Print
E-mail
Share
iPod
del.icio.us
digg
Newsvine
FacebookNevada delegation split as House rejects bailout plan
Mon, Sep 29, 2008 (11:51 a.m.)
Related story
Sun coverage
- Sept. 29, 2008 -- Nevada political roundup: House debates financial market ‘work-out’
WASHINGTON -- In a stunning rejection of the $700 billion bailout plan, the House fell at least a dozen votes short of passing the proposal in a dramatic session this afternoon, with Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley and Republican Rep. Dean Heller casting no votes to help shoot it down.
As one lawmaker shouted "600 points" to the Republican side of the chamber in an apparent reference to the stock market nosedive, congressional leaders from both sides huddled together to rescue the plan.
But few lawmakers would switch, let alone enough to reach passage.
Republican Rep. Jon Porter joined leadership in voting yes.
Heller and Porter watched the historic vote play out from the chamber floor. But Berkley appeared to have left shortly after being among the early no votes.
Her opposition illustrates the dissent Democrats faced from the left, while Heller's vote showed the problem Republicans faced getting conservatives and rank-and-file members on board.
While more than half the Democrats voted in favor, only about one-third of Republicans joined, showing the continued revolt in the Republican Party from Bush administration policy.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is now caucusing with Democratic senators, with a briefing expected shortly.
Discussion: 31 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Economy poses test for The Strip’s big night
- State recommends 18 years for Simpson
- Chief who set new course for LVAM is out, suddenly
- Henderson to offer buyouts to city employees; layoffs possible
- Weighty issues solved: De La Hoya, Pacquiao ready
- Historic night on tap for Mexican/American MMA fighters
- Builder sees green light in red-flag economy
- What Gibbons would say to Obama
- Harrah’s vice chairman stepping down
- A recession-proof fight? Promoter thinks so
Blogs
Sports: Upon Further Review
UFC announces 'TUF' No. 8 card at Palms
Politics: The Early Line
Mining industry asked to pre-pay tax in budget deal
Now and Then
Traffic school film a blast from the past
Sports: UNLV
UNLV to host seven football recruits this weekend
Joe Brown
Vegas hometown boy Ne-Yo gets 4 Grammy nominations
Year-end list of year-end lists
Politics: The Early Line
Director: Yucca nuke dump an 'extreme stretch'
Culture and Entertainment
Top country acts to perform at NFR in Las Vegas
Calendar
- National Finals Rodeo at the Thomas and Mack Center (9 a.m. to 10 p.m.)
- Captain Bree, Scourge of the Seaat Green Valley Christian Center (6 p.m. to 8 p.m.)
- Blues Storm at the Sand Dollar Lounge (9:30 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.)
- Tracy Letts' Bug at The Onyx Theater (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.)
-
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
Let me understand this, no judicial review, no congressional accountability. Give me 700 billion dollars, 700 BILLION dollars! 'I'll be glad to spend it for you.' without a kiss!
forgetaboutit!!
Democrats say it is was bi-partisan bill, yet moments before the vote, the leader of the Democrat Party, attacks the Republicans.
Great Leadership at play.
The Democrats have a majority control of the House.
They can pass the bill without one single Republican "Yes" vote.
Can't be bi-partisan and partisan at the same time.
(Removed by the site staff)
While lobbyist Obama's 20% Acorn slush fund was removed,
There still was not enough effort to move this into a FDIC like insurance program and away from the nationalizing the financial system.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi showed no leadership with her high charged floor speech.
Unity leadership by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will never happen.
Nancy wanted Republican to vote for something that Democrats who generally support nationalizing industries could not support.
So Jim, the bill was defeated because the widdy-biddy republicans were insulted?
PLEASE OH PLEASE tell me this is a joke, right?
From http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080929/ap_o... ...
"We could have gotten there today had it not been for the partisan speech that the speaker gave on the floor of the House," Minority Leader John Boehner said. Pelosi's words, the Ohio Republican said, "poisoned our conference, caused a number of members that we thought we could get, to go south."
Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., the whip, estimated that Pelosi's speech changed the minds of a dozen Republicans who might otherwise have supported the plan.
You can't make this up. Really.
What America can't make up IS the Worst Speaker OTH in modern times.
The People have spoken and San Fran Nan's Socialist big-step has been thwarted.
The liberal foxes want to be paid for ruining the FM systems and causing this problem = and to continue to ruin our nation.
"The People" don't trust the do-nothing-but-socialize Dem-Libs of >206 - as their approvals show; 16% today.
Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Frank lost and America WON today. We'll see how many legs Nancy needs to break to get a deal?
