And What About Those 95 Democrats?

"regular people are struggling and have been struggling for years now, and we keep hoping that it will get better but each year it gets WORST. and our government just sit there and do nothing about it, because of this ideaological partisanship....."
-----
The "government" -- the clothes-horses of the Congress -- does nothing (or, worse, tries to turn the US Treasury over to the very financial corporations who've looted the citizenry at large), but not because of "partisanship".

It's because of their amazing PRIVILEGE.

That's only one guy, but reportedly, Democrats were being told on the House floor that it was OK to vote "no". 12 people on Barney Frank's committee voted no, and Frank reportedly did nothing to change their minds. A news story today stated that most of those voting "no" were in vulnerable districts.

This vote was a setup to make Republicans look bad. Pelosi wanted total buy-in from the Republicans, but Democrats were given a pass. Pelosi didn't care about passing the economic relief bill.

Barack Obama apparently did nothing to get this passed. There were several Representatives from Illinois that he is close to who voted "no".

"Something is NOT necessarily better than nothing, especially when the most faked-up election in the history of the US is in the mix.

Not everything can BE "compromise"d. Getting Dodd and Frank and Pelosi-Kerry-Obama out of their "leadership" positions would be a good start, though."

and that's why our government is such a disaster. nobody WANTS to work together. and you wonder why people lack trust with this president and this congress. regular people are struggling and have been struggling for years now, and we keep hoping that it will get better but each year it gets WORST. and our government just sit there and do nothing about it, because of this ideaological partisanship.....

@ M BURKE

mccain, mistakenly, put himself out there for political points with nothing to show for it. by putting himself out there he became part of the distraction and adding on into this spin circus that's going on right now.

obama, on the other hand was smart enough to stray away from the bargaining of the bill, because presidential politics in such a urgent situation as this one is always a no-no. with that said, obama has some fault with this because he could of done better in reaching his own constituents in making this deal work. this isn't or suppose to be a republican deal or democratic deal, but a bipartisan deal because every american regardless of party affiliation are getting affected by this

"we have to come together and make some sort of compromise, and adjust the bill as it goes along....something is always better than nothing"
-----
Something is NOT necessarily better than nothing, especially when the most faked-up election in the history of the US is in the mix.

Not everything can BE "compromise"d. Getting Dodd and Frank and Pelosi-Kerry-Obama out of their "leadership" positions would be a good start, though.

"Pelosi allowed the 95 most-contested-races Dem members to vote against the bill ... "
-----
Hahaha. Pelosi "allowed" Barbara Lee to vote against the bill? Hahaha. Barbara Lee was the only person in Congress with the b___ to vote against the Patriot Act.

Too darn bad LEE isn't Speaker. Or the Democratic nominee. Or both.

Oh them.

@ belle star...

the urgency is the fact that history DOES repeat itself when left ignored. all you have to do is read about how the "great depression" came into manifestation in the 1st place....it's virtually identical to whut's happening now and mostly due to the government ineffectiveness to calm the stock market. when the stock market crashed in 1929..it too slightly bounced back that next day, but it consistently spiraled a down trend like it's going now with banks swallowed up and eventually forcing things that effected wallstreet affecting extreme hardships mainstreet and globally...it's not going to be immediate, but a gradual fall out until everything is completely bleek.

we're going into the same trend as back then and doing absolutely NOTHING is the worst thing to do....we have to come together and make some sort of compromise, and adjust the bill as it goes along....something is always better than nothing

Pelosi allowed the 95 most-contested-races Dem members to vote against the bill and planned to run ads against the Repubs who voted for it. With move-on.org running ads blaming McCain-Bush for the meltdown they covered all they're bases.
Repubs should insist that Frank and Dodd resign their committee chairs before they sign the deal.

McCain demonstrated, once again, his political courage by directly engaging in a personally risky effort to pass bi-partisan legislation wildly unpopular with the voters. Passage could only occur IF both he and Obama took equal hands-on roles, assuring at the same time that neither party pointed blame or claimed credit. He invited Obama to equally participate and Obama and the democrats said "no", seeing it was to their partisan advantage to keep the economy roiling. Obama and his election first, the economy second.

The democrats are far, far more to blame for this sub-prime mortgage crisis than past republican presidents, the past republican congressional majority, or Bush. Yet, McCain said, "Fix the blame later, fix the problem now". Obama, and Pelosi, using the Big Lie technique, sought a partisan advantage at all costs, whatever the economic fall-out. They blamed republicans for the crisis and signalled their latest campaign position. Perhaps the defeated bill was not the best option--maybe the next proposal will be much worse--but the opportunity for true bi-partisan effort may well have come and gone and with it our economy. Ironically, McCain takes a hit in the polls and Obama benefits.

