Senate passed the modified 700 billion dollar bailout.

[KIN]

Now back to the House for another vote...

[Lolly]

All I want to say about this topic is that I am so glad we chose this year to study American Government! Such excellent real life examples constantly in the news!

[Soph the vet]

Both of my senators voted for this bailout despite a deluge of calls asking them to do the opposite. Should make for an interesting election for one of them.

I will be calling and emailing the congressmen and women in my state today. IMO, this is one of the biggest frauds perpetrated upon the taxpayers of this country. The more I learn the more frustrated I get.

[fractalgal]

Both of my senators voted for this bailout despite a deluge of calls asking them to do the opposite. Should make for an interesting election for one of them.

I will be calling and emailing the congressmen and women in my state today. IMO, this is one of the biggest frauds perpetrated upon the taxpayers of this country. The more I learn the more frustrated I get.

 

:iagree: Both Barack Obama and John McCain supported this. I think they should let third party candidates into the debates on both sides. I am thinking more and more that third party candidates are the only way we will actually see CHANGE in Washington.

 

Congress ignores the very people they are supposed to represent.

 

If we keep voting these same people in we will keep getting this same result.

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

Both of our senators voted for it too. One is retiring soon, the other is not up for re-election. :glare:

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

Amen.

[Soph the vet]

:iagree: Both Barack Obama and John McCain supported this. I think they should let third party candidates into the debates on both sides. I am thinking more and more that third party candidates are the only way we will actually see CHANGE in Washington.

 

Congress ignores the very people they are supposed to represent.

 

If we keep voting these same people in we will keep getting this same result.

 

Chuck Baldwin may get my vote after all.

 

How do we start a grassroots campaign to let third parties in???

[PariSarah]

. . . of a responsible plan, when there's so much urgency to appear to be doing something?

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

I think it's to late for this cycle. However, in 4 years our country may be begging for alternatives.

[Robin in Tx]

Yeah, with pork attached I've heard - to appease both sides of the aisle. Don't know many specifics, only heard bits and pieces on the radio yesterday. What on earth?!?

 

Did y'all see/hear the clip from Diane Feinstein? Where she said that she received 91,000 calls/emails and 85,000 were *against* the bill? She said that her constituents simply didn't understand it, so she's voting yes anyway.

 

What interesting times. Don't know about y'all but I'm fascinated!

 

:lurk5:

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

Lol! Last night, Ds15yo and I were discussing the curse "May you live in interesting times."

[Kathy in MD]

I think it's to late for this cycle. However, in 4 years our country may be begging for alternatives.

 

If we don't do something soon, they may be begging for alternatives that really scare you. This situation needs a fast, temporary fix now. More reasoned, long term adjustments to the system can be contemplated during the next 4 years. I started a new thread about a recent interview with Warren Buffet that explains my stance on this subject better, but a fast summary of my opinion:

 

1) The gov't is actually buying assets, both good and bad, that it should at least break even on and may even make a profit on.

 

2) The **general** economic situation will quickly deteriorate the longer we stall and argue and try to lay blame. If your child is lying on the floor with a cut artery, do you dither and try to find out what happened or do you immediately call 991? Do you tell your child, that he pushed his hand through the plate glass door, so he needs to fix his artery. Or do you call for help and apply pressure?

[Holly IN]

1) The gov't is actually buying assets, both good and bad, that it should at least break even on and may even make a profit on.

 

 

I understand your opinion howver the gov't will not be giving us our money back once things get going again. I never have seen the action of them giving us our money back when they do stuff like this. They will pocket all the money and keep raising our taxes every year.

 

Holly

[Robin in Tx]

If we don't do something soon, they may be begging for alternatives that really scare you.

 

That's already happening - have you heard about some of the pork added to this bill? The bill isn't going to improve with each revision. It will spiral down as everyone tries to get their own piece of the pie.

 

If the govt makes money off this deal, which they likely will, the money will retire the $700B debt, won't it? I don't want it to come back to me, I just want it to retire the debt used to fund the deal.

[jacqui in mo]

I don't trust them to retire this debt even if/when they make money. The government will more than likely spend any income on new programs. That's its usual track record.

