The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.
Senate passes $700B 'sweetened' rescue package
news.yahoo.com — After one spectacular failure, the $700 billion financial industry bailout found a second life Wednesday, winning lopsided passage in the Senate and gaining ground in the House, where Republicans opposition softened.
JohnTheRevel- 1589 diggs
- digg it
- RJBURLE, on 10/02/2008, -63/+450Big surprise! Both Obama and McCain voted for this sham. They should run on the same ticket. Vote for a third party this year.
- brad3378, on 10/02/2008, -4/+105Meanwhile, the National Debt clock officially ticked past the $10 Trillion mark today.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
.........I haven't heard anything about it in the Mainstream Media.- rizzo2008, on 10/02/2008, -1/+18Anyone have the full list of senators and who voted yes and no?
- Elranzer, on 10/02/2008, -29/+13Yep, vote for a third party... and watch the Republicans win AGAIN this year!!! And again and again.
Seriously, you KNOW that a third party is NOT going to win. You KNOW the conservatives are not voting third party. Only liberals vote third party, and that just takes away votes from the Democrats. Why do you think the Republicans donated to Nader's campaign in 2004? Why do you think liberal heads like Michael Moore and Bill Maher urge Nader NOT to run every year? At this point, we can't afford four more years of Bush for the sake of making a statement about the two-party system. You've tried that in 2000 and 2004, and you FAILED. It's just NOT worth it. Not this year.
Any vote that's NOT for Obama is a vote FOR McCain. Not voting is also a vote for McCain. We cannot defeat the Republicans by wasting votes. - Zombi, on 10/02/2008, -8/+19@Elranzer: Who are you to dictate the worth of someone's vote? A vote is a vote, it holds no more or less worth with the party it's cast for.
- DrReaper, on 10/02/2008, -3/+13Nobody wins an election with a majority. Vote for the constitution party. We need the constitution as you can see what happens without one.
- RickScarf, on 10/02/2008, -0/+19List of senators who voted for and against it:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hX_MaTaUTKVxe0Z ...
- digitronix, on 10/02/2008, -8/+181Hmmm.... let's see....
Obama's top contributors:
Goldman Sachs $691,930
University of California $611,207
Citigroup Inc $448,599
JPMorgan Chase & Co $442,919
Harvard University $435,769
Google Inc $420,174
UBS AG $404,750
National Amusements Inc $389,140
Microsoft Corp $377,235
Lehman Brothers $370,524
Sidley Austin LLP $350,302
Moveon.org $347,463
Skadden, Arps et al $340,264
Time Warner $338,527
Wilmerhale Llp $335,398
Morgan Stanley $318,070
Latham & Watkins $297,400
Jones Day $289,476
University of Chicago $278,885
Stanford University $276,038
McCain's Top Contributors:
Merrill Lynch $298,413
Citigroup Inc $269,251
Morgan Stanley $233,272
Goldman Sachs $208,395
JPMorgan Chase & Co $179,975
AT&T Inc $174,487
Blank Rome LLP $150,426
Credit Suisse Group $150,025
Greenberg Traurig LLP $146,787
UBS AG $140,165
PricewaterhouseCoopers $140,120
US Government $137,617
Bank of America $129,475
Wachovia Corp $122,846
Lehman Brothers $117,500
FedEx Corp $113,453
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher $104,250
US Army $103,613
Bear Stearns $99,300
Pinnacle West Capital $97,700
Yep. It all makes sense now. They have the exact same interests at heart.
(Source: http://www.opensecrets.org%29- fuzzmeister, on 10/02/2008, -26/+14Who else is going to be contributing big sums of money? It only makes sense that the people with the most money will contribute the most, and it's not like the candidates are going to reject money from people who work at large companies (as in, most people).
- VacantThoughts, on 10/02/2008, -4/+19The Google does not abide for McCain.
- Misinformant, on 10/02/2008, -16/+19So I assume then that you actually think Ron Paul would decline such donations if they went his way, huh?
- tomjeff09, on 10/02/2008, -3/+31Dead link. Digg effect or not posted properly?
Eye opening as hell though. Classic tactic used by the central banks for centuries. Finance both sides and you win either way.
This is economic terrorism. - USAOwnz, on 10/02/2008, -6/+15*****.
- ShinRaTDR, on 10/02/2008, -12/+21The only thing you have "discovered" here is that American politicians need piles upon piles of money to run a campaign with even a remote chance.
There's no conspiracy or special interests, just crazy requirements to run a campaign. If a 3rd party were ever offered this money they would take it in a heartbeat, because its the only thing stopping them from running a real national campaign and having a real shot.
This is why the very top level comment pisses me off so much. All I read was bitching and moaning then a stupid solution.
Why don't you 3rd party idiots support a SPECIFIC 3rd party, and do so vocally for the 4 years before the ***** election. Don't just cry "random 3rd party" a month before crunch time. Sure, some Digg idiots will digg you up, but bringing out cynical feelings in people regarding mainstream politics is no talent, in fact its what creates apathetic voters.
But of course that would never happen, because
A. It requires you to know the name of a specific 3rd party you support, something I have yet to hear.
B. If you actually chose a party and they became popular, you would see the same list of contributers. Why? maybe because people who have lots of money, I dunno, have a ***** of money?
The only significant information in those lists is the differences, not the sames. Obama has way more university contributions than McCain, which pretty much falls in line with my opinion about him.
To summarize, apathy helps nobody. It is directly detrimental to any cause, other than anarchy. - NekoIan, on 10/02/2008, -12/+6Obama accepted 6% of his total from those corps. McCain 20%. From same site. Just saying..
- xptoast, on 10/02/2008, -0/+17Maybe we should get with the the concepts put forth in the Declaration of Independance...
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "
Just an idea. - kday, on 10/02/2008, -2/+17I'm voting third party because I believe the third party candidates are better choices. I don't think Obama or McCain represent the interests of the American People. Sure, Obama and McCain have avid followers, but I think these followers don't realize that these candidates don't represent their best interests. They are tricked into the 2 party system, and don't know any better.
To be honest, I don't know who I am going to vote for yet. I'm waiting for Ron Paul to make his announcement before I decide which third party candidate I am voting for. - kday, on 10/02/2008, -1/+12"The only thing you have "discovered" here is that American politicians need piles upon piles of money to run a campaign with even a remote chance."
You are right. And we can change that. If we all get together, and decide we aren't going to put up with this crappy 2 party system, change will happen. It may not happen this election, it may not happen next election, but as long as we continue to spread the word, it will happen. I feel that more and more Americans are starting to realizing that our 2 party system doesn't work. You have to be optimisitic. We can do it! - Charlotte_Web, on 10/02/2008, -4/+15Bu... bu... bu... but, CHANGE!!!
- kday, on 10/02/2008, -2/+1
- jaymzdean, on 10/02/2008, -1/+5http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcEuhi7KKHA
- kday, on 10/02/2008, -1/+4jaymzdean -
That is an awesome video. Some organization against the two-party system (does one exist?) should acquire that video, get funding, and put that on national television in its raw form. I think that will get people to think. It's a simple message, but extremely powerful and true. That's what I would call effective advertising. Thanks for sharing. - theutopian, on 10/02/2008, -2/+3What's unfair about your totals is that you are misrepresenting the facts. The companies did not directly donate to the campaign. People who work for those companies have donated to the campaign (you have to declare your employer when you donate).
Are you suggesting it's right to prevent people from supporting political candidates because of where they work? If we went by that logic, no one could donate to any campaign.
- MachineMessiah, on 10/02/2008, -37/+31I can't argue with your "RON PAUL!" rhetoric -- since it is incredibly popular on this website -- so I will simply say that, as much as this bill hurts, it's necessary. Do you want to buy a home in the next few years? Attend school and fund it with student loans? SOME KIND OF RESCUE is necessary. The last 8 years have messed up our economy, and whoever you do vote for, please acknowledge the fact that this country's recent errors require swift action.
- ThickGreenPuke, on 10/02/2008, -7/+27where did we get the money? please answer just this simple question.
- chowda, on 10/02/2008, -8/+17Action by the same people who caused the mess? you presume because it's alot of money and the government are involved that what they're doing is better than nothing... well, I don't think there's any indication that that's the case.
and no... I don't want any form of credit in the next few years. - MachineMessiah, on 10/02/2008, -19/+4"Tax the hell out of us" is the impulse answer. But they might just make another dent in the deficit and take a hit internationally. I'm not an economist, but I have a hard time believing that the solution to "no loans" is "taking out a loan from YOU so we can GIVE you loans." It's too circular and I know the senate -- and the economists who agree intervention is necessary -- is/are smarter than that
- willster580, on 10/02/2008, -18/+5@ThickGreenPuke: Everyone knows that the government has a factory where y money and are in no way in debt. I say we just start printing tons of money so everyone is rich! I'm such a genius.
- PhantomRogue, on 10/02/2008, -4/+15This money will NOT get you a mortgage any easier. People who apply for mortgages will still get them. McDonalds employee's wont be getting their 200,000 dollar houses, but they never should have in the first place.
This Money is going towards the HIGH RISK SECURITIES. The bonds/mortgages that the bank classifies as ones which they understand that they likely wont get te full investment back (aka, the high risk involved). But if the people they gave them to, can keep the payments up (hello 25% Variable Rate ARMs), they make a ***** ton of money based on the original investment.
Mortgages gave away too many of those high risk loans too quickly... too many people defaulted, thus the High Risk Securities are now junk due to people not paying them. This money will be going towards those bonds/securities. - senatorpjt, on 10/02/2008, -3/+18If you want to buy a house, it's going to be a lot more expensive because the bailout's direct intent is artificially propping up house prices.
- 8347, on 10/02/2008, -3/+21"The last 8 years has messed up our economy". You're a moron! We are feeling the effects of decades of poor financial management by both parties. Blaming on person or party just prolongs the problem.
- schreck9, on 10/02/2008, -6/+4"where did we get the money? please answer just this simple question."
Professor Krugman has some thoughts, doesn't necessarily require printing money:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/follow ... - kaelyiesta, on 10/02/2008, -2/+19"SOME KIND OF RESCUE is necessary."
Congrats, you have been brainwashed.
Meanwhile, people who actually read the bill have learned that it allows for money to buy bad debt from nearly any source, and not a little evidence suggests that that is also the intent: http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/596-Th ... - sgerwel1985, on 10/02/2008, -1/+5This national debt is out of control. While Bush didn't help at all, he contributed a rather large chunk. We all need to look close to 20 years back of debt being substantially higher towards the end of MOST presidents terms. This economic crisis has been a monster in the making. Hopefully people are not crazy enough to believe Obama OR Mccain will be able pull this country out of this so called grave that has been made.
