Cranbury Forum | Bulletin | Info Sharing Â
[Click here to bookmark this page: http://cranbury.info]
â–ª
Cranbury School
â–ª
Cranbury Township
â–ª
Cranbury Library
â–ª
Cranbury.org
â–ª
Cranburyhistory.org
(Press Ctrl and = keys to increase font size)
Search
Register (optional)
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
[http://cranbury.info]
->
News | Events
Post a reply
Username
Subject
Message body
Emoticons
Font colour:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
White
Black
Font size:
Tiny
Small
Normal
Large
Huge
Close Tags
[quote="Guest"][quote="Guest"]It seems the market is already betting that the $700B bailout will not help much in the end.[/quote] I disagree - I think the market thinks that we have a "do nothing" congress. It's shameful - Banks are failing, credit is frozen, and assets are now starting to be frozen.[/quote]
Options
HTML is
ON
BBCode
is
ON
Smilies are
ON
Disable HTML in this post
Disable BBCode in this post
Disable Smilies in this post
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Jump to:
Select a forum
Topics
----------------
News | Events
School | Parenting
Blogs by Cranbury Residents
Shopping | Good Deals | Price Talk
Home Sweet Home
House For Sale
Home Sales Pricing Records
Financial | Stocks | Mutual Funds
Cool Bytes & Bits
Garage Sale | ForSale Ads | Things to Trade
Tech Related (PC, Internet, HDTV, etc.)
Interesing and Fun Stuff to Share
What's Your Favorite?
Interests | Hobbies
Cranbury History
Radom Thoughts | Sports | Kitchen Sink
Amazon Deals
Local Business Info
----------------
Local Business Ads (FREE)
Support
----------------
Daily Sponsored Message & Amazon Ads
About Us | Your Privacy | Suggestion | Sponsored
Test Area (Practice your posting skills here)
Topic review
<table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="100%" class="forumline"> <tr> <th class="thCornerL" width="22%" height="26">Author</th> <th class="thCornerR">Message</th> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row1"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Guest</b></span></td> <td class="row1" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Fri, Oct 10 2008, 8:45 am EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: The $700B bailout and what happened in the back office on WallSt.</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">What are you referring to specifically? You were the first post in a week on this topic so I'm not clear what continuing blame you were referencing. <br /> <br />I think in the abstract most people would agree that assigning blame should be secondary to working collectively to fix it. But there are a couple major hurdles to that in practical terms. First, we are in the home stretch of a major election cycle, one that may or may not change the party in power. Even in the Great Depression, politicians couldn’t overcome the natural tendency to blame in that situation. <br /> <br />Second, while it’s great not to focus on responsibility for what’s already happened while trying to fix it, if people perceive that the parties responsible haven’t changed the behavior that helped cause a crisis, they are reluctant to believe that the problem can be fixed or that they are investing their money, energy and sacrifice fruitfully in contributing to the correction. That’s some of what is happening now. People perceive, rightly or wrongly, that very wealthy “Wall Street” execs and bankers have brought us to this situation with their reckless greed which has made them rich as a result of high risk practices that contributed to the problem. Now, while some of these execs have lost much of their net worth they are still vastly wealthy by the average taxpayer’s standard and don’t seem to be acknowledging any need to change their current or future behavior. They’ve collectively asked for over a trillion dollars (in this country alone) in taxpayer assistance but have vigorously resisted every call to change the rules that allow them to leverage themselves just as much in the future or the compensate themselves just as excessively. They appear before congressional hearings and blame the media and the average taxpayers themselves for the “run on the bank” rather than acknowledging even the slightest bit of the collective responsibility. Or there’s AIG which asks for taxpayer assistance, then proceeds to spend half-a-million on a senior exec retreat with top end suites and all-day spa sessions at the company (and therefore taxpayer) expense, then days later ask for another round of taxpayer aide. It is unrealistic and even unfair to expect people not to express bitterness, resentment, skepticism and yes blame in the face of that kind of denial and resistance to demonstrate some shared role in the solution. Asking for taxpayer assistance but saying they won’t change a thing is not sharing in the solution. And therefore they paint a huge target on their chests that says “blame me” frankly…</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row2"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Joe American</b></span></td> <td class="row2" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Fri, Oct 10 2008, 7:55 am EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: The $700B bailout and what happened in the back office on WallSt.