Bailout bill defeated in House

[Theophylact]

Looks like it. Only 66 Republicans were willing to sign on to the President's desperate request; they hoped the Democrats would do their work for them -- and then they could run against them for it.

They miscalculated.

Thanks a lot, John McCain.

[Theophylact]

And the Dow plunges again as the news sinks in.

[chipbgt]

Quote:

Most Democrats supported the White House on the issue with 138 of them voting for it, but even among the Democrats 95 opposed the measure.

The bill failed by what, 23 votes?


So kindly stfu with your "thanks a lot John McCain." If all democrats had voted for it or if it had passed because of democrats, then you could have something to salivate over.

[tony_j15]

Quote:

They miscalculated.

Or, the finally showed an ounce of backbone and listened to what their constituents told them.
Theo, are you honestly suggesting that the bailout is a good thing?

[sharder8]

Now ain't that a bitch Theo!!

A slim majority of the House listened to a majority of their constituents.

Wosrt of all, 95 of the Democrat Representatives went against the Party line when listening to the people.

Last I heard, 6 out of 10 on mainstreet were against this version of the bill.

McCain didn't screw this up anymore than Obama did . . . the Democrat party failed to keep enough of their people on board. What's really sad, is that the Democrats knew that a majority of the Republicans were against this version and on their own merit, failed to pass it.

Harder

[Theophylact]

Of course the Democrats could have passed it if even more of them had voted for it. They could have passed it even if no Republicans had voted for it, because the Democrats are in the majority.

But that's nonsense. It was a bill proposed by Bush's Treasury Secretary, fully backed by Bush himself, and worked out by the leadership of both parties. Why on earth should the Democrats have to carry water for a bill that a majority of the Republican members of the House won't support the President on?

Screw 'em.

For the record, I think it was a lousy bill. Now let's start over with a Democratic bill and see if Bush has the cojones to veto it.

[chipbgt]

[tony_j15]

edit, nvm, questioned answered

[The Real Bingo]

The DJIA is down nearly 600 points (5%) today. Gotta think the DJIA is heading below 10,000. How far below...who knows?

One part of me is angry, another is glad.


The U.S. dollar, on the other hand, made large gains on the GBP and the Euro.

[sharder8]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theophylact

Of course the Democrats could have passed it if even more of them had voted for it. They could have passed it even if no Republicans had voted for it, because the Democrats are in the majority.

But that's nonsense. It was a bill proposed by Bush's Treasury Secretary, fully backed by Bush himself, and worked out by the leadership of both parties. Why on earth should the Democrats have to carry water for a bill that a majority of the Republican members of the House won't support the President on?

Screw 'em.

Yeah, like I said earlier . . .

The Democrats knew that a majority of the Republicans didn't agree with Bush or Paulson . . . yet failed to convience enough of their own people to pass this version. A majority of the people don't like this version . . . a majority of the Republican members of Congress don't like this version . . . 95 Democrat members of the House didn't like it . . . maybe, just maybe, they can change it enough to garner 23 votes when amended.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theo

For the record, I think it was a lousy bill. Now let's start over with a Democratic bill and see if Bush has the cojones to veto it.