world

Dow plunges after Congress rejects bailout bill

89 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2008/9 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

89 Comments
Login to comment

Republicans show they are 'the party of principles'(right or wrong). Let Free Market policy decide the fate of bad assets/ sour assets. It appears that working poors are least interested in financing such dead-assets. Now revise the bill and use oil (trading at US$95/barrel) to energize falling markets.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's a pretty piece of chutzpah that allows Republicans to blame Pelosi for the bill's defeat when 133 of 198 Republicans voted "no".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I was amazed at watching the republicans bail out from under george bush. When they should have disabeyed the president's call to follow they followed like lepors. But the one time they needed to listen, they disobeyed the needs of the people because they got their feelings hurt.

Screw Main Street, USA. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why does it matter if the Republicans vote no the House has a democrate majority and it didnt pass...

Im thinking it has to do with Americans dont want to pay for businesses tht dont practic good business...

I lost a ton today, but I still am on the edge about if the bail out is good, I hate to pay for some fat lazy executive to make money when he fails at running the company proper...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Govt wants to create a new department to handle the bailout with an oversight committe. One problem is that one of the memebers of the oversight committe is also the head of the new bailout department..no conflict of interest here that I can see.

This bailout plan is so bad for U.S. taxpayers, that is why there is a deadlock on it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Greed in our financial services sector have led to this. I think we have no choice but to enact a bail out. And I hope congress gets on with it before it is too late.

But I want to see the people responsible for this suffer for it as well. Criminal charges where possible, financial penalties where possible and significant revision of regulations to reign these guys in.

We have given too much power over our lives to corporations, entities that are not accountable to the public. We can no longer let these guys dominate politics and make unchallenged decisions that endanger all our security and well being.

If corporations are legally entities like individuals, then give them no more or less than the rights of an individual. Or strip them of this protection and make them answerable to the public.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nippon5,

I think it matters that Republicans voted "no" because the measure would have passed if no Republicans had voted at all.

The presence of 235 Democrats assured a quorum and a majority of Democrats voted for it. It was the Republican vote that sank the measure. Surely Republican leaders are responsible for getting their own people in line.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In all, 65 Republicans joined 140 Democrats in voting “yes,” while 133 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted “no.”

Strange seems more democrates voted no then yes, Maybe the Democrate party needs to get their guys in "line" too... Or maybe some of the politicians figured it out, elections are based on votes you make and the people dont want a bail out.....

By my math 95+65+140=300 for it if the Democrates wanted it.......

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Strange seems more democrates voted no then yes

Correction

Seems strange many democrates voted no,

0 ( +0 / -0 )

More Democrates voted 'Yes' for the Bill. More Republcans voted 'No'. It's easy arithmetic. The NO mostly came because of a weakeness in the US political cycle, no lawmaker wants to vote for unpopular bills at the best of times but with the election coming... plus there is that lame duck quacking away to himself in the White House with about as much authority as a person holding down a job at Wal Mart's stacking shelves division. P.S. Watch the burning, it's all going down in flames.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gee, and I thought John McCain had galloped into town on his white horse only last week to put a deal together. No doubt his campaign was set to run such a commercial, awaiting only a licensing agreement to use Gioachino Rossini's "William Tell" opera overture....

Seriously, I find it hard to believe that a vote on an issue of this magnitude went to the floor only to be defeated. While Pelosi was foolish to make a speech on the failed ideology of deregulation before the votes were counted, this is fundamentally a Republican failure. The Republicans balked at supporting their own party's "rescue plan."

And who voted "No"? Overwhelmingly they are Congressmen who face tough reelection bids. Given that job security comes before the national interest, they are afraid of being painted as "Washington insiders who let this happen" by their challengers. Indeed, the American public has a right to be skeptical. The very people who have spent the past few years assuring us that the economy is fundamentally sound are now claiming to have the expertise to restore prosperity if the taxpayers fork over a sizeable chunk of change to bail-out Wall Street.

The plan may not work either. From a purely economic perspective, recessions are the best medicine for what ails an overheated economy, particularly following a bubble. They weed out the weak and enable capital to flow to the strong. Yet today's financial system is more akin to a house of cards than anything a neoclassical economist could have imagined; you pull one out and the entire structure collapses.

Moreover, no president wants a recession on his watch so he will utilize all policy levers at his disposal to avert it (or at least cushion the hardship such restructuring entails). This is what happened under GWB and made the situation we now find ourselves in worse.

