Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

A Republican revolt stalled efforts at the US Capitol to agree a national economic rescue plan with negotiations broken off for the night and to resume later today.

It was a chaotic turnaround on a day that had seemed headed for a successful conclusion after President George Bush hosted leading politicians, including both presidential candidates, at an extraordinary White House meeting.

Weary congressional negotiators worked into the night joined by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson in an effort to revive or rework the 700 billion US dollar proposal.

They gave up after 10pm local time. Democrats blamed the House Republicans for the apparent stalemate.

Republicans have complained the plan would be too costly for taxpayers and would be an unacceptable federal intrusion into private business.

An apparent breakthrough had been announced with fanfare at midday by key members of Congress from both parties - but not top leaders. Read more

Are the Republicans to blame for the stalemate and is this becoming an election issue?


( Comment )
mo_k_musings wrote:
Sep. 26th, 2008 12:51 pm (UTC)
No, the Republicans are not to "blame"
House Republicans are trying to be prudent about this pending legislation and avoid pouring gasoline on an already smoldering fire.
There are troubling aspects of this legislation, including a provision that will allow bankruptcy judges to reduce or ("cram down")the outstanding balance on troubled mortgages, which is vehemently opposed by the mortgage banking industry.
If the scenario were reversed (i.e. the Dems didn't get their say), you can better believe they'd be screaming to high heaven.
mo_k_musings wrote:
Sep. 26th, 2008 01:16 pm (UTC)
Re: No, the Republicans are not to "blame"
Additionally, keep in mind that the Democrats have control in Congress, as well as President Bush's support, and could vote this bill in.
Why are they waiting? Could it be they're afraid of taking the fall for a policy that has the potential to fail?
theredarrow wrote:
Sep. 26th, 2008 01:38 pm (UTC)
Re: No, the Republicans are not to "blame"
Here, here... very true.

To add these Democrats are playing politcs... This proves Dems can't pass anything wihtout adding pork.

Where is Barack's leadership??? Can he do anything other then use cheap one line barbs??? Can you for onece put Country First!!!

One other note, Sen. Obama if you worked for my company and you shurked off your job at hand to go out on interviews for a new job, i would of fired you months ago.

- The Red Arrow
the_paulr wrote:
Sep. 26th, 2008 02:52 pm (UTC)
Re: No, the Republicans are not to "blame"
One other note, Sen. Obama if you worked for my company and you shurked off your job at hand to go out on interviews for a new job, i would of fired you months ago.

Would you say the same to John McCain?

According to www.govtrack.us McCain has missed 165 votes in 2008 alone, while Obama has missed only 129.
cidercupcakes wrote:
Sep. 26th, 2008 12:58 pm (UTC)
Are the Republicans to blame for the stalemate and is this becoming an election issue?

I'm as staunch a Democrat as you'll find, and goodness knows I'm always ready to find something else to despise about this administration and the current Republican leadership, but no. Or, rather, they're no more responsible than the Democrats are, I'm sure. I have a feeling there's more than enough squabbling and partisanship to go 'round. Further, if this wasn't going to become an election issue to begin with (fat chance), I suspect that both parties have people determined to make it one.
newdadin09 wrote:
Sep. 26th, 2008 01:53 pm (UTC)
If the government keeps it's hands off this crisis, I would give whatever party achieved that stalemate credit, not blame. Can the poster support his silent premise that the government can fix the crisis?
(no subject) - (Anonymous) - Sep. 26th, 2008 02:29 pm (UTC)
the_paulr wrote:
Sep. 26th, 2008 02:55 pm (UTC)
I agree we shouldn't "play the blame game," but passing a bill that gives one man (the Secutary of the Treasury) control over any of the taxpayers money without congressional oversight sets an incredibly dangerous precident - no matter which party is in power.
the_paulr wrote:
Sep. 26th, 2008 02:47 pm (UTC)
I don't think either major party is to "blame" for this current crisis. While the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (created by a Republican) removed restrictions on financial institutions that had been effective since the 1930's, it was signed by a Democratic president. So, in a sense, both parties share the "blame."

Personally I blame the people in the financial services industry. Short term profits became more important than long term growth and sustainability. Borrowing money to make risky investments then borrowing even more when those didn't work is a recipe for disaster.

Add to that the companies that were insuring mortgage backed securities against loss without having the money to cover any potential loss and it's not surprising that we're in the mess we're in now.
pennyann wrote:
Sep. 26th, 2008 03:14 pm (UTC)
I don't think Republicans are to blame, I think politicians are to blame for the stalemate and this becoming an election issue. They didn't cause the mess, they are just trying to use the mess to make themselves look good.

