good reading if you want to take a nap.
October 3, 2008
8:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
RustyWon writes:
If this gets passed, the gap between rich and poor will widen, and the country will be crippled for years.
Imagine the lawsuits these fat cats will bring saying they deserve a bigger piece of the pie.
Expensive, expensive, expensive.
There are two main reasons we are in this mess.
Wall Street greed in the form of extreme C level bonus packages (for a job NOT well done), and people buying things they cannot afford.
Just say NO.
October 3, 2008
8:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mayor_Quimby writes:
The house said $700 billion and the senate came back in this poker game and raised them another $100 billion. Its now $800 billion! The next time i hear someone complain about greedy CEOs, I'm going to kick them. All senators and congressman belong on the streets with the cardboard signs. This is ridiculous.
October 3, 2008
8:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Willy writes:
This porked up POS bill is a perfect example of why the people of the US need to take back the government from the political parties and their back room dealing.
October 3, 2008
8:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Keith43 writes:
So all it took was $110B in "tax breaks and other sweeteners" to persuade them to drop their opposition? It doesn't matter that their conscience and common sense (rightfully so by the way)prompted them to vote against this insanity in the first place. As usual, we can always count on them to sell themselves out. In this instance however, that should not have been the case! "politics as usual" doesn't apply - there's too much at stake.
By voting it down, would it drive us further into recession or possibly a depression? Very possibly so. However, the larger isssue in my opinion, is that the greedy bankers and investors MUST bear the consequences of their mismanagement. There needs to be a "cold turkey" withdrawal of the consumer, from so much easy and unsupported credit. We who are innocent in this matter (and I truely believe that there are many who live within their means) will have to pay a little of the price as well. And further, the Federal Reserve and it's manipulation of rates and printing of worthless dollars has got to stop. The Federal Reserve is unconstitutional (as is the proposed bailout) and must be dissolved IMMEDIATELY! That is another larger issue - the governments involvement and manipulation of our economy. I sincerely hope that everyone in office who supports this "crime" is voted out of office. We the people, need to make sure that happens.
October 3, 2008
9:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
taoistblockhead writes:
Washington D.C. (October 3, 2008) – Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today gave the following speech regarding the proposed Wall Street bailout on the floor of the House:
“We have come a great distance in seventy-five years; from the New Deal to the Raw Deal, from having nothing to fear but fear itself, to being afraid of everything. We traded democracy’s warm heart containing the ideals of faith, fairness and frugality, for the greedy, cold calculations of the Dow Jones ticker. The New Deal saved free market capitalism with jobs and regulation; now both sink in the swamp of speculation, manipulation and capitulation. The Golden Rule of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” is submerged by the rule of gold, “do unto others before they do unto you.”
“Some people will ask of this Congress, what were we thinking? Why did we give $700 billion bailout to Wall Street without fixing what caused the problem in the first place? Why did we rig the free markets for security fraudsters? Why didn’t we explore alternatives to let Wall Street solve its own problems? Why didn’t we have money save millions of homeowners, create millions of jobs, and a green economy? Why didn’t we stop the speculators? Why wasn’t there accountability? Why didn’t we take time to make an intelligent decision?
“Why? Why? Why?”
October 3, 2008
9:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Darwin writes:
It would appear that we are getting what we, the voters, deserve. We continue to reelect these politicians (some have been in office for 30 years or more) solely based on party lines. Let's face it, neither the Dems nor the Repubs have all the answers. It is time we look strongly at their credentials as well as hold them accountable for their past actions and votes. Of course this won't happen and most incumbents will be reelected and we will continue to vote along party lines while we whine. Pass the cheese and crackers.
October 3, 2008
9:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Keith43 writes:
Too bad our founding fathers aren't here - they'd for sure, march on Washington DC with fire power in hand, drag um out and hang um all. If they're watching us - and I believe at some level that they are, I wonder what their advise to us would be?