So, as Paul Krugman asks in his column today: It’s 3 a.m., a few months into 2009, and the phone in the White House rings. Several big hedge funds are about to fail, says the voice on the line, and there’s likely to be chaos when the market opens. Whom do you trust to take that call?

I know who I do but it doesn't mean he will be able to avert something which would make Japan's "Lost Decade" (失われた10年) look like a picnic by comparison.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USA must cut spending by 10 percent in all aspects of expenditure to cope with the trillion dollar reduction in share prices with bailout rejection by congressman.

Only when this situations stabilises among the USA public via expenditure cuts will economy go up.

It will go up,but the USA must ride out the storms before rainbows come out.

Huge 700,000 million bailout via hard collected taxes will make the future government spending much less in future.

700.000 million can create another 700,000 millionaires via easy way.

In does not mean the 700,000 easy new millionaires will be able make more than was invested in them.

Free markets of capitalism is about rise and fall by private companies without increase of nationalised bureacratic companies.

Nationalisation of companies via govt bureacracies has never worked, all previously nationalised companies in history, all performed badly under government bureaucratic woes.

All congressman have right to vote the way they want,this power was given to them by their constituency voters.

They have power to veto Bush/Obama and others. The USA goverment should declare a war on economic corporate trouble makers and their irresponsible corporate ways.

The government should act only like a judge and put corporate woes makers in courts to find the truths behind the massive economic failures among corporations.

The cure is to expose the economic truth first and then to have correct check/balance in systems to prevent a repeat of mistakes.

Baillouts should be given to enhance the economic systems, by pumping cash bailouts to where the economic systems can strenghten themselves and not repeat the economic mistakes.

History tends to repeat itself,if we never learn from history and our historical mistakes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nippon5,

What you seem to be saying is that if the Democrats had unanimously supported the bailout bill it would have passed. Yes, that is true. It is also true that if the Republicans had unanimously supported the bill it would have passed.

It is also true that the bailout bill would also have passed if none of the Republican votes had been counted and the Democratic party votes were not dependent on Republican votes. Even without Republicans, there was a quorum and the Democrats "wanted" the bill. A majority of them voted in favor.

You say that you think it is strange that so many Democrats voted "no". I don't understand why you say that. I think it would have been strange if many Democrats had not voted "no"--given that the bill was primarily a White House initiative and not a Democratic one. Why does it not seem strange to you that so many Republicans voted "no"?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let the finger pointing begin! He said, she said.... Doesn't the President look smart for having preempted the vote with a speech congratulating congress on its passing of the bill. Just another hiccup in the many mistakes of Curious George.

Actually, the whole premise of a bailout by government has some very interesting dimensions. Heading into the elections, some members of Congress who did not support the bill will try and make mileage with their electorates about "Fiscal Responsibility, etc." If there is a mass failing of financial institutions between now and election time (and layoffs throughout the US economy), however, these same fiscal conservatives might be in line for lynching rather than re-election.

On the other hand, simply bailing out the Wall Street barons for problems caused by their own stupidity is not very responsible. For all his other faults, Bush's free-wheeling spending habits (on the Iraq War and this bailout, etc), could very well haunt future generations of the US.

I wait with baited breath.....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To have almost 40% of your party vote no then turn around and blame others is kinda stupid..

Your point is correct that the bill was started by the White House then modified and rewrote by the Senate, so in the end the bill was a brand new bill written by the democates and the Republicans in the Senate.. You are also correct if only 52% of the house (democrates) voted it would of passed, but then 48% of the population of America wouldnt have been represented.

I would rather have the bill fail because the majority of the peoples elected congressmen followed what seems to be a majority of the Americans opinion then pass because we dont want to listen to all of the people..

I lost allot of money last night in my stocks, but I also believe most Americans dont want this bailout the way it was written...

It is strange to say the bill failed because the republicans showed up to to vote and that caused the vote to fail, if the democrates wanted the bill to pass as a group then it would of, but they didnt and it failed. It cant be said the other way, you cant say the republicans could of passed the bill without the democrates..

To blame just one side is stupid period!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They will start printing $$$ till the presses run dry. And maybe, just maybe - when the volume of the money bag exceeds the volume of the groceries you get for it - will the last Americans in denial realize that the American Dream is just a bubble and ultimately parasitic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tigris at 10:25 AM JST - 30th September

They will start printing $$$ till the presses run dry. And maybe, just maybe - when the volume of the money bag exceeds the volume of the groceries you get for it - will the last Americans in denial realize that the American Dream is just a bubble and ultimately parasitic.

