Vice presidential debate

[Guest]

Oh, I agree. It's not easy. But it is something to shoot for.

[thrash]

how the fuck is bank deregulation at fault for this?

i've already told you -- BLOCKING the psychotic antics of fannie and freddie (who contribute money to political campaigns!!) and BLOCKING the ability of the FED to buy GSE debt, and BLOCKING oversight on CRA -- all of this was blocked by the democrats. They needed CRA for social reasons and they needed Fannie/Freddie for lobbyist backscratching. And they needed avenues to continue funding for ACORN.

The government always complains that when something goes messy in the market, it is because there wasn't enough government regulation.. when in reality the situation is ALWAYS that the government has fucked up the market to begin with and has resisted any lessening of its interventionist powers. Expanding Government is a tautology because the answer to EVERY problem of failed interventionism is MORE intervention.

You should be pissed off at McCain because he voted for this bullshit bailout.. and because he's fallen for the bullshit line that "now we must do something" or "now we need to regulate this stuff".

No, he was right years ago when he wanted to regulate the government.

[3_Series]

Chuck for write-in president?

[Grr]

Once again, thrash chimes in with his almost perfect "economist" opinion. The fact is chuck, bill clinton was a MAJOR backer in 1999 to de-regulate the banking industry. In fact it was the DEMOCRATS ALONE, including bill clinton that passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999. If you want to learn something about how this whole mess happened, look it up. Im sure thrash will agree with me 100% on this one. It is highly documented be ALL the leading finacial-ists that this was the sole reason why this whole mess has happened. You have to thank the democrat party alone for everything that is going on with the economy at the moment, and the most recently, Nancy peloci.
Another thing, McCain was one of the most important people in 2003 that sounded the alarm on fannie and freddie, you cannot deny that because it is true. All the democrats that are pretending to be your freinds now are the very people that said nothing was wrong before, and are the same people that have been receiving money and adding to the corruption.
And one more thing, did you see what happened today? The stupid bill passed. This bill is going to be the sole downfall of the US economy from this point on. The 440 pages of PORK in this thing is simply immoral! Society and the markets that could have fixed all of this have made their opinon already. Since the bill has been signed, as of this moment the DOW is down 150, with a total drop of almost 500 points since the news of this bill passing has been anounced. This may be the first day the DOW goes below 10k in years, and i assure you, this bill will fail in all aspects of the word.
(at this point i would like a reply to this post from Thrash)
You have really dissapointed me lately for real, your posts are a blur of the facts to suit your own agenda and that quote of mine you have in your sig i no longer stand by, REMOVE IT

[SmitEvo]

3_Series;239767 wrote:
Chuck for write-in president?

No!?

[Link]

Oh Snap...

[Guest]

thrash;239760 wrote:
how the fuck is bank deregulation at fault for this?

You should be pissed off at McCain because he voted for this bullshit bailout.. and because he's fallen for the bullshit line that "now we must do something" or "now we need to regulate this stuff".

No, he was right years ago when he wanted to regulate the government.

Seriously....did you read my post? At all?

tjamz wrote:
I think it is funny that the republican party is saying "We need more oversight on wall street, we need more regulation, blah blah blah blah blah...." when McCain is directly responsible for the deregulation of wallstreet and banking. <u>Had they said "You know, after de-regulation there are bound to be some institutions that fail to regulate themselves, and unfortunately that leads to market shake up from time to time, but in the end we end up with stronger institutions that have learned from their mistakes and the mistakes of others...." I might have actually considered changing my vote.</u> Instead the John Kerry'ed the issue and flip-flopped....I mean they were for it before they were against it...right?

You MIGHT want to check the facts about what I posted before you make claims about my feelings on things.

Do I think that the rules need to be looked at again? Sure. Why not? I heard all sorts of complaints when SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley) law was passed on how it was going to hurt corporate America...blah blah...truth of the matter, it didn't. In fact it made the corporation that I used to work for a much better place to work.

I'd love to believe that the businesses of the world (whatever industry) would do better w/o any oversight, but the fact of the matter is that EVERY time I've seen it happen, they fail.

[Guest]

Grr;239773 wrote:
Once again, thrash chimes in with his almost perfect "economist" opinion. The fact is chuck, bill clinton was a MAJOR backer in 1999 to de-regulate the banking industry. ** In fact it was the DEMOCRATS ALONE, including bill clinton that passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999.** If you want to learn something about how this whole mess happened, look it up.
The bills were introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-TX) and in the House of Representatives by James Leach (R-IA). The bills were passed by a 54-44 vote along party lines with Republican support in the Senate and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives. Nov 4, 1999: After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8-1 and in the House: 362-57-15. This 'veto proof legislation' was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999
The banking industry had been seeking the repeal of Glass-Steagall since at least the 1980s. In 1987 the Congressional Research Service prepared a report which explored the case for preserving Glass-Steagall and the case against preserving the act.
Here is the official voting record, if you care to see it