Keep fighting, Republicans!!
"Keep fighting, Republicans!!"
Um, are you seriously "cheering" along a group that has so few cojones that they'd let a little thing like ***someone's speech*** derail what they "know" is "right for America"?
Oh this is just priceless. Absolutely priceless. YOUR leader wanted this. YOUR leader couldn't muster his ***very own party*** to back him.
The disconnect in your post is mind-numbing, NV. At this point, it's beyond disconnect and well into the realm of cognitive dissonance.
Really that must be a joke. Isn't the White House demanding this bill be put through? Aren't there republicans in the White House right now? Aren't republicans essentially defying their president? So stop with the socialist diatribes, because the bailout originated from the highest ranking republican in the land. So every time the bailout gets mocked as socialist, you're blasting the White House as socialist.
This shows a failure of leadership on the part of McCain.
He said he was postponing his campaign to go to Washington to get a bill passed. Three days later, his own party, citing a speech by Pelosi, cries their way into voting against the package that even Newt Gingrich said he would vote for.
The Republicans have no plan to fix this. Without action, the financial systems will lock up and credit will cease to exist. The Republicans know this. John McCain knows this.
What kind of "leader" can't get his own party to follow him?
If not this, what? If not now, when?
The Republicans can't answer those two simple questions.
Once again, the Party of Personal Responsibility(TM) fails to take responsibility.
I'm shocked. Just shocked.
Never thought we would be lucky enough to get a no vote on the plan of the quick sell white house. God bless America!
I have been reading the comments. I haven't seen anyone here wilt and fade away and die from being criticized. Apparently, we are made of sterner stuff than Republican members of the House.
Unless, of course, Messrs. Boehner and Blunt were lying. Which happens normally only on those occasions when they are moving their lips. Oh, dear. They may just resign when they read that. How cruel I am!
(Removed by the site staff)
40% of the Democrats voted against the bill.
One can claim to be bi-partisan while at the same time doing partisan attacks.
On the brighter side of the news new polls show:
Senator Obama 50%
Senator McCain 44%
Electoral Votes
Senator Obama 240
Senator McCain 200
Votes needed 270
Obama08
94 Democrats and 134 Republicans opposed the legislation in the 205-228 voted against the bill.
While lobbyist Obama's 20% Acorn slush fund was removed, there still was not enough effort to move this into primarily a FDIC like insurance program (away from the nationalizing the financial system), changing the mark-to-market accounting rule, and helping with people paying mortgages.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi showed no leadership with her high charged pre-vote floor speech calling Republicans garbage.
In part of her Pre-vote speech, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi asked lawmakers to swallow hard and support the legislation. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi piled on the administration saying "When was the last time someone asked you for $700 billion? It is a number that is staggering".
Nancy Pelosi wanted Republican to vote for something that 40% of Democrats, who generally support nationalizing industries, could not support.
After the vote House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that Republicans have not received the message from the White House that bipartisanship was needed.
Unity leadership by Democrats Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will never happen.
"Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and his top aides took credit for building a winning bailout coalition -- hours before the vote failed and stocks tanked. "
"Shortly before the vote, McCain had bragged about his involvement and mocked Sen. Barack Obama for staying on the sidelines. "
"I've never been afraid of stepping in to solve problems for the American people, and I'm not going to stop now," McCain told a rally in Columbus, Ohio. "Sen. Obama took a very different approach to the crisis our country faced. At first he didn't want to get involved. Then he was monitoring the situation."
McCain, grinning, flashed a sarcastic thumbs up. "
"That's not leadership. That's watching from the sidelines," he added to cheers and applause. "
McCain wants the credit? Ok!
Even Newt Gingrich said he would vote for the legislation.
Republicans got us into this mess, now they're preventing us from fixing it?
If this bill is not passed a weapon of mass destruction will bring an end to America.
Hmmm, have we heard this before?
It is fall and this county needs a good winter so we can look forward to spring!!!
To say that the Republicans got us into this mess is a flawed statement to say the least. I'll certainly grant you that they have done nothing to prevent or mitigate this mess, but the real cause were regulatory changes made at the request of, and during the Clinton administration.
The Democratic administration and party controlled Congress changed the lending requirements and fair housing laws as an attempt to help previously unqualified homebuyers to purchase homes they realistically could not afford. Fannie May and Freddie Mac have been historically controlled by democrats and have made numerous decisions that indicated the policies were based on populism and not on sound business or economic principals. Clinton wanted everyone to be able to buy a house, regardless of their ability to pay for it, and Bush has done nothing constructive to address the mistakes of his predecessor.