Please explain to me the American Dream??? Seems everyone outside of America knows it but us Americans are lost on what it is..

Originally it was to find a love get married, have children, a good job, some money in the bank, and a house to live in.....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

My bank can gladly fold and suck away all of my savings, but only on the condition that my mortgage disappears in the process.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Seems to be an example of Republicans placing their personal electability above the national interest - this from the supposed "flag-waving patriots".

Though it obviously wasn't his idea, as a man familiar with being bailed out himself, Bush has taken the right position on this - the trouble is that he commands so little respect amongst his own party and has such poor communication skills that he couldn't convince them to do the right thing.

Whatever compromise is reached, this is going to hurt the consumer more than he or she expects. Media coverage and chatroom comments suggesting that this is a "bail out for Wall Street fat cats" is completely deluded. This is about the proper functioning of the World's financial systems and America seems to have stuffed it up

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nice, bi-partisan speech Pelosi gave to unify Democrats and Republicans.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

timorborder - you should understand that this is not a simple bail out for Wall Street fat cats as some populist commentators are trying to spin it. It is about providing stability for the financial system which has run into major problems as a consequence of various factors. Poor corporate decision making and simple greed is one aspect of this, but then so are government and central bank policy (keeping interest rates too low and allowing too much credit in the first place) and - dare I say it (as the media usually doesn't) - a failure of personal responsibility amongst consumers who have been spending more than their incomes for too long, especially in the US and the UK.

One way or another, Governments, companies and individuals cannot keep living on credit forever - pay back time always arrives one day or another.

We are in for several years of economic turbulence, and this is likely to represent the end of US dominance of international finance. Watch Asia and the Middle East move in to take control of the world's financial reins from here onwards, as they'll have the strongest banks standing at the end of this...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And who voted "No"? Overwhelmingly they are Congressmen who face tough reelection bids. Given that job security comes before the national interest, they are afraid of being painted as "Washington insiders who let this happen" by their challengers. Indeed, the American public has a right to be skeptical.

Job security? Why look at that way and that way only? I am just glad to see Congressman listening to the people for a change. It is they that they represent, and if the people are not being represented, they throw the bum out...of course.

I would really like more significant facts on this bill. Maybe I should subscribe to a real newspaper again. The main thing I want to know is: what is the plan to make sure mortgaged homeowners keep their homes? I cannot see how anyone could not find that to be priority number one. Seems to me there are many options, but all I hear about is bailing out Wall Street, as if that mantra is remotely enough to make a decision.

Of course the average Joe does not want to bail out the fat cats. But why are those in the know against the bill? Or are there a lot fewer in the know than there should be? I would hate to think that it is all just hatred of Bush and all the other jipsters, even though they all are probably not hated half as much as they deserve.

The legislation the administration promoted would have allowed the government to buy bad mortgages and other sour assets held by troubled banks and other financial institutions.

Buy mortgages at face values or reduced rates? Buy them and then do what with them? And what are those other sour assets? In my mind it all hinges on these questions. I do not care about all the other garbage, like finger pointing bouts, that the article has sidetracked on. --Cirroc

0 ( +0 / -0 )

All my money is safe under my mattress.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nippon5, please don't take it personal.

Originally it was to find a love get married, have children, a good job, some money in the bank, and a house to live in.....

Yes, originally..... But this is a dream every common man has from Africa to the Northpole. Originally it didn't mean to make your first million after 2 years on the job and get filthy rich (or the possibility of it).

George Carlin put it well: "It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it." According to most comments the reasons for todays problems are caused by the drivers asleep at the wheel. Well, it's not just the drivers, the passengers were sleeping too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm taking all my money outta the bank

0 ( +0 / -0 )

thepro - There you go!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Romulus has his money offshore with Generali. No banks for Romulus.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm taking all my money outta the bank

That will change nothing for you personally if you just stuff it under the mattress, but if everyone follows suit, it will all go to hell.

You see, your money is insured. And if that insurance fails, it means the money is totally worthless anyway.

However, if you take all your money and quickly buy something liquid and valuable, like gold or diamonds, that might be a smart move. --Cirroc

0 ( +0 / -0 )

house republicans to the country, drop dead! Just like Ford let NY twist in the wind, now the house repubs are doing the same with the entire country. Years of looking the other way, allowing corruption to fester among banks and brokers and insurance companies and then when it all hits the fan, the repubs balk and let the stock market drop its higher number ever.

