Bailout Plan is Going to Fail to Pass

[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.

[Eraserhead]

Paulson looks like he did some crying today.

[NOVA Green]

At what point does the current crisis start to effect Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)? Will we see a further slump in the market as foreign capital pulls out further from the American market considering it too risky?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

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.  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.

Please explain to me your reasoning. The credit markets have all dried up and it's pretty likely that the DOW will fall to as low as 8,500 before this is all over with. I know you've been a big opponent of this bailout, but how is this a good thing? Some of us have our entire lives invested in the market. I'm paying $48,000 a year for college and a good majority of that money is in the market or mutual funds. Sometimes we need a feel-good knee jerk reaction to boost investors confidence and get things moving. No, this bill wasn't ideal, but it needed to be passed in order to keep the world from ensuing in panic. Who the hell knows what tomorrow will bring. We've got banks now failing in the UK. People worldwide will begin pulling money out of the US markets, only to further hurt our markets. I really can't see how this is a good thing. And on top of that, we've got two Presidential candidates who really don't have a clue of how to fix this mess.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

LOL@Duke paying almost twice as much a year for college than I paid for my entire college education.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

At what point does the current crisis start to effect Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)? Will we see a further slump in the market as foreign capital pulls out further from the American market considering it too risky?

all markets are falling, not just the US.  US bonds are going up due to a flight to quality.

[NOVA Green]

LOL@Duke paying almost twice as much a year for college than I paid for my entire college education.

LOL@the forum doofus for equating the education and opportunities he received with that available from Duke.

Not sure about the relative merits from Duke, but when I went to a private school in the early '90s the bill was $20-$25K per year... granted coming from a lower income family well over half of that was in grants and student loans.

I am amazed that some schools are now charging $40K/yr plus in tuition, regardless of the caliber of education.

[Sam Spade]

LOL@Duke paying almost twice as much a year for college than I paid for my entire college education.

LOL@the forum doofus for equating the education and opportunities he received with that available from Duke.

Not sure about the relative merits from Duke, but when I went to a private school in the early '90s the bill was $20-$25K per year... granted coming from a lower income family well over half of that was in grants and student loans.

I am amazed that some schools are now charging $40K/yr plus in tuition, regardless of the caliber of education.

Ya, $40k per/yr is ridiculous, just in general.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I think a general rule of thumb is this making Duke miserable is proof it was the right thing. A shame he'll probably try to forget his misery by drugging some poor girl though.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I think a general rule of thumb is this making Duke miserable is proof it was the right thing. A shame he'll probably try to forget his misery by drugging some poor girl though.

Ah, always stay classy. I guess they don't teach that at podunk state U.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Too bad I can't be like Mr. Class who jokes about raping girls.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

.... I'm not getting into this again. It's like dealing with a 2nd grader.

[Brandon H]

WA: 5-4. Party lines, except for Jay Inslee.
OR: 2-3. And if Darlene Hooley had gotten the memo, Oregon would be another Mississippi.
CA:  30-23. This one's really interesting, and for once a reasonably obvious center vs fringe split. Thompson, Woolsey, Lee, Stark, Sherman, Schiff, Becerra, Solis, Watson, Roybal Allard, Napolitano, Baca, the Sanchez sisters against. Herger, Lungren, Radanovich, McKeon, Dreier, Jerry Lewis, Gary Miller, Calvert, Bono, John Campbell for. (Doolittle joins Renzi in E-CRAB - Ethically Challenged Retirees Against the Bailout.)
AK 0-1.
HI 0-2. Yeah, both against.

LA: 5 Nay, 2 Aye. The 2 Aye's are McCrerey (R) who is retiring and Melancon (D) who is already re-elected as he is unopposed. Even Dollar Bill Jefferson voted Nay.

(I skipped page 2-7 on here, so in case I missed it, shouldn't this be in General Politics?)

[Ronnie]

Well, congratulations to president-elect Obama.  I was waiting for election day to post this, but now I see it as futile.

[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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So does McCain have any more crazy gambles he wants to do, or is he just going to concede?

[Gustaf]

I guess I was the only one to sell the vast majority of my stocks 14 months ago, huh?

I remain very, very sceptical of bail-outs. They've played their games and made huge profits by taking these risks when markets were up. Now they get the downside. I really consider it pretty well-deserved. The only really good argument for government intervention is to help those who get hurt really bad for social/moral reasons. Wall Street investors certainly don't belong to this group. Some of the home-owners may.

