home

House Rejects Bailout, Dow Nosedives

The House of Representatives has rejected the proposed bailout.

The vote against the measure was 228 to 205. Supporters vowed to try to bring the rescue package up for consideration against as soon as possible.

Stock markets plunged sharply at midday as it appeared that the measure was go down.

< Mukasey Appoints Special Prosecutor in U.S. Attorney Firing Probe | Foggo Pleads >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Disaster, absolute disaster (5.00 / 10) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:29:46 PM EST


    And may I add (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Faust on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:46:22 PM EST
    HOLY F S.

    We are on the ragged edge of something and no one knows what.

    Parent

    Andgarden somtimes I think you are one of... (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:53:25 PM EST
    ...only a handful of sensible people in your generation. They are doing a happy dance on Kos.

    Parent
    I have a friend who likes the saying (5.00 / 5) (#71)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:56:14 PM EST
    that they know "just enough to be dangerous, but not enough to be useful."

    Parent
    Yes, it's amazing. (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by TomP on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:57:04 PM EST
    Some think they are immune from a depression.  Next year, they may be talking differently.

    Parent
    Jim Cramer just put it well (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:58:36 PM EST
    If we don't rescue the banks, we're going to have a depression and 20% unemployment.

    Do people need to see anything more than Wamu and Wachovia failing?

    Parent

    National City is about to go as well. (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by tigercourse on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:01:28 PM EST
    Uh oh (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:03:24 PM EST
    Stock down 57% right now at $1.54. (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by tigercourse on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:06:14 PM EST
    This is going to hurt.

    Parent
    ya (none / 0) (#98)
    by connecticut yankee on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:03:27 PM EST
    Cramer has been dumping in his pants for some time.

    Parent
    WaMu (none / 0) (#166)
    by SteveSyracuse on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:33:01 PM EST
    deserved to fail. And their investors deserve to lose everything. If the officers lied to their investors about their troubles, then they should be arrested and tried. The depositors are in good shape up to $100K, so that is good.

    Wachovia was just bought...it didnt fail. Again, institutions that make bad investments deserve to fail.

    With the failure of this bailout bill, perhaps our government can come up with something a little better, which might actually do more for the average American than simply making believe we are doing something productive.

    If the Dow drops 500 today, 500 tomorrow and 700 Wednesday...I may think differently.

    Parent

    You think $100K is enough? (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:36:56 PM EST
    Also, do you know what happens to other banks when one big bank fails, let alone two?

    Idiotic.

    Parent

    Wachovia hasnt failed. (none / 0) (#200)
    by SteveSyracuse on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:59:20 PM EST
    WaMu failed. Get your facts straight. And Cramer is an idiot. He is all about making money in the markets, not running the corner market.

    Parent
    Saying that Wachovia didn't fail (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:01:17 PM EST
    is a pedantic point that obscures the reality of what happened. Get your spin straight.

    Parent
    Wachovia assuredly failed (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:05:30 PM EST
    This is what failure looks like.

    Parent
    Wachovia was Taken Over Before It ... (none / 0) (#206)
    by santarita on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:02:14 PM EST
    failed.

    Parent
    True At $1.00 a share (none / 0) (#214)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:10:34 PM EST
    In just three days, (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by KeysDan on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:50:56 PM EST
    I fear you will be thinking differently.  Day one is more than a good start on it.  If someone wants to play Russian roulette, I would worry for them; when our heads are the target of their little game, I must complain.

    Parent
    And some think.... (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:27:00 PM EST
    the national debt isn't a concern, they'll be dead before it comes due.

    I don't think anybody really knows who is right and what is the best course of action long term....bailout and significantly add to the debt and our yearly interest payments on same, or no bailout, less credit available, and a stock market crash.  

    I know what feels morally right, and it ain't 2 grand from every man, woman, and child going to leecherous money lenders and money changers.

    Parent

    It's the JEWS!!!!! (1.00 / 4) (#156)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:28:26 PM EST
    No.... (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:37:40 PM EST
    it is the bankers, I couldn't care less what superstitions they believe in.

    And I resent the implication....real classy, andgarden.

    Parent

    Youth (5.00 / 0) (#120)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:12:46 PM EST
    Maybe they're too young to have any family members that have talked to them about the last depression. It wasn't pretty. Anyone that thinks it wouldn't have a serious impact on their lives is being delusional.

    Parent
    The last thing they should want is a..... (none / 0) (#153)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:27:19 PM EST
    ...bunch of us baby boomers not retiring. I know there are a couple of young people who would love to have my job but if I can't retire and my boss can't retire and her boss can't retire, good luck pushing us out of the way. We are tenancious baby boomers and we still think we're young.

    Parent
    It's disgusting (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by TheRealFrank on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:21:36 PM EST
    There are also a lot of reasonable people there in the comments, but the loud, self-righteous purists drown them out.


    Parent
    Ageism (none / 0) (#191)
    by Thanin on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:48:07 PM EST
    I hope (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:31:00 PM EST
    everybody's happy.

    ah well Dems tried, (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:31:42 PM EST
    they need to walk away from this, and wait for the House GOP to beg them to pass it, and require more concessions from them.

    it failed, the markets will tank anyways now, so lets take more time and make a better bill, sure our economy will now be near panic, but everyone who voted "no" knew that right?

    They did not try. They have a majority. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by tigercourse on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:33:26 PM EST
    If they wanted it to pass, it would. 90 or so of them did not vote for it. That amazes me.

    Parent
    95 Dems at last count (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:37:07 PM EST
    as it kept edging up.  Some are switching for the record?  What a herd of cats.  

    Parent
    A herd of scaredy cats, as a child would say. (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Angel on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:46:37 PM EST
    If your constituents... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:41:28 PM EST
    don't want a bill passed, you're supposed to vote against it.  

    Now maybe myself and others who are anti-bailout are uninformed proles who don't know what is good for us, I readily accept that distinct possibility.  Regardless, our reps are supposed to represent us, which means voting the way we like.  If the D's and R's who voted against voted as the majority of their constituents would have, they have done their job....right or wrong, economic disaster or no economic disaster.

    Parent

    lol (none / 0) (#36)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:44:34 PM EST
    thats fine, I say don't pass it anymore, let everyone who is against it, lead the way on this.

    when the U.S enters a great depression, we will turn to people like you and ask so then what?

    lol if your constiutuents wanted you to vote to start a nuclear war should you also vote for that?

    Parent

    kdog (none / 0) (#47)
    by Faust on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:49:00 PM EST
    is cool with a societal collapse. It's because he's thinking of the next generation.

    Parent
    We shall see... (none / 0) (#80)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:58:13 PM EST
    If the doomsday threats from the halls of money and power come to fruition.

    As you may have guessed, I have my doubts.

    Besides, I thought we weren't supposed to waver in the face of a terrorist threat?  As far as I'm concerned, Paulson's "700 billion or else" is extortionist economic terrorism.

    One way or the other, I'm gonna eat...aren't y'all?

    Parent

    My only question (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Faust on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:08:58 PM EST
    is whether the bullet in the gun being held to our heads is real or not. You're betting it isn't real or that if it is real you can take the hit.

    Very brave (or reckless of you) but some of us aren't interested in taking that bet.

    Parent

    Wasn't there a gun (none / 0) (#132)
    by DJ on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:18:11 PM EST
    being held to our heads with regards to the Iraq war?  How did that go for you?

    Parent
    This is a very stupid (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:29:12 PM EST
    false parallel.  The information about what's happening in the financial system is out there in the open for all to see.  That's why the business reporters-- note I say reporters, not opinion columnists-- are nearly unanimous that we are in big fat trouble without this bill or something very like it.