The mess happened when people in the financial sector became gamblers (and poor ones at that). They started betting money they didn't have and they lost their house, their car, their wedding ring to bad bets... oh wait... they didn't lose their own house, car or other things of value... they lost ours. That's right, they still walked away with millions in bonuses and profits.

I understand that we can't just let the economy crash on its own merits (or lack of) because it will only make a bad economy into a non-existent one... we won't be able to borrow from China anymore! (Gasp!). But I'm not sure if the current solution is the best one. Even though I don't usually support most of the ideas of the Republicans in congress, maybe they are right to say, "Wait a minute... we're gonna make the taxpayers deal with this?".

Keep working, ladies and gentlemen of the Congress. Welcome to the world of working extra hours to get the job done. I don't feel bad for you having to work past 10pm. Now you know what it feels like to put in a 15 hour day. At least it wasn't split between two or three jobs done for minimum wage, right?
mprice wrote:
Sep. 26th, 2008 04:03 pm (UTC)
The Democrats want to blame the Republicans now because they don't want to admit they were wrong in killing the bill in 2005 that would have prevented this mess in the first place.

Now they want to solve the current crisis with their usual, knee-jerk reaction--throw money it. What they need to do is figure out a long range solution to the crisis rather than put a band aid on it. They're putting their finger in a dike that is spilling over at the top.

I, for one, do not want my tax dollars used as bail out money. History has shown time and again that bailing out a company does not work. Nobody was screaming for a piece of the pie when the companies showed a profit. Why should we, the taxpayers, foot the bill when they have a lose?


I note with interest that it was Senator McCain who was called back to Washington by Treasury Secretary Paulson, not Senator Obama. Both men are currently the head of their respective parties, but it seems Mr. Paulson believed Senator McCain could get both parties to work together for some kind of compromise. Senator McCain responded by suspending his campaign and going back to DC to do the job he had been elected to do.

Senator Obama, on the other hand, said he would return "if he was needed." Excuse me? How could he NOT be needed at a time when the economy of the country is in danger of a complete meltdown? It took a call from President Bush to get the "leader" of the Democratic party back to Washington so all parties could sit down and discuss the crisis.

Senator Obama's name has been conspicuous by its absence in many of the reports coming out of Washington on this crisis. Where is the leadership we have been hearing so much about? The REAL change in America? As far as I can see, Senator Obama is once again "present."

spittingkitty wrote:
Sep. 26th, 2008 04:59 pm (UTC)
I'm very curious as to what bill you believe the democrats killed that led to this mess. Because you clearly don't think it's the laissez faire policies of the last decade or so that led to this meltdown.

mprice wrote:
Sep. 26th, 2008 05:12 pm (UTC)
I am referring to S. 190 [109th]: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 "A bill to address the regulation of secondary mortgage market enterprises, and for other purposes."

Summary of the bill is here.

A bit more on this in Hot Air with links is here.

Edited at 2008-09-26 05:18 pm (UTC)
the_paulr wrote:
Sep. 26th, 2008 06:00 pm (UTC)
Thank you for the links. If you don't mind I have a question.

If this bill had passed what effect would it have had on the mortgage backed securites market and the fact that companies selling loss insurance for the MBS's did not set aside enough money to cover potential losses?
mprice wrote:
Sep. 26th, 2008 06:18 pm (UTC)
The intent of the bill was to assert SOME KIND of regulation on Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, which had none. They bought up any and all mortgages, regardless of the risk and then went on to sell them to companies who believed that loans had been properly vetted. (That would be the risk-based capital test.) We now know they were not.

Senator McCain stated in 2006 "The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives." That would be the "golden parachutes" mentioned in point 7. With regulation in place, no more cooking of the books.

At the time the bill was proposed, even those at Fanny Mae and Freddie Mack reluctantly agreed that some sort of regulation was needed. The mortgage backed securities market would have been given a more realistic view of the what they were actually insuring rather than just taking things at (over-inflated) face value.
the_paulr wrote:
Sep. 26th, 2008 06:26 pm (UTC)

I do think there are more causes to the current mess than just the abuses at Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, but I don't know if we'll ever be able to sort out who's at "fault".
spittingkitty wrote:
Sep. 26th, 2008 06:22 pm (UTC)
Okay, first of all, please don't use highly partisan links to attempt to prove a point. Second of all, the democrats didn't kill the bill. The thing died in committee - a committee that had a republican majority.

