Bailout failure shows Bush's weakness
With the Republican revolt in the House of Representatives, President Bush is now confirmed as the weakest Commander-in-Chief in modern history.
He puts Jimmy Carter in the shade. Just as well America faces no serious problems...
A big opportunity for leadership now from Mr McCain or Mr Obama (or both?) - do they have what it takes?
And as a backdrop for Sarah Palin's prime-time outing on Thursday, it could not be worse. I hear she has been accusing Joe Biden of being old. Eh?
Hello, I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~16~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Call me an old leftie but can't the US govt just nationalise these troubled banks without compensation? Banks can lend to each other again, as they can be underwritten by the Fed; and the govt can privatise them when the problems are over and make a profit (or break even) for the taxpayer.
Complain about this comment
I was glad to read about the no serious problems ! That's OK then.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
http://www.beachwoodreporter.com/politics/nader_predicted_wall_street_me.php
Ralph Nader not only opposed this bailout (unlike McCain and Obama) but also predicted it and warned Congress about it eight years ago! Why is he not even allowed to debate with them?
We have two people ready to give us more of the same, not just one. Unfortunately, they're all we hear from on the major media sources. When was the last time BBC even took Nader serious and gave his views a fair shot? It's time to take a serious look at what he presents to us as a third option.
Complain about this comment
In this steeplechase the United States horse has thown its rider at the first fence. What the heck happens now!
From here in Spain it looks just about as bad as it can do - and we are going to get covered in the smelly stuff too.
Cannot the Administration actually do something useful. They look like a bunch of headless chikens just now. And you and therfor we also have got this lot until January.
Complain about this comment
Pelosi has failed. More Democrats broke ranks than Republicans. The Democrats didn't need a single Republican vote to pass this. For the Democrats, Pelosi in particular and Obama indirectly, this is a major failure. Obama did not show leadership. He could have gotten 20 members of his party to deliver if he had simply gotten on the phone to his colleagues in the House and made the case for a bailout.
Complain about this comment
Free-market principles were compromised when the government got involved in the subprime loan fiasco. It was as crooked an arrangement as can be found. I'm glad that Republicans did not capitulate by turning a Democratic failure into a bipartisan "solution." Let the Democrats stand exposed to face the consequences of their own misdeeds.
Complain about this comment
Once again, Mr. Webb displays his poor understanding of US governement. The President's power as Commander-in-Chief has nothing at all to do with his power of persuasion in getting domestic legislation through the Congress. President Carter had majorities in both houses of Congress, yet failed to get much of his legislative agenda passed. This was because of differences of philosophy within the Democratic Party.
It is not surprising that the Republicans, having purged their party of liberals, are giving the President some resistance in the House of Representatives. This does not detract from the President's power as CIC.
Complain about this comment
The bailout was rejected because of strong public opposition, political posturing in an election year, and the fact that the general public believe the plan addresses the effect rather than the cause of the crisis and will only prolong the inevitable.
The biggest loser is not the President, who is a lameduck with less than four months left in Office, but the Democrats who will be portrayed as tax and spend liberals and supporters of a "socialist" solution instead of letting the market handle the problem.
The GOP will come out on top, as long as the market and the economy don't collapse completely between now and election day. If it does, the GOP will pay a heavy price, even if they try to blame the Dems for lack of leadership.
Obviously, the decision was also influenced by President Bush's failure to articulate the severity of the crisis in terms the general public could understand.
Buy gold.
Complain about this comment
#6 nwcanadian
I've heard of revisionism but trying to do that in the present? Wow. More Republicans voted against their own President's bill than Democrats voted against. You are obviously partisan and cannot count. I heard some Republican representatives blaming the Speaker's speech for their party members voting against the bill. Pathetic. Pathetic.
Complain about this comment
Pelosi failed big time. The Democrats control congress.
Not a single Republican vote was needed to pass this bill but 95 Democrats decided to vote against their party's position.
Complain about this comment
nwcanadian (#6), it's pretty lame to try to pin this on the Democrats. Republican economic policies created the problem. The Republican Party's purging of its liberals and loading its congressional delegation with "true believers" is standing in the way of fixing it. Maybe it's going to take another depression for Americans to wake up and throw the rascals out. I hope they do so sooner, like this November.
Complain about this comment
Ref 3
"And unless the world end Jimmy Carter is a far worse preident not to mention human being than George Bush"
President Carter was an ineffective President who did not deserve re-election, but he was largely a victim of circumstances beyond his control, as opposed to President George W. Bush whose ineptitude, arrogance, and reckless policies contributed to this problem. As for Carter being a worse human being than W, I would say that his post-presidential behavior should serve as a model for all Presidents. Admittedly, his strong Christian principles have influenced his decisions in a way that often make him look like a naive politician, but that does not make him a bad person.
Complain about this comment
Representatives were worried about their jobs given the deluge of calls and email from constituents against bailing out Wall Street executives just before the election. Palin calling Biden old is rich. He's younger than McCain.
Complain about this comment
# 6
It is just plain silly to blame Pelosi and Obama.
This was the President's measure and if his own party had supported him (as is the norm unless they are "mavericks") it would have passed.
Any President who loses the support the support of his party and has to appeal to a reluctant opposition to get him off the hook is a dead man walking.
Complain about this comment
Justin,
A five point plan for all americans
Stockpile food, water and gas
Dig a bunker
Fit a great big F'off steel door
Clean your guns
Pray one through four are unnecessary
Desperate Sam
Complain about this comment
"And unless the world end Jimmy Carter is a far worse preident not to mention human being than George Bush"
First, check your spelling. Second, take a deep breath and think about what you just said. Jimmy Carter didn't cause the deaths of more than 400,000 innocent people. I'd say that trumps any concerns you'd have over his presidency. Even without this financial mess, Bush will go down as the worst president in US history. He'll be known as "the beginning of the end" of US supremacy on the world stage.
Even Jesus would find it hard to forgive Bush, who passes himself off as a Christian.
Complain about this comment
I am not so sure that the failure of the bailout points to Bush's weakness. In addition to the Republicans, lots of Democrats voted against the bailout. Two of the reasons for its failure were the power it would give Poulson and voter opposition. This is an election year.
3, Magic.
Two years ago there was a vote to intervene with Fannie and Freddie. Obama voted for it and McCain voted against it.
Complain about this comment
The term "Commander-in-Chief" refers to supreme command of the US military, it's totally irrelevant in this context.
Complain about this comment
#6 and 11
What a pile of hogwash. This was a Republican bill sent by a Republican president and supposedly (according to the Republicans) brokered by a Republican candidate and voted against by most Republican members. To blame the Democrats for not having a three line whip after the Reublicans said they supported the negotiated bill is pathetic.
Keep drinking the cool aid.
Angry Sam
Complain about this comment
#10 What's pathetic is Democrats seeking bipartisanship only when they require it to cover their own a**es.
Complain about this comment
1, dceilar.
Norway did something very similar. It was successful and the government made money on the deal when they sold their shares.
Complain about this comment
So Ron Paul, old faithful of the Congress monetary committee, exercises great influence on the presidential election after all. Great news.
Complain about this comment
This is not only a highlight of Bush's impotence as a Republican president but also of McCain's inability to be a leader and take a stand. He is merely waiting to see which way the political wind blows.
McCain is essentially the leader of the Republican party right now. Where is his leadership? Does he care at all about the economy or the people who will suffer the fallout from this?
I do not think that McCain has much support among young conservative Republicans especially in the House. Do They all want to be seen as MAVERICKS ? Even mavericks, among the republicans, need some form of LEADERSHIP, otherwise they will all just wander the range looking for 'mommy.' (Sorry, my definition of 'maverick' is: a motherless calf.)
Complain about this comment
To#16Samtyler1969
I am 'locked and loaded!'
I, also, hope it will not be necessary!
Complain about this comment
#1 (dceilar):
Nationalizing investment banks won't make much of a difference unless someone pumps in a whole lot of money. Nationalizing a bank that has no money is pointless.
#7 (nwcanadian):
The reason we are in this mess is precisely because the Republican culture allowed the free market system to run amok without oversight and control. Here's the point Republicans won't admit about the unfettered free market: People are greedy bastards who will lie, cheat, and steal if given the chance.
Republicans drank their own cool-aid today.
Complain about this comment
LIE: Two years ago there was a vote to intervene with Fannie and Freddie. Obama voted for it and McCain voted against it.
TRUTH: JMc warned Congress in 2005: “If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.”
Did the Democratically controlled Congress pay heed then? Obviously not, and that is why we are footing the bill today.
Complain about this comment
Not the time to take a "principled" stand, as both the Democratics and Republicans have presided over this mess, happy to take the money in the good times.
Its simply all to do with personal politics, saving the jobs of 200-300 people in the House, which will be no compensation to the thousands of jobs that will go with this, and a form of anarchy ensues.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Both Republicans and Democrats in signifigant numbers voted against what would have been one of the largest government intrusions into the freemarket, and MORE IMPORTANTLY one of the largest transfers of POWER to a single man in the history of our democracy. The bailout would have done nothing to stop the declining real estate market as people who couldnt pay their debt still wouldnt have been able to pay their debt. Supposedly the government would have recouped money by selling later when the real estate market rebounded...but that wont happen for years, and every year that passed would have left those derelict properties becoming less and less valuable, leaving the taxpayer holding the bag. In the meantime it would have lead to inflation that would have seriously hampered that promised recovery as our government essentially printed 700bill in new money.
Complain about this comment
There is incompetence at all levels of government, regardless of party, but the Democratic leadership is simply (and unashamedly) crooked.
Complain about this comment
22, allmymarbles.
Correction. Sorry, the country was Sweden, not Norway. They took equity in the banks.
Complain about this comment
House Republicans will vote again after McCain pleads with them to approve this bill so that McCain can claim great leadership on the economy. Fool me once ...
Complain about this comment
Not to split hairs but, the weakest "Commando-in-Chief" in modern history was none other than that 'ole crook from San Clemente, Richard M. Nixon. But then again, maybe that's ancient history by now in today's nanosecond world of instant gratification and attention-deficit-disorder. And that's a serious problem itself along with the many others that America faces. The sheer enormity of the financial problem(s) is so immense, it's little wonder no one can get a handle on it. The only guiding"principle" for the two wings of the Duopoly Party and their cloned candidates is that first and foremost 'investors' - the people that count - must be protected. But the public first has to be sufficiently prepped to foot the bill. The party is over but no one wants to break the news to the American public that their spending binge can't go on forever, so congress dithers in an election year to put off the ire of the voters until after they have to face them in November And this is on top of the ongoing humanitarian and financial disaster in Irag and enviorns. Or as Robert Peston succinctly summarized it today, " for most of us, there's little in the way of shelter from the storm." Nice to hear that at least one foreign correspondent remains blithely untroubled, serenely confident that "America faces no serious problems...". Pollyanna should be so sanguine. Or even more ominously - that America doesn't pose serious problems to the rest of the world...
Complain about this comment
#26 The reason we are in this mess is precisely because the Republican culture allowed the free market system to run amok without oversight and control. Here's the point Republicans won't admit about the unfettered free market: People are greedy bastards who will lie, cheat, and steal if given the chance.
FALSE.
