X. Benedict

How did your congresscritter vote? Mine....... Randy Kuhl was a nay. edit: whoops wrong vote talley

Reign in? I really don't know what he tried to do other suggesting cap portfolios. (not being facetious ....I just don't know) Honestly I think I could spend a lifetime trying to figure out exactly how Fannie was supposed to be managed in the first place. Such a weird hybrid --- government sponsored private enterprise thingamajiggy.

Congressional oversight is mostly an oxymoron when talking about Federal Agencies. Of course you can bring Agency chairmen in for a good talking to and self-promoting Q&A for C-Span.

2004 right? Just wondering who was chairing that committee (Baker)....you almost get the impression from the video that Waters could have actually blocked any reform.

Uterine evacuation tax?

Forget her book.....I want to know if she reads Boondocks. How could anybody who writes or reads Boondocks ask impartial questions?

You're confused. The issue is what she would do personally.... But fines could lower the deficit.

What is really missing is the college reunion discussion. McCain has already been to his 50th college reunion. Obama....well let's just say he has some catching up to do. I want to know if he thinks an open bar at the 50th is a good idea.

Who was he? Why was he there?

Forget whose moderating......... What can possibly be gleened from a VP debate ? Things I seem to remember: Lloyd Benson was a friend of Jack Kennedy....and that Dan Quayle would say a little prayer if George H.W. Bush was ever killed...but that is about it....and that Gerry Ferarro liked to take notes.

At least for some her poor appearances are proof positive that she can never get a fair shake. The worse she does the more proof they have that the media is out to get her. Poor girl.

Hey....this seems like piling on. I'm still getting over the fact that the bailout failed because she is mean to Republicans. Seriously though, PACs are like whorehouses nobody really wants to close down....because you worry that would just shift the whole business model somewhere else. So until then, we can demand cleaner whorehouses.

Sometimes I think I am too

And Bill sees Hitler Youth....so there you have it. What do I see? I see mostly one of those school choral recitals where you have to tell the kids "great job" while the whole time you were praying for it to end.

Kuwaitis are our buddies.

The CQ I pulled from Lexis-Nexis so I can't link ....but it is what I posted in this thread minus the changes for British spelling. Actually the NYTimes transcript looks to match what was actually said.

Congressional Quarterly and the Guardian (which just printed the Congression Quarterly version - to be exact)

You're right. The Record is different from the transcript: Transcript: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/washingt...kTIJwdrFQvOD+eg Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxBtc-nq_L0 Although I don't think it is ever a good idea for a Speaker to make a floor speech. I don't think anything Pelosi said was a deal breaker.

the Paulson/Bush bailout is evidence that the dems lack party discipline. Okay...but last time I checked Treasury is still part of the Executive. Is today the day we can re-name the Reagan Tax Cuts the Tip O'Neil Tax Cuts? Call it whatever you want....but Bush couldn't sell this to his own party. Too many people watching in an election year.

Cherry picking? I posted the whole speech. Not defending Pelosi here or the job she does...all I'm saying is that was a fairly innocuous speech - she names a pro tempe so she could give it from the floor - and takes a few knocks at Bush while praising Paulson. If there was any criticism of House Republicans - find it for me unless you are relying on some allegory. Nothing unusual there. It is just smoke-screen until some Congressman admits that her speech the reason they changed a vote. Which won't happen.

Seriously, you read the Pelosi speech? The only tangent mention of House Republicans was this: "Today we must act for those Americans, for Main Street, and we must act now, with the bipartisan spirit of cooperation which allowed us to fashion this legislation." Blaming Pelosi is as cowardly as it comes. But during a tough vote it might be natural to find what political cover you can before leadership threatens to put you on the Commitee of Natural Resources next Congress.

