The Bailout Passes the House
Democrats vote yea 172/63
Republicans vote nay 91/108
I guess larding up the bill made it easier to swallow.
America is worse off today. We will regret such a huge transition of power from the private economy into the federal government.
It’s interesting that about an even number of Democrats and Republicans flipped their vote. 32 Dems flipped while 25 GOP flipped.
Waffles are on the House!
Posted by on October 03, 2008 at 1234 hrs
Waffles are on the House!
With a side of bacon,
Posted by on October 03, 2008 at 1238 hrsa huge transition of power from the private economy into the federal government.
What exactly is meant by this?
Posted by scott on October 03, 2008 at 1255 hrsOwen,
I’m wondering if you’ve articulated in previous posts why you are voting for McCain. You’ve made clear why you won’t be voting for Obama, but I don’t see where you agree with McCain on much of anything either.
Posted by on October 03, 2008 at 1338 hrsscott, do you actually think this package is a good thing?
Lefty, search the archives. Owen made his feelings about McCain perfectly clear during the primaries.
Posted by on October 03, 2008 at 1407 hrsI really don’t know, prj. I sort of lean towards the idea that some kind of bailout might be smart in the long run, but I don’t know that for sure and I don’t know the best way to do such a bailout.
What I hope for at least is a return to the kind of regulation which would have prevented a lot of this mess. Re-regulation has to be part of the answer. That I feel pretty confident about.
The idea that this bailout package represents too much government interference is what I’m wondering about. In what way is the package giving the government too much power?
Posted by scott on October 03, 2008 at 1410 hrsWhether this legislation works or not will be left to the economists to decide.
What I hope for at least is a return to the kind of personal responsibility which would have prevented this mess.
People of average or lesser means should have a learned a very valuable lesson: if you can’t afford it, you can’t buy it.
Posted by on October 03, 2008 at 1435 hrsWhat does afford mean? Afford to pay cash up front?
If you go into a bank and they tell you that you qualify for a bank loan that will get you that nice home, can you afford it then or not?
Posted by on October 03, 2008 at 1449 hrsMy objection to the package is not based so much on the rallying cries of increased govt power or interference.
The problem I have with it is that no one knows what it is going to accomplish.
And there is my learned skepticism for the current administration’s ability to get anything right.
I don’t buy into the panic around a financial and economic problem that has been as plain as the nose on your face for at least a decade.
Posted by on October 03, 2008 at 1453 hrsPeople should know how much they can afford, be it a house, a car, a TV, or a pair of shoes. Nobody, especially a bank that just wants to make money off of you, should tell you what you can and can not afford.
It’s like the whole diamond “2 month salary” rule. Do you know who came up with that “rule”? DeBeers!
Car salesman do it too. They don’t ask how much you can afford, they ask you “how much can you afford a month”. If a buyer of lesser means takes a guess and says, “$250 a month”, I guarentee you that salesman will find a way to put that person into a $25,000 car.
They know they can’t afford it, but they don’t care - they just want to make the sale. And the buyer knows they can’t afford it - they just want to “live large” and drive the $25K car or live in the $200K home, when they both know they’re living well outside their means.
This moment in time should be an object lesson for both.
Posted by on October 03, 2008 at 1511 hrsTHis bailout became less about the market and more about bribes, lies, and the typical wasteful government spending that McCain was supposed to be against. These should have been NO deals and MINIMAL government involvement. While they fixed an immediate problem, the medium and long range problem could have taken care of itself.
Posted by jimi on October 03, 2008 at 1539 hrsWhat is the “huge transition of power” Owen writes about?
Posted by scott on October 03, 2008 at 1620 hrsI guess simply put, the bailout doesn’t resolve responsibility. Banks with faulty loans can depend on the government to buyback loans that have defaulted . . . and have them repaid when the economy improves. First, it’s money the government doesn’t have. Second, it’s a huge risk. We’ve got to hope home prices go up . . . a lot . . . and the selling market improves . . . a lot. The only immediate good is that T bills will have more value. But, whether the market responds the way government wants . . . is anyone’s guess.
Bad, bad, bad.
Posted by jimi on October 03, 2008 at 1720 hrsWhy in the hell is this stupid thing still be called the 700 billion dollar bailout?
Especially considering it has 150 billion in handouts.
Why is it not called the 850 billion dollar bailout?
And am I the only one who finds it curious that TMonday the Dow drops 778, Tuesday the news come out that the bill is dead and the stock market rises 350, and since the news about the handout being worked on and approved Yesterday and Today the Dow drops again.
The country will be much worse off because Congress got involved.
They should have just let it go.....the markets are reflecting that!
Posted by on October 03, 2008 at 1723 hrsI’ll predict that the unemployment rate hits about 10% come April 1st of next year.
The ramifications of the last three weeks are now just starting to fan out into everything.
I’m not sure this exact bill was the proper answer, but at least there is some flame retardant foam now spread on the runway for the crash landing.
Posted by on October 03, 2008 at 1823 hrsThis was a terrible bill. Now our health insurance costs are going to go up because Congress mandated mental health coverage. They gave subsidies to Hollywood, why?