The free market system unfettered by government intervention is precisely what has made the U.S. the economic powerhouse it has been. If by "greedy bastards" you mean corrupt politicians who use their power to make a grab for capital they didn't create, then yes, I agree with you.
Complain about this comment
Neither Obama nor McCain has the solution to this, because the solution is in the wind of history: allow China to assume command of the world economy.
Given that this is the reality, Obama would seem to be best-placed to salvage something out of it for the four millennia of the Western liberal tradition, given that he actually understands what it is. To McCain, it's still a world of gooks and monsters out there, and if America elects McCain and Sarah Palin, the entire country will be a bit like those Japanese soldiers who emerged from the jungle in the 1980s not knowing that the war was over.
There is an argument going around that people are going to vote for Palin because "people want somebody who's just like them". This is not a good argument in favour of democracy. It is a good argument against democracy.
Complain about this comment
Leadership to what? Give away 700billion of taxpayer money to support a failed system? The House GOP are heroes. They killed amnesty, they got us offshore oil drilling and they killed this bailout monstrosity.
Complain about this comment
"President Bush is now confirmed as the weakest Commander-in-Chief in modern history."
How long have you lived in the USA? Had you written 'President' rather than 'Commander-in-Chief' you might have had a point. By rushing to a new topic within minutes of the vote you show an impetuous and foolish streak which has not been apparent before. If your opinion about the president were valid, then you might have added, in the interest of fairness, that both Mr McCain and Mr Obama supported the bail-out. Does that say as much about them as it does Mr Bush?
Complain about this comment
It could never get worse than this!!! This is the end of a great nation.. the falling giant.. the fulfillment of nostradamus prophecies! My goodness only GOD can save america now! The vote was a vote based on conscience it's time to end this stinky menace in the white house!! Please vote wisely come november! thankx
Complain about this comment
hi you guys!!!
It might be asking after the event, but can anyone explain how that bail out plan actually bailled out the US of A?
As I see it, (and please correct me) a ton of banks have sold a ton of debt to each other and to foriegn banks in Europe, etc some of which has zero collateral as the property prices are sunk.
So, is anyone going to *buy* the properties??? I dont think so.
Complain about this comment
Unbelievable to see the American reaction on this blog: arguing in this emergency about who should take the blame: Democrats or Republicans?
Let me tell you what the rest of the world thinks. You Americans take the blame. You have practised an imbecilic, infantile and selfish form of extreme capitalism, which unfortunately you have also exported elsewhere (including to the UK unfortunately), and have created inhuman social inequalities in your country, a failure to provide decent health care for the majority of your citizens, and now a global financial collapse.
We have no interest whatsoever in your trivial and irrelevant issue of whether your Republican Fools or your Democrat Idiots take the most blame. Your entire political class is responsible.
Complain about this comment
There was a significant division in the vote on both the Republican and Democratic sides of the aisle. This is not surprising. Our political parties are not monolithic blocs controlled by dictators. Each member has his or her own vote. Remember that this is a $700 billion (US) measure. It would be disconcerting, to say the least, if it could be greased through in a few days without opposition.
My (Democratic) congresswoman voted against it. I called her office and told her I wanted this problem fixed, so I hoped she was taking it seriously and would work toward getting an acceptable bill passed. That's how our system works. Neither President Bush nor Speaker Pelosi, the two most powerful persons in our government, can dictate the course the Congress will take.
Complain about this comment
nwcanadian (#21), don't you have an election up north you should be worrying about?
Complain about this comment
Gary_A_Hill-
I don't think Webb is in any way displaying ignorance. I grant you that the phrase "commander in chief" is not technically the role of which he intended to speak, but that is a common generalization made in the---American---media. I think Webb is well aware that legislative agendas do not relate to the President's duties as head of the military. But legislative agendas ARE a huge part of the President's job. He and his staff are intricately involved in the maneuverings of congressional politics, and when a president loses his power in that, or any, aspect of his duties, it is common for reporters of all nationalities and knowledge to imply his weakness by contrasting this with the strength of a military title---even when they know it is technically incorrect.
Complain about this comment
People who blame all of this on Bush and his "failed policies" have a truncated view of history. There is plenty of blame to go around but the bulk of it rests on the democrats.
This can all be traced back to Jimmy Carter and the "Community Reinvestment Act" which forced banks to give mortgages to low income families at subprime levels or face penalties. It was expanded under Clinton and further banking changes were made under Clinton that allowed for banks to undertake these risky ventures as he repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act. Now add to the mix good old human greed and stupidity at every level and here we are.
What we have now is a perfect storm for the left who love Big Government - the saviour of us all. If this bailout package passes in ANY form, it will mean the federal government will effectively buy and control massive amounts of property to do with as they will. This should make anyone uneasy except for Marxist ideologues who still think that man knew something about economics and who have an enormous capacity to ignore the economic disaster his policies have had on countries around the globe.
This bailout will only postpone the inevitable in my opinion and by delaying it, the crash at the end will be even greater.
Complain about this comment
All the free marketeers here forget one thing: the "pure" free market as an entity never existed in this country! Those decisions undertaken by bankers, investors, firms, and even savers were based specifically upon the assumption that the US Government would bail out an insolvent financial system. This implied obligation is what kept the system running, and, if it is not met, what will bring the entire economy to a halt. Assigning blame, though satisfying, is useless at the moment. The only thing we can do now is shore up the system, regulate it so that this won't happen again, and hope for the best. Of course, if the whole system collapsed and had to be rebuilt from rubble, maybe we can have a "pure" market, but at what cost?
Complain about this comment
David_Cunard, same goes for you. It is nigh impossible for the President to lose his influence in the duties of Commander in Chief, so I would suggest you chill, and realize that you knew what Webb meant, and that Webb knew that you knew.
Complain about this comment
So funny to see people trying to blame democrats for this. Get some facts: Bush- Cheney policies/ incompetence have led to this problem. From Jan '03 - Jan '07 both houses of congress were also republican.
Dems are all too willing to put out the fire without wasting time talking about who set it (not them).
About the failed bailout vote:
141 House Democrats voted for the bill and were joined by 65 Republicans. Only 94 Democrats voted against the measure, along with 133 Republicans.
It is amazing to see some of the blatant disregard for facts. I guess this is how people like Bush and McCain win elections.
Complain about this comment
Also, David_Cunard, I think it's pretty clear that McCain and Obama are neither, in fact, yet the President. So no, it is a devastating failure on Bush's part. He is President now. The biggest financial crisis in many decades is happening now. One would really hope that a President would still have the power and influence to do something. Now.
Complain about this comment
novoludo (#41), I take no offense at your remarks. I think you are correct in saying that our "entire political class is responsible."
Complain about this comment
#35 nwcanadian:
The free market system unfettered by government intervention is precisely what has made the U.S. the economic powerhouse it has been.
That's demonstrably untrue. An unfettered free market simply results in wealth and power accruing to the wealthy and the powerful who are, by definition, a tiny minority of any society.
For example, with the takeover of Wachovia by Citicrop, most banking in the country is controlled by 3 huge banks. Where's the "unfettered" free market in that?
Investment banking has been effectively unregulated throughout the Bush adminstration. Lenders deliberately and knowingly made loans they knew were unsustainable. They deliberately and knowingly made millions of subprime loans to customers who were eligible for prime loans. Why? Because the mortgage companies and the employees making the loans stood to make more money from the subprime loans.
I'm all for the free market, but without oversight and control it inevitably brings about disaster. In this most recent example, an unfettered market led to unfettered corporate power threatening the nation.
Unrestrained corporate power is the greatest threat to the free market, not the government.
Enjoy the cool-aid.
Complain about this comment
As the money is running out, how long will it now take the U.S. to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan ? Not long, I think; watch the price of oil. Paul R.
Complain about this comment
Re: #27
Opinions are just that, opinions. But please, if you are quoting facts, make sure your quote is accurate.
The 109th U.S. Congress, in office from January 3, 2005 to January 3, 2007, had Republican majorities in both the House (53%) and Senate (55%).
So, based on the logic of your opinion, it was the Republicans that failed to act when JMc warned them.
Complain about this comment
#43 I can do two things at once. I'll vote as a Canadian--although I'm not worried that our present government will be defeated--and I'll have my opinions about the U.S. election too. We are neighbours, after all. And I much prefer them as neighbours to any other alternative.
Complain about this comment
There has NEVER been a free-market, especially in the U.S. Even as far back as the 1700's the U.S. economy has always been supported by laws and governmental policies designed to give our economy leverage.
Why was America able to so quickly rise to a nation of prominence? By allowing the slave trade to flourish even as every other developed country in the world had abolished it. The legality of slavery allowed manufacturers, especially in the cotton trade, to maintain low if not non-existent labor costs yet keep steady the high profits that it afforded them.
Even after slavery was abolished, no sector of our country's influence has received larger crutches upon which to place it's weight than our financial sector.
For legislators to reject this bailout on the grounds of protecting the "free-market" is an insult not only to the intelligence of the average American (which is admittedly dwindling by the minute) but also to the intellect and understanding of history that our forefathers presumed the leaders of our country would possess.
This bailout should be rejected on the basis that it does not enough to protect the interests of the average American and too much to protect those crook financial "princes" who are responsible for the mess our financial system is in.
Complain about this comment
What a simplistic assessment from Mr Webb! It paints neither Bush nor the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives in a good light. I have been reading up on a bit of history recently, and any cursory research will reveal that the major driving force behind the main problem with Fanny Mae was the Clinton-led amendment to the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) in 1995.
To quote Wikipedia, "The purpose of the CRA is to provide credit, including home ownership opportunities to under-served populations and commercial loans to small businesses." Clinton thought that this didn't go far enough, and proposed the following:
"In early 1993 President Bill Clinton ordered new regulations for the CRA which would increase access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities... The new rules went into effect on January 31, 1995 and featured: requiring strictly numerical assessments to get a satisfactory CRA rating; using federal home-loan data broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race; encouraging community groups to complain when banks were not loaning enough to specified neighborhood, income group, and race; allowing community groups that marketed loans to targeted groups to collect a fee from the banks...
The new rules, during a time when many banks were merging and needed to pass the CRA review process to do so, substantially increased the number and aggregate amount of loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans, some of which were "risky mortgages.""
Bill Clinton explicitly ordered banks to offer mortgages to credit risks, promising them that Fanny Mae would cover the debt. The result was this, and again I quote from Wikipedia:
"The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998, while other loans increased by only 17 percent...
Related rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage, allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments, vs. 10% for banks, encouraging banks to make even more loans to low income communities, often with no down payment and little documentation. By 2007, Fannie and Freddie owned or guaranteed nearly half of the $12 trillion U.S. mortgage market."
The Bush administration attempted to review this in 2002, but were defeated by a combination of the Democrats, en masse, and a decent minority of Republicans.
"In 2002 there was an interagency review of the effectiveness of the 1995 regulatory changes to the Community Reinvestment Act and new proposals were considered.[6] In related 2003 proposals, the Bush Administration recommended that a new Department of the Treasury agency should supervise the primary agents guaranteeing subprime loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congressional support was approximately split along Party lines, with many Republicans in support of the changes and the Democrats against, and the proposal eventually failed due to the many republicans that sided with the dems... Barney Frank, the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, voiced his opposition to the changes, saying that "these two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
Barney Frank's quote is quite telling.