What is objectionable about this speech.....She used the word "Democrat"? Republicans voted "no" to defend the Bush Administrations integrity from its own bill? Pelosi: "Madam Speaker, when was the last time someone asked you for $700bn? It is a number that is staggering, but tells us only the costs of the Bush administration's failed economic policies: policies built on budgetary recklessness, on an anything-goes mentality, with no regulation, no supervision, and no discipline in the system. Democrats believe in the free market, which can and does create jobs, wealth, and capital. But left to its own devices, it has created chaos. That chaos is the dismal picture painted by Treasury Secretary [Henry)] Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman [ben] Bernanke a week and a half ago in the Capitol. As they pointed out, we confront a crisis of historic magnitude that has the ability to do serious injury not simply to our economy but to the American people; not just to Wall Street, but to everyday Americans on Main Street. It is our responsibility today, to help avert that catastrophic outcome. Let us be clear: This is a crisis caused on Wall Street. But it is a crisis that reaches to Main Street in every city and town of the United States. It is a crisis that freezes credit, causes families to lose their homes, cripples small businesses, and makes it harder to find jobs. It is a crisis that never had to happen. It is now the duty of every member of this body to recognise that the failure to act responsibly, with full protections for the American taxpayer, would compound the damage already done to the financial security of millions of American families. Over the past several days, we have worked with our Republican colleagues to fashion an alternative to the original plan of the Bush administration. I must recognise the outstanding leadership provided by [the chairman of the House financial services committee and Democrat of Massachusetts] Barney Frank, whose enormous intellectual and strategic abilities have never before been so urgently needed, or so widely admired. I also want to recognise [illinois Democratic Republican] Rahm Emanuel, who combined his deep knowledge of financial institutions with his pragmatic policy experience to resolve key disagreements. Secretary Paulson deserves credit for working day and night to help reach an agreement, and for his flexibility in negotiating changes to his original proposal. Democrats insisted that legislation responding to this crisis must protect the American people and Main Street from the meltdown on Wall Street. The American people did not decide to dangerously weaken our regulatory and oversight policies. They did not make unwise and risky financial deals. They did not jeopardise the economic security of the nation. And they must not pay the cost of this emergency recovery and stabilisation bill. So we insisted that this bill contain several key provisions. This legislation must contain independent and ongoing oversight to ensure that the recovery programme is managed with full transparency and strict accountability. The legislation must do everything possible to allow as many people to stay in their homes rather than face foreclosure. The corporate CEOs whose companies will benefit from the public's participation in this recovery must not benefit by exorbitant salaries and golden parachute retirement bonuses. Our message to Wall Street is this: the party is over. The era of golden parachutes for high-flying Wall Street operators is over. No longer will the US taxpayer bail out the recklessness of Wall Street. The taxpayers who bear the risk in this recovery must share in the upside as the economy recovers. And should this programme not pay for itself, the financial institutions that benefited, not the taxpayers, must bear responsibility for making up the difference. These were the Democratic demands to safeguard the American taxpayer, to help the economy recover, and to impose tough accountability as a central component of this recovery effort. This legislation is not the end of congressional activity on this crisis. Over the course of the next few weeks, we will continue to hold investigative and oversight hearings to find out how the crisis developed, where mistakes were made, and how the recovery must be managed to protect the middle class and the American taxpayer. With passage of this legislation today, we can begin the difficult job of turning our economy around, of helping those who depend on a growing economy and stable financial institutions for a secure retirement, for the education of their children, for jobs and small business credit. Today we must act for those Americans, for Main Street, and we must act now, with the bipartisan spirit of cooperation which allowed us to fashion this legislation. This not enough. We are also working to restore our nation's economic strength by passing a new economic recovery stimulus package, a robust, job-creating bill that will help Americans struggling with high prices, get our economy back on track and renew the American dream. Today we will act to avert this crisis, but informed by our experience of the past eight years, with the failed economic leadership that has left us less capable of meeting the challenges of the future. We choose a different path. In the new year, with a new Congress and a new president, we will break free with a failed past and take America in a new direction to a better future."

At this point, what the nay-voters wanted yesterday was for the thing to pass with their "no" vote. Election year politics. Blaming Pelosi is the best they can do at the moment, because most are looking for political cover from their own constituencies before the "whips" come when some will have to vote "yes" for something their constituents will hate more or as much.

It is very funny.

Selling insurance on an hourly salary would suck.