Monday, September 29, 2008

Mean Nancy hurt their feelings

That mean Nancy Pelosi lauded her caucus for defending Main St. from the predations of Wall St. This made Republicans pout, so they voted against the bailout, says John Boehner. Waaah! You'd think they'd be ashamed to admit what a bunch of children they are (no slur intended against the majority of children, who are much more stalwart).

Already, I have heard colleagues channelling this bullshit, blaming the Democrats for not passing the bill, when 60% of them voted for it and only 30% of Republicans. While angrily blaming the Democrats, they were incensed that the Democrats would care about who got the blame! It's boggling to me how people who let the GOP manipulate them like this fail to notice it.

Was this a good bill? No. In point of fact, it sucked. The only rationale I've read that made it worth passing is Paul Krugman's: It was needed, and it was the best that the perennially irresponsible Republicans would permit.

As just punishment, the Democrats should now put forward a good bill (Krugman beats me to this, though without repeating his definition) and let it be voted on party lines. A good bill would have:

  • a lower price tag, doled out in relatively small chunks
  • real standards for pricing of bad paper
  • mandated equity stakes for us citizens, the recapitalizers, mixed with temporary socialization of failed financial institutions
  • punitive, confiscatory, regurgitative taxes on those who profited from this bubble
Then let Duhbya veto it.

Update: Barney Frank noticed the bullshit coming from the ever-oily John Boehner.

Update (9/30): For all the people in comments who are incensed with the Democrats, check out how two-faced, irresponsible, and focused only on politics the Republicans are. They were telling the Democrats they had a deal, but they were busy before the so-called deal failed planning to screw the Dems. Republicans, dishonest to the core. (h/t Americablog via Eschaton)

Update: Michelle Bachman defends her fellow Republicans against Boehner's slur on their toughness:
We are not babies, sucking our thumbs," Bachmann said.
No? In any case, they are just plain sucking.

23 comments:

ThinkerSeeker said...

I agree about the R's, but you have to admit "Nancy" probably should not have injected politics into an already-tense situation.

Hey, if you want to take a look at a bailout plan that may actually work, send $$ back to US Citizens, AND save Social Security check this out:

http://sinatraco.com/blog/2008/09/27/the-sinatra-bailout-plan/

Anonymous said...

How about we rid America of the Party system that way people vote on convictions of what people think are right instead of they should vote because of what party they belong to. As the bill stands I am against it, but I am fed up with how often progress gets caught up in gridlock because of Democrats vs Republicans. The last few years have become rediculous....you can blame the Bush administration all you want...or you can take a serious long look in the mirror and stop playing the blame game. Put country first.

Anonymous said...

Thank you to the Democratic Jackass in congress, namely the Speaker of the House, who can't seem to keep from braying when it really counts. Her real concern was protecting her party instead of the interest of the country by trying to make a political speech at the worst time. And they said McCain was acting political last week when he came back to do his job as a US Senator and, partake in the discussions, as hopefully, the next president of the US. I wish the Liberals would crate her up like the sour grapes that she is and send her ass back to California where they must care what she thinks.

Anonymous said...

It occurs to me that if you need someone to help you, you learn to keep your mouth shut and not badmouth them while your hand is out. The reason this bill failed is because the majority of americans were against it and spoke out. You know, that whole reason politicians were elected in the first place?

Anonymous said...

Wow finger pointing in congress. Who would have thought?????????
Nancy Pelosi represents everything that is wrong in Washington. The finger pointing, back stabbing, crying about others crying, lets do it my way because the people can't think for themselves, politics at it's lowest.
She is more of the problem, and none of the solution. I'm all for another party that really for the people. I mean an aggressive reach out to the people ask them what they really think instead of let's ask only the people that think like I do.

Anonymous said...

I praise John McCain, that he would rather "lose an election than the economy" when he suspended his campaign to go back to Washington and put the brakes on this bill. It was 3 pages to begin with. At least he was a voice for the House Republicans, and, apparently Mainstreet, who does not want this bill.

Anonymous said...

The Democrats have a majority in the House and there is no filibuster allowed in the House. So this is entirely on them-- why do they need the Republicans at all? If the Democrats can't keep their own house in order, they shouldn't blame in on the Republicans. And, if they can't, and want to attract Republicans in something truly bipartisan, then the first rule of cooperation is don't insult someone to his face when you want something from him.

Anonymous said...

This isn't about Republicans pouting...this is about Representatives of the people voting in the way that they were delegated to vote! Hello, read a blog lately? People are outraged about this bailout, since it only seems to be helping the banks...I understand that supporting Main street will boost the little man, yet we have yet to see the little man get more than a "subsidy" check that barely helped anyone in this country even pay one months mortgage! You can call it what you want, talk yourself into believing that this failed bailout is a pouty response of some republicans having a fit, or you can recognize the bravery that it took for good Representatives to do their jobs tody and vote as delegates for the people that they were elected to represent.

Anonymous said...

