96 Democrats in house block bail-out bill

[Missourian]

Seriously ... you are looking like a complete fool ...

Pelosi made a deal with the reps to pass Bush's plan. She would provide 140 votes and the Reps would provide the rest.

The Dems held up their end of the bargain ...

When I heard this on the news yesterday (I heard she only "bargined" to provide 120 votes) I said to myself 'The system is broken'. This isn't the first time I've thought that, nor will it be the last.

These politicians are more interested in CYA than doing what is right.

Personally, I am only willing to accept two justifications for a legislators vote:

1) They feel it is in the best interests of their constituents to vote for or against it.

2) They are following the wishes of their constituents by voting for or against it.


Call me an idealist or naive but I expect elected officials to show some leadership and backbone, not "bargain" and engage in backdoor deals or decide who is going to vote yes base on whether they are retiring.

Regardless of spin, this vote makes Rep. Pelosi look ineffective.

 

[Larkinn]

When I heard this on the news yesterday (I heard she only "bargined" to provide 120 votes) I said to myself 'The system is broken'. This isn't the first time I've thought that, nor will it be the last.

These politicians are more interested in CYA than doing what is right.

Personally, I am only willing to accept two justifications for a legislators vote:

1) They feel it is in the best interests of their constituents to vote for or against it.

2) They are following the wishes of their constituents by voting for or against it.


Call me an idealist or naive but I expect elected officials to show some leadership and backbone, not "bargain" and engage in backdoor deals or decide who is going to vote yes base on whether they are retiring.

Regardless of spin, this vote makes Rep. Pelosi look ineffective.

As a Republican, you think that? What a surprise. How exactly was Pelosi ineffective? At getting the votes she wanted?

1 and 2 are valid reasons, the problem with this bill is that they are telling legislators exactly opposite things. Congress believes we need this bill, but they are afraid to vote on it because of the way its been sold. Thats why you see the correlation between yes votes and members who are retiring, and the correlation between no votes and members who are in competitive districts.

 

[frazzledgear]

I love how you don't include that if all the Republican's would have voted for it then it wouldve passed with flying colors

YOU don't get it. Republicans would be the ones most resistant to this bill in the first place -it totally goes against their philosophy in the first place of big government bailout hosing taxpayers for the bill. The reason Democrats wanted this bill passed in a bi-partisan manner is so they weren't left holding the bag for any disapproval or backlash from the public. If both parties passed this bill, then it is both parties who get criticized for it.

McCain and Senate Republican leaders worked with House Republicans to get included into the bill the kinds of safeguards for taxpayers they would have to see before they could vote for it. Originally no House Republicans supported this bill and as a group said they would not vote for it.

Democrats expected their own members to get on board with whatever the Democrat leadership in the Senate agreed to. They always figured they had the numbers to get this passed and all these meetings were about getting enough House Republicans on board to make this a bipartisan passed bill. They knew they would never get even half but hoped for about 1/3. Which is what they got. McCain did his part in getting enough Republicans on board so that with the Democrat votes, this would be a bipartisan bill.

Well OOPS! Democrats forgot to check in with their own House members and make sure THEY were on board with this. Turns out they weren't. They did not even have all the Democrat House leadership on board -5 committee chairs voted against it. Pelosi didn't even strongarm the Democrat members from her own state -5 voted against it.

Blaming the minority party for the failure to pass this bill is ridiculous when Democrats have the numbers in the House to pass the bill without a single Republican vote and the whole point of the negotiations leading up to the vote were to get enough to make it a bipartisan bill. They got that -but Democrats failed to get enough of their OWN people on board.

 

[Larkinn]

YOU don't get it. Republicans would be the ones most resistant to this bill in the first place -it totally goes against their philosophy in the first place of big government bailout hosing taxpayers for the bill. The reason Democrats wanted this bill passed in a bi-partisan manner is so they weren't left holding the bag for any disapproval or backlash from the public. If both parties passed this bill, then it is both parties who get criticized for it.

Gee, on the other hand it really doesn't go against Democrats philosophy to give money to the wealthiest 1% of Americans. No, not at all. I mean Democrats always are trying to pass tax cuts on the rich, right?

Democrats expected their own members to get on board with whatever the Democrat leadership in the Senate agreed to. They always figured they had the numbers to get this passed and all these meetings were about getting enough House Republicans on board to make this a bipartisan passed bill. They knew they would never get even half but hoped for about 1/3. Which is what they got. McCain did his part in getting enough Republicans on board so that with the Democrat votes, this would be a bipartisan bill.

Wait...but I thought the Republican leadership said that 12 votes switched because of Pelosis speech...you wouldn't be calling them liars, would you?

