The Democrats have exposed the disarray of the Republicans with the failure of the bailout plan.

2/3 of the Republicans rebelled against Republican leadership (Bush, McCain, Boehner, Gregg, etc.).

By the way, what are your retirement funds invested in?

Blaming Democrats for Iraq, Katrina and the economy??? Have you been sleeping under a rock for the past 8 years?

That the dems would align with a president who is literally the worst president in America's history, responsible for Abu Ghraib, torture, Guantanamo Bay, the loss of America's standing in the world, is disconcerting. Why the dems would align with Bush on another forced and rushed bailout based on fear, like the rush to war is appalling. The democrats got licked in the axx, just shows, you don't go with a loser lame-duck president.

Don't the Dems have the majority in both branches of Congress? They also had the cover of GOP leadership and a GOP president. If they think this bailout is so important, why didn't they just pass it?

Conservative GOP representatives are, in the majority, not going to support this bailout. They seem to understand the dire need, but they want more of a workout for the banks and Wall Street, instead of a giveaway from the taxpayers. The Dem representatives, who voted against this deal, were hearing from their consituents...overwhelming "no".

Sure didn't help that Nancy Pelosi decided to have a hissy fit ahead of the vote. Does she have no brain? Even Barney Frank, a real Dem hack, showed a touch of leadership, even though he is at the heart of the casue of this meltdown. Barney was calling for a bipartisan vote, while Nancy decided it was time to attack Bush. Go figure.

I suggest that McCain and Obama get back to business, in Washington, suspend campaigning (both of them this time), show real presidential quality leadership, have face-to-face meetings with reluctant congressmen and congresswomen. Then McCain and Obama should meet behind closed doors, with no aides. They can hammer it out, and both emerge with a solution. They couldthen present that deal to the president and the Dem and GOP leadership. That would be real presidential leadership.

Aligned has kind of a warped read of what has happened over the past week. Bush came out with an unacceptable two page bail out plan with no protections for tax payers. Democrats forged a plan with specific protections. A plan that was not Bush's plan.

Now the republicans are in disarray, holding the country hostage over their own personal job security concerns (worries about reelection - a little late for that by the way), and its the democrats fault?

Well, the silver lining here is that the Bush Administration is getting recognized for what it is and has been all along, by ALL parties now (not just democrats), and just in time for the election.

Gary - neither McCain or Obama are banking or commerce experts. They can't sit down with each and hammer out a plan. The experts need to do that. Its like asking your accountant to hammer out a plan to remodel your house or something. Or asking your architect to hammer out your financial plan. The whole problem is that the politicians are over there playing politics, they need to get some non-partisan economic experts in there to draft the specific plan.

The financial sector accounts for 20% of all IT spending. Silicon Valley is not going to be immune from the ensuing panic.

You may be gleeful now but you won't be in January if Congress can't get a bailout of some kind passed.

The Republican coup against George W. Bush has killed both the Wall Street bailout program and also any chance that John McCain had to win in November. This whole mess is now firmly a Republican civil war.

Today's vote

in color:

Web Link

"The financial sector accounts for 20% of all IT spending"

confirming, I am watching a number of customers that my company sells to get wiped out.

"Gary - neither McCain or Obama are banking or commerce experts. They can't sit down with each and hammer out a plan. The experts need to do that. Its like asking your accountant to hammer out a plan to remodel your house or something. Or asking your architect to hammer out your financial plan. The whole problem is that the politicians are over there playing politics, they need to get some non-partisan economic experts in there to draft the specific plan."

parent,

I think you are both right and wrong. Politicians are, indeed, playing politics. However, the experts don't really have a clue, either. It will be politicians who solve this one, not experts. That is why McCain and Obmama need to get behind closed doors.

Gary,

Why? It's not their job--neither one of them sits on the right Senate committees--and they certainly don't sit in the house.

Like it or not--we HAVE a president. You're asking the candidates to do his job. I think we know what that says about him.