If you're going to get your talking points from pundits, you might want to make sure you're getting them straight. The GOP is claiming that McCain had the answers back then and he has them now (he wasn't even an original sponsor of the bill, but whatever). Nobody with a right (or left) mind is saying it's the democrats fault that bill was killed.
spittingkitty wrote:
Sep. 26th, 2008 06:31 pm (UTC)
And I should probably add that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were a tiny factor in the meltdown of our economy. Unchecked greed is the all encompassing cause, quite frankly.
putyourendtowar wrote:
Sep. 26th, 2008 04:16 pm (UTC)
the lesser of two axes of evils
sorry to tell you this, but no matter what you do, the profits all go to the rothschild and bilderberg group through the federal reserve and the world banks. mccain is a war monger for old money interests. obama is just waiting to be bought. who knows what really lurks beneath that. bi-partisan bullshit at it's finest. even if the democrats get in they are still in the pockets of the republicans. change the voting system and bring the bush family before a war tribunal. then you might have a hope in hell.
putyourendtowar wrote:
Sep. 26th, 2008 04:18 pm (UTC)
the unspeakable trillions
p.s. have you noticed the stock market on wall street lately? where do you think all that money went? through money laundering to pay for the iraq war. no? then who is paying for the iraq war? we are speaking of unspeakable trillion$ ?
redwulf50 wrote:
Sep. 26th, 2008 07:21 pm (UTC)
Re: the unspeakable trillions
If you want to find the reason for the fall of the Banking Industry? The fall of Freddie and Fannie were effects not causes. First ask your self where the money went that folks were paying for houses with? Hmmm any new industries, drugs or whatever suddenly showing a bigger profit? Oh yeah the Oil industry has been. and oh... wait ism't the Esteemed President Bush an oil billionaire? But, but, that can't be the cause, I mean after all he wouldn't use his political office to further his own agenda would he? And yet isn't it strange that both times we have had a Bush for President we have went to war with Oil selling nations?

*innocent look*

What, I'm just saying.
putyourendtowar wrote:
Sep. 29th, 2008 08:36 am (UTC)
Re: the unspeakable trillions
thanks for your comment. freddie and fannie are being portrayed as some hurricane-like act of god, like nobody will take any responsibility for it. the news reports are hilarious! a question i have is where is bush? don't you wish it was just southpark? like "waldo bin laden" his trusty scapegoat, bush sr. may have hightailed it outa here before things get hot to trot. just as they're about to be tried for treason, there is a changing of the guard... enter mccain the old guard, they're in one another's pockets, even clinton and reagan, back and forth and who picks up the tab? who knows? obama could even be bribable, and giving money to a bank hole is like a big holed up! all the noise is a distraction to further the interests of money in the confusion. it's called disaster capitalism. it's up to us grassroots is all i'm saying and i am finding that the answer begins with local focus and changing myself. as a country, we can work at changing back the legislation from capitalist fascism, etc. ok, i'm getting carried away, but i believe in planting gardens and i trust in the butterfly effect...

mostly we just want to strangle the perpetrators and for that we need someone to blame. i think we all just have to look in the mirror. the answer is inside us, our way of thinking and how we behave. buying into the idea of an suv, bigger betta gas guzzling hummer, hmmmm...
the following words by bfe are hilarious, i think he's talking about ;) !!! pencil thick dick cheney... ? (oouch!)

yet ~ "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." ~ Edmund Burke

thanks, man
wtf wrote:
Sep. 26th, 2008 04:52 pm (UTC)
I don't think anyone is to blame; like Bush said in his speech today, the legislative process isn't always pretty. I would much rather have Congress debate this topic thoroughly than hastily pass a bad bill (see also: the Patriot Act).

And given the issue's dominance in the news and other chatter, I think it is definitely going to be an election issue. Whatever is foremost on voters' minds usually is.

narvick wrote:
Sep. 26th, 2008 05:00 pm (UTC)
Did someone say, $700 billion?
Bush's frantic "hurry Up" and hand over 700B$ to wall st.before voters get a chance to think about it or find out that its in our interests and not their's, is another Bush deception, just like Iraq was!
Trying to give 700B away to wall st.unconditionally without oversight, sounds like Bush's last effort to further enrich his friends from Goldman Sachs(Paulson for one) and elsewhere before he is thrown out of office.
Bush has been the "puppet de jour" of the "Special Interests" string meisters for 8 years and it has cost this Country plenty! An "Unrecoverable Plenty"!
Tom Nass
5th Marine Division - WWII
spittingkitty wrote:
Sep. 26th, 2008 05:03 pm (UTC)
I think the timing was certainly suspicious. Why wait until the last moment to pull the rug out from under the bill? I'm not saying what they are calling for isn't justified, but there is so much politicking going on right now on the hill, it is hard to believe that this wasn't planned by the Republican minorities in the House.