When it comes to leadership, character, and courage, it looks like the voters are about to get what they deserve--a Congress led by the likes of Pelosi(two heartbeats away from the presidency)and Obama, who leads by the theory of "present" and unaccounted for." May God help us all get through the next four years.

When Bush proclaims "Congress must ACT", without even sounding as though he means, let alone expects, it ...
you gotta wonder whether he doesn't mean "act" in its Reaganesque "let's-pretend" sense.

"why it was so urgent to compromise and get this bill passed"
-----
But it wasn't so "urgent", was it? At first, Paulson wanted his bill enacted in 48 hours or whatever it was, like the Patriot Act. Now it didn't pass, and isn't going to pass.

"Then [Pelosi] insulted the GOP as if to make sure they didn't try any harder to pass the bailout than she had. Either she's stupid, didn't care if it passed, or is both."
-----
Pelosi should step down and campaign for her seat, which she can lose.

Meanwhile, the stock market is NOT crashing.

there was a bipartisan consensus to vote NO! and a bipartisan leadership for wanting this bill come pass. it's the fault of the leadership for not communicating to not only their respective partisan house members, but to the american people as to why it was so urgent to compromise and get this bill passed. mccain or obama should have faught more to encourage, but with obama he was AT LEAST correct as to not put himself into this mess because it would of caused a huge distraction as proven by mccain, hence maybe a LARGE part of the reason why this failed to go through the way it showed.

There is no "moving into a smaller home" when all your cash is tied up in a house that's lost 20% of its value since you signed escrow.

Banks did not shoot drugs to convince themselves to make these loans: In many cases they were pressured by "community activists" who threatened to sue under CRA unless they loosened lending requirements.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are directly responsible for their own demise but Congress, especially Dodd and Frank, gave them an heroic push off the ledge. Since Bush took office he urged Congress to rein them in: Frank and Dodd gave him the finger.

Pelosi, as Speaker of the House, has the duty to find the votes to pass legislation she sends to the floor or pull it and renegotiate. Little known fact: When there's a contentious but important bill the Speaker lines up votes to pass it PLUS a pool of "alternative jurors" willing to vote for it if needed. That way if someone pledged to vote for the bill bails at the last second the Speaker can pull in extra votes as needed. Pelosi didn't do that: She lined up a bare majority of Democrats and said any more would have to come from the Republicans. Then she insulted the GOP as if to make sure they didn't try any harder to pass the bailout than she had. Either she's stupid, didn't care if it passed, or is both.

"They have roused the drowsy beast of popular anger at last, and no one can say what might happen next. Probably nothing -- or rather, more of the same, in some form or another. But still, it is good to see the icy beads of panic dotting the brows of elites who have inflicted and/or countenanced so much death, destruction, terror and degradation in the past few years.

"Today they have suffered a very rare defeat in the relentless, remorseless class war they have been waging against us for decades. And that it is something to celebrate -- at least for one night."

-- Chris Floyd

Oxycon-- The Dems took out a lot of junk in the bailout agreement in order to garner Republican votes on this. The Dems wanted the bill to fail, so they could blame the Republicans, then go in make their original bill with ACORN and other Democrat lobbyist groups included, pass it and claim victory.

It was a bad bill. The GOP would have done better to have said they wouldn't vote for a flawed bill, instead of whining about Pelosi.
This was in the bill:
SEC. 202. INCREASED FLEXIBILITY FOR THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD TO ESTABLISH RESERVE REQUIREMENTS.

Section 19(b)(2)(A) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 461(b)(2)(A)) is amended--
(1) in clause (i), by striking `the ratio of 3 per centum' and inserting `a ratio of not greater than 3 percent (and which may be zero)'; and
(2) in clause (ii), by striking `and not less than 8 per centum,' and inserting `(and which may be zero),'.

That means that each depository institution could maintain zero reserves against its transaction accounts, starting 10/1/2008.

Does that get your interest? It should.
There are many other provisions in this measure that I di not like, and my Dem Rep. in the House voted against this bill as well.

It was not a good bill.

jpt writes:
"What about the Dow going down 778 points?"
-----
What about it NOT going down once Pelosi et al. shut up?

What about it going UP today?

I'm surprised to see even official party media asking why the Dems didn't get this done. Questioning their masters? So brave!