Congress finally finds its balls

[altivo]

The House rejected the Bush administration's $700 billion bailout for greedy investment banks. Of course, the Dow immediately plunged over 500 750 points, but I say "tough cookies" to the foolish people who brought this all on, and especially to the "deregulation" exponents who have been destroying all the protections in our economic system for the last 35 years.

It is high time that we told them that taxpayers are not going to bail them out time and time again when their risky plans to rip even more ill gotten gains out of the public fail.

Story here.

Despite claims that the bailout was intended to protect the ability of the average citizen to borrow money, many Republican members of the House as well as Democrats dug in their heels and refused to support it.

Could it be that public opinion running 70% or more against this thing actually influenced their actions? A miracle, Congress listening to the voters rather than to the special interests and big campaign donors?

Comments

[schnee.livejournal.com]

Well, that's certainly good news. Maybe they figured that if they gave this bill their OK now, people might actually start getting their torches and pitchforks...

[altivo.livejournal.com]

I think it was quite likely. And had it not been an election year, they might have risked it anyway. Most of Congress seems to be totally sold out to wealthy special interests, and doesn't give a rat's ass about what the public thinks. But every one of those seats in Congress is up for election in another month. That had to give them a reason to think carefully about their actions when an overwhelming majority of the public is opposed to this monster handout of free money.

[shadow-stallion.livejournal.com]

So what's next? Will they re-write it and try to get it through again or will they actually let some of these big entities fail?

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Even if the government buys them out, they have actually "failed" just as Washington Mutual and AIG failed. I imagine there will be desperate attempts to get something passed, but I don't think anything that does go through will be as far-reaching as what the administration wanted. Even the bill that failed was already severely restricted in ways that the industry didn't like.

[chris-sawyer.livejournal.com]

Hm, I thought they were gonna pass it. But yay! Fuck wall street.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately we are going to feel the pinch no matter what. But at least if there's no bailout, the Wall Street investment bankers will feel it too rather than just taking their golden parachutes and floating away.

[felder.livejournal.com]

Much as I have to agree with the common 'main street' view that this deal wasn't good for ye olde tax payer..

I do fear that without something to counter this, more woe will come and folk will find the coming months even more troublesome.

We've already had a few banks/building societies hit the hard times and have to be bailed out/bought up.. it's going to get worse..

[altivo.livejournal.com]

It's going to get worse no matter what. Sucking 700 billion more dollars out of the US public on top of the trillions Bush has poured into the middle east wars would not improve matters at all.

Further out and out "rescues" by providing government money that will never be paid back and letting the corporate execs run off to Bermuda with their golden parachutes just sets a horrible example and lets them all think they can do whatever they like because the government will rescue them in the end.

[songdogmi.livejournal.com]

The question becomes, what should be done instead of the bailout? It's all well and good to reject the bailout but what are the alternatives? I'm not saying there aren't alternatives--I don't know what they are. No one has seriously proposed any, except "let 'em all burn in hell."

As much as I don't want to reward the people who got us into this mess, I see there's too much chance that if they go down, they take us with them. My thought about the bailout was that it would at least provide a softer landing for the economy, and perhaps not hurt the average Joe and Jane as much.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

I don't believe the bailout would have spared us (the innocent) anything at all. Similar attempts in the 1930s failed utterly to change matters.

For one thing, I believe the corporate exec's should be forced to go without their parachute packages. That money counts as ill gotten gains.

The only answer is the hard one. The regulations have to be put back in place to prevent greedy short term risk taking from running the economy into the ground. And those regulations have to be enforced, whether the wealthy and the day traders like it or not. So they only get 2% yield on their millions of dollars in capital instead of 21%? So what? Once they are that wealthy, they don't need any more yield at all, especially when that yield is literally sucked as life blood out of the majority of people who do NOT have six or seven figure incomes.

[lobowolf.livejournal.com]

Hooray! Congress finally finds some balls to stand up to the wealthy! It's a bit late in the game, but better late than never.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Now let's see them stick to it. The pressure is just going to be turned up.

[captpackrat.livejournal.com]

According to Briefing.com, it was Democrats 141 for, 94 against, and Republicans 66 for, 132 against.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

On either side of the aisle, I think that's still far too many who voted for it.

[redcardlion.livejournal.com]

The REALLY funny thing is watching McCain blame the Dems for the failure of this bill.

This is a no-confidence vote on the President from within his own party.

