PDA

View Full Version : So the Republicans are the bad guys huh?



redrumracer
09-25-2008, 10:24 PM
WASHINGTON - A Republican revolt stalled urgent efforts to lash together a national economic rescue plan Thursday, a chaotic turnaround on a day that had seemed headed for a success that President Bush, both political parties and their presidential candidates could celebrate at an extraordinary White House meeting.
ADVERTISEMENT

Weary congressional negotiators worked into the night, joined by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson in an effort to revive or rework the $700 billion proposal that President Bush said must be quickly approved by Congress to stave off potentially "a long and deep recession."

They gave up after 10 p.m. EDT, more than an hour after the lone House Republican involved, Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama, left the room. Democrats blamed the House Republicans for the apparent stalemate. Those conservatives have complained that the plan would be too costly for taxpayers and would be an unacceptable federal intrusion into private business.

Talks were to resume Friday morning on the effort to bail out failing financial institutions and restart the flow of credit that has begun to starve the national economy. The plan's centerpiece still is for the government to buy the toxic, mortgage-based assets of shaky financial institutions in a bid to keep them from going under and setting off a cascade of ruinous events, including wiped-out retirement savings, rising home foreclosures, closed businesses, and lost jobs.

The day's White House summit, bringing together Bush, presidential rivals John McCain and Barack Obama, and top congressional leaders, had been aimed at showing unity in resolving a national financial crisis, but it broke up with conflicts in plain view.

After six days of intensive talks on the unprecedented package proposed by the Bush administration, with Wall Street tottering and presidential politics intruding six weeks before the election, there was more confusion than clarity.

Late Thursday, McCain's campaign issued a statement saying, "the plan that has been put forth by the administration does not enjoy the confidence of the American people as it will not protect the taxpayers and will sacrifice Main Street in favor of Wall Street."

Key Democrats and Republicans had announced they had the outlines of a tentative agreement at midday, just hours before the White House meeting. That accord would have given the Bush administration just a fraction of the money it wanted up front, subjecting half the $700 billion total to a congressional veto.

But conservatives were still in revolt, balking at the astonishing price tag of the proposal and the hand of government that it would place on private markets.

Inside the White House meeting, House Republican leader John Boehner expressed misgivings about the emerging plan and McCain would not commit to supporting it, said people from both parties who were briefed on the exchange. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the session was private.

McCain's campaign statement described the meeting as "a contentious shouting match that did not seek to craft a bipartisan solution."

Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, emerged from the session to say the announced agreement "is obviously no agreement."

News of the apparent breakthrough helped inspire Wall Street, which recorded a 196-point gain for the Dow Jones industrials. The later breakdown seemed likely to send stocks downward again on Friday.

One group of House GOP lawmakers circulated an alternative that would put much less focus on a government takeover of failing institutions' sour assets. This proposal would have the government provide insurance to companies that agree to hold frozen assets, rather than have the U.S. purchase the assets.

Rep Eric Cantor, R-Va., said the idea would be to remove the burden of the bailout from taxpayers and place it, over time, on Wall Street instead. The price tag of the administration's plan to bail out tottering financial institutions — and the federal intrusion into private business matters — have been major sticking points for many Republican lawmakers.

"I'm feeling somewhat puzzled at this point," said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the Financial Services Committee chairman who has been leading negotiations with Paulson. "We're closer to a deal among the House Democrats, Senate Democrats, Senate Republicans and the administration. ... We seem further away with the House Republicans."

"Sen. McCain and the president between them ought to be able to get House Republicans back to the table," said Frank.

There is wide agreement the U.S. economy is in peril, with financial institutions going under or near the edge and recession looming along with the resulting layoffs and increased home foreclosures.

There had been hopes for broad agreement, too, on a prescription by now, with a confident White House announcement by the president, McCain, Obama and congressional leaders.

But the best Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell would say afterward was, "It's clear that more progress is needed and we must continue to work together quickly to protect our economy."