We all know where this has ended recently, and it's not been pretty.
To lay the blame for this at Bush's door, however, is just not factually correct.
This article in the Kansas City Star makes a similar point.
http://voices.kansascity.com/node/2155
Complain about this comment
Novoludo makes a simplistic anti-American rant in favour of socialism which would only make the problem. As a Canadian, I actually am a recovered anti-American who has come to respect them and I now laugh at the naive anti-Americanism I once shared.
How do you think America came to be the world's sole super-power? I grant that they are far from perfect but on the whole they are a positive force.
Every age has its empire and its complainers against the empire. American rule has lead to great prosperity on the whole when one considers all of human history. Your rants against the rich in favour of the poor are laughable. The quality of life of the poor now in the West is greater than many of the "rich" during the Victorian era. And please spare me any ranting about the developing world. Having travelled to 6 continents, such posturing is naive and ignores endemic problems in those countries. If men in Africa are drunk at 9 AM while the women slave in the fields with babies on their backs, is it any wonder they live in poverty? Did the US or IMF teach them to behave like that? Getting anything done in Africa is extremely difficult and sending aid only makes them dependent.
Complain about this comment
Some people see this as an opportunity to Blame President Carter and the Community Reinvestment Act. The CRA was a measure to counteract discrimination in real-estate lending ("redlining"). Anyone wanting to know something about this program might want to read the following testimony:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/braunstein20080213a.htm
Complain about this comment
RE nwcanadian What's pathetic is Democrats seeking bipartisanship only when they require it to cover their own a**es.
In what way are they covering their own a**es? Clinton left the US economy stronger than ever (saving the US from the downturn that came under Bush Sr) and in 8 years the Republicans have ruined it again. I think you are confused as to who needs to cover their a**!
Complain about this comment
Asking congressmen to vote for a "bold" bill five weeks before they try to be re-elected was always going to be a nightmare.
And McCain "riding in to save the day" only gave lawmakers even more time to get angry emails and to decide that they had to oppose in order to get re-elected.
But it's not like we need jobs or loans or mortgages because, if McCain becomes President, we're all going to need to be in the army to fight all the wars he wants to wage in order to achieve "Victory"!
Complain about this comment
While you all squabble and try to blaim anyone but yourselves can I remind you that Rome and the World are still burning.
We need a solution to the problems that started in your country through greed and avarice which you have exported around the World and we need it fast.
Being a UK citizen, I am not familiar with the finer points of your political and financial systems but I can recognise incompetence when I see it and I find it mind boggling that the Republicans are not being hammered in the presidential opinion polls as a result of the financial chaos, particularly when their V.P elect is so grossly inexperienced.
Complain about this comment
#49. IrisRainbows: "I think it's pretty clear that McCain and Obama are neither, in fact, yet the President."
You don't say! But Justin omitted to mention their support since, bar any unforeseen occurrence, one of them will be President, and their stance on the issue is equally as important.
Apart from Executive Orders, a president is pretty much powerless without a willing Congress; this is not something that Mr Bush can resolve himself. He can cajole, persuade, intimidate - but he can't vote in either house. But I suppose you knew that already.
Complain about this comment
And wasn’t this EXACTLY what Osama Bin Laden wanted all along? His aim was to financially break the US. He said so in his recorded messages. Bush was such an incompetent idiot while Cheney was lining his pockets. The people of the US should sue them both for $700 Billion in damages.
Complain about this comment
#19 I think it's pretty clear that Webb is using Commander in Chief as a reference to Bush's leadership in general--a common enough usage of the term CIC in my experience (I am from/in the US).
#27 The Dems did not get a majority in either house of Congress until the 2006 elections and so did not actually HAVE a majority of people serving until 2007, not 2005.
As for this piece of legislation today, I am glad it did not pass. Yes, clearly something has to be done, but I feel this particular plan was very irresponsible. I am tired of public risk for private profit. I have seen many proposals that would not cost the public much or even anything and yet would still get the financial institutions through this mess.
Complain about this comment
I am a Brit and have lived in the US for 4 years now. This sorry state of affairs comes as no great surprise to me. I have watched as the US has declined in every respect: socially, economically, militarily and politically. This whole crisis has come about through pure greed, lack of ethics, no scruples and no morals!
The fact is that nobody here seems to make decisions any more and the average guy in the street doesn't have a clue about whats happening in the rest of the world. The so-called "American Dream" has turned into the "American Nightmare" and that only reinforces that most Americans have been sleeping whilst the rest of the world has caught them up and overtaken them.
That's not to say that we don't have problems in Europe, after all we live in a global economy. I think this crisis just emphasizes the differences between the two continents. In Europe we work to live (most of us) and in the US they live to work.
Bush is and has been an unmitigated disaster, McCain will be the same if not worse and Obama talks the talk but can he walk the walk?
Thank God I can't vote in the upcoming Presidential election! What a diabolical mess!!!!
Complain about this comment
Having just checked the "complaint" link, it seems obvious that nwcanadian's posts don't meet BBC criteria for a complaint. However, they really do diminish the utility of this post.
Disinformation is worse than harmless.
For what its worth, #27, I thought the Democrats took the House after the 2006 elections.
Perhaps I'm just a mistaken Limey, but you really do appear to be a VERY "north west" canadian, and I'm relishing seeing Ms Palin's performance this weekend.
It seems pretty clear that individuals in both parties voted against the Bill, and one suspects that the easy slide into acrimony is not the best environment to beat out the second version of the Bill.
Crying over party politics is a negative reaction which can only do harm. Kudos to Gary_A_Hill {#42} for trying to make a positive difference.
Complain about this comment
As for Pres. Bush, we in the US have long known that he is one of the worst presidents EVER.
As for the bailout, the common man should not have to foot the bill. We did not cause this mess. Let the banks reap what they have sown.
Anyway, the bailout, oh I'm sorry- "RESCUE PLAN"- will not come in time to help our family. My husband works for Wachovia and we just got bought out by Citigroup. In the matter of 2 weeks, we have gone from having a good job with benefits, to wondering if we will have a job at all!!!
And now the idiots in charge are still dragging their feet on Capital Hill.
Hmmmm, can we move to London??? Your government HAS to have more intelligent people than ours!
Complain about this comment
It takes a special, special man to change his legacy from being seen as the man who waged war on shadows behind trees, to the man who brought America to it's knees.
Genius.
Complain about this comment
Balrogblane - perhaps not surprising that you are also a racist as well as a capitalist extremist (the two things often go together). Perhaps you are feeling a little desperate now that your preferred form of naive utopianism is collapsing in the way that utopian communism collapsed a couple of decades ago? All whilst those 'socialist' countries you presumably despise (such as France and Germany) provide much greater social stability and higher living standards for their citizens. The good news is that the time of you and your lot is now over, destroyed by your own greed and stupidity.
Complain about this comment
The democrats are just as off base as the Republicans. With the democrat majority in the house and senate they could do this alone,... but it is such a bad bill they wouldn't.
Bush sucks, trying to bail himself and his thievin' friends out with our money.
Market down, cash run on banks, BLACK TUESDAY TOMORROW?
See ya
Complain about this comment
Even during the period of the 109th Congress, Republicans did not have enough votes in the Senate to actually control it. They did not have enough votes to secure cloture. Being in the majority does not guarantee control of the Senate due to the Senate's special operating rules. On top of which there have also always been some Republicans who are Republicans in name only and vote more consistently with the Democrats. Most Republicans are conservatives and conservatives (by a long shot) are opposed in principle to government "arrangements" with institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In fact, if McCain loses this election, it may in large part hinge on the fact that he seems to support the bailout.
Complain about this comment
The problem is RetiredRay that the democrats have a grossly inexperienced man in Barak Obama. Unlike governor Palin, he has NO executive experience and now he wants to claim he is ready to lead the greatest power in the world. This is his FIRST term in the US senate and he has spearheaded NO legislation. He has lead NOTHING.
I agree the current morass speaks of incompetence but your lack of understanding of the US system leads to an ignorant expectation that the republicans are to blame. If you understood how legislation in the US is written and enacted, that would give you pause to treat any political group in the US with such a monolithic assessment. On the whole, history shows that the democrats are mostly to blame but not entirely.
Complain about this comment
The problem is RetiredRay that the democrats have a grossly inexperienced man in Barack Obama. Unlike governor Palin, he has NO executive experience and now he wants to claim he is ready to lead the greatest power in the world. This is his FIRST term in the US senate and he has spearheaded NO legislation. He has lead NOTHING.
I agree the current morass speaks of incompetence but your lack of understanding of the US system leads to an ignorant expectation that the republicans are to blame. If you understood how legislation in the US is written and enacted, that would give you pause to treat any political group in the US with such a monolithic assessment. On the whole, history shows that the democrats are mostly to blame but not entirely.
Complain about this comment
Actually both Norway and Sweden
nationalised banks when they hit a similar crisis 15 years ago. Nothing to do with socialism, but the banks were broke and there were no private buyers. The value of the shares was set at 0, so former shareholders lost their money. That was done to avoid any future moral hazard problem. Within a few years the banks were running profits again and were then privatised. The profit from the sale benefited taxpayers, not the former shareholders who had mismanaged their ownership in the first place.
Complain about this comment
I agree entirely with novoludo, as I'm sure will a great many people around the world.
Such utter irresponsibility from a government in the face of a crisis like this is simply barely credible.
I'm dumbfounded, too. like all those on the floor of the stock exchange.
Oh, get on with your confounded interminable election, carry on, Republicans blaming Democrats and vice versa; by all means worry about who has more or less 'experience" of this or that when neither candidate has any experience of being President anyway; keep arguing about trivialities. It was all quite funny and amusing to outsiders, if often exasperating, until today.
This last week has finally made the USA a total laughing stock. And, if no-one realised, Justin was being ironic with his "Commander-in-Chief" line. Evidently this President (aka C-in-C) is in command of absolutely nothing, especially not the party he's supposed to belong to.
I daresay both McCain and Obama will shut their eyes, put their hands over their ears and hope it will all go away. Anything either of them comes up with will in any case be far too late.
Unbelievable.
(And simply diismissing us as anti-American ranters is neither a contribution to the solution, nor a feasible argument, but I expect I'll be included anyway.)
Complain about this comment
Novoludo you do not even know the colour of my skin or that of my children who are all adopted from developing countries and visible minorities. Shame ... shame...
Name calling is not argument. As the Pythons would have it, I came here for an argument not abuse. If you please, you should move on to room 11 down the hall.
Complain about this comment
#16,
Dear sam,
I want one of thoes great big f off steel
doors.Is that the American name for the product, or shall I ask for some thing slightly
different over here...
one may as well laugh as cry....
Complain about this comment
Sorry but your left wing liberal bias is showing again Justin. But then what else have we come to expect from the any BBC appointee as North America Editor. I can't quite see the connection between this bill failing and Bush being the weakest C in Chief of all. (But I think you mean President don't you? ) Weaker than Carter? Now I know your left wing bias has clouded your judgement. As a Brit there is one thing that gets right up my nose it's you BBC smart assed liberals trying to tell Americans how to run their country. Irrespective of whether you agree with or like what they do. I remember when you read the news over here Justin. Perhaps you should stick to what you can do best and leave serious commentary to those that know what they are talking about? You can't even resist another cheap shot at Sarah Palin.