Today's vote lies at the feet of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Bill Clinton every bit as much as it lies with George Bush. No one benfits here, the businesses which will fail due to restricted credit, homeowners in foreclosure who did not use sound thinking when they took on too much debt, or the taxpayers who once again are left holding the bag. At least if the bill passes there is a chance for good for all these parties.
I am happy--or not so happy--to spread blame. But the point is being missed. If those who opposed the bailout on the Republican side just thought it was a bad bill or bad idea, fine. But to say Nancy Pelosi's criticism caused Republicans to vote that way? I would say they should be ashamed, but apparently, they have no shame.
It's my belief that the votes against the bailout bill today were not made because they thought it was a good bill or a bad bill, these House members are looking solely at November 4 and nothing else. Democrats and Republicans voting against this legislation are more concerned with getting reelected then at doing something that may be difficult, but is in the best interests of the country.
http://www.rightsidenews.com/20080927206...
Check out the truth here. This could have all been avoided.
228 opposed the legislation because:
-there still was not enough effort to move this into primarily a FDIC like insurance program (away from a nationalizing of the financial system),
-The "Troubled Asset Relief Program" or "TARP." scope is way beyond the problem which is mortgages and still includes buying foreign illiquid paper.
-changing the mark-to-market accounting rule (Statement Number 157), was left to the SEC
-no help for people paying mortgages.
- The Financial Stability Oversight Board to oversee the program, is not independent from the current regulators (includes the chairmen of the Federal Reserve Board, the Securities and Exchange Commission; the Federal Home Finance Agency director and the Housing and Urban Development secretary).
-CEO pay is not capped. There is just a deletion of the tax deduction and a 20% surcharge on income over $500k. It only covers the top 5 employees.
Look, the reason this didn't pass in the house today is simple: American tax payers don't support this.
The Dems or the Republicans aren't at fault here.
It's the mortgage companies and liar buyers who are at fault.
As far as the DOW dropping over 700 points today-- so what. It briefly rose over 500 points a week ago over news that a bailout had supposedly been approved. That's just typical Wall Street manipulation of the market, and the media is beating this to death like it's the end of the world, scaring people.The truth is, we don't have to do anything here.
Our economy can't survive on credit. If an individual can't borrow their way out of debt, then neither can these banks.
This is like the kid that got Mom and Dad fighting. The banks want the Dems and Repulicans fighting, and they want to create a continuous pre-election frenzy designed to get them what they want one way or another.
We are in a recession. We're just going to have to wait it out. But, making it worse now, simply to delay dealing with it for a year, isn't the answer.
Democrats and Republicans shouldn't be able to agree on this, and I don't believe today's vote was preciptated by political fodder. It was that some of our elected officials actually listened to their constituents instead of the lobbyists. As far as I saw, today was a win.
If our politicians think we tax payers just can't understand the economics of this crisis, I have one thing to say: Then, they need to learn to communicate to the common Jane and Joe's out here on the street. It's not that we can't understand this situation, it's that they can't communicate effectively. Maybe they can't communicate this clearly because it isn't clear, and no one's had enough time to really think this through. They're being rushed to make a decision that can't be rushed.
These banks already wrote down these loans, and sold them off for pennies on the dollar. Now, whoever votes for this is reimbursing them 100% of their losses. So, they're way ahead if this passes. But, the taxpayers are going to be way behind. I'll lose all confidence in any of our Nevada representatives that vote for this. And after 22 years here, they can't afford to lose my confidence.
Cyndy Jezzard
Las Vegas, NV
I do not understand why buying bad paper will reduce the credit crunch.
Banks are loaning to people that have good credit for houses and cars.
If the taxpayers buy the bad paper then it will not induce the banks to start lending money to people with bad credit again.
Business loans are another story.
I do not think buying the bad paper will help there either.
Nobody has explained why buying the bad paper will help anything.
Two reasonable Representatives, and there is Jon Porter. He votes in lock-step with Bush at every possible opportunity.
He doesn't get it that this bill would have only helped the rich and superrich. Wait, he does got it. He's not interested in the people he represents in Souther Nevada, he'd rather follow the failed leadership of George W. Bush and his buddy, John McCain.
By the way, there are two reasons the economy is failing: deregulation (thank you John McCain) and greed (thank you wall street and mortgage companies). To fault the people taking out loans is absurd. Nobody held a gun to the mortgage companies and forced them to make questionable or bad loans. (When I got my mortgage in 2004, the broker tried to "sell me and ARM loan - claiming that I was a day trader to boost my income. I didn't fall for that scam and got a great loan from my bank. If I had listened to the broker, I'd be sitting in the poor house, not my own home!)