Pelosi was absolutely right in calling out the failures of the repub party since reagan on their make-believe free market fantasy. The profits are free only to the corrupt insiders, its the tax payers who have to pay and pay and pay for the losses.

And last, what a resounding rejection of bush we are seeing. Even the repubs now see what a fool he is and they totally are rejecting him. Its an irony that now bush may be right, for once, and his party rejects him while on Iraq and so many other matters he was 100% wrong and his party supported him 100%. That is the republican party today.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cirroc - You'll forgive those of us who don't trust the banks or the government, won't you?

zurc - "bush may be right, for once"

You're kidding, right?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alinsky - Har!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Lets but bush in, he won't drive us over the edge -Har!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nippon5,

I don't think I have blamed only one party for the failure of this bill. I think my initial premise was that it was strange to blame a Democrat for the failure of this bill when the Democrats voted for it in a fairly healthy majority.

A simple Republican majority voting for the bill would have ensured its passage. I think it's fairly clear that the weight of the failure of the bill lies more on the Republican side of the vote than on the Democratic side. By your math, 95+65+140=300 if the Democrats wanted it, but 133+65+140=338 if the Republicans wanted it.

I'm not sure how I feel about this particular bill because I don't know the full particulars. Most importantly, I don't even know if the dollar figure that was on the table for relief was either necessary or sufficient as a countermeasure to the predicted disaster. I tended to favor its passage because people more financially astute than I have suggested its necessity, because the original White House proposals were rewritten to provide oversight and safeguards and because the problem seems to be of a magnitude that we need to do something.

However, Boehner's remarks strike me as precipitating finger-pointing and recrimination. Not only were the remarks silly, but they were unnecessary and possibly counterproductive. I agree with Betzee that Pelosi's comments were ill-advised, but she did not force any Republicans to vote "no".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm not sure how I feel about this particular bill because I don't know the full particulars.

That makes two of us showing a little wisdom. Others both in favor and in against seem to have little to no reason.

At least ask yourselves how this is going to help the little guy, which is you, and those like you. Don't just pray for little "trickle down" in total ignorance of the details. --Cirroc

0 ( +0 / -0 )

From what I gather is this...

1 side says that you have to shore up the Banks and insurance companies from failure because of the trickle down effect.If you dont stop the big business from failing then the people will have harder time getting loans, people will loss jobs, etc etc...

other side says if they fail the people who have money in the bank will get paid because the funds are insured..The business caused its own failure and why should the American people take over companies or bail them out.

I was just pointing out that the Democrates didnt need the Reps if they where in it together, and that did not happen... So if we flame one side in general then we have to flame both sides (if you wanted it passed)

As for details of the plan they where published on the congress website yesterday I havent checked today but they where there yesterday..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why didnt Nancy Pelosi include the palin woman on her Mme Defarge List of Villains? We all know she is also guilty here. Good chance lost.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bottom line - it wasn't mccain or Pelosi or Obama who sunk this deal - a majority of Democrats voted for the bill and a majority of Republicans voted against it. (only 65 of the House's 199 Republicans supported it).

Do the math.

But the brightest part of this whole dismal affair is how john mccain once again showed he is the man with the judgement that counts:

"Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and his top aides took credit for building a winning bailout coalition – hours before the vote failed and stocks tanked. Shortly before the vote, McCain had bragged about his involvement and mocked Sen. Barack Obama for staying on the sidelines."

john mccain - he's so smart he can predict failure mere minutes before a failure.

But amid his latest dismal misunderjudgment, at least mccain can count on his 'hockey Mom' to fix things.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

*Correction: "john mccain - he's so smart he can predict success mere minutes before a failure.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sad...this shambles was caused by US domestic politics - specifically Republicans desperate to distance themselves from Bush in a months time.

And if it really is as bad as the 1930's, then God help the party in power just now: the Depression kept the Dems in control of Congress for 60 years and the Presidency for a solid 20.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the Depression kept the Dems in control of Congress for 60 years and the Presidency for a solid 20.

As grand as Barack is even I have these awful, fleeting misgivings that he is no FDR.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And mccain is no bush since mccain has a few extra braincells.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm wondering what mccain's tack will be now?

He could try this -

"My fellow Republicans. You know how gasoline prices are 4 times higher at the pump, you are now scavenging for food for your family's table and today the markets crashed decisively.