Complain about this comment
#66 There is a difference between opposing someone and wishing to control them. That's the difference between us, I guess. You want to censor me and I have no interest in censoring you at all.
Complain about this comment
#40
Hi Nikki,
Love the handle. In short the problem is the banks don't know what teir paper assets are worth and as a result (through a complex formula invented by the Venetians in the 16th Century) they don't know how much cash to hold and how much they can lend. In simple terms banks lend a % of their deposits (what savers place with them) based on their asset portfolio. This % is always greater than 100, in fact it can be several hundred and it works by basically figuring out at any given time how many folks are likely to withdraw their money.
When they don't know what their assets are worth they refuse to lend money, in turn this means if there is a run on a particular institution it can find itself unable to pay out the money folks have deposited with it, and it therefore goes under and then everyone focuses on the next bank. People can lose their savings if the government doesn;t insure the account (the whole purpose of the FDIC). If too many banks collapse no one can borrow money for anything and essentially the whole economy grinds to a halt as the allocation of capital ceases to work (essential for a capitalist society).
Does that make sense?
Economist Sam
Complain about this comment
1. Democrats control the house and should be able to pass any legislation. 40% of Dems did not support the bill.
2. Nancy Pelosi trashed the Republicans just before the vote ... Dumb
Go to link to listen to her speech.
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/184803.html
Just fell short of asking Republicans to be tried as war criminals.
Democrats can't have it both ways.
Trash your opponents or try to get them to work on bills with you.
What kind of House Speaker can't get a unified vote on such an important subject? ... Dumb and Dumber.
We were told that we had to have a bill last Friday … or a meltdown.
We were told that we had to have a bill this Monday … or a meltdown.
Now were told that we must have a bill Thursday … or …you know what.
I predict that the world will not end tomorrow ... and businesses will still be running.
The Federal Reserve is pushing the needed monies into the system and FDIC is taking over failing banks.
I asked a friend who works for the US FDIC about the pressures of his job. He reminded me that in the 80’s banking crisis they had to take over 4,000 banks … “this is nothing” compared to that.
Better no bill than a bad bill.
The use of FEAR to overcome logic and analysis will only work for a short time.
Am I the only one who has had a pushy salesman assuring me that I had to buy NOW or else … “the price will go up” or this is the “last time they can offer me the deal”?
Princeton Junction, NJ
PS... Now is the time to buy stocks
Complain about this comment
At this point who really cares if Palin debates?
I understand that McShame and Co. are trying to blame this latest fiasco on the Democrats.
I do not think that dog will hunt. It is already DEAD!
Complain about this comment
No serious problem? Hmmm...apparently you didn't see that the Dow dropped 778 points in one day - the largest point drop in history.
Complain about this comment
Those rascally democrats, imaging them backing a republican Bush/Paulson bill and then having only a substantial majority of their house members back it while the majority of the republicans bulk. Crazee talk man! Obviously this is all Sarah Palin's fault...if only she hadn't said the magic word "maverick" that one last time.....
Anyway, the bill itself stinks like a kindergartener bank lobbiest wrote it (did a kindergarten bank lobbiest write it)?
Sooo....pass a bill resolving to set up a committee to come up with a plan, agree to spend up to $700B, calm the markets and then write something decent with some data.....oh sorry, once they look at the data the PANIC might subside....
PS Maverick was a cattle thief and a crooked politician... would someone please tell McCain/Palin this?
Hey - I have an idea, let's set a new bar for presidential and vice presidential candidates this year...let's say they have to be able to read and write...Obama will be a shoe-in. ...
Complain about this comment
Wow, this thread has brought out a multitude of new or dormant posters.
Justin is his usual mischevious self blaming and denigrating Bush for this. It seems clear that Bush, Pelosi, Reid all wanted something passed. The latter 2 wanted republicans on board so that dems wouldn't get the blame if the plan didn't work. It didn't fail because the repubs wanted to stick 2 fingers up at Bush. Pelosi's speech was inappropriate given her attempt at bipartisanship, but it wasn't the reason the bill failed. It failed because many on either side listened to their constituents and refused to give a hand-out to wall st.
Back to the drawing board!
Complain about this comment
41 novoludo
Bit brutal but ladies and gentlemen he has a point. Your country is facing a very serious crisis, the rest of the world is facing a crisis caused to a large degree by the USA. You, it would appear, are paralysed by your upcoming election and playing the blame game. You need some cool heads and an ability to get a grip, you haven't the time for party politics right now, the situation is real and urgent.
Complain about this comment
readmuch wrote "It is amazing to see some of the blatant disregard for facts."
bush has been a huge disappointment to dems and republicans alike and deserves blame however there is much more to the story.
the facts are: jimmy carter, who webb says has been put in the shade by bush, is responsible for the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 which forced lending companies to lower their lending standards to much riskier applicants- people they otherwise wouldnt have loaned to.
bill cinton in 1995 pushed to lower the lending standards even further and succeeded in lowering the already risky lending standards detailed in the CRA.
in 2001 bush pushed for reform in the mortgage sector-fannie may and freddie mac particularly and wasnt able to get it to the floor for a vote because of dems opposition to restricting them - barney frank is on the record saying fannie may and freddie mac were in great shape and posed no threat to the u.s economy.
in 2005 mccain pushed for reform and restriction on fannie may and freddie mac because of the dangers they posed on the u.s economy..but it fell upon deaf ears and nothing was done.
the blame is to be shared among all involved:
bush should have forced the issue of reform instead of letting it slip away simply due to the unpopularity of the idea. i
the dems for opposing reform each time it came to the floor and for creating this lowered lending policy in the first place.
the people who took out the loans in an attempt to live beyond their means.
the predatory lending practices of the mortgage companies and banks...preying on human nature to improve and refine our quality of life and living standards.
my opinion is to let a tough lesson be learned. all who made bad borrowing decisions will pay a heavy price unfortunately..but must learn to use common sense...and will be sure to not repeat the mistake.
those of us who have lived within our means and have made smart economic decisions in our lives dont deserve to be punished by paying taxes to fix this problem, having our dollar devalued by the treasury who intends to print money to cure the crisis- which will jack up inflation even more.
my advice:
freedom is about living or dying by your own hand...your good decisions and bad decisions. dont trust your elected officials to prevent you from falling on your face or from accomplishing your greatest dreams.
the quick fix:
eliminate capital gains tax to free up our money and recharge the markets. business will instantly flourish..jobs will be saved...homes will be bought/ a majority of default loans can get caught up.
Complain about this comment
78 royalalbertdock
I think you must have been swimming in the dock my friend, it's a bit too cold for that but on the other hand you obviously need to cool down a bit.
Complain about this comment
Balrogsblane - Shame on you for producing crude racist sterotypes of Africans. You abused them, not me. And in the real world outside your crude capitalist fantasies, America IS a laughing stock in the world today. Haven't you noticed?
You also seem to be living on some different planet in which we are not witnessing the effective collapse of pure laissez faire financial capitalism. What else do you suppose is going on right now? The final defeat of social democracy on the Franco-German model?
Complain about this comment
The next Commander in Chief needs to be worthy of the post and needs to be strong mentally and intellectually. Otherwise there will be a crisis of confidence among voters! Right now very few Americans as well as intellectuals abroad are enamoured by the present incumbent. So when there is a significant backlash against his policies, one should not be surprised at all. After all the present crisis shows a complete lack of foresight. Let us hope the next President is much wiser.
Complain about this comment
#59 Democrats encourage interference in the free market. Why? To play Robin Hood (with other people's money) and garner votes from people who are dependent on government. It doesn't work! It wreaks havoc on the economy. Their leadership IS responsible for the debacle the passing of subprime lending laws has wrought. It's a mess of their doing and now they want to share the blame. Evidently even some of the honest ones among them are having a hard time swallowing this bailout attempt. I don't know why Pres. Bush was so keen on passing this bill but it doesn't endear him among conservatives, that's for sure.
Complain about this comment
To me the Rep "revolt" is a positive sign: members of the House are not sheep so as to be voting as a unanimous herd i.e. as their leaders tell them to.
As for Pres. Bush this does not mean that he is weak. He has already done his bit saddling the national debt with a trillion dollars spent on his oil war and he simply doesn't care anymore.
Complain about this comment
#73
BalrogsBane,
Firstly it is a well known fact that Balrogs are Republicans. Balrogs represent the destructive forces of capitalism and redistribution of goodness from common folk in the pre industrial utopia of Beleriand to the most hideous belching machines and machinations of Melkor and his underling Sauron.
Secondly, when the leader of the Republicans in the house says 'We had it arranged but more than 12 of my guys told me they were insulted by Nancy calling the President names, so they voted against the bill' (I paraphrase) then yes, I blame the Republicans. They need to grow a pair, or grow up. Or preferably both.
Noldor Sam
Complain about this comment
Re: #41 novoludo
I couldn't agree more with your assessment of how the world views us. On behalf of my country, I would like to say that we are not all so foolish as to realize that the crisis we have created goes far beyond one party's politics. We, as a society, have created this mess with our "buy now-pay later" mentality as well as our belief that chasing the biggest short-term profits is the best way to run a business and a country.
I can only say that not all Americans share this philosophy, although all of us are going to pay for it--along with many other countries in the world. I can only hope that partisan politics aside, leaders of both houses will devise a plan, that while painful in the short term, will see us out of this crisis in the not-too-distant long term. But I think we'll drink from a deep and bitter well before then.
Complain about this comment
#79
to nwcanadian,
Firstly - the principle of exclusion:
I am interested in rational debate, and if that is best served by excluding those who deliberately derail the debate with untruths, then I would support it.
Secondly - the practical application:
A tricky one - as would presumably agree those who followed the debate this year about who the Oxford Union chooses to invite to speak. I certainly don't feel qualified.
Thirdly - for consideration:
Actually, it is good for British people to be exposed to views such as your own, to allow us a better understanding of the problems faced by rational thought on your continent. I don't want to appear superior, we have enough problems of our own, and I admired much of life in the U.S. when I lived there. However, there are barriers to rational thought on your side of the pond which considerably outweigh the contrasting smallmindedness in both the dorms of Eton and the ex-mining 'Workies' in Barnsley.
Fourthly - thank you for being polite in your response and making a reasonable point.
Complain about this comment
i've typed this once but seems to have disappeared so apologies if something similar then show up....
Isn't it about time that the US took some responsibility for the mess it has created?
Yes the bankers are ultimately to blame but there has to be a deeper level of collective responsibility to be taken by our transatlantic cousins.
Irresponsible lending it may have been but has no-one heard of caveat emptor? Symptomatic of their famously litigeous society that those now defaulting or at risk of default cry wolf when they were the ones who signed on the dotted lines for loans they could never have afforded to repay.
Always someone elses fault.
It wouldn't be so bad if it were only themselves that were placed at risk by refusing to own up to their mistakes, but then again we would be naive to expect a nation led by a man who'd only been outside his home country once before election - and even that made him well travelled in relation to his compatriots - to consider their foreign relations.