October 3, 2008
9:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
KING writes:
just say no
October 3, 2008
9:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Americans4Liberty writes:
URGENT! CALL EACH REPRESENTATIVE TODAY AND SAY NO TO ANY BAILOUT!
If they voted NO on the bailout earlier this week, THANK THEM for their continued opposition to any bailout bill.
If they voted YES, SPANK THEM! Tell them to represent the people!
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/con...#.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/usa...#.
Sen. Wayne Allard (R) 202-224-5941 (voted NO - thank)
Sen. Ken Salazar (D) 202-224-5852 (voted YES! - spank)
Rep. Diana DeGette (D-01) 202-225-4431 (voted YES! - spank)
Rep. Mark Udall (D-02) 202-225-2161 (voted NO - thank)
Rep. John Salazar (D-03) 202-225-4761 (voted NO - thank)
Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-04) 202-225-4676 (voted NO - thank)
Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-05) 202-225-4422 (voted NO - thank)
Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-06) 202-225-7882 (voted YES! - spank)
Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-07) 202-225-2645 (voted YES! - spank)
Does the Bailout Bill Mark the End of America as We Know It?
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?co...
October 3, 2008
9:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Willy writes:
Keith - I believe that advise is pretty well written in the Declaration of Independence.
How about we start the ball rolling in Colorado to rid ourselves of this BS by ammending the Colorado Constitution to make all elections non partisan and put safeguards in place to keep the parties away.
October 3, 2008
9:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
hikingartist writes:
The stage is set, palms have been greased and the fix is in. What a glorious day for Wall St!
October 3, 2008
10:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Nobama writes:
This may be the only issue both Liberals and Conservatives can agree on: this bill is the wrong thing to do. I'm guessing we agree for vastly different reasons, both political and otherwise. I have emailed all of my representative and Senators, but only ONE: Senator Wayne Allard, had the guts to no. Unfortunately, he is a lame duck, so didn't have to deal with the arcane corrupt political system that changes good people into bad politicians. I can only hope that this massive intervention by the Federal government is the last of it's kind, instead of the first of many more.
October 3, 2008
10:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
ron65ron writes:
Pork Pork Pork.. When will it end? This bill is nothing but pork barrel spending! Wake up America, your interests are not beiong taken into consideration! Let your elected officials know that you are DAM mad that they are trying to pass this pork barrel spending bill! How dare they do this to us!
October 3, 2008
10:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
and now -
The line forms on the left...
The automakers, banks, mortgage companies
Now California is going to need a $7B bail out.
When will it stop... and when to we the tax payers get OUR bail-out?
October 3, 2008
10:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Keith43 writes:
Nobama,
Sad thing is, this isn't the first intervention by the Federal Government. Ever since the formulation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, they've been enemy #1 to allowing our economy to function normally under the basic laws of economics. Left entirely alone, without manipulation of rates and without the printing of worthless dollars, our economy would do just fine. You're right about your other point though. Our arcane corrupt political system tends to breed bad politians. It confirms the quote I've heard many times, "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely". I'm afraid that's the direction we're headed. Nearly all the politians have so much power, they have become totally disconnected from the people.
October 3, 2008
11:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
RoyalPayne writes:
This is no buyout or bailout, it's the SELLOUT of America ! Some excellent posts from all of you, citizens are not as stupid as politicans would like to believe. When ( not if) this bill is signed into law, we become a Socialist nation at that very moment. This all started in 1913 and has taken this long to fully develop. I would investigate the Federal Reserve, Paulson and Wall St. under the RICO Act. If the Fed survives, I would nationalize it. The results of this bailout is not going to be pretty, people today will not roll over and accept the BS Washinton feed them. Don't beleive this, check Wikipedia the Bonus Army and see what happens to Americans when they fight back !
October 3, 2008
11:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
mojambo writes:
the AMT fix was a necessity
the rest of the sweeteners, not so much
October 3, 2008
11:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
Democrats, keep blaming the Republicans and keep voting Democrat.