- MachineMessiah, on 10/02/2008, -6/+4The ultimate, long-term solution to this problem, and the short-term "bandaid" are two different things. The national debt has been out of control for a very long time. Yes, this plan buys bad debt. But that frees up financiers to continue to provide loans to people who are actually qualified and can pay the loans.
The focus after all this should be to stop lenders from generating bad debt. My point in posting here is to attempt to at least convince a few people that "watching wall street crash and burn" isn't a good thing by any means -- when all the banks failed in the great depression, "main street" ended up spending most days lining up for bread. - xornor, on 10/02/2008, -1/+11> Do you want to buy a home in the next few years?
no i have a home it's almost paid off
> Attend school and fund it with student loans?
no i paid for my school with money i worked for
> this country's recent errors require swift action.
why should the responsible bail out the careless? - DrReaper, on 10/02/2008, -2/+13Sorry this will allow the printing of money. Guess what happens when you print too much money. That's right it buys less. How much do you want to go into debt to get something? The economy isn't going to get better from this...
- GoldBullion, on 10/02/2008, -2/+7@MachineMessiah, the people who are saying "this country's recent errors require swift action" are same people who said Iraq had WMDs, Iran poses a threat to America (HA!!), that the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act are necessary for our security, that "we have to fight them over there so they won't come over here, and that he Iraq war is about freedom. What makes you think that all of a sudden they're going to start looking out for America's best interest? How many times are you going to fall for their lies?
That said, please explain how adding another trillion dollars to our current $50 trillion debt and future obligations is going to help the economy. Please explain how giving the Treasury Secretary unchecked power to give billions MORE dollars to whom ever he chooses (including to foreign banks and financial institutions) whenever he chooses for what ever reason, forever into the future.
; the same people who - kday, on 10/02/2008, -3/+12Let's look at a source that predicted the Great Depression: The Austrian School of Economics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression#Aust ...
From the article:
"The artificial interference in the economy was a disaster prior to the Depression, and government efforts to prop up the economy after the crash of 1929 only made things worse. According to Rothbard, government intervention delayed the market's adjustment and made the road to complete recovery more difficult."
Ok, so the government tried to prop up the economy, and all it did was make things worse. Let's put $700 billion dollars on red, and maybe it will work this time. Maybe the odds are like playing roulette.
Seriously though, shall we learn from history, or is it more fun repeating it? - CosmicJustice, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4@MachineMessiah
We need all your money and all your stuff.
Right now!
Hurry up, if you don't give us all your stuff tomorrow things will get much worse.
Don't think.
Hurry up.
OMG things are getting worse already. - h4ckler, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1Well doesn't the Iraq war cost something like 40 bilion a day?
- ThickGreenPuke, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2@ h4ckler: $410 million/day
http://theiraqinsider.blogspot.com/2008/02/how-muc ... - pmpodhorzer, on 10/02/2008, -3/+3First of all, the motives for the Great Depression are all well known, and the discussion about "government intervention" is misguided: the government always intervene, the difference is how. There is no "free markets", only a government policy where the market is regulated in a certain way. Without government, there is no markets. Understood? Do you have college in the States?, sheesh. OK, now, the following subject: "socialism". I have read a lot of comments of some kind of sect stranded in the 19Th century or something called "Libertarians". Oh please. We are in 2008, OK? Let Von Mises and Hayek fall in the dustbin where their ideas belong. So central planning impedes development? OK, lets the investors set what is better for the economy based in their own greed. Lets do something better: we can give ownership to people working in an enterprise, so they will work harder. And lets make them compete with other companies whose owners are also their workers. You see? Now you have a drive for innovation in a "free market" but the earnings go to the people working in the enterprises and not to some dude sitting in a pile of money. It is called "Market Socialism" (or Economic Democracy) and it is the future. There you have it: competition, and worker ownership. And about health insurance: only undeveloped nations don't give their citizens health care. So, the United States of America must be an undeveloped country, right?
- Tenbatsu404, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4Obama supporters need to gtfo. Your positions are completely untenable. Open your god damn eyes; Obama is no different than McCain. They both answer to the same masters.
- rowjimmy, on 10/02/2008, -1/+1@pmpodhorzer - you could've used a nicer tone, but you are mostly correct. i get scared when i hear people talk about the "free market" thinking that first it actually exists in the US (it doesn't; the system we have is closer to nepotism) and that second, it is god-ordained and the only way we could ever exist. so long as greed rather than universal well-being dictates the movements of the economy, you will always have a small group of nefarious sociopaths willing to do whatever it takes to pad their bottom line. trickle down economics does not work, and "free market" capitalism does not promote the wellfare of the most people. the fact that neither major party is willing to admit this and look towards developing a participatory economic structure that ensures that the well-being of all involved is the highest priority tells me this system is broken.
- wrobin, on 10/02/2008, -0/+0"I know the senate -- and the economists who agree intervention is necessary -- is/are smarter than that"
My question would be how do you know that the economists who agree with the bailout are smarter than the ones that disagree with it? You've got extremely educated and respected experts on both sides of the issue with opposite opinions
My Econ 101 education hasn't really prepared me to take a stand on this issue, but what I've read suggests that there is no clear cut certain answer the way you seem to believe.
- stradf, on 10/02/2008, -18/+8Hahaha you got owned!!!
- jimh54, on 10/02/2008, -8/+3hurrah for not using the much overused and immature word "pwned". There are a few grwon up here after all. I digg you up.
- Misinformant, on 10/02/2008, -9/+21Yeah! Vote for nothing! That'll show 'em!
- willster580, on 10/02/2008, -7/+8You really never thought about how it works, did you? If people continue to gain popularity, they become front runner candidates. But, in order to gain popularity, people must vote for them. It is also a good way to give whichever party your taking your vote away from the middle finger for not looking out for your views.
- Misinformant, on 10/02/2008, -11/+7...and as we saw in the primaries, very few voted for Ron Paul.
Here's a cold hard dose of reality. Ron Paul made a lot of news this election and got more facetime than any third-party candidate we've ever seen before. Despite this, a whole lot more people liked someone else more. Therefore: the VAST majority of the country wasn't buying Ron Paul's idealistic, utopian, fantasy-land *****. - MachineMessiah, on 10/02/2008, -4/+2While I encourage people to vote for a third party if they believe in its cause...thank you for saying this. I think a lot of people are attracted to third parties because they promise a great deal of change, regardless of the specifics. The game of politics is subtle.
- MarkDTS, on 10/02/2008, -1/+4@Misinformant
"Ron Paul made a lot of news this election and got more facetime than any third-party candidate we've ever seen before."
Really? H. Ross Perot? Ralph Nader? Abraham Lincoln? Theodore Roosevelt? Some examples of people that might have have gotten more "face time" than Ron Paul during their race for the White House.OH, and Ron Paul ran as a Republican. Not a third-party candidate, but I got your point.
"the VAST majority of the country wasn't buying Ron Paul's idealistic, utopian, fantasy-land *****."
What the F*!
Are you serious? Utopian? Fantasyland? Have you been listening to ANYONE else during this campaign?
"Listen, everyone needs healthcare. What's that? OH, don't worry about who's going to pay for it the government will foot the bill."
"War is bad, m'kay, so we need to get out now (dot dot dot) and put our troops back into the war they should've been in the first place in Afghanistan!"
"People Iran is a threat that we need to take care of NOW!
(from the crowd) Didn't Russian almost destroy Georgia and then sail a MASSIVE war ship and nuclear subs through American waters last week?
NO, I said IRAN is a threat that we need to take care of. They MAY have nuclear weapons and frankly...that's scary."
We as a people NEED more than a two party system, so I encourage people to harass the hell out of our electoral system until we can open up the debates to more than just two parties. Because frankly, they've become two comfortable with control, and they need a challenge to actually want to work for the American people again.
Listening to the Senators debate this bill today was sickening to me. "Do we really know who these people are that our calling our offices demanding that we not vote for this bill? They're community members who don't really know what were up against here and find it hard to trust us to make the right decisions on this bill. Well, we need to show them that we do know what's best for them and vote this bill in today!" I only wish that I was making that up.
Anyway, the only "fantasy-land/ Utopian society that Ron Paul thought that we could have was one where we would be responsible for our own actions and would hold our government responsible for their wasteful spending, but it seems that we've let that monster grow to large and now we will have to pay the price. Literally!
- agaiziunas, on 10/02/2008, -1/+31I thought McCain is talking about vetoing any pork-laden bill when he becomes president and will make sure we know the names of these spenders, yet he votes for this pork dumpling just fine.
I guess he thinks we already know his name, so what the heck??- FreeTalkLIve, on 10/02/2008, -1/+4He will take that pen and you will know their names!
If I had a nickel for every time he spews that scripted line... - netant, on 10/02/2008, -2/+5Pork dumpling? Try Grade A rump roast, and its coming out of our hides!
- brad3378, on 10/02/2008, -1/+5McCain is like the guy who saves all his pennies for years and then blows them all in one wild night on hookers and blow. He's a loose cannon that you just can't predict. At least with Obama I've mostly know how he's gonna vote. For the record, I don't like either and I'd rather not vote at all than support either one of these guys.
- FreeTalkLIve, on 10/02/2008, -1/+4He will take that pen and you will know their names!
- DrReaper, on 10/02/2008, -3/+23This shows you cannot trust McBama with the money of the United States.
- giddytonk, on 10/02/2008, -3/+62EPIC BAIL
- sphigel, on 10/02/2008, -1/+2well done sir!
- DrReaper, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2A real presidential debate happens on Oct 8th.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-rlvWIPH64 - sheasie, on 10/02/2008, -10/+2There is no such thing as a "free market economy". The whole purpose of "government" is help maintain and stabilize social order. You want a free market economy? Abolish the government!! Otherwise, recognize that government (by nature!!) is an expression of the greater social good.
- slezzzter, on 10/02/2008, -1/+8Or, in the case of democracy, government is an expression of the worst of mob rule.
- bacon_skoda, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1you mean the digg mob?
- MindStalker, on 10/02/2008, -1/+7Tax Free arrows
Sec. 503. Exemption from excise tax for certain wooden arrows designed for
use by children.
And Wool sweaters for all!
Sec. 325. Extension and modification of duty suspension on wool products; wool
research fund; wool duty refunds.
No really this and other Junk is in this bill.
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/AYO08C32_xml.p ...
Whoho!! - kaje, on 10/02/2008, -2/+12Your senators up for re-election:
Make sure you give them your appreciation by kicking them out of or keeping them in office.