From what I've read, Pelosi was not going to make the Dems solely responsible for the bail-out. It was bilateral or nothing. Pelosi delivered exactly the number of votes she promised. That wasn't an accident.

Why should the Dems shoulder the responsibility for the failure of a Republican administration? (Yes, yes, I know you think it's all about redlining, but it went way, way beyond that.)

So a bit of political hardball, I think. Pelosi's a tough backroom dealer. And, yes, with an election, the Dems are likely to pick up more seats if the Republicans are at civil war.

OhlonePar,

Dream on. Pelosi, completely blew the tactical situation, today. There was absolutely no reason to have a hissy fit this morning. None. Zippo. Nada. Yet she did.

Pelosi could have had this one in the bag, if she had simply followed Barney Frank's lead. Imagine that, she could even track Barney. If she had kept her mouth shut, she could have attracted a few more GOP votes, and she could have whipped her own Dems to put it over the top. The irony is that she had political cover, but now she is naked. She will now be forced to come over to more conservative GOP positions (e.g. workout vs. bailout, mark to book vs. mark to market, cutting capital gains tax, etc.).

GWB has led on this issue, but he is lame duck. Obama and McCain need to step into the fray. No more hiding out on the campaign trail. This thing is too serious for that playground, anymore.

Within the next few days, I think we will see both of them back in D.C.

Gary,

Nonsense. Pelosi called a spade a spade.

The republican leadership said they could deliver 80 votes but failed. Some say it was because they were vewy vewy angwy at Nancy, and that's why they voted against what they saw as the interests of their own country. Don't buy that. The Republican meltdown came because individual Republicans decided to mount an insurrection (good luck with that re-election thing).

Deeply naive to think that the Dems would agree to take the blame for Republican policies in exchange for a vote to save the financial system.

So we see that all the Republicans are strongly in favor of deregulation, which caused of this mess. Some Republicans are sticking to their ideological guns and are willing to stand by and watch the coming "correction"--i.e. collapse of the financial system--no matter what the cost to main street. Other Republicans have abandoned their extreme "free-market" ideology and want the bailout.

The Republican party is in complete disarray, with senators behind the plan, representatives split, the president irrelevant and unplugged, the Republican candidate for president erratic and confused.

My crystal balls says: Obama elected easily; Republicans are going to lose moderate number of seats this time around as reality begins to sink in; they lose a whole bunch more in two years because the economy will only then be coming off the bottom; two years later, yet again easily a democratic president.

The only thing that is cloudy: will the Republican party survive? In any case, they are in for many years out in the cold. That is the democratic comeuppance.

Did mean ol Nancy hurt the widdle Wepubicans feewwings? Awww.

"So we see that all the Republicans are strongly in favor of deregulation, which caused of this mess"

mittens,

Would you care to defend that statement? I think the evidence is that government mandates (CRA/Freddie/Fannie/HUD) drove this process. If banks were not forced/incentivized, by the government, to write sub-prime loans, we would not be in this fix.

If Pelosi wants to call a apade a shovel, she should look in the mirror.

"Did mean ol Nancy hurt the widdle Wepubicans feewwings? Awww."

Paul,

No, she just provided an excuse for GOP congressmen who wanted to vote no, but could, possibly, be persuaded, to follow their conscience, and vote no.

Pelosi is a political idiot. Steny Hoyer would not have made this blunder, if he was Speaker. Even Barney Frank ain't that stupid.

"I think the evidence is that government mandates (CRA/Freddie/Fannie/HUD) drove this process."

There is no evidence. CRA/Freddie/Fannie/HUD played little role here. Most of the really bad loans were by private institutions taking risky bets enabled by deregulation. The more immediate cause, however, was the risky way these mortgages were securitized and traded.

Pretty sorry excuse I think, but then those congressional crybabies are pretty sorry excuses themselves.

Let them vote no on their principles, if they have any, but spare us their temper tantrums because somebody didn't treat them with tender PC.

To my tremendous relief, once again the truth is starting to sink into most Americans' heads how this mess came about and who did it.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out at the polls..