</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">And the blame game continues. Could we just be Americans for once. Like during WWII, crisis ahead and everyone sacrifices. Start with identifying the crisis and prepare a response instead of a blame game. Then implement the response and adust accordingly, since nothing is perfect. Instead of instituting the blame game. After the crisis is over, analyze it, and improve the failures and identify the positives so a future crisis is less likely to arise. Instead of going negative with the blame game. Then once the crisis is over, the lesson is learned, and changes are made to prevent future events, you may go ahead with your blame game if that is what makes you happy. One thing for sure, just throwing money at the current financial crisis is not the solution. First, we need to follow the financial regulations in place, perform sound business practices, and as individuals be fiscally responsible. Until this occurs, the bail-out package will just be a wasted effort.</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row1"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Guest</b></span></td> <td class="row1" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Fri, Oct 3 2008, 8:43 am EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: The $700B bailout and what happened in the back office on WallSt.</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody"><img src="http://www.inkcinct.com.au/Web/CARTOONS/2008/2008-583-V--buddy-can-you-spare-a-dime.gif" border="0" /></span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row2"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>HistoricallyFiscal</b></span></td> <td class="row2" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Fri, Oct 3 2008, 1:26 am EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: The $700B bailout and what happened in the back office on WallSt.</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">Email your NJ Representatives in the House and tell them to clean up these earmarks out of this Bailout bill tomorrow, none of these are related to fixing our financial crisis. Yesterday the news said the Senate changes and sweeteners were for small biz, today we find a lot of PORK hiding under that sugar. If you’re mad about the mortgage mess and bailing out the bad lenders or borrowers, then the first step is to make your statement to Washington and let them know that you don’t accept this kind of politics anymore. NO earmark bribes. <br /> <br /> <br /></span><table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>Quote:</b></span></td> </tr> <tr> <td class="quote"> <br />Senators quietly tucked a number of earmarks into the tax package of the 451-page bill passed Wednesday night and expected to be put to a vote in the House on Friday: a $2 million tax benefit for makers of wooden arrows for children; a $100 million tax break to benefit auto racetrack owners; $192 million in rebates on excise taxes for the Puerto Rican and Virgin Islands rum industry; $148 million in tax relief for U.S. wool fabric producers; and a $49 million tax benefit for fishermen and other plaintiffs who sued Exxon over the 1989 tanker Valdez spill. <br /> <br />Many of the tax breaks were put in place years ago and were set to expire. But their inclusion is complicating efforts in the House to pass a rescue plan that failed Monday. Several House Republicans today railed against the pork-packed rescue bill.. <br /> <br />"One thing we didn't appreciate in the Senate's action was that they decided that this bill should become Christmas in October," said Steven LaTourette, R-Ohio. "We just don't think (the earmarks) should be in this piece of legislation." <br /> </td> </tr></table><span class="postbody"> <br /> <br /><a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/02/MNR813AHDN.DTL&tsp=1" target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/02/MNR813AHDN.DTL&tsp=1</a></span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row1"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Guest</b></span></td> <td class="row1" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Thu, Oct 2 2008, 8:26 am EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: Senate passes Bailout bill 74/25 both McCain/Obama voted</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">There were lots of objections from the main st. during the failed first vote. The market reacted brutally and may be the tide will turn this time. <br /> <br />I am not sure this bailout bill with new tax sweetener will prevent a recession in the US. One thing is for sure, this nation's debt is increasing dramatically. How are we going to pay for this debt?</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row2"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Guest</b></span></td> <td class="row2" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Wed, Oct 1 2008, 11:16 pm EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Senate passes Bailout bill 74/25 both McCain/Obama voted</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">Ok let me get this straight the Senate passes an ammended Bailout bill today, while the House is celebrating Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year)? What is wrong with this picture in washington? <br /> <br />Senate usually is 2nd in line for bills like this, but took the initatives away from House and Pelosi and passed it by wide margin 74/25 nonpartisan vote. Now they have PUSH this back down to the House to do their job tomorrow. <br /> <br />I guess its was the Senate not the House that sounding the Shofar today <img src="images/smiles/icon_smile.gif" alt="Smile" border="0" /> <br /> <br />Why hasnt CNN or NBC News reported anything about the House taking a break this week, in the middle of a financial crisis and our Market closed down 777pts? And they all celebrated a non-federal holiday break. I think that is the secondary story this week that they have missed. Instead I keep seeing reruns of political skits from SNL, its soo sad what they think THATS more important to the viewers this week.