    Whether getting something done next week will be in time is not clear.  It will take Treasury a couple of weeks after authorization to be able to start acting as it is.

    Parent

    President Bush (none / 0) (#171)
    by DJ on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:35:21 PM EST
    and the former CEO of Goldman-Sachs are saying this has to be done now, right now.  These are not people I trust to look out for my interests.  

    Parent
    I Agree (none / 0) (#195)
    by SteveSyracuse on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:54:58 PM EST
    When the Bush Administration cries wolf...I just cry.

    The market is going down because the financial folks are going to lose money!  Because they made bad investments. The Dow losing 10% doesnt mean there will be a Depression...it just means the value of these companies was overstated.

    Dow is down 630 right now...less than 7%.

    Parent

    The Dow is a side issue (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:01:06 PM EST
    Wall Street itself is a side issue.

    When are you going to go study up on what's going on here and what the bill was intended to address instead of just continuing to spout irrelevant nonsense?

    Parent

    What, are you assuming that all of us who.... (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:31:01 PM EST
    ....think we need a bailout were hoodwinked into supporting the Iraq war? I sure wasn't. There is no equivalence.

    Parent
    In January and February 2003, (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:00:29 PM EST
    I sure thought it was odd the inspectors weren't finding any WMD--even tough Saddam Hussein had by all accounts stopped impeding the inspectors.....

    There are too many leftists that think this meltdown is an "opportunity" for getting a lot of progressive stuff passed....But it could careen the other way too....

    Stop gambling with people's life savings and lives...

    Parent

    Laughable parallel. (none / 0) (#165)
    by Faust on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:32:18 PM EST
    Fear was used to get us in to Iraq. (none / 0) (#175)
    by DJ on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:37:49 PM EST
    Fear is being used now.  

    Parent
    Another Victim of the Iraq Invasion... (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by santarita on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:45:29 PM EST
    credibility.

    We'll muddle through this.  Of course, people may lose a substantial part of  their pensions and 401 ks.  But there are always soup kitchens.

    Parent

    I need to lose some weight anyway (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:01:30 PM EST
    Don't worry, be happy....

    Parent
    Not to mention (5.00 / 3) (#207)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:02:39 PM EST
    Iraq ends with the letter Q, and so does NASDAQ.  Good arguments being made today.

    Parent
    Yeah.... (none / 0) (#184)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:42:40 PM EST
    it appears that those who think the gun is real, cocked, and loaded would rather borrow 700 billion to just make it go away until another day, pointed at the temple at their kids, grand kids, or great grand kids.  And there will be no money left for them to borrow.

    Parent
    That's just silly, kdog (none / 0) (#209)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:03:40 PM EST
    Nobody thinks this would end up costing anything close to $700 billion, and there's a good chance it would end up making a profit for the Treasury after a few years.

    You're just doing your own fear mongering.

    Parent

    Well, watch the Dow... (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by santarita on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:21:11 PM EST
    down 641 now.

    And how many banks will be left standing?

    Parent

    well (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by connecticut yankee on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:53:26 PM EST
    Each goes up alone to face the music in their districts. Many dems are from conservative areas.

    The republicans are clearly trying to act like children who arent responsible for paying the bills.  In a situation like this, when the vote numbers are front page news and everyone can see how many R votes opposed it,  I dont know if that helps them.

    Parent

    I expected my Congressperson, Bilbray, (none / 0) (#107)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:07:09 PM EST
    to vote "naye."  I didn't expect Bob Filner, D, to vote against it.  But he did.  

    Parent
    She said that she insisted on (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:58:08 PM EST
    bipartisan support.  My guess is that as the Republicans dropped out -- they voted 2-1 against -- some of the Dems dropped out.

    Parent
    A dozen Dems would have done it (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:39:33 PM EST
    That's all it needed to pass, a dozen Dems switching to aye.  Pelosi has to explain that.

    Parent
    I'm eager to find out (none / 0) (#13)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:35:42 PM EST
    who those Dems. are.  My rep had better not be one of them.


    Parent
    Roll Call Vote (none / 0) (#57)
    by The Maven on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:51:31 PM EST
    can be found here.  Ignore the wacky title, as an earlier procedural vote makes it clearer that it was "consideration of the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3997, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008".  Of the 205 votes in favor, 140 were Democrats and 65 Republicans; of the 228 against, there were 95 Dems and 133 GOPers.

    Parent
    The GOP (none / 0) (#20)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:37:44 PM EST
    fiscal ideology tied with GOP completely control of the government got us here,

    and the Democrats should be the ones to pass it so that the GOP can run against any dem that did pass it?

    yeah no, if they don't wanna stick their necks out then why should we, the country already blames the GOP for this mess, so the GOP can go on TV while the Dow is down 550 pts and say,

    its not our faults, sure we got you into this mess, but hey the dems couldn't have passed it alone, so dont blame us because we wouldn't vote to pass it.

    I want them to do that sooo bad

    Parent

    typo (none / 0) (#23)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:38:54 PM EST
    could have passed it on their own.

    but i never for an instance thought they should. if the bailout wasn't good enough for the GOP to join the Dems in passing, then let it fail and the GOP can take their chances with what comes next.

    especially when the country already blames them for this.

    Parent

    What did Jon Stewart call it last week? (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by ruffian on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:44:31 PM EST
    Cluster*%#@ to the Poor House


    Parent
    When the GOP wouldn't join (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by hairspray on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:16:10 PM EST
    the Democrats in passing Clinton's tax increase in '93, he simply passed it without them.  It was brilliant, although the GOP are still howling about it.  Why don't the Dems just get some Clinton courage, craft the bill they want and vote for it?  Sure they will have to take their lumps but so did Clinton.  Do the right thing Dems, and quit waiting for the GOP so you can all hang together.

    Parent
    And in '94, the Republicans (none / 0) (#138)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:19:26 PM EST
    took control of the House--that is what House members remember...

    Parent
    I doubt that it will happen this time (none / 0) (#158)
    by hairspray on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:28:51 PM EST
    In '94 the Dems had been in power for over 35 years and there was a rise in anti-incumbency and all that "smaller govt and lower taxes" GOP  crap etc.  Today the public is tired of the Republicans but I don't see strong leadership from the Democrats saying "look we've got to save the country, so lets do it and let the chips fall where they may"  that is what BC did and while he paid for it the country really prospered.  He did the right thing for the right reasons.  Pelosi is doing her job for bipartisanship and it isn't working.  Wrong reason IMHO.

    Parent
    We now return you (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:32:09 PM EST
    to your regularly scheduled Palinblogging...

    I'm ready for more Palin blogging (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:03:35 PM EST
    Living in denial has its advantages....

    Parent
    Did anyone actually see (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:37:09 PM EST
    this infamous speech by Pelosi?

    I caught the tail end of her comments (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:39:51 PM EST
    at 12:30, but I'm not sure if that was her speech they're talking about. I don't remember what she said, but it seemed to fit the theme I was hearing from those after her which was "bad bill, must pass" with a few exceptions.

    Parent
    I heard it on the radio (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by ruffian on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:40:43 PM EST
    It was partisan - blamed the Republican policies for why we are in this mess.  Which is true.

    A bit unwise as it turns out to say it in that forum and then ask them to vote with you.

    Parent

    Nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:41:48 PM EST
    CNN played Pelosi's speech. It was "the party is over" line from yesterday, nothing new.

    Repubs using Pelosi as scapegoat, plain and simple.

    Parent

    93 dems (none / 0) (#77)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:57:41 PM EST
    voted against as well.

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:48:50 PM EST
    Republicans are out in the spin room blaming a partisan speech by Pelosi, but I have no idea what she said.  