Let's see - Dems=

1) Foreign Oil Dependence ( from far left environmentalists stopping all oil/gas/coal at home) brings more risk, economically and security, at home and contributes to unemployment at home through...
2) No new home grown oil/nuclear jobs, declining employment from rising prices...
3)Democrats committing the sin of COMMISION of creating too much and bad regulation of Fannie/Freddie and Repubs committing the sin of OMISSION by not stopping it when they had the chance when they were in full power, even though they were warned..leading to
4) Sub-prime mortgage meltdown...leading to
5) the sky is falling 5th Column reporting in hopes of whipping up a ....
6) recession, which actually MAY begin to happen now, except that...

7)at home and around the world the result is that those who wanted to see the downfall of the USA might get their wish..and are now realizing that we will take everyone else down with us ...and are starting to wonder if MAYBE

8) the left is wrong after all about what is good for us and our economy and the world's economy and therefore..

9)maybe the RIGHT will be listened to a bit more thanks to all of the above and the spine of the conservative Repubs in Congress who are showing the only leadership in this country, as usual.

I have said before, and I will keep saying..if America gets Obama and a full Dem house...we will get the country we deserve. Everyone else better buckle up for a rough ride until we come to our senses.

"The more immediate cause, however, was the risky way these mortgages were securitized and traded."

Mittens,

And who do you think was a major driver of offering, then bundling then securitizing subprimes? Answer: Fannie/Freddie. CRA drove the notion at F/F, becasue it paid activist amatures (e.g. ACORN) to pressure the GSEs and the banks.

The private market, running a huge pool of money, bought into the lead of F/F. I am NOT absolving the private market here. However, they took a big hit, while F/F simply gets bailed out...which was always the expectation of any major GSE.

A very simple way to look at it is that F/F drove it, and the private market pulled it.

Even Barney Frank ain't that stupid. let's think about that?

The same Barney Frank, the madam of the @ home male homosexual basement brothel.

Yes, he's the one, Now what was Frank's punishment?
He's now a member of the Democratic leadership.

I wonder who he has on film?

Solution vote them all out.

"And who do you think was a major driver of offering, then bundling then securitizing subprimes? Answer: Fannie/Freddie."

Yep. And their hyperactive lobbyists found lots of eager listeners in the Republican congress and white house. Throw the turkeys out.

Gary,

"Answer: Fannie/Freddie." Nope. Way too simple.

Look at it this way. There are a number of components to this crisis.

1. It was triggered by failing subprimes. As I mentioned, FF had only a small share of the worst loans. You claim that FF "drove" the crisis because it somehow "pressured" the banks into making non-performing loans. If you try to unpack your claim, you'll find it's nonsense. FF "drove" nothing. The private sector chose to make risky loans because of deregulation. From their (dim-witted) perspective, there was no downside because they could simply sell them off or hedge them.

2. If this were only about subprimes, it wouldn't be such a big deal. But it's not. There is a huge credit bubble popping because of--you guessed it--deregulation. Your friend Gramm sneaked new laws into a bill to allow highly risky swaps, which magnified enormously risky credit.

At every turn, this is about a failure to regulate. You cannot blame the markets--they're just going to do what they see as in their interest. It is up to Congress and the president to harness the market so that it is maximizing profit while eliminating the worst risk so that we don't have little "corrections" like the Great Depression.

The republicans did not like FF, but they never wanted tighter lending regulations--they just wanted to do away with FF.

To fix this we need tighter regulation on both lending and derivatives.

As to the bailout, it would be great if we could simply let those who took unconscionable risks (lenders and those who took out crazy mortgages they could never repay) go bankrupt. The problem is that that would risk shutting down lending entirely, a situation that reminds economists of the Great Depression.

So, we also need a courageous Congress to come up with buy-in (not a bail-out) that gives the U.S. government a nice big piece of every bank/lender/insurance company whose bad debt we purchase (at a nice discount, and not at favorable rates as Paulson wants; nor should we get only a chunk of possibly-worthless mortgages as Paulson would also like). This would dilute the share value of those who have stock in those companies, also punishing them for investing in companies who took the risks.