</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row1"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Guest</b></span></td> <td class="row1" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Tue, Sep 30 2008, 8:44 am EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: The $700B bailout and what happened in the back office on WallSt.</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">Please step outside of your party and look at policy for a second and understand how they interact. This is not something that you do one day and the next day suffer. Did you listen to Pelosi last night or read anything in the papers where the Dems talk about the last 8 years of failed policy? You can find a quote everyday. Not that I disagree it was failed policy the last 8 years. However, anyone with an understanding of the markets also knows there are contributable actions passed under Clinton. It's a historical issue over the last two presidents that lead us to this point. <br /> <br />In 1994 under the Riegle-Neal Act bank deregulation occurred with concern to interstate banking. This allowed banks to make their own decisions regarding the acquisition of banks in other geographies. <br /> <br />In 1999 the Glass Steagall act on the books from 1933 was repealed under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. This act allowed banks to own insurance companies and vice versa. It also allowed those banks to underwrite and trade mortgage backed securities. <br /> <br />That is hardly a long period of time when one considers the build up necessary to get to this point in time. Once banks started owning financial institutions in other states without oversight it becamea problem. You can't suddenly make the change back to the way it was prior without causing major damage. Saying that as you did shows an enormous lack of understanding of the markets and legal implications. It is not as you suggested like Viet Nam. <br /> <br />The problem is that the deregulation sparked the further deregulation.</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row2"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Guest</b></span></td> <td class="row2" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Tue, Sep 30 2008, 7:53 am EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: The $700B bailout and what happened in the back office on WallSt.</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody"></span><table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>Guest wrote:</b></span></td> </tr> <tr> <td class="quote">No one seems to be mentioning this, but what about the Clinton years. In 1994 the law prohibiting interstate bank ownership was repealed allowing banks to grow substantially by holding assets in other states. Until then banks were much like 1st Constitution. The Federal Reserve oversaw bank holding companies. <br /> <br />Then in the late 1990's it allowed banks to buy insurance companies. So you had companies like Citigroup and Travelers or Credit-Swiss and Winterthur, etc... <br /> <br />Then when Bush took over it was further deregulation. <br /> <br />So I don't see how one can say it was only the last 8 years. It started in the 1990's and went from there.</td> </tr></table><span class="postbody"> <br /> <br />I haven't seen anyone say it was "just the last 8 years" to begin with. That said, I never buy these arguments that try to find distant origins for later problems. So much time has passed that it doesn't matter what a previous administrtation did as the current one had ample time to change direction if it wanted to. Instead, it went even stronger in that direction. So regardless of what happened before, it still needs to "own" accelerating financial institution deregulation. Second, the the current administrtation has to own what they did about it as things started to go south. <br /> <br />Let's use another example. By your logic, the Vietnam Way was really Eisenhower's fault because he sent the first U.S. Troops in. The fact that Kennedy and primarily Johnson dramatically escalated the conflict doesn't matter then? Of course not. The Dems had a later opportunity to escalate or de-escalate and chose the former. Just as Bush made his choices.</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row1"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Guest</b></span></td> <td class="row1" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Tue, Sep 30 2008, 7:04 am EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: The $700B bailout and what happened in the back office on WallSt.</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">No one seems to be mentioning this, but what about the Clinton years. In 1994 the law prohibiting interstate bank ownership was repealed allowing banks to grow substantially by holding assets in other states. Until then banks were much like 1st Constitution. The Federal Reserve oversaw bank holding companies. <br /> <br />Then in the late 1990's it allowed banks to buy insurance companies. So you had companies like Citigroup and Travelers or Credit-Swiss and Winterthur, etc... <br /> <br />Then when Bush took over it was further deregulation. <br /> <br />So I don't see how one can say it was only the last 8 years. It started in the 1990's and went from there.