Republicans, keep blaming the Democrats and keep voting Republican.
Net effect: ZERO; same faces are returned to Washington yet again.
Or, we could all vote for ALL NEW REPRESENTATION, regardless of party affiliation, and see if anyone "gets the message". Not likely to happen though.
October 3, 2008
11:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
strohslite writes:
God it must make Congress proud knowing that they sold out every legal American taxpaying citizen. It is so nice to know that the almost trillion dollar debt that will weigh on our shoulders will help bailout every CEO that screwed us, buy wooden arrows for children, help food places revamp the dining hall, etc. Yep thats what I want a life time of debt on my back so that the wealthy can stay wealthy and the taxpayers can absorb more stupidity.
October 3, 2008
noon
sampson writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
October 3, 2008
12:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
B300 writes:
At this time, all Americans, stand up and bend over! I must admit I have lost faith in our system. I feel there are many other Americans that feel the same way. So what can we do now? I guess sit around and wait for the people to borrow more money that they cant afford to pay back? So am I right in thinking that the same people that screwed this up will be right back behind the wheel speeding towards disaster! I am scared for us on many levels.
October 3, 2008
12:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
BenchBoss writes:
Nobama wrote:
"This may be the only issue both Liberals and Conservatives can agree on: this bill is the wrong thing to do. I'm guessing we agree for vastly different reasons, both political and otherwise."
Agreed. Seriously. It's weird that only this 2nd draft could make the 1st one look better. Wow. I guess we're going to have to rally together as we get scr%#@ed together. Just to make this week complete, I think I'll go apply for a home loan. Just cuz.
October 3, 2008
12:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
jonnyrotten writes:
We have just been BENT OVER and SCREWED by these POS representatives.
Sen. Ken Salazar (D) 202-224-5852 voted YES
Rep. Diana DeGette (D-01) 202-225-4431 voted YES
Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-06) 202-225-7882 voted YES
Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-07) 202-225-2645 voted YES
October 3, 2008
12:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
sampson writes:
From the Declaration of Independence:
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to ABOLISH it, and to institute NEW Government"...... The ends being Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. It's Time my fellow Americans!!
October 3, 2008
12:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
chickenlittle1234 writes:
sampson - whoa there, chief. don't count me in any revolt, not over this. anyone that has seen my writing on any of these threads knows i wasn't an initial fan of the bailout. and the fact that we had to do a bailout stinks, to be sure, but sitting idle means getting overwhelmed by the financial floodwaters. it's easy (and fun, to be sure) to scapegoat the bankers, but that can come later. my hope is that this will be enough, and you can bet there is even less consensus on that question. step one taken. let's try to make it work.
October 3, 2008
12:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Logical writes:
This began when the lending guidelines were eased to allow more people to get mortgages, even if they wouldn't qualify under the old rules, because many people thought is wasn't "fair" that some people couldn't own their own home. Yes, it was the democrats and Bill Clinton that were the driving forces for that legislation.
Well, this is what the desire for "fairness" gets us. Bleeding-hearts feel sorry for a segment, and change the rules to allow that segment to attain what they couldn't afford before the bending of the rules.
That segment was happy, until reality set in. They couldn't afford the homes they were allowed to buy. Now, bankruptcies, and credit dries up. Now we bail out the industry. Not bad enough that we have to bail them out, but senators and representatives won't vote for the bailout until they get some pork for their constituents.
Bottom line is, not everyone can afford what they want. We need to live within our means. If we want more, we need to get an education or training for a different line of work. I have done that, and am very glad I did. I worked to increase my earning level.
Our politicians need to stop trying to make life "fair", and acknowledge that not everyone gets what they want. Politicians need to be limited to two or three terms, so they don't pile up all the favors to each other. This bill was about buying votes. It should have passed on the first reading, but greed got in the way. They knew they could attach pork to the bill, then vote for it.