Alabama
Aye AL Sessions, Jefferson [R]
Aye AL Shelby, Richard [R]
Alaska
Aye AK Murkowski, Frank [R]
Aye AK Stevens, Ted [R]
Arizona
Aye AZ Kyl, Jon [R]
Aye AZ McCain, John [R]
Arkansas
Aye AR Hutchinson, Tim [R]
Nay AR Lincoln, Blanche [D]
California
Nay CA Boxer, Barbara [D]
Nay CA Feinstein, Dianne [D]
Colorado
Aye CO Allard, Wayne [R]
Aye CO Campbell, Ben [R]
Connecticut
Nay CT Dodd, Christopher [D]
Nay CT Lieberman, Joseph [I]
Delaware
Aye DE Roth, William [?]
Nay DE Biden, Joseph [D]
Florida
Aye FL Mack, Connie [?]
Nay FL Graham, Bob [D]
Georgia
Aye GA Coverdell, Paul [?]
Nay GA Cleland, J. [D]
Hawaii
Nay HI Akaka, Daniel [D]
Nay HI Inouye, Daniel [D]
Idaho
Aye ID Craig, Larry [R]
Aye ID Crapo, Michael [R]
Illinois
Nay IL Durbin, Richard [D]
Present IL Fitzgerald, Peter [R]
Indiana
Aye IN Lugar, Richard [R]
Nay IN Bayh, B. [D]
Iowa
Aye IA Grassley, Charles [R]
Nay IA Harkin, Thomas [D]
Kansas
Aye KS Brownback, Samuel [R]
Aye KS Roberts, Pat [R]
Kentucky
Aye KY Bunning, Jim [R]
Aye KY McConnell, Mitch [R]
Louisiana
Nay LA Breaux, John [D]
Nay LA Landrieu, Mary [D]
Maine
Aye ME Collins, Susan [R]
Aye ME Snowe, Olympia [R]
Maryland
Nay MD Mikulski, Barbara [D]
Nay MD Sarbanes, Paul [D]
Massachusetts
Nay MA Kennedy, Edward [D]
Nay MA Kerry, John [D]
Michigan
Aye MI Abraham, Spencer [?]
Nay MI Levin, Carl [D]
Minnesota
Aye MN Grams, Rod [?]
Nay MN Wellstone, Paul [D]
Mississippi
Aye MS Cochran, Thad [R]
Aye MS Lott, Trent [R]
Missouri
Aye MO Ashcroft, John [?]
Aye MO Bond, Christopher [R]
Montana
Aye MT Burns, Conrad [R]
Nay MT Baucus, Max [D]
Nebraska
Aye NE Hagel, Charles [R]
Nay NE Kerrey, J. [?]
Nevada
Nay NV Bryan, Richard [?]
Nay NV Reid, Harry [D]
New Hampshire
Aye NH Gregg, Judd [R]
Aye NH Smith, Bob [R]
New Jersey
Nay NJ Lautenberg, Frank [D]
Nay NJ Torricelli, Robert [D]
New Mexico
Aye NM Domenici, Pete [R]
Nay NM Bingaman, Jeff [D]
New York
Nay NY Moynihan, Daniel [?]
Nay NY Schumer, Charles [D]
North Carolina
Aye NC Helms, Jesse [R]
Nay NC Edwards, John [D]
North Dakota
Nay ND Conrad, Kent [D]
Nay ND Dorgan, Byron [D]
Ohio
Aye OH DeWine, Michael [R]
Aye OH Voinovich, George [R]
Oklahoma
Aye OK Nickles, Don [R]
No Vote OK Inhofe, James [R]
Oregon
Aye OR Smith, Gordon [R]
Nay OR Wyden, Ron [D]
Pennsylvania
Aye PA Santorum, Richard [R]
Aye PA Specter, Arlen [R]
Rhode Island
Aye RI Chafee, John [?]
Nay RI Reed, John [D]
South Carolina
Aye SC Hollings, Ernest [D]
Aye SC Thurmond, J. [R]
South Dakota
Nay SD Daschle, Thomas [D]
Nay SD Johnson, Tim [D]
Tennessee
Aye TN Frist, William [R]
Aye TN Thompson, Fred [R]
Texas
Aye TX Gramm, Phil [R]
Aye TX Hutchison, Kay [R]
Utah
Aye UT Bennett, Robert [R]
Aye UT Hatch, Orrin [R]
Vermont
Aye VT Jeffords, James [I]
Nay VT Leahy, Patrick [D]
Virginia
Aye VA Warner, John [R]
Nay VA Robb, Charles [?]
Washington
Aye WA Gorton, T. [?]
Nay WA Murray, Patty [D]
West Virginia
Nay WV Byrd, Robert [D]
Nay WV Rockefeller, John [D]
Wisconsin
Nay WI Feingold, Russell [D]
Nay WI Kohl, Herbert [D]
Wyoming
Aye WY Enzi, Michael [R]
Aye WY Thomas, Craig [R]

[Guest]

I shall keep my sig, thank you very much.

[Guest]

But yes, I will put the fannie mae/freddie mac blunder on the Dems mostly....and even Obama. Contrary to popular belief on here, I am not an Obama nut swinger. I find myself shifting more to the right each day.....even though I am voting for a democratic president.

BTW, Obama did issue the following in March of 2007 regarding the predatory practices of sub-prime mortgage companies.

http://obama.senate.gov/press/070322-obama_urges_ber/

[Guest]

Now, on the finalized bill, Biden did in fact vote for the bill...as did all but 9 of the other senators present that day....here is that vote