Posted by on October 03, 2008 at 1830 hrs
They should have let things play out. Further, it opens the door for other groups to demand loans and handouts. The State of California is demanding a $7 Billion handout.
This now a country of welfare. Welfare for farmers, banks, industry, individuals, insurance companies etc and it has to stop.
What happens if the people and/or countries stop borrowing to the U.S.government? This country will be in for a diaster.This bill was the single worst thing that could have been enacted. It is simply a continuation of the loose monetary policy that caused the problem to a worse end then if nothing had been done.
Read the bill, Scott. Congress has authorized an unelected official to buy and sell securities at his leisure for whatever price he deems fit. Further, banks and financial institutions are regulated beyond belief already. Regulation caused the problem and more regulation will not solve it.
Posted by on October 03, 2008 at 1857 hrsWhy is it not called the 850 billion dollar bailout?
Because if you count the 400 billion plus the FED already has in it;
It’s more like 1.2+ Trillion.
but at least there is some flame retardant foam now spread on the runway for the crash landing.
Yep. But for who?
http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2008/10/02/after- federal-bailout-aig-fetes-in-style-in-oc/
And surprisingly Dan asks the probably $2-3 Trillion dollar question,
What happens if the people and/or countries stop borrowing to the U.S.government? This country will be in for a diaster.
That is why Paulson wanted immunity for what he did with this money.
Somebody remind me.
Posted by on October 03, 2008 at 1907 hrs
How are we going to pay for this?Scott,
Take a look at the provision for the IRS that was put into this bill with no public discussion. That alone should have killed this bill.
Tad
Posted by on October 03, 2008 at 2011 hrsI agree this will hurt the country (albeit for different reasons).
I have been hoping against hope that some highly creative, forward-thinking wonkery was going on behind the scenes to think through alternative solutions to the problem (which, as far as I can tell, boils down to a credit crunch). It appears to me as though everyone just accepted that there was only one possible solution and moved forward from there without questioning the assumption.
Silver linings - now I can say I was on the same side of an issue as the craaaazy conservatives (Hensarling, Sessions, etc).
Posted by hope on October 03, 2008 at 2134 hrs
Just Wondering?
Could Bush have vetoed out many of the pork spending provisions in this bill?
Posted by on October 04, 2008 at 0941 hrsNo. The president does not have a line item veto. It’s all or nothing.
Posted by Owen on October 04, 2008 at 1027 hrsUgh. That is what I thought, but wasn’t sure. Thanks.
Posted by on October 04, 2008 at 1109 hrsBesides, the only thing he’s vetoed so far is health care for children and stem cell research. Don’t hold your breath for him to say no to other issues.
Posted by scott on October 04, 2008 at 1128 hrsThat’s not much of a generalization.
Posted by jimi on October 04, 2008 at 2206 hrsScott:
What is the “huge transition of power” Owen writes about?
The transition of power is the 3 non-negotiable provisions found in the original 3-page proposal, in the 110-page house bill, and which remain in the 451-page version.
1) The new Treasury Emperor can confiscate anything; Mortgage related or not; In trouble or not; from a financial instution or not.
2) The new Treasury Emperor can set the “price” to anything he determines; Whether it is too much or too little; Whether it rips off banks or whether it rips off taxpayers.
3) If you are victimized by the Emperor of the Treasury, you cannot sue in court because participants (voluntary or not) can’t sue.
If you want citations to the various sections of the three version of the bills you can find those details here or this article from the Washington Times.
Section 103(8) lets the Emperor of the Treasury loot YOUR personal IRA account if it is “necessary to stabilize finanical markets.”
The additional provision for permanently funding IRS “agent provocateurs” and immunization for any laws they break in section 401 is just was sold as a piece of bacon.
The additional provision of IRS data sharing with other federal agencies in section 402 is another piece of bacon.
<sarcasm>No, there is no power transfer here. Owen is wacky for calling this a power grab. </sarcasm>
Posted by John Washburn on October 05, 2008 at 0224 hrsOn the matter of IRA’s I was incorrect. Section 402(c)(8)(B) reads:
Eligible retirement plan
The term “eligible retirement plan” means—
(i) an individual retirement account described in section 408 (a),
(ii) an individual retirement annuity described in section 408 (b) (other than an endowment contract),
(iii) a qualified trust,
(iv) an annuity plan described in section 403 (a),
(v) an eligible deferred compensation plan described in section 457 (b) which is maintained by an eligible employer described in section 457 (e)(1)(A), and
(vi) an annuity contract described in section 403 (b).According to the bailout bill the Emperor of the Treasury can only loot retirement trusts covered by paragraphs iii, iv, v, and vi. So IRA’s (paragraph i) are exempt from looting. Goverment 457 plans (paragraph v) for deferrred compensation are open for manipulation.
Whether the manipulation is loots the plan or enriches the plan(s) is left to
Posted by John Washburn on October 05, 2008 at 0854 hrscapricediscretion of the Emperor of the Secretary.Interesting?
Posted by on October 05, 2008 at 1612 hrs
Ol' Army