Greedy (politicians) took us for a ride, to their benefit. Stereotypes are earned. Politicians are not to be trusted.
October 3, 2008
12:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
HopiMedicineMan writes:
Mental illness will be treated on an equal basis as a physical illness.
Health premiums will sky-rocket.
October 3, 2008
12:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
I haven't seen a list of how each member of the house voted. Does anyone know where you can get that info?
October 3, 2008
1:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Citizen21 writes:
I still do not agree with the bail of of companies who made bad business decisions. BUT, what ANGERS me more is that the politians included a bunch of unrelated, miscelaneous stuff in this legislation. I am so voting out all who I can!!!!!!
Link to Cspan for the Bill - http://www.c-span.org/
October 3, 2008
1:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Citizen21 writes:
Vote Tally - http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll6...
October 3, 2008
1:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Willy writes:
Chicken - Maybe you would be more agreeable if instead of a revolt, it was called a major overhaul of our political system so that our representatives actually represented the needs and desires of their constituents. That was the intent of our constitution, but I don't think anyone would argue that it is currently the case - and not just on this bailout bill.
Do you have any suggestions as to how that can be accomplished?
October 3, 2008
1:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
CHICKEN, you and me both, glad I don't have to apologize today as I said early on it would be done today. Little people won't see anything; fact is this economy will still be in decline. I was amazed when channel 7 came and interviewed my brother at our business 3 days ago for the 10pm news concerning the economy, gold and off camera about our family's ability to make fortunes in bad economies. Must have saw one of our many ads. I've been posting this meltdown for over two years both on the RMN and other places, never lied yet to you people. The second shoe has yet to hit the floor folks. CHICKEN, I eat no crow today pal! Oh and NOBAMA, my lack of a cushy government job as you insulted me with the other day, is paying off nicely pal, how's your job security going into the future?
October 3, 2008
1:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Willy writes:
Several years ago, Sonny Bono stood before congress and held up a budget bill that was something like 6000 pages long and asked “Has anyone here read this entire bill and understands everything in it?” He was met with silence.
In his honor, I would propose the Sonny Bono solution.
All proposed bills in congress be limited to a single subject, written in common English and be no more than one page in length.
Each proposal would be posted on the internet with a second page summarizing the pros and cons of the proposal. The page would have links to your congressman’s website where you could register your “vote” and leave a short comment.
After a short period, say ten days, the proposal would be put to a vote in congress.
Results of the “citizen vote” and the representative’s actual vote would be posted.
I realize this is simplistic, pie in the sky and somewhat in jest, but it’s better than what we have now where junk gets buried in every bill, our congressmen do not listen and we have no way of objectively holding the accountable. I also understand that there would be an incredible increase in the number of unemployed attorneys and lobbyists.
October 3, 2008
1:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Logical writes:
I am not as interested in who voted for it, as I think it is a necessary evil, but I would love to know who added what pork to the bill. All who added pork should be voted out of office at the next opportunity.
October 3, 2008
1:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
Willy,
I whole heartily agree with you 1:41 PM posting. Actually, your idea is not that far fetched. In Switzerland the population can override laws that the Swiss Parliament passes by a referendum vote.
Scott
October 3, 2008
2:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Citizen21 writes:
The US is not alone as far economic troubles go. Europe is considering a bailout. Russia has done one and is considering another.
Yes, our economy is in a slowdown. It is cylcial and after hitting record low unemployment, record high GDP and record highs on the Dow in 2007 - the cycle is bound for it's downward cycle. What goes up must come down. It will cycle upwards once again. Even Warren Buffet has stated as such.
What complicated the downward cycle and caused the credit crises was the greed on wallstreet and the VERY BAD decision to allow Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to extend home loans to unqualified indivuals and couples. And then, so did all the other banks.
Zero (0) down and ARMs got a lot of people in trouble - a bad decision on their part. And if you took a home equity loan for more than your house is worth - bad decision on your part. So now my hard-earned taxdollars are going to bailout all these criminals and morons out. Yes, I'm am more than MAD! Especially since no one is helping me pay my bills.