    Parent
    The Republicans' feelings were hurt (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by CouldBeTrue on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:58:10 PM EST
    So they voted against the bill.  That's what the Republican leadership essentially said.  Didn't matter whether or not the bill was good.  Didn't matter whether or not the economy would go into a nosedive.  Nope.  Just that their feelings were hurt.

    These are the Phil Gramm Republicans.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#146)
    by TheRealFrank on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:23:40 PM EST
    Maybe Pelosi's speech was ill-timed, but when you're an elected representative, you're supposed to act like an adult who puts country above having your feelings hurt.

    "country first", remember?


    Parent

    Republicans never tried (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:25:22 PM EST
    to corral Dem votes by calling them unpatriotic, did they?  ;-p

    Parent
    Dems should now implement HOLC all by istelf (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by ruffian on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:38:58 PM EST


    No wonder (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:43:45 PM EST
    Congress has such a terrible approval rating. This is just election grandstanding and the ones doing it should get burnt for it.

    I'm no ecomomist but isn't there a point where the downward spiral will become impossible to stop?

    market settling around 10600 (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:44:44 PM EST
    About where it was when Shrub was elected.

    Irony is not dead.

    From watching the coverage (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:47:51 PM EST
    it is clear to me that the Republicans see this as a God-given opportunity for anti-Pelosi demagoguery.  It seems like the Democrats went back to work and the Republicans went straight for the TV cameras.

    What is less clear to me is whether people who are disappointed over the failure of the bailout will prefer to blame Pelosi for giving a partisan speech or to blame Republicans for voting against a critical bill over something as petty as a partisan speech.

    Blaming it on a speech is just (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:53:26 PM EST
    mind boggling after all that's been said in the lead up as to why we must pass this NOW!!!!

    Are their any adults around?

    Parent

    It appears to me... (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by CoralGables on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:55:21 PM EST
    those same Republicans rushed out to jump before the cameras in a very partisan manner...forgetting that they didn't vote against Pelosi, they voted against a Bush proposal.

    Parent
    I also blame ideologues on the left (4.20 / 5) (#58)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:51:46 PM EST
    whose populist BS kept lots of Democrats from supporting the compromise.

    Parent
    I blame Markos. (5.00 / 5) (#96)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:02:47 PM EST
    But then, I always blame Markos.

    Parent
    You can put a lot of blame on Krugman (none / 0) (#216)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:11:07 PM EST
    too.  He finally grudgingly came around, but only after he'd stirred up most of the left blogosphere against it.  Now there's real leadership!


    Parent
    MSNBC. . . (none / 0) (#59)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:51:52 PM EST
    coming down hard on Republican House members.

    Parent
    I don't know why (1.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:58:30 PM EST
    dems have the numbers to pass this without any of the evil republicans.  Pelosi can't keep them in line.  

    Parent
    MSNBC coming down in Republicans? (none / 0) (#83)
    by stefystef on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:58:43 PM EST
    That ain't news.

    What a friggin mess!

    Parent

    So how (none / 0) (#62)
    by Faust on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:52:02 PM EST
    many Dems voted no and how many Republicans?

    Parent
    I think a lot of people are not buying it (none / 0) (#86)
    by blogtopus on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:59:23 PM EST
    Who is the party that controls the money in this country? The party of business?

    It ain't the Dems, and most everybody knows it. Good for Pelosi on reminding everyone of that.

    What a joke, the GOP on tv trying to spin that they WANTED to help the nation, but those darn Dems weren't allowing all the loopholes for the guys who started this in the first place.

    Look for an executive order soon.

    Parent

    Awww - bullcrap. You all are running around (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by scribe on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:51:21 PM EST
    like the panicked animals they want you to be.

    A brief look at the chart for today tells me
    that the drop is pretty much over - maybe another 100 points to go in the short, 2-3 day run.

    The way one can tell is that trading range (that more-or-less horizontal band where the trading stayed between some highs and some lows) this morning.  It broke downward once the vote became final, and then went down to the longer-term trend line (which is heading down and to the right, but out of scale on the minute by minute charts).  Trading ranges are inherently unstable and prices will move - often quite rapidly - from
    the range to meet the longer-term trend, because the ranges mark a cycling of market psychology.  People want to get in, or get out, and the prices stay stuck until that demand is exhausted.  That demand is exhausted either when all the position changers have changed or when participants believe events have made it necessary to change their position.  So, there is almost always a discrete event which, post hoc, can be pointed to as the trigger for the break.  Not that there is a true cause and
    effect relationship, but people see one looking backward 'cause they're looking for one.

    What this all really means (and would be the fine topic for a course in technical analysis of the markets) is that the market is acting exactly as it should, and no one should be getting all bent out of shape.  All of the hype is shock and awe intended to scare people into voting to push a couple hundred billion dollars into the pockets of the titans of Wall Street, and should not be believed.  

    Nor should it be acted upon.


    You're right (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Faust on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:02:03 PM EST
    nothing to worry about here. Oh wait:

    Roubini:

    The next step of this panic could become the mother of all bank runs, i.e. a run on the trillion dollar plus of the cross border short-term interbank liabilities of the US banking and financial system as foreign banks as starting to worry about the safety of their liquid exposures to US financial institutions; such a silent cross border bank run has already started as foreign banks are worried about the solvency of US banks and are starting to reduce their exposure. And if this run accelerates - as it may now - a total meltdown of the US financial system could occur. We are thus now in a generalized panic mode and back to the risk of a systemic meltdown of the entire financial system. And US and foreign policy authorities seem to be clueless about what needs to be done next. Maybe they should today start with a coordinated 100 bps reduction in policy rates in all the major economies in the world to show that they are starting to seriously recognize and address this rapidly worsening financial crisis.

    Roubini is NOT a fan of the TARP plan as currently constitued. However, there is plenty of reason for concern and fear about what's comming. It way be that this plan would have made things worse or made no difference, but castigating people for being extremely nervous in a time of historical economic chaos like this is a bit silly imo.

    I am not a market expert so I can only go on arguments for authority, but when people like Krugman suggest that a bill like this sucks but should be passed I'm inclined to agree for the short term.

    You seriously think everything is going to be fine if nothing is done? How long do we have to come up with a better plan than TARP? How long until the markets start seriously collapsing?

    These are not rhetorical questions if you think you've got answers I'm happy to listen.

    Parent

    Republican Excuses... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by santarita on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:51:27 PM EST
    Pelosi did get a few partisan jabs in there.  But come on, were the Republicans letting their emotions get in the way of doing the right thing.  Stop hiding behind such bs.  If They either supported the bill or opposed it for purely emotional reasons, they don't deserve to be in Congress.

    McCain hoped this would happen (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by lawyerjim on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:54:09 PM EST
    Now there is another crisis so we have to cancel the Vice Presidential Debate.

    McCain (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:20:43 PM EST
    will once again return to DC to not take a stand.

    Barney Frank: the number of deeply offended Republicans were enough to pass the bill.

    Pelosi: she and Boner had agreed that the bill would be passed 50-50 by Dems and Republicans. Dems had 2/3 of caucus vote aye; 2/3 of Republicans voted nay.

    Emmanuel: as you increased homeowners' ability to continue to pay mortgages, value of mortgages bought by government would improve and increase value of taxpayers' investment.

    Parent

    This is (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:54:09 PM EST
    why you don't try to cut deals with the GOP. No post partisan crap. No bipartisan crap. If it needs to be done, do it. Forget about the GOP. Quit blaming them and take responsibility.

    ha! (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by connecticut yankee on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:01:49 PM EST
    The dems delivered well over half of their votes. 130+ The gop didnt even come close to half their members.  