Oh yeah, and let those who cannot afford their mortgages sell or default. It's not up to me, as taxpayer, to bail them out, either.

Mittens, you are not going back far enough to figure out how this ball got started rolling.

Research Community Reinvestment Act, how it got started ( Carter) and who gave it even more regulatory strength ( Clinton and buddies), and how it regulated poor lending practices.

This is a failure of government mukking around with the private sector through overregulation in order to accomplish a social engineering goal. We are experiencing the fall out.

If someone doesn't believe who and what did this, just ask yourself the following question: Does anyone think for ONE MOMENT that a Democrat controlled Congress wouldn't be hanging a Republican out to dry right now if they could find one to bring forth in front of a Commission? The answer is, of course not.

No investigation is happening because they all know the truth would be laid bare in front of the American people, and they don't want it to come out, especially now, right before an election.


I REALLY hope a 9/11 type commission is formed as soon as this election is over ( of course it won't happen now..)so that all Americans who want to learn the truth, can.

Mittens: You do not understand that yes, indeed, F and F did in fact regulate mortgage lenders into bad lending practices, all with the implied promise that we, the taxpayers, would bail out the bad debt of F and F. It was a joke to a lot of mortgage brokers, every time yet another compliance on lending rolled down from F or F, saying "do this or we don't back up your mortgages". The "this" points were 1) no money down 2) lending even to folks just done with bankruptcy 3) no proof of income. To list a few.

F and F bought ALL loans from some institutions, the good and the bad. The reason they have "just a few" bad loans is because in general there are fewer than 5% non-payment mortgages out, in spite of all the hoopla implying that "everyone" is going under. So, F and F reflect what is happening at all levels. 95% of all mortgages are still being paid on time by responsible home buyers. It is only the bad aple 5% which is screwing us up.

So, no, you are wrong. This was OVER regulation, not under, which is at fault.

Perspective,

Yes, that comes from rightist talking points. They basically blame poor blacks and latinos for this mess, when in fact it was rich white people who caused the problem--since you bring up race.

The crisis has nothing to do with RCRA.

As for FF, you didn't read carefully. I said that they have few of the bad loans (not that they have few bad loans). That is to say, the vast majority of bad lending was done by private institutions. (And actually, no one really knows what percent of the loans are bad.) So FF played little role in this, despite what the the rightist blogs say.

More and better regulation would have prevented this crisis (even Bush and McCain agree on this).

As usual, the most desperate among us scapegoat the most defenseless, and the guilty blame the innocent. Here are some facts for the open minds on this forum: Web Link

Gary,

Unh-unh. You can't go back to the furthest possible cause and then hold it solely responsible. The timeline doesn't work that way. If anything, the reasoning should work in reverse--the most recent big changes sent the whole damn thing over the clip. No Gramm deregulation, no SEC changes in leveraging, no Greenspan pushing down the interest rates to 1 percent resulting in inflated appraisals and insane lending practices--well, then, this wouldn't have happened.

How do we know that? Because it didn't until all of those things occurred. And nearly all of them occurred under Bush's watch and with his passive blessing.

Blaming the poor is a complete and total cop-out. How *dare* you try to exonerate the mortgage industry and its shady practices at the expense of people who lost their homes?

I mean, seriously, think about what you're really trying to do here. Mortgage brokers and banks are poor widdle victims of poor people? Yeah, I just know those working poor people were making appraiser overinflate values. They held a gun at the heads of mortgage brokers to make sure they got the biggest loans possible.

Get real.

Oh, and same for the Republicans--Pelosi's speech hurt their feelings? Well, no, even you admit it was an excuse. In other words, a cop-out. Typical for a party that, frankly, has forgotten how to take responsibility.

The GOP wasn't always that way--it was once a party of grown-ups. I mean, you know, it's *funny* that you're reaching back decades back to look for someway to blame this on Democrats. That somehow nobody could *do* anything in eight years.

What is with this victimhood thing?