Americans, I feel your pain. I feel your pain because I was a fighter pilot shot down and tortured in the Vietnam war 4 decades ago. I feel your pain because I'm The Maverick, and I feel your pain because Sarah Palin is a working 'hockey mom' just like the millions of other workin' hockey moms out there.

But, my fellow Americans, I want you to know this - you know, I feel your pain most of all because the market for my 13 cars and 7 houses has dried up - it's TERRIBLE!

Right! Well when we're elected we are gonna appropriate $15 trillion big ones to do what my running mate Sarah Palin has strongly hinted at doing and I know you will all agree with me here - wage war on Russia by land, sea and air...oh yes and space.

USA! USA! USA!!"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nippon5,

You wrote:

I was just pointing out that the Democrates didnt need the Reps if they where in it together, and that did not happen... So if we flame one side in general then we have to flame both sides (if you wanted it passed)

That's a statement that I can agree with entirely. Once more, I'm not sure that I wanted it passed, although I tended to support it.

I think the most important thing at this point is to try to get out of crisis mode--to do something that has some chance of ameliorating the situation, to monitor the results and to see what, if anything, we need to do next.

Apollo 13--now there was a crisis. I think the important thing is a crisis is not being paralyzed by the crisis. I bet the boys in the capsule are glad that they had engineers at work on the problem and not politicians.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zurconium - "And last, what a resounding rejection of bush we are seeing. Even the repubs now see what a fool he is and they totally are rejecting him. Its an irony that now bush may be right, for once, and his party rejects him while on Iraq and so many other matters he was 100% wrong and his party supported him 100%. That is the republican party today."

Quote of The Week

Even Sarge will agree that Zurconium's assessment is correct.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm glad I don't have john mcain shrieking in my head.

Right! Well when we're elected we are gonna appropriate $15 trillion big ones to do what my running mate Sarah Palin has strongly hinted at doing and I know you will all agree with me here - wage war on Russia by land, sea and air...oh yes and space.

USA! USA! USA!!"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, this is going to get interesting.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

mccain is shrieking in everybody's head at the moment - and still the votes flow to Obama :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The problem can not be solved unless it is defined right in the first place. Pushing more money into the market will not help as too much money going into the wrong part of the market caused the problem in the first place. The finance sector had too much money and had to try and invest it some where. They made bad investment in the mortgage sector true but they forced up share prices by buying into companies with no assets. Companies who lease, cars, computers, offices and don't even own their stationary until after they use it(stationary is bought on at least 30 days credit) became worth billions of dollars simply because investers had to put their money some where. Many of these companies did not even make a good profit, some are still running at a loss and as some people may notice are now crashing. Investing in companies with no assets is high risk and if you can't afford to throw away the money you should not invested in them. The financial sector however is not investing their own money so could afford to risk other peoples money, so poured cash into one risky venture after another. They had to invest your money as they had to make a living out of it. The clever ones hung around the blue chips like little fish hang around coral, venturing out to grab a profit and quickly diving back in when things turned dangerous. The dummies just kept buying high risk stocks and mortgages with no assets. Pushing money into the market and inflating the share prices instead of investing in slower growth companies with assets and this starved important slow growth companies of money.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Many posters fail to understand how government works in a democracy. The political system is functioning perfectly. The polititians are thinking and acting as opposed to acting and crying they were misled.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cirroc - You'll forgive those of us who don't trust the banks or the government, won't you?

Of course Sarge! I am one of those people! I am just telling you what will happen if everybody yanks their money from the banks.

Money in the bank is just credit. Money in your hand is just paper. Neither have any real value except in people's brains. Better to trade both for things of value in times of trouble, if you still can. So says a man with no faith in banks or government. --Cirroc

0 ( +0 / -0 )

*Correction: "john mccain - he's so smart he can predict success mere minutes before a failure.

I think his statement was all about mood and politics, and nothing to do with genuine economic principle. Even if he knew a collapse was imminent, he would say the same thing in an attempt to avoid it by mood alone.

Look what happened to the Dow. Nothing really changed except the mood, and it drops like a stone. --Cirroc

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I dont think anyone is listening to Bush or not listening to Bush... I think allot of the congressmen are finally listening to the people who put their lazy butts into office...Some areas want the bailout while others dont...

