House bailout bill passes

[Doctor Setebos]

263 to 171 (http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/03/news/economy/house_friday_bailout/index.htm?postversion=2008100309).

Submitted without comment.

[LongStepMantis]

The bill that would only pass after they attached an additional $150 Billion in sweeteners to it, right?

...Why have we not taken the capitol by force yet? This pitchfork is as pointy as it's gonna get.

[DoctorFinger]

I don't like the bailout, but we couldn't afford not to pass it. If we stood on principle and said "no" and the economy completely tanks, then what? Hopefully we'll get much of the money back in the long term. :rolleyes:

[Raen]

Why are people against this bill? Yes it bailed out a huge mess up that was Wall Streets mix up, and of course that's stupid. But with banks not lending to banks then the economy goes into collapse eventually and then businesses can't afford to pay their workers etc... Ultimately it does help the average Joe.

[Typical Michael]

My hours are being cut at work and we are hitting 60% budget consistently. Im probably doomed.

[Wraith]

And here's some of the earmarks placed in the bill. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/03/house.bailout/index.html#cnnSTCOther2)

Tax breaks for motor sport racetracks ($100m), youth archery arrows ($2m), employer benefits to employee cyclists ($10m), rum imports ($192m), wool manufacturers/clothing makers ($148m), movie production companies ($478m).

[LongStepMantis]

I'm gonna say now, before someone takes my first post too seriously, that I think it IS a good thing that it passed.

I'm just not happy that they decided to take more money on top of it. Way to show us regular Joes how much you care...by wanting a slice of it for yourselves.

[Khrymsyn]

I'll tell you why I'm against the bailout.

Because there's been more talk about a bailout than a FIX.


If a child does not burn his hand on a hot stove, he'll keep putting his hand on the stove. Fix the nerves in the kid's hand, and he'll still put his hand on the stove. Once. Never again.

Fix the holes in the system so that a bailout isn't needed again, and I'm perfectly fine with a bailout. Bailing out these greedy jokers without fixing the underlying problem is doing nothing but getting them richer again and making there be a potential for a "false sense of security" in which, if this bail out helps, will make things twice as bad when it happens again in a few years.

[Raen]

Of course the system needs fixing, but given the state the market was in this bailout needed to happen fast. Hopefully a fix is coming.

[PathMaster]

Doing nothing could have potentially been far worse. Something had to be done.

The stock market is going up and down so far since the announcement, but it has dropped over 300 points and is still fluctuating at the moment.

[Ghost Rider]

I'll tell you why I'm against the bailout.

Because there's been more talk about a bailout than a FIX.


If a child does not burn his hand on a hot stove, he'll keep putting his hand on the stove. Fix the nerves in the kid's hand, and he'll still put his hand on the stove. Once. Never again.

Fix the holes in the system so that a bailout isn't needed again, and I'm perfectly fine with a bailout. Bailing out these greedy jokers without fixing the underlying problem is doing nothing but getting them richer again and making there be a potential for a "false sense of security" in which, if this bail out helps, will make things twice as bad when it happens again in a few years.

I agree with you in principle, however the fact is no one is willing to take that risk with their economy. Not any country. It's a sad state of affairs but if the bailout didn't occur, the knock on effect around the world could possibly be worse than if this was to happen again in the future.

The only way to ensure this type of situation's prevention would be to let it all go to hell and build it up again with a whole different way of doing business, but no one really wants it to go to hell.

[Sirindu]

I agree with you in principle, however the fact is no one is willing to take that risk with their economy. Not any country. It's a sad state of affairs but if the bailout didn't occur, the knock on effect around the world could possibly be worse than if this was to happen again in the future.

The only way to ensure this type of situation's prevention would be to let it all go to hell and build it up again with a whole different way of doing business, but no one really wants it to go to hell.

With my limited knowledge and wisdom, I concur.

[Alkanos]

While yes, I do think the bailout was necessary, the big problem I have with it is the whole "We might pay it back" attitude. Why are the taxpayers paying for this, but getting nothing back from it beyond business as usual? The companies are just going to do the same thing again, and we'll need to take out more loans to bail them out again in 5 or so years.

[PathMaster]

Down ended $157 down sadly. Bush did sign the bill.

[VerseD]

Here's a question for the more politically knowledgeable: Does the bill include sufficient oversight?

That's the one thing I was really worried about with all this, when initially Paulson wanted full freedom do spend the money however he wanted without reporting to anyone.

The latest incarnation of the bailout includes two committees that oversee the whole process, but it sounds to me like they lack anything more than the authority to slap Paulson on the wrist for spending money the wrong way after he's already spent it. I'd much rather see Congress looking over everyone's shoulders the whole time this is going down, even if it slows down the process.

[Evewalker]

Here's a question for the more politically knowledgeable: Does the bill include sufficient oversight?


That's the problem. A new board headed up by the Federal Reserve Chairman called the "The Financial Stability Oversight Board" has been created, but there are literally no outlines as to how this board is going to enforce infractions or closed-door deals.

They effectively are not bound to investigate or act upon anything, and that is troubling.

[Telefrog]

That's the problem. A new board headed up by the Federal Reserve Chairman called the "The Financial Stability Oversight Board" has been created, but there are literally no outlines as to how this board is going to enforce infractions or closed-door deals.

They effectively are not bound to investigate or act upon anything, and that is troubling.