October 3, 2008
2:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Zim writes:
Well, we can whine and moan, or we can do something. Vote EVERY single incumbent out of office. Doesn't matter the party. Vote them OUT. If you, as a voter, vote even one incumbent back into office, you are part of the problem. You are part of the corrupt system. It's our turn now. Let's do something about it.
October 3, 2008
2:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
ZIM, would that include both presidential candidates since they both favor the bailout?
October 3, 2008
2:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Willy writes:
Agree with the thought Zim, but look at the choice we have been given - just more of the same, including all of those proclaiming to be agents of change.
October 3, 2008
3:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
With all of the added pork, let alone the original $700M bail out part, of this abominable Bill why do I have this mental image that us taxpayers are like the character that Ned Betty played in the movie Deliverance. The Congress Creeps have twisted our ear, dropped us to our knees and ordered us to "squeal like a pig".
Scott
October 3, 2008
3:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
wyhammertime writes:
Keith43: I bet our founding fathers are laughfing their a$$es off at all the folish things we I repeat WE let our goverment get away with !! Maybe it is time to do some old school and march on Washington and stomp the rat's that did this !!! But the goverment has put so much fear into it's people we will do nothing !! It's just like the gas prices what have we done ?? Nothing , we scream blody murder as we hand over the cash right I would like to see them aresst 20 million people if we marched on the capital heck they can't even hold a border let alone the capital look at 9/11 sheer stupidity on the goverments behalf {in my opinoin} so what are we going to do ??? GRAB YOUR MUSKETS BOY'S IT MIGHT BE AWHILE !! P.S. the goverment is not afraid of the people because we are just going to hide in the closet right????
October 3, 2008
3:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
marine76 writes:
Clinton didn't vote? Taking the safe road for her next run at president? Can't blame her either way?
October 3, 2008
3:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
ConcernedConsumers writes:
Say it ain’t so, Joe! We send our troops around the world to fight for democracy, defined as a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation, yet, the actions of those we elect to represent us do not seem in line with the definition of democracy. The actions of those we elected to office reward greedy Wall Street executives and incompetent fat cats by allowing them to pick the pockets of the American taxpayers to the sum of $700 billion dollar ($700,000,000,000).
We should feel betrayed, we were lied to and we should demand those financial institutions and individuals responsible for this mess to be held accountable. If our politicians want to let them off the hook by giving them our money, our $700,000,000,000, then we need to hold those politicians accountable when we vote this November. Regardless of who you vote for, let us strive to hold our elected officials accountable for their promises, accountable for their actions and accountable for our hard earned money.
October 3, 2008
3:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
I'd like to start a movement.
"Vote em OUT - vote em ALL out!"
In three election cycles we could have a complete 100% turn over of congress.
Vote against the current sitting members, period - no mater who you put in their place vote every one, OUT!
This would require voting across political lines, but think of the message this could send,One that comes to mind:
WE're as MAD as H3II and not going to take it any more!
It's worth a try....
October 3, 2008
4:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
marine76 writes:
My impression of politics today - they (all) tell you what they think you want to hear. Then when they get elected they do whatever they want. It seems like a game to them. How much can I get away with. And if they catch me or vote me out......big deal, I get the same pay and benefits for the rest of my life. Now I can go out and ruin some private companies. I think the people that voted them in should all vote on how they did when their time is up. If the people vote them unfavorably they don't get a pension or benefits. It's time to clean up washington. The games need to end.
October 3, 2008
4:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
sampson writes:
This is Not a 700 Billion dollar bailout. That is what was proposed last week. It took another couple hundred billion in bribes to get the scumbag politicians to vote for this POS. I'd say vote the dirtballs out, but what do you think the chance that 'ol Barney Frank will get the boot. It's called "Aristocracy", and we're the paupers. Cake anyone??