Let’s face it. We all did not want this bill. Truth is, No of us wants to pay taxes but on April 15th of every single year we write that check anyway because it must be done. Neither the democrats nor the republicans wanted to sign off this bill. But the democrats sucked it up and did what they had to do, despite the fact that is unpopular. The republicans did not step up. I have to comment on McCain because it just shows his inability to lead his party. He was in Washington and he could not lead his party to pass this necessary bill. It is mind-boggling to see how incompetent this man is. Obama “over the phone” was able to rally his party to get the Job done. How could a man be effective over the phone but another man be ineffective in person. McCain is incompetent. I can't continue to hear about this man. He could not even rally his own party IN PERSON. And he is their leader. What does that have to say about him and his ability to get things done? McCain needs to stop whining face the fact that he COULD NOT rallied his party....He is ineffective.

pelosi_what_a_gal said...

The bailout is bullshit! Let the pieces fall where they may. Hurray for the brave Democrats and Republicans that voted against this welfare for the fool-hardy. Three years ago my fellow commuters and I were wondering what was going to happen when the subprime loans finally came home to roost. Now we know. If a bunch of beer swilling guys like us could see the stupidity of the lending industry why couldn't the brain surgeons we have in Washington? One other thing, I am having a really hard time finding any sympathy for those who took those loans.

Anonymous said...

When 94 Dems voted Nay, it is hard to blame the other guys for not getting this done. Both parties had their share dissenters. There is good reason why there is no public trust in this Congress.

Anonymous said...

Although I'm happy to see you're blissfully ignorant in most senses, we can at least agree that this bill did suck.

BUT- why vote for something that sucked? Because we need it? We need it now, today, this very moment?

I don't know anyone who can responsibly plan for home ownership who risks losing their home. I know three people who shouldn't have been able to get a home with their ill preparedness- who all risk losing their home. Why is it on your hands or mine to insure they don't suffer the consequences of their poor choices? Although I care for them dearly, they made their bed.

What if- we didn't do anything? All the banks that are irresponsibly led- would eventual wind up under the leadership of fiscally responsible people. What if the people who shouldn't own a home and hastily ran into getting one- lost their home? Then we'd have responsible people buying up inexpensive homes and living happily ever after because they looked before they leaped.

What if we didn't do anything and in turn, that meant the Federal Government didn't increase in size? That would mean you'd pay less taxes and so would I. The bigger the government- the more hands to feed.

But of course- screw the financially responsible Republicans, as you might say. Unfortunately, outspoken, unchallenged complainers such as yourself run your mouths unchecked around at how daft Republicans are but if this 700 billion dollar bailout(isn't the word bailout a bad word anyway in any responsible sense) fails- it will properly fuck over every taxpayer you and I know.

That's a pretty big risk. And what's at stake if we don't do it? The livelihoods of irresponsible people everyone.

Anyway, best of luck in your future endeavors.

Anonymous said...

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html

watch the video from cspan if you have any delusions about where this started.

yacovm said...

Stop the Bailout
By James Messina


First let’s go back to the beginning starting at the bubble, although I’d rather refer it to a balloon. In the year 2000 just after post doomsday Y2K the balloon was just placed on the air tank stem. During that year a house, let’s say in Holiday Florida would average at $50-60k. During that same year there were many types of easy loans such as HUD and Veteran (it wasn’t necessary to actually be a Vet, one just got a little better rate if you were) which made it easy for the average individual with $500 and a job to obtain approval. Section 8 had a role in this also. If they had 20% of the price of the home they didn’t even need a job. Actually they did, but what was referred to as a “no doc” all they had to do is just say they had an income.
Now here is where the air valve just barley inflates the balloon. Keep in mind that Holiday Florida is just a reference point and places like California and Miami holds the same principle just different prices. These loans usually carried an ARM which meant 5 years down the road Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac would be tacking on another 2.5-3% interest. These easy loans that owners had to put their signatures on, selling their souls sort of speak, compounded by falling prices.
Before they got to that point there was a “get rich quick” craze going on and everybody and his brother became an overnight realtor by “flip that house.” or two or three or four, renting them or just fixing them up, and profiting by the fast rising house prices caused by the craze.
We can argue who is to blame, apparently both the home buyer and the lender is at fault. The lender acted recklessly and lent and lent and competed to lend. Mortgage and title companies were popping up all over leading the owners like sheep before the slaughter.
The balance of fault lies on the degree of greed. Could you blame the average Joe that wanted to get rich quick or the banks who should have had more sense?
Now that it is obvious how we got there lets propose a way out. Giving 700 billion to the same banks who got us in this predicament, paid for by the average Joe’s taxes and not only that but, Joe must barrow the money with interest just to give it to the ones who lent Joe the money for the house that he is now foreclosed on. That’s like Joe borrowing money to give to heroin dealers in order to make sure they have a steady supply of heroin that they could sell him.
We have another option but of course it will not be considered because the government thinks it is in their best interest to help the banks thinking it will save Wall Street. We have to let the air out of the balloon by getting the prices of homes closer to the year 2000. The way we can do that is instead of giving the money directly to the banks; give it to the notes that are over priced. Let’s start with Joe’s house and his only house for now. If he paid let’s say $200,000 and he is in foreclosure, reset the value to the year 2003. That means rewriting the note. The year used adjusting the house value would be determined according to the magnitude of consequents’ on the little guy until the 700 billion is allocated to first every homeowner that will occupy that house(700 billion will just an arbitrary number for now or just a limit and no way should a fraction of that number be used). This will in no doubt cause values to come down all over. This plan could be implemented to the relevance of importance. The homeless first then to the struggling families aiming at the outrageously over priced homes, this will hurt the rich and humble undeserving. There are Joe’s out there that flipped houses until he bestowed on half a million dollar house with an income that can’t support it. He may very well eventually be included in this plan when his house is appraised less.
We have become far too accustom to borrowing on credit which is fundamentally against a sound foundation that is not free from exposure to failure. This notion of using “other people’s money” to undergo a project seems to be the theme of success. While it may very well be, there is no accountability if the project failed. They will just file bankruptcy and leave the lender holding the bag. Ultimately the blessing stated in the Bible “they shall lend and not borrow” would certainly be the hope of everyone but that would be impossible, simply because if there was a lender there must be a borrower. The lesson learned we have abused the privilege of credit. This is one habit must be stopped.
It all comes down to the basics, supply & demand. Now the supply is high. By slashing prices will create gamut of demand. New loans, transparency and credit will flow like neighborhoods at a block-party. Credit that is reasonable, credit that is based assists and collateral. This is an approach to bailout Main Street & Wall Street. We can’t reward the banks with money on the backs of taxpayers that require borrowing from other nations. It is not right that government, by use of fear tactics be allowed to execute whatever it fancies regardless of the rights of people.