Well, the good news is that there's more provision for oversight in this bill than the original proposal. That was a complete joke.

[Zrikz]

Well.. I thought this was appropriate =/

http://test.fathomthat.org/bush.jpg

[Evewalker]

Well, the good news is that there's more provision for oversight in this bill than the original proposal. That was a complete joke.

Agreed. In the original proposal they even openly included investigative immunity for Paulson. He would be completely untouched by any sort of legal review. While chances are the outcome won't change based on some choice parts of the current legislation, at least it's not completely blatant what a scam this is.

[Karmakin]

The problem with this is that you can't remove this time bomb without setting it off. The mere act of suggesting that speculative capitalism may not be the end all and be all would probably kill the markets at this point.

The markets, almost entirely, are massively overinflated right now. Way too much money chasing way too little value. And popping the bubble would be..chaotic.

So the best thing to do is to start letting the air out of it, while at the same the size of the real economy hopefully grows to catch up to it. It'll take a calm hand and strong leadership.

But as of right now, yeah. This has to be done and soon. The short-term capital markets were on the verge of collapse. And from what I've read, this would be very bad. As in you may not get paid bad.

[KingGorilla]

And here's some of the earmarks placed in the bill. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/03/house.bailout/index.html#cnnSTCOther2)

Tax breaks for motor sport racetracks ($100m), youth archery arrows ($2m), employer benefits to employee cyclists ($10m), rum imports ($192m), wool manufacturers/clothing makers ($148m), movie production companies ($478m).

Only a communist would be against more affordable Rum.

[VerseD]

Tax breaks for motor sport racetracks ($100m), youth archery arrows ($2m), employer benefits to employee cyclists ($10m), rum imports ($192m), wool manufacturers/clothing makers ($148m), movie production companies ($478m).

Damn straight. My boys Ron Wyden and Gordon Smith in the Senate are saving some archery course in Myrtle Point, Oregon, $200k a year with that addition they proposed.

I'm curious whether the blatant pork barreling or pressure from party leaders was what finally shifted the House votes, because it definitely wasn't a sense of civic responsibility that transcends politics.

[phoenyx]

Damn straight. My boys Ron Wyden and Gordon Smith in the Senate are saving some archery course in Myrtle Point, Oregon, $200k a year with that addition they proposed.


Wait, really? That was them?

Where's that Monkey with the Tire Iron....

[J Arcane]

Wait, really? That was them?

Where's that Monkey with the Tire Iron....
Hey now, go easy. Wyden's one of our biggest net neutrality crusaders.

His voting record is weird as hell though.

[phoenyx]

Hey now, go easy. Wyden's one of our biggest net neutrality crusaders.

His voting record is weird as hell though.

Mmmmm... Ok. If you say so.

I'm keeping the TrunkMonkey on standby tho. Just in case.

[J Arcane]

Mmmmm... Ok. If you say so.

I'm keeping the TrunkMonkey on standby tho. Just in case.
You can kill Smith if you want. Can't say I've ever been a big fan of his.

[KingGorilla]

To help make sense out of some of those earmarks.

1. The US has lost a lot of filming business due to better Canadian subsidies and tax breaks. BSG, 300 to name some noteable film productions in Canada that the US could have had. And when compared with Europe, there is no contest, it sucks to make a show or movie in America.

2. If anyone works in a business where you need to employ local "runners" you may get why money to get cyclists is a better idea. Many companies cannot pay to have a fleet of cars given the cost of gas. Also, there is the green angle.

3. Any item that keeps textile jobs here in the US rather than in Asia is good by me. Subsidies for a natural fiber just sweetens the deal.

The rest, I have no clue on.


As for the bailout as a whole. I do not think there are any of us here smart enough or scholarly enough to really know what the best answer was. I just really hope that in a week of debating, a few people who were got consulted.

[BlackPete]

I hated the bailout because instead of the economy just crashing, it's now going to crash with a further 850 billion tacked onto the national debt.

[Xerxes]

Only a communist would be against more affordable Rum.
I need a more affordable on vodka.

To help make sense out of some of those earmarks.

1. The US has lost a lot of filming business due to better Canadian subsidies and tax breaks. BSG, 300 to name some noteable film productions in Canada that the US could have had. And when compared with Europe, there is no contest, it sucks to make a show or movie in America.
To hell with them then. Give a bigger break to the game developers. ;)

[BlackPete]

Just to keep the heartburn and indigestion going, I offer this:

Prosecutors: Wall Street firms will not be prosecuted after all. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/02/AR2008100203631.html?hpid=topnews)

Mindful of the fallout from the last wave of business fraud cases six years ago, authorities are leaning against seeking indictments of major banks and insurers that may have inflated the value of their mortgage-related investments. Instead, prosecutors will look for such garden-variety crimes as false statements and insider trading by executives who tried to disguise financial problems or pad their wallets.

Spare the big fishes, go after the small fry.

[Sirindu]

Just to keep the heartburn and indigestion going, I offer this:

Prosecutors: Wall Street firms will not be prosecuted after all. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/02/AR2008100203631.html?hpid=topnews)



Spare the big fishes, go after the small fry.

That's really pitiful.

[phoenyx]

So, I just finished listening to the "This American Life (http://www.thislife.org/)" podcast for this week. Another look at the crisis, the bailout and other financial items.

It helped me, at least, to focus my rage in better directions at least.