[jacqui in mo]

Here's a good news article I read. (First one I've looked at this morning, so may not be the absolute)

 

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/politics/bal-te.bailout02oct02,0,7917580.story

 

I find these paragraphs interesting:

 

The tax breaks and accounting rule changes for Hollywood were seen as aimed at two Southern California Democrats - Reps. Adam Schiff and Brad Sherman - who voted against the plan. Sherman, who led the defection of a group of Democratic skeptics, insisted he would not be enticed to vote for the rescue plan.

 

"The one thing that's been proven is the absolute fear-mongering that's being used to drive us is false," Sherman said. "I've seen members turn to each other and say if we don't pass this bill, we're going to have martial law in the United States."

I also really wonder at the level of fear mongering going on, especially so close to the election.

 

Another interesting article from National Review Online:

 

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjE0YTNiZjgxMDEyOWYyNmNjNzZhNmRhMzg4YjliMmI=

So a very rough guess is that if we do absolutely nothing about the credit crisis, we are running something like a 25% chance of a true catastrophe at the level of the Great Depression. I’ve gone through the assumptions of my analysis; you can play with them at leisure, but I think you’d be very hard put to end up with an estimate that is less than 10% or greater than 50%.

Each day they leave this problem unaddressed, Congress is basically flicking a lit match at a lake of gasoline. But, hey, it hasn’t caught fire yet, and maybe we’ll stay lucky.

 

[PariSarah]

Did y'all see/hear the clip from Diane Feinstein? Where she said that she received 91,000 calls/emails and 85,000 were *against* the bill? She said that her constituents simply didn't understand it, so she's voting yes anyway.

 

 

. . . repugnant.

 

I can't decide if I think she simply doesn't understand, or if she understands perfectly and doesn't care.

[Sara R]

If we don't do something soon, they may be begging for alternatives that really scare you. This situation needs a fast, temporary fix now. More reasoned, long term adjustments to the system can be contemplated during the next 4 years.

 

Do you really think that everything is going to go great with the economy now that this bailout has been passed, and we'll have plenty of time to reason? This is no more the end than Bear Stearns was in March. There's still tons of toxic stuff in the system, and now the feds are putting that on their balance sheet. How does that make it better? Not to mention that the unsolvable social security/Medicare crisis is still just over the horizon, and peak oil--a perfect economic storm is brewing, and this is only the beginning.

 

The desire for a "fast, temporary fix" is how we got into this mess in the first place. It reminds me of the Onion article I posted a couple of days ago: Recession-plagued nation demands new bubble to invest in: "We are in a crisis, and that crisis demands an unviable short-term solution."

[Jennifer3141]

I'm so sick of this bailout plan.

 

I understand loans may be harder to get now. Hey, maybe people will have to actually SAVE money and approach their new cars with 20% down. Gee, the horror...

 

And as far as the threat that businesses may not be able to get short term loans for payroll, well if you are consistently taking out loans to pay your essential business expenses you are doing something WRONG. As harsh as it sounds you need to fold so another smarter company can take your place. That's a true free market.

 

I'm fine if the mammoth companies fail. It will definately hurt some Americans but it doesn't seem to me that most Americans are actually learning anything, despite all the scary news stories. How many Americans still have no savings?

 

I did get a chuckle out of NPR's covereage of the bailout plan. They sandwiched the story in between two other stories about Bush' AG firings that were apparently either illegal or at the very least unethical and some reporting about how all the new tax plan ideas actually BENEFIT the top 1% of the financial population who holds ten percent of the U.S. money. Gee, I wonder why Americans are cyncial and doubt our government?? :confused:

 

Jen

[laylamcb]

Apparently the senate bill includes incentives for the timber industry as well. That sounds pleasant, so let me clarify: This "financial catastrophe, emergency rescue plan" includes payments to the timber folks NOT to harvest timber. Yeah, you read that right. And the only reason that I know this is because my family lives in Oregon, home of said timber industry.

 

We have a word for this in Washington: PORK.