Alabama
Aye AL Sessions, Jefferson [R]
Nay AL Shelby, Richard [R]
Alaska
Aye AK Murkowski, Frank [R]
Aye AK Stevens, Ted [R]
Arizona
Aye AZ Kyl, Jon [R]
No Vote AZ McCain, John [R]
Arkansas
Aye AR Hutchinson, Tim [R]
Aye AR Lincoln, Blanche [D]
California
Aye CA Feinstein, Dianne [D]
Nay CA Boxer, Barbara [D]
Colorado
Aye CO Allard, Wayne [R]
Aye CO Campbell, Ben [R]
Connecticut
Aye CT Dodd, Christopher [D]
Aye CT Lieberman, Joseph [I]
Delaware
Aye DE Biden, Joseph [D]
Aye DE Roth, William [?]
Florida
Aye FL Graham, Bob [D]
Aye FL Mack, Connie [?]
Georgia
Aye GA Cleland, J. [D]
Aye GA Coverdell, Paul [?]
Hawaii
Aye HI Akaka, Daniel [D]
Aye HI Inouye, Daniel [D]
Idaho
Aye ID Craig, Larry [R]
Aye ID Crapo, Michael [R]
Illinois
Aye IL Durbin, Richard [D]
Indiana
Aye IN Bayh, B. [D]
Aye IN Lugar, Richard [R]
Iowa
Aye IA Grassley, Charles [R]
Nay IA Harkin, Thomas [D]
Kansas
Aye KS Brownback, Samuel [R]
Aye KS Roberts, Pat [R]
Kentucky
Aye KY Bunning, Jim [R]
Aye KY McConnell, Mitch [R]
Louisiana
Aye LA Breaux, John [D]
Aye LA Landrieu, Mary [D]
Maine
Aye ME Collins, Susan [R]
Aye ME Snowe, Olympia [R]
Maryland
Aye MD Sarbanes, Paul [D]
Nay MD Mikulski, Barbara [D]
Massachusetts
Aye MA Kennedy, Edward [D]
Aye MA Kerry, John [D]
Michigan
Aye MI Abraham, Spencer [?]
Aye MI Levin, Carl [D]
Minnesota
Aye MN Grams, Rod [?]
Nay MN Wellstone, Paul [D]
Mississippi
Aye MS Cochran, Thad [R]
Aye MS Lott, Trent [R]
Missouri
Aye MO Ashcroft, John [?]
Aye MO Bond, Christopher [R]
Montana
Aye MT Baucus, Max [D]
Aye MT Burns, Conrad [R]
Nebraska
Aye NE Hagel, Charles [R]
Aye NE Kerrey, J. [?]
Nevada
Aye NV Reid, Harry [D]
Nay NV Bryan, Richard [?]
New Hampshire
Aye NH Gregg, Judd [R]
Aye NH Smith, Bob [R]
New Jersey
Aye NJ Lautenberg, Frank [D]
Aye NJ Torricelli, Robert [D]
New Mexico
Aye NM Bingaman, Jeff [D]
Aye NM Domenici, Pete [R]
New York
Aye NY Moynihan, Daniel [?]
Aye NY Schumer, Charles [D]
North Carolina
Aye NC Edwards, John [D]
Aye NC Helms, Jesse [R]
North Dakota
Aye ND Conrad, Kent [D]
Nay ND Dorgan, Byron [D]
Ohio
Aye OH DeWine, Michael [R]
Aye OH Voinovich, George [R]
Oklahoma
Aye OK Inhofe, James [R]
Aye OK Nickles, Don [R]
Oregon
Aye OR Smith, Gordon [R]
Aye OR Wyden, Ron [D]
Pennsylvania
Aye PA Santorum, Richard [R]
Aye PA Specter, Arlen [R]
Rhode Island
Aye RI Chafee, Lincoln [R]
Aye RI Reed, John [D]
South Carolina
Aye SC Hollings, Ernest [D]
Aye SC Thurmond, J. [R]
South Dakota
Aye SD Daschle, Thomas [D]
Aye SD Johnson, Tim [D]
Tennessee
Aye TN Frist, William [R]
Aye TN Thompson, Fred [R]
Texas
Aye TX Gramm, Phil [R]
Aye TX Hutchison, Kay [R]
Utah
Aye UT Bennett, Robert [R]
Aye UT Hatch, Orrin [R]
Vermont
Aye VT Jeffords, James [I]
Aye VT Leahy, Patrick [D]
Virginia
Aye VA Robb, Charles [?]
Aye VA Warner, John [R]
Washington
Aye WA Gorton, T. [?]
Aye WA Murray, Patty [D]
West Virginia
Aye WV Byrd, Robert [D]
Aye WV Rockefeller, John [D]
Wisconsin
Aye WI Kohl, Herbert [D]
Nay WI Feingold, Russell [D]
Wyoming
Aye WY Enzi, Michael [R]
Aye WY Thomas, Craig [R]

And Chuck must eat crow here, as it appears the "no vote" was from McCain...so at this time he was neither for nor against it apparently...or it had overwhelming support so his vote was not even needed at that point. Either way, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and admit that he didn't vote for it at this time.

However, to pin this entirely on the dems or repubs is stupid. Of the "Nay" votes 7 of the 8 were from dems.

[Guest]

thrash;239760 wrote:
i've already told you -- BLOCKING the psychotic antics of fannie and freddie (who contribute money to political campaigns!!) and BLOCKING the ability of the FED to buy GSE debt, and BLOCKING oversight on CRA -- all of this was blocked by the democrats. They needed CRA for social reasons and they needed Fannie/Freddie for lobbyist backscratching. And they needed avenues to continue funding for ACORN.

I agree with this statement. No where have I said that I don't. Admittedly, I had to research a bit about CRA. But what you are suggesting is.....ready for this.....regulations!!!!
**
I will place the majority of the blame on the Dems for everything you posted above**...but in doing so, I must say they were acting like conservatives (by definition) by not wanting the regulations/oversight.

[Guest]

And....now for the house vote on that bill:

