Bailout Plan is Going to Fail to Pass

[Lunar]

[Lunar]

It was 228 Nays, 205 Ayes.  Now 227 Nays, 206 Ayes.  Let's see if they can arm-twist 11 more votes.  Probably can, I'm guessing.  We'll see.

If this doesn’t pass, I’m going to change my avatar to Green for the week in salute to how self-serving and destructive my own party can be.  I mean, four major banks (one American) collapsed today.  I wonder how many have to collapse before they will stop nitpicking this detail or that – you’re going to have a loud minority complaining even if you

[Lunar]

C-SPAN's server is too busy.  Wow.

[Lunar]

With the vote at 226 to 207 against, Pelosi and her leadership team are huddled over a sheet of paper, presumably the whip count -- with the goal of flipping the needed 10 votes.

Pelosi and Majority Whip Jim Clyburn seem to be focusing on members of the Congressional Black Caucus, including John Lewis.

[Lunar]

R.I.P. economy.  Congress failed us in the most epic way.  Saving their own electoral hides at the expense of us all.

[Lunar]

R.I.P. economy.  Congress failed us in the most epic way.  Saving their own electoral hides at the expense of us all.

I am not persuaded this bailout would have made much difference. It was only going to be spent at 50 billion a month, and if there are no real subsidies (they seem to have been cut back under pressure), the feds can provide liquidity other ways, and are - to the tune of 350 billion today.

The mere fact that Congress was taking a quick, action, no matter what that action is, would be of enormous help to investor confidence.

[Lunar]

R.I.P. economy.  Congress failed us in the most epic way.  Saving their own electoral hides at the expense of us all.

Clearly you have no understanding of the economy.  Congress' failure saved us all.

Sigh..  Voting against the bill was the politically easy option.

[Lunar]

R.I.P. economy.  Congress failed us in the most epic way.  Saving their own electoral hides at the expense of us all.

Clearly you have no understanding of the economy.  Congress' failure saved us all.

Sigh..  Voting against the bill was the politically easy option.

Quite the contrary, my friend.  The bailout is the typical knee-jerk feel-good option that politicians so love.  In a poll released today 78% of Americans supported the bailout (USA TODAY/Gallup).  Why?  Because they mistakenly think inaction is bad when it comes to economic issues.  However, the more the government screws with the natural workings of a boom/bust economy, the worse it'll get.

Sorry, my friend, how do you explain the fact that almost all vulnerable congressmen voted against the bill?  Are these vulnerable congressmen suddenly the bravest in the House?  Something tells me, with the opponents of the bill far more threatening and loud than the proponents, Congress was by and large worried about their own hides and not making the right decision for America.

Per 538:


Among 38 incumbent congressmen in races rated as "toss-up" or "lean" by Swing State Project, just 8 voted for the bailout as opposed to 30 against: a batting average of .211.

By comparison, the vote among congressmen who don't have as much to worry about was essentially even: 197 for, 198 against.

A complete breakdown follows below the fold.

REPUBLICANS
AK-AL  Young         R      NAY
CO-4   Musgrave      R      NAY
CT-4   Shays         R      YEA
FL-8   Keller        R      NAY
FL-21  L Diaz-Balart R      NAY
FL-24  Feeney        R      NAY
FL-25  M Diaz-Balart R      NAY
ID-1   Sali          R      NAY
IL-10  Kirk          R      YEA
MI-7   Walberg       R      NAY
MI-9   Knollenberg   R      NAY
MO-6   Graves        R      NAY
NC-8   Hayes         R      NAY
NV-3   Porter        R      YEA
NY-29  Kuhl          R      NAY
OH-1   Chabot        R      NAY
OH-2   Schmidt       R      NAY
PA-3   English       R      NAY
VA-2   Drake         R      NAY
WA-8   Reichert      R      NAY
VULNERABLE GOP = 3 YEAS, 17 NAYS (15%)
OTHER GOP = 62 YEAS, 116 NAYS (35%)

