THE BLUFF HAS BEEN CALLED!

[texaspackerbacker]

House Republicans, with the help of 93 Democrats, called Wall Street's BLUFF and voted down the Bail Out package.

WILL the Wall Street bankers who have tried to hold America hostage harm America by tying up credit?

CAN the Wall Street bankers tie up credit to the extent that it is really felt by normal Americans?

PROBABLY we STILL won't get answer to that, because probably the bigwigs will STILL put together a welfare package for financiers who either deliberately or stupidly cause this trumped up contrived pseud0-mess.

McCain chastized Obama for not rallying House Democrats, who clearly would have had the votes if Pelosi had been able to keep her troops in line. What a joke. No way I'm gonna vote for Bob Barr, but having both presidential candidates seemingly lining up AGAINST the people on this really is irritating. BTW, anybody know what Barr's position is on the bail out package? I understand Ron Paul is talking against it.

[hoosier]

The proposed bailout may have been pathetic, I don't think there's a lot of disagreement about that, but doing nothing may be much much worse. I realize you say that something will eventually be passed in its place, and thus the shooting down of THIS bailout no big deal. That may be, but what? And do you really think that doing nothing would be the right thing under these circumstances?

[Harlan Huckleby]

it is easy to be against a bailout. Hard to deal with consequences of doing nothing. No surprise that some people would want to vote the easy way and let the other guys take the heat.

i'm glad that this plan was rejected, there's nothing wrong with taking a little more time for a compromise.

But of course they have to do something.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I'm confused. When dems vote along party lines...they are criticized for partisan politics.

When they break and think about country first...they are criticized.

I would say the same applies for Republicans.

[sheepshead]

I'd say the people have spoken. Back to the drawing board.

[Freak Out]

It appears that more Dems voted no than Republicans did.

Time for a little trickle up.

[Joemailman]

What happened today is the result of having a weak Speaker Of The House and an even weaker President.

I'm wondering where they go from here. I'm thinking the Republicans who voted against it and the Democrats who voted against it probably did so for different reasons. Will they make changes to the bill to try to get more Democrats on board, or more Republicans?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

It appears that more Dems voted no than Republicans did.

Time for a little trickle up.

You have it reversed...90 or so Dems vs. 130 or so Repubs.

[Freak Out]

It appears that more Dems voted no than Republicans did.

Time for a little trickle up.

You have it reversed...90 or so Dems vs. 130 or so Repubs.

I'm not to surprised...I didn't look at any roll call or votes. Some of the interviews I heard after the vote led me to believe that. Maybe it was a "greater majority of" deals.

[MJZiggy]

Where's that article on the Swedish bailout?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

No bailout thread i believe.

[texaspackerbacker]

I'm confused. When dems vote along party lines...they are criticized for partisan politics.

When they break and think about country first...they are criticized.

I would say the same applies for Republicans.

65 Republicans voted FOR the thing--34%. 66% voted AGAINST.

93 Democrats voted AGAINST--40%. 60% of the Dems voted FOR.

The great majority in the Senate of BOTH parties were FOR it.

Tyrone, I'm certainly NOT criticizing the Democrats who had the courage to split with their party's leadership and vote AGAINST this. Whwew do YOU stand--or do you not have the courage to take a stand?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I stand for the bailout. I've been on record on this.

This is a sword of damocles situation. There isnt' going to be a great bill. We are going to have to hold our noses.

I'm in the Jack Welch camp.

[texaspackerbacker]

Maybe we will find out about that; Maybe not.

The Washington politicians and Wall Street power brokers may yet find a way to circumvent the will of the people. This apparently start re-negotiating on Thursday.

I really don't see that bad things NECESSARILY will happen. There just is NOT a significant enough percentage of bad mortgages for that, and even of there were ten times as many foreclosures as thee really are, the mortgage notes are all secured by real estate, which even if it is only worth half or so of the face value in a few areas of the country, STILL DO HAVE VALUE. There is no getting around those facts. This whole mess is contrived--either for financial gain by the beneficiaries of the massive bail out OR for political gain of those pushing it--mainly the political left. I lean toward the former, because if it was the latter, you wouldn't have so many Republican bigwigs aboard.

If bad things do happen, it will be the result, as I said, of SPITE and VENGEANCE on the part of those who expected to get ALL THAT MONEY and were deprived of it by the American people. In any case, I don't think the perpetrators will be able to sustain a credit tie-up for any length of time.

[bobblehead]

I stand for the bailout. I've been on record on this.

This is a sword of damocles situation. There isnt' going to be a great bill. We are going to have to hold our noses.

I'm in the Jack Welch camp.

I'm against this particular bill. We need the gov't to buy ENTIRE failing corporations and redistribute the assets. Propping up a failed business is no way to encourage better future performance. We need new players in the credit market, the ones we have failed and put us all in a worse spot for it, no need to allow them to continue as if nothing happened.

US bank in nevada REFUSED to give second mortgages for any higher than 65% of appraised value....they don't have hardly any bad loans on their books.