=============
YES
=============
AK - Stevens
AR - Pryor
DE - Biden
GA - Chambliss
ID - Craig
IA - Harkin
IL - Durbin
KY - McConnell
ME - Collins
MA - Kerry
MI - Levin
MN - Coleman
MT - Baucus
NJ - Lautenberg
NE - Hagel
NH - Sununu
NM - Domenici
OR - Smith
RI - Reed
SC - Graham
TN - Alexander
TX - Cornyn
VA - Warner
WV - Rockefeller
=============
=============
NO
=============
AL - Sessions
CO - Allard
KS - Roberts
LA - Landrieu
MS - Cochran
NC - Dole
OK - Inhofe
SD - Johnson
WY - Enzi
=============- fokov, on 10/02/2008, -1/+8Down with Chambliss for GA
And for clarity, I don't mean I'm down with Chambliss, I mean burn the ***** to the ground. Hate getting old, can't talk to youth anymore :D - smmakira, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3I still hate Elizabeth Dole (NC)....but not quite as much as yesterday. My hate is still up there though!
- chadsterrr, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1I don't think I needed this to tell me I shouldn't vote for Norm Coleman.
But its either him or Al Franken...
- fokov, on 10/02/2008, -1/+8Down with Chambliss for GA
- DuxBelorum, on 10/02/2008, -8/+4I understand why you are encouraging others to vote third party, you are tired of the two party system in which each candidate is basically run by the major companies but you know as well as I do that a third party is not going to win this year meaning your vote will just be a waste. This election is close enough without having people waste their votes. In another election I would agree that more people should vote third party and try to get them to be more popular and hopefully to the point where one becomes president, but considering Palin could end up being in office after this election, I urge you not to vote third party this election. Do it in other elections when we aren't this close to getting someone so under qualified elected into a national office. It just isn't worth it right now.
- fokov, on 10/02/2008, -2/+9That's the same propaganda they say every 4 years, get over it. Its time to everyone to give upon Red vs Blue.
- brad3378, on 10/02/2008, -2/+7So which bailout candidate are you supporting this year?
This is yet another reason why I'm voting for a 3rd party. - MarkDTS, on 10/02/2008, -1/+4@DuxBelorum
You can't "waste" a vote. That's such crap. The only way you could "waste" a vote is to vote for something, or someone that you don't believe in.
Your vote reflects who you are NOT kinda sorta who you are on a Thursday after a large meal and a back massage. - sHockz, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2my vote is a waste because i am not voting for one of the CFR scumbags in the mainstream parties? oops, i am sorry...but i am going to be a vote waster my whole life then.
the truth is, YOU are the one wasting your vote by voting on failed policies, failed politics, and greedy politicians. i dont blame you for doing it, it is hard to fight the 16 billion dollar brain washing machine called the main stream media... - rowjimmy, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2"Do it in other elections when we aren't this close to getting someone so under qualified elected into a national office. It just isn't worth it right now."
unfortunately, that is every year. they continue to provide mediocre douchebags who toe the corporate bottom line, and then split the electorate on gays, abortions, and jebus to ensure that no real discourse happens to raise its ugly head.
this is only my 2nd presidential election, but if history is any guide, voting for the lesser of two evils will never get us anywhere, and i will be proud to have voted green both in 2004 and now (although i wish david cobb was running again this year :(
- fokov, on 10/02/2008, -2/+3Nader sounded great on Real Time. First comments about I should be at that debate. He is just like the rest: tells it like it is, speaks the truths you don't want to hear. People are just so afraid of someone that actually cares about the country over power and money, that they turn to their god and go down on their knees for their parties that don't care about them.
- wonderworm, on 10/02/2008, -4/+3You guys do realize that if the house votes this down again, then we will be seeing DOW 8000 in a heartbeat.......potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost...........potential economic chaos.........mean stuff.
Yeah, it bails out mostly the assholes who caused this *****. And yeah, it should be rewritten to have the single focus of refinancing homes directly and thus closing the floodgates of foreclosures since that is what turned all the greedy banker's highly leveraged bets to sour in the first place. But I just wanted everyone to realize that the markets are going to tank like 1987 and 2001 combined so they could atleast move out of equities to gold or silver or oil barrels or something before they rooted for this bills death.- Beylan, on 10/02/2008, -0/+6Yes, the market probably will tank like 1987 and 2001 combined. The problem is the market has been one big, huge, bubble. This 700bln will put a patch on it and allow it to expand more, and has the added side effect of majorly increasing inflation. 6 months or a year from now, the bubble will start to pop again and the fed will have to whip up another 2 or 3 trillion out of thin air. And again. Eventually the value of the dollar will have sunk enough that the Saudis and Chinese and others that hold large amounts will realize their "investment" is rapidly losing its value, they will sell for Euro's while they can and dump even MORE dollars on the market.
At that point hyper-inflation will set in and the dollar will be completely worthless. The market you are so worried about hitting 8000 will drop to 0, and we will have no functioning currency to recover with. Game over.
If we let it burst now, MAYBE there is still enough strength in the dollar that we could recover without the end of civilization.
- Beylan, on 10/02/2008, -0/+6Yes, the market probably will tank like 1987 and 2001 combined. The problem is the market has been one big, huge, bubble. This 700bln will put a patch on it and allow it to expand more, and has the added side effect of majorly increasing inflation. 6 months or a year from now, the bubble will start to pop again and the fed will have to whip up another 2 or 3 trillion out of thin air. And again. Eventually the value of the dollar will have sunk enough that the Saudis and Chinese and others that hold large amounts will realize their "investment" is rapidly losing its value, they will sell for Euro's while they can and dump even MORE dollars on the market.
- zhenate, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3Obama just lost my vote.
- EndGamePlayer, on 10/02/2008, -1/+0I don't see Bobama, McLame or Paul on this list - a "no show" vote is as good as a yes when they are needed.
Here's how many cosponsors:
COSPONSORS(274), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)
Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] - 3/9/2007
Rep Ackerman, Gary L. [NY-5] - 3/9/2007
Rep Alexander, Rodney [LA-5] - 3/9/2007
Rep Allen, Thomas H. [ME-1] - 3/9/2007
Rep Altmire, Jason [PA-4] - 3/21/2007
Rep Andrews, Robert E. [NJ-1] - 3/9/2007
Rep Arcuri, Michael A. [NY-24] - 3/9/2007
Rep Baca, Joe [CA-43] - 3/9/2007
Rep Bachus, Spencer [AL-6] - 3/9/2007
Rep Baird, Brian [WA-3] - 3/9/2007
Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] - 3/9/2007
Rep Barrow, John [GA-12] - 3/9/2007
Rep Bean, Melissa L. [IL-8] - 3/9/2007
Rep Becerra, Xavier [CA-31] - 3/9/2007
Rep Berkley, Shelley [NV-1] - 3/9/2007
Rep Berman, Howard L. [CA-28] - 3/9/2007
Rep Berry, Marion [AR-1] - 3/9/2007
Rep Bishop, Sanford D., Jr. [GA-2] - 3/9/2007
Rep Bishop, Timothy H. [NY-1] - 3/9/2007
Rep Blumenauer, Earl [OR-3] - 3/9/2007
Rep Bonner, Jo [AL-1] - 9/4/2007
Rep Bono Mack, Mary [CA-45] - 3/14/2007
Rep Bordallo, Madeleine Z. [GU] - 3/9/2007
Rep Boren, Dan [OK-2] - 3/9/2007
Rep Boswell, Leonard L. [IA-3] - 3/9/2007
Rep Boucher, Rick [VA-9] - 3/9/2007
Rep Boyd, Allen [FL-2] - 3/9/2007
Rep Boyda, Nancy E. [KS-2] - 4/24/2007
Rep Brady, Robert A. [PA-1] - 3/9/2007
Rep Braley, Bruce L. [IA-1] - 3/9/2007
Rep Brown, Corrine [FL-3] - 3/9/2007
Rep Butterfield, G. K. [NC-1] - 3/9/2007
Rep Capito, Shelley Moore [WV-2] - 5/3/2007
Rep Capps, Lois [CA-23] - 3/9/2007
Rep Capuano, Michael E. [MA-8] - 3/9/2007
Rep Cardoza, Dennis A. [CA-18] - 3/9/2007
Rep Carnahan, Russ [MO-3] - 3/9/2007
Rep Carney, Christopher P. [PA-10] - 3/9/2007
Rep Carson, Julia [IN-7] - 3/9/2007
Rep Castor, Kathy [FL-11] - 3/9/2007
Rep Chandler, Ben [KY-6] - 3/9/2007
Rep Christensen, Donna M. [VI] - 3/9/2007
Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-11] - 3/9/2007
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 3/9/2007
Rep Cleaver, Emanuel [MO-5] - 3/9/2007
Rep Clyburn, James E. [SC-6] - 3/9/2007
Rep Cohen, Steve [TN-9] - 3/9/2007
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] - 3/9/2007
Rep Cooper, Jim [TN-5] - 3/9/2007
Rep Costa, Jim [CA-20] - 3/9/2007
Rep Costello, Jerry F. [IL-12] - 3/9/2007
Rep Courtney, Joe [CT-2] - 3/9/2007
Rep Cramer, Robert E. (Bud), Jr. [AL-5] - 5/16/2007
Rep Crowley, Joseph [NY-7] - 3/9/2007
Rep Cubin, Barbara [WY] - 3/9/2007
Rep Cuellar, Henry [TX-28] - 3/9/2007
Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7] - 3/9/2007
Rep Davis, Artur [AL-7] - 3/9/2007
Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] - 3/9/2007
Rep Davis, Lincoln [TN-4] - 3/9/2007
Rep Davis, Susan A. [CA-53] - 3/9/2007
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] - 3/9/2007