Alabama
Aye AL-1 Callahan, H. [R]
Aye AL-2 Everett, Terry [R]
Aye AL-3 Riley, Bob [R]
Aye AL-4 Aderholt, Robert [R]
Aye AL-5 Cramer, Robert [D]
Aye AL-6 Bachus, Spencer [R]
Aye AL-7 Hilliard, Earl [D]
Alaska
Aye AK-0 Young, Donald [R]
Arizona
Aye AZ-1 Salmon, Matt [R]
Aye AZ-2 Pastor, Edward [D]
Aye AZ-3 Stump, Robert [R]
Aye AZ-4 Shadegg, John [R]
Aye AZ-5 Kolbe, James [R]
Aye AZ-6 Hayworth, John [R]
Arkansas
Aye AR-1 Berry, Robert [D]
Aye AR-2 Snyder, Victor [D]
Aye AR-3 Hutchinson, Asa [R]
No Vote AR-4 Dickey, Jay [R]
California
Aye CA-1 Thompson, C. [D]
Aye CA-2 Herger, Walter [R]
Aye CA-3 Ose, Doug [R]
Aye CA-4 Doolittle, John [R]
Aye CA-5 Matsui, Robert [D]
Nay CA-6 Woolsey, Lynn [D]
Nay CA-7 Miller, George [D]
Aye CA-8 Pelosi, Nancy [D]
Nay CA-9 Lee, Barbara [D]
Aye CA-10 Tauscher, Ellen [D]
Aye CA-11 Pombo, Richard [R]
Aye CA-12 Lantos, Tom [D]
No Vote CA-13 Stark, Fortney [D]
Aye CA-14 Eshoo, Anna [D]
Nay CA-15 Campbell, Tom [R]
Aye CA-16 Lofgren, Zoe [D]
Aye CA-17 Farr, Sam [D]
Nay CA-18 Condit, Gary [D]
No Vote CA-19 Radanovich, George [R]
Aye CA-20 Dooley, Calvin [D]
Aye CA-21 Thomas, William [R]
Aye CA-22 Capps, Lois [D]
Aye CA-23 Gallegly, Elton [R]
Aye CA-24 Sherman, Brad [D]
Aye CA-25 McKeon, Howard [R]
Aye CA-26 Berman, Howard [D]
Aye CA-27 Rogan, James [R]
Aye CA-28 Dreier, David [R]
Nay CA-29 Waxman, Henry [D]
Aye CA-30 Becerra, Xavier [D]
No Vote CA-31 Martinez, Matthew [D]
Nay CA-32 Dixon, Julian [D]
Nay CA-33 Roybal-Allard, Lucille [D]
Aye CA-34 Napolitano, Grace [D]
Nay CA-35 Waters, Maxine [D]
Aye CA-36 Kuykendall, Steven [R]
Aye CA-37 Millender-McDonald, Juanita [D]
Aye CA-38 Horn, Stephen [R]
Aye CA-39 Royce, Edward [R]
Aye CA-40 Lewis, Jerry [R]
Aye CA-41 Miller, Gary [R]
Aye CA-43 Calvert, Ken [R]
Aye CA-44 Bono Mack, Mary [R]
Aye CA-45 Rohrabacher, Dana [R]
Aye CA-46 Sanchez, Loretta [D]
Aye CA-47 Cox, C. [R]
Aye CA-48 Packard, Ron [R]
Aye CA-49 Bilbray, Brian [R]
Nay CA-50 Filner, Bob [D]
Aye CA-51 Cunningham, Randall [R]
Aye CA-52 Hunter, Duncan [R]
Colorado
Aye CO-1 DeGette, Diana [D]
Aye CO-2 Udall, Mark [D]
No Vote CO-3 McInnis, Scott [R]
Aye CO-4 Schaffer, Bob [R]
Nay CO-5 Hefley, Joel [R]
Aye CO-6 Tancredo, Thomas [R]
Connecticut
No Vote CT-1 Larson, John [D]
Nay CT-2 Gejdenson, Sam [D]
Nay CT-3 DeLauro, Rosa [D]
Aye CT-4 Shays, Christopher [R]
Aye CT-5 Maloney, James [D]
Aye CT-6 Johnson, Nancy [R]
Delaware
Aye DE-0 Castle, Michael [R]
Florida
No Vote FL-1 Scarborough, Joe [R]
Aye FL-2 Boyd, F. [D]
Aye FL-3 Brown, Corrine [D]
Aye FL-4 Fowler, Tillie [R]
Nay FL-5 Thurman, Karen [D]
Aye FL-6 Stearns, Clifford [R]
Nay FL-7 Mica, John [R]
Aye FL-8 McCollum, Bill [R]
Aye FL-9 Bilirakis, Michael [R]
Aye FL-10 Young, C. W. [R]
Aye FL-11 Davis, James [D]
Aye FL-12 Canady, Charles [R]
Aye FL-13 Miller, Dan [R]
Aye FL-14 Goss, Porter [R]
Aye FL-15 Weldon, David [R]
Aye FL-16 Foley, Mark [R]
Nay FL-17 Meek, Carrie [D]
Aye FL-18 Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [R]
Aye FL-19 Wexler, Robert [D]
Aye FL-20 Deutsch, Peter [D]
Aye FL-21 Diaz-Balart, Lincoln [R]
Aye FL-22 Shaw, E. [R]
Nay FL-23 Hastings, Alcee [D]
Georgia
Aye GA-1 Kingston, Jack [R]
Aye GA-2 Bishop, Sanford [D]
Aye GA-3 Collins, Michael [R]
Nay GA-4 McKinney, Cynthia [D]
Nay GA-5 Lewis, John [D]
Aye GA-6 Isakson, John [R]
Aye GA-7 Barr, Bob [R]
Aye GA-8 Chambliss, C. [R]
Aye GA-9 Deal, Nathan [R]
No Vote GA-10 Norwood, Charles [R]
Aye GA-11 Linder, John [R]
Hawaii
Aye HI-1 Abercrombie, Neil [D]
Aye HI-2 Mink, Patsy [D]
Idaho
Aye ID-1 Chenoweth-Hage, Helen [R]
Aye ID-2 Simpson, Michael [R]
Illinois
Nay IL-1 Rush, Bobby [D]
Nay IL-2 Jackson, Jesse [D]
Nay IL-3 Lipinski, William [D]
Nay IL-4 Gutierrez, Luis [D]
Aye IL-5 Blagojevich, Rod [D]
Aye IL-6 Hyde, Henry [R]
Nay IL-7 Davis, Danny [D]
Aye IL-8 Crane, Philip [R]
Nay IL-9 Schakowsky, Janice [D]
Aye IL-10 Porter, John [R]
Aye IL-11 Weller, Gerald [R]
Nay IL-12 Costello, Jerry [D]
Aye IL-13 Biggert, Judy [R]
Aye IL-14 Hastert, J. [R]
Aye IL-15 Ewing, Thomas [R]
Aye IL-16 Manzullo, Donald [R]
Nay IL-17 Evans, Lane [D]
Aye IL-18 LaHood, Ray [R]
Nay IL-19 Phelps, David [D]
Aye IL-20 Shimkus, John [R]
Indiana
Aye IN-1 Visclosky, Peter [D]
Aye IN-2 McIntosh, David [R]
Aye IN-3 Roemer, Timothy [D]
Aye IN-4 Souder, Mark [R]
Aye IN-5 Buyer, Stephen [R]
Aye IN-6 Burton, Dan [R]
Aye IN-7 Pease, Edward [R]
Aye IN-8 Hostettler, John [R]
Aye IN-9 Hill, Baron [D]