Their regulators were happy enough to see their poison spread throughout the world (yes i know we should have been wiser) but now seem intent on compounding the problem by indulging in political fiddling on an unprecedented scale while Rome burns.
Hell in a handcart anyone?
Complain about this comment
#71 Yes, of course having a majority does not guarantee that a party can push through legislation. Even if they can get it through Congress, the President (a Republican for the last almost 8 years) has to sign it. The Dems have not had a veto-proof majority and, as previously stated, were the minority party in both houses in 2005. So clearly if nothing was done in 2005, that would be the Republicans' fault if you want to blame someone (since they had a simple majority PLUS the President). And if nothing was done in 2007, it is more complicated; could be b/c the Dems knew they couldn't get it past the President or for other reasons. Though I'm not saying I blame the Republicans b/c of what I am stating here. This is only to refute the ridiculous claim that McCain saying something in 2005 makes all of this the fault of the Dems.
There is plenty enough blame to go around. It is not only the fault of the political class, it is also the fault of the leaders of our financial industry, and yes, the fault of many regular Janes and Joes.
And a few years ago everyone I knew thought I was a nutjob b/c I told them that the negative savings rate and people not putting any money down on houses and the bubble, etc. was not only bad for them personally, but was bad for the country as a whole. Though I tend to blame the people whose jobs are supposed to be entirely about knowing the financial industry the most. Many of them DID understand all of this and used it to their own purposes for as long as they could.
Complain about this comment
#82
Marby,
What is ironic is yesterday McCains camp were claiming he brokered the deal. The deal that he and his party leadership could not deliver a simple majority on.
And now they want to blame Democrats. It's laughable.
Laughing cos it beats Crying Sam
Complain about this comment
Last post,
Sorry Aqua, confused you and Marby for a second.
Greetings of the day to you both!
Apologetic Sam
Complain about this comment
#81 I agree with you except that I think probably the Dems preferred this outcome to the bill actually passing. So maybe it is really brilliant maneuvering and not dumbness. This bill was not what they wanted anyway. Perhaps now they can take the time to come up with something better.
Complain about this comment
The Republicans and Democrats who voted against the bill will use the complaints of their constituents and try to present themselves a fiscal conservatives and protectors of taxpayers but they are fooling no-one.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#25
Aqua,
Just be careful with that safety. I like you too much.
Safety Sam
Complain about this comment
#41....
As an American, I totally agree. This is a major economic crisis, and all we can do is pass blame and accept credit. We created the problem, and we need to fix the problem. In 80 years, history will judge all of us to be "Hoover".
Complain about this comment
Any good solution to the present situation will not include yet more government interference into the markets. Politicians essentially contribute nothing and are never held accountable for the havoc they wreack (all the while managing to line their own pockets). I'm conservative because I'm pro-free markets, not the other way around.
Complain about this comment
I agree with previous comments that this is more so a failure for Pelosi than for Bush. And Pelosi is wrong to blame Bush's economic policies for the subprime lending disaster because we all know that these policies were pushed by the last two Democratic presidents, Carter and Clinton.
Complain about this comment
Novoludo I think you misunderstood the statement balrogsbane made. I have spent much time in Africa myself and have witnessed the same sort of thing. Presumably this person was there to help at some level given the experience related.
Truth should not be shouted down as racism. There are many hardworking Africans but honest one's admit there are problems in how people choose to live their lives and those problems have an effect on entire nations.
I find it ironic that you pull a racism card when one could just as easily accuse you of stereotyping Americans. I am not American myself but you seem the hypocrite to me.
Finally I would say to all - America does NOT have a pure laissez faire capitalist system and probably has not for almost 80 years.
Complain about this comment
For all those pointing fingers.
Be advised 40% of House Dems voted against the bailout
Complain about this comment
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm REALLY tired of everyone pointing at history and playing the blame game. There are MILLIONS of people responsible for this crisis, from homeowners, lenders and bankers to policymakers. It doesn't change anything. For every DEM responsible, there is a REP responsible. What we need to focus on is getting a SOLUTION. If I see the DEMS and REPS holding another press conference to blame one another for the failings of this government or these talks, I will start to gather a group and march my ass from the west coast to the east coast to walk in and push their sorry asses out of the Capitol Building. I'm sure MANY countless citizens will join me. Every second they spend bickering costs me another flippin thousand dollars in my retirement fund. I don't think they know what the H#LL they are doing up there.
Complain about this comment
It's time for the US economic planners to go, hat in hand, to other countries that have successfully weathered such a crisis (such as Sweden and Japan), and learn.
Bailout or no bailout, unless the root causes of the business cycle are addressed, we're right back there again in about twenty years. Root causes: land speculation. Remedy: A value tax on the unimproved value of land.
Business must pay fair market value for the privileges that they enjoy at the expense of the community... it should be paid back into the community!
Complain about this comment
George W. Bush has bankrupted every business venture he has headed. He has headed the United States for almost 8 years, so his is still on schedule. In the past George Herbert Walker Bush's friends have always bailed W-ya out of all his financial difficulties. But Herbert Walker Bush's friends are the ones sitting on these boards and on Wall Street and W-ya seems to want to bail them out, at tax payer expense that is.
We are now in Class-warfare mode. George W. Bush wants to and is insisting on protecting his class: the top 1% non-taxpayers who run or ran Wall Street firms. The so-called Middle-class, i.e. Working Class, are told that they must take responsibility for their financial actions, while the rich are told Uncle Sam, Uncle Benanki, and Uncle Paulson will bail them out to the tune of $700 million middle-class bucks.
Since the lower classes are irresponsible, they are used to being homeless and jobless, so no provisions have to be made for them in any sort of bail-out. They are told that they are Rugged Individuals, thereby they need no help. A foreclosure is only a minor setback and medical health care will only burden them with the cares of life. Use street drugs instead, like the big self reliant Wall Street boys did with cocaine.
Bush thought he knew his people, but his people did not know him. Now he knows that they know. Now even the Republicans understand what Lincoln meant by ALL OF THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME.
Complain about this comment
To#99Samtyler1969
You really should be sorry because Allmymarbles probably would not like being confused with my own self. She is much more erudite and informed than I am but I feel esteemed by being counted in the same company.
I assure you that the safety is always ON but I am also prepared to SHOOT!
Complain about this comment
ref #17
This 400,000 Moonbat figure you give is a farce. 95%+ of the people who died in the Iraq liberation were the result of al Quada and other Islamic terrorists.
As far as Jimmy Carter the terrorist appeaser and friend to dictators by not squashing Khomeni like the bug he was is a main reason for the terrorism threat.
Complain about this comment
SamTyler1969 For the record, I am not a supporter of all things Republican and I do despise balrogs which is why I live in the country among the hobbits. The irony of your definition is that the industrial heartland of America is Democrat territory and the wealthiest people are usually democrats (who do you think Bill Gates supports?)
Bush has made many mistakes and I am not sure this bailout is the right approach. I am holding my opinions lightly right now. Instead, I am trying to find out what went wrong and where. By doing so, hopefully we can come up with a solution.
As a Canadian, I am watching this like the rest of the world, with disbelief and wariness. I understand the emotions involved. I agree totally that this issue must transcend party politics and shame on anyone who voted because of personal slights. Neither party is above such partisanship. However, Pelosi is the one who is more to blame given what she said. In her position of power that was irresponsible and ignorant to say the least.
Complain about this comment
Any good solution to the present situation will not include yet more government interference into the markets. Politicians essentially contribute nothing and are never held accountable for the havoc they wreack (all the while managing to line their own pockets). I don't trust "oversights, "and I don't trust "committees." These are usually a front for more behind-the-scenes political machination and deal-making which in no way benefits the average citizen. I'm conservative because I'm pro-free markets, not the other way around.
Complain about this comment
Bush and his cronies, have "Cried Wolf" once too often.
He has lost more credibility and respect over this request.
He simply is not believed by the American people.
Congress did not serve this nation well after the Democrats wan the majority in Congress two years ago. The first order of business should have been impeachment.
Bush and his crew are dangerous mischief makers even as a "lame duck".
Complain about this comment
What is really pathetic is that today McCain has been trying to use the failure of the bill to score political points on Obama. The man, a consistent proponent of deregulation, has no shame at all.
Complain about this comment
I agree with you nwcanadian # 105. The irony of the position these government regulation proponents hold to is that they believe free market enterprisers are somehow prone to sin at every level whereas those elected to government are above reproach.
Power in anyone's hands corrupts. The problem with government intervention is that they more easily get away with it and there is little accountability. We Canadians know the billions wasted on corrupt Liberal government spending in recent years and not a single person went to prison. If such corruption happens in the private sector, they go to jail and rightfully so.
History gives me more reason to distrust government and the potential abuses they wreak than free markets.
Complain about this comment
Over in France, where I am now, they have this reality TV programme called "Star Academy". I do realise that this sort of thing goes on in America too, but here is the principle of this particular beast.
First show of the season lines up sixteen or so budding pre-picked candidates to try and represent as closely as possible the target audience of the programmes producers (in this case, Universal Records).
Cue huge ratings and general buzz among the impressionables of this world who immediately take a shine to there favourite competitor and rush out to buy the same glasses and lipstick as them.
The, undoubtedly naturally talented but novice candidates, are shut away for four months in a castle and surrounded by the leading artistic lights in the different performing arts, to be intensly trained and prepared for weekly outings in front of a now discerning public.
The first few such outings are frequently excruciating to watch, with many candidates off key and some even forgetting the lyrics.
One invariably takes the strain and wins the publics vote, to go on to win the right to record an album and chance a career.
The rest of them are chewed up and spat out, their delusional dreams shattered, to return to obscurity.
So as I was saying, I hear the americans are doing this too. Except that only one candidate has been chosen, and only two months set aside to train her up. She's been having her predictably shakey weekly outings but is hoping to do better from now on.
The public will decide if she wins next month.
I wonder though if anyone has given a thought to her life after all this, should she be rejected?
Complain about this comment
This will be my last comment here, becasue I'm fed up with hearing the same old stuff repeated over and over again.
I heard on the (British) news tonight that both Democrats and Republicans effectively voted against a rescue because they were afraid their constituents were against any form of government intervention and they might not get re-elected in November.
Well, those same constituents (so many of whom are so vociferous here) seem not to have grasped something. Today their pension plan investments and their health care insurance took a dive; and worse is to come. That's what this ideological posturing on both sides has caused.
I also heard McCain telling everyone ift was Obama's fault for bringing politics into it (but not mentioning more Republicans than Democrats voted against) and Obama calling the plan "outrageous". Now we know what we can expect from the US in any global crisis in the next four years: damn all that's of any practical use to anybody. It's frankly pathetic.
It isn't the rich guys on Wall Street who have lost the money for their retirement and their health today. It's those people on "Main Street" the politicians are supposed to be protecting. Hardly anyone seems here to have grasped that; yet the dot com crash wasn't all that long ago, and this is worse.
I guess the rest of the world's treasuries and finance ministries will be burning the midnight oil trying to find some way of completely disengaging from the American finance system now. I think you are going to be left on your own.
Me, I live in what so many contributors here appear to despise as a "State Socialist"system; but I will get a state pension (though goodness knows it won't make me rich), and I get free health care. I won't starve, and I hopefully won't end up on the street begging. But all those of you who rely on the stock market to finance it are in a different situation altogether.