DEMOCRATS
AZ-5   Mitchell    D      NAY
AZ-8   Giffords    D      NAY
CA-11  McNerney    D      YEA
FL-16  Mahoney     D      YEA
GA-8   Marshall    D      YEA
IL-14  Foster      D      YEA
IN-9   Hill        D      NAY
KS-2   Boyda       D      NAY
KY-3   Yarmuth     D      NAY
LA-6   Cazayoux    D      NAY
MS-1   Childers    D      NAY
NH-1   Shea-Porter D      NAY
NY-20  Gillibrand  D      NAY
PA-4   Altmire     D      NAY
PA-10  Carney      D      NAY
PA-11  Kanjorski   D      YEA
TX-22  Lampson     D      NAY
WI-8   Kagen       D      NAY
VULNERABLE DEMS = 5 YEAS, 13 NAYS (28%)
OTHER DEMS = 135 YEAS, 82 NAYS (62%)

ALL VULNERABLES = 8 YEAS, 30 NAYS (21%)
OTHERS = 197 YEAS, 198 NAYS (50%)

Among 26 congressmen NOT running for re-election (almost all of whom are Republicans), 23 voted in favor of the bill, as opposed to 2 against and one abstaining.

[Lunar]

The few who voted YEA actually make sense considering the lean of their district.

Exactly.

Almost none of those "vulnerable" candidates, Lunar, are voting uncharacteristically.

So all of their districts, purely by coincidence, support the bailout and them voting "NAY" just happens to help them there?

It would seem, despite character, that we can judge where the most politically advantageous decisions lie by analyzing vulnerable candidates.  We can do the same thing for senate seats.  Is McConnell doing better in Kentucky?  Why are long-shot senatorial candidates embracing the opposition to the bailout? 

[Lunar]

Unemployment will be announced this Friday, the consensus prediction among Cal economics professors is 6.4%.  One of our top professors was reportedly stomping this afternoon declaring that before today, we were guaranteed to be at 8% unemployment by January 1st, but now, thanks to Congress, we're guaranteed to be at 10%.

... I'm sure that's only rich people that will be unemployed though.

[Lunar]

by January 1st ... we're guaranteed to be at 10%

Everybody's an expert all of the sudden.  Honestly, I only took two graduate-level courses in economics.  Easy As, too.  No kidding.  I was flabbergasted at all those BBA folks who were struggling with the courses.  This is not to pick on them, but I thought going in that I'd be at a disadvantage never having taken an undergrad course in the business department.  Seriously, after all those physics and math and chemistry courses, the economics courses were like a vacation.  Still, I liked the class, I have to admit.  It influenced me in ways I wouldn't have thought they would.  My parents were 70's mainstream democrats.  Anti-capital punishment, anti-war, pro-union, and when I voted for the first time for president, in 1988, I voted for Dukakis mostly because I didn't know any better.  I had been raised a democrat.  But those courses, even though each were an easy A, did awaken me to a realization of how the private sector works.  And yes, we did go over both Hayekian and Keynesian economics.  I guess your teachers have books that come with crystal balls.  The ones I bought for those courses didn't.  But that was in the very early 90's.  We didn't have iPods then, either.  Wish we had those crystal balls, though, like your economics profs do.

Well, anyway, everybody on this thread is suddenly an expert in economics.  Funny, none of you had any good investment advice during the multitude of threads asking for it.  None of you had any good advice.  Now, every goddamned one of you is an expert.  George Bush says jump and 70% of all Democrats and 33% of all Republicans are suddenly asking, "how high?"  I know that when I wake up in the morning, the earth will still be spinning on its axis, at a rate of one revolution per 24 hours, and whether or not the stock market crashes, I'll get up and send my child to day care, and show up in class.  And I know that if the congress once again starts to talk about burdening every man, woman, and child in America with the debt of foolish aristocrats, I'll again do whatever I can to convince my elected officials to spend that money more wisely.  We should invest in our future.  Plant trees and educate our children and eat right.  But we don't need to spend another 700 billion on one of George Bush's "we need to get this done now because it's imperative for our national security" schemes. 

Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.

okay, end of rant. 

Ah, well, at least this has been a fun thread.  You don't often get eleven pages unless it involves sex, drugs, homosexuality, or creationism.

Whoah, just quoting what I heard from this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Eichengreen