Aye IN-10 Carson, Julia [D]
Iowa
Aye IA-1 Leach, James [R]
Aye IA-2 Nussle, James [R]
Aye IA-3 Boswell, Leonard [D]
Aye IA-4 Ganske, Greg [R]
Aye IA-5 Latham, Thomas [R]
Kansas
Aye KS-1 Moran, Jerry [R]
Aye KS-2 Ryun, Jim [R]
Aye KS-3 Moore, Dennis [D]
Aye KS-4 Tiahrt, Todd [R]
Kentucky
Aye KY-1 Whitfield, Edward [R]
Aye KY-2 Lewis, Ron [R]
Aye KY-3 Northup, Anne [R]
Aye KY-4 Lucas, Kenneth [D]
Aye KY-5 Rogers, Harold [R]
Aye KY-6 Fletcher, Ernest [R]
Louisiana
Aye LA-1 Vitter, David [R]
Aye LA-2 Jefferson, William [D]
Aye LA-3 Tauzin, William [R]
Aye LA-4 McCrery, James [R]
Aye LA-5 Cooksey, John [R]
Aye LA-6 Baker, Richard [R]
Aye LA-7 John, Christopher [D]
Maine
Aye ME-1 Allen, Thomas [D]
Aye ME-2 Baldacci, John [D]
Maryland
Aye MD-1 Gilchrest, Wayne [R]
Aye MD-2 Ehrlich, Robert [R]
Aye MD-3 Cardin, Benjamin [D]
Aye MD-4 Wynn, Albert [D]
Aye MD-5 Hoyer, Steny [D]
Aye MD-6 Bartlett, Roscoe [R]
Aye MD-7 Cummings, Elijah [D]
Aye MD-8 Morella, Constance [R]
Massachusetts
Aye MA-1 Olver, John [D]
Aye MA-2 Neal, Richard [D]
Aye MA-3 McGovern, James [D]
Nay MA-4 Frank, Barney [D]
Aye MA-5 Meehan, Martin [D]
Nay MA-6 Tierney, John [D]
Nay MA-7 Markey, Edward [D]
Nay MA-8 Capuano, Michael [D]
Aye MA-9 Moakley, John [D]
Aye MA-10 Delahunt, William [D]
Michigan
Aye MI-1 Stupak, Bart [D]
Aye MI-2 Hoekstra, Peter [R]
Aye MI-3 Ehlers, Vernon [R]
Aye MI-4 Camp, David [R]
Aye MI-5 Barcia, James [D]
Aye MI-6 Upton, Frederick [R]
Aye MI-7 Smith, Nick [R]
Aye MI-8 Stabenow, Debbie Ann [D]
Nay MI-9 Kildee, Dale [D]
Aye MI-10 Bonior, David [D]
Aye MI-11 Knollenberg, Joseph [R]
Aye MI-12 Levin, Sander [D]
Nay MI-13 Rivers, Lynn [D]
Nay MI-14 Conyers, John [D]
Aye MI-15 Kilpatrick, Carolyn [D]
Nay MI-16 Dingell, John [D]
Minnesota
Aye MN-1 Gutknecht, Gilbert [R]
Aye MN-2 Minge, David [D]
Aye MN-3 Ramstad, James [R]
Aye MN-4 Vento, Bruce [D]
Aye MN-5 Sabo, Martin [D]
Nay MN-6 Luther, William [D]
Aye MN-7 Peterson, Collin [D]
Aye MN-8 Oberstar, James [D]
Mississippi
Aye MS-1 Wicker, Roger [R]
Aye MS-2 Thompson, Bennie [D]
Aye MS-3 Pickering, Charles [R]
Aye MS-4 Shows, Ronnie [D]
Nay MS-5 Taylor, Gene [D]
Missouri
Nay MO-1 Clay, William [?]
Aye MO-2 Talent, James [R]
Aye MO-3 Gephardt, Richard [D]
Aye MO-4 Skelton, Ike [D]
Aye MO-5 McCarthy, Karen [D]
Aye MO-6 Danner, Pat [D]
Aye MO-7 Blunt, Roy [R]
Aye MO-8 Emerson, Jo Ann [R]
Aye MO-9 Hulshof, Kenny [R]
Montana
Aye MT-0 Hill, Rick [R]
Nebraska
No Vote NE-1 Bereuter, Douglas [R]
Aye NE-2 Terry, Lee [R]
Aye NE-3 Barrett, Bill [R]
Nevada
Aye NV-1 Berkley, Shelley [D]
Aye NV-2 Gibbons, James [R]
New Hampshire
Aye NH-1 Sununu, John [R]
Aye NH-2 Bass, Charles [R]
New Jersey
Aye NJ-1 Andrews, Robert [D]
Aye NJ-2 LoBiondo, Frank [R]
Aye NJ-3 Saxton, H. [R]
Aye NJ-4 Smith, Christopher [R]
Aye NJ-5 Roukema, Marge [R]
Aye NJ-6 Pallone, Frank [D]
Aye NJ-7 Franks, Bob [R]
Aye NJ-8 Pascrell, William [D]
Aye NJ-9 Rothman, Steven [D]
Aye NJ-10 Payne, Donald [D]
Aye NJ-11 Frelinghuysen, Rodney [R]
Aye NJ-12 Holt, Rush [D]
Aye NJ-13 Menendez, Robert [D]
New Mexico
Aye NM-1 Wilson, Heather [R]
Aye NM-2 Skeen, Joseph [R]
Aye NM-3 Udall, Tom [D]
New York
Aye NY-1 Forbes, Michael [R]
Aye NY-2 Lazio, Rick [R]
Aye NY-3 King, Peter [R]
Aye NY-4 McCarthy, Carolyn [D]
Aye NY-5 Ackerman, Gary [D]
Aye NY-6 Meeks, Gregory [D]
Aye NY-7 Crowley, Joseph [D]
Aye NY-8 Nadler, Jerrold [D]
Aye NY-9 Weiner, Anthony [D]
Aye NY-10 Towns, Edolphus [D]
Aye NY-11 Owens, Major [D]
Aye NY-12 Velazquez, Nydia [D]
Aye NY-13 Fossella, Vito [R]
Aye NY-14 Maloney, Carolyn [D]
Aye NY-15 Rangel, Charles [D]
Nay NY-16 Serrano, José [D]
Aye NY-17 Engel, Eliot [D]
Aye NY-18 Lowey, Nita [D]
Aye NY-19 Kelly, Sue [R]
Aye NY-20 Gilman, Benjamin [R]
Aye NY-21 McNulty, Michael [D]
Aye NY-22 Sweeney, John [R]
Aye NY-23 Boehlert, Sherwood [R]
Aye NY-24 McHugh, John [R]
Aye NY-25 Walsh, James [R]
Nay NY-26 Hinchey, Maurice [D]
Aye NY-27 Reynolds, Thomas [R]
Aye NY-28 Slaughter, Louise [D]
Aye NY-29 LaFalce, John [D]
Aye NY-30 Quinn, Jack [R]
Aye NY-31 Houghton, Amory [R]
North Carolina
Aye NC-1 Clayton, Eva [D]
Aye NC-2 Etheridge, Bob [D]
Aye NC-3 Jones, Walter [R]
Aye NC-4 Price, David [D]
Aye NC-5 Burr, Richard [R]
Aye NC-6 Coble, Howard [R]
Aye NC-7 McIntyre, Mike [D]
Aye NC-8 Hayes, Robin [R]
Aye NC-9 Myrick, Sue [R]
Aye NC-10 Ballenger, Cass [R]
No Vote NC-11 Taylor, Charles [R]
Aye NC-12 Watt, Melvin [D]
North Dakota
Aye ND-0 Pomeroy, Earl [D]