Rep DeGette, Diana [CO-1] - 3/9/2007
Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10] - 3/9/2007
Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. [CT-3] - 3/9/2007
Rep Dent, Charles W. [PA-15] - 4/17/2007
Rep Dicks, Norman D. [WA-6] - 3/9/2007
Rep Dingell, John D. [MI-15] - 3/21/2007
Rep Doggett, Lloyd [TX-25] - 3/9/2007
Rep Donnelly, Joe [IN-2] - 3/9/2007
Rep Doyle, Michael F. [PA-14] - 3/9/2007
Rep Edwards, Chet [TX-17] - 3/9/2007
Rep Ehlers, Vernon J. [MI-3] - 3/27/2007
Rep Ellison, Keith [MN-5] - 3/9/2007
Rep Ellsworth, Brad [IN-8] - 3/9/2007
Rep Emanuel, Rahm [IL-5] - 3/9/2007
Rep Emerson, Jo Ann [MO-8] - 3/9/2007
Rep Engel, Eliot L. [NY-17] - 3/9/2007
Rep English, Phil [PA-3] - 3/9/2007
Rep Eshoo, Anna G. [CA-14] - 3/9/2007
Rep Etheridge, Bob [NC-2] - 3/9/2007
Rep Faleomavaega, Eni F.H. [AS] - 3/9/2007
Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] - 3/9/2007
Rep Fattah, Chaka [PA-2] - 3/9/2007
Rep Ferguson, Mike [NJ-7] - 3/9/2007
Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - 3/9/2007
Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4] - 3/9/2007
Rep Frelinghuysen, Rodney P. [NJ-11] - 3/9/2007
Rep Gerlach, Jim [PA-6] - 3/27/2007
Rep Giffords, Gabrielle [AZ-8] - 3/9/2007
Rep Gilchrest, Wayne T. [MD-1] - 3/9/2007
Rep Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [NY-20] - 3/9/2007
Rep Gillmor, Paul E. [OH-5] - 3/28/2007
Rep Gonzalez, Charles A. [TX-20] - 3/9/2007
Rep Gordon, Bart [TN-6] - 3/9/2007
Rep Green, Al [TX-9] - 3/9/2007
Rep Green, Gene [TX-29] - 3/9/2007
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - 3/9/2007
Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. [IL-4] - 3/9/2007
Rep Hall, John J. [NY-19] - 3/9/2007
Rep Hare, Phil [IL-17] - 3/9/2007
Rep Harman, Jane [CA-36] - 3/9/2007
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] - 3/9/2007
Rep Herseth, Stephanie [SD] - 3/9/2007
Rep Higgins, Brian [NY-27] - 3/9/2007
Rep Hill, Baron P. [IN-9] - 10/1/2007
Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-22] - 3/9/2007
Rep Hinojosa, Ruben [TX-15] - 3/9/2007
Rep Hirono, Mazie K. [HI-2] - 3/9/2007
Rep Hodes, Paul W. [NH-2] - 3/9/2007
Rep Holden, Tim [PA-17] - 3/9/2007
Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12] - 3/9/2007
Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-15] - 3/9/2007
Rep Hooley, Darlene [OR-5] - 3/9/2007
Rep Hoyer, Steny H. [MD-5] - 3/9/2007
Rep Inslee, Jay [WA-1] - 3/9/2007
Rep Israel, Steve [NY-2] - 3/9/2007
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] - 3/9/2007
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 3/9/2007
Rep Jefferson, William J. [LA-2] - 3/9/2007
Rep Johnson, Eddie Bernice [TX-30] - 3/9/2007
Rep Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. [GA-4] - 3/9/2007
Rep Jones, Stephanie Tubbs [OH-11] - 3/9/2007
Rep Kagen, Steve [WI-8] - 3/9/2007
Rep Kanjorski, Paul E. [PA-11] - 3/9/2007
Rep Kaptur, Marcy [OH-9] - 3/9/2007
Rep Keller, Ric [FL-8] - 3/9/2007
Rep Kildee, Dale E. [MI-5] - 3/9/2007
Rep Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. [MI-13] - 3/9/2007
Rep Kind, Ron [WI-3] - 3/9/2007
Rep King, Peter T. [NY-3] - 3/9/2007
Rep Kirk, Mark Steven [IL-10] - 3/9/2007
Rep Klein, Ron [FL-22] - 3/9/2007
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] - 3/9/2007
Rep LaHood, Ray [IL-18] - 3/9/2007
Rep Lampson, Nick [TX-22] - 3/9/2007
Rep Langevin, James R. [RI-2] - 3/9/2007
Rep Lantos, Tom [CA-12] - 3/9/2007
Rep Larsen, Rick [WA-2] - 3/9/2007
Rep Larson, John B. [CT-1] - 3/9/2007
Rep LaTourette, Steven C. [OH-14] - 3/9/2007
Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] - 3/9/2007
Rep Levin, Sander M. [MI-12] - 3/9/2007
Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] - 3/9/2007
Rep Lipinski, Daniel [IL-3] - 3/9/2007
Rep LoBiondo, Frank A. [NJ-2] - 3/9/2007
Rep Loebsack, David [IA-2] - 3/9/2007
Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16] - 3/9/2007
Rep Lowey, Nita M. [NY-18] - 3/9/2007
Rep Lynch, Stephen F. [MA-9] - 3/9/2007
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] - 3/9/2007
Rep Markey, Edward J. [MA-7] - 3/9/2007
Rep Marshall, Jim [GA-8] - 3/9/2007
Rep Matheson, Jim [UT-2] - 3/9/2007
Rep Matsui, Doris O. [CA-5] - 3/9/2007
Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] - 3/9/2007
Rep McCollum, Betty [MN-4] - 3/9/2007
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 3/9/2007
Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] - 3/9/2007
Rep McHugh, John M. [NY-23] - 3/9/2007
Rep McIntyre, Mike [NC-7] - 3/9/2007
Rep McNerney, Jerry [CA-11] - 3/9/2007
Rep McNulty, Michael R. [NY-21] - 3/9/2007
Rep Meehan, Martin T. [MA-5] - 3/9/2007
Rep Meek, Kendrick B. [FL-17] - 3/9/2007
Rep Meeks, Gregory W. [NY-6] - 3/9/2007
Rep Melancon, Charlie [LA-3] - 10/2/2007
Rep Mica, John L. [FL-7] - 3/9/2007
Rep Michaud, Michael H. [ME-2] - 3/9/2007
Rep Millender-McDonald, Juanita [CA-37] - 3/9/2007
Rep Miller, Brad [NC-13] - 5/10/2007
Rep Miller, George [CA-7] - 3/9/2007
Rep Mitchell, Harry E. [AZ-5] - 5/3/2007
Rep Mollohan, Alan B. [WV-1] - 3/9/2007
Rep Moore, Dennis [KS-3] - 3/9/2007
Rep Moore, Gwen [WI-4] - 3/9/2007
Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 3/9/2007
Rep Murphy, Christopher S. [CT-5] - 3/9/2007
Rep Murphy, Patrick J. [PA-8] - 4/17/2007
Rep Murphy, Tim [PA-18] - 3/9/2007
Rep Murtha, John P. [PA-12] - 3/9/2007
Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8] - 3/9/2007
Rep Napolitano, Grace F. [CA-38] - 3/9/2007
Rep Neal, Richard E. [MA-2] - 3/9/2007
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [DC] - 3/9/2007
Rep Oberstar, James L. [MN-8] - 3/9/2007
Rep Obey, David R. [WI-7] - 3/9/2007
Rep Olver, John W. [MA-1] - 3/9/2007
Rep Ortiz, Solomon P. [TX-27] - 3/9/2007
Rep Pallone, Frank, Jr. [NJ-6] - 3/9/2007
Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [NJ-8] - 3/9/2007
Rep Pastor, Ed [AZ-4] - 3/9/2007
Rep Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10] - 3/9/2007
Rep Perlmutter, Ed [CO-7] - 3/9/2007
Rep Peterson, Collin C. [MN-7] - 3/9/2007
Rep Pickering, Charles W. "Chip" [MS-3] - 3/9/2007
Rep Platts, Todd Russell [PA-19] - 3/9/2007
Rep Pomeroy, Earl [ND] - 3/9/2007
Rep Price, David E. [NC-4] - 3/9/2007
Rep Rahall, Nick J., II [WV-3] - 3/9/2007
Rep Ramstad, Jim [MN-3] - 3/9/2007
Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] - 3/9/2007
Rep Renzi, Rick [AZ-1] - 3/9/2007
Rep Reyes, Silvestre [TX-16] - 3/9/2007
Rep Rodriguez, Ciro D. [TX-23] - 3/9/2007
Rep Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [FL-18] - 3/9/2007
Rep Ross, Mike [AR-4] - 3/9/2007
Rep Rothman, Steven R. [NJ-9] - 3/9/2007
Rep Roybal-Allard, Lucille [CA-34] - 3/9/2007
Rep Ruppersberger, C. A. Dutch [MD-2] - 3/9/2007
Rep Rush, Bobby L. [IL-1] - 3/9/2007
Rep Ryan, Tim [OH-17] - 3/9/2007
Rep Salazar, John T. [CO-3] - 3/9/2007
Rep Sanchez, Linda T. [CA-39] - 3/9/2007
Rep Sanchez, Loretta [CA-47] - 3/9/2007
Rep Sarbanes, John P. [MD-3] - 3/9/2007
Rep Saxton, Jim [NJ-3] - 3/9/2007
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 3/9/2007
Rep Schiff, Adam B. [CA-29] - 3/9/2007
Rep Schmidt, Jean [OH-2] - 3/9/2007
Rep Schwartz, Allyson Y. [PA-13] - 3/9/2007
Rep Scott, David [GA-13] - 3/9/2007
Rep Scott, Robert C. "Bobby" [VA-3] - 3/9/2007
Rep Serrano, Jose E. [NY-16] - 3/9/2007
Rep Sestak, Joe [PA-7] - 3/9/2007
Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4] - 3/9/2007
Rep Shea-Porter, Carol [NH-1] - 3/9/2007
Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27] - 3/9/2007
Rep Shuler, Heath [NC-11] - 10/15/2007
Rep Sires, Albio [NJ-13] - 3/9/2007
Rep Skelton, Ike [MO-4] - 3/9/2007
Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh [NY-28] - 3/9/2007
Rep Smith, Adam [WA-9] - 3/9/2007
Rep Smith, Christopher H. [NJ-4] - 3/9/2007
Rep Smith, Lamar [TX-21] - 3/4/2008
Rep Snyder, Vic [AR-2] - 3/9/2007
Rep Solis, Hilda L. [CA-32] - 3/9/2007
Rep Space, Zachary T. [OH-18] - 3/9/2007
Rep Spratt, John M., Jr. [SC-5] - 3/9/2007
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 3/9/2007
Rep Stupak, Bart [MI-1] - 3/9/2007
Rep Sullivan, John [OK-1] - 3/9/2007
Rep Sutton, Betty [OH-13] - 3/9/2007
Rep Tanner, John S. [TN-8] - 3/9/2007
Rep Tauscher, Ellen O. [CA-10] - 3/9/2007
Rep Thompson, Bennie G. [MS-2] - 3/9/2007
Rep Thompson, Mike [CA-1] - 3/9/2007
Rep Tierney, John F. [MA-6] - 3/9/2007
Rep Towns, Edolphus [NY-10] - 3/9/2007
Rep Udall, Mark [CO-2] - 3/9/2007
Rep Udall, Tom [NM-3] - 3/9/2007
Rep Upton, Fred [MI-6] - 3/9/2007
Rep Van Hollen, Chris [MD-8] - 3/9/2007
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12] - 3/9/2007
Rep Visclosky, Peter J. [IN-1] - 3/9/2007
Rep Walsh, James T. [NY-25] - 3/9/2007
Rep Walz, Timothy J. [MN-1] - 3/9/2007
Rep Wamp, Zach [TN-3] - 3/9/2007
Rep Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [FL-20] - 3/9/2007
Rep Waters, Maxine [CA-35] - 3/9/2007
Rep Watson, Diane E. [CA-33] - 3/9/2007
Rep Watt, Melvin L. [NC-12] - 3/9/2007
Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-30] - 3/9/2007
Rep Weiner, Anthony D. [NY-9] - 3/9/2007
Rep Welch, Peter [VT] - 3/9/2007
Rep Wexler, Robert [FL-19] - 3/9/2007
Rep Wilson, Charles A. [OH-6] - 3/9/2007
Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2] - 3/9/2007
Rep Wolf, Frank R. [VA-10] - 9/5/2007
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 3/9/2007
Rep Wu, David [OR-1] - 3/9/2007
Rep Wynn, Albert Russell [MD-4] - 3/9/2007
Rep Yarmuth, John A. [KY-3] - 3/9/2007
Rep Young, Don [AK] - 3/9/2007- PeppermintPig, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2John McCain and Barack Obama are senators. Ron Paul is a Congressman. Ron Paul voted against it.