"All of us around the table ... know we've got to get something done as quickly as possible," Bush told reporters, brought in for only the start of the meeting. Obama and McCain were at distant ends of the oval table, not even in each other's sight lines. Bush, playing host in the middle, was flanked by Congress' two Democratic leaders, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

McCain and Obama later said they both still expected an agreement could be reached.

Under the accord announced hours earlier among key lawmakers, the Treasury secretary would get $250 billion immediately and could have an additional $100 billion if he certified it was needed, an approach designed to give lawmakers a stronger hand in controlling the unprecedented rescue. The government would take equity in companies helped by the bailout and put rules in place to limit excessive compensation of their executives, according to a draft of the outline obtained by The Associated Press.

Layered over the White House meeting was a complicated web of potential political benefits and consequences for both Obama and McCain.

McCain hoped voters would believe that he rose above politics to wade into successful, nitty-gritty dealmaking at a time of urgent crisis, but he risked being seen instead as either overly impulsive or politically craven, or both. Obama saw a chance to appear presidential and fit for duty, but was also caught off guard strategically by McCain's surprising gamble in saying he was suspending his campaigning and asking to delay Friday night's debate to focus on the crisis.

Of course the dems will say yes because they(rep) are "holding" up the process, but the dems dont really care about it costing taxpayers, where as the rep are trying to minimize the the burden on tax payers.

Alan®
09-25-2008, 11:07 PM
Just goes to show that nobody is really willing to do anything. Having read all the articles I have read today. The statment they issued around lunch I now find to be bull****.

jew_boy
09-25-2008, 11:10 PM
o'well im stil voting mccain

redrumracer
09-25-2008, 11:14 PM
o'well im stil voting mccain
this was in support of republicans.(paying for the stuff via taxes vs other options to reduce the burden on taxpayers.)

jew_boy
09-25-2008, 11:15 PM
this was in support of republicans.(paying for the stuff via taxes vs other options to reduce the burden on taxpayers.)


i know:D

Alan®
09-25-2008, 11:24 PM
I'm convinced of this. If the democrats got what they wanted and obama wins the election BUT the plan FAILS it will still be the republican's fault.

stephen
09-26-2008, 12:13 AM
Of course the dems will say yes because they(rep) are "holding" up the process, but the dems dont really care about it costing taxpayers, where as the rep are trying to minimize the the burden on tax payers.

it's obvious this thing went WAY over your head. either way it goes, the tax payers will have to pay. republicans want to offer "insurance" to these companies. ok, fine...who will pay the insurance if the companies finally make it off the deep end...??? you got it...tax payers.

the problem the republicans are having is that the dems want to control/limit the amount of money the execs put into their pockets from WHATEVER money we give to save them. i don't understand what the problem is with that.

it's not a matter of which party is right or wrong. it's more of a "conflict of interest" type of deal. using tax dollars is the only option on the table (that the media has made us aware of). atleast if they're going to use our money, USE IT RIGHT.

redrumracer
09-26-2008, 01:08 AM
honestly i think they should just say sorry yall are sol and let the economy rebuild itself. but thats just me. the strong will survive and the weak wont.

4dmin
09-26-2008, 07:55 AM
Of course the dems will say yes because they(rep) are "holding" up the process, but the dems dont really care about it costing taxpayers, where as the rep are trying to minimize the the burden on tax payers.

this is dumb statement b/c we the public have no information on the deal except for what we read in bias literature posted about closed door deals... what we do know is McCain did inject politics into this dragging lots of unneeded BS into an economic plan. we also know republicans have been cited not wanting to put limitations on execs earnings for the companies they are bailing out. why?

it is going to cost tax payers no matter what party you think is right/wrong. 700 billion isn't going to grow off of trees on the white house lawn.

josh green
09-26-2008, 08:26 AM
Call me heartless or selfish but I don't want to pay for any of it. I'm not the one that over extended myself by finding a company to loan them money when they knew that they didn't have the solid financial means to pay for it. The companies that loaned them the money can go under for the same reasons the public are. This is what sucks about not being a complete moron living in the the USA. Americans have this "image" to maintain and all that credit card debt to buy all their sh*t and huge fancy cars is finally biting them in the as$ and then try to say that its not their fault. There are consequences for your actions and YOU should have to deal with it. You cannot say they have helped the economy in any way by purchasing goods that they cannot/could not pay for.
I will continue living my life and spending the disposable income that I have when I have it. Going on vacations, buying car parts, cloths, or whatever. Its the greed of the American people thats sinking this ship.
This may not completely have to do with the article above, but from what I read and what they are trying to "fix" this is how I feel about what I comprehended. I hate to see someone in a bad situation, but if you've done it to yourself then I have no sympathy for you.