October 3, 2008
4:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
Can't just blame these politicians for this. You all need to look back long ago when the world banking system began. This has been building for years and it finally pop us in the a--. The whole world can't function without the banks. Then they made it even worse when they took us off the gold & silver standard. This allowed the federal reserve to just fire up the printing presses and print brand new PROMISORY NOTES. Which holds no commodity. Money has been running freely for years. Now these congressman & women had to do something today that was not good at all. But something had to been done. Now I don't know if there wasn't something other than this that would have been better. But we have no other choice to avoid letting these banks fail. Now I realize that you all are going to come at me with guns a blazing but this could have shut this country down. You can call it scare tactics but it is no question banks around the world are failing. People that is not good. Milions of people were going to get hurt and hurt bad.
October 3, 2008
4:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
youme writes:
Bank Loans Have Not 'Dried Up'
by Alan Reynolds
Alan Reynolds is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and the author of Income and Wealth.
This article appeared on Forbes.com on October 1, 2008
The frantic congressional push to "do something" about mortgage-backed bank investments has been widely defended with equally frantic claims that U.S. bank lending to business and consumers has been shrinking fast.
On Sept. 24, Congressional Budget Office Director Peter Orszag warned Congress that "short-term lending was virtually shut down." The following day, The Washington Post reported that "tightening [bank] credit conditions are already affecting some
Table One
U.S. Bank Loans (Billions of Dollars)
Federal Reserve Board, Asset and Liabilities of Commercial Banks in the United States (H.8).
In August, bank loans to consumers were 9.5% higher than they were a year earlier--the fastest increase since 2004. The year-to-year increase in consumer and industrial loans was 15.5%, down only slightly from a recent record high of 21.6% in March. Real estate loans were up 4.1% for the 12-month period ending this August--flat lately, but not down.
Did bank lending suddenly turn south since August? The latest data is for the week ending Sept.17, when the U.S. expropriated 80% of AIG (nyse: AIG - news - people ) equity and thus tanked most financial stocks. U.S. bank credit hit a record of over $7 trillion in the latest week--up from $6.57 trillion a year earlier and $6.92 trillion at the end of July.
Contrary to many comments, consumer and industrial loans actually increased in the latest week. Troubled giant banks have cut back on lending, but smaller banks have picked up the slack. Consumer and real estate loans dipped insignificantly through Sept. 17, remaining much higher than they were a year earlier.
If all the recent hysterical chatter about lending being "frozen" or "shut down" refers to anything real, it is not about banks loans (through Sept. 17) but about such arcane financial markets as asset-backed commercial paper or loans between banks. But this too is mainly about financial firms, not Main Street. Non-financial commercial paper increased from $156 billion at the start of the year to more than $204 billion from Sept. 3 to Sept. 17, dipping only modestly since then.
Economic journalists seem oddly fascinated with the last column of the table--interbank loans from one to another (aside from fed funds). "Banks won't even lend to each other," said a TV reporter, "so how can we expect them to loan to business or consumers?" But interbank loans are obviously tiny, and banks rightly regard lending to other banks more risky than lending to Main
October 3, 2008
4:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
marine76 writes:
I feel that they had to do something too. But if this is as serious as everyone wants us to belive, why were they playing so much politics with it? We need politicians that will do what's good for America. Not blackmail everyone else by saying I'll only vote for this if you throw this in with it. I know it's worked that way for a long time, maybe forever, but it has to end.
October 3, 2008
5:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
I agree with Logical's 1:42pm post (as usual). However, I don't care to have a debate when I'm outnumbered 50-1. If anyone is interested in a debate, the best argument I've seen made for the bill was by Warren Buffett on the Charlie Rose show the other day (video here: http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008...).
If you know nothing about him other than he's fantastically rich, I'd like to point out that:
1) He gives an enormous amount to charity.
2) He is in favor of increasing the capital gains tax despite getting almost all of his income from capital gains.