</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row2"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Guest</b></span></td> <td class="row2" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Tue, Sep 30 2008, 6:58 am EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: The $700B bailout and what happened in the back office on WallSt.</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">The Dow dropped because congress set the expectation for passage. Without the expectation it wouldn't have been as sever. <br /> <br />IMO, this is posturing. The bill failed and now both sides will make amendments and get a bill passed. It's far from over.</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row1"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>MarketWatch</b></span></td> <td class="row1" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Mon, Sep 29 2008, 11:05 pm EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: How rejecting a $700 billion plan cost us $1 trillion</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">DAVID CALLAWAY <br />Congress calls Wall Street's bluff, and we lose <br />Commentary: How rejecting a $700 billion plan cost us $1 trillion <br />By David Callaway, MarketWatch <br /> <br />Last update: 5:21 p.m. EDT Sept. 29, 2008 <br /> <br />FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Congress called Wall Street's bluff Monday, and investors, savers, retirees and employees around the world lost their shirts. <br /> <br />While groups of politicians bickered like schoolchildren over the failure of the House of Representatives to pass Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's $700 billion bailout plan, the S&P 500 Index plunged to its worst day since the week of the 1987 stock-market crash, wiping out more than $700 billion in the index's market value. See Market Snapshot. <br />In other words, we all just spent that $700 billion today -- and still didn't get a rescue plan. <br />You're doing a heckuva job, Congress. See full story on House vote. <br />Let's be clear: The fat cats on Wall Street are still rich. And there must be several dozen of them in total. They were worth many millions, and now they're just worth several millions. <br />Heckuva job, Congress. <br />But by making this about a bailout of fat cats and not what it clearly was -- an emergency rescue of the global financial system -- Congress imperils the investments, deposits, money markets and life savings of millions of Americans, to say nothing of people around the world. <br /> <br />Is it Election Day yet? <br /> <br />Even the notoriously splintered government of Belgium was able to engineer a rescue of banking and insurance giant Fortis over 48 hours this weekend. But our own representatives, faced with the gravest economic threat in 70 years, took more than 10 days to hash up this rescue plan, and then rejected it anyway. <br />In total, more than $1 trillion was wiped off the value of the entire U.S. stock market Monday, as measured by the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 Index. Asian markets will certainly plunge tonight, followed by the European markets Tuesday morning -- and many of the latter suffered their worst losses ever Monday. <br /> <br />In case anyone in the House failed to notice, the constituents affected by this decision reside well beyond the representatives' little districts. Four major European financial institutions were bailed out over the weekend. More will come. Wachovia Corp.'s takeover Monday morning made it just the latest U.S. bank to go down. With no rescue plan in place, even our biggest banks remain under threat. <br /> <br />The markets will bounce back -- perhaps even this week. Another crack at a bailout will be taken in the coming days, most likely. We will get through this, ideally without a painful recession. <br />But when we finally catch our collective breath and look back, we'll realize this was never about fat cats. The House as a whole missed that completely. Instead, small investors and savers around the world are left to twist in the wind as the systemic failure that till now had been merely theoretical takes place right before our eyes. <br /> <br />At some point, the pain will become deep enough that even Congress will get that message. <br />Until then, we've finally got an answer as to whose fault it is. <br /> <br /><a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/how-rejecting-700-billion-bailout/story.aspx?guid=%7B32B3D375-5D32-4DEA-B3F8-6DDA3FD54E79%7D&dist=msr_1" target="_blank">http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/how-rejecting-700-billion-bailout/story.aspx?guid=%7B32B3D375-5D32-4DEA-B3F8-6DDA3FD54E79%7D&dist=msr_1</a></span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row2"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Guest</b></span></td> <td class="row2" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Mon, Sep 29 2008, 9:10 pm EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: The $700B bailout and what happened in the back office on WallSt.