House Narrowly Defeats Bailout Legislation
President Bush Had Urged Quick Approval

The Washington Post
By Paul Kane, Lori Montgomery and William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, September 29, 2008; 4:02 PM


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/29/AR2008092900623.html?referrer=email

In a narrow vote, the House today rejected the most sweeping government intervention into the nation's financial markets since the Great Depression, refusing to grant the Treasury Department the power to purchase up to $700 billion in the troubled assets that are at the heart of the U.S. financial crisis.


Posted on: September 29, 2008, 04:18:28 PM

---

I, for one, hope they continue to defeat it. Even if that means I am simply "blowing it out my" behind as Liz so graciously opined.

Nichole

Those cards letters and phone calls are voters. The election is coming soon. They got to show a fight but they all know it is a done deal.

Dare I say it?  Government works?  They were getting mail that ran 25:1 against the bailout.  Let them fail.  We let them succeed after all, seems fair at least.

If we must bail them out, we must (OK, this is trouble I know) and nationalize them.  And while we're at it, I'm going to nationalize health care too, as the number one reason people default on the house payments is medical debt.  (true).

Bush is such a jerk.  No one believes him anymore.  And for damn good reasons.

Trouble is, even at 25:1 they almost went for it. And now, as Claire pointed out we have "the market" taking new bets and the prices on those holding this mess dropping like a stone. A stone that will prolly scare the pants off many in spite of the fact that they wouldn't hold onto worthless stock either if they had a choice of selling it.

Um, I could go for the health-care and the regulation and nationalization of the banks that failed. And put some pants on some of those folks!!

Nikki

I'd think that for $700 Billion, we could outright buy most of the banks.

And maybe include Dresdener as well? Yep, I thought so.

N~

A question I have about the bailout plan that I don't think has been answered is how would these bailouts help the customers of the screwed banks? And, of course, I mean the retail customers, not the enterprise customers.

My student loans were with Wachovia, which was bought by Citi. All my bank accounts were with WaMu, which was bought by JP Morgan Chase. So far, these buyouts seem to be transparent to me. And that's what I want. I can't afford to suddenly have my assets frozen or lost.

Is the bailout aimed at saving the financials institutions only? Or, is there any trickle-down that will help the little guy?

That's not trickle down, that's getting pissed on.  But for most people, with less than five figures in bank accounts, its not going to matter.

Quote from: tekla on September 29, 2008, 04:57:45 PM
That's not trickle down, that's getting pissed on.  But for most people, with less than five figures in bank accounts, its not going to matter.

That's kind of what I thought. I even thought that I should have avoided the phrase "trickle-down," but it's too late now.

Quote from: Shades O'Grey on September 29, 2008, 05:13:36 PM
That's kind of what I thought. I even thought that I should have avoided the phrase "trickle-down," but it's too late now.

No you shouldn't have!! The response was priceless!!

In point of fact there has been a lot of reporting recently that's said that even the 6-figure deposits would be covered by FDIC as well. So, the ramifications on a pure banking level without either being a shareholder or one of the players will be neglible to zip, Shades.

N~