    Heres one GOP member saying what happened:

    "We're all worried about losing our jobs," Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., declared in an impassioned speech in support of the bill before the vote. "Most of us say, 'I want this thing to pass, but I want you to vote for it -- not me.' "


    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:03:36 PM EST
    the same thing goes for them. We are in such need of leadership in this country it's not even funny. No one is delivering it. Pathetic.

    Parent
    Now we'll see if Armageddon occurs (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by SteveSyracuse on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:04:20 PM EST
    I was vehemently against this bailout bill and felt that more debate and discussion of alternatives were needed. I guess I will find out. Dow is down 5%, but it will bounce back. My company's stock (insurance) is down about 1%.

    I am glad for the slowdown of this plan. I think it rewards bad behavior and will NOT correct the situation in the long run. Let's try not to just throw (borrowed) money at the problem.

    If we let some of the institutions who invested in these toxic securities fail, then our local banks, which have tended NOT to invest in them (my  bank actually HOLDS my mortgage), can step up.

    Anyone have a link to the actual vote? I want to see what my Congressman did.

    I see the vote tally up there (none / 0) (#112)
    by SteveSyracuse on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:08:21 PM EST
    My Congressman voted YES...against my wishes. Hmmm.

    Parent
    My neighborhood bank (none / 0) (#133)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:18:21 PM EST
    also holds every mortgage it approves.  Nothing wrong with that, other than many with shaky financial histories do not qualify with them.  Nothing wrong with that.

    Parent
    The other thing wrong with it (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:29:06 PM EST
    is that refusing to participate in the secondary market sharply limits the amount of available capital they have to lend to other worthy recipients.  Now, if they happen to have enough capital to lend to every single applicant except the clearly unacceptable ones, good for them.

    One of my colleagues tell me that in Australia, there is a legal prohibition against reselling mortgages in the secondary market, and as a result it is incredibly difficult for middle-class people to buy a home because all the lenders reserve their funds for only the very safest borrowers.  So you can go too far to one extreme or the other.

    Parent

    Do they think a Depression (5.00 / 4) (#117)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:09:30 PM EST
    will hurt them less than the fat cats?

    Honestly, I don't know what people are thinkin... (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by stefystef on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:52:37 PM EST
    I thought the plan wasn't a bad start.

    It was only releasing $250 billion and the rest of the money would be distributed after reports to Congress and another vote.  And restrictions on the "golden parachutes".   So in the end, it might not be a full $700 billion going to bail out Wall Street.

    I don't want to bail them out, but I don't want a total collapse either.  It wouldn't just be the American financial markets, this thing is global, baby.

    Global!

    Parent

    these wussy congresspeople (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by kenosharick on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:55:42 PM EST
    who gave in to the overwhelming number of calls against the bailout are "giving the people what they want" I guess. Unfortunately the vast majority of these callers know nothing about financial markets.

    Parent
    ha (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by connecticut yankee on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:17:15 PM EST
    Frank just made the room laugh by alluding to the hurt feelings by saying,  "Tell me who those 12 republicans are with hurt feelings and I will go up to them and speak uncharacteristically nice to them if it will get their votes".

    He also mocked them for punishing the country over their hurt feelings.

    He got a pretty good laugh from the press.

    Yup (none / 0) (#135)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:19:03 PM EST
    I'm still quite frankly shocked. (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by tigercourse on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:25:28 PM EST
    I was sure they would pass this legislation. The need for it is so obvious. Ever last person who voted against it voted in favor of a depression.

    Replaying Pelosi now. It is a pretty nasty (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Teresa on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:26:02 PM EST
    speech when you need the other side with you.

    Moron Republicans (4.00 / 2) (#8)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:34:47 PM EST
    are trying to blame Nancy Pelosi because she gave a "partisan speech" on the floor.  The tender little Republicans apparently got their feelings hurt and felt they therefore couldn't vote to rescue the financial system.

    Lamest excuse I've ever heard (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:35:30 PM EST
    It is pretty funny... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by CoralGables on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:43:44 PM EST
    that the GOP is trying to blame Pelosi when the GOP doesn't vote for something that Bush wanted. If the Republicans in the House don't want it, then maybe the Republicans should blame Bush for putting us in this situation.

    Or maybe it's McCain's fault. He rode in on his horse to get it passed and left town with his side still voting against it.

    Parent

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:50:43 PM EST
    Like the Republicans never made partisan speeches about Democrats who didn't want to vote for whatever outrage they wanted to pass.

    Tweety now on TV excoriating Republicans who acted like "tender little flowers" who got their feelings hurt, and therefore changed their vote.

    Parent

    Barney Frank (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:15:08 PM EST
    is now saying he never would have believed that Republicans would say they were willing to punish the country because they feelings were hurt.

    Parent
    Frank is great (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:17:13 PM EST
    Unbelievable how sleazy the Republican leadership is being about this.

    Parent
    Are you kidding? (none / 0) (#134)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:18:58 PM EST
    It's not unbelievable to me after watching what they did for six years when they had control. Pelosi should have known better than try to deal with these people in good faith. Ugh, do they never learn?

    Parent
    Oh, let's be clear: (none / 0) (#139)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:19:33 PM EST
    The Republicans sure didn't help themselves today.

    Parent
    They sure (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:44:53 PM EST
    didn't but neither did the dems. This is what happens imo when there's no leadership.

    Parent
    Unity my A## (none / 0) (#189)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:47:30 PM EST
    And Obama thinks that he's going to be able to work with them! What a pathetic joke. The Republican's will do everything in their power to assure that his administration goes down in flames.

    Parent
    Idiot (1.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:59:45 PM EST
    dems could have passed this without any republicans.  What happened?

    Parent
    ya (none / 0) (#48)
    by connecticut yankee on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:50:02 PM EST
    Its a real bs response, Im sure they will change the message.

    "Our feelings are hurt", isnt really a strong message.

    Parent

    They should check with Newt Gingrich (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by KeysDan on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:06:25 PM EST
    when his feelings were hurt when not seated up front on Air Force One by President Clinton, and caused a governmental train wreck in revenge.  How did that work out for them?

    Parent
    Well, it did give them (none / 0) (#125)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:14:11 PM EST
    the Lewinsky mess. Monica's initial "subtle, flirtatious gesture" of flashing her thong occurred when she was bringing Clinton pizza during the government shutdown.

    Parent
    In retrospect (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:25:56 PM EST
    The Monica thing is so freaking sexist, I mean it basically removes the idea of Female Agency.

    Parent
    Nostalgia (none / 0) (#210)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:04:33 PM EST
    After what has transpired in the last 8 yrs.

    Causualties:
    Preemtive War
    The Constitution
    All Government Agencies
    The Economy

    Monica seems like a fond memory!

    Parent

    Pelosi is being blamed (2.00 / 1) (#22)
    by MoveThatBus on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:38:11 PM EST
    for giving a partisan speech just before the vote.

    I look forward to hearing Obama's reaction to this. He worked so hard, and deserved to see a solid backing at least from the Democrats in the House. How could his own party let him down like they did?


    Worked so hard? (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:41:14 PM EST
    What?  He wouldn't even say whether he supported the dam bill or not.  Good grief.


    Parent
    well (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by connecticut yankee on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:51:11 PM EST
    He worked hard to get a position.  Just couldnt manage it.

    Parent
    Hah!! (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:06:25 PM EST
    Good one!

    THere go the people.  I am their leader, I must follow them.

    Gonna be another great four years, huh?

    Parent

    Well, the voting list looked like a repeat (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by MoveThatBus on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:56:51 PM EST
    of who's who in the SuperDelegate piles. Unity in the party is looking mighty grim.