[Guest]

Ohio
Aye OH-1 Chabot, Steven [R]
Aye OH-2 Portman, Robert [R]
Aye OH-3 Hall, Tony [D]
Aye OH-4 Oxley, Michael [R]
Aye OH-5 Gillmor, Paul [R]
Aye OH-6 Strickland, Ted [D]
Aye OH-7 Hobson, David [R]
Aye OH-8 Boehner, John [R]
Nay OH-9 Kaptur, Marcy [D]
Nay OH-10 Kucinich, Dennis [D]
Aye OH-11 Jones, Stephanie [D]
Aye OH-12 Kasich, John [R]
Aye OH-13 Brown, Sherrod [D]
Aye OH-14 Sawyer, Thomas [D]
Aye OH-15 Pryce, Deborah [R]
Aye OH-16 Regula, Ralph [R]
Aye OH-17 Traficant, James [D]
No Vote OH-18 Ney, Robert [R]
Aye OH-19 LaTourette, Steven [R]
Oklahoma
Aye OK-1 Largent, Steve [R]
Aye OK-2 Coburn, Thomas [R]
Aye OK-3 Watkins, Wes [R]
Aye OK-4 Watts, J.C. [R]
Aye OK-5 Istook, Ernest [R]
Aye OK-6 Lucas, Frank [R]
Oregon
Aye OR-1 Wu, David [D]
Aye OR-2 Walden, Greg [R]
Aye OR-3 Blumenauer, Earl [D]
Nay OR-4 DeFazio, Peter [D]
Aye OR-5 Hooley, Darlene [D]
Pennsylvania
Nay PA-1 Brady, Robert [D]
Nay PA-2 Fattah, Chaka [D]
Aye PA-3 Borski, Robert [D]
Aye PA-4 Klink, Ron [D]
Aye PA-5 Peterson, John [R]
Aye PA-6 Holden, Tim [D]
Aye PA-7 Weldon, W. [R]
Aye PA-8 Greenwood, James [R]
No Vote PA-9 Shuster, Bill [R]
Aye PA-10 Sherwood, Donald [R]
No Vote PA-11 Kanjorski, Paul [D]
Aye PA-12 Murtha, John [D]
Aye PA-13 Hoeffel, Joseph [D]
Nay PA-14 Coyne, William [D]
Aye PA-15 Toomey, Patrick [R]
Aye PA-16 Pitts, Joseph [R]
Aye PA-17 Gekas, George [R]
Aye PA-18 Doyle, Michael [D]
Aye PA-19 Goodling, William [R]
Aye PA-20 Mascara, Frank [D]
Aye PA-21 English, Philip [R]
Rhode Island
Aye RI-1 Kennedy, Patrick [D]
Aye RI-2 Weygand, Robert [D]
South Carolina
Nay SC-1 Sanford, Marshall [R]
Aye SC-2 Spence, Floyd [R]
Aye SC-3 Graham, Lindsey [R]
Aye SC-4 DeMint, Jim [R]
Aye SC-5 Spratt, John [D]
Aye SC-6 Clyburn, James [D]
South Dakota
Aye SD-0 Thune, John [R]
Tennessee
Aye TN-1 Jenkins, William [R]
Aye TN-2 Duncan, John [R]
Aye TN-3 Wamp, Zach [R]
Aye TN-4 Hilleary, Van [R]
Aye TN-5 Clement, Robert [D]
Aye TN-6 Gordon, Barton [D]
Aye TN-7 Bryant, Ed [R]
Aye TN-8 Tanner, John [D]
Aye TN-9 Ford, Harold [D]
Texas
Aye TX-1 Sandlin, Max [D]
Aye TX-2 Turner, James [D]
Aye TX-3 Johnson, Samuel [R]
Aye TX-4 Hall, Ralph [R]
Aye TX-5 Sessions, Peter [R]
Nay TX-6 Barton, Joe [R]
Aye TX-7 Archer, Bill [R]
Aye TX-8 Brady, Kevin [R]
Aye TX-9 Lampson, Nicholas [D]
Aye TX-10 Doggett, Lloyd [D]
Nay TX-11 Edwards, Thomas [D]
Aye TX-12 Granger, Kay [R]
Aye TX-13 Thornberry, William [R]
No Vote TX-14 Paul, Ronald [R]
Aye TX-15 Hinojosa, Rubén [D]
Aye TX-16 Reyes, Silvestre [D]
Aye TX-17 Stenholm, Charles [D]
Aye TX-18 Jackson-Lee, Sheila [D]
Aye TX-19 Combest, Larry [R]
Aye TX-20 Gonzalez, Charles [D]
Aye TX-21 Smith, Lamar [R]
Aye TX-22 DeLay, Thomas [R]
Aye TX-23 Bonilla, Henry [R]
Aye TX-24 Frost, Jonas [D]
Aye TX-25 Bentsen, Ken [D]
Aye TX-26 Armey, Richard [R]
Aye TX-27 Ortiz, Solomon [D]
Nay TX-28 Rodriguez, Ciro [D]
Aye TX-29 Green, Raymond [D]
Aye TX-30 Johnson, Eddie [D]
Utah
Aye UT-1 Hansen, James [R]
Aye UT-2 Cook, Merrill [R]
Aye UT-3 Cannon, Christopher [R]
Vermont
Nay VT-0 Sanders, Bernard [I]
Virginia
Aye VA-1 Bateman, Herbert [R]
Aye VA-2 Pickett, Owen [D]
Aye VA-3 Scott, Robert [D]
Aye VA-4 Sisisky, Norman [D]
Aye VA-5 Goode, Virgil [R]
Aye VA-6 Goodlatte, Robert [R]
Aye VA-7 Bliley, Tom [R]
Aye VA-8 Moran, James [D]
Aye VA-9 Boucher, Frederick [D]
Aye VA-10 Wolf, Frank [R]
Aye VA-11 Davis, Thomas [R]
Washington
Nay WA-1 Inslee, Jay [D]
Aye WA-2 Metcalf, Jack [R]
Aye WA-3 Baird, Brian [D]
Aye WA-4 Hastings, Doc [R]
Aye WA-5 Nethercutt, George [R]
Aye WA-6 Dicks, Norman [D]
Nay WA-7 McDermott, James [D]
Aye WA-8 Dunn, Jennifer [R]
Aye WA-9 Smith, Adam [D]
West Virginia
No Vote WV-1 Mollohan, Alan [D]
Aye WV-2 Wise, Robert [D]
Aye WV-3 Rahall, Nick [D]
Wisconsin
Aye WI-1 Ryan, Paul [R]
Nay WI-2 Baldwin, Tammy [D]
Aye WI-3 Kind, Ronald [D]
Aye WI-4 Kleczka, Gerald [D]
Nay WI-5 Barrett, Thomas [D]
Aye WI-6 Petri, Thomas [R]
Nay WI-7 Obey, David [D]
Aye WI-8 Green, Mark [R]
Aye WI-9 Sensenbrenner, F. [R]
Wyoming
Aye WY-0 Cubin, Barbara [R]