3) He is personally doing the best things possible, investing billions into troubled companies to keep them afloat, stabilize the economy and, obviously, turn a profit once the economy picks up a few years down the road. The reason his company has billions to spend now is because he is REALLY SMART! Seriously, watch the interview if you want to see the other side of this debate.
October 3, 2008
5:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Keith43 writes:
Wyhammertime,
The problem is that most of us Americans are simply too busy drinking our beer in front of the TV set to even get involved. And besides, what's more important than American Idol?
October 3, 2008
7:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Americans4Liberty writes:
Here's a review of our banking system and the Federal Reserve. If the links don't work, copy them into your browser or google the titles. Please copy and share with all your friends too!
"G. Edward Griffin The Creature from Jekyll Island A Second Look"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...
"Money as Debt"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...
"Overview of America"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...
Please join the Campaign for Liberty and help us restore our Constitutional Republic!
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/#.
October 3, 2008
8:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Francesca writes:
joggle: The Rose/Buffett interview was enlightening. Thx for the link. In debate, it's best to understand your opponent's position thoroughly.
October 3, 2008
9:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Americans4Liberty writes:
Henry Kissinger: "Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will pledge with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenarios, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government."
--Henry Kissinger in an address to the Bilderberg organization meeting at Evian, France, May 21, 1991. Transcribed from a tape recording made by one of the Swiss delegates. From: Geoff Metcalf Significant Quote Series: 001 at http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/indexj.html
October 3, 2008
11:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
taoistblockhead writes:
Betrayed by the Bailout: The Death of Democracy
By William Cox
On this date, October 3, 2008, the American people were betrayed by those whom they had elected to represent them. The members of Congress who voted for the Wall Street "bailout" violated their oath of office to "support and defend the Constitution" ... "that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same" ... "and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: ..."
Without holding any meaningful hearings or public discussions and listening only to those most responsible for the economic disaster, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Congress abdicated its responsibility to the American people.
Locking out most members from all discussions, the congressional "leadership" emerged from their backrooms with legislation that grants Secretary Paulson the ability to spend at least $700 billion to "take such actions as [he] deems necessary" ... " to promote financial market stability."
Entrusting tremendous political and financial power (and a ton of borrowed money that taxpayers will have to repay with interest) into Paulson’s sole discretion, members of Congress must have been aware that, prior to his cabinet appointment in 2006, Paulson worked for 32 years at Goldman Sacks, one of the Wall Street firms that stands to benefit greatly from his "actions."
Paulson, who cashed out his Goldman stock valued at $575 million to become the Secretary of Treasury (without having to pay any taxes on the sale), earned more than $53 million in pocket change during just his last two years at Goldman Sacks for innovations such as a new line of "Mortgage Backed Securities." Gambling more than a trillion dollars on risky subprime second mortgages, Paulson cleverly converted them into AAA-rated "secure" investments by purchasing guarantees from the American International Group.
AIG, coincidentally, was just "bailed out" two weeks ago by Secretary Paulson for $85 billion (of borrowed money that taxpayers will have to repay with interest), averting a devastating loss by Goldman Sacks, who was holding more than $20 billion in otherwise worthless second mortgages.
Is it surprising that Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman’s current CEO, was present with Paulson when the decision was made to bailout AIG?
The bailout’s $700 billion price tag is only an arbitrary guess by Paulson and is most likely just the first installment of many more to come. Other economists, with more successful track records, believe the total will be much greater, perhaps $5 trillion, as concealed losses are uncovered and foreign companies dump their toxic investment waste into their American offices.
October 4, 2008
3:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
commoncents writes:
No one who has ever voted for Republicans should be too upset about any of this. While they keep the country divided about where gays should get married or who should have an abortion they have enabled their buddies with money to plunder at will. The country had to do something now, but it was a reaction to inaction and looking the other way when their friends wanted something.
Once again America gets what it voted for, congratulations lemmings!