    Parent
    Obama said he favored it (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:51:17 PM EST
    It was McCain who kept dodging the question.

    Parent
    But didn't 90 some Dems vote against it? (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:56:26 PM EST
    WTF? Didn't Pelosi even have a clue about this? That's what stuns me.

    Parent
    I'm sure she had a clue (none / 0) (#85)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:59:14 PM EST
    but it was pretty well established that they had to vote on it today.  So they took the best bill they could come up with and took a shot at it.

    I expect to see a new vote in relatively short order, maybe tomorrow morning.  Perhaps they will figure out what they can tweak to pick up a few more votes, or maybe they'll just wait for Congressmen to get angry calls from all their constituents whose retirement savings just plummeted due to the vote.

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#111)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:07:58 PM EST
    CNN sez Republican House members are already leaving for the break.

    Parent
    Well then (none / 0) (#122)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:13:00 PM EST
    time for the BTD solution, I reckon.

    I'm surprised to see a couple Republicans from North Jersey on the no list.  That's going to upset a lot of financial industry constituents.

    Parent

    according to pelosi (none / 0) (#126)
    by kimsaw on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:14:14 PM EST
    they cut a deal to bring a half and half vote to this bill, a bipartisan bill so they all could have cover. This is bad leadership from both sides. The Dems could have passed this bill, they didn't need the support of Republicans... they wanted to political cover, they have no interest in working on behalf of the American people, anymore than Republicans do. This is pathetic.

    Parent
    60% of Dems voted yes (none / 0) (#129)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:16:26 PM EST
    30% of Republicans voted yes.

    So Pelosi had better control of her caucus than Boner did. And I suspect that some Dems peeled off once it became apparent that the Republicans weren't going to deliver.

    Parent

    Obama never really said much about it (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by stefystef on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:00:11 PM EST
    Other than, we need change in the White House to change the system, blah, blah, blah.

    Obama really didn't agree to it, only to say he would look it over.

    Parent

    ha (none / 0) (#70)
    by connecticut yankee on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:55:44 PM EST
    Yeah, I thought they were talking about McCain. Obama has been pretty clear.

    Parent
    Obama's been pretty clear? (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by stefystef on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:47:09 PM EST
    Remind me again what he said?  I just heard "change" and "asset the plan".  I haven't heard one suggestion from Obama except to say the plan should help middle America.

    That's pretty clear of being ambivalent.

    Parent

    When did he say that? (none / 0) (#108)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:07:15 PM EST
    Last I heard from him last night was he hadn't made up his mind.

    Parent
    He took (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:57:19 PM EST
    "credit" for "making it happen" during one of the sunday talk shows.

    Parent
    He took credit for (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:09:20 PM EST
    making the changes in the bill, but still wouldn't say he supported it, was what I heard.

    Great leader, right out front there, taking a stand, leading the people.


    Parent

    Major Garrett is about to share why (none / 0) (#213)
    by MoveThatBus on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:06:51 PM EST
    Obama is going to look very good after this.

    Parent
    Worked hard jockeying for position yesterday (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Angel on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:54:35 PM EST
    trying to take credit for it! That's about all I've seen him do.  And now the thing has failed in the house.  What's his new line going to be?  

    Parent
    You people need to take a nap. (1.00 / 2) (#142)
    by JSN on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:21:22 PM EST


    Should be "for consideration again" (none / 0) (#3)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:31:02 PM EST
    not "against," I bet.  They already went against it.

    Now, who will be the sacrificial lamb who voted "nay" but asks to bring it back?

    Someone switched at the very last (none / 0) (#215)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:10:47 PM EST
    moment from yea to nea....

    Parent
    What is scary (none / 0) (#7)
    by kenosharick on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:33:35 PM EST
    is that the "expert commentators" on the news channels and the leaders on the floor seem as confused as I am.

    Roy Blunt (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:34:58 PM EST
    is trying to blame Pelosi for killing the bill by being too partisan. heh.

    And the Jewish Holidays. n/t (none / 0) (#14)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:35:57 PM EST
    They've got Eric Cantor out in front (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:38:02 PM EST
    perhaps for just that reason.

    Parent
    Nah (none / 0) (#39)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:45:33 PM EST
    It's all the Republican leadership.  Cantor is, I believe, the #3 guy.

    Parent
    Well yeah, buuuut (none / 0) (#44)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:47:46 PM EST
    Eric Cantor (none / 0) (#61)
    by shoephone on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:52:00 PM EST
    will have a lot to atone for this Yom Kippur.

    Parent
    Boehner is Now Blaming Pelosi... (none / 0) (#10)
    by santarita on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:35:06 PM EST
    for giving a bi-partisan speech.

    Amazing.

    I meant "partisan". (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by santarita on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:36:11 PM EST
    Face-saving, grandstanding idjits.

    Parent
    Blaming Pelosi (none / 0) (#17)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:37:01 PM EST
    for giving a partisan speech, not a bi-partisan speech.  They aren't quite that stupid, although they're close.

    Cantor is now waving a transcript of Pelosi's speech around.

    Parent

    Oh, no (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:59:33 PM EST
    I hate it when the majority makes partisan speeches.  Good thing the Republicans never accused Democrats of being unpatriotic when they didn't want to agree to the Republicans wanted to do when they were in the majority.

    Parent
    I'm in an office with financial guys. . . (none / 0) (#12)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:35:40 PM EST
    they're saying down by 1,000 by the end of the day.  Apparently they're about to reopen trading on Wachovia.

    The Republicans are saying it was a partisan (none / 0) (#16)
    by gish720 on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:36:21 PM EST
    speech given by Nancy Pelosi that caused the failure.

    Ignoring the bipartisan speech (none / 0) (#25)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:38:59 PM EST
    by Barney Frank.  It was good and impassioned.

    This is going out of the way to get Pelosi.  Now, she has seemed d*mned high-handed to me.  Has she been that way in the House, and even with her own?

    Parent

    Frank (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:43:20 PM EST
    was wonderful. Somebody hurt your feelngs so you punish the country?

    Parent
    Pelosi's speech wasn't THAT bad (none / 0) (#49)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:50:06 PM EST
    ... but it was inadvisably and unnecessarily bad. I thought "uh-oh"when I heard the line about right-wing ideology.

    Frank was gracious on the floor today, but pointlessly acid-tongued over the past week. Consequences, consequences.

    Not many grown-ups out there. Capitalism failed, and so did Democracy.

    Parent

    and that was an ad-lib. great. just great. (none / 0) (#144)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:22:25 PM EST
    The fiscal conservatives were against this from (none / 0) (#26)
    by gish720 on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:39:49 PM EST
    the get go.

    Roll Call (none / 0) (#31)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:42:09 PM EST
    Thanks! (none / 0) (#37)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:44:40 PM EST
    Unfortunately, everybody seems to be looking up their rep's vote and the site is overloaded.  Can't get to it.

