More evidence of liberal media biasFollow

"GOP representatives vote no" --MSNBC (title of article)

"Ample no votes came from both the Democratic and Republican sides of the aisle. More than two-thirds of Republicans and 40 percent of Democrats opposed the bill." --MSNBC (details from the article inside)

The insinuation is that the Republicans torpedoed the bill by not voting for it, ignoring the necessary 40% of Democrats who, incidentally, did not vote for it as well. Gotta love that even handed reporting of the news. Keith Olbermann must run that department...

Totem

Pubbies did vote "no" in proportionately higher numbers than Dems. And you know what? Good for them.

I'm sick of being buffaloed into expensive solutions that don't solve anything.

Well, again, I'm not seeing "fault" here.

I agree with you completely.

Of course, we all know that means I just lost the debate.

Meh.

Go ahead and complain about it. And complain about my lack of enthusiasm to rail against it. Everyone knew the bill wasn't popular and there'd be dissent on both sides. Both Pelosi and Boehner supported the House bill despite the opposition. The difference is that Pelosi did her job of rallying a majority of troops and Boehner failed to accomplish the same.

Edited, Sep 29th 2008 2:58pm by Jophiel

link plz.

silly goose.

Supposedly, 75 House Republicans had agreed to back the bill. When vote time came, enough backed out to sink the bill.

I imagine that today's stock market plunge will be laid at the feet of those Republicans and the GOP leaders who failed to deliver.

Yes. But the bigger point is that the Dems have the majority in Congress. If they wanted to push whatever solution they wanted, they could.


The key point to realize is that the Dems want the "blank check" solution. It's why they practically jumped at it when the Bush administration offered, and why they were so pissed when McCain and camp insisted on making some changes. Now the Dems have realized just how unpopular the blank check solution (or anything too much like it) is and don't want it to look like they're the ones who want it (strange really given their response to it being blocked last week, but maybe no one will notice...).

Dems don't want to vote for a bailout unless they get sufficient Republicans so that it looks like it's truly bi-partisan. Which means that they'll have to actually make the solution fit bi-partisan goals instead of just being a free lunch for Dems. What you're seeing right now is the two sides negotiating on the specifics. Basically, the Republicans just won a round by showing that the Dems don't really have the will or ability to do this on their own. Now, they'll sit at a table and hopefully come up with a more reasonable deal that wont place as much burden directly on taxpayers, and wont include additional "gotchas" down the line, and which doesn't end up being the government buying the banks of our country (which is what Dems basically wanted).


The GOP is pushing for an "insurance" solution. Where the government does not buy or bail out banks up front, but rather insures their debt. It's a bit more elegant because it means we only spend as much money as is actually needed to correct the markets *and* the government doesn't end up owning a huge chunk of the banking industry. It also prevents some of the more obnoxious aspects of the original Dem plan (like using the government to buy out banks at a low price, then using the future profits for yet more spending on the same kinds of programs that got us into this mess in the first place).


The government is not supposed to be a for-profit enterprise. Let it budget what it does so that the taxpayers know what they're spending and what they're getting in return. IMO, it's the attempt to hide the costs of some government programs that caused this. Getting the government into the business of banking would just make that problem worse over time.

neither party wants to own this turkey. it will be a bipartisan bill, or it will not pass. even if the dems had the votes, they wouldnt pass the bill without a good portion of republicans sticking their necks out for it too.

i am so glad it didnt pass. it renews my faith in the democratic system. it is sad only a very small percentage of democrats could see the light though. i will have to hand this victory for the country to the repubicans in both the senate and the house.

we almost really bit into a nasty bullet that would have been an albatross around the countries neck for far far into the future. this Bush disaster would have cripeled our economy for years and years to come.

my faith in democracy is restored. my faith in republicans to put good ole common sence before party politics has been restored. my faith in democrats has been dimminshed but not enough to vote for another republican after the mess Bush handed us. ALL of us.

This being the House that was voting, I'm going to go out on a limb and say "all of them".