When the leader of a party calls for legislative action in the fearful tones that Bush did, and the best you can get is 1 out of 3 voting for it, than your party believes you are a failure.

The reason this didn't pass wasn't because of the democrats, who would have passed this thing, but the republicans, who are repudiating the president's will.

Just think. If just 8% of the republicans had voted yes, Bush would have gotten his package. That makes it clear what the republicans think of their own leader.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

It makes me laugh, even though I believe horrible things are going to happen no matter whether this stupidity passes or not.

Those are the very same Republicans who have rubber stamped every one of Bush's outrageous "destroy the environment, wage war on the world, and rip off the taxpayer" proposals for the first six years of his administration. Now that his approval rating is almost in negative figures, they are sudenly trying to distance themselves from his soak-the-poor-feed-the-wealthy policies.

The truth is, it has been too late to avoid the recession for many months now. Politicians and regulators alike have had their heads up their asses for years. They can't fix a hole the size of the Grand Canyon with a truckload of asphalt, but that's what they are trying to do.

[redcardlion.livejournal.com]

Well, regulators have had their mind in the pocket books.

See, that's the problem. The securities are backed by the regulator who gives them the highest score. You only get paid as a regulator if the bank wants to buy your rating. You only get paid a bonus as a manager at a bank, if your loan officers sell. Your loan officers only get paid their commission if they sell. The underwriters at the central office only get paid for what is sold.

In the end, the system came down to everyone doing what they could to make a paycheck. Yes, some golden parachutes at the top, of course.. but a lot of this was caused by the way the people at the bottom are compensated.

If you're told "We need to sell to anyone" and "you are paid based on how much you sell" and "a sale is a sale when the name is on the line, not when the money comes in".. you're going to see the people on the bottom sell to people who cannot pay the money.

In all, the whole system is broken. Loan officers need to be rewarded based on what they sell and what is paid. Regulators need to sell their securities ratings without any review, and banks need to pay for the rating evaluation in advance. CEOs need to be financially and criminally punished when their company commits fraud.

In Soviet Russia, you'd just vanish if you tried to screw over the government and the people this way. Maybe that could stand to happen too :P

[marzolan.livejournal.com]

Oh thank the heavens... I'm glad to see that one failed.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

They'll just try again and again until it passes.

[marzolan.livejournal.com]

Perhaps... But I'm still glad to see it failed and I hope the next pass is at least more reasonable and regulated.

[dakhun.livejournal.com]

even some Republican members of the House dug in their heels and refused to support it.

More Republicans voted against it than voted for it. Two thirds of them, in fact.

Could it be that public opinion running 70% or more against this thing actually influenced their actions?

Somehow I don't think so.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Oh, I do think so. Every one of their seats is up for re-election in just a month. That's a short enough time for even the attention-challenged US voters to remember who voted for this very unpopular measure. If it hadn't been an election year, and Bush's approval rating weren't so dismal, they would have passed it easily.

They'll keep trying until they pass some sort of compromise. But it isn't going to be the huge bag of free money that the administration and the investment bankers wanted it to be.

[dakhun.livejournal.com]

It seems to me that they are just doing a "We're not the same as Bush" schtick. Now that everyone has finished posturing, they can vote for the bailout like they really wanted to all along. They are on unpaid overtime 'till they cave. The bill will now be modified to appeal to more of a Republican sensibility. I'm guessing that you won't like the result.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

If they pass anything I'm not going to like it. But I predict a major shakeup in next month's election if they pass anything as massive, or as uncontrolled, as what failed today. I also think the golden parachutes of the execs are a major issue, and anything that passes had jolly well better cut the strings of those parachutes or people are going to be fighting mad about it. Making taxpayers foot the bill while the culprits walk away with millions of dollars of "reward" for their irresponsibility is just not acceptable, period.

[avon-deer.livejournal.com]

The bailout was intended to protect the rich. Nothing morel; nothing less. It will not stop any one that matters from suffering. We have already come too far to prevent an economic catastrophe. Not bailing out these failed businesses WILL probably mean a lot more people will suffer. But I refuse to have a gun pointed to my head. Which is effectively what the rich were doing.

"Back us up with your tax dollars or we'll pull the plug and start a REAL meltdown; and THEN you'll be sorry."

I am not a US tax payer, but if I was I believe my response would be "f you."

[altivo.livejournal.com]

And that's MY response to the rich bastards who are really responsible for this mess, "Yes. I'll weather the storm anyway, and at least I won't have paid any more of your damned golden parachutes than I've already been forced to do."