    Parent
    Here's everything: (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:45:58 PM EST
    ---- AYES    205 ---

    Ackerman
    Allen
    Andrews
    Arcuri
    Bachus
    Baird
    Baldwin
    Bean
    Berman
    Berry
    Bishop (GA)
    Bishop (NY)
    Blunt
    Boehner
    Bonner
    Bono Mack
    Boozman
    Boren
    Boswell
    Boucher
    Boyd (FL)
    Brady (PA)
    Brady (TX)
    Brown (SC)
    Brown, Corrine
    Calvert
    Camp (MI)
    Campbell (CA)
    Cannon
    Cantor
    Capps
    Capuano
    Cardoza
    Carnahan
    Castle
    Clarke
    Clyburn
    Cohen
    Cole (OK)
    Cooper
    Costa
    Cramer
    Crenshaw
    Crowley
    Cubin
    Davis (AL)
    Davis (CA)
    Davis (IL)
    Davis, Tom
    DeGette
    DeLauro
    Dicks
    Dingell
    Donnelly
    Doyle
    Dreier
    Edwards (TX)
    Ehlers
    Ellison
    Ellsworth
    Emanuel
    Emerson
    Engel
    Eshoo
    Etheridge
    Everett
    Farr
    Fattah
    Ferguson
    Fossella
    Foster
    Frank (MA)
    Gilchrest
    Gonzalez
    Gordon
    Granger
    Gutierrez
    Hall (NY)
    Hare
    Harman
    Hastings (FL)
    Herger
    Higgins
    Hinojosa
    Hobson
    Holt
    Honda
    Hooley
    Hoyer
    Inglis (SC)
    Israel
    Johnson, E. B.
    Kanjorski
    Kennedy
    Kildee
    Kind
    King (NY)
    Kirk
    Klein (FL)
    Kline (MN)
    LaHood
    Langevin
    Larsen (WA)
    Larson (CT)
    Levin
    Lewis (CA)
    Lewis (KY)
    Loebsack
    Lofgren, Zoe
    Lowey
    Lungren, Daniel E.
    Mahoney (FL)
    Maloney (NY)
    Markey
    Marshall
    Matsui
    McCarthy (NY)
    McCollum (MN)
    McCrery
    McDermott
    McGovern
    McHugh
    McKeon
    McNerney
    McNulty
    Meek (FL)
    Meeks (NY)
    Melancon
    Miller (NC)
    Miller, Gary
    Miller, George
    Mollohan
    Moore (KS)
    Moore (WI)
    Moran (VA)
    Murphy (CT)
    Murphy, Patrick
    Murtha
    Nadler
    Neal (MA)
    Oberstar
    Obey
    Olver
    Pallone
    Pelosi
    Perlmutter
    Peterson (PA)
    Pickering
    Pomeroy
    Porter
    Price (NC)
    Pryce (OH)
    Putnam
    Radanovich
    Rahall
    Rangel
    Regula
    Reyes
    Reynolds
    Richardson
    Rogers (AL)
    Rogers (KY)
    Ross
    Ruppersberger
    Ryan (OH)
    Ryan (WI)
    Sarbanes
    Saxton
    Schakowsky
    Schwartz
    Sessions
    Sestak
    Shays
    Simpson
    Sires
    Skelton
    Slaughter
    Smith (TX)
    Smith (WA)
    Snyder
    Souder
    Space
    Speier
    Spratt
    Tancredo
    Tanner
    Tauscher
    Towns
    Tsongas
    Upton
    Van Hollen
    Velázquez
    Walden (OR)
    Walsh (NY)
    Wasserman Schultz
    Waters
    Watt
    Waxman
    Weiner
    Weldon (FL)
    Wexler
    Wilson (NM)
    Wilson (OH)
    Wilson (SC)
    Wolf

    ---- NOES    228 ---

    Abercrombie
    Aderholt
    Akin
    Alexander
    Altmire
    Baca
    Bachmann
    Barrett (SC)
    Barrow
    Bartlett (MD)
    Barton (TX)
    Becerra
    Berkley
    Biggert
    Bilbray
    Bilirakis
    Bishop (UT)
    Blackburn
    Blumenauer
    Boustany
    Boyda (KS)
    Braley (IA)
    Broun (GA)
    Brown-Waite, Ginny
    Buchanan
    Burgess
    Burton (IN)
    Butterfield
    Buyer
    Capito
    Carney
    Carson
    Carter
    Castor
    Cazayoux
    Chabot
    Chandler
    Childers
    Clay
    Cleaver
    Coble
    Conaway
    Conyers
    Costello
    Courtney
    Cuellar
    Culberson
    Cummings
    Davis (KY)
    Davis, David
    Davis, Lincoln
    Deal (GA)
    DeFazio
    Delahunt
    Dent
    Diaz-Balart, L.
    Diaz-Balart, M.
    Doggett
    Doolittle
    Drake
    Duncan
    Edwards (MD)
    English (PA)
    Fallin
    Feeney
    Filner
    Flake
    Forbes
    Fortenberry
    Foxx
    Franks (AZ)
    Frelinghuysen
    Gallegly
    Garrett (NJ)
    Gerlach
    Giffords
    Gillibrand
    Gingrey
    Gohmert
    Goode
    Goodlatte
    Graves
    Green, Al
    Green, Gene
    Grijalva
    Hall (TX)
    Hastings (WA)
    Hayes
    Heller
    Hensarling
    Herseth Sandlin
    Hill
    Hinchey
    Hirono
    Hodes
    Hoekstra
    Holden
    Hulshof
    Hunter
    Inslee
    Issa
    Jackson (IL)
    Jackson-Lee (TX)
    Jefferson
    Johnson (GA)
    Johnson (IL)
    Johnson, Sam
    Jones (NC)
    Jordan
    Kagen
    Kaptur
    Keller
    Kilpatrick
    King (IA)
    Kingston
    Knollenberg
    Kucinich
    Kuhl (NY)
    Lamborn
    Lampson
    Latham
    LaTourette
    Latta
    Lee
    Lewis (GA)
    Linder
    Lipinski
    LoBiondo
    Lucas
    Lynch
    Mack
    Manzullo
    Marchant
    Matheson
    McCarthy (CA)
    McCaul (TX)
    McCotter
    McHenry
    McIntyre
    McMorris Rodgers
    Mica
    Michaud
    Miller (FL)
    Miller (MI)
    Mitchell
    Moran (KS)
    Murphy, Tim
    Musgrave
    Myrick
    Napolitano
    Neugebauer
    Nunes
    Ortiz
    Pascrell
    Pastor
    Paul
    Payne
    Pearce
    Pence
    Peterson (MN)
    Petri
    Pitts
    Platts
    Poe
    Price (GA)
    Ramstad
    Rehberg
    Reichert
    Renzi
    Rodriguez
    Rogers (MI)
    Rohrabacher
    Ros-Lehtinen
    Roskam
    Rothman
    Roybal-Allard
    Royce
    Rush
    Salazar
    Sali
    Sánchez, Linda T.
    Sanchez, Loretta
    Scalise
    Schiff
    Schmidt
    Scott (GA)
    Scott (VA)
    Sensenbrenner
    Serrano
    Shadegg
    Shea-Porter
    Sherman
    Shimkus
    Shuler
    Shuster
    Smith (NE)
    Smith (NJ)
    Solis
    Stark
    Stearns
    Stupak
    Sullivan
    Sutton
    Taylor
    Terry
    Thompson (CA)
    Thompson (MS)
    Thornberry
    Tiahrt
    Tiberi
    Tierney
    Turner
    Udall (CO)
    Udall (NM)
    Visclosky
    Walberg
    Walz (MN)
    Wamp
    Watson
    Welch (VT)
    Westmoreland
    Whitfield (KY)
    Wittman (VA)
    Woolsey
    Wu
    Yarmuth
    Young (AK)
    Young (FL)

    ---- NOT VOTING    1 ---

    Weller




    Parent
    It seems to be mostly liberals voting (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by tigercourse on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:50:47 PM EST
    for it and conservatives voting against it. I wonder what Kos will do now?

    Parent
    My exact thought. Looks like the Blue Dogs (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Teresa on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:58:49 PM EST
    (or Bush dogs as Kos called them) are safe from being primaried. He's gonna go after the liberal ones now. I wonder if he'll change his tune?

    Parent
    He'll just start calling Tammy Baldwin a (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by tigercourse on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:03:36 PM EST
    conservative stooge.