 

I would love to continue to pontificate here on the unmitigated GALL of these #@!$%%$!@ politicians to take advantage of this "crisis" to bring home the bacon to their individual constituencies at our expense...but I haven't any energy left. They've beaten me.

 

All I can say is that the House hasn't voted on this yet, people. It's NOT TOO LATE to call your congresspeople and ask them to vote no to more government waste and pork-barrel spending. Hold hearings with ACTUAL FINANCIAL EXPERTS. Tell Bush to stop giving us the "All we have to fear is not fearing enough" speech. Consider ALL options before passing this monstrosity that is in no way guaranteed to work. Give the mark-to-market rule a chance to take affect. Just...really put us your constituents FIRST, for once in your blasted careers.

 

I'll button it now. :001_smile:

[Kathy in MD]

That's already happening - have you heard about some of the pork added to this bill? The bill isn't going to improve with each revision. It will spiral down as everyone tries to get their own piece of the pie. .

 

I agree with you! The longer people argue and dicker, the more chances for pork to be added. Especially as pork is often added as either "blackmail" or bribery. It's under emergency situations that I feel that a streamlined bill, sans fat, is most likely to get through.

 

If the govt makes money off this deal, which they likely will, the money will retire the $700B debt, won't it? I don't want it to come back to me, I just want it to retire the debt used to fund the deal.

 

I agree here, too. I don't need the money to come back to me in the form of a rebate check. Just use it to retire the original debt and any profits can be used to retire other debt.

[Renee in NC]

It had already passed the Senate last time, too, hadn't it? It failed in the House.

[Robin in Tx]

Do you really think that everything is going to go great with the economy now that this bailout has been passed

 

I don't know anyone who thinks *that*!! NO one is saying that. Not anyone. Even with the bailout, things are going to be dicey for some time to come.

 

BTW, it hasn't passed yet.

[Robin in Tx]

. . . repugnant.

 

I can't decide if I think she simply doesn't understand, or if she understands perfectly and doesn't care.

 

 

It just keeps getteing worse, doesn't it?

[Renee in NC]

. . . repugnant.

 

I can't decide if I think she simply doesn't understand, or if she understands perfectly and doesn't care.

 

I've never been under the impression that she even LIVES on our planet, though.:lol:;)

[sdWTMer]

. . . repugnant.

 

I can't decide if I think she simply doesn't understand, or if she understands perfectly and doesn't care.

 

She doesn't care and I was one of those callers. Ugh!

 

Most of the politicians do not care at all what their constituents want anymore!

[CLHCO]

One of my senators voted yes, the other no. I called both yesterday. I'm calling my representative today and if he votes for it, pork and all, I'm going to go get a sign for his challenger and put it in my yard.

 

Is it too much to ask for Pelosi to open her mouth and get everyone mad again right before the vote? :tongue_smilie:

 

I am really on the verge of going for a 3rd party. Let's throw them all out and start over from scratch. I have a few already in mind to start with.

[Kathy in MD]

I don't trust them to retire this debt even if/when they make money. The government will more than likely spend any income on new programs. That's its usual track record.

 

Then it is up to ALL of us to stop demanding increases in our priorities, especially while condeming others's projects as always being pork or a waste of money. We also need to realize that increases will occur just because of social security, inflation and other things. This means either we cut some from all discretionary spending or we accept higher taxes.

 

We should also be wary of selling our votes to whom ever promises to cut our taxes. Especially if those same individuals promise to bring back federal tax dollars for the district/state at the same time.

[Renee in NC]

Then it is up to ALL of us to stop demanding increases in our priorities, especially while condeming others's projects as always being pork or a waste of money. We also need to realize that increases will occur just because of social security, inflation and other things. This means either we cut some from all discretionary spending or we accept higher taxes.

 

We should also be wary of selling our votes to whom ever promises to cut our taxes. Especially if those same individuals promise to bring back federal tax dollars for the district/state at the same time.

 

This is very true - pork goes everywhere and we can't continue to keep cutting taxes while expecting the same level of services.