I wish you luck. You're really going to need it. (And the mattress and the wheelbarrow.)
Complain about this comment
Two points:
1. People need to remember that this is happening because Republicans have controlled the country for the last eight years. If a Democrat had been in the White House for two terms and if the Democrats had controlled Congress for those eight years, the financial system would have been properly policed and the welfare of Americans would not have been sacrificed to the greed and indifference of the Republican culture.
2. Justin's headline is entirely accurate. Bush failed to get the support of his own party in the most important Congressional vote of his tenure. Bush is not just a lame duck, he's a legless duck bounced around by the wind while he makes quacking noises.
Complain about this comment
I read Speaker Pelosi's remarks as printed in The Wall Street Journal, and I thought the partisan aspect of her statement was rather mild. I suppose it would be better if the Speaker, who in principle speaks for the entire House, were nonpartisan. However, as our government is organized, the Speaker is really more akin to a majority leader. That may be a weakness in the system, but that is how it works, nevertheless.
Complain about this comment
#95 It seems we'll never come to an agreement on the definition of "rational thought." No malice intended, nor condescension for that matter. We're just wired differently, aren't we?
.....and now it's time to get on with my day.......
Complain about this comment
Mr. Webb, as an observer of the American nation you are clueless. Commander-in-Chief has to do with the military, not finance, not the economy, not legislation. Insofar as the House rejection of the bailout bill today, the Democrats have a majority and are in control, they could have passed it without a single Republican vote. The fact is that the bill as written stinks, it is a giveaway of vast amounts of taxpayer dollars to save the reckless rich. The American voters know it, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury knows it, and now the world knows that Congress knows it. Congress could not face its constituents if it passed this bill as it is written. It will not pass until it is fixed even if the stock market has to crash 75% and the credit lines freeze solid all over the country before that happens.
Watch the foreign markets tonight. They will probably all take a major tumble and some may go into free fall. There will be another blood letting on Walls Street tomorrow. Less than a month ago, everyone who spoke for the government including Senators McCain and Obama said that the economy was not in serious trouble even though it needed improvements. Now they all have a plan that will fix it. The American people think they do not know what they are doing and will no longer settle for half baked bandaid fixes.
So don't wait for McCain and Obama to fix it. This goes far beyond what this presidential campaign is all about. If you knew anything about how the US economy and political life is really run, you would already have known that.
I think your bus is waiting. There's tea and scones on board.
Complain about this comment
To#114Balrogsbane
What went wrong?
Too many greedy people from both Wall Street AND Main Street sought to make a "quick buck" rather than doing it the very old fashioned way, that is working for it.
What has not been really talked about are those so called "average and middle class" Americans who let themselves be seduced into the "Flip this House" mentality for making big money quickly. Many have lost a lot.
Many people thought that the free credit ride would run forever. BIG NEWS: This train has been de-railed!
Complain about this comment
marygrav (#111), does "Uncle Paulson" remind you of "Daddy Warbucks"? Do you all remember him?
Complain about this comment
From what I've read, this Fannie Mae stuff can be laid squarely at the door of Clinton, and of Jimmy Carter before them. Bush, then McCain both tried to do something about it, but were rebuffed by the Democrats, so the arguments that this happened on the Republicans' watch are weak.
That's not a biased claim, it's the bare facts - at least as I can see, Wikipedia being my major source. There is no doubt whatsoever that much of the US liberal media, backed up no doubt by a certain Mr Webb, will obfuscate and try to steer the viewer away from the facts, but with the elections so close, and with a greater range of views in the US media (e.g. Fox won't be so quiet on this one) you'd think that at least some of the truth will out.
The allegedly close ties between Obama, the Dems and Fannie Mae are interesting ammo for the Republicans as well.
So far the financial crisis has benefited the Dems in an electoral sense. With the facts as they are, it's sure going to be interesting how this pans out over there. The facts back up both Bush and McCain, and look grim for the Dems and Obama. But will it go down that way with the voters?
Complain about this comment
#118, thanks, you said it better than I did.
Complain about this comment
Pelosi didn't ask the Republicans to vote against the bill; and she, in the final analysis, didn't force them to vote that way against their will.
Also, given the magnitude of events, it strikes me as childish and incompetent by the way the Republican Reps reacted after the vote by shouting that Pelosi made them vote that way. Crazy. Pathetic.
Complain about this comment
People should also realize that James Johnson was the CEO of Fanny Mae from 1991 to 1998. He was forced to step down after controversy arose over millions of dollars of questionable real estate loans the company made. He received millions of dollars himself in salary and compensation.
Franklin Raines was CEO from 1999 to 2004. Under his watch, Fanny Mae bought billions in risky mortgage assets and he netted 90 million dollars profit. Such profit taken from false assets.
Both of these men also obtained personal loans from Countrywide (one of the biggest offenders in the subprime debacle) amounting to millions of dollars at subprime rates.
James Johnson is a longtime democrat and personal adviser to Barack Obama. He headed the committee which selected Joe Biden as his running mate. The Washington Post (no friend of the republicans) reported that Raines was asked by the Obama campaign to advise them on mortgage and housing policy.
The vice chairman of Fanny Mae while Raines was CEO was Jamie Gorelick. She was a Clinton Justice department official. She earned 26 million during her time at Fanny Mae.
Barack Obama's campaign has also received $126,000 in support from Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac second only to Chris Dodd the democrat banking committee chairman.
How can Americans and others around the world look to this man for deliverance? I am not a great fan of McCain but he raised the alarm of these problems back in 2005. Too bad he was not listened to.
Complain about this comment
I think the more we learn about Acorn, the more disgusted many of us get. They weren't the whole problem but they were part of it. They will not be involved in the solution of the credit problem though. Many feel they will be too busy recruiting illegal aliens to falsify voter registration certificates and vote for Obama.
Complain about this comment
#108. MagicKirin: "Be advised 40% of House Dems voted against the bailout"
And 133 Republicans voted against it, almost 70% of their voting members. So who's to blame? Fingers can point in both directions. For a measure which had the backing of both the President and the Republican candidate, it doesn't appear as if the party faithful fell in line.
Complain about this comment
Everyone is looking for scapegoats...
Jimmy Carter is a new one that seems to have developed in the republican wing of this debate.
Even though Obama mad me laugh in his speak this afternoon... neither he or McCain (the saviour) did much more than back-biting.
Political classes are corrupt in all societies and deserve little or no respect. All you can do is try to put in place a system that minimises the harm they can do. That is true regardless of the system.
A question... why should the democratic congress put its necks on the line to allows republicans to kill them at the polls for support such an unpopular bill?
A deal where exactly 51% (one member above 50%) of each party votes in favour ro make it truly Bipartisan. It would also make anti voters irrelevent.
Wall Street undoubtably would have preferred no talk of a rescue deal than the mess we were led into today. Uncertainty, not bad decisive news, breeds fear in the markets. You cannot budget for uncertainty.
No matter how much us Europeans want to think it is all the fault of the US... we are as much to blame. Living way beyond our means and building up sizable debts.
All this comes at a time when I am actually in a position finally to buy a house. Ah well, I guess I still have to rent.
Complain about this comment
It's called a correction.
Whee
.........e
..........e
...........e
............e
.............e
..............e
...............e
................e
.................e
..................e
...................e.....e
....................e...e.e
.....................e.e...e
.......................e.....e
and that's called a dead cat bounce.
Meeeeoooww
Complain about this comment
#134
Ed,
Schadenfreude. Isn;t that a Nazi word?
=)
Puppet Sam
Complain about this comment
#130. Balrogsbane: "James Johnson . . . headed the committee which selected Joe Biden as his running mate."
Initially he was on the committee, but pulled out, leaving Eric Holder and Caroline Kennedy to do the vetting and selection. You can't blame Johnson for Biden!
Considering all the circumstances, isn't it possible that Mrs Clinton is thankful that she wasn't selected?
Complain about this comment
#131
Marcus,
Have you been watching Lou Dobbs again?
Sad Sam
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Nah, Sam. Just German. ;-)
There's still a lot of hot air in the market, besides toxic bank assets; equity p/e ratios need deflating a good bit more to build a base for sanity. Time for looking to re-investing in America (and elsewhere) instead of explosives. And perhaps in population control.
Peace in all languages
ed
"Anyone who believes growth can continue in a finite system must be either a madman or an economist"
-- Kenneth Boulding
Complain about this comment
#77
Dai,
Sorry for the delay, I was censored, twice. I think for using the same terms as before.
Essentially I don't know where you would go. Here we go to a big hardware store, usually on the edge of town whose name rhymes with gnome repo. You go up to the burly man and say:
'I'd like a heavy steel door for my bunker'
'Sir, you know the technical term for such an item is a big expletive deleted off door'
'Yes I do, but we are on the BBC'
'Ah. I see Sir. Aisle 4.
And there they are in the bunker aisle. Next to the light bulbs.
Handy Sam
Complain about this comment
Sam, Schadenfruede, is German for
"The guys down the street ran out of beer,
but our keg is full."
Complain about this comment
#57
Gothmog,
Really an amazing post, you say you are over your broad brush prejudices and then throw out a broad brush prejudice. You really are a Balrog.
Noldor Sam
Complain about this comment
Dear Justin and fellow bloggers,
Having been watching this slow motion rain wreck this afternoon, and the explanations given afterwards by those who voted against it, I wish to opine for a second or two.
- The bill was deeply flawed. Attempting to moderate CEO compensation would only limit the talent drawn to these organizations. Linking it to return for the taxpayer would be more appropriate
- the bill was flawed in many other ways, commented on by many folks
- The Dems who voted against it voted their conscience and said it had too few restrictions
- The Reps likewise but said it had too many, in fact there should be no bail out
- This was a negotiated bipartisan bill. It was agreed as a compromise that both parties could bring a majority of their house members to support. Not everyone, but a majority of each so Congress could be said to be united
- The speaker would not have bought it to the floor if that was not the case made to her
- For all the whining about the 12 who would have supported but didn't because their feelings were hurt (henceforth to be known as the Wuss-Reps or WURS for short) the Rep house leadership did not deliver 50%, even with them. Nothing like
- John McCains campaign claimed credit for the deal yesterday, but today want to go back to the drawing board
- Obama could be more robustly engaged
- The markets have spoken
Either the house leadership of the republican party does not lead (like their president and candidate) or they negotiated in bad faith hoping this would become a Democratic bill.
So here's a proposal. Since the noirmal process has failed, and we need something to be done, let's now draft the candidates. But with a specific objective. They need to deliver 50% of their party. They should take a day and negotiate one term at a time from what we have, with a vote after each so we can see exactly where every candidate stands. If the Republicans cannot get to 50% before the reps get to 50% of their members then they are the spoilers and the Dems should pass a Dem bill.
This would demonstrate all sides flexibility, willing to work with the other side and leadership.
And BTW, do it behind closed doors until it is done. Media blackout so we can skip all the grandstanding. Let us dissect the details afterwards.
Negotiator Sam
Complain about this comment
Sam,
I'll second that, so long as the bill can wait until after the election. That way electioneering will be pointless and most of the steam will have gone out of the windbag market...
