700 Billion Bailout Bill Voted Down: I’ll Have Strawberry Smuckers on Wheat
In what was labeled a must do or risk serious financial consequences, the Republicans have voted 228 - 205 against the 700 billion bailout bill. Congress seems to have listened to the opinions of people in their districts. They were getting calls and emails in waves, saying this was bailing out Wall Street ballers for their own mistakes and games.
I was undecided. On one hand, I agree that CEOs shouldn’t get a dime in this package. They were going to get ‘limited’ compensation. Why should they be paid by the public?
And if the financial problems stem from bad mortgages, why not stop the bleeding at the source? Give the people who are having problems paying off their mortgages the chance to restructure or help to pay off what they owe. The way the bill is structured, the current mess on the books gets cleaned up in spots, but there is nothing to stop the flow of new debt from rushing in to cause the same problems.
Help people along with the mortgages and the lenders won’t have to worry about collecting on the debt. The fat cats will then be satisfied and willing to continue spreading paper wealth and all is well. That’s an idealistic view, but how about a 60/40 split for the folks?
On the other hand, to simply think of it in terms of a, b, and c is wrong. The complexity of the financial system is more like spaghetti: you’ve got the plain tips of a single noodle on opposite sides of your plate, but you don’t see all the twists and turns under marinara and meatballs it takes to get to the other side. [I’ll be teaching economics at 4 PM on the corner of Myrtle and Broadway.] 😛
There is another way to think about this. Maybe we have to bottom out - hard - before new ways (through mergers and consolidation) and the remaining viable ways of doing business rise to the top.
As I write this the stock market has dropped 620 points.
*Edit - It closed down 778*
To think that politicians may have listened to angry callers to determine how to vote on this is scary. Do you really believe Joe Next Door neighbor knows how money flows in the system? A few Republicans suggested that Barney Frank, the Democrat leading the reform of this bill, had hurt their feelings in some way, so they voted against it. Others were turned off by the additions of oversight added to the bill. Unbelievable.
I hope they did the right thing or we will all be eating jelly sandwiches for dinner.
.. that thin of a layer of goodness too. *not my picture * 😊
☼ What's Your Opinion? ☼
Your headline is deceptive. Many Democrats voted against the bill as well. In fact, we do have a Democrat dominated Congress. Many did not like Nancy Pelosi’s bill.
If they really wanted to do a bill (without adding funding for Acorn and everybody’s mother) all they had to do is allocate $7,000,000,000 for the purchase of bad paper (titles and loans on foreclosed homes) and created oversight.
The headline was very deceptive.
Deceptive? Not at all, that is what happened.
Republicans 228 | Democrats 205
If the Democrats had voted in the majority, Republicans would have stated it the same way: “Democrats vote down bailout package.. and you want Obama in the White House?” << that’s FOX
“If they really wanted to do a bill..” falls right in line with my last paragraph. The nitpicking that was reportedly going on behind the scenes.
It’s fine to disagree, but a no vote would also assume that the bailout isn’t necessary and won’t have an effect in anyone’s lives.
The market closed down 778!
Congressmen on both sides who opposed, yet voted for the bill, did so by noting that it was imperfect. The yes vote was to calm the fears in the market.
Not a panacea, but where do we go from here?
Yes, it was deceptive. I read elsewhere that ‘lawmakers’ rejected this bill. 133 of those were Republican and 94 were Democratic (although this adds up..it was not ONLY republicans…
Do you want to know why your country is in financial crisis?... cuz the president of america wants stupid oil and he is spending your money in the war and mccain wants to do the same thing… that mean america is more poor than africa… do you want to be like africa or more poor than they?... they don’t have nothing to eat… thinking well… for your country for your childs and family…
Regardless of who voted which way the bill did not pass and the markets reflect that. I could care less who voted which way All I care about is how this will effect the people I know and love. We can play the blame game which is something we do so well in this country, but it is what it is. Now is the time for solutions, there’s never going to be a 100% consensus but there has to be something they everyone can agree upon, and I hope that congress has learned something from being heartless and greedy. I doubt it, but a girl can dream can’t she…
Here is what the mortgage companies do they will put people making say $37,000 in a home tell them their mortgage is roughly $1,300 a month on a rate that isn’t fixed so by the next year they will have the audacity to raise the mortgage by another $600 a month knowing that the people were struggling to pay the $1,300. These companies need to be held accountable for what they do. They were clearly handing out bad mortgages knowing that people will not be able to pay but they would get their bonuses because the bonuses were based on getting people to buy homes whether they could pay for them or not. This is why we are in the situation that we are in.
Personally, I think a better plan would be the following:
Give a 700 billion dollar tax rebate (that should be around 3,500 each tax payer if there are now 200 million tax payers) with the following caveat:
You must immediately deposit your money into one or more banks or financial institutions for at least 6 months before spending. You may electronically transfer any amount at anytime during this period.
The institutions will compete for their piece of the 700 billion.
Let the bad loans fail or folks like Warren Buffet may buy them at highly discounted values.
Another consideration:
Place a freeze on the paper money supply for 6 months. They (the FED) may not print up anymore money during this period.
This would be a bailout for “main street not wall street”, so the Democrats should be happy. It is also a “free market solution”, so the Republicans should be happy.
In addition, the taxpayer will not lose any money, unless they make a very bad choice or take a very high risk with their $3,500 investments over the next 6 months.
The FED did a bad thing by making interest rates artificially low.
? anyway, just a thought.
FYI - interesting take on the whole thing:
http://mises.org/story/3131
http://mises.org/story/3132