[Kathy in MD]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin in Tx

Did y'all see/hear the clip from Diane Feinstein? Where she said that she received 91,000 calls/emails and 85,000 were *against* the bill? She said that her constituents simply didn't understand it, so she's voting yes anyway.

 

 

. . . repugnant.

 

I can't decide if I think she simply doesn't understand, or if she understands perfectly and doesn't care.

 

This is why we examine the opinions, judgement and character of the people we elect to represent us. This is why many of us are agonizing over who to vote for in the upcoming elections, whether it's for President, senator, representative or at the state and local level. Our representatives have more access to information than many of us AND spend (hopefully) more time and effort for considering the ramifications of major legislation. We elect them to spend that time using their judgement and consider our imput when they vote on these issues. Feinstein might have worded her statement more PC, but she felt this was a time to go with her judgement rather than that of her vocal constituants.

 

If we wanted our representatives to ONLY vote on every issue exactly as we wanted them to, why go to the expense of national elections, maintain offices and the Capitol, and pay their salaries. We could just let everyone just dial up and vote, even if they have minimal understanding of what they're voting on.

[Paula in MS]

My real concern about this bailout is that they may not be able to pay back the debt to the government. When they bailed out AIG, they were betting on the selling of subsidiaries to repay the loan. In this economy, with so much uncertainty, who is going to buy these subsidiaries?

 

There is a lot of uncertainty tied to this bailout as well. They are betting that the economy will recover and the asset values will increase, etc. But what if that does not happen for a long time? What then?

 

It angers men when senators act like those that do not agree with the bailout do not understand what is going on. This is just not true. I have and MBA and undergraduate degree in economics. I worked 10 years in commercial lending with a large regional bank. There are educated people on both sides of the debate. It is simply a difference in opinion.

 

 

It is kind of ironic that we are going to make a bad loan to companies who got in trouble by making bad loans.

 

Paula

[threetreasurs]

 

I understand loans may be harder to get now. Hey, maybe people will have to actually SAVE money and approach their new cars with 20% down. Gee, the horror...

 

Jen

 

No jobs for auto workers is/will be fairly horrible.

[Kimber]

I disagree with the idea that congressmen know more and understand better than us--completely. And this is why we have 3 branches of congress. Congress is to represent the populus, not big business. Simply because we vote does not mean that we check our ballots and leave our brains behind us.

 

It seems to me that this line of reasoning is the same line of reasoning that GWB used to justify going into Iraq. They know that others countries need and deserve democracy. They know what's better for other countries than these countries know for themselves. Now this same line of reasoning is being used on us.

 

It has taken me a long time to see George Bush clearly, but I now understand why other countries hate us. I will be voting 3rd party.

 

As my dh says, voting between Democrats and Republicans is like voting between Tide and Wisk. They're both owned by Proctor and Gamble.

Edited October 2, 2008 by Kimber

[farmgirlinwv]

I may vote for Ron Paul, but then it feels like I'm throwing my vote away. KWIM?

[sdWTMer]

There is a theory floated about out there that the Chinese and Saudis are really putting pressure on the administration to buy their bad paper (the bad sub-prime mortgage paper). They carry a lot of our debt and will not loan us any more money if not given in to...

 

Like a said it's a theory going about.

[Renee in NC]

This is why we examine the opinions, judgement and character of the people we elect to represent us. This is why many of us are agonizing over who to vote for in the upcoming elections, whether it's for President, senator, representative or at the state and local level. Our representatives have more access to information than many of us AND spend (hopefully) more time and effort for considering the ramifications of major legislation. We elect them to spend that time using their judgement and consider our imput when they vote on these issues. Feinstein might have worded her statement more PC, but she felt this was a time to go with her judgement rather than that of her vocal constituants.

 

If we wanted our representatives to ONLY vote on every issue exactly as we wanted them to, why go to the expense of national elections, maintain offices and the Capitol, and pay their salaries. We could just let everyone just dial up and vote, even if they have minimal understanding of what they're voting on.

 

 

I disagree. We vote for people to represent US, not to babysit us. I think it sets a bad precedent when so many of the voters are against something and they tell us they are going to do it anyway "for our own good."