Peace ()
ed
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The Last Liberal President was President Richard Nixon; True, he had hired many unreliable many Untrustworthy Rockefeller Operatives, who did All Sorts of Bad Things, and blamed them on President Nixon; and true, President Nixon suffered from Cultural Deprivation and Paranoia. The Number Two Man at the FBI was working against Poor Old Nixon, and then Bary Goldwater and George H. W. Bush, turned against him. But Nixon would never have invaded Vietnam, nor Iraq, not have allowed David Rockefeller to Trash the American Economy, by keeping interest rates too low, too long; then Jumping them way up too high, causing today's crisis. Quickly, what should the US do? First one more time, Break Up the John D. Rockefeller Fortune that is the source of David's Power. Second; Nationalize the Private US Federal Reserve System, the Nation's Private Central Bank, a Fascist Institution, and rename it The United States Central Bank. Third; Go on the Silver Standard for US Currency. Fourth; Shut down the John Dewey-John D. Rockefeller Education System's, based on Bullying and Cultural Deprivation of even the Phonetic Use of the Alphabet, and all other cultural riches Civilization has accumulated over the Thousand's of Years. Fifth; seize the Automotive Engine makers, and mandate that they use the Never-Before-Used Controlled Combustion Cycles, which inject fuel into the cylinder, after the Compression Stroke, of Cycle, has reached its top, making Knock or Pre-Ignition impossible, thus allowing automotive engines to use light weight fuels, that have no Octane and no
Cetane Requirement, allowing the gallons of engine fuel per barrel of Oil to be doubled, cutting crude oil demand in half. President Richard Nixon was about to mandate this, which was why President Richard Nixon, suffered a Character Assassination.
Complain about this comment
NLG (#127), calling your claim "unbiased" doesn't make it so. It sounds like you got your point of view right off of right-wing radio. There is nothing in the original Community Reconstruction Act which mandates unsound loans. And the reckless practices which led to the collapse were in large degree in institutions not regulated by the CRA.
Complain about this comment
That should be Community Reinvestment Act.
Complain about this comment
A linguistic correction (instead of a market one):
'Schadenfreude' is German for "So happy to see you over there are going to be even deeper in the you-know-what than we are over here."
Complain about this comment
#139
Ed, I guess so. My posts with the N word were removed. Let's call it german.
Loved the global village post BTW.
Sad Sam
PS for those who missed the post, it was a quote from Avenue Q and the word rhymes with Stazi, not jigger. I utterly reject the jigger word
Complain about this comment
#149
Oooo I like that. And the Beer one. We should petition Websters.
Lexicographer Sam
Complain about this comment
Lovelymutant's post #214 on Robert Peston's
"The Day the Bill Arrived" blog is particularly amusing.
Complain about this comment
Alaskan ode to better times
by DougTexan
Whoa with the Wells Fargo Banker riding the Pony Express being a partisan bill in injun canyon down at bankrupt creek. Last injun was up there without a paddle at Little Big Horn, out numbered, out gunned with unbelievable odds.
Results the same as at the Alamo, all gone but the story lives on. Her story is not the same as History, seen from a planet afar,..ya see she from Venus and he from Mars,.. rarified air in both those places called congress when stars align, unknown spots in daylight skies where all the good just disappears.
Just a ghost, a paler tale, is the one of the man from yale. Given a chance to see the bad, underscores the use of hanging Chad. Great minds of wire, the one that stole the right, of this election in daylight. Good God I'm losing my money, and it ain't funny.
Bail,. bail,. or off to jailen is the Bush of market failen.
Lo the night it is afallen and the moose they are a callen. Hear the chidren as they're wailin'.. please a change from McCain and Palin,.. ghost again appear in the sky, congress gets its one more try, no more hiden,.. give a shout to Barry and Biden.
Complain about this comment
Slightly off-topic, but #118 I assume that by "billions" of wasted Liberal spending, you mean the tax cuts, spending cuts, budget balancing, and privatisation of crown corporations during the ~13 years they ran the show. It baffles me how people point to the Chretien-Martin Liberals as stereotypical corrupt/incompetent tax-and-spenders when their fiscal record reads about as left-wing as Mike Harris. There's plenty bad about the Grits (liars, thieves, weathervanes) without projecting partisan stereotypes onto them.
But that does tie into one of the common threads of thought running through this discussion, and that is the fundamentally corrosive nature of partisanship. It colours our perception of the world around us; impairs our ability to make reasoned judgments, recognize problems and enact effective solutions. 41 and the others have it right - there are people in the United States who are either a) willing to put the US and WORLD economy on the line just to sock it to the "other guys", or b) are simply more interested in the grand theatre of the election than the actually *real and immediate* problem of the economy.
They may not be the majority of Americans, but they ARE the politicians, and they ARE the various interest groups that mobilize voters and apply pressure to the government - they ARE the people who run the show. Everyone in the US knows that what's happening in their economy right now has global ramifications (hell, a good number of Americans, many who have TV and radio programs, are PROUD of it!). With the predominance of the US in the world economy now comes the responsibility of the American people to toss partisanship, toss these groups that are pushing a partisan agenda at the cost of economic integrity, and get to the business of fixing the problem before this obsession with "R"s and "D"s drag us all down with them.
Complain about this comment
#154, frostynorth, alas, it is not as simple a problem
as you describe. The problem is not that the R's
and D's want to make each other look bad, as
usual.
The problem is that all of them are getting thousands
of phone calls from constituents telling them how
PO'd they are about this bill.
For years, from Clinton through Bush, the middle
class in the US has seen its jobs get shipped offshore,
while people on Wall Street got richer and richer.
So, when they are called upon to assume
financial responsibility for the bad bets that
these folks on Wall Street made, the answer
is NO.
Perhaps, if more provisions are made in the
bill to protect taxpayers and Americans start
missing paychecks because their employers
start shutting down plants, this will change.
Let's hope we don't get to that point.
Complain about this comment
"The bottom line is this - strong regulation, the best regulatory system in the world, strong balance sheets on the part of our banks as well as a strong budget situation on the part of the Australian Government means that Australia's situation in this period of global financial turbulence is the best that you could have against what is being experienced by other countries and economies around the world."
REGULATION IS ESSENTIAL FOR AMERICA TO MOVE FORWARD HERE
Complain about this comment
#47. IrisRainbows wrote: "David_Cunard, same goes for you. It is nigh impossible for the President to lose his influence in the duties of Commander in Chief, so I would suggest you chill, and realize that you knew what Webb meant, and that Webb knew that you knew."
I've lived in the US for a long, long time, and I've never heard any newscaster, outside of military matters, refer to 'the Commander-in-Chief' when he or she meant to say 'the President'. Justin has earlier mentioned his 'love affair' with America and I suspect that when shopping he pronounces English words in the American manner - tomayto, ban-anna, aloominum. Using the offending wording intimated that the office has a power which is not within its remit. Time for you to chill out I think.
Complain about this comment
The claim by various delegates that they'd voted against the bill because of the overwhelming objections, received from their electorate, reminds me of a line from Yes, Prime Minister: "I am your leader, I will follow you!"
Complain about this comment
155, guns.
What infuriates people is that these jokers get what amounts to bonuses, and obscene bonuses at that, for losing money. That is a new wrinkle. You used to get a bonus based on performance. So people are furious and say NO. Surprise!
Complain about this comment
Gary_A_Hill
Not so. My major source for this was Wikipedia, which can occasionally be flawed but never to my knowledge "right wing".
The Community Reinvestments Act does not "mandate" unsound lending, but it guarantees, via Fannie Mae, repayment of the debt, thus allowing it to happen without danger to the banks. It is therefore not surprising that some less scrupulous lenders, and more pertinently some less scrupulous brokers, decided to make lots of money by selling credit to people who couldn't afford it/be trusted with.
It can be said with some certainty that this happened as a direct result of the 1995 revision of the CRA by the Clinton Administration.
If you can find a single thing incorrect about either of my last two posts, let me know. Otherwise we can conclude that far from being biased, I was simply stating the truth.
Most people on this board are biased towards one candidate or other. I care little which candidate wins - although I'm slightly worried about what Obama really thinks, and I'm certainly no fan of Bush.
I'm not sure that this rescue package is the right way forward either - I'm all for protecting people's money, but it's about time we stopped encouraging reckless lending by bailing out everyone that does it.
The difficulty here is that the CRA has fairly directly encouraged this irresponsibility, and therefore it follows that Fannie Mae's troubles are fairly directly down to Government action, so maybe the Government feel obliged to solve a problem which they helped create.
The fact that Democrats were behind each CRA bill may explain why Republicans have little stomach for the bailout - put simply they're playing politics.
One big question here: has this happened because of too much, or too little, regulation? Put another way: would this have happened if the Clinton administration hadn't tweaked the CRA in 1995?
Another question: What do you make of the Democrats' statement a few years ago, in response to an attempt by Bush to review Fannie and Freddie?
"these two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis."
Complain about this comment
I think I'll try again. For us Brits, "Commander-in-Chief" has no mystical, or military significance; it is merely a title. As it is, as I understand it, in reality in the USA. The military duties of command are not engaged in by any modern head of state, unless they're President Musharraf.
I understand it as ironic; obviously Bush in the last few days has self-evidently not been "in command" of the situation; has not been "commander" of even his own party, and certainly has not been the "chief" anything, merely a follower.
It's beyond many of us why a President should seem to be thought of as someone capable of leading an army over the top yelling "Charge!" Not even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is going to be doing that.
A politician's job is to determine the political goal; it is the job of the professional generals or admirals to decide on the strategy and tactics to achieve it if that goal can only be achieved by force. The goal is always political, the end to which the military action is aimed.
Eisenhower, for example, made a number of mistakes in the latter part of the war by dismissing suggested political aims and emphasising only miltary gains. He held, for too long, that Berlin was an irrelevant military goal, 'merely' a political one.
It turned out that it was very important politically, and a fair part of recent history might have been different had he accepted that.
Remember Clausewitz? "War is the continuation of politics by other means." It's the last three words and "continuation" that are important. He didn't say politics and war were interchangeable. That has led to many a disaster.
If you want a civilian President of a civil state, not a military dictatorship, to act like a general instead of the man whose real job it is, you're asking for trouble, frankly. Didn't Rumsfeld do enough damage?
Complain about this comment
41 - novoludo thank you for your comment. What you are seeing on here is just a taste of what American blogs and media are filled with. It is all back and forth blame between the Demacrats and the Republicans. It is sad and shameful that this is the American way. The only reason I can think of for it is Money. American media loves this kind of controversy because their ratings go up. Any idiot with an opinion, regardless of how educated or valid, can just ramble on and on. Because in America, Opinions are valued more than Facts (in case you haven't heard, we're all individuals here and we're all special). Candidates and politicians can lie all they want because Americans don't do any research of the topic themselves and if they do, its from uncredible, online, or biased sources. We just believe everything we're told in the media. And of course the only thing you'll find in the media here is someone's opinion or summary of what actually happened with half the facts missing. I couldn't watch the recent debate on TV because I was at work at the time, so when I got home I tried to find it online. I could not find it on CNN, Fox News, or MSNBC. All I could find was their "political analysis" and he said/she said style reporting about the debate. I had to go to BBC online to actually see the debate for myself! I eventually found it on NPR and PBS as well. But here in America we are no longer concerned with facts. Opinions and blame are all the rage. Literally.
