•
Well, thank goodness
At least someone in DC is feeling the pressure. While trying to fool everyone in to thinking the bill is urgent, and regardless of how the market reacted, it’s a good thing congress will be spending some more time to make sure the U.S. taxpayers don’t give cash to those who least deserve it.
Print This Post
Email This Post
•
10 comments to “Well, thank goodness”
•
29. September 2008 at :
It actually had nothing to do with fiscal responsibility at all, apparently.
Of 38 Representatives in tight races, 30 voted against the bill.
Of those whose incumbency is pretty well secured it was 197 for, 198 against.
So was it about re-election?
29. September 2008 at :
And another: of the 26 Representatives who aren’t seeking re-election, 23 in favor and 2 against with 1 abstention.
So actually the numbers I noted as “incumbency…well secured” in my first post include those 26.
29. September 2008 at :
I’m not sure how that’s different. I read your stats to support the conclusion that most Americans are against the bill as written because it
-gave dictatorial powers with no accountability to one unelected official
-functioned primarily by buying up the bad loans rather than finding another solution (such as recapitalization of the banks in exchange for preferred stock) that would have punished existing stockholders and executives while solving the problem.
When I wrote pressure, I meant pressure from constituents to work out a better bill. According to the NYTimes the amount of grass roots screaming over this has been exceptional.
30. September 2008 at :
I think that Josh’s idea about recapitalization of the companies is a good one. That way, after the crisis is over the government can sell the stock to the general public or back to the company. If the companies recover well the value of the stock will go up and the government will get a windfall, if it doesn’t the government can either hold the stock until it does, either way there is fairness.
As to why the House voted why it did, I think that Jason’s statistical analysis is correct, however, the entire House is up for election every two years so they must follow the wishes of the people or lose their seats. Actually, that was the intent of the framers when the government was set up.
Whatever position is taken on this, the fact remains that this bill was pushed through with an urgency that prevented any real time to work out the best plan. The Europeans aren’t panic driven on this and we shouldn’t be either. The World will not come to an end if more time is devoted to making this legislation fair to all sides. Now, I’m not saying to leave it for after the election, but if it gets passed in a week or two it will be just fine.
Just as a prejudicial note on my part, John McCain isn’t doing this thing any good by constantly talking about how the Market if full of thieves, crooks, charlatans, and proponents of all the seven deadly sins. People on the right are listening to him and closing off their minds to our problems. He should just say that we have work to do and do it.
30. September 2008 at :
Wrong about Europeans not being panic driven. This morning the Irish government announced that all bank liabilities are being nationalized for the next 2 years to the tune of 500 billion Euro (3 times the size of the Irish economy) to guarantee every loan, bond and deposit on the books.
Talk about insanity.
30. September 2008 at :
Did you see Tom Wolfe’s op-ed in the NYT?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/opinion/28wolfe.html?_r=3&dbk&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
30. September 2008 at :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7644259.stm
Among the reasons given for sending the package’s creators back to the drawing board were:
* A lurking mistrust among members about the secretive way in which the bill had been cobbled together
* A reluctance to come to the aid of wealthy bankers
* Ideological objections to government intervention
* The speed with which the house was expected to give the bill its backing
But the pivotal reason given by most of those who turned down the bill seems straightforward: they feared for their jobs
30. September 2008 at :
Is anyone else amazed at the Republicans’/Conservatives’/Right’s ability to blame Democrats for failed bailout bill?
I’m particularly floored by McCain’s blaming of Obama and Pelosi for playing “partisan politics” with a national economic crisis
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/14087.html
, conveniently ignoring his own stunt of suspending his campaign (which never actually happened as TV ads continued to run all over the country), canceling his appearance on Letterman to go directly to Washington (which he didn’t actually do) to use his incredible leadership abilities and rally the troops (which he failed to do) to pass the bailout plan. He then prematurely left Washington for the debate claiming the negotiations were going well and he was no longer needed and then it didn’t pass.
But I digress. My point about the blame being handed to Democrats: aren’t Republicans supposed to be about fiscal responsibility and so should have been opposed to the bailout? Yet 60 percent (140 - 95) of House Democrats voted in favor of the bailout package while 67 percent (133 - 65) of House Republicans voted against it.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml
Who’s to blame again?
1. October 2008 at :
J: Wolff still has it, mostly. A gate only goes up (closes) when too much cash threatens to leave. It’s not a term of art in the way he uses it. You wouldn’t say, “We’re opening the gate to allow withdrawals.” At least, I’ve never heard anyone use the term that way, but that’s the main problem with all of Wolff’s writing (brilliant as it it). He’s like an alien visiting a new planet and be absorbs everything, but gets a lot of the nomenclature wrong. However, it’s so amazing when he comes up with better terms for common behavior or status (master of the universe, social x-ray, etc.).
Here he is also right that MOTU began leaving roughly 6 years ago en masse and have not looked back. I recall some very funny stories about that. There was one very promising young (stock) analyst who, when he left Goldman Sachs in 2004, made sure to send out a blast email to the entire department (senior management included) noting that he’d look forward to hearing their best ideas when he arrived at his new firm, a hedge fund. Basically, his email was code for: “You’ll all be kissing my ass because you’ll need the trading commissions of the firm I’m joining.”
We’ll see what happens. Tomorrow is D-Day for the hedgies.
Oh, and while Greenwich might be the metaphorical center of the hedge fund world, Wolff is wrong about that, too. The most money is in midtown Manhattan, BY FAR. I’ve got the stats if you want them, Tom.
1. October 2008 at :
Just blame Nancy Pelosi…it’s obviously her fault because of her rampant partisan slant.