- cheesehound, on 10/02/2008, -1/+3YEAH! ***** THE BANKS AND WALL STREET! Oh wait that's where all of our money is D:
our fake, fake money. - radicchio, on 10/04/2008, -0/+0It won't matter whether you vote for any one of the visible candidates, including Paul and Nader. This is intractable, and there is nowhere to hide. The bank failures are a good indication of this--we've had 13 US banks fail so far, and the government's pre-bailout efforts did nothing but delay the inevitable.
http://www.bankspiral.com
The real culprits are the complacent masses that were willing to leverage themselves to the hilt without saving any money--you don't need government either way to understand that greed and apathy led to this. The moment that $4.00 lattes and American Idol begin to fade is when you will know that we're on the right track again. If you have savings, don't count on them being worth anything due to inflation. - Aliwalla, on 10/07/2008, -0/+1Look at this way, if Obama hadn't of voted for the bill McCain could have used it against him, very effectively, in the national election. Thus America would have a great possibility of having McCain as president which the cost of would've far out weighed whatever benefit Obama would provided the electorate with his no vote.
- brad3378, on 10/02/2008, -4/+105Meanwhile, the National Debt clock officially ticked past the $10 Trillion mark today.
- gjvrieze, on 10/02/2008, -60/+305***** McBama, vote for someone like Nader or Ron Paul or ANYONE who did NOT steal from you in this vote!
- brianjlowry, on 10/02/2008, -21/+5Don't vote for Paul - it won't count. He supports Baldwin, but I say Nader because Baldwin is pro-life and I don't agree with that.
- tracywood, on 10/02/2008, -7/+25Can you not just bite your tongue on the pro-life issue when everything else is just so important? I have, and I'm voting Baldwin. Baldwin has also said he will make Ron Paul Secretary of the Treasury. Goodbye Fed.
- akhomestead, on 10/02/2008, -5/+17Might be time to prioritize a bit. I'm pro-choice, but this election I don't give a *****.
- odigity, on 10/02/2008, -5/+26Seriously, I'm a pro-choice aethiest, and I'm voting Baldwin. Abortion is so not a priority, for *****'s sake. Let's focus on foreign, monetary, and fiscal policy, m'kay?
- brianjlowry, on 10/02/2008, -12/+10You all have valid points, but overturning Roe vs. Wade IS a big deal. Period.
- Jacolyte, on 10/02/2008, -3/+13Right. Let's just vote for whoever our overlords place in front of us, that'll work.
- odigity, on 10/02/2008, -3/+9I don't want to get off-topic on abortion, but I'll just say that I'm pro-choice and I agree with overturning Roe vs Wade. That decision was not in the court's jurisdiction, and the whole concept of "Judicial Supremacy" is one of the greatest threats to our liberty. The Supreme Court does not have the power to make or overturn laws, only to decide a case for the plaintiff and defendant.
Remember, in general, the more controversial the decision (abortion), the more local it should be made. The states should decide. The Federal government is supposed to be small and limited, anything that can be decided by the states should be. - senatorpjt, on 10/02/2008, -8/+6The pro-life thing bothers me not because of abortion itself, but because it shows that people like Paul and Baldwin are still willing to twist the Constitution around when they feel like it (specifically Paul trying to get "person" defined from conception so the bill of rights applies to fetuses)
- slezzzter, on 10/02/2008, -0/+7But at least he's doing it the right way. He respects that a fetus has no Constitutional rights and thinks that they should. If 2/3 of the congress and state legislatures were to agree, then (and only then) would RP get his way. I applaud the realism exhibited by pro-choice proponents that Roe v. Wade would not be threatened by RP, simply because the public opposition to abortion is not at super-majority status.
- flaran, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2=/
- yellowfish04, on 10/02/2008, -38/+12I am very curious, please read my request here:
I wanna know how many PaulBots are really on digg.
Digg me up if you think Ron Paul is a joke. (this is where I fall)
Digg me down if you think Ron Paul should be president.
Thanks!- brianjlowry, on 10/02/2008, -1/+9Even though I just said I'm not backing Baldwin because of his problem with not separating church from state, I still think Ron Paul is brilliant, and if he were elected President - I would be a happy camper.
-1 for you. - Jacolyte, on 10/02/2008, -1/+5I want to know why people continue to vote for one of the two candidates that our overlords place in front of us.
Can you tell me that? McBama-bot? - brianjlowry, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3I believe Obama > McCain both in policy, personality, intelligence, and how he approaches problems. He likes to step back and value others' opinions. While he's not perfect, I see a lot of good in that approach. Perhaps he will tap on Paul's shoulder for advice with the economy? Nah. But he will talk to Warren Buffet and other highly respected people in their fields and LISTEN to their advice. McCain just goes with his "gut", which this year has been a train wreck of terrible decisions one after the other.
So let's face the facts here: one of those two will win the election. I want my vote to help Obama in a battleground state (Virginia). I don't think voting third party is tossing a vote away; however, I do think this election is extremely important and I want to pick the best guy for the job that has a shot at winning.
I think Paul and third party candidates are SOL. There aren't enough Americans that care, and you can't make them care. If Baldwin or Barr or Nader gets 2% of the vote, some people might pop their heads up and say who's that? But, they will not investigate their platforms and their positions. You have to remember that most Americans don't trust politicians anyways, so why should they even listen to the garbage that spews out of their mouths? They pick based on who they identify with or by gut feeling on who will be better at running our country.
If they did pick based on platform, then we wouldn't have a two party system. Period.
Also, I want to note that I think you have to be within a certain number of deviations - intelligence wise - to recognize intelligence in others. I doubt most people even pick up the fact that Paul never stutters, doesn't use weasel words, and is a brilliant scholar. It is a shame.
If you really want to change the two party system, you will need to start with the MSM. That's how the average person gets their news. Otherwise, just wait. I think the upcoming generations might change the system as they are much more inclined to use the internet for information.
- brianjlowry, on 10/02/2008, -1/+9Even though I just said I'm not backing Baldwin because of his problem with not separating church from state, I still think Ron Paul is brilliant, and if he were elected President - I would be a happy camper.
- fuzzmeister, on 10/02/2008, -20/+11This "stealing" would be quickly put in perspective by the plunge in the markets and freeze in credit if this bailout doesn't pass.
- senatorpjt, on 10/02/2008, -2/+17It'll be put in perspective when they've burned through the $700 billion, haven't actually changed anything, and realize they'll never have to because they know they can get anything they want by blackmailing the public with threats of stock market decreases and credit freezing. Guess what, there's no such thing as a permanent boom. They're not so much threatening a bust, they're promising a permanent boom. When you think of it that way, it becomes obvious what total ***** this bailout is.
- CosmicJustice, on 10/02/2008, -2/+2The politicians CAUSED the plunge in the markets and the credit freeze with their irresponsible tales of doom, and promises of free money for corrupt institutions.
- bacon_skoda, on 10/02/2008, -3/+2people on digg do not own businesses. diggers don't know what a credit freeze means. diggers also don't realize we've profited from previous bailouts.
- xtmno3, on 10/02/2008, -1/+5List of official votes:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/4fpfn7 - ALiberalMind, on 10/02/2008, -5/+12It's a really tough decision. On one hand, these mortgage lenders shouldn't be getting one penny and should be prosecuted under the law for reckless business practices and for bad loans. On the other hand, a lot of people could be on the street if the economy fails. When you have homeless people, you can't exactly jump start the economy easily since they won't spend money on anything except the bare necessities.
It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't type of deal. Honestly, at this point I don't think it matters since the dollar's in the toilet anyway.- jaymzdean, on 10/02/2008, -3/+12There are going to be people losing their homes and living in the streets, regardless.
I for one, welcome our Depression Overlord. Americans need to sober up, and that's about to happen no matter what they do in D.C. (but this bailout will make it much worse).
Good. - z28com, on 10/02/2008, -1/+2How do you know it's not in the urinal instead? Do you think the dollar fell out out of the back pocket and into the commode while one was taking a dump?
- jaymzdean, on 10/02/2008, -3/+12There are going to be people losing their homes and living in the streets, regardless.
- BooneFaustus, on 10/02/2008, -4/+3Nader is truly the best out of the third party candidates, and the only one who has been working with the health and safety of the american people in mind his entire career.
- BlackJackJester, on 10/02/2008, -3/+6Find your Senator:
I'm from Colorado, and now know which senators are getting my vote this next election. Lets hope the house members are less happy about propping the entire US economy on glass legs.
Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Nay
Barrasso (R-WY), Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brown (D-OH), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Nay
Bunning (R-KY), Nay
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dole (R-NC), Nay
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Nay
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wicker (R-MS), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay- CosmicJustice, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1Most of them aren't up for re-election this year.
- newms32, on 10/02/2008, -8/+2You seem to have forgotten that a third party vote is a wasted vote. Third party votes were the only reason Bush was ever able to become president. In realistic terms, it's because of Nader that America is so ***** up today.
It isn't the end of the world. This is only one issue. There is still plenty to gain by having Obama in the White House instead of McCain.- ahwang, on 10/02/2008, -2/+2Seriously. Don't throw away your vote to someone who has absolutely no chance of winning. Vote between Obama or McCain, otherwise you'll be upset when one of them wins and you're sitting there complaining WAIT!! I VOTED FOR _______________ BUT NOW I PREFER OBAMA/MCCAIN.