I do find it interesting that the party that has spent the last eight years in support of an administration that craves unilateral power suddenly has had a change of heart.
merushi wrote:
Sep. 26th, 2008 07:52 pm (UTC)
oh wow, i didn't even read this before my post and basically said what you said. I agree 100%. The republicans are just throwing out a last minute deal, because they are determined to win. This little 'act' was done during the election so that the desperate people of America would vote for the republicans. Who, if people must be reminded, have done nothing towards this in 8 years.
merushi wrote:
Sep. 26th, 2008 07:50 pm (UTC)
Yes, they are to blame. This country has been run for 8 years by the republican party. Why start caring now when the elections are coming up?
The reasons can be varied, but the most out standing one is the fact that our new running candidates, or rather Mc'Cain has come up with this idea.
But if remembered, America has been going into the dumps since around 2001, rather, since 9/11.
So why has the republican party come up with the idea to save America now, and not during the 8 years of their power?

Could it be the fact that they are trying to convince America into voting for the Republicans to keep them running by now stating, at their time limit, that they can save the country? So, this gives me the impression that now that their time is almost over, they decide to take the American peoples weak point, and throw it in, just to extend their time in office.

What makes this choice of voting them guarantee that they will start moving themselves into aiding their people? They never have people, why now? This is as good as a sham to extend their reputation, or make them seem like the good guys for once, just to get the majority of the votes.

Because they know that Americans are desperate. That Americans need help now. So they pull out the final card to destroy the hopes of a Democratic win.
But as I've said, the Republicans never helped us before, why now? Why when their time is almost up? They wont help as much as they promise, proposal or not, they don't even have the money to start. This is just a bunch of words to convince people to vote for them.

But I beg of you, please do not fall into the traps set by the Republican party. They won't help. They never have, and they perhaps never will.

The act of the Democrats was NOT selfish. Why solve the issue now during the election? Why not wait till after when a solid party has the power without a mix? It would create confusion and frustration with two parties trying to aid, instead of one. Not only that, it would also create more frustration and time limitation to start it now during the elections, which is not really fair to any of the candidates.
No, let me rephrase that. Is not fair to Obama.

His choice to push this aside for later was actually a smarter choice. Not now during elections.

People can wait till the new president elected is official. It's not too far off. I, 17, can survive this issue until then. Why can't a 30 year old?

Mc'Cain just pulled this out of his pocket to reassure his win withing himself. Because he did this, people will look up to him in hope. He can't do anything yet, he's not the president. He has no control over this country.

Vote Obama, he knows what he says, what he's doing, and he is the only hope.
Obama '08
rebelbear67 wrote:
Sep. 26th, 2008 09:00 pm (UTC)
crisis talk
no one cares for this country our political parties are to busy lining there pockets with money from the oil and gas companys who ripping the citizens of the world of there money and when they can get the money back from the oil and gas companies we will have a stable market and our country will survive cause as it is i rather live on a desert island than in my own country were we are nothing but there slaves
mo_k_musings wrote:
Sep. 27th, 2008 01:53 pm (UTC)
A friend of mine spent all day on the hill Thursday with Congressman Pence and said that this bill "is a nightmare-- they even stuck bailout money for the auto industry in
there. Like nobody would notice." (Heck, I'm sure some of them didn't-- look how long congress had to review the Patriot Act, and some of them still admitted they hadn't read it.)
There are free market alternatives to this panic induced socialist "rescue plan". I'm plenty P.O.'d at Congress and Pres. Bush -- and disappointed he appointed the lefty Paulson.
inafoxhole wrote:
Sep. 27th, 2008 08:01 pm (UTC)
It became an election issue last Monday when the markets dropped, Lehman Brothers went under and the Federal Reserve started bailing out companies to keep them afloat... and then McCain still said the fundamentals of the economy were strong (repeating the line about how he "meant" the American worker make him look ridiculous).

The bailout will be less a political issue if they both vote for it. You might see some people peel off for 3rd party candidates who can't win (like Bob Barr attracting conservative ideologues who just want the markets to fail in a that'll-teach-'em plan).

The plan does suggest however that the two candidates governing style may become an issue because of what's happening.
( Comment )