    Parent
    DK is mostly cheering (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:01:58 PM EST
    and insisting on more CEO punishment.  Like that is going to loosen up the credit markets.

    Dow dropped 700 points at one point, second largest intraday drop in history. The response: who needs 401-Ks!

    Parent

    Mob rule today (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:05:25 PM EST
    And just when (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:23:36 PM EST
    Obama had convinced me in the debates that I didn't have to vote for him as the lesser of two evils, and posted a diary there.

    I shoulda known better.

    Parent

    dkos? Oh, that place is beyond repair. (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:27:46 PM EST
    litigatormom... (none / 0) (#218)
    by CoralGables on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:15:23 PM EST
    and a lovely diary you posted there. Someone here gave a link to it the other day and it was one the the best anecdotal pieces of work I have read concerning this election.

    Parent
    Thanks again (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:02:03 PM EST
    THe stupid &*%^$%# voted against it.  And now I can't get to his Web site to tell him what I think of him.


    Parent
    Thanks for the list. My rep (a doo-doo head) (none / 0) (#60)
    by Angel on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:51:52 PM EST
    Democrat voted against it.  I have to be honest here and tell you that even though I understand financing, the mortgage industry, the stock market, etc., I am totally lost on this; not what has happened but the bill that just got defeated.  From what I've read it does nothing for the little guy/gal and does everything for the people who got us into this mess.  Pass or fail I kind of think we're all f'd anyway.

    Parent
    It did a little (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:07:20 PM EST
    It had provisions for "forbearance" although it did not contain the bankruptcy cramdown provision. Though frankly, that provision didn't do much for folks who might not have wanted to file for bankruptcy.

    Pelosi on TV now. Saying this was supposed to be a bipartisan bill that had protections, trying to protect public from deterioration of economy, protecting peoples' savings, investments, etc.

    Republicans don't appreciate seriousness of crisis. Praises Barney Frank, Rahm Emmanuel for finding common ground.  (Except apparently it wasn't.) Sixty percent of Dems vote for adminstration bill, as improved by Congress, despite reservations. We did it because President, Paulson, economists said failure to act was unacceptable. Only one third of Republicans voted for. Need to find common ground, need to work together.

    Now Steny Hoyer on.  

    Parent

    Thanks!! (none / 0) (#73)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:56:56 PM EST
    I could not even get into the Rep site; must be swamped.  All Mass. Reps I could see voted Yea.    

    Parent
    Interestingly, Inslee voted against (none / 0) (#76)
    by shoephone on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:57:32 PM EST
    while the rest of the WA State Democratic delegation voted in favor.

    Parent
    Inslee always has thought for himself (none / 0) (#211)
    by MoveThatBus on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:04:51 PM EST
    He does his homework and votes as he believes is right for the people.

    I would think he just believes there is a better solution.

    Parent

    Called my GOP rep's office (none / 0) (#106)
    by votermom on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:06:59 PM EST
    and told the staffer I want him to work on a solution because I am very worried.
    Had to call the local office though; DC lines are busy.

    Parent
    House Republicans (none / 0) (#34)
    by shoulin4 on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:43:55 PM EST
    are blaming Pelosi's speech for them not voting for it because it was supposedly (and probably) partisan. Does anyone have a link to a copy of the speech?

    This is a failure of the House (none / 0) (#41)
    by kenosharick on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:46:08 PM EST
    leadership on both sides(but esp. repub.) Maybe there needs to be some new blood on both sides next January. The fact that Boehner and Blunt could only deliver 65 votes should be embarrasing for them.

    It wasn't their own lack of leadership (none / 0) (#113)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:08:44 PM EST
    They were undermined by Nancy Pelosi! Republicans' itty-bitties were hurt.

    Parent
    I am of mixed emotion. (none / 0) (#114)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:08:52 PM EST
    I want SOMETHING to be done about this, even though I have my own problems with the specific bailout measure up for vote. I would love to see HOLC be implemented in this situation, but from here... I would even take it a step farther.

    Want to really stabilize our national assets? Want to create a situation where banks will not fail anymore? Want to save the banking industry and equalize the damage on Wall Street? Nationalize the banking industry. I know the N word is a big, scary idea only purported by Soviet-loving communists and America-hating socialists, but I think it's really what's called for in this situation. I don't want the market playing games with my retirement funds, or my college loans, or any of my money. I don't want to expose my livelihood to the volatility of the free market. Let's nationalize the industry so that there's less incentive for shady lending practices aimed at gaining a competitive edge.

    This has the added benefit that when the economy does stabilize, the government makes a profit on the strengthened dollar, and, gasp, we can maybe slice a little hole in that national debt of ours.

    HOLC should have been a component (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:12:37 PM EST
    but its not enough. During the S&L crisis, the savings and loans that failed owned the mortgages, and therefore had a security interest in the underlying properties. Here, the crisis isn't just the slump in the housing market. That was the trigger.  But the problem is that all these banks are sitting on these stupid mortgage-backed derivatives, which means they are holding a debt derivative that may or may not be of substantially less worth than they thought.  Because they can't tell, they don't want to expose themselves further by continuing to lend money.  Buying up the underlying properties doesn't unlock the credit market fast enough. It's a long term solution that will help, but doesn't help the short term crisis.

    Parent
    Thank you (none / 0) (#177)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:38:35 PM EST
    Folks do not understand that HOLC is not a substitute for the "bail-out" bill.  They're two entirely different things.

    THe Paulson bill is a tourniquet to stop the bleeding.  HOLC and similar ideas are like the antibiotics to keep you from losing the limb.  They will not stop you from bleeding out.

    Parent

    Is the Senate off the hook now until the (none / 0) (#118)
    by Teresa on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:10:02 PM EST
    House votes again?

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:12:52 PM EST
    Yeah (none / 0) (#123)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:14:02 PM EST
    Bush has been in their back pocket. They've been supporting this stuff forever and now they are screaming. They never cease to amaze me.

    Great (none / 0) (#124)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:14:09 PM EST
    This is one of those times that I wish we didn't have such a responsive Democracy, everyone agree's that the bill sucks, but that something like needs to be passed, but since noone wants to be stuck with the check, it fails and the DOW's down 500+ points, seriously, this bill has to be bipartisan (collective responsibility for any failure is the only way people up in November will vote for it) at this point we may need McCain and Obama to both endorse it regardless of political benefit or the economy will crash.

    Any bill that does not contain (none / 0) (#136)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:19:13 PM EST
    at least 250 bn in job creation is a bill not worth passing.

    We bail out the companies so that they can survive and they still layoff tens of thousands.  If we don't bail them out, they get absorbed and tens of thousands get laid off.

    Unemployment will be at 8% by years end and there is a great chance it could be much higher.  So while we are financing the bailout our citizens will be losing their homes and their dignity.

    How about some trickle up economic planning for a change?  

    The money earned on wall street is obscene and we are bailing them out?  That is like sending a campaign contribution to a millionaire....

    It is not a bail out (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Manuel on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:23:52 PM EST
    It is not a handout. The job creation and the energy plan and the homeowner protection can wait for the next congress.  Restoring confidence and unclogging the credit pipeline is urgent.

    Dow down 669 now.  Ouch!

    Parent

    I see (none / 0) (#157)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:28:31 PM EST
    so we pay them now, they pay later.  Unemployment is at a 7 year high and is about to reach a 26 year high.  Waiting for the next admin is mighty white of you, you must be employed (i am as well).

    I see there are lots of good democratic values here.  

    I understand the need for the bailout, hell I ain't smarter than Buffett, but I also understand how incredibly challenging this economy is currently and how bloody awful it is going to be for the working class in the next 3 months.  If they are going to suffer immeasurably than bygolly, so should wall street.