For those keeping track at home:

Dems in Favor: 151 Against: 50 No Vote: 4
Reps in Favor: 210 Against: 5 No Vote: 10

So, tell me again Gary how this was "In fact it was the DEMOCRATS ALONE, including bill clinton that passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999."

Again, I'm keeping the sig until you can disprove what I have posted.

[thrash]

I am in favor of fixing the government when the government is broken. CRA is a government program. Fannie/Freddie are "quasi" public organizations. The FED, which is this evil quasi-private mostly public thing, is definitely Uncle Sam's problem.

All of the stuff I was mentioning that the dems blocked reform over were institutions of government. I am for putting the brakes on stupid government. I am against regulating the market place (in general).

I actually may have misread what you posted originally. I just refuse to give one inch on the idea that there wasn't sufficient market regulation going on here. There was too much market intervention by government or quasi-governmental agencies, and those agencies and programs operated without sufficient economic oversight and as such distorted the market place making whatever foolish decisions individual actors might have made considerably worse and higher impact. Had the government NOT been involved, the bubble would have burst sooner, and there'd likely be no pressure for the feds to do anything.

As it is, all of us just bought mortgages we couldn't afford. Congratulations -- you now own a share of however many tanked subprime mortgages were out there.

I want my own country. Desperately.

[Guest]

thrash;239831 wrote:
I am in favor of fixing the government when the government is broken. CRA is a government program. Fannie/Freddie are "quasi" public organizations. The FED, which is this evil quasi-private mostly public thing, is definitely Uncle Sam's problem.

I agree. But all of the blame cannot be put on Freddie/Fannie. AIG, WaMu, Lehman, and the rest of failed banks/investors made just as risky of choices because they were essentially following the same rules as F/F.

What I would like to know is if the CRA loans were more likely/less likely/just as likely to have the problems of non-CRA loans. I'm having trouble finding that data so if you have info, please share. I may like to debate, but I like to learn more than win a debate.

All of the stuff I was mentioning that the dems blocked reform over were institutions of government. I am for putting the brakes on stupid government. I am against regulating the market place (in general).

We can agree on this point

I actually may have misread what you posted originally. I just refuse to give one inch on the idea that there wasn't sufficient market regulation going on here. There was too much market intervention by government or quasi-governmental agencies, and those agencies and programs operated without sufficient economic oversight and as such distorted the market place making whatever foolish decisions individual actors might have made considerably worse and higher impact. Had the government NOT been involved, the bubble would have burst sooner, and there'd likely be no pressure for the feds to do anything.

I'm not sure what (if any) regulations need to be put in place....or if they would be of help. I do think there needs to be rules for banks as they are essentially dealing with the health/well being of the economy. How drastic those rules need to be, is a matter of debate, and I'm willing to bet that you, me and Gary aren't that far apart on this issue.

As it is, all of us just bought mortgages we couldn't afford. Congratulations -- you now own a share of however many tanked subprime mortgages were out there.

See my post below this one for a view from a Libertarian on this....I don't necessarily agree with him or disagree with the guy I'm going to quote...but I'm throwing it out for discussion.

I want my own country. Desperately.

Me too, I'd make a great dictator.

[Guest]

http://musefree.wordpress.com/2008/09/22/why-the-bailout-isnt-that-bad-for-libertarianism/ wrote:
In this post, I’ll defend a thesis that my libertarian friends will probably disagree strongly with — that the economic panic culminating in the $700 billion bailout isn’t all that bad for capitalist and libertarian ideals in the long run.

Don’t get me wrong. The bailout is a monstrosity, a tremendous allocation of power to competent but unaccountable (and unelected) officials like Paulson and Bernanke and will add an unbelievable $2500 per person to the national debt. It will tax the many and reward the few. It will use the power of the state to reward businesses that ought to fail and will nationalise a significant chunk of the banking sector. As a measure, the whole thing is as unlibertarian as it gets.

But my point is this: it could have been worse. Under the current circumstances, the bailout might be one of the better things that may have happened. Here’s why:

1. Capitalism, especially of the kind that we have currently, invariably produces booms and busts. Some businesses will fail and others will grow. In the long run, it is one of the best concepts man has ever come up with. Unfortunately, voters are more impatient than that. It is a fact that with the economic turmoil of the last week and with the housing market yet to bottom out, a diving stock market would bleaken the economic outlook of the country to the extent that a new administration, likely a democratic one, would be emboldened to enact far worse regulation that the bailout itself. Think of a socialistic counterpart of ‘disaster capitalism’. The bailout will reduce the chances of that happening.