- Tbyrd073, on 10/02/2008, -1/+7Screw you and your vote for the lesser of two evils *****.
- Tbyrd073, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4I would rather complain about being stuck with either one of them then contribute to their constituencies. This vote for the lesser of two evils ***** has to end sometime and I would rather it start sooner than later.
- kestrel7e7, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2USA still stuck in the dark ages. Two-party preferred election system FTW.
- Tenbatsu404, on 10/02/2008, -1/+4If you still support Obama after this act of treason you're a ***** idiot.
- mikemil828, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2//vote for someone like Nader or Ron Paul or ANYONE who did NOT steal from you in this vote!//
Isn't going to change things, even if a third party candidate won the presidency, the Democrats and Republicans still run congress, A third party presidency will end up being 4 years of being a somewhat surmountable roadblock to the laws that the Congress makes. Humongous changes in American government cannot be enacted overnight normally, anyone who claims the constitution as holy writ should know this. It took decades for the government to get the way it is, and it will take decades to make the changes that diggers seem to want, are diggers and third parties able to continue to hold their ideals long enough to make that happen?- Waterrat, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1 I'm voting for Gravel,have planned to all along.
This should be a wake up call to all American's about just how important these greedy scum bags think our opinions are.
And people wonder why so few in this country vote? When the choice is between a ***** burger with fried pig tails or maggot piss soup with dog hair crackers,...Well...
If the rich aren't happy,no one is happy...But even if the rich are kept happy no one is happy.
- Waterrat, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1 I'm voting for Gravel,have planned to all along.
- Gorgamel, on 10/02/2008, -1/+2Sorry, I had to bury you for your ignorant and childish "McBama".
- brianjlowry, on 10/02/2008, -21/+5Don't vote for Paul - it won't count. He supports Baldwin, but I say Nader because Baldwin is pro-life and I don't agree with that.
- theneb29, on 10/02/2008, -14/+136there is still a house vote on friday....lets see if this congress will do one thing right before it dissolves in a months time
- StormCommander, on 10/02/2008, -5/+48If the House actually votes against this, we should knock up their approval rating to a full 10%! Double digits!
- yoda17, on 10/02/2008, -2/+2ahahahaahaha. i thought you said....oh wait, you you were being serious
- MtnXfreerider1, on 10/02/2008, -2/+3Question for people like me who are not 100% following.
Does this now goto the house for a vote? It this final? Can the president now say screw the house and pass/deny it? - paperclips4u, on 10/02/2008, -2/+2Hahahahahaha. You WERE serious!
- bdfariello, on 10/02/2008, -1/+6The President cannot bypass the Legislative branch. If a bill doesn't pass both the Senate and the House, it can't be made law. At least, if the President's using the Constitution as precedent. I see no reason to believe he'll do that based on his past record, however.
- wonderworm, on 10/02/2008, -3/+2You guys do realize that if the house votes this down again, then we will be seeing DOW 8000 in a heartbeat.......potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost...........potential economic chaos.........mean stuff.
Yeah, it bails out mostly the assholes who caused this *****. And yeah, it should be rewritten to have the single focus of refinancing homes directly and thus closing the floodgates of foreclosures since that is what turned all the greedy banker's highly leveraged bets to sour in the first place. But I just wanted everyone to realize that the markets are going to tank like 1987 and 2001 combined so they could atleast move out of equities to gold or silver or oil barrels or something before they rooted for this bills death.
- fuzzmeister, on 10/02/2008, -20/+9Yes, do the right thing by allowing the American economy to collapse in the name of Main Street. How ironic is that? Wall Street and Main Street are tied at the hip, as one goes, as goes the other. What we must do is save these firms now, in order to prevent the complete collapse of the economy, then enact stricter regulation and transparency rules to make sure a bailout anywhere near this scale isn't ever necessary again.
- chowda, on 10/02/2008, -2/+9the assets these firms have won't evaporate... they'll be sold on the open market... a handful of giant firms != The Economy
random response created by a bunch of self service political hacks != "rescue" - stang966, on 10/02/2008, -3/+7Yeah, because Main Street, just like Wall Street, has amassed untold fortunes over these last 8 years!!!!!!
Keep trying, buddy. - Barackalypse, on 10/02/2008, -3/+5Are you really naive enough to think they can create regulation that will prevent that? The only way to prevent it is to pass a law making it illegal to provide public funds to meet the obligations of any private enterprise and thus put everyone on notice that they are solely responsible for their own actions and Uncle Sugar won't bail them out when the cost of poor decisions come due.
- mooseontheloose, on 10/02/2008, -6/+2"Yeah, because Main Street, just like Wall Street, has amassed untold fortunes over these last 8 years!!!!!!"
lol. Oh ok. Then let's get rid of Wall Street, because we all know America is successful in spite of her riches. Who wants untold fortunes in the country anyway? THATS FOR ANARCHIST PIGS! - eRaptor, on 10/02/2008, -1/+1While I agree that action is required at this time, this bailout bill is too weak and misdirected to address the core problem. The cause of our economic instability is NOT mortgage backed securities, it's only a symptom of the cause (i.e., financial hardship among the lower and middle class). This legislative action doesn't come anywhere NEAR to addressing that problem and until it does we're going to keep bouncing from one financial crisis to another.
The problem is that once the money is spent, there won't be any viable options left to attack the root cause.
- chowda, on 10/02/2008, -2/+9the assets these firms have won't evaporate... they'll be sold on the open market... a handful of giant firms != The Economy
- jeffvvisoft, on 10/02/2008, -4/+14No more $$$ bailouts for Goldman Sach of *****!!!
- BlackJackJester, on 10/02/2008, -1/+7Is this not considered a revenue bill? It's unconstitutional for the Senate to start a revenue bill.
Also, I now have a list of senators who aren't getting my vote in the election.- CosmicJustice, on 10/02/2008, -1/+1They didn't start it. They gutted the House bill, re-wrote it and sent it back to the House.
- GilThielander, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1You can only vote, or not vote, for one Senator. Unless both of yours are up for election, which usually doesn't happen.
- dema, on 10/02/2008, -1/+2They didn't "gut" anything. They added ***** to it in order to make the more gullible no's change to yes's.
- rv361162, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2If they don't it's time to act on their decision to ignore all of us:
http://www.700billiondollarparkinglot.com
- StormCommander, on 10/02/2008, -5/+48If the House actually votes against this, we should knock up their approval rating to a full 10%! Double digits!
- Ymeg, on 10/02/2008, -18/+39How will this be better than the previous alternative? The tax cuts seem to be better, but I still have a suspicion they are going to print a lot of money.
Oh well, it's not like pure Capitalism ever had a chance...
Anyway, http://senateconservatives.files.wordpress.com/200 ... = text.- MrCashyCash, on 10/02/2008, -1/+9The tax cuts are worse!!!
How can we afford tax cuts & print 1.3 trillion dollars?
We're fighting the war in Iraq with borrowed money.- Barackalypse, on 10/02/2008, -1/+6We're spending 2 trillion dollars a year, you're a fool if you think the Iraq war is the only thing we're doing with borrowed money. In fact, the Iraq war is nothing compared to the big three domestic entitlements of Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. Those three represent tens of trillions of dollars of future burden that we will not be able to pay for.
- Cyrus042, on 10/02/2008, -5/+17Pure capitalism will never work and it's never been practiced.
- regeya, on 10/02/2008, -5/+18Indeed, and I don't think most people would enjoy the results. "Pure" capitalism is as much a pipe dream as "pure" socialism, and neither are workable because fallible, greedy, power-mad humans are involved.
- Stevethegreat, on 10/02/2008, -3/+6But that's exactly why capitalism should work, it takes people's greed and use it for the benefit of the system. Look at Hong Kong where interventionism has been kept at Minimum or even Ireland of which government has mostly withdrawn from the market the last two decades.
The less possible government you have in the economy the better, ideals do not exist, as long as you have a government it will always intervene that's its nature. I can't see -though- why government should not be greedy, it has been proved in many occasions that it is a lot more greedy than any industrialist and that's because it knows that there is noone out to get it, being in the top of the chain NATURALLY makes you greedy. I don't like being a free-market apologist in this day and age, especially after so evident effects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_GDP_Capit ... , but interventionism IS the cancer of the system. As such in the long run this bailout -or any bailout, really- would be proved damaging to the economy, that's what history showed us. - Stevethegreat, on 10/02/2008, -1/+3Those burying me and voting up the others of this thread I would expect that they have little to no knowledge of how economics work.
The truth of the matter is that macroeconomics is still a very fuzzy subject that no concrete theory exists and everyone that pretends to know that pure capitalism is either better or worse of what we have now is either deluded or purposefully tries to misinform the others. The fact is that WE DON"T KNOW, the only thing we know is that interventionism almost always leads to low growth and when it's done excessively to negative growth (economic catastrophe).
Unlike what you may hear, free markets are a necessity (they just work) rather than a willful decision of the strong, EXACTLY due to their unpredictable nature (the strong of every society like stability). According to the above it's easy to postulate why interventionism exists no matter what justification may be used for its use... - intrepidx, on 10/02/2008, -1/+3The problem here is not capitalism. The problem is corporations that are in bed with the government, deriving unfair advantages. No real person wants to give them $700 billion, and yet it looks very likely they will get it anyway. The reason is simply that they have usurped democracy.
- mikemil828, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1//macroeconomics is still a very fuzzy subject that no concrete theory exists and everyone that pretends to know that pure capitalism is either better or worse of what we have now is either deluded or purposefully tries to misinform the others. The fact is that WE DON"T KNOW//
In practice we actually do know, pure capitalism is great when times are good, but can be deadly when things go to hell. That is why we have things like bank regulation, the fed, and the other socialistic tools the government has to control the economy, so that when times are bad, people don't die.
- brb1031, on 10/02/2008, -2/+6"Their opposition appeared to be easing after the Senate added $110 billion in tax breaks for businesses and the middle class, plus a provision to raise, from $100,000 to $250,000, the cap on federal deposit insurance."
Honestly, they've added INCREASING the governments liabilities in banks via FDIC and DECREASING the tax burden on these businesses? How the hell is this better?
Tax cuts without spending cuts is idealogical populist nonsense. - jpjandrade, on 10/02/2008, -3/+5***** all those bastards out there. When the hundred CEOs were getting richer by the second, it was all "let the market be free", "the market will make things better", "see? it's Adam Smith at it's best".