 

[Missourian]

As a Republican, you think that? What a surprise. How exactly was Pelosi ineffective? At getting the votes she wanted?

She is the leader of the House. She said the bill would pass and it didn't. Everything else is spin.

 

[Larkinn]

She is the leader of the House. She said the bill would pass and it didn't. Everything else is spin.

Learn the difference between nuance and spin. Anyone with any brains knows that this had nothing to do with Pelosis ineffectiveness. Was she wrong? Yes. Does that mean she is ineffective? No. It didn't pass because Republicans bolted. Pelosi, it might surprise you to know, has absolutely NO influence over Republican votes. That doesn't make her ineffective.

 

[Missourian]

Gee, on the other hand it really doesn't go against Democrats philosophy to give money to the wealthiest 1% of Americans. No, not at all. I mean Democrats always are trying to pass tax cuts on the rich, right?

Tax cuts don't give anyone money, they allow people to keep more of what they earn.

Welfare gives people money.

 

[Larkinn]

Tax cuts don't give anyone money, they allow people to keep more of what they earn.

Welfare gives people money.

No, actually it gives them money. Money that you did not have previously, and now do have means someone gave you money. Money that you give to someone else is no longer yours. Lowering taxes is the government giving you more money.

And really, is the best you can do a minor semantic point? Get real.

 

[Missourian]

That doesn't make her ineffective.

When 96 Democrats vote against it? Yes, it does.

 

[Missourian]

No, actually it gives them money. Money that you did not have previously, and now do have means someone gave you money. Money that you give to someone else is no longer yours. Lowering taxes is the government giving you more money.

And really, is the best you can do a minor semantic point? Get real.

So enlighten me, is this spin or nuance?

And really, is the best you can do a minor semantic point? Get real.

Not a semantic point at all, a difference in core philosophy.

 

[Larkinn]

When 96 Democrats vote against it? Yes, it does.

When almost 2/3 of Democrats voted FOR it and 2/3 of Republicans voted against it, despite the pleas of Boehner?

Pelosi isn't the one who looks ineffective here. She didn't want all the Democrats voting for it.

Not a semantic point at all, a difference in core philosophy.

No, not really. You assume way too much from a word.

So enlighten me, is this spin or nuance?

Its neither. Its the definition of a word. Merely because you can't tell the difference between spin and nuance doesn't mean you conflate them all the time, nor that they are relevant all the time.

 

[frazzledgear]

Seriously ... you are looking like a complete fool ...

Pelosi made a deal with the reps to pass Bush's plan. She would provide 140 votes and the Reps would provide the rest.

The Dems held up their end of the bargain ...

ROFLMAO! Put the bong down buddy. This was not a REPUBLICAN bill just because Paulson requested it and Bush agreed with it. Not every piece of business in Congress is of a partisan nature. And just because someone from one party is the very first to point out that immediate action is needed on something -doesn't turn it into a "Republican only" or "Democrat only" supported issue. Senate Democrats AND Republicans intend to pass this bill -both parties believe the majority of both their Senate members will vote in favor of it. When House Republicans told them that no House Republican was going to vote for this bill is when they knew they had a problem. Not with House Democrats who they believed were on board all along -but with House Republicans.

Re-adjust your tin foil hat because Pelosi had NEVER agreed to provide X number of Democrat votes in the House at any time. The problem was never one about getting House Democrat votes or House Democrats balking over this bill in the first place -it was House Republicans balking over it. Every one of them. It was assumed all along by the Democrat leadership working on this bill that House Democrats would be on board with this and that House Democrats had the number on board to pass this bill even without House Republicans. But Senate Democrats and Republicans want this passed in a bipartisan manner.

The whole point of the negotiations was to make enough changes in the bill that at least enough House Republicans could vote for it be enough that it could be called passed in a "bipartisan" manner. Senate and House leadership in both parties knew all along they were never even going to get half the House Republicans on board with this one. But they needed at least enough Republicans to make this a bipartisan bill and were hoping for 1/3. Which is what they got. 1/3 of a group that is already a minority in the House isn't anywhere close to being able to pass this bill -and it didn't fail because this minority somehow didn't come through on it. It is merely enough to be able to call the bill a bipartisan one -which is what the Senate leadership in both parties were aiming for all along.

Democrats have the majority and could have passed this bill without a single Republican vote all along. But they did not want to do that. And with this kind of bill, I can certainly understand why.

But what Democrats especially failed to realize is that the majority of people do not like this bill -many see it as bailing out the Wall Street crooks and do not understand how it would help them.