Don't even try to blame the victims here.
John McCain wanted more regulation on Fannie Fae and Freedie Mac and the Democrats did not want to.
Below is part of McCain's speech in 2005 on the Senate floor. Too bad, they did not listen to him.
"For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market."
"I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole."
nance... I'd be careful about quoting a guy who two weeks ago said the fundamentals of the economy are sound.
Have any of you actually read the bill proposed, or are you all just getting all of your info from the tv? It's posted online. I read it. It's pretty boring, but I suggest you read it before tossing out there what you think it will and won't do. Don't believe everything you hear on TV. Read it and decide for yourself.
The bill as it's proposed does have some flaws, but it's probably good enough to get the credit markets moving again, which should have some significant trickle down effects. And when Congress gets back together later this week, they'll make the changes that most of them can agree on and it will pass. And then hopefully everyone will be quiet right before they vote on it as to not hurt anyones feelings.
Incidentally, the bill didn't pass because your Senator was listening to you who said no-way. The bill was vetoed because it's really unpopular, and the members of congress who want to be re-elected and are in a close race at home couldn't afford to vote for a bill that the average taxpayer is so dead against. So if and when it finally does pass later this week or early next week, those Senators and Reps can say that enough changed for the little guy back home that it really was in our best interest.
I also throw this out there for all of you who are really against this bill; let's meet up back here in the spring if a bill like this doesn't pass soon and see how much more the Fed had to pump into the system to offset the effects of inaction right now. While this bill is essentially only a bandaid, I think it's probably better to do this now then wait for the situation to get really critical. It will cost far more than $700B down the road to wait for the economy to fix itself.
True leadership isn't about doing what's popular, it's about doing what's needed and what's best. That isn't partisan, it's common sense.
Attacking the other party when you need their votes is not partisan it is just plain stupid.
Stupid is not leadership.
I seriously doubt that you read the bailout bill or even understand what it means. It is 109 pages.
I seriously doubt that taypayers buying $700 billion of worthless paper will have any impact on credit crunch.
People with good credit are still getting housing loans and car loans. I doubt that we ever go back to letting people with bad credit get housing loans.
I doubt that banks will perform risky loans to risky businesses even if the $700 billion worthless mortgages are purchased by the taxpayers.
After the government shots it wad of $700 billion and it fizzles out then what is the next step?
It's actually 111 pages, and yes, I read it. But you are right, I don't totally understand it all. I don't know anyone that does. It's written in typical political legalise, and I don't typically speak that. But when you translate it into laymans terms, you get the gist of things. If you are suggesting you understand it all, then you shouldn't be wasting your time here with us little people... you should catch the next flight to Washington and pitch in.
$700 billion is just the overall number you keep hearing about. It's about $250b up front, with provisions for more if required. The rest may never come into play, but that's the fallacy in the way this "bailout" has been presented. And it's not worthless paper. It's less than desirable paper, but if it had no chance for success at all, this wouldn't have been pitched in the first place.
You're also right that stupid isn't leadership. But that's the inherent flaw with politics. Both sides take every opportunity they can to point fingers and make the other side look bad. I guess a person just picks a side and hopes that they end up looking less ridiculous than the other side. Seems like a stupid system to me, but it's what we have.
People with excellent credit are still getting home, car, and student loans. But people with less than a 725 FICO score are seeing things really tighten up, so I think you're underestimating the significance of the credit crunch.
As far as your last point goes, I don't know what happens then. My point is simply that even though this bill, or whatever form of it finally passes, is a steaming pile, it's better than nothing at all. And if you think that shooting down this turd of a bill will lessen the load on us taxpayers, you're deluding yourself. When all is said and done, this will cost us all alot more than that in the long run.
A BAIL OUT HAS TO HAPPEN BUT THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO DO IT...
The government should not buy mortgage backed securities they should buy the mortgages...Rewriting the terms of the loans not the principle.. The loans would be written placing any late payments onto the back of the loan as principle. The interest rate would be at current rates plus a .25% premium...So they would still pay a penalty for the loans that they bought. The length of loans could even be written out to 40 or 50 years, to allow people to afford these loans (this would have to come also with a prepayment penalty before 10 years or something like that)...One their credit stabilizes over a 5-7 year time period the government could sell these loans back to the private sector....Meanwhile the taxpayers make money on the "bail out" in the long term...Interest payments alone would be a huge source of revenue...Then selling the viable mortgages down the road would also provide revenue...Making the loans non dischargable in bankruptcy would guarantee the debt...