[Sam Spade]

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

Kanjorski committed suicide for some reason. (yea I know he was a negotiator, but geez)

[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? 

[angus]

I dread to look at my retirement account.  I have lost about three thousand dollars per quarter over the past several quarters, and that even counts the 1500 I put into it each month.  So basically I'm at a net loss for at least six months now.  But I have purposefully invested more aggressively.  My wife invests much, much more conservatively in her 403B plan, by mutual agreement. 

Just to make you feel better, I'm down about $40K this year.

Sorry to hear that.  It doesn't make me feel better that you lost money, obviously.

Preston, I may very well be naive as you suggested, but I simply find myself in agreement with those House members who say things like "if we eliminate risk, we also eliminate some potential success" and "if we reward risk, we set a bad precedent" and "ask yourself why you came here, if it was for limited government, and if you don't want to move toward a command economy, then vote with us" and I do understand that 700,000,000,000 divided by 300,000,000 equals a bit more money than I lost over the past twelve months.  (okay, that's fuzzy math.  I'm saying I lost about 10K and donated about 7800, and 10-7.8=2.2, and 2200 is a little less than 2333.)  In any case, saddling every taxpayer with 2300 dollars worth of debt isn't a step in the right direction.  I'm just not buying this.  Note that those congressmen and women to whom I referred are in a majority just now, and are coming from both parties.  So maybe we're all naive.  But then again, maybe you are.  You seem to be equating this to the Great Depression, as some posters have, but I have already painstakingly pointed out how different this recession is, or how different this depression is, if you prefer.  Hell, perhaps we're all naive.  After all, we have never been without food or clothes.  But, frankly, I don't think we will be.  I think you are panicking.  And I'm quite certain that if this comes to vote again I'll again write email messages to both my senators and to my congressman asking them to vote no.  I encourage you to do the same.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I guess I was the only one to sell the vast majority of my stocks 14 months ago, huh?

I remain very, very sceptical of bail-outs. They've played their games and made huge profits by taking these risks when markets were up. Now they get the downside. I really consider it pretty well-deserved. The only really good argument for government intervention is to help those who get hurt really bad for social/moral reasons. Wall Street investors certainly don't belong to this group. Some of the home-owners may.

I've told everyone to avoid the stock market because George W Bush is President. I knew things wouldn't end well.

[MODU]

I dread to look at my retirement account.  I have lost about three thousand dollars per quarter over the past several quarters, and that even counts the 1500 I put into it each month.  So basically I'm at a net loss for at least six months now.  But I have purposefully invested more aggressively.  My wife invests much, much more conservatively in her 403B plan, by mutual agreement. 

Just to make you feel better, I'm down about $40K this year.

Sorry to hear that.  t doesn't make me feel better that you lost money, obviously.

Eh, I'll make it back.    Long term runs is where it is at.

[angus]

You probably will.  You seem to be conservative about the right things, and aggressive when it matters.  I'm more all aggressive all the time, but actually, I have never sold a stock for less than what I have paid, and even with the recent losses I'm still ahead, in real dollars adjusted for CPI, than what I put.  So it's not all that bad.  And as I said, my wife is conservative by nature and so we have agreed that I'll be the gambler and she the by-the-book, near-future investor.

It's a tough time, no doubt.  Man, I can't imagine throwing 40K around like that.  My wife and I are both scientists/tenure-track faculty.  She works at Wartburg College, about 17 miles north of here, and I work at the University of Northern Iowa here in Cedar Falls, and we have a combined gross income of about three times that amount, so I have a tough time feeling sorry for those really rich folks we're supposed to be bailing.  They'd consider me poor, as opebo does, as do many of these posters, probably.  Maybe you too.  And that's fine.  I know what I need to survive in the post-65 years, and I don't expect the government to provide it for me.  Still, I'd rather lose 40K out of my retirement account than see this legislation pass in its present form.  I'm also sure I don't want this precedent set.

[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.

[Torie]

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

Kanjorski committed suicide for some reason. (yea I know he was a negotiator, but geez)

Ya, my Congressman loves this bill, in the land of high real estate prices going down, and trust funds eroding. Of course we need a government bail out!