[Kimber]

This morning, my dh and I were discussing possible reasons for this whoe thing.

 

One reason that comes to mind is that the baby boomers are starting to retire. With them, along goes $MM's and $MM's of dollars from the stock market. What better way to keep this money in the system than to lower the stock market. 401K's and other investments would lose their value.

 

It might not be true, but it is an idea. Check out this link.

[Melissa in CA]

Did y'all see/hear the clip from Diane Feinstein? Where she said that she received 91,000 calls/emails and 85,000 were *against* the bill? She said that her constituents simply didn't understand it, so she's voting yes anyway.

 

 

This woman drives me crazy! I vote against her every time she is up for re-election. She is like a parasite that cannot be extracted! Ack!

[fractalgal]

I disagree with the idea that congressmen know more and understand better than us--completely.

 

It has taken me a long time to see George Bush clearly, but I now understand why other countries hate us. I will be voting 3rd party.

 

As my dh says, voting between Democrats and Republicans is like voting between Tide and Wisk. They're both owned by Proctor and Gamble.

 

:iagree: I would like to see a third party candidate in the debates.

[Robin in Tx]

Kathy, when my husband heard this quote he said, "She's probably right."

Eeek... ducking for cover! LOL

[PariSarah]

Our representatives have more access to information than many of us AND spend (hopefully) more time and effort for considering the ramifications of major legislation. We elect them to spend that time using their judgement and consider our imput when they vote on these issues. Feinstein might have worded her statement more PC, but she felt this was a time to go with her judgement rather than that of her vocal constituents.

 

And I agree that they're not supposed to be mindless automatons, blindly voting however the latest poll tells them to vote. I have no respect for politicians who can't make the unpopular, but wise decision.

 

But . . .

 

So, my ped. has had more medical training and experience than I have, and I trust her judgment. When my babies are sick, I don't second guess her, and I don't try to diagnose them myself on the internet. She's licensed to practice medicine for a reason, and I'm not, for a reason.

 

But every time I call in about something, she always asks, "When you look at your child, does he look sick to you?" She seeks out my untutored opinion because her training gives her the ability to use my uninformed, intuitive read on the situation. I know less than she does, but she is still anxious to make use of what I do know.

 

Why doesn't Senator Feinstein have the same respect for the untutored opinions of her constituents? When the reaction is that significant, why doesn't she stop and ask herself, "Why do they think that way?" I think there's something instinctively, intuitively right about popular opinion in this matter, and I'm disturbed at how casually Senator Feinstein dismissed her constituents' capacity to understand the severity of the situation we're in.

[TXMomof4]

Did y'all see/hear the clip from Diane Feinstein? Where she said that she received 91,000 calls/emails and 85,000 were *against* the bill? She said that her constituents simply didn't understand it, so she's voting yes anyway.

 

 

:lurk5:

 

Don't ya know....we're just the uneducated public! How could we possibly understand things like economics and *gasp* budgets????

 

Makes me want to puke!

[Robin in Tx]

What's more is she had the balls to say so publicly. Pretty unbelievable, if you ask me!!

[PariSarah]

. . . good reason NOT to do the bailout as proposed.

 

How the h#ll are we going to pay for this, as well as the baby boomers retiring?!

[Kimber]

Well, my dh and I talk about this a lot. He works in the oil industry and last year there was a presentation about the decline of available engineers and technical people because of the retiring baby boomers.

 

Supposedly, generation X is only about 50 million people while the generation before and after it are about 75 million each. This means that the workforce will drop substantially as we get older. There all kinds of ramifications. Especially since the BB will be pulling from the financial system as they retire and no longer putting into it.

 

For technical people like my dh, job security might be better because the experience level at the plants is dropping like rocks. At 39, he's one of the most experienced engineers around. But the financial market is going to take a huge beating.

 

Sometimes it's good to take a step back from the crisis and look at the big picture. It helps to see all of the factors affecting our economy. And if this is correct, we won't have the population to pay off this debt other than to raise taxes on those of us who are in Gen Y, the primary workforce.