    Parent

    Main Street will suffer much more than Wall Street (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Manuel on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:55:40 PM EST
    I am sure you understand that assets which are weighing down balance sheets freezeing credit are being bought.  Those assets have value.  

    It is mighty white of you to decide that because Wall Street must be punished businesses and gvernments should not be able to get credit.

    You haven't seen anything yet wrt unemployment if this mess isn't fixed up.

    Parent

    I hope Darcy Burner nails Reichert for this vote (none / 0) (#137)
    by Manuel on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:19:20 PM EST
    There are some fine comercials waiting to be made right there.

    am i crazy? (none / 0) (#155)
    by bramdizle on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:28:20 PM EST
    for thinking that an economic crisis and depression may be better for america in the long run. we need to reshape just about every aspect of how our economy works. why is no one turning this into a good thing? also what is this buisness about pelosi, she's kind of clownish and the dems need more punchers in the senate and congress and now is the time for them to stand up. they can gain massive cred right now if they stopped pussyfooting.

    Yes, you are crazy (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:28:51 PM EST
    why? (none / 0) (#164)
    by bramdizle on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:31:59 PM EST
    we wouldnt have many of the amazing liberties we have today if it werent for a certain economic crisis that fdr led us out of. perhaps the same could happen in january if obama takes office? just modernized

    Parent
    Well, we apparently have radicals like you (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:34:38 PM EST
    in control of the Republican party.

    Did you know that revolutionary Communists used to follow essentially the same line of reasoning in order to foment world revolution?

    In the Reichstag, Communists used to make procedural votes with the Nazis in order to promote instability.

    Parent

    95 commie democrats (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:39:31 PM EST
    someone get 95 ropes and let's hang 'dem nazis.  

    Parent
    They didn't have the political courage (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:41:16 PM EST
    to vote for it. Cowards.

    Parent
    maybe (none / 0) (#190)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:47:47 PM EST
    they see the bailout plan for exactly what it is and that is a temporary solution to keep the markets afloat but does not address the needs of the working class in this country.

    Maybe, after they passed that horrible bankruptcy legislation last year they are feeling ill knowing that ordinary americans are about to:

    1. lose their jobs
    2. lose their homes
    3. get screwed in one-sided bankruptcy due to laws they created

    Warren Buffet is 65bn times smarter than I and he said pass it or armageddon.  I am hard pressed to disagree with him.  That said, I also recognize that unemployment is about to skyrocket out of control in the next 90 days bailout or no bailout.

    So if I have my choice, to help the more advantaged while doing nothing to help those who are and will be looking for work, I say let the wall street shenanigans join the working class in their suffering.

    All this talk about populism from BO and JM and nary a word addressing the impending unemployment crisis.  Shameful.

    Parent

    um (none / 0) (#199)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:57:55 PM EST
    that was meant to demonstrate how stupid it is to bring up nazism into the debate, it was not meant to express anger at those who voted against it.  I see a 5.0 rating after my name and I am certain you misunderstand the meaning.

    Context - As I said, any bailout that does not have at least 250 bn RIGHT now to go toward job creation is a bill not worth passing.

    Parent

    wow. (none / 0) (#180)
    by bramdizle on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:41:00 PM EST
    we have republicans that throw around crazy accusations of communism and nazi support as soon as the hear something they dont like as well

    Parent
    There's a parallel strategy. (none / 0) (#182)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:41:47 PM EST
    Tripe. (5.00 / 3) (#192)
    by shoephone on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:50:01 PM EST
    Yeah, we should all just be content to lose all our assets and lose our jobs because, hey, we'll be getting more freedoms out of it later.

    People who advocate for an economic depression are people who need professional psychological assistance. The very notion that everyone survived the depression of the 1930's is simply heinous and cannot be supported by the facts.

    Parent

    20% unemployment (none / 0) (#205)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:02:11 PM EST
    is not ALL.  And you do not address the 700k who have lost their jobs this year and the additional 300k that will lose their jobs by years end.  

    I guess that million is on their own so we can protect the wall streeters.  

    It is the lifeboat game really.  Should we save the wealthy golf playing $400 sunglass dude or the plumber with the same jeans he had on 8 years ago?

    Parent

    It's a long run I probably won't be around to see. (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:34:31 PM EST
    And never in my wildest dreams did I think of myself as a person who would probably have to end her days on Medicaid, but heck ya. Maybe you're right. But pardon me if I don't hoist a drink to that.

    Parent
    i would hope (none / 0) (#176)
    by bramdizle on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:37:49 PM EST
    that much could be changed in the next four years (in your life time) if a new deal approach was adopted. i am probably much too optimistic though, and your sense of reality may be more keen then mine

    Parent
    because (none / 0) (#163)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:31:20 PM EST
    those rules apply to ordinary americans filing bankruptcy (remember that bill that passed last year) and should not apply to wall street because the companies there emply ordinary americans.

    We bail them out and they throw working americans a life preserver and a water bottle and tell them they will be back in a few months.  Lots of sushi in the ocean, you will be just fine.

    Parent

    allergic to fish (none / 0) (#167)
    by bramdizle on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:33:21 PM EST
    don't worry (none / 0) (#173)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:37:18 PM EST
    we'll be back, we promise.....

    You don't ask for the money now for job creation and you are looking at 9 months before anything is approved.  What is the difference between 10% and 20% unemployment?

    My guess is that with 20% unemployment it includes a lot of people from Wall street and the 10% would be working class americans or better defined as "collateral damage".

    Parent

    I agree.... (none / 0) (#217)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:12:39 PM EST
    but I may be crazy:)

    I too see an extraordinary opportunity here, if we just showed some guts and willingness to sacrifice.

    Parent

    They tried and failed, so (none / 0) (#168)
    by alsace on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:33:48 PM EST
    let's just go straight to the Swedish Solution. No more searching for a middle ground and negotiating the shade of lipstick.

    My suggestion... (none / 0) (#219)
    by mike in dc on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:27:12 PM EST
    ...let the House Republicans put their proposal up for a vote on Tuesday, and let that one fail, largely along party lines.  Then let the House progressive caucus put their proposal up for a vote on Wednesday, and let that one fail, probably along ideological lines.  
    This will point up the obvious need for a compromise solution, because in the meantime the markets will be cratering.  So, over the rest of the week and going into the weekend, an actual, workable bill, containing more of the progressive bill than the conservative bill, will be put up and voted on next Monday morning.  The markets will start to recover, and a 2nd Depression will be narrowly averted.  

    Or we could just let it all go to heck and let the new President and Congress clean up the mess left for them.   Seems more responsible to try to get something passed now.

    Wachovia did not fail? (none / 0) (#220)
    by KeysDan on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:30:10 PM EST
    An FDIC brokered buyout is usually not considered a sign of success, I think.

    The Speaker Blew It (none / 0) (#221)
    by WakeLtd on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 06:01:03 PM EST
    Pelosi was on the front-lines saying this would be a bi-partisan bill. By definition,  this would mean there were things in the bill that would satisfy both parties,  as well as antagonize both parties. Either she was for the bi-partisan bill,  or she was not. Throwing the political hand-grenade out there right before the vote, for a bill she ostensibly supported, was not House leadership. Cantor said it cost 12 GOP votes, that "went south" . Twelve votes she needed for this bill that she allegedly worked so hard on,  since the Democrats that were not going to vote for the bill were pretty much unmovable at that point. The smart move for the Speaker, had she really wanted this bill to pass, would have been to keep her powder dry until  after the vote. There would have been plenty of time after that to take credit & assess blame.