lovable liberal said...

Look, the Pelosi speech was John Boehner's excuse for not being able to deliver on the agreement that he and the rest of the Republican leadership made with Duhbya and the Congressional Democrats. The reasons his caucus failed to deliver enough votes: (1) It's too conservative to compromise. (2) It wants to attack the Democrats for spending money that a responsible regulatory regime, which the Republicans always fight against, would have obviated.

The Federalist Papers did warn us against faction, and we've seen at times ill effects of it, but this vote was a case of too little faction, not too much.

You can't put the country first without assessing responsibility and exacting consequences from those who are to blame. Otherwise, we can go on voting for idiots as we have been and plunge off the cliff.

lovable liberal said...

Anon 7:01 9/29: What are you smoking? McCain didn't go back to Washington to put the brakes on this. Yesterday morning, he claimed that he had brokered this deal, and then it fell apart. McCain went back to Washington to politicize this further, and he succeeded beyond our wildest nightmares.

Anons 7:38 and 7:52: Let me get this straight. Many more Dems than Repubs vote for this bill, and yet it's the Dems fault that they weren't unanimous enough to pass it? Next you'll tell me that 65 is greater than 140. Sheesh.

YacovM, where did that unreadable junk come from? A link would be better than spamming comments with it, especially given how incoherent it is.

yacovm said...

loveable you should talk
you want to be my editor?

lovable liberal said...

Yacov, are you James Messina? I can give you (or him) a few specific criticisms if you like (as you are welcome to do with my writing), but that piece is a complete mess of unclear diction and argument. I don't have time to bring order out of that chaos.

Here's a critique:

First let’s go back to the beginning starting at the bubble, although I’d rather refer it to a balloon.

Most of us would prefer to call it by the common vocabulary, no matter how much Messina wants to use an inflation tank as a throwaway metaphor that doesn't add any explanatory value. So this is a bad way to start. Substantively, the housing bubble is not the start; what conditions made the bubble possible?

Messina tries to get into explaining this, but he does so by making up scenarios. Ayn Rand did this, and you know how convincing I find her.

So there are a couple of criticisms. Have at me if you like. I'm not always clear either.

yacovm said...

I didn’t say it was a start, just a starting point.
“A link would be better than spamming comments with it, especially given how incoherent it is”. Hmmmm… does this make sense?
I can say one thing you sure are opinionated

lovable liberal said...

I didn’t say it was a start, just a starting point.

Well, that's clear as mud.

“A link would be better than spamming comments with it, especially given how incoherent it is”. Hmmmm… does this make sense?

The antecedent of 'it' was 'unreadable junk'.

yacovm said...

if you knew anything about writing any sentence shouldn't have to depend on the previous sentence to make sense
even it did it still doesn't make sense

lovable liberal said...

Yacov, did you ever hear of a pronoun? If so, can I ask you rhetorically to square the existence of pronouns with your last pronouncement about quality writing?

Keep on trying buddy. Every sentence you attempt proves me right - even if you don't bother with periods.

yacovm said...

Like I said your pronoun use for “it” still does not foster your sentence to be logical. < (there’s your period) As for my writing, if you knew, it’s only when one knows the rules is when he’s allowed to bend the reed and break the rules.
That’s all I have to say on the matter. I invite criticism but we are starting to nit-pick