4dmin
09-26-2008, 08:41 AM
Call me heartless or selfish but I don't want to pay for any of it. I'm not the one that over extended myself by finding a company to loan them money when they knew that they didn't have the solid financial means to pay for it. The companies that loaned them the money can go under for the same reasons the public are. This is what sucks about not being a complete moron living in the the USA. Americans have this "image" to maintain and all that credit card debt to buy all their sh*t and huge fancy cars is finally biting them in the as$ and then try to say that its not their fault. There are consequences for your actions and YOU should have to deal with it. You cannot say they have helped the economy in any way by purchasing goods that they cannot/could not pay for.
I will continue living my life and spending the disposable income that I have when I have it. Going on vacations, buying car parts, cloths, or whatever. Its the greed of the American people thats sinking this ship.
This may not completely have to do with the article above, but from what I read and what they are trying to "fix" this is how I feel about what I comprehended. I hate to see someone in a bad situation, but if you've done it to yourself then I have no sympathy for you.

:goodjob: good post. i would rather see money put into American infrastructure but i am not economist... if it for the greater good and will help American economy but if it is just a roll the dice i think there are better ways to help out the economy. you should see my other post "7 other ways to spend 700 billion"

tony
09-26-2008, 08:53 AM
Partisan politics has no place in any of this stuff. Democrats and/or Republicans need to drop the bull****, have the cameras turned off and think about a serious solution instead of placing blame. This post is a prime example of why **** cant get resolved.

Total_Blender
09-26-2008, 08:58 AM
What about the people who have mortgages with Frannie and Freddie, and the people with loans etc. who made their payments on time and held up their end of the bargain though?

I don't think we should reward companies for their failures, but I also don't think we should stand idly by and let those mortgage holders who honored the terms of their agreements lose their homes.

A lot of you guys who favor the enormous compensation packages for CEO's of oil companies etc. are saying "its because they make good decisions". Well the executives at Frannie and Freddie made a bunch of bad ones. So I don't think they have any merit making them worthy of golden parachutes. I support the bailout as long as they limit CEO/exec packages to something minimal that will not reward them for their failure.

v-empire
09-26-2008, 10:08 AM
bush administration is eager to call for plan in front of national TV, but now too scared to pull the plug.

nobody wants the blame....

its actually pretty scarry with 700 billion. they have to get it right either ways.

but the issue of calling a plan, and then hesitating, will cause more harm to the already volatile market. and now, its still in discussion, you are seeing the market is getting impatient and now scurried.

As you can see whats happening.

either ways, we can hope they make a smart & effective decision.

josh green
09-26-2008, 05:08 PM
What about the people who have mortgages with Frannie and Freddie, and the people with loans etc. who made their payments on time and held up their end of the bargain though?

I don't think we should reward companies for their failures, but I also don't think we should stand idly by and let those mortgage holders who honored the terms of their agreements lose their homes.

A lot of you guys who favor the enormous compensation packages for CEO's of oil companies etc. are saying "its because they make good decisions". Well the executives at Frannie and Freddie made a bunch of bad ones. So I don't think they have any merit making them worthy of golden parachutes. I support the bailout as long as they limit CEO/exec packages to something minimal that will not reward them for their failure.
I would imagine that those peoples mortgages are bought by a company who wants them. Its not too uncommon that your mortgage company sell it to someone else. I would imagine another company would gladly take over the mortgages that people were actually paying from a company going under. Hell you could probably get them on blue light special!