Bailout vote

[Max Fischer]

And yet 40% of the dems thought it was bad.

 

All you needed was your dems to vote yes. Seems to be Obama, pelosi, etc... are having a hard time getting a majority of their own idiots to vote for this thing. You honestly believe the true conservatives in the repub party are going to buy into this pile of sh-- ?

 

Ah, so I see you are now changing the debate. Just admit that you were wrong about Obama and the GOP and we can move to the next topic.

[VABills]

So let me ask you this... the goverment bails out a company. Should that CEO earn one million, two million per year before the company is good under the bail out guidelines... whatever they may be changed to at this point? Taxpayers are paying for that salary in a sense aren't they? I do agree, that whatever the Bill turns out to be if should give companies the opportunity to clean their act up and get out on their own as fast as possible.

 

If you were a smart CEO, you WOULD take on a position like that, knowing that if you are as good as you think you are the company will be turned around and you will eventually get what you are worth. Plus company hero status.

 

And I am sure that the "poison pill" was heavily scrutinized by McCain? Nope.

Let me ask you this. Would you take a 1000% pay cut to go work at a startup company where you have three different direct managers to appease knowing that in 2 or 3 years you might be able to get back to your current salary, just to help that company out?

[VABills]

Ah, so I see you are now changing the debate. Just admit that you were wrong about Obama and the GOP and we can move to the next topic.

Same arguement. if the dems can't keep their ilk in line why should the repubs be expected to.

[pBills]

Let me ask you this. Would you take a 1000% pay cut to go work at a startup company where you have three different direct managers to appease knowing that in 2 or 3 years you might be able to get back to your current salary, just to help that company out?

 

 

 

How about if that company is that bad of shape and you are brought it in to fix it... they should be appeasing you. For me, I have taken a pay cut in the past knowing that within a year. I would be better off.

 

By in the large, the dems keep up their end of the deal. Just admit it, those republicans that voted against were trying to save their political careers.

[Kelly the Dog]

Well if he said that and you quoted it should be easy enough to find.

Thanks to the beauty of DVR's I went back and watched it again. He said he spoke to Roy Blunt two hours before the vote. Blunt said he couldn't get the 100 votes they promised but he was confident that he had in the high 70s to the low 80s. Clyburn said that's okay, we promised 118 but we can get 140. Clyburn also said if they put in a bankruptcy position he could instantly produce 15 more votes (frankly, I have no idea if that is a good idea or crappy one, so I am not advocating that happen, I just don't know). And remember, this is a Republican bill, that came from the administration. The Dems could have passed it easily if they jammed it down the Reps throats with things that favored their side. They just didnt want to own it.

[VABills]

How about if that company is that bad of shape and you are brought it in to fix it... they should be appeasing you. For me, I have taken a pay cut in the past knowing that within a year. I would be better off.

 

By in the large, the dems keep up their end of the deal. Just admit it, those republicans that voted against were trying to save their political careers.

But these CEO's will be replaced. You are asking a guy who likely makes 5-50 million dollars elsewhere plus stocks, and other benefits to come in for a few years with a lot of congressional, administration, as well as media oversight. And to do it for a straight salary of 400K, that maybe if the business becomes solvent again in a few years you might get to the 5-50 million range again. Probably not since their will be poison pills added that limit salaries in the spun off company.

 

So again why would any good CEO do that?

[Max Fischer]

Same arguement. if the dems can't keep their ilk in line why should the repubs be expected to.

 

You either don't get or you're just playing games.

[pBills]

But these CEO's will be replaced. You are asking a guy who likely makes 5-50 million dollars elsewhere plus stocks, and other benefits to come in for a few years with a lot of congressional, administration, as well as media oversight. And to do it for a straight salary of 400K, that maybe if the business becomes solvent again in a few years you might get to the 5-50 million range again. Probably not since their will be poison pills added that limit salaries in the spun off company.

 

So again why would any good CEO do that?