But now, when banks, the multi-millionaire business are failing, it's all "Let's throw $700 billions from the tax payer pocket so, when things go back to normal, they won't even see it.
Funny thing is, the world is having a food and housing crysis for decades, centuries, now, and nobody has ever proposed a $700b package for that.
I'm not even American and I'm pissed at how they can throw so much money to save rich people. I know, I know, the whole world is going to be screwed if they don't do this, but, ***** it, it's their mess, they should solve it.
***** this, the world is so ***** up, it's unbelievable.- archer104, on 10/02/2008, -1/+3"I know, I know, the whole world is going to be screwed if they don't do this, but, ***** it, it's their mess, they should solve it."
Are you even listening to yourself?
Most of the people who are responsible for this have already been fired, and yes I know some of them had good severance packages but that is a business issue that is also being handled at the moment.
http://digg.com/business_finance/18_Tough_Question ...
- archer104, on 10/02/2008, -1/+3"I know, I know, the whole world is going to be screwed if they don't do this, but, ***** it, it's their mess, they should solve it."
- mikemil828, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1//print a lot of money//
Not really, the fed already pumped 630 billion into the economy when the bailout failed the first time, if this passes and the fed pulls the money out it only means an extra 70 billion over our current situation. - Blacksoth, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2I'm a day trader with a background in economics. These "sweeteners" are politically motivated. The market wants a bailout to inject liquidity to prevent collapses of business that would otherwise be able to weather this thing out. It is NOT because they feel they're paying too much in taxes. This package is worse then the previous one. They said they oppossed the original bailout because it catered to wall street and the rich. Well who do you think is going to benefit from these "sweeteners"? Certainly not the poor average american.
- MrCashyCash, on 10/02/2008, -1/+9The tax cuts are worse!!!
- agaiziunas, on 10/02/2008, -16/+130Get yourself as much credit as possible and then spend it on gold, silver, and go-karts.
- tracywood, on 10/02/2008, -15/+3go-karts?
- JMaj, on 10/02/2008, -4/+13yeah i know just go-karts? I prefer flame painted go-karts.
- Gemfinder, on 10/02/2008, -7/+3What is this go-karts meme I keep hearing about?
- guyperson, on 10/02/2008, -3/+3http://digg.com/comedy/Serious_Conversation_Gone_W ...
- aussieNickuss, on 10/02/2008, -6/+2http://digg.com/comedy/Serious_Conversation_Gone_W ...
- YoWhatDaFuxUp, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2this mentioning of go-karts in every comment section is getting pretty ***** stupid..
- brad3378, on 10/02/2008, -3/+17They just propped up the wall street bubble again, so my money is in the stock market in the short term.
Stock Market Investors are going to love this tomorrow, after that, I'm cashing out.
I'm expecting gold to drop tomorrow as investors rush back into financial stocks, but in the longer term, I believe gold/silver & other commodities will be a better bet.- BeardDob, on 10/02/2008, -7/+2well thanks for that tidbit captain obvious
- RationalXubrnce, on 10/02/2008, -1/+2 I'm also expecting gold and silver to drop. And I'm expecting shortages in the physical metal and for it to be going way over spot. The question becomes what gold securities and stock can you trust? Chances are several of them are ***** and not backed by the actual metal. God help us all if I'm right on that point, physical gold and silver will skyrocket.
- Hello1024, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2Well you're wrong so far - markets are falling like a stone...
- brad3378, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1@Hello1024
Looks like I had better keep my day job.
- 22magnum, on 10/02/2008, -11/+3I think we should just buy wall street a go cart.
- brad3378, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1with a credit card?
- itsthebrod, on 10/02/2008, -7/+5What utterly ridiculous and terrible advice. Gold standard? Seriously?
- bullhead2007, on 10/02/2008, -2/+19Because paper money backed by hope is so much better.
- georgemason01, on 10/02/2008, -2/+9itsthebrod: You misunderstood. He's advising people to buy gold as a personal investment since the dollar will soon be worthless.
- Barackalypse, on 10/02/2008, -2/+7No, he means cash out your Federal Reserve notes for gold as a hedge against the inflation that results from devaluing our currency by adding to our already 9+ trillion dollar debt.
- fuzzmeister, on 10/02/2008, -4/+5If you're worried about credit, wouldn't you be for the bailout. Without the bailout, the credit markets will collapse.
- chowda, on 10/02/2008, -2/+5I don't think Senator Fuzzmeister understands...
if there are still people with huge assets they are not using... they will be lent out... interests rates may go up... and maybe they should.
This bailout isn't saving the concept of credit.... it's just taking some high risk ***** securities off the market... they should just be sold on the open market at the ***** price they are libel to get... the only people who are going to suffer here are the ***** banks and the people who think they deserve huge lines of credit and don't.... it's called a correction for a reason. - newms32, on 10/02/2008, -0/+0sorry i think you missed the point
- chowda, on 10/02/2008, -2/+5I don't think Senator Fuzzmeister understands...
- Vodd9, on 10/02/2008, -7/+25dugg for go-karts
- Magnus150, on 10/02/2008, -3/+18dugg via go-kart
- abajaj2280, on 10/02/2008, -2/+4then can i find my dad and paint flames on him?
- scsp85, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1funniest ***** thing tonight!
- BradBrown, on 10/02/2008, -2/+1Can I spend it on hookers instead?
- DallasG, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2Dugg for Go Karts!!!
- tracywood, on 10/02/2008, -15/+3go-karts?
- Stdnt4Paul98, on 10/02/2008, -10/+164This is HORRIBLE! 700 billion dollars into the market because it MIGHT help. In that case why doesn't the government inherit the whole economy tomorrow? i mean heck it MIGHT help. Pathetic. Inflation will rise, our debt will explode, and the dollar will fail. Good job senators.
- digitronix, on 10/02/2008, -3/+28These politicians don't know what the hell they're doing. And they say we're the ones that are misinformed about everything!
- Goodanswer, on 10/02/2008, -5/+26They know EXACTLY what they are doing and how to fool he American public that it is for "our best interest."
Conspiracy?...Not anymore.
Rich get Richer-Poor gets Poorer. Complete Power Grab by those who think they are elite. Money has nothing to do with it, its all about power and who controls who or what. Considering they just enslaved my great grandchildren..ya, they know exactly what they want to do. - bojang1es, on 10/02/2008, -1/+2"Money has nothing to do with it, its all about power and who controls who or what"
Money has everything to do with it...
- Goodanswer, on 10/02/2008, -5/+26They know EXACTLY what they are doing and how to fool he American public that it is for "our best interest."
- itsthebrod, on 10/02/2008, -11/+5And compare that to the economy completely collapsing if nothing had been done. Hmmmm....
- bullhead2007, on 10/02/2008, -3/+6Since that's what happened when it failed in the house right? Hmmm.....
- chowda, on 10/02/2008, -4/+7Quick! someone do *something*... *anything*!
what makes you think this stupidity will help anything? - dopplerdog, on 10/02/2008, -1/+4@bull, the market factored in that there would be another vote. We'll never know either way now, unless it's defeated in the house this second time and it's dead for good.
- DHTamus, on 10/02/2008, -2/+3Yeah, as compared to how the economy improved so much when the Fed opened up 630 billion to the banks the same day the first Bill failed...
- bacon_skoda, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3@bull, I suggest you go talk to the owner of your local auto dealer tomorrow. tell them how great that wall street didn't win.
- willster580, on 10/02/2008, -4/+18Dude, think of the rich people. They deserve this money despite all of their serious ***** mistakes...they're rich. They're better than you.
- EntropyFan, on 10/02/2008, -4/+8the 'rich people' you talk of will not get a cent of this money.
Why? They walked off with all the ***** profits a while ago. It isn't their money at risk, it is yours and mine.
Seriously, why is this so hard to understand? The only(well, mostly) thing at risk is retirement funds and savings and credit to normal folks who did it right. The 'rich' have been taking 6 figure salaries and golden parachute packages and have left the building already.
Burning down the economy now is like burning down you house to even with a thief that left hours ago.
- EntropyFan, on 10/02/2008, -4/+8the 'rich people' you talk of will not get a cent of this money.
- willy3121, on 10/02/2008, -0/+5I can see the looks on their stupid faces!
- poopdigger, on 10/02/2008, -9/+14No lawmaker wants to be responsible for the collapse of the banking system.
I'm going to get dugg down, but I honestly don't understand the mentality of diggers- I thought most of you guys were an educated bunch who took their Econ 101, got a nice job, and now can sit at the computer all day clicking on stories. Sure, I am scared about putting $700 billion of taxpayer money into high-risk investments, but these huge firms on Wall Street play very real and very important roles in the operation of our economy. The system does need to be fixed, but I don't think the best way is to let it fall apart.
We need accountability, limitations, and a return on the rescue package- and I think it's better to let your lawmakers and beloved Obama work this out rather than turning a ignorant eye from the problem.
Learn something, the huffington post is not the only source for news and opinion;
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/opinion/01friedm ...- darkstar949, on 10/02/2008, -3/+5Interesting article you linked there, also, I think some of the numbers I have heard is that once you add up all of the "sweeteners" in the Senate version of the bail out, the total is actually closer to $800 billion.
There is also a lot of controversy about the whole bill though as I have read a couple of articles that said that the US Government (i.e. the tax payer) will actually come out ahead if the bailout is successful as the various financial instruments would be generating income. There is definitely a lot of mixed opinions out there on the subject though. - Wetzilla, on 10/02/2008, -2/+4I wish I could digg you up more.
- netant, on 10/02/2008, -4/+41) What is 700 billion supposed to do for a 60 trillion dollar derivatives market, all of it potentially as bad as the subprime derivatives market?
2) What are we going to do two years from now, when the two year accumulation of NEW foreclosures DUE TO BAD ARM MORTGAGES? We're only taking care of the ones from the past few years!
3) What are the REGULATIONS that will determine WHICH toxic mortgages get bought and what gets left behind?
The bailout cannot possibly fix the credit liquidity problem. Oh sure, banks will eventually have 700 billion more dollar room to provide credit. But that is a drop in the bucket in terms of the total economy.
Its a CON JOB. The TV and the newspapers and the radio are all owned by the rich, and they don't want credit to freeze up, and they don't want to be stuck holding trillions of dollars in foreclosed mortgages! They lie as to the extent of the problem, they silence the alternate voices, they say congressmen are being irresponsible, and say the Senate is doing the right thing by robbing their voters to give it to the rich. They lie that the bailout fixing the problem. Mechanistically, the bailout CANNOT FIX THE PROBLEM.
All these smaller businesses whine about not being able to get credit. So they will have to the smaller, MORE SOLVENT financial entities to get loans, and they will HAVE to pay more for the loan! Because cheap credit is not available anymore. The bailout does not restore credit liquidity, or make cheap credit. The bailout merely protects the really large lending institutions by letting them keep their customers, even though they've run their institutions into bankruptcy!
There are alternate ways to address the credit crisis without GIVING AWAY taxpayer money to CRIMINAL GAMBLERS! If you renegotiate mortgage terms in bankruptcy court, you avoid the defaults! Bad mortgages become expensive, STABLE mortgages. No defaults, credit liquidity is restored! Who eats that loss? Not the taxpayers, but the SPECULATORS! Another way to address credit liquidity is to adjust (temporarily or permanently) lending limit laws that is causing the credit freeze.
You have just cheered on for a trillion dollar debt because the TV told you the US was economically dead if it didn't. The bailout has not fixed the economy, its merely bailed out a lot of investors and you're paying their debt for them!
***** Obama. If McCain wasn't even a bigger retard, who made a Shiite Christian ditz his successor when he strokes out, I'd gladly vote for some other *****. The best solution is to bludgeon the politicians to make someone else pay for their *****. - xleu, on 10/02/2008, -2/+4Just fyi, all those companies that are inter-related in that article are simply one source of credit out of dozens available and are all temporary. If this bill passes and inflation wipes out your 401k, pension, and social security, then that's it, those are fairly irreplaceable when you're 80 and can't work anymore.
- CosmicJustice, on 10/02/2008, -3/+4Can you really not see the potential, no, the CERTAINTY of corruption and theft that will come with one man handing out taxpayer money like candy to corporate America? Holy *****!
- bacon_skoda, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2the extra dough on top of the $700B was already in that bill that was going to pass. This stick this rescue plan into that one so it'll ride along.
- darkstar949, on 10/02/2008, -3/+5Interesting article you linked there, also, I think some of the numbers I have heard is that once you add up all of the "sweeteners" in the Senate version of the bail out, the total is actually closer to $800 billion.
- DHTamus, on 10/02/2008, -1/+10This whole thing is outrageous. If the U.S. takes the big hit, I would feel better knowing that 700 billion was spent on essential services like medical supplies and food for US and not being used to pay back foreign investors that the gov't pissed off with it's begging and borrowing.
- Waterrat, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1 But it WON'T be spent on essential services for the people who live here. It would end up going to the military complex and into other projects those in power deem worthy...Spend it on the US citizens!? Won't happen.
- SpykerSpeed, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2There should be a "sarcasm party" that has Senators that propose add-ons to bills that make them ten times more expensive. Why stop at $700 billion? We need a $7 TRILLION bill!
- digitronix, on 10/02/2008, -3/+28These politicians don't know what the hell they're doing. And they say we're the ones that are misinformed about everything!
- NyteStarNyne, on 10/02/2008, -11/+73Hear that? It's the value of the dollar falling into the dark unknown.
- fuzzmeister, on 10/02/2008, -12/+9Do you honestly think allowing these banks to fail wouldn't hurt the dollar? This solution isn't perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than doing nothing. And, despite what that commentator on CNN said, bankruptcy courts won't work, they would take far too long to unwind each company and figure out who owns what, while in the mean time the economy would be circling the drain.
- bullhead2007, on 10/02/2008, -1/+15Actually if these banks failed, and credit/money was harder to come by again, instead of handed out to anyone who can return a "pre-selected" application, then yes the dollar would gain value again.
Creating Trillions of dollars out of no where for bad investments is exactly what caused this in the first place. - regeya, on 10/02/2008, -3/+4Hey, people can't see past the stage of "dude, let 'em fail!" They cannot fathom there being secondary effects, tertiary effects, and so on.
And most people are cherry-picking the bad parts of the news. They're missing that there's lots of head-busting that will come out of this. Also, remember that the conspiracy theorists are being led about by the nose, utterly convinced (by bankers) that everything that went wrong was the government's fault, and that they're being unfairly maligned by the "controlled" media.
Um...yeah. Sorry, my brain still works, not buying the cover story. Thanks for trying, though! Have fun with the markets about to be clamped down as hard as other developed countries, though. Now we know why the Chinese laughed at Bush for telling 'em to deregulate. - whahaa, on 10/02/2008, -1/+3how do you know for sure that it's better than doing nothing? because TV said so?
sometimes patience is the right move, and this is one of those times. - bullhead2007, on 10/02/2008, -1/+6Actually it runs a lot deeper than "dued let dem fael".
It's the fact that they're putting a bandaid on a severed artery. They are NOT trying to stop the problem, they are trying to keep it inflated so they can keep on going. The real problem was that the Federal Government, and the Federal Reserve, gave out credit/money too easily. They created trillions of dollars worth of loans to people they knew couldn't afford it. Creating 700 billion out of no where *might* work for now, but it will also create instant inflation. Every dollar everyone already has saved will lose a lot of value, things will get more expensive, people wont get raises, etc.
The market could fix itself. It might be rough at first, but at least we'd be able to kill the ***** disease, instead of treating the symptom. - bacon_skoda, on 10/02/2008, -1/+2@bull. that all depends on whether your job ( i assume you have a job) was created out of nowhere like you mentioned. once this economy contracts those "fake money" economy disappears, what do you have left? don't tell me you don't know how fake all this social networking and blogs really is. I'm blocking google ads right now.
- newms32, on 10/02/2008, -1/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_cris ...
That's what people said back then, and a bailout only ensured that it would happen again. History repeats itself, but only in today's idiot society could history repeat itself in only 20 years.
- bullhead2007, on 10/02/2008, -1/+15Actually if these banks failed, and credit/money was harder to come by again, instead of handed out to anyone who can return a "pre-selected" application, then yes the dollar would gain value again.
- Barackalypse, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3Well, they keep saying we're a credit driven economy, so ultimately the joke will be on whatever fools keep buying our notes =) At that point nobody will have enough money to ride to the rescue.
- ThickGreenPuke, on 10/02/2008, -3/+6how about you let the price of houses fall and let the market determine their actual worth. Of course things will be worse if we don't pass the bailout but that is only short term. In long term we will see the value of dollar go down which we really choke the economy for good period of time. ***** it. I am sick of this place.
- bacon_skoda, on 10/02/2008, -1/+2speaking of sick. that's like saying, let's let all the people with terminal diseases die. why waste money taking care of them. bring the population of the nation to it's actual real number.
- bacon_skoda, on 10/02/2008, -1/+2speaking of sick. that's like saying, let's let all the people with terminal diseases die. why waste money taking care of them. bring the population of the nation to it's actual real number.
- brad3378, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4All I hear is a giant printing press running.
- fuzzmeister, on 10/02/2008, -12/+9Do you honestly think allowing these banks to fail wouldn't hurt the dollar? This solution isn't perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than doing nothing. And, despite what that commentator on CNN said, bankruptcy courts won't work, they would take far too long to unwind each company and figure out who owns what, while in the mean time the economy would be circling the drain.
- Baldar, on 10/02/2008, -16/+59Everyone needs to write their congressmen and stop this in the house.
I think this should seal the deal for most Americans that Obama and McCain are one and the same, and they should start looking at third parties.- theconster222, on 10/02/2008, -10/+6oh shut up. our opinion doesnt mean *****
- odigity, on 10/02/2008, -1/+10You're probably right. But that's not an excuse to do nothing.
If you don't believe lobbying your representatives is effective (I mostly agree with you), spend your time doing something else - perhaps campaigning for an honest Constitutional candidate (if you can find one), or educating people in your area about economics and the Federal Reserve.
Plenty of great documentaries and educational materials online. No excuse for ignorance any more, and very little time left. - MiltonWaddams, on 10/02/2008, -2/+6"or educating people in your area about economics and the Federal Reserve." I think if you went around your neighborhood lecturing people about the federal reserve, you're bound to get punched in the face at some point.
- odigity, on 10/02/2008, -1/+3Fine, then sit at home and do nothing.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, AN UNPUNCHED FACE MORE THAN PERMANENT PROSPERITY AND PEACE, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams (with tweaks from odigity)
- odigity, on 10/02/2008, -1/+10You're probably right. But that's not an excuse to do nothing.
- Gemfinder, on 10/02/2008, -1/+9My rep is on the "Nay" side, thankfully.
Been, done, marked it off the grocery list.- Baldar, on 10/02/2008, -0/+5Are you lucky enough to have one on the "Nay" side that will stay "Nay"?
Some are possibly changing their minds from what I've heard. - Gemfinder, on 10/02/2008, -1/+8From my rep, Peter DeFazio:
"I was the first Member of Congress to take to the House floor and stand up in opposition to this $700 billion bailout. The financial crisis we face today does not need to be resolved by forking over $700 billion from the taxpayer to the "Masters of the Universe" on Wall Street.
The fundamental premise of the $700 billion Bush Administration bailout is flawed, reckless, and foolish. It is flawed because it is not clear it will achieve its stated objective of injecting commercial banks with liquidity and it ignores the needs of main street America, it is reckless because there are better alternatives, and it is foolish because giving away $700 billion will limit our ability to deal with the myriad of other problems we face such as healthcare, energy independence, and job creation.
To put the sheer audacity of this bailout plan in perspective, a compromise has been talked about that reduces the initial payments to "only $250 billion". $250 billion would more than double our investment in bridges, highways, transit, and rail in the United States for five years. Investing in infrastructure creates jobs and stimulates the economy. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, for every $1.25 billion we invest in infrastructure, we will create over 30,000 jobs and $6 billion in additional economic activity. In President Roosevelt's Works Progress Administration, we invested in building roads, bridges, dams, hydroelectric systems and other public works projects to mend our nation's broken economy. That money trickled up to Wall Street from Main Street and rebuilt our economy. We did not just throw money at Wall Street with the hopes that the taxpayer might some day be paid back."
Not everyone invests in the stock market. DeFazio knows this and he knows what we'd have to give up in order to pay this bailout. Like I said, I'm not worth $2300 melted down for parts. This bailout couldn't happen at a worse time, when peoples' savings are melting down and outright disappearing. - Vzylexy, on 10/02/2008, -0/+5@Gemfinder
DeFazio is a pretty cool dude, he's my congressman as well. - Gemfinder, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1Some more from our guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y6T65Ou6tM
Gotta dash. There's a debate watch party downtown and I gotta motivate here.
See y'all in a few hours on EyesOnObama!
- Baldar, on 10/02/2008, -0/+5Are you lucky enough to have one on the "Nay" side that will stay "Nay"?
- theconster222, on 10/02/2008, -10/+6oh shut up. our opinion doesnt mean *****