[Kathy in MD]

And I agree that they're not supposed to be mindless automatons, blindly voting however the latest poll tells them to vote. I have no respect for politicians who can't make the unpopular, but wise decision.

 

But . . .

 

So, my ped. has had more medical training and experience than I have, and I trust her judgment. When my babies are sick, I don't second guess her, and I don't try to diagnose them myself on the internet. She's licensed to practice medicine for a reason, and I'm not, for a reason.

 

But every time I call in about something, she always asks, "When you look at your child, does he look sick to you?" She seeks out my untutored opinion because her training gives her the ability to use my uninformed, intuitive read on the situation. I know less than she does, but she is still anxious to make use of what I do know.

 

Why doesn't Senator Feinstein have the same respect for the untutored opinions of her constituents? When the reaction is that significant, why doesn't she stop and ask herself, "Why do they think that way?" I think there's something instinctively, intuitively right about popular opinion in this matter, and I'm disturbed at how casually Senator Feinstein dismissed her constituents' capacity to understand the severity of the situation we're in.

 

This is a good point to make, I totally agree that our representatives need to consider why many individual's object. I think I did mention, but didn't stress, that our reps do need to consider the constituants opinions even when they decide not to follow the majority's wishes. I just don't feel that they must always follow them when the rep feels there is an overwhelming need for the national good to ignore their desires.

 

But I don't know if Feinstein habitually ignores her constituants; if so that would be a problem for me. But in this case she didn't announce her decision in a adept, non-insulting way!

[Kathy in MD]

. . . good reason NOT to do the bailout as proposed.

 

How the h#ll are we going to pay for this, as well as the baby boomers retiring?!

 

Some would ask, what will we be paying if we don't do it?

 

And as far as the baby boomer's retiring? We aren't all doing it tomorrow. It'll be phased in over the next 20 years, just as the good assets should start repaying the gov'ts during the same time period.

[Kimber]

The fact that they aren't all doing it at once isn't as big a deal as the fact that the next generation is substantially less. So the effects of the baby boomers retiring are multiplied. Add this to the subprime mortgage crisis and it's not pretty.

[Amy loves Bud]

I may vote for Ron Paul, but then it feels like I'm throwing my vote away. KWIM?

 

NO! If you vote for one of the two major candidates, that sends the message that you are voting FOR them, not against someone else. It affirms what they have done. And of course that is fine, if you do agree with them. But don't kid yourself that you are voting for the lesser of two evils, or against someone. When you vote, you are voting FOR something.

 

But if you vote for a third party, even if one of the other candidates is elected, you are voting FOR a change in the status quo. If enough of us do that, it will put the major parties on notice.

 

I just wish everyone who said, "I guess I'll vote for the lesser of two evils so I'm not throwing away my vote," would vote third party. Then we would have a whole different ballgame on our hands!

 

JMHO, of course.

[Amy loves Bud]

And I agree that they're not supposed to be mindless automatons, blindly voting however the latest poll tells them to vote. I have no respect for politicians who can't make the unpopular, but wise decision.

 

But . . .

 

So, my ped. has had more medical training and experience than I have, and I trust her judgment. When my babies are sick, I don't second guess her, and I don't try to diagnose them myself on the internet. She's licensed to practice medicine for a reason, and I'm not, for a reason.

 

But every time I call in about something, she always asks, "When you look at your child, does he look sick to you?" She seeks out my untutored opinion because her training gives her the ability to use my uninformed, intuitive read on the situation. I know less than she does, but she is still anxious to make use of what I do know.

 

Why doesn't Senator Feinstein have the same respect for the untutored opinions of her constituents? When the reaction is that significant, why doesn't she stop and ask herself, "Why do they think that way?" I think there's something instinctively, intuitively right about popular opinion in this matter, and I'm disturbed at how casually Senator Feinstein dismissed her constituents' capacity to understand the severity of the situation we're in.

 

Yes, and when the numbers so overwhelmingly point in one direction and they ignore it? And if there was a consensus among economists, or anyone in the financial community (that didn't stand to benefit from the results) that would be one thing. But there is no consensus here. That is not representation at all.

 

Amy, pretty mad at both of my senators right now.