 

 

 

How do you know that? What Board in their right mind would replace a new CEO that saved their company and brought it back to profitable?

 

Actually I am asking those CEO's who are outstanding that make a lot less than your 5-50 million.

... Oh yeah and from Politico "McCain wants to limit execs to $400,000"

[VABills]

How do you know that? What Board in their right mind would replace a new CEO that saved their company and brought it back to profitable?

 

Actually I am asking those CEO's who are outstanding that make a lot less than your 5-50 million.

... Oh yeah and from Politico "McCain wants to limit execs to $400,000"

That's my point.

[pBills]

That McCain wants to limit the exec pay? I thought all of the problems came from Obama?

[VABills]

That McCain wants to limit the exec pay? I thought all of the problems came from Obama?

No the fact that obama couldn't control his dems, since he is now their leader and have them vote at a rate better that 60%. The pay and added corporate tax rate are the poison pills.

[pBills]

Republicans voted it down more than 2-1? I guess McCain controlled the Republicans huh?

[Johnny Coli]

Because you know for a fact that all of those republicans would have voted for it if Pelosi had kept her mouth shut.

About 15 minutes after the vote, Boehner and Blunt said specifically that it was Pelosi's speech that caused their party to not deliver the votes. Your boy from VA, Cantnor, even held up a copy of Pelosi's speech and said "This is why it didn't pass."

[pBills]

Another reason why VA is turning blue this year.

[Johnny Coli]

And yet 40% of the dems thought it was bad.

 

All you needed was your dems to vote yes. Seems to be Obama, pelosi, etc... are having a hard time getting a majority of their own idiots to vote for this thing. You honestly believe the true conservatives in the repub party are going to buy into this pile of sh-- ?

two thirds of the Dems voted for it. Two thirds is a majority. 140 to 95. That's a majority. More Dems voted for it than didn't. That would be a majority.

[elegantelliotoffen]

I'll be waiting for the "proof". Not some hack writer interpretation of what he said. No offense my friend.

 

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/#26954133

[finknottle]

Pelosi is an idiot, but if it were that important for the good of the country the Republicans should have sucked it up and voted for the resolution.

 

Despite the posturing, I think the real deal breaker is that Treasury Secretary Pauson doesn't have a clue how things work on the Hill and didn't grease the wheels properly.

 

That being said Pelosi is still operating as a minority leader and has not gotten used to leading a majority and identifying how to bring folks together. The real point however is, she may not have been thrilled with this Bill herself.

:

 

People didn't vote against it because of Pelosi, not exactly. Many (Dem & Rep) voted against it because there is genuine uncertaintity over whether or not it is a good idea, even among supporters. Sentiment ranged from 'no, this is wrong' to 'maybe this is neccessary, but I'll hold my nose,' and the positions were fluid.

 

What Pelosi did by grandsatnding was give the wavering that much more cover to a vote on the side of caution (and the voters) by saying no.

[pBills]

People didn't vote against it because of Pelosi, not exactly. Many (Dem & Rep) voted against it because there is genuine uncertaintity over whether or not it is a good idea, even among supporters. Sentiment ranged from 'no, this is wrong' to 'maybe this is neccessary, but I'll hold my nose,' and the positions were fluid.

 

What Pelosi did by grandsatnding was give the wavering that much more cover to a vote on the side of caution (and the voters) by saying no.

 

 

 

I certainly do not agree with what Pelosi did. However, I also disagree with people who voted nay because they were offended.

[Johnny Coli]

Because you know for a fact that all of those republicans would have voted for it if Pelosi had kept her mouth shut.

And here's the video of the House GOP press conference right after the vote, where they say explicitly that Pelosi's speech turned them off, pissing off enough of their party to vote down the bill:

Cantor's at 4:06, holding up Pelosi's speech.

[X. Benedict]

What Pelosi did by grandsatnding was give the wavering that much more cover to a vote on the side of caution (and the voters) by saying no.

 

 

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."