In the 48 hours before the House vote, House members were receiving thousands and thousands of emails from their constituents and they were 90-1 against this bill. Since they were getting these emails from their own constituents, those members facing election this year (where those constituents could fire them instead of re-elect them) -these were the House members who voted it down. Since a lot more Democrats are facing election this year than Republicans, this bill lost many more votes from Democrats than Republicans. But Republican leadership managed to hang on to that 1/3 who had already agreed to vote for it. But scores of House Democrats facing re-election bailed out on this bailout bill.

 

[Missourian]

Tax cuts don't give anyone money, they allow people to keep more of what they earn.

Welfare gives people money.

No, actually it gives them money. Money that you did not have previously, and now do have means someone gave you money. Money that you give to someone else is no longer yours. Lowering taxes is the government giving you more money.

If that's not a difference in core philosophy, I don't know what is.

 

[user_name_guest]

Members in Congress look at the bailout as important. According to polls, the bailout is a very unpopular measure. Buy bad loans. Turn $700 billion and multiply that by a percentage you will get back. They aren't going to recover $700 billion. It's a lose-lose investment. Only a short-term injection that won't solve the problem. They started injecting capital into this financial crisis last year. Has it worked. Nope. Will the $700 billion work, in your dreams. Three pages of legislation isn't going to unravel the mystery, the lack of transparent, information involving these financial instruments that caused this mess.

 

[Larkinn]

If that's not a difference in core philosophy, I don't know what is.

As I said, your assuming too much. You are attaching more to the definition of the word give than is warranted.

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

Not 1 democrat on barney frank's Banking Committee voted FOR the bill.

This bill was a rip-off from the get-go.

 

[Larkinn]

Not 1 democrat on barney frank's Banking Committee voted FOR the bill.

This bill was a rip-off from the get-go.

Pretty sure Barney Frank is a democrat on Barney Frank's Banking Committee who voted for the bill.

And the votes had political ramifications. Thats why people were scared to vote for it.

 

[Larkinn]

Not 1 democrat on barney frank's Banking Committee voted FOR the bill.

This bill was a rip-off from the get-go.

Actually your completely wrong. You should fact check your right-wing talking points.

Other Democrats on the Banking Committee who voted for the bill:

Kanjorski
Waters
Maloney
Gutierrez
Velazquez
Watt
Ackerman
Meeks
Moore

And a bunch of others that I don't feel like listing.

If anyone wants, feel free to finish the research:

United States House Committee on Financial Services - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml

 

[user_name_guest]

ABC on Barney Frank Scandal: No Political Hay for GOP, He's 'Truly Gifted'
Photo of Tim Graham.
By Tim Graham (Bio | Archive)
October 5, 2006 - 17:30 ET

Congressman Barney Frank’s scandalous tolerance of a gay prostitution business operating out of his house, uncovered by the Washington Times in 1989, drew from ABC nowhere near the dramatic amount of attention ABC gave Mark Foley. On the August 25, 1989 World News Tonight, Sam Donaldson noted it just once in passing, a mere 67 words:

"Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank, an acknowledged homosexual, today confirmed that his Washington apartment had been used as a callboy headquarters by a male prostitute for a year and a half until late 1987. Responding to a story in today's Washington Times, Frank said he had hired the prostitute out of his own funds as a personal aide and fired him when he found out what was going on."

On July 20, 1990, the House ethics committee absolved Frank of knowing about the prostitution ring, but recommended a reprimand for Frank for fixing Gobie’s 33 parking tickets and wrote a "misleading memo" to secure Gobie’s probation. Reporter Sheilah Kast concluded: "One antigay Republican will try to have Frank expelled. That won't pass, but the full House is likely to vote next week to reprimand Frank, making it difficult for Republicans to use Frank's ethics as a national campaign issue. Sheilah Kast, ABC News, on Capitol Hill."

Six days later, when the House voted to reprimand Frank, Kast once again insisted there was no political hay for Republicans in the Frank scandal: "The House voted two to one against the tougher penalties, most Democrats siding with Frank, most Republicans against him. With Democrats rallying around him, the reprimand is likely to have little impact on Frank's effectiveness here and almost no impact on his chances for reelection. Sheilah Kast, ABC News, on Capitol Hill." (This was true, in the end: he won 66 percent of the vote.)

Imagine if Spitzer could have said "i'm a customer, not a provider." Funny thing, Spitzer>Frank to fix the financial crisis. Spitzer = the Sheriff of Wall Street. Frank = The callboy of Wall Street.

 

[Alpha1]

Not 1 democrat on barney frank's Banking Committee voted FOR the bill.

This bill was a rip-off from the get-go.

I hope you didn't get that from me Void....I mis-stated that ....

It was 12 of Franks own Banking Committee that didn't vote for the bill....
12 Dims out of 37.....

So I stand corrected....and have no problem with Larkinn pointing out my mistake....sorry about that....

but those 12 members of Barney's Banking Committee could have changed the outcome....