US bank bailout rejected!
Archived32 replies · 1,036 views
Well that's shit it then..
We have no orders for steel at our place..Dole here I come.
Waiting to roll for Olympics 2012...possible lifeline
Shot down by the Repugnicans, who are now blaming the Democrats for killing it. 
But Dubya wanted it, and his party gave him the big F U!!!
I can't wait to see what John and Obama have to say (i.e. who they blame this on)...
grabs popcorn!!!
They're all gonna collapse anyway; this was just a way of bankrupting the country before they went.
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Shot down by the Repugnicans, who are now blaming the Democrats for killing it.
Yeah, Pelosi sure did sound like she was really trying to woo the Republicans into voting for this with her speech.
Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Shot down by the Repugnicans, who are now blaming the Democrats for killing it.
Yeah, Pelosi sure did sound like she was really trying to woo the Republicans into voting for this with her speech.
Something about "Country First" that the Repugs don't quite get yet?
Or maybe its just a campaign slogan... 
Ummm... can some more knowledgeable person fill me in please..
They've been faffing about over this all weekend. Is this a finite decision, or are they going back to the drawing room, while the financial world collapses around us?
Burt Reynolds wrote: Ummm... can some more knowledgeable person fill me in please..
They've been faffing about over this all weekend. Is this a finite decision, or are they going back to the drawing room, while the financial world collapses around us?
It's been suggested that the Repugs need a diversion this week to take attention away from Palin's debate performance. According to this theory, look for a bailout after the Palin debacle.
"Country First" and all that.
El Jarvo wrote:
I'd love to be a fly on the wall in your building tomorrow, Al.
They ought to lock all the windows.
What can you expect of a selfish country?
They reject the bailout to make all the world pay their errors.
Even Swiss banks have problems...
Dow suffers worst point drop ever
At least the Repugs have managed to knock Sarah "not ready for prime time" Palin out of the news...Again.
"Country First."
They rejected the bailout because a number of people from the GOP thought that using 300 billion dollars to bail out failed banks was too much and that by spending all that money it would be a tremendous financial burden on future generations of Americans since all that money would be used to save the big corporate banks.
J
No Holiday wrote: They rejected the bailout because a number of people from the GOP thought that using 300 billion dollars to bail out failed banks was too much and that by spending all that money it would be a tremendous financial burden on future generations of Americans since all that money would be used to save the big corporate banks.
J
Right, to add, the worries are about future actions... is this going to be a large gateway to bailing out the next corporation that fails... how much should the government get involved in corporation failures and will it become a financial blackhole or a leading of government control over once private institutions (which goes against our Lockean Liberealism foundation). At what point does it start and where does it end... its not only about passing a bill to pay out 800 billion dollars, but how we go about it in the future... and closing up nasty loopholes that could really bankrupt the country into total collapse...
No Holiday wrote: They rejected the bailout because a number of people from the GOP thought that using 300 billion dollars to bail out failed banks was too much and that by spending all that money it would be a tremendous financial burden on future generations of Americans since all that money would be used to save the big corporate banks.
J
Like $10 billion per month isn't a burden. 
Both of which will pale in comparison to the loss from a severe recession.
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
No Holiday wrote: They rejected the bailout because a number of people from the GOP thought that using 300 billion dollars to bail out failed banks was too much and that by spending all that money it would be a tremendous financial burden on future generations of Americans since all that money would be used to save the big corporate banks.
J
Like $10 billion per month isn't a burden.
Both of which will pale in comparison to the loss from a sever recession.
Your missing the point that the problem that Dems and Reps have at the moment is not writing the check, rather its the forming of new statutes in virgin territory... the price of having loopholes in this bill can damage the country beyond repair....
EdelBrock wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
No Holiday wrote: They rejected the bailout because a number of people from the GOP thought that using 300 billion dollars to bail out failed banks was too much and that by spending all that money it would be a tremendous financial burden on future generations of Americans since all that money would be used to save the big corporate banks.
J
Like $10 billion per month isn't a burden.
Both of which will pale in comparison to the loss from a sever recession.
Your missing the point that the problem that Dems and Reps have at the moment is not writing the check, rather its the forming of new statutes in virgin territory... the price of having loopholes in this bill can damage the country beyond repair....
No, when somebody complains that we're putting a tremendous financial burden on our children by spending $300 billion, I'm not at all missing the point when I mention that the same person blithely spends $10 billion each month, also to be paid by our children.
Then there's the question of who will be bearing the financial burden of a severe recession...
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
EdelBrock wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
No Holiday wrote: They rejected the bailout because a number of people from the GOP thought that using 300 billion dollars to bail out failed banks was too much and that by spending all that money it would be a tremendous financial burden on future generations of Americans since all that money would be used to save the big corporate banks.
J
Like $10 billion per month isn't a burden.
Both of which will pale in comparison to the loss from a sever recession.
Your missing the point that the problem that Dems and Reps have at the moment is not writing the check, rather its the forming of new statutes in virgin territory... the price of having loopholes in this bill can damage the country beyond repair....
No, when somebody complains that we're putting a tremendous financial burden on our children by spending $300 billion, I'm not at all missing the point when I mention that the same person blithely spends $10 billion each month, also to be paid by our children.
Then there's the question of who will be bearing the financial burden of a severe recession...
So the 23 Dems that voted against the bill are backing Bush's agenda!
EdelBrock wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
EdelBrock wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
No Holiday wrote: They rejected the bailout because a number of people from the GOP thought that using 300 billion dollars to bail out failed banks was too much and that by spending all that money it would be a tremendous financial burden on future generations of Americans since all that money would be used to save the big corporate banks.
J
Like $10 billion per month isn't a burden.
Both of which will pale in comparison to the loss from a sever recession.
Your missing the point that the problem that Dems and Reps have at the moment is not writing the check, rather its the forming of new statutes in virgin territory... the price of having loopholes in this bill can damage the country beyond repair....
No, when somebody complains that we're putting a tremendous financial burden on our children by spending $300 billion, I'm not at all missing the point when I mention that the same person blithely spends $10 billion each month, also to be paid by our children.
Then there's the question of who will be bearing the financial burden of a severe recession...
So the 23 Dems that voted against the bill are backing Bush's agenda!
It's 65 Democrats, and they voted against Bush's bill.
None of which sheds any light whatsoever on what it is you're talking about.
what confuses me about the bailout is that aren't banks insured by the FDIC anyway? Is it just about making sure that the banks don't collapse and the government doesn't have to seize the bank and sell it to another one, like what happened with WaMu and Chase?
J
No Holiday wrote: what confuses me about the bailout is that aren't banks insured by the FDIC anyway? Is it just about making sure that the banks don't collapse and the government doesn't have to seize the bank and sell it to another one, like what happened with WaMu and Chase?
J
Commercial banks are insured by the FDIC. These aren't commercial banks.
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: It's 65 Democrats, and they voted against Bush's bill.
No, it was 95 dumbocrats that voted against the bill.
Just can't get your numbers right today, can you?
Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: It's 65 Democrats, and they voted against Bush's bill.
No, it was 95 dumbocrats that voted against the bill.
Just can't get your numbers right today, can you?
Nope.
See, my memory told me it was 95, but I couldn't find the article, so I decided to do a quick bit of math... and a quick bit of math based on some wrong numbers resulted in the wrong number.
Did I mention that the LSAT doesn't have any math questions? 
pelousy...barney crank...dumbo ears...sarah failing...john fatcain...chris sod...joe aintconfidin'
aint aint aint aint aint aint owt owt owt owt owt owt