But please know, there are a few of us left here in America without our heads up our butts. However, we are the minority, and the minority means nothing here.
Complain about this comment
Jimmy Carter was the only US President in the last 50 years with any noticeable principles, which is presumably why he was jettisoned in favour of a man skilled at telling people what they wanted to hear, rather than what they needed to hear. He's still preaching to the deaf too. Justin's kneejerk regurgitation of the conventional wisdom that Carter was a weak President speaks volumes about the degree to which he has gone native.
You have to go back a fair way to find a suitable yardstick of failure against which to measure GW Bush. Hoover suffered from his failure to deal with the Depression, and by comparison with his successor, but he was a decent man who did his best. US Grant probably, as useless in the shark infested waters of politics as he was successful in warfare.
Complain about this comment
Justin,
Oh yes it's all Bush.
The Democrats, who have a majority in both Houses of Congress, fail to push through a bill that their leadership supports and it is George Bush's fault?
As for Carter he introduced the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, which started this mess by getting Fannie and Freddie to lend to minority communities, something Clinton built on. A bad system set up by two Democratic presidents is Bush's fault.
When the Democrats said there would be 'no deal without McCain' and then said the opposite when he suspended his campaign, politicising things, that was Bush's fault?
When Pelosi decided to rant against the GOP just before the vote, that was Bush again?
Complain about this comment
#195
Monsewer Canard,
I was always told speaking French was the height of sophistication, but I never mastered it.
Mais, mon petit dejeuner, I would opine that all i said was 'mid middle blue collar America' had a few small things in common. And that Palin appealed to those things until those folks realized she isn't one of them and has little if anything in common with them. Only Guns, the Economy, food and kids. Pretty much what they have in common with me, an east coast WASP.
I also said the more folks see of her the more they will see she is not like them. The Republican defense of Sarah has been 'She is like real folks, they will love her'. The latest polls show that despite the sexy librarian look (hint Sarah, the fantasy only works if you ARE a librarian. Like the Fisherman one), her appeal is dropping. The Couric interview was a disaster, shooing Russians back.
And the polls show her appeal in non Alaska, non SE states is plummeting. But what do I know.
Aboyez comme un chien pour moi.
Unsophisticated Sam
Complain about this comment
Peter (163),
AYE TO THAT!The nearest thing to an honest man to get within a mile of the White House in a century. May God bless his efforts.
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
ed
Complain about this comment
Mr.Webb has once again shown a complete lack of understanding of the U.S.A., its institutions, and its people. The role of Commander-in-Chief has no bearing on economic or legislative issues. The role of Chief Executive is the role the President is (attempting) to play now. Furthermore, to say "Just as well America faces no serious problems..." is beyond ludicrous. There is no superpower status without a superpower economy PERIOD. this is what happens when a Tory comes to America and starts drinking the "Kool-Aid" of modern Republicanism. Sad, very sad, one had thought that at least the Tories had a stronger intellectual underpinning...
Complain about this comment
I generally agree with this, with the caveat that this also shows Pelosi's weakness as Speaker of the House. If and when this mess is sorted out hopefully the dems (assuming they still control the house) will pick a new speaker.
I have a feeling that as we Americans see the results of the delay of the bail-out (rescue plan, sorry) the upcoming elections in November will see many incumbents with egg on their face begging their constituents for pardon for voting down the bail out.
Complain about this comment
It is a times like this that President Bush's lack of political skill becomes apparent. I think that a Lyndon Johnson, who despite his terrible decisions regarding Vietnam, was a master at getting his bills through Congress would have gotten this passed. Prehaps Bush should have employed " the treatment" to those members who wanted to vote no.
Complain about this comment
I mean no disrespect to the American people and I am in no way attacking the office of President of the United States, but Bush is an idiot-he understands less than the average joe on the street. His weakness, now all too apparent means that we should look to the people of moral character and sound judgement to deal with this mess. Someone that had nothing to do with causing the mess in the first place. Bush and Paulson are as thick as thieves, conjouring up some solution, that only takes into account their own and their friends narrow requirements. It was written initially on the back of a fag packet and Paulson scared us with doom laden predictions that the world was doomed unless we listened to him and him alone. I am sorry I don't look for solutions from the people who caused the problem - try thinking outside the box perhaps.
You could do worse than listen to Professor Roubini who have been saying this day would come for years. Roubiini has been saying that this bailout won't work because it only deals with the symptoms and not the causes. Realistically, and I am sorry to say, some people are going to lose a lot of their money in this. The fundamental premise that all politicians are taking is that no-one can or should lose money in this crisis. This premise is the flaw that will make the whole thing fail. Banks and politicians have to come clean - We have to save the good institutions and dump the bad ones. When all the off balance sheet shenanigans are unfolded we need to take decisions on keeping the good banks so that they are confident that they can lend to each other as all the dead wood has been cut away.
The trouble with leaving these decisions to politicians is that they don't want to upset anyone and that can cause them to hurt everyone.
Complain about this comment
The biggest thievery is perpetrated by government, not private enterprise. It is brazen in its deception and never held accountable.
Complain about this comment
I was scratching my head over some thread of consistency on Bush that explains why he favored the bill, and finally found one. It has to do with a strong American economy that allows us to have a strong presence for world security, the safety of exchange of goods between nations (transportation lanes), and the prevention of aggressive dictators from carrying out their plans against everything good in the world. For instance, Iran's leader no longer blames Israel for all the evils in the world; now, he blames Jews worldwide. He did so because he thinks the USA is too weak to police the world. Russia sent ships to South America thumbing their nose at the Monroe Doctrine because they think the US won't do anything to protect nations in SA from communism. Chavez has called for us to replace our Constitution with something he likes better. When the US and world go into terrifically low free market cyclical downs, that appear similar the famous Great Depression, dictators rise up and do their worst. Hitler rose to power when the US and Europe were busy with the Depression. There is the thread of consistency that explains Bush and some of our representatives position on this bill: US economy = US security = world security.
For my own part, I'm a borderline isolationist. I would like Europe to defend themselves. I would like to teach them a lesson for all their stupid and suicidal platitudes. I would like to say, 'told you so--you should not have discouraged us with your complaints and misunderstanding of us while you do next to nothing to help us.' My desire is, however, unrealistic and would have devastating effects. Europe will not defend itself, and we would soon have another world war on their turf that we'd be expected to fight.
If Obama wins, however, prepare for the US to turn isolationist because 1- we really don't think NATO is a good deal for us, 2-we are weary of backstabbing "free nations," (i.e., with friends like these who needs enemies), and 3- the economy will solidify in recession because of mass government interventions into the free market FDR style. Dictators will try their worst, similar to when Jimmy Carter was in office. We won't be able to travel much, but it would force us to manufacture our own goods. New domestic markets will open with less international trade. And best of all, fewer taxes will be collected with the higher tax rate, and we'll get to hear socialists explain why that is so.
Don't be discouraged over this bail out or if the Dems win the White House, Patriots :) Hannity says there are things every American can do to retain control in their lives no matter who is in office or what the Congress does--particularly on the local level. I agree with him. Local politics shape our lives more often anyway. National and international stuff sometimes distract us from the real issues that matter to us on a daily basis, such as, property and sales taxes, zoning, free use of our resources, local schools...and strengthening state government, the key.
Libertarians figured this out already. That's why they don't care about world security, and they focus on state and local elections. The idea is to reign in the power of federal government by refusing state welfare (unlike worst offenders: Oregon, Michigan, California, and all the Dem's Blue States). Here's an example of one state that empowers the federal government: About two years ago Oregon threatened to close a local library unless the Federal government sent them money. Does that sound independent to you?
Something else we should realize: We don't live in a democracy where the will of the people wins every time. The people in a democracy become tyrants as evil as any dictator. Our system of a Constitutional Republic prevents it. We've just experienced our collective power being checked over the bailout. We should accept it graciously in that spirit.
Pray for your country. God hasn't changed.
Complain about this comment
nwcanadian, are you high? The U.S. "economic powerhouse" was a house of cards, built on a pyramid scheme of irresponsibly assuming too much risk with other people's money. Now the house has collapsed, and yet people like you continue to trumpet the virtues of the free market.
It is beyond belief that you would blame the Democrats for the current mess, when the Republicans have dominated Congress for eight of the last ten years. The Democrats have held the majority since '06, but haven't had the supermajority needed to overcome the vetos of President Belt-Bucklehead.
Just like a conservative to whine about being a victim when your guys have been in charge for most of the last decade. "Oh, woe as me, everyone is picking on us." Pullllleeeeaase! As polls show, Americans are no longer buying your big bag of baloney.
Complain about this comment
Bapudi? Democrats have been the majority in Congress for the last forty years with two breaks: when Newt was leader and, now, for the last two years. You don't know what Americans are thinking. We know about Dodd, Frank, and Obama and Freddie and Fannie as an arm of the Democrat Party. You only know what the non-taxpayers and the welfare state populations are told to think by the media and Democrat slave-masters. I expect a tax-revolt like you've never seen if Obama is selected--a backlash against evil socialism, US federal government abuse, and the ignorance that feeds it. The bail-out has stoked the fire.
The last time the Republicans had a life and death show down with the Democrat Party, the Republicans banned them from Congress for twelve years (after the Civil War.)
Complain about this comment
ref. 174.
We have exactly the same problem in the UK.
We have the metropolitan elite,living in a Westminster political bubble in London briefing our supposedly independant BBC,who in turn tell us what we should and need to think.
Now the bubble has burst the mouthpiece of the metropolitan elite,the BBC, have had to generate inuendoes and spin as directed by Government to try and convince us mere mortals that the Government is up to the job in hand
That,s exactly what's happening in the US-no wonder American dispair.
Complain about this comment
Yes, Americans are despairing, we're also frustrated with an anger that will boil over if Obama is selected. That's what dimwits in other countries don't get. Obama is a socialist. Pelosi, Reid, and Dems are socialists. They have told the American people to drop dead twice. We can't use our own oil resources by their decree. Then, their socialist housing policy forced our free-market banks to lend bad loans to Democrat Party constituents. The Dem program blew up, as all socialist programs do; American taxpayers represented by Rebel Republicans are blamed and told to shut up, sit down, and pay up. I told someone this morning that the government better prepare to engage the American people as though they were dealing with first generation of independent Americans-- if they want win against us. We're not their dependent and ignorant voting blocks. The determination is building and the line is no longer fuzzy that we can cooperate with the opposite side. Government MUST stop overspending, MUST get out of the free market, MUST return to their Constitutional boundaries. We'll send the MSM packing with them, to Cuba. We refuse to go into exile while they decimate us, and they can't put 70% of 200 million people in jail for refusing to pay taxes, either. Obama as absolute emperor will consolidate American opposition to the federal government when he, Pelosi, and Reid start raising taxes for more socialist programs. McCain as weak president, trying to be bi-partisan, will buy socialists more time to try another day. People in other countries who want O to win, you have it all backwards, and I have no sympathy for you when you shove socialism down my throat.
Complain about this comment
it does show the failure of the bush administration; with many bailouts....
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS