digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at reuters.com —

House rejects $700-bln Wall St bailout bill

reuters.com — WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives on Monday rejected by a vote of 228-205 a Wall Street bailout bill that would have authorized the Treasury Department to spend up to $700 billion to purchase broken mortgage-backed bonds from banks...

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Winston84, on 09/29/2008, -13/+227Guess what ? Tomorrow it's Black Tuesday ..
    • JamesMatt, on 09/29/2008, -2/+28Tragic Tuesday - the dow is crashing down.... i
    • dougs55, on 09/29/2008, -6/+119I've said this before but I really hope those Wall Street guys have enough decency to jump out the windows like they did in 1929 if it happens tomorrow.
      • Tezdoll, on 09/29/2008, -3/+29hahahahah
        first i was like


        then i was like


        :)
      • Jashobeam5, on 09/29/2008, -2/+11Urban Legend. It didn't happen. Jumping from windows was not a common practice after the crash.
      • JROXZ, on 09/29/2008, -1/+0I dunno... It's a whole new Tuesday...
      • tehxen3, on 09/29/2008, -17/+3Wow, that was in poor taste you ignorant prick. Whole country and world was plunged in excruciating poverty after that because the government didn't do anything useful to help the situation.
      • thecatcantalk, on 09/30/2008, -0/+5Although it's worth noting that Bill Wilson had been a stockbroker who lost his shirt in the Crash of '29.

        So, if it weren't for the Great Crash, Alcoholics Anonymous wouldn't have been founded, 'cause "Bill W." wouldn't have bottomed out and founded AA.

        He'd have muddled along as a high-functioning alcoholic in denial, just like so many other investment bankers (and lawyers and Congressmen, et al.).
      • martalli, on 09/30/2008, -1/+5Interesting to note that the crash in 1929 came after a long run of Republican leadership...although I wonder if the Republicans of the 1920's were really the same party as now. After all, Taft and Teddy Roosevelt were famous for breaking up monopolies.
    • rocketman42, on 09/29/2008, -0/+35Tomorrow? The market is still open. Traders don't wait until they get home to find out what happened. The Dow quickly plunged 700 points. Currently it is down about 550. The closing bell should be interesting.
    • RevJonathan, on 09/29/2008, -5/+67I certainly hope it levels. I am immensely proud of my country right now. Much more so than I've been in a long time. It's still hard though, the next few days will hurt, but this is the only appropriate response.

      They need to let the banks value the assets themselves, not the Secretary, that act alone would be a BIG step in the right direction.
      • Jookly, on 09/29/2008, -3/+11proud you say.......
      • MacBookForMe, on 09/29/2008, -8/+5you know, proud in a special way to resist Bush:)
      • puter, on 09/29/2008, -3/+14clearly the banks did so well at valuing their liabilities in the past....
      • phike, on 09/29/2008, -10/+6Exactly why are you proud now, "much more so than [you've] been in a long time"? Personally, I am still proud of my country, but probably much less than I've ever been in my life.

        There is NOT ONE SIGNIFICANT INDICATION of America improving its way of life or government doing the right things in recent memory. How the ***** can your "proud meter" be at a high at a time like this?

        I would be more proud if this country elects Barack, but I have serious doubts that this country will ever elect a minority.
      • Shirt, on 09/29/2008, -1/+21I think he was referring specifically to the house turning down the proposal, as in he's proud that his country didn't make an already festering ***** worse.

        It's all about your perspective. :)
      • martalli, on 09/30/2008, -0/+4I was thrown off by RevJonathan's comment, too, but I agree with him. I am glad we have decided to continue with market valuation.... The government could only overvalue these financial gimmicks - otherwise why would Wall Street agree to the deal?
      • poxonyou, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1Well, the vote was pretty close.
        If the market plummets, it'll be because they'll fear no solution will ever be reached. The bailout was the wrong solution, but now there are so many alternatives presented by top economists, it's a bit of a mess.
    • grouchyman, on 09/29/2008, -2/+24Tomorrow... try today... as of 3:32 ET, it's down -721... biggest point loss in history according to cnn commentators, assuming it closes that low.
      • skidooer, on 09/29/2008, -0/+19But percentage wise, it's not even in the top ten losses.
      • HoratioHellpop, on 09/29/2008, -12/+1And the meltdown was due to the Clinton adminstration, but the libtards don't recall it:

        http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0 ...
      • locojones, on 09/29/2008, -0/+3But in terms of percentage declines, it doesn't even rank in the top 10. A 5%ish drop on this news is actually quite surprising in terms of the good news. It's hardly a catastrophe.
      • martalli, on 09/30/2008, -1/+3@HoratioHellpop - Clinton caused this? For the last seven years this was an inevitable conclusion that the Bush administration just observed passively?
      • kmarble, on 09/30/2008, -0/+0But not a record percentage loss...
      • HoratioHellpop, on 10/01/2008, -0/+0@martalli:

        Did you even read the ***** article I posted? Yes, the Clinton administration DID cause this by URGING the Fannie/Freddie folks to start making loans to people who were HIGH RISK.

        Unbelievable how blind you ***** libtards are. But sure ... blame it on Bush -- dumbass.
    • shaka999, on 09/29/2008, -4/+22My pocket book is hurting. Guess that plasma TV I was hoping to buy this year is on indefinite hold...
      • blackfog, on 09/29/2008, -10/+23If your investments determine whether or not you can get a relatively cheap plasma TV, time to rethink some things...
      • shaka999, on 09/29/2008, -2/+18No, my family priorities decide if I can drop $3K on a TV.

        Since you decided to be an ass, I'll spell out some priorities other here might not appreciate. I have two great boys and a wife you stays at home. Yes, STAYS AT HOME. We decided to raise our own kids instead of stuffing them away hoping for the best. That means we have to be more careful than we otherwise would (before she quit working).

        Thats my priorities. Where are yours?
      • OHGAlpha, on 09/29/2008, -0/+5just a suggestion. BUY A DLP TV. Its far cheaper, better quailty and you can get a much bigger screen. I think you can like a 73inch for like 1.5k if you look around a little. Only downside is is that you have to replace the lamp every 5000-10000 hours which i think is free as long as you are under warrenty.
      • shaka999, on 09/29/2008, -1/+3I was really close to going DLP but the vertical viewing angle killed it. We have a built-in stand that is 3ft high. DLPs look great straight on but dim quickly.

        Been looking at the 58" Samsung A650. Maybe once the market recovers a bit....
      • cowman80i9, on 09/29/2008, -0/+3yeah when the economy starts going back up i plan to get a new tv too, with CASH, as a reward for holding out the recession. or i might get myself a beat up delorean and fix it up but thats a year or so from now.
      • EllimistX, on 09/30/2008, -0/+6Well, I applaud you for being financially responsible and not taking the tv out on credit...
      • martalli, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1Do you already have a TV? If so, you don't need a TV. That's what my grandpa would have said...and he grew up in the Depression.
      • poxonyou, on 09/30/2008, -1/+1Wow, I feel sorry for you. Tough times if the worse you have to worry about is if you can waste money on something as trivial as a giant TV. Hang in there my friend, when John McCain attacks those evil ear marks, all will be better.
      • puter, on 09/30/2008, -0/+0I'm sure they'd be happy to give you a subprime loan for the cost of the TV!
      • greeniemeani, on 09/30/2008, -1/+13k for a Plasma TV? You're doing it wrong.
    • nothin2g, on 09/29/2008, -8/+39http://www.endofworld.net/






      US are *****.
      • GregFD3S, on 09/29/2008, -0/+20But I am le tired.
      • thetanman, on 09/29/2008, -0/+20Well have nap... THEN FIRE LE MISSILES!
      • cowman80i9, on 09/29/2008, -1/+3didn't we stop saying the united states "are" are long time ago? the correct term would be the united states "is"
      • steger, on 09/29/2008, -0/+8wtf^mate
      • bman1984, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1@cowman

        Perhaps, in a language other than English.
      • nothin2g, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1@cowman80i9 i'm not from the states. So my 'are' is not ***** :-)
      • UrlorJkron, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1@cowman

        Yeah shortly after the civil war when the feds introduced the draft and suspended the writ of habeas corpus to keep the states in check.
    • tobymikle, on 09/29/2008, -0/+13Black Tuesday;

      October 29th, 1929. This is the date of the most famous stock market crash in history. Stocks lost 13% of their value on Black Tuesday. The date is considered the beginning of the Great Depression.
      • dodgejon, on 09/29/2008, -0/+26It only took a war for us to get out of the great depression...Good thing we are already at war.
      • smoger, on 09/29/2008, -3/+9..2 wars
      • sassyjack, on 09/29/2008, -17/+109/29/29
        08/29/08

        There's some strange pattern here.
      • unreg, on 09/29/2008, -2/+25That would be 9/29/08, dumbass
      • dubhglais, on 09/29/2008, -0/+18And 10/29/29.
      • JROXZ, on 09/29/2008, -5/+3ROFFLE.... dumbass
      • monkeywithagun, on 09/29/2008, -6/+7Hello, is that a conspiracy I hear? It involves money, so I wonder which race of oft-persecuted people might be to blame...? Rhymes with muse
      • poxonyou, on 09/30/2008, -2/+3You're right. Time to turn on the History Channel and learn how Jews were the only persecuted people in history, therefore we must fully support the state of Israel now or the Holocaust will happen again.
    • Haoie, on 09/29/2008, -0/+16And what a time for it to happen, mere weeks before your elections.

      Either way, someone's inheriting a huge mess.
    • hydroplane, on 09/29/2008, -4/+47***** IT, WE'LL DO IT LIVE!
    • browe07, on 09/29/2008, -3/+17Its more of a Grey Tuesday. We just averted Black Tuesday a few years from now!

      I think the American people had a lot to do with it too. Its poetic justice that they tried the fear tactics again and the people rekindled the idea that the politicians are supposed to fear the people and not the other way around.
    • SpenderH, on 09/29/2008, -1/+6Write to your representatives, it only takes 2 minutes:

      http://capwiz.com/jscpp/dbq/officials/

      But also check to see if your Representative votes for the bailout this afternoon:

      http://www.chuckypita.com/voting-list-of-who-voted ...

    • VIJoe, on 09/29/2008, -3/+14BFD. Wake me when it has something more than a theoretical effect on anyone other than the people who haven't profited hand-over-fist on this ***** for years.

      These jamholes think it's the end of humanity just because they are going to be restricted from creating insane wealth from nothing.

      I'd rather drop off the grid than make these jerk-offs rich again.
      • LordVance, on 09/29/2008, -1/+12How about those of us finding it impossible to get a student loan approved at the moment? Luckily I only owe 3000 a semester that my federal loans and grants do not cover, so I can just work and pay my way through. If that was 6000 though, I would be forced to drop out during my fourth year at university...
      • Pstmann, on 09/29/2008, -0/+7I think most people who work for a living feel the same way.
      • klooper, on 09/29/2008, -1/+2What you guys don't understand is that business runs on short term credit. Why? Because all businesses have Accounts Payable and Accounts Receivable. That is credit that companies give to other companies to move products for materials and finished products. This provides a constantly unstable cash position for many companies. Short term credit provides a safety net for these situations.

        When short term credit is unavailable, payrolls, raw materials for new products, and credit for buyers of products are suddenly unavailable. Businesses then have to make choices between paying bills and moving products to market. This is a recipe for, at least, a very serious recession and at worst full-blown depression.

        Your job and my job are at stake if this doesn't pass in the next couple of weeks.

        This is a very, very serious situation. It's high time that people start looking at the big picture here. The bailout will make some money unavailable in the short term, but taxpayers could very well gain money from this deal in the long term.

        Without it, we're all *****.
      • radu79, on 09/30/2008, -0/+2My (my own, not in general) business doesn't run on credit. I don't like credit, never used credit except for buying a house, and even then, I made sure I'll have money saved up for at least 1 year in advance, in case ***** happens.
        Not sure if it will affect me in any way (of course, if my customers get fired, then they won't have too much money to spend for my business), but I am pretty optimistic about the whole thing. Sure, some people are going to get ***** really bad, but that's only because they were greedy speculators who placed all their eggs in one basket. So ***** them!
    • Squires, on 09/29/2008, -0/+9Well it may of not passed, but the FED still created 630 billion dollars today. Here comes hyperinflation...
      • diggenerate, on 09/29/2008, -1/+4they created the money but it wasn't injected into the market, so no new inflation yet.
      • Grok22, on 09/30/2008, -0/+3. . . yet
    • peep, on 09/29/2008, -0/+3Apparently the house is taking a few "well deserved" days off, so we will have Black Tuesday, black Wednesday, Black Thursday....
      Just wait till the foreign markets open. You think they hate us now?
      • GroundhogBoy, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1I agree with you, but it is a religious holiday. Can't spite the Jews.

        BTW, you're right about the rest of the world. For people who have such concern with the war (that I opposed from the beginning), you have no idea how pissed the rest of the world is going to be about their loss of capital in what is supposed to be a safe investment harbor, the United States. Their economies will suffer just like ours, in some places, worse, because their corporations and governments invested in the US and it will be our fault because our people are so outspoken in spite of their ignorance. We put Bush in office, now we're cheering as Rome burns.
    • thecatcantalk, on 09/30/2008, -1/+6"The sky is falling, the sky is falling! Give me all your money or your children will die!"

      ***** off and die in a fire.
    • Kiganshee, on 09/30/2008, -0/+2I dunno what you're talking about. I'm buying in. They say sell, I say buy.
    • Xviper78, on 09/30/2008, -0/+2I believe the politically correct term is African American Tuesday you racist pig.
    • grungemusic3001, on 09/30/2008, -0/+2guess its time to short sell then?
    • brad3378, on 09/30/2008, -1/+5With all due respect. ***** your pessimism.

      If we give up now, we're admitting to Wall Street and our government that we need their help when in fact they caused this mess we're now in. I for one believe that we can do just fine without their ***** $700 bailout and will be buying even MORE stock (when my deposit posts) at bargain prices. Don't get me wrong. This market isn't for the squeamish, but with risk often comes reward. This country was founded by risk takers and will be saved by risk takers. Market cowards add no value in times like these. Nothing in this world would give me more satisfaction than to call out the pessimistic bailout supporters like Jim Cramer and Warren Buffet and make money without taxpayer help when they're crying about the sky falling because they didn't get their legislation passed.

    • wondertwins, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1hmmm. thats pretty scary. i hope its just a recession not a depression
  • xBreakdownx, on 09/29/2008, -13/+129We may need something, but it wasn't that.
    • joelf, on 09/29/2008, -11/+4investing in green technology. That's the next big market. use the money that would have been used in the ailing financial sector, full of mismanages funds, and use it to start a new drive toward green tech.
      • GroundhogBoy, on 09/30/2008, -0/+3Yeah, because those long range goals will be achieved without the credit that isn't being extended now. Or are we supposed sink hundreds of billions of dollars into something that could yield benefits in a few years right in the midst of a recession that's moving towards a depression.
    • kaelyiesta, on 09/29/2008, -3/+9Agreed. We need to understand how these TBTF bubbles arise in the first place. Then we need to discontinue the manipulation that causes them. We don't need to perpetuate them until we are finally unable to, having devalued our currency, and consequently creating an even bigger collapse later.

      Creating and sustaining artificial market bubbles is not the solution. We need to stop now, suffer the consequences and start behaving more responsibly so that these bubbles don't arise in the future. If anyone thinks the problems we will face as a result of this vote will be bad, just imagine how much worse it would have been had it gone the other way. We've had big market failures before, created by government intervention with the market most often, and the ones that last the longest were the ones the government manipulated the most. The great depression comes to mind as the best example.

      You cannot sustain false assets' value without hemorrhaging money into them. The only way you can do that is by stealing money from someone else, and in this case, its you and me via devaluation of our hard earned savings. Eventually, the looters would have nothing left to steal and the crash would be that much more devastating.

    • eastsoccer19, on 09/29/2008, -0/+1an who knows when we'll figure out what it is... besides a new president
    • oldgal, on 09/29/2008, -1/+1I wish they would call a moratorium on the issuance of derivatives and on mortgage resets and possibly even foreclosures, so the situation doesn't continue to get worse as they fumble around.
    • digitronix, on 09/29/2008, -1/+2I can tell you, 205 congressmen need another job. Preferably, the type of job Americans "don't want".
    • chromerium, on 09/29/2008, -1/+4Agreed.

      These criminals knew what they were doing, and right from the beginning people were saying "this is a bad idea, this is going to go horribly wrong" and yet they went through with it.

      Any bill that is passed to bail out the companies should include criminal provisions to prosecute any and all that part of creating this mess. There should be a special investigation set up with powers to seize any and all records they feel pertain to this particular crime that has been committed on the American people and indeed the world.

      People found guilty of knowingly and wantonly creating these extremely high risk 'financial instruments' should be jailed for life. These people have risked the entire economy with their folly and ruined lives, and there MUST be consequences to their actions to ensure that any future generations think twice before they set something up like this.
      • bman1984, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1There is no accountability. This is the problem with the corporation. I say, let CEOs have their huge salaries on one condition. CEOs, along with other C level executives should be responsible for the actions of the corporation. It is the only way that they would actually deserve the salaries they are currently receiving.
    • brainboy77, on 09/30/2008, -3/+1stop drinking ron paul's kool aid. the fact of the matter is that the economy is going to tank without the bill. plain and simple. what would you consider right: saving companies who screwed up or saving millions of american lives? the world is just shades of gray; sometimes we just have to sacrifice for the greater good.
      • bman1984, on 09/30/2008, -0/+2Stop being a selfish little baby. Every day is not full of sunshine and lollipops. Things are not even tough yet. Oh no, I will only be able to go on one 5k vacation this year, wah! I have to drive a used car, and work two jobs, wah!

        You know what Americans supporting this bailout sound like? A bunch of ***** babies. You cant win every day. Growth on Wall St in the last few years has been mostly due to speculation, and thus artificial. Deal with it. Things will get worse then they are now, but do you really think the end of the world is coming. Consider the quality of living we have today. I can guarantee that most people could eliminate 30% of what they spend, and still live a perfectly happy life. When people start starving, let me know.
      • sickanimations, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1You underestimate the power of free markets and capitalism. Excessive risks have been taken, now we will see excessive losses. The creditors come in, pick up the scraps. Things will readjust and be back to normal in 5-10 months. Not months, sorry, years. May this be a lesson!
      • bman1984, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1You can't undo the past. Further intervention in this mess will only worsen the situation. Oversight/Regulations != Intervention
    • rv361162, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1And when they try to push it down our throats on Thursday:

      http://www.700billiondollarparkinglot.com
    • etsung, on 09/30/2008, -1/+1Well, doing nothing isn't what we need either. We must act and I hate say it, even if it costs 2 or 3 trillion dollars.
  • Winston84, on 09/29/2008, -9/+96All I'm saying is that you have to take care if you go near Wall Street tomorrow,
    you risk being hit by a jumping f*cker http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/files/images/080926_ ...
    • JROXZ, on 09/29/2008, -2/+7That dumbass...

      Jump you FUCEERS!!!
    • SwiftKick34, on 09/29/2008, -11/+3Poor taste
    • pagno, on 09/30/2008, -1/+6Thats funny.
    • chourobin, on 09/30/2008, -1/+1how many here have a retirement account or 401k? well... i say its kind of sad people who worked their whole life and is about to RETIRE just lost 8 years of growth today. bravo diggers...

      you think you dont pay for it now... but when those baby boomers need social security to offset their loss in retirement... we all end up paying.

      idiots.
      • JROXZ, on 09/30/2008, -0/+0We'll end up paying regardless which way you slice it. I'd much prefer the lower percentage of those retirement account loses as opposed to the complete slavery of our children.

        The amount of money to save the former directly is significantly less than the bailout.
    • RagnarD2, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1Geronimo....
  • JamesMatt, on 09/29/2008, -21/+230It's the end of the world as we know it.
    It's the end of the world as we know it.
    It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.
    • joelf, on 09/29/2008, -15/+9actually, the stock market is doing better than it was in 2004, the US dollar is still strong - stronger that it was this time last May. There isn't a worry - stocks are reactionary. If the dollar starts to plummet than you should worry about the country, if its just the stocks, worry about your banker.
      • KJGJ, on 09/29/2008, -0/+12When did Bush get a digg account?
      • GroundhogBoy, on 09/30/2008, -0/+3You're right that the Dow is the same now as in 2004. Where you're lacking in clarity is the fact that the dollar has been highly devalued since then (i.e. it's far worse of a decline than then). Secondly, the Dow components can be de-listed and it's scaled. Just recently, AIG was removed and replaced with Kraft Foods. In February, Bank of America, one of the few that's standing up to this crisis and growing, and Cheveron were added. In 2004, it was Verizon and Pfizer, both of whom outpaced their competitors in the time since then.

        In other simple terms, it's far worse now than it was in 2004.
    • oldgal, on 09/29/2008, -2/+7Nope, according to my grandparents generation the world as we know it ended in 1948 when Truman defeated Dewey. You never know how effective a candidate will be as president until they are it, and sometimes it takes historical perspective to understand how effective they were. The fact that there is an election soon with some chance we will elect a candidate with a different economic philosophy than we have born the last 8 years gives me a glimmer of hope. So far America has amazingly managed to select the right presidents in times of dire stress.
    • GregFD3S, on 09/29/2008, -2/+19But I am le tired.

      http://www.endofworld.net
    • snowblind113, on 09/29/2008, -1/+8rem +1
    • betheturtle, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1OH GREAT IT STARTS WITH AN EARTHQUAKE
  • jfreeman, on 09/29/2008, -11/+140There is some representation left in the Congress, apparently. Now, let's hear some alternatives rather than rush forward with the administration's proposal backed only by scare tactics - that's how we got into Iraq.
    • fuzzmeister, on 09/29/2008, -14/+7By the time another proposal could be worked out, the markets may have already crashed. On issues such as this, you have to work fast.
      • Grym11, on 09/29/2008, -1/+10Let's just see if it does. I'm almost curious to see how many parts of this doom and gloom talk is real from ***** spin intended to frighten us all into capitulating on the largest handout in history.

        I'm sorry but, $700 Billion dollars is a lot of money. If the Secretary Paulson were truly competent we'd have been given more than one week to decide and have been given more than one option to pursue on how to stop it. That $700 billion figure--pulled right out of their asses because it is "a large number." These guys have no credibility. How can you take them at their word that things will be so bad so quickly?
      • jfreeman, on 09/29/2008, -1/+7These are the scare tactics I just mentioned.
    • fractalman, on 09/29/2008, -6/+77I say "Let it crash". The sooner it crashes, the less damage will be done, and the sooner we can start to recover. All the bad debt needs to be liquidated, not sold to the taxpayer. Once we rid America of all this debt, free and open markets can prevail.
    • Daedalus81, on 09/29/2008, -0/+16I was watching CSPAN for the vote. They took a verbal vote and the yeas were really close to the nays, but the house leader called it for the yeas right away. There was quite an uproar after that and they demanded a manual vote.
      • trdrstv, on 09/29/2008, -0/+8They took a verbal vote? In a room with nearly 500 people voting, when the hell would an "Verbal vote" be appropriate?

        ***** man, I thought that died in Ancient Greece...
      • gattan007, on 09/29/2008, -0/+7They always take a verbal vote first. If there are no objections to the verbal vote, then they don't take a counted vote. That may have worked in the past, but now the speaker just declares that by their judgment the verbal vote went in favor of whatever position they support. Then, someone from the other side disputes it and calls for a roll call vote. Then the real votes are counted. I personally think its stupid that they jump through all these hoops just to follow their rules, but that's the way it is.
      • danpay, on 09/29/2008, -0/+3whoever yells the loudest wins!
      • KMartSheriff, on 09/29/2008, -1/+5That is utter *****. A verbal vote? What year is it again? A verbal vote should ALWAYS be out of the question. Always do a manual vote.
    • DarKnyht, on 09/29/2008, -2/+8We won the battle today. Unfortunately, we need to win each and every time they try to force this crap down taxpayers throats, and they only need to win once.

      The best advice I could give you is stay involved and keep after your senators and representatives. Don't let them do something their constituents don't want.
      • unreg, on 09/29/2008, -1/+6Funny how its the Republicain representation that is putting up the most resistance to the deal.
    • bigsteve3OOO, on 09/30/2008, -1/+6I am conservative but I have to give extreme credit to democrat Pete Visclosky. Indiana should be proud to have him represent them he said "We are now in the golden age of thieves. And where I come from we put thieves in jail, we don't bail them out." I am very happy with this truly great American.
  • then00b, on 09/29/2008, -7/+33FUD.
    • SuperWinner, on 09/29/2008, -13/+3microsoft had little or nothing to do with this mess
      • hymneforthedead, on 09/29/2008, -2/+4(j/k)

        did you know that most of the military's computers run on windows 2000 NT and XP?
        ROFLLL
    • thorpus, on 09/29/2008, -0/+7yep, everyone needs to take a breath
  • BoneStamp, on 09/29/2008, -25/+8This is a sad day. I know most people are probably celebrating, but I hope those people have jobs that don't depend on the economy.
    • psingl8715, on 09/29/2008, -1/+10It's a sad day anytime you need to rely on the government to bail you out with american tax dollars.

      • BoneStamp, on 09/29/2008, -0/+2It's just a matter of who will get bailed out with when... ideally, you want to do it when it's the cheapest... sooner rather than later in most cases.
      • bixel, on 09/29/2008, -1/+1you almost got it right, but the end of your last sentence should read--"but I hope those people have jobs that don't depend on the stock market and speculative investment."
  • ascott9, on 09/29/2008, -19/+58Yep, unemployment will probably go up to 30%.

    I'm kind of glad it didn't pass, just because I wanted to see what would happen, but I think it'll pass later this week.

    Here is why you know housing prices are insanely over inflated and the values need to get back down to normal.

    http://austinscott.name/wp-content/uploads/2008/09 ...

    • mockupscaledown, on 09/29/2008, -2/+22Do you have data to back up that 30% number, or are you just taking a wild guess? Honest question.
      • ascott9, on 09/29/2008, -1/+5Honestly, not backed by statistical data. Only if you consider what you hear on CNBC to be fact.
      • poprocksandsoda, on 09/30/2008, -0/+2Actually, the numbers for the great depression never got over 25% ... but for a good reason. Back then the risk/money was spread across many mom and pops businesses. With today's consolidation, the numbers could easily push into the 50-60% range unless the government nationalizes Airlines, Healthcare, shipping, etc. The number of cities/unions that are going to fall apart because they invested heavily on employee/municipal assets is going to be enough to create trauma. It's going to get real bad, but not as bad as many of the third world countries I've been to. If we're lucky, we'll only end up like the Philippines.
    • kesam, on 09/29/2008, -0/+7Hm, a small sadistic part of me had the opposite hope actually. That it WOULD pass, just to see what would happen - I imagine the dollar would plummet sooner or later, but it might take a year to see the results as opposed to weeks.
      • poprocksandsoda, on 09/30/2008, -0/+2Actually, if anything the dollar will rise as our friends who base their currency fully or paired off ours started to plummit in value. This will be the same strange result as when Wall Street was booming and the dollar was declining (foreigners were putting large $$$ into US assets on the cheap causing the market to grow ... as the dollar declined).
    • nickstang, on 09/29/2008, -1/+3I also agree that the house nay voters will be rocked by the end of the week by the huge losses in the stock market and will be urged by wallstreet cronies to get something passed. This week will be interesting for the markets.
    • iamansp2008, on 09/29/2008, -7/+2If they don't pass a sensible bailout plan your wish will soon come true and neither me nor you can afford to use digg because we will not afford to broadband internet.
    • iplaypiano, on 09/29/2008, -1/+2Just because you wanted to see what would happen? Have a heart dude, these things affect millions of people. You're totally right about housing prices, though.
      • bman1984, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1Have we not seen this coming for the last year? IF you have not been saving money, and not taking borrowing as much money as you can, my heart does not go out to you. There is this thing, called responsibility. People need to start having some of it. You act as if the current average american ( or canadian in my case) is on the brink of starvation. Do you know how much of my budget is based on absolute necessity. 45%
        If you think that sound ridicolous, you are living outside of your means.
      • iplaypiano, on 09/30/2008, -0/+0Just because something is necessary doesn't mean it isn't tragic. I completely agree that the US needs to be more fiscally responsible, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be better if the lesson could be learned without a disaster. All I'm saying is that I'm concerned about all the people in the world who may be affected by this crisis, and I prefer a "let's hope we can fix this" attitude to a "let's see what happens" one.

        And why are you getting so personal here? I'll admit that I'm debt-free Canadian citizen myself, if it helps to calm you down.
    • bobwalsh1250, on 09/29/2008, -1/+1I agree with you that I am happy the House of Representatives turned done this bill. The government has no right to involve itself in bailing out any business, The government should only be involved in regulating the behavior rules of companies.
      Will people get hurt if the financial companies go under. I do not know the answer but it seems like JP Morgan and Citibank ave faith in the market.
      I hear how homeowners are going to get hurt. What homeowners? If you been paying your mortgage on a timely basis how are you going to get hurt?
      The statements being made is that unemployment will increase. That could be true, but the most effective area will be the financial industry. Will that trickle down to other industries? Maybe, but does the market need to make that correction.
      Look at one of the positive benefits. The price of oil took another dip pushing gasoline prices down.

      http://bobwalshbiz.byethost8.com
    • brad3378, on 09/30/2008, -1/+2Will all due respect, put your money where your mouth is or kindly STFU.

      If you're expecting the market to get worse, then buy lots of Put Options.
      Just don't give those ***** in Washington another reason to promote their fear mongering bailout *****.
  • fuzzmeister, on 09/29/2008, -21/+10Now, we begin to see the consequences of not bailing out these institutions. Expect to see cascading bank failures over the next few weeks, and frozen lending markets for quite some time. Politics are often useful for protecting the interests of the country, but here they have taken an intensely technical plan and rejected it in basis of ideology, with little consideration for consequences. The House had to be pragmatic, and it wasn't.
    • shaka999, on 09/29/2008, -6/+6Yep, they let emotion get in the way of logic.

      This wasn't about bailing out the rich bankers, it was about saving the economy.
    • rotten777, on 09/29/2008, -3/+10How about this, the next time the government wants to have everyone run under a system of rules, and people lose under that system, people that they like and they call important, don't expect them to change the rules without the other 295 million people getting pissed.

      Live and die by the capitalist sword. Get rid of the Fed. Quit running a temporary empire at the expense of the taxpayers. Get back to reality. We can't all drive hummers and live in mansions forever. If you didn't see this coming (as people have since the 80's), then you're not intelligent or educated enough to have valid input on the subject.

      Bush probably wanted to pass this just so his legacy wasn't as terrible as it truly is.
    • Grym11, on 09/29/2008, -2/+4The house was placed in an unreasonable position. You can't expect them to pass a $700 billion dollar handout in the span of a WEEK. I'm proud my representatives stood up to this arm-twisting chicken-little *****. The real people responsible for this are all the economic "experts" who told us that everything would be fine, right up until two weeks ago. Even if they're somehow right now (and I'm not convinced), they've been lying to us and should be held accountable.

      If the market crashes, than so be it. You can't always have growth. You can't have your cake and eat it too. A truly free market isn't always kind but it IS always just. If our policies have up to this point encouraged failure than we need to be given incentive in the form of failure to change such polices, otherwise we're just encouraging more and more failures in the long term and ruining the economic outlook for generations.
  • falstaff, on 09/29/2008, -6/+54There is only something like $300b in bad mortgages right now, a $700b plan is monstrously ridiculous (I know, it's expanded to more things that just mortgages, but Congress should be focusing on that, right now).

    If the government really were buying distressed properties at a steep discount, then all sorts of private money should be bidding on them, too. Nobody is stepping up, so why do we want politicians valuing the assets to be purchased any higher than those who do that sort of thing professionally?

    There is a distinct lack of liquidity in the markets right now, and that's a problem, but this plan is like trying to fill a drinking glass with a fire hose. Too much money creates a problem just as much as not enough.
    • rocketman42, on 09/29/2008, -6/+8I don't think anyone was talking about governments buying properties. One of the pieces of the current bill was to purchase mortgages from banks, but not to actually buy the physical houses.

      I don't know where you got the $300b figure. Every estimate I've seen has been over $1 trillion.
      • falstaff, on 09/29/2008, -0/+6"Property" doesn't necessarily mean "real estate." Even if I did mean it that way, it still wouldn't be entirely inaccurate, since the holder of the mortgage is technically the owner (at least in part) until it's paid off.

        I'm not sure where I saw it, but I did read that there were around $700b in subprime mortgages, and most of those were still in good standing, leaving about $300b worth of bad subprime loans. True, there are some traditional loans in trouble, too, and my number (embarrassingly) doesn't reflect that, but that's where it came from.
      • publiclurker, on 09/29/2008, -0/+7If the government buys the mortgage, and they default, the government now owns the property.
      • sickanimations, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1What do you think most of the mortgages are for? Real estate. Nobody has had enough time to make an accurate estimate of the value of these mortgages yet but falstaff has a point - if they were being sold under value, private entities would want to buy them, even if they are risky.
    • badplacebo, on 09/29/2008, -0/+3Taking your $300B number at face value, without any fact checking, I'm just curious if you read anything about the bill itself? Because the new bill called for congress approving $250B immediately, and a Presidential option to release $100B upon his say so. The rest was held to be determined later if or how to best use the money.

      Given your numbers, looks like the deal would have covered your main concern 1st and foremost... bad mortgage debt! And it would have tabled the element you were concerned with... too much $$ too fast.
    • danielyso, on 09/29/2008, -7/+0where the ***** did you get your 300 billion dollar number from you tard.

      numbers i see are ranging from 2 to 5 trillion, according to my economics professor.

      the 700 billion would have gone to buy these mortgages at 15 to 20 cents on the dollar.
      • unreg, on 09/29/2008, -0/+4Your economics professor, ha, that's a good one. Maybe he should have flunked a couple of his students along the way.
      • danielyso, on 09/29/2008, -2/+0well at least you gave me the motivation to find some info backing up my claims:

        http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1881.cf ...

        "As a consequence, the availability of risky loans soared from the late 1990s through 2006. In 2001, newly originated subprime, Alt-A, and home equity lines (seconds) totaled $330 billion and amounted to 15 percent of all residential mortgages. Just three years later, in 2004, these mortgages accounted for almost $1.1 trillion in new loans, equal to 37 percent of the total. Their volume peaked in 2006 when they reached $1.4 trillion and 48 percent of the total.[2] Over a similar period, the volume of mortgage-backed securities (MBS) collateralized by subprime mortgages increased from $18.5 billion in 1995 to $507.9 billion in 2005.[3]"

        k so think about this, retard. every year you're averaging close to a trillion dollars in subprime mortgages from 2001 to 2006. That makes about 5 trillion right? And most of them failed, which is why it's somewhere in between one and five. get it?
      • poprocksandsoda, on 09/30/2008, -0/+2The whole US mortage market is valued at 2.2 trillion.
    • falstaff, on 09/29/2008, -0/+3All right. To stave off further questioning of the $300b number, this is where I got it:
      "Of the $1.26 trillion in non-prime mortgages — that is, “sub-prime” and “Alt-A” mortgages — $743 billion is already either owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, companies that were shored up by a government rescue earlier this month. That leaves $521 billion, which means the Treasury’s $700 billion would be more than enough to buy them all. And that’s even if the Treasury paid full value. In fact, the Treasury will get a steep discount, considering that many of the mortgages in question are in delinquency or default. Does the Treasury really have to buy every single non-prime mortgage — even the healthy ones — twice over?"

      So i took the $700b, divided by two (last line in the quote), and rounded down to account for the loans that are in no danger of going into default. It was a guesstimate, not canon.
      Sorry for any confusion.
      • danielyso, on 09/29/2008, -0/+0can i see your source. no acrimony, just interested.

        i like your thinking but the problem is that most of these mortgages did not stay with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Also, the 1.26 trillion in non-prime mortgage only accounts for those that have failed this year. But with a 5 to 6 trillion dollar pool to fail from -- and most will fail -- the value will be much higher.

        but you're right, the government will get a steep discount. we can expect something similar to what JP Morgan sold their toxic assets for a few months ago, probably around 15 to 20 cents to a dollar.
      • DrakeGTA, on 09/30/2008, -0/+3The source is... http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDNkOTc5ZTY4Y ...
        Protip: when you see a quotes, copy them into Google, it usually finds the source.
    • NEWNHLISLAME, on 09/29/2008, -1/+2lol how you all forget the real question is what $700 billion are they printing it from thin air? oh right they are!
    • thespiff, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1Falstaff, the second paragraph in your original post is the 700 billion dollar question. The gov keeps telling us this could make money. Suggesting it isn't a bad investment. But nobody else wants to make it. So how could you think it's a good investment? I have yet to see someone make that argument to the administration.
  • jawix, on 09/29/2008, -1/+7http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/dont-call-ba ...
  • chesterjosiah, on 09/29/2008, -3/+23Is there anything we, as US citizens, can do to help this situation? Do we just sit back, watch the financial sector get rocked, and hope that we don't lose our own jobs in the aftermath?

    What is the natural evolution of the financial industry? Peer to peer lending? Let's get some discussion going.
    • vanza001, on 09/29/2008, -4/+38The financial sector is one big pyramid scheme and the natural evolution would be to go BACK to the gold standard and not allow private banks to control the currency of the land. Thomas Jefferson said, waaaaay back in 1816, "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency ... The banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of their property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." in a note to Dr Thomas Cooper from his home in Virginia. You can view the original text by searching for Jeffersonian Cyclopedia.
      • therealknewman, on 09/30/2008, -1/+2gee, when i send a note to a pal it usually just says "yo sup"
    • urgeigh, on 09/29/2008, -4/+13http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dib2-HBsF08

      I swear it's worth the click & your time.
    • mdoverkill, on 09/29/2008, -1/+15You let the market correct itself. And you tell your representatives to let it correct itself.

      Ever hear of the huge recession after WWI? No, of course you didn't because we let the market correct itself. We recovered in 1 year. We did the exact opposite in the 20s and the gov't tried bailing out the companies in trouble, which created massive inflation that led to the Great Depression.

      Japan also bailed out its financial institutions in '97/98. Took them until 2003 to START recovering, and they are still recovering to this day. One big difference between Japan then, and the U.S. now is the fact that Japan didn't 11 Trillion dollars in debt when they bailed out their financial institutions.

      We are in for hard times no matter whether we bail out these companies or not. The question is how long do you want the hard times to last? Do you want them to last a year or two? Then no bail outs. Want a second Great Depression? Then support the bailouts.

      • JinnRikki, on 09/29/2008, -3/+7We should have let the markets take the hit after 9/11 but once again government propped them up with spit and bailing wire (low interest and low interest loans). We could have been out of the woods by now.
        Had the people of this country been wiser and elected Gore in 2000, many, many bad things could have been avoided. How are all you Bush voters feeling about that vote now?
      • tehxen3, on 09/29/2008, -2/+4Way to revise history. Great depression ended with a huge influx of debt capital brought on by necessity of World War II. Two of the following decades were prosperous.
    • jwoulf, on 09/29/2008, -1/+5Yes, OPPOSE THE ***** BAILOUT!
    • danielyso, on 09/29/2008, -5/+5I'm sorry but so many people act like this is the first time the government has done this. if the bill had passed, it would have been the third time the government created a repository to shore up all the bad debt and help the markets function. the bailout plan IS the norm for a situation like this.

      you don't let the market correct itself when the one part everybody relies on, credit, is the thing in trouble. it's like Durden's plan in Fight Club: destroy the credit system and you have a whole new world. but instead of some kind of happy utopia, this world will be filled with unemployment, job loss, etc etc.

      you better hope this bill passes. whatever inflationary hits we might take would be no more than ten to twenty percent MAX, which is not unique and something we've endured before. But if the market is allowed to correct itself, there's going to be a LOT of bloodshed first, and only a minimal part of it will be in wall street. most of it will be on your street.
    • iamansp2008, on 09/29/2008, -4/+1you my friend is making sense. I don't know why everyone is against a bailout. Democrats wanted everything they want yet voted around 54% yes.
    • TJATL, on 09/29/2008, -0/+9Pay your ***** mortgage! That's what you can do to help. Gotta get a second or third job because you made a dumb mistake? Tuff *****.
    • Abatrour, on 09/30/2008, -2/+3There is something you can do. Only buy local stuff from the small mom and pop stores. It may be a little more expensive than buying stuff made overseas but it will help local stores stay in business and provide jobs in doing so.

      But of course everyone has to do so for it to succeed.

      • sickanimations, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1This is a good point, I don't know why you're getting dugg down. It reduces the trade deficit and could potentially lead to small businesses becoming more economically productive and even becoming exporters.
    • brad3378, on 09/30/2008, -2/+3I for one plan on buying MORE stock tomorrow despite threats of a higher capital gains taxes from the Obama camp. It is my belief that the market correction has begun and I'm willing to take a risk and hopefully see some gains.

      ***** these pessimists that want the market to drop.
      I'm buying more.........So don't tax the ***** out of me for doing my part to save the economy.
  • insomniacal, on 09/29/2008, -8/+212Hurrah for Republicans blocking it. We screamed in anger over the $700 billion bailout, and they listened.

    Politicians breaking ranks? Checks and balances actually working? A glorious day.
    • SkittlesUSA, on 09/29/2008, -2/+42Don't forget to thank Nancy Pelosi for giving her last-second blame-the-bush-administration rant which brought in the partisanship faster than a cockroach on a honey-bun.
    • ProfessorSYM, on 09/29/2008, -7/+34Don't hand the Republicans all of the credit, Democrats should be the ones applauded for going against their party as the moronic Democratic leadership (having been led like idiots into this economic trap) were the ones spearheading the whole thing.

      Republicans weren't taking a huge risk by revolting against President Bush; that's their only hope of keeping their seats at this point.
      • insomniacal, on 09/29/2008, -0/+17Yes, you're right -- 40% of Democrats voted against it. Kudos to them as well.

        Now maybe we can slow down, breathe, and work on a measured solution.
      • stevetrojanman, on 09/29/2008, -3/+22Obama agreed with Bush...

        Yay for change!
      • Soave, on 09/29/2008, -1/+8Why not give them BOTH credit?
    • BedPost, on 09/29/2008, -4/+11Partisan bickering isn't checks and balances, it's partisan bickering. Checks and balances would be the Supreme Court coming in and saying "hey, this bill is unconstitutional" or Bush vetoing it.
      • insomniacal, on 09/29/2008, -0/+10Partisan bickering? 40% of Democrats and 67% of Republicans voted against it. Bush's Republican administration asked for the bailout, and House Republicans voted against him en masse. How is that partisan?

        Would you have preferred Congress rubber-stamp Bush's agenda? As pointed out above, that's what got us into Iraq.
      • BedPost, on 09/29/2008, -0/+4I was just pointing out the fact that this is *not* checks and balances. This is just congress voting. I call it bickering mostly because the people that run our country are some of the most childish people around.

        I'm not that sure if this should've been passed or not, mostly because I'm not an economist, but this is in no way shape or form a case of checks and balances in action. The two party system was never planned - it sort of just happened. The parties may "check and balance" each other, but that's what I refer to as "partisan bickering". It's not like the constitution says "executive can veto, also there should be two parties that undercut each other constantly" (extreme paraphrasing).
      • jfreeman, on 09/30/2008, -0/+2A divided branch is just as much checks and balances as separation of powers. That is why, in the original Constitution, the President and Vice President were whoever got the most and second most electoral votes, respectively.

        "Ambition must be made to counter ambition." - James Madison
    • JinnRikki, on 09/29/2008, -13/+1Yes, let's blame Pelosi for telling Republicans the truth and hurting their poor little feelings, poor widdle babies.
      Personally, I think, it's probably for the best it failed, but republicans crying 'cause their feelings are hurt is side splitting funny.
    • GregFD3S, on 09/29/2008, -0/+10Great success!
    • IHaveCrayons, on 09/29/2008, -9/+4"Hurrah for Republicans"? Isn't this Digg where any article bashing the GOP minus Ron Paul is dugg? The same Republicans that voted for the Iraq War? The same republicans that brought you George W. Bush? Oh yes PRAISE the republicans who only voted against the bailout because they feared that if down the road it failed their careers would be in jeopardy. Yes Hurrah for the Republicans only looking out for their own asses!
      • Subliminational, on 09/30/2008, -1/+3How dare you make diggers think about their knee jerk comments!
    • Sheddy, on 09/29/2008, -1/+3No its people being smart people that just so happen to be politicians. Stop stop stop stop with this republican/democrat ***** please.
  • RevJonathan, on 09/29/2008, -3/+86This is a sad day, but a strong one indeed. Got to give credit to the House Republicans and many House Democrats for shutting down the bill. Especially to the Republicans for going against the President.

    Now we need a real alternative- the oversight was still too weak.
    • SkittlesUSA, on 09/29/2008, -8/+25McCain warned there wasn't enough oversight YEARS ago when he co-sponsored the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005.

      "I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

      I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation."

      http://beltwaysnark.com/2008/09/16/john-mccain-sup ...

      But it was blocked by democrat, with Democrat Barney Frank declaring, "hese two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” Frank said back in 2003, as the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”"

      I know diggers will refuse to give any props to McCain whatsoever, but he DID accurately warn we would face a crisis starting with Freddie and Fannie years ago.
      • Julik, on 09/29/2008, -1/+7On top of that The top 3 politicians that recieved money from Fannie and Freddie were Democrats... 2nd was Obama.. who received it all in the last 3 years.
      • georgemason01, on 09/29/2008, -2/+1He was probably just plagiarizing Ron Paul's speeches.
      • geodebug, on 09/29/2008, -0/+1McCain could have had a chance at my vote until around the RNC and Palin. Both reminded me of how 'big-brother-like' the last eight years have been and how, regardless of McCain himself, negative and out of ideas the republican party is today.

        More than anything else, the Palin pick showed me that McCain wasn't in charge of his campaign but was being 'handled' by the same cynical neocons?

        Call me when the republican party moves away from Bush's big government, big spending, socialist tendencies and actually starts to act 'fiscally conservative' again. Today's house conservatives may have just added a pulse back into that party and I'm proud of them for sticking to their guns.

        Why did it take eight years for republicans to wake up to the fact that Bush has always been incompetent and arrogant (a terrible combination). Why can't they see that McCain is weak and Palin is Bush in a dress (also incompetent and arrogant)?
    • JinnRikki, on 09/29/2008, -1/+1Not only the presnit, but they dissed McMaverick also. Makes the "gambler" look just a little more lame.
    • jeffvvisoft, on 09/29/2008, -0/+2Gives the insurance alternative a chance.

      Instead of handing the Wall Street fat cats a blank check, make 'em pay for their screw ups.
    • brad3378, on 09/30/2008, -0/+2A sad day?
      I guess it depends on your perspective.
      Don't get me wrong. This was BY FAR the worst day I've ever experienced in the stock market. But the markets are now closed and it's time to move on. It may sound sadistic, but I'm actually in a very good mood despite losing enough money in one day to buy my daily driver two times over. Why? Because where others see fear, I see an opportunity to buy more stock at rock bottom prices.

      This country was founded by risk takers and will be saved by risk takers. Call me a crazy, but I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is and buy even more. Just don't feed me some Obama ***** that I should be paying more in Capital Gains taxes. In times like these, the economy needs heroes like investors and business owners willing to take a risk. Risk taking should be rewarded not punished.

      Long Live free market Capitalism!
      Long Live the USA!
  • h3lx, on 09/29/2008, -4/+134Love the "Jump You *****" sign.

    http://mobiusinformer.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/ ...
    • FreddieD, on 09/29/2008, -3/+5I also love how he originally misspelled "*****" before correcting his mistake
      • h3lx, on 09/29/2008, -0/+11it's actually a K with an X on top of it... something about no wanting to get more police attention I'd presume.
      • FreddieD, on 09/29/2008, -0/+11Well, that makes my hypothesis a lot less funny.
    • TJATL, on 09/29/2008, -0/+5Because suicide is funny!!!
      • haterofps3, on 09/29/2008, -6/+2Its self induced death, suicide is a sin my friend.

        Besides these ***** lived up to they're name sake and ***** the United States, Canada, Mexico and the rest of the world.

        JUMP *****
      • jzuska, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1Hysterical actually.
    • geodebug, on 09/29/2008, -1/+2Schadenfreude is a sweet thing. Too bad others will be tasting our depression in the near future.
  • chronobyte, on 09/29/2008, -9/+186Wall Street just got a giant ***** YOU from the people.
    • Julik, on 09/29/2008, -18/+4I don't think you understand what this means... it is not just screwing over a few people on wall street.
      • thephosphorbox, on 09/29/2008, -1/+14I understand exactly what this means, and I'm prepared to face the future. As a nation, we had this coming.
      • osko2052, on 09/29/2008, -0/+9Exactly, living beyond our means for way too long.
      • Julik, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1I was referring to chronobyte thinking that it was a f you to wall street... it is a problem for more than wall street, a lot of wall street will be just fine.
    • BECoole, on 09/29/2008, -7/+1Not Wall Street so much as the Gov't entities of Fannie and Freddie.
    • tehxen3, on 09/29/2008, -5/+9This will trickle down from Wall Street in no time, then the people will be *****.
    • iamansp2008, on 09/29/2008, -6/+2get ready for food stamps and humble ***** you from your boss any moment.
      • infernal6, on 09/29/2008, -0/+7Food stamps? yeah right, like the government will have money to feed everyone
    • brainboy77, on 09/30/2008, -0/+3it's a 2-way street. you'll realize that the next time you need a loan.
    • wdr1, on 09/30/2008, -1/+1A 777 point drop in the Dow? A 100 point drop in the S&P? Drops in stocks across the board?

      I'd agree with the words in the sentence, just not in that particular order.
  • georgemason01, on 09/29/2008, -12/+71FTA: "Republican House members voted against the bailout by a more than 2-to-1 margin. A majority of Democrats voted in favor."

    "U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Monday he believed Congress would ultimately pass a proposed $700 billion Wall Street financial bailout, despite an initial rejection by the House of Representatives." - http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSWAT01 ...

    This should be a wakeup call to any Obama or McCain supporter, who both supported the bailout, that they aren't listening to over 75% of American citizens who opposed the bailout. It should specifically concern Obama supporters and Democrats in general that they are NOT an opposition party - they were stronger supporters of Bush's plan than his own party in this situation.
    • Smaulz, on 09/29/2008, -4/+23Whoa, you're going to get buried to oblivion for that one, but ne'er a truer word spoken.
    • shaka999, on 09/29/2008, -12/+3Lets see if the majority are happy with their decision in a week or two if a package doesn't pass.

      Soup lines anyone?
    • Julik, on 09/29/2008, -0/+2Political Expedience.
    • rblancarte, on 09/29/2008, -7/+4While this sounds just like McCain a few weeks back - but sometimes the general feeling of the people is just plain wrong, and lawmakers need to step back and do what is best for the country.

      I get that a lot of the country is not happy about this "bailout." I question the 75% number, but I know it is highly opposed.

      But at the same time, I don't think most of those people have enough understanding of the situation to really know what the hell to think. They just see $700 Billion of our money and they get scared, etc, and they speak out against this. But do they get the ramification of the action or what would happen with inaction? Do they even know how we got into this mess?

      Again, it comes down to the general public doesn't always know the best course of action. Need I remind you how much people were for war with Iraq back in 2001?
      • diggenerate, on 09/29/2008, -0/+2Our government doesn't have the right to tell us how or what to think, we are capable of doing that on our own.
      • bman1984, on 09/30/2008, -0/+2Not all of us dude.
    • kebinusan, on 09/29/2008, -0/+9Majority of democrats = 60%
    • JHB800, on 09/29/2008, -4/+4And with this bill not passing, house Republicans just won the majority back. I wouldn't be surprised to see them win back the senate as well.

      Democrats, you just ***** yourself over in the congressional elections.
      • argaen21, on 09/29/2008, -1/+1Wrong. This bailout didn't pass today, but it will pass in the next week when the republicans get everything they want in the next version.

        Anyway the republicans never lost the senate. Its 50-50 right now. You're also failing to remember that democratic voters still outnumber republican voters by a large amount, so you will probably no matter what still see democrats gaining seats.
      • diggenerate, on 09/29/2008, -1/+1McCain supported the bailout too, dumbass.
      • JHB800, on 09/29/2008, -0/+2I never said that it would help McCain. In fact, I think the bailout support will harm McCain in the long run.

        What I do see as a distinct possibility now, however, is an Obama presidency with either a split congress or a republican majority. Its going to depend on what the economy does.
      • KMartSheriff, on 09/29/2008, -0/+4***** Republicans. ***** Democrats. They're both terrible and not what this country needs.
    • cleric04, on 09/30/2008, -1/+2Just because 75% of people believe something doesn't mean they are right. These are the same 75% who are up to their neck in debt, and you want them making the economic decisions?
    • kmarble, on 09/30/2008, -0/+0Too bad there are more democrats than republicans in the house. Partisan finger-pointing is the leadership of the house covering their behinds because the rank and file of both parties didn't let them rush this through.
  • HunterKiller, on 09/29/2008, -0/+15Kinda funny that the House called for a motion to reconsider after the bill got rejected the first time...

    Definitely most interesting times. Dow is -626.03 as I post this now.
  • pintomp3, on 09/29/2008, -6/+89too bad the congress didn't show this kind of sack when voting for the iraq war.
    • diggenerate, on 09/29/2008, -1/+4Bush declared war without congressional approval.
  • diggerbez, on 09/29/2008, -3/+76Good! maybe the US dollar still has a chance
    • rotten777, on 09/29/2008, -3/+6Nobody ever said the Fed Reserve was leaving.
      • regeya, on 09/29/2008, -3/+6You do know the Great Depression happened WHILE we were under the gold standard, right?

        The only time we were on a true gold standard was from 1900-1933.

        And do you realize that when Congress had control of the money supply, the dollar crashed in, oh, 20 years? Yah.
      • crowbar77, on 09/29/2008, -0/+3@regeya

        The fed was created in 1913...
    • beesaretasty, on 09/29/2008, -0/+2Nope. Buy big in Reals for a little while.
  • dialectical, on 09/29/2008, -19/+11Careful what you guys wish for. Digg, you just $(#@! your parents who are at the cusp of retirement. Good Job.
    • rotten777, on 09/29/2008, -3/+8Nope, the politicians did that. We stopped them from screwing us and them harder at a later date. Go learn economics before you have an opinion that strong and vocal.
      • dialectical, on 09/29/2008, -4/+2Sigh, you really don't get it right now. Think of it as Frogger. You just lost your one life but you STILL have to get to the freak'n lilly pad. Otherwise... game over.

        Really, I have nothing wrong with all the people wanting us to get our finances in order and I it started to look like the discourse in America was changing and looking inward. That's a good thing. But you are still tied to the railroad.
      • AllyOfReason, on 09/29/2008, -2/+1Wow great insight!



        ...not
    • tnvwboy, on 09/29/2008, -1/+9They were willing to ***** us for the sake of their retirements and their economics got us in this mess, they should have to pay to get us out of it.
    • AmazingSteve, on 09/29/2008, -1/+4Yeah, well if they haven't been saving for retirement for the last few decades them ***** them.
    • sassyjack, on 09/29/2008, -1/+1There's a line in The Breakfast Club about that.
    • rhill285, on 09/29/2008, -1/+3If they are at the cusp of retirement, this shouldn't really affect them. Ever hear of portfolio allocation based on your age (in simple terms, the stock/bond mix)?
      • dialectical, on 09/29/2008, -1/+2You are looking at this in a very short term way. When you are retired, even with proper asset allocation and a "diversified portfolio" if the economy is in the tank or lacks any growth for the next 6 years you can have all the best diversified portfolio and you will not be able to effectively take out any of the gains in order to off shoot your income (retired). Pensions are also going to be squeezed harder, although the last I looked at it they are in not a bad spot.

        The only good thing about this is that the younger will have jobs. Just not very good ones. But employment with fewer companies is really crappy, and the younger more innovative crowd will just have zero incentive to go out and be entrepreneurial, wish I believe is the most important part of American economy. Innovation and higher production with lower, more automated costs. Sadly, the only real opportunity right now is going to be bottom feeders and resources. Notice how NASDAQ took the biggest hit with the biggest worries since those are the stocks that most need liquidity and credit to finance their Innovations? Like Biotech? Bullish on emerging alternative energy plays?... not looking very good right now.

        You guys did save yourself from higher taxes though, it will just take longer to pay off debt now. Go get yourself some Gold and store it away. You are creating SO much value in the market place, with it hiding underneath your bed.

  • tajitj, on 09/29/2008, -20/+21Vote for Bob Barr, he has been against it from the start.So how areMcCain and Obama going to spin this, they said it had to pass.
    http://www.bobbarr2008.com/
    • jeffvvisoft, on 09/29/2008, -2/+5I like Babar, the friendly elephant.
    • TJATL, on 09/29/2008, -1/+3The sheep don't want to hear that. You should have learned that by now. Bob Barr, the only candidate that has learned from his mistakes and that's why he's getting my vote.
    • JaseFace, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1If Bob won, he wouldn't be able to do anything. Neither party would follow any of his proposals. The president, for all of Bush's executive over-reach, still is not a monarch and cannot do whatever the hell he wants.
  • kingmanic, on 09/29/2008, -2/+26The stock market reaction is an over reaction to the news. The bill would not have prevented a recession and would not have fixed much. It would have simply propped up the monetary markets temporarily while awarding a 700 billion debt to future generations (ie everyone except the baby boomers). Hard to say how things will go from here. Maybe, just maybe it'll encourage more responsible investing. It's a good time to buy stocks in "value" brands and "value" companies. Not a good time to buy stock inLouis vuitton or Prada.
    • coustoe, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1actually I don't think the bill is neccessary, the FDIC and the other federal agencies have been doing a admirable job taking care of the most recent failures WAMU and Wachovia. I say let the bad banks fail it will only strengthen our financial system in the long run, just let the FDIC ensures a orderly unwinding and the markets will recover. As soon as you know the disease is finally out of the system the credit markets will work again.
  • jOOlian, on 09/29/2008, -2/+23This 700 Billion is like putting a bandaide on a severed leg... There are fundamental problems that need to be addressed in order to stem the wild bleeding of money that is coming out of the States.
  • Latimer, on 09/29/2008, -22/+52Cue the Digg economists......
    • urgeigh, on 09/29/2008, -4/+37Believe it or not educated people do use the internet sometimes. I even heard some college graduates are starting to get into this whole internets thing too, I dunno I could be wrong I guess, but do you know every single person on Digg? Hmm? Not to mention you don't have to be an economists to have an understanding of Wall Street. Do you think every single investment banker or trader or lender has a degree in economics? I think not. Try picking up a book sometime so maybe you can contribute something to the conversations, otherwise just stay out and let the "pseudo-economists" have their fun. At least they contribute SOMETHING to the thread.
      • duderino63, on 09/29/2008, -11/+6I'm sure some educated people use the Internet but it sure doesn't look like many of them make it to digg very often. Lots of evidence to support that too... just look all around you!
      • Latimer, on 09/29/2008, -9/+9Cue the whiny bitch!
      • HunterSeeker42, on 09/29/2008, -2/+2...and not so educated people too.
    • Jerret, on 09/29/2008, -0/+2Why not? The real economists have done such a good job lately. Same with the rating agencies, for Christ’s sake S&P had WAMU rated at an "A-" as early as March.

      I've known this was coming for well over a year know, time for people to get back to reality and start looking at a company’s financials in earnest before investing in them. Our system desperately needs an adjustment, if we don't allow this to correct then we will extract a depression out of a recession.
    • brainboy77, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1some diggers still believe that ron paul can still win. others will completely bash apple and microsoft because linux is leet, yet most of them use at least one windows product and the record for most diggs (non-hd-dvd) goes to the announcement of the iphone. even more will bash the powerusers like babyman, yet still digg their stories without a second thought. so yeah, digg really seems like the best place to receive sound advice.
    • brad3378, on 09/30/2008, -0/+3Frankly, the digg economists have a better track record than the folks on TV like Jim Cramer.

      What's Gold going for these days anyway?
      I rest my case.
  • danielrh9, on 09/29/2008, -1/+58The forrest has to burn sometimes so that it can grow stronger the next time.
    • rotten777, on 09/29/2008, -0/+1Stuck between a rock and a hole in a wall.............. O_o
    • regeya, on 09/29/2008, -1/+5"The forrest has to burn sometimes"

      Nathan Bedford Forrest?

      Forrest Gump?
    • BrownBears, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1The forest being the baby boomers' retirement portfolios? Yeah, just tell them to keep working for another decade while the forest regrows. In conclusion, ***** the poor and the elderly.
  • lmf49, on 09/29/2008, -4/+7There goes the neighborhood.
  • noupsell, on 09/29/2008, -6/+14 this is serious! when the news trumps Heather Locklear's arrested in California we'd better all kiss our asses goodbye -

    actually ***** the super rich and give to the poor
    • kinerry, on 09/29/2008, -0/+5that's called robbery

      you earn it, you keep it, that's how capitalism works
      • h3lx, on 09/29/2008, -1/+2it should be more like "they're paying for it, you eat it."
    • TJATL, on 09/29/2008, -0/+2Robin Hood is a bad story for kids. It never leaves them.
    • howufinna, on 09/30/2008, -0/+0But if the rich have no more money, who will the poor rob?
  • netneutrality, on 09/29/2008, -2/+44The full vote list: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml
    • knightwalkerz, on 09/29/2008, -1/+8lol@ weller
    • silveravnt, on 09/29/2008, -1/+1:( Mine voted yes
    • georgemason01, on 09/29/2008, -0/+6The title of the bill is interesting.
      • epadafunk, on 09/29/2008, -0/+4To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide earnings assistance and tax relief to members of the uniformed services, volunteer firefighters, and Peace Corps volunteers, and for other purposes

        a bit misleading do you think?
  • Perk, on 09/29/2008, -4/+20Here's the actual roll call. If your congressperson voted for the bill, let em know you won't be voting for them again.

    http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml
    • techmint, on 09/29/2008, -0/+2Proud to be from Nebraska. 0 For, 3 Against....
    • Mist0r_Wiggles, on 09/29/2008, -0/+5Vote Nancy Pelosi OUT of office!!!
    • Rodalli, on 09/29/2008, -0/+2Louisiana was 6/7 against, which is pleasantly surprising.

      I'm glad Melancon is not my rep!
    • ronsguide, on 09/29/2008, -1/+4My congressman wont be receiving my vote for re-election.
    • V3NOM, on 09/29/2008, -0/+2Michigan was 8/15 against. The representative for my district was one of those against it.
  • stevecando, on 09/29/2008, -10/+6call your congressman and say NO on Democrats voting without the Republicans. If they do Obama will suffer!

    Call now! the site house.org is down!!!

  • majortom1981, on 09/29/2008, -1/+4The thing is that the government was handling this wrong. I might be wrong on this but i think it was switzerland that had this problem . THe government bought a ton of stock in the failing banks and then when the banks got on their feet again they sold the government came out even.

    Why cant we do something like that instead of loaning out money and hoping they pay us back?
    • kingmanic, on 09/29/2008, -1/+8The securities that are sound are being bought by private parties. The securities that are worthless is what the 700 billion was meant to take out of the market. They weren't' buying the houses, just the bad mortgages. How do you turn a bad mortgage into money? Even if they bought the rights to take the house in the case of a foreclosure, the houses aren't worth nearly enough. The price of houses were driven by dumb borrowers and speculation. They have already lost 30% of it's value. The whole bail out was a 700 billion money exchange where you know at best you'll be getting 70 cents on the dollar. there never a realistic hope to recoup that money back. They just hoped the 700 billion would avert a run on the monetary markets.
    • Swift2, on 09/29/2008, -3/+1I'd be for that. However, Bush would veto that approach.
  • datdamonfoo, on 09/29/2008, -0/+30So as someone who has no stocks...is it time to buy?
    • hymneforthedead, on 09/29/2008, -1/+7YES! BUY LOW! BUUUUUUY EVERYTHING!
    • pappyblueribs, on 09/29/2008, -0/+25An interesting example...
      "When war began in Europe in 1939, John Templeton borrowed money to buy 100 shares each in 104 companies selling at one dollar per share or less, including 34 companies that were in bankruptcy. Only four turned out to be worthless, and he turned large profits on the others after holding each for an average of four years."

      So, John Templeton borrowed a bit less than $10,400 in 1939. He died a billionaire this year. Something to think about!

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton
    • TJATL, on 09/29/2008, -3/+3AAPL
    • geodebug, on 09/29/2008, -0/+2Yes. My guess is that now that everything is on sale that the market will recover slightly tomorrow.
    • citrik, on 09/29/2008, -0/+3I wouldn't buy right now, but soon is a good idea. Start doing some research on brands / companies you like and use. Wait till things settle, then go for it.
    • brad3378, on 09/30/2008, -0/+2I use http://zecco.com which offers completely free trades for the first 10 trades every month and $4.50 thereafter.
      The only drawback I've experienced is that it sometimes takes a while to transfer money from your checking account to your zecco account.

      As a beginner, my advice is to do your best to avoid trading with your emotions by staying diversified.
      If you put all of your money in one volitile stock, your emotions will be up and down like a roller coaster.
      I tend to have a better stomach for the emotions and I'm heavily invested in a stock called Freeport McMoran. (Symbol FCX) I like FCX because it is the world's largest publicly traded copper producer. I really like copper because almost every proposed solution to the energy crisis is electrically based and I expect to see Billions of people from China & India increase their exposure to a copper based electric grid infrastructure. Copper should also benefit from a weak dollar due to our country's deficit spending habit...... Or then again, I could be completely wrong. No matter what, if you like to learn, you'll find investing to be a facinating hobby.
  • dante88, on 09/29/2008, -1/+10Someone fill me in. My dad is the moneymaker in the family and he has his own Edward Jones office. Is my family *****?
    • Chahrlie5, on 09/29/2008, -1/+12Only if your dad suggested people invest in risky housing markets with no money down. Or to invest in these now failed financial institutions.
      • finabuddy, on 09/29/2008, -11/+0Right..because the only securities that lost value this year are the "housing markets", and people are earning more than ever now to put into brokerage accounts...
      • Chahrlie5, on 09/29/2008, -0/+14Feel free to expound and help answer his question instead of just being a ***** prick.
    • brainboy77, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1yes. if your dad ever needs to take a loan out on anything, yes, you are *****. i'm serious, go watch bloomberg.
  • alienpunk778, on 09/29/2008, -1/+26Finally congress listens to the people!
    • noupsell, on 09/29/2008, -1/+10we just got lucky this time
    • TheReport, on 09/29/2008, -2/+6It's election season, give it time, once reelected they will continue to stonewall you.
    • iamansp2008, on 09/29/2008, -0/+1it is a double edged sword. this time I think they are making mistake by listening to 100 million economics professors.
    • jzuska, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1It's going through, just not that version. The next one will be FAR bigger.
  • clone1, on 09/29/2008, -1/+3"The Sucker is going down"
  • lilhelper, on 09/29/2008, -0/+8The phoenix needs to die, to be reborn.
  • ironhide, on 09/29/2008, -2/+21I'm going to ask a couple of deadly serious questions of all the armchair economists.

    1. What would be the short/long term effects of passing the bailout
    2. What would be the short/long term effects of not passing the bailout

    I don't want soundbites or cheerleading for whatever candidate you support.
    I'm expecting a lot of crickets chirping.
    • wunksta, on 09/29/2008, -0/+131) a long time paying taxes to support that to which we wont be getting anything back, not to mention continuing the support of failing business
      2) other businesses will pick up the slack, buy them out to continue the loans, it will be tough and suck for a lot of people but its high time that the government stops pandering to failing businesses so that they will stop thinking they will come save them all the time. chrylser, im looking at you

      of course, im no economist, so thats my ignorant opinion but like others have mentioned, this is just evident of the SERIOUS problems in our economy/politics that need to be addressed. without addressing those, passing or not passing is pointless.
    • philipl411, on 09/29/2008, -0/+15If it passed.

      Short term The market would have dropped 200 or 300 points. Everyone would have breathed a sigh of relief.

      Long Term This would have happened again and again and again, as long as government is willing to prop up bad decisions this will happen.

      If it doesnt pass

      Short term The market will fall 700 to 1,000 points. This is what the market should do with bad decisions are made. People who beleive in the market correcting itself will make money.

      Long term One can only hope that congress does the right thing and gets out of backing up loans to people that cant pay them back. This included, student loans, home loans, SBA loans, farm loans, etc etc etc
    • trdrstv, on 09/29/2008, -0/+51. Passing the bailout effectively would drive the dollar into the floor by introducing a trillion dollars into the economy.
      2. Short term the financial markets will take a serious hit as will people's retirement/ stock portfolios. The reckless lenders will go bankrupt, and their holdings will become bonded and picked up by the remaining banks. This will lead to more consolidation of companies and hopefully a stronger long term financial market. Life will go on.
    • gyrmnix, on 09/29/2008, -0/+4If it passes, we would see either a short rally in the market, or 1929. The most likely response would be a short rally, followed by continued uncertainty in the market.

      If it doesn't pass, the stock market would continue to decline for another year or so. After that, we'd likely resume growth. Assuming no government/fed intervention, the growth would be slower and steadier then what we were seeing in the past couple years or so.
    • TheMachine1,