</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">Okay, does 60/40 responsability sound better then? Doesn't seem to me that you're being any better than the politicans by having to assign blame and not seeing that the Dems did not fully support the bill either. Which as I said to me is a good thing. <br /> <br />I find it amazing how people have to assign blame and refuse to see the middle ground. And I'm independent not a republican or democrat. I can't stand either party which is why I find it amazing how people want to assign blame or say it's so and so's fault. If you want to assign blame fine, go ahead if it makes you feel better and help's you sleep. As you're comments indicate from here and the poll comment, it's clear your pro-Democrat and pro this bill, so I won't change your mind anymore than I will some friends who are pro-republican and McCain. <br /> <br />I prefer to see that people on both sides saw the pros and cons. I'm thankful people saw the cons on both sides and that our NJ reps who again are mostly Dems also saw the cons and voted no. <br /> <br />Honestly, I could care less about how the vote affected the candidates.</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row1"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Guest</b></span></td> <td class="row1" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Mon, Sep 29 2008, 8:57 pm EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: The $700B bailout and what happened in the back office on WallSt.</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">I'm sorry but that is a really weak argument that makes no sense. First, 60 percent is strong margin. They rallied almost twice the people as the other party. Second, to actually give credence to the argument that Pelosi is responsible for converting 12 votes is ridiculous. <br /> <br />But people have a hard time accepting responsibility. The lawmakers won't accept responsibility for their votes and the citizens who are members of their party will always try to justify. <br /> <br />The interesting test is independents. They don't have party bias. And initial polls suggest the result hurt McCain more the Obama among independents.</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row2"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Guest</b></span></td> <td class="row2" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Mon, Sep 29 2008, 8:39 pm EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: The $700B bailout and what happened in the back office on WallSt.</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">I say equal because neither party rallied their troops in large enough support for me to say one party is to blame. If Pelosi hadn't made the speech and the Republican 12 had voted it would have been 60/40 vs 67/37 a big difference. Pelosi shouldn't have risked making the speech and the Republicans shouldn't have taken offense. Tit for tat in my opinion, neither position is defensible. <br /> <br />The NJ delegation saw enough problems in the bill to vote against it despite the majority are Dems. They clearly felt there was a concern and not a partisan concern with the bill. <br /> <br />This also assumes one is in favor of the bill in order to assign failure. I was personally opposed so instead of blame, I actually should be rephrasing my comment to say that a bipartisan support voted to support the failure of the bill.</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row1"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Guest</b></span></td> <td class="row1" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Mon, Sep 29 2008, 8:29 pm EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: The $700B bailout and what happened in the back office on WallSt.</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">I agree with yo to a point, in that a bill with so little overall support and large negative support in both parties has a more fundamental problem, be it real or political (fear of constituents reactions). <br /> <br />But I still don't get your logic on why it is "equal." One party rallied a majority of its members. Had a comparable percentage of the other party rallied behind it, it would have passed. <br /> <br />At the end of the day, all this blame is pointless. They should be working on what to do next and stop getting distracted by blame at all. Though McCain holding press conferences to assign blame doesn't set the right example.</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row2"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Guest</b></span></td> <td class="row2" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Mon, Sep 29 2008, 8:18 pm EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: The $700B bailout and what happened in the back office on WallSt.</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">I very much disagree. There is equal blame on both parties. <br />When supporters from both sides are blaming the other it's clear that there is equal blame. <br /> <br />About 67% of Republicans and 40% of Democrats opposed the bill. <br /> <br />65 Republicans joined 140 Democrats in voting "yes," while 133 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted "no." <br /> <br />This was not a party line vote when you have these numbers crossing lines. You have ideals about whether it's right or not for the government to play this role. For example, the Rep. from Newark voted no as he found it unfair to his voters. <br /> <br />When the bill fails people look to place blame. Pelosi rails and then Republicans say it was her fault. Truth is that this an opportunistic comment, the speach while not proper had no effect on the passage of the bill. Too many from both sides opposed it. <br /> <br />Our own representatives voted 7-6 against the bailout plan with a good split of both party representatives on each side of the vote.</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> </table>
Search
Register (optional)
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Search
Register (optional)
Log in to check your private messages
Log in