2. Yes, there were other ways the government could have intervened instead of buying bad assets, such as partial debt forgiveness or infusion of capital. However the proposed prescription has the advantage of creating a strong backlash from the electorate about their tax money being used directly to rescue the fat cats of Wall Street. There is some evidence that this is already happening. In the long run, this sentiment may develop into a general mood against government intervention and corporate subsidy. And that would be a really good thing.

3. There have been many comparisons made between the present bail-out and the massive government intervention almost eighty years ago which ended up prolonging the Great Depression. However, such comparisons miss a crucial point. The fall of the money supply that happened then under the aegis of the Federal Reserve will not happen today. As Bernanke himself said in 2002, “Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You’re right, we did it. We’re very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again.”

4. The plan is a vague one. It is not clear that Paulson actually intends to spend the entire $700 billion, nor is it clear how the government will price these bad assets. The liberal economist Paul Krugman suspects that the whole thing “looks like an attempt to restore confidence in the financial system” rather than go to the root of the problem. From a libertarian perspective, this is not such a bad thing. Remember that Paulson and Bernanke, the architects of the bailout, are no socialists. I am hopeful that their vision of the plan centers not around massive spending but in giving investors enough confidence and the banks enough time so that they can recover. (As Paulson himself has remarked in the past, “If you’ve got a bazooka, and people know you’ve got it, you may not have to take it out.”) If the government does buy mortgage assets, I hope that they do so at a price that transfers a signicant burden upon those who made these bad decisions.

5. The events of the last week essentially kills the Glass Steagall Act, one of the lasting vestiges of Roosevelt’s policies. Essentially, that act separated the commercial and investment banking sectors, which was unfortunate because unified banking is now recognized to be much safer. The act was basically repealed during the Clinton era but BOA’s acquisition of Merrill last week was the final nail in the coffin. We are now back to the situation of the 1920s, when commercial banks could plunge into the market, and that’s a good thing.

Again...just throwing this out for comment

[DaveH]

The bailout money....

[Guest]

here is a copy/paste of a very simplistic reasoning why the bailout was needed:

I consider myself to be a pretty well-informed, well-educated person. And I've read a lot in these past few weeks about the congressional bailout plan for the financial sector. But even still, I haven't really understood how and why such a measure is needed, and certainly not why it has to be done, like, yesterday.

Our leaders, including Barack Obama, have not done much in the way of explaining the situation except to tell us it's serious, and I don't blame people for not blindly believing what the Bush Administration says, particularly in crises (it shows we can learn!). So we're left to figure it out on our own.

I just had a conversation about all of this with my mom (who is the office manager/billing department/payroll person/all around money-handler at a local law firm). She broke this "credit crunch" down for me, explaining how already it is having an impact on even very successful companies like hers. And what I learned scared the heck out of me.

My fundamental mental stumbling block was around this whole notion of small businesses (and not-so-small businesses) needing credit to cover their payroll, which is the one specific thing we have heard repeated by the pols and talking heads. As a consumer, my frame of reference for credit involves long-term financing. So my reaction has been, "Well jeeze, if they have to borrow money to pay ther employees, something's wrong anyway!" But what I now understand is that for businesses, a lot of credit is actually used for short-term funding.

This is how it works. Widgets Inc. sells widgets. It sends out bills to its customers, with payment due on the 1st of each month. While some customers promptly pay their bills when they receive them, most wait until the last minute. In the meantime, Widgets has its own bills to pay. It has to pay rent, suppliers, and of course, its employees. When all the customers pay their bills, Widgets will have a good deal of money on-hand. But that's not until the first of the month, and employees get paid every week. So by the end of the month, Widgets needs a little carry-over cash. They use their credit line to cover payroll the last week of the month, and then pay the bank bank a few days later when the money comes in. This has been the pattern for years, and has never been a problem.

But now, because of things far beyond their control or ability to predict, Widgets can no longer get that short-term credit from the bank.

The company decides to make payroll the top budget priority: when money comes in, it goes towards payroll until that expense is fully-funded; only then do suppliers and other bills get paid. The problem is that many of the suppliers are themselves small businesses in the same exact position. So when Widgets Inc. only partially pays its bill to Dongles Ltd., the supplier has less money to put towards its payroll. And, conversely, more and more of Widgets' customers are making partial payments on their bills, meaning Wigets has an increasingly difficult time affording its employees.

Eventually, hiring is frozen and layoffs begin. Those folks, suddenly without a paycheck, have difficulty making their house and car payments. The banks are left holding more and more property, with less and less cash coming in -- and therefore less credit to extend to businesses. It's a self-reinforcing cycle, and we're already in it.

What I didn't realize, in addition to how this system works, is just how quickly it can all fall apart. Businesses don't get to just not pay their bills until the banks get this sorted out; people have to be paid, bills have to be paid, groceries need to be bought, etc. So the fact that Congress has been dithering on about this for 2+ weeks already has started to tighten the pressure on small businesses.

Now that the bill has been passed by both houses of the legislature, and Bush is due to sign it into law later today, it's possible that credit will start to loosen. (The whole idea of the plan is to buy some of the bad assets from the banks so that they have a better balance sheet and can more freely extend credit.) The Washington Post argues that as far as credit goes, the rescue plan may simply not be enough. But it's something, and in this case, something is definitely better than nothing.

For what's it's worth, I lay blame at the feet of all of the politicians and pundits who failed to explain in simple terms what this is all about and why it's so urgent. This conceivably could have been done four days ago if House Republicans had not been besieged by underinformed voters. A good leader should strive to inspire buy-in by the people he or she leads, not by scaring them with generalities, but by educating them and helping them see how a plan or project is beneficial. By that standard, we have seen dismal leadership in Washington and on the campaign trail during this crisis.

[Guest]

Not saying I agree/disagree with what is above, but it kind of explains the impact it would have had (ok....might have had) on the public had it been defeated.