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/index.html

But everyone has a spin for who or what they are trying to achieve..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

what a debarcle.. Hope they know what theyve just done... markets are totally screwed as it is, and theyve just made it worse.. well done boys!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"markets are totally screwed as it is, and they've just made it worse.. well done boys!"

USA! USA! USA!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

and theyve just made it worse.. well done boys!

They did not make it worse. You are blaming the reactions of people on the actions of others. The market does what it does. Congress has little control. The market was holding its breath hoping Congress had a solution. Well, they didn't, and there probably is not one to be had. So the market let its breath out.

Had the passed the bailout this very well might have happened later, with bigger negative consequences. Its a mystery. Congress is better not to dabble in things if it is not sure.

What I can tell you is that both the Congress, the banks and other lenders, and even the borrowers who did not pay their mortgage payments are responsible for this from years ago. Don't get all upset about their not being a cure. The disease was avoidable and it should have been. --Cirroc

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Here's an interesting read concerning reasons not to bail out the greedy:

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/index.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Congress has little control? Eh? They created the monster. Of course they have control, it's the Bills and regulations Congress passes that shapes the beast.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

YangYong - excellent article. I recommend others read it

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/index.html

Thanks for posting it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Of course they have control

I did not say they had no control. I said they have little control. They have much more power to shut the economy down then anything. But making the beast run is something they really cannot do. They can coax it a bit, but that often does not work. The economy has a mind of its own and many factors affecting it besides the government.

They created the monster.

The economy and the markets? They most certainly did not. You must be thinking of Soviet Russia, and even they did not create all the markets nor did they have total control. --Cirroc

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush-Bush-Bush-Bush...one man gets all the blame and none of the credit. How is it possible!? "Don't spend tax payer money on that bank!! Give me free heating oil!" "Yeah, and pay my mortgage" "I want money to get my dining room table back"! "Hey ,don't forget me I want money to pay off my student loans" (CHORUS) Don't give that money to the banks!! It's tax payer money give it to US!!! "I bought a house that was too expensive-Help me!!" "I invested money in a stock that went bankrupt-Help me" " My truck costs more money to run because oil prices are high-Help me!" (Chorus) Using tax-payer money to help the private sector is BAD!!!"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"I invested money in a stock that went bankrupt-Help me"

Well, Wall Street is singing that song too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

People in Congress set-up here / dismantled there the apparatus framework within which the market moves, of course lawmakers past and present created the dimensions within which the beast moves, breaths, dies: Did you think it just popped out of thin air? Example: Who and what created, shaped and set Freddie Mac on the path it has run? An entity that did not materialize before our ancestors very eyes but one that was set up by... you got it. The lawmakers of past and present are VERY culpable in this mess. Don’t be so naïve.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In turn I didn't say that you said that they didn't have NO control what-so-ever but I am telling you they do to an extent much more than you're giving them credit --pardon the pun-- for. Just look at the reality now, a whole economic political system has been replaced --in a week-ish.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

if only many of you can see the action live..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Like a newly diagnosed diabetic,who has understood something was not quite right for sometime but has been in denial, the us/global financial system will need to change its diet in order to survive long term,however right now there is a more immediate problem a potentially fatal blood clot exists in the system,the patient needs the clot buster drug now! any delay and there may be nothing but a twitching corpse to look at. If it were any other company sector that were in trouble i,d say well tough you can fail..but these are the banks they hold the deposits of us all..well actually only a fraction of these deposits at anyone time..and this is the problem..imagine the scenario if the public cannot get at any of their money ..then realize that people can anticipate this possibility..and the bank run starts..and this time if it starts it may cause civil catastrophe.."a distressing scenario would then unfold" he was not talking about having to cut out icecream and eat one less hamburger at ball games, he was talking about anarchy..lawlessness. Bush has cried wolf before..this time he is not we are close to a disaster we need to re-establish calm ASAP and worry about the cost later, when the villains of the piece can be systematically brought to book to provide the deterrent value needed in order to avoid repeats, but this can only be achieved if some viable system still exists, our system is in terminal jeopardy right now. If this patient does not survive then the environment would become so extreme that both money under the bed and gold would be worthless, a safer bet would be food,water and guns. If you want to help avoid this outcome and not contribute to it..leave your money in the banks.Counter intuitive maybe..but more helpful than blind panic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The is no capitalism like American capitalism, easily the most reckless, greed-driven and anti-social system ever devised. The worst of it is that American capitalism cannot confine itself to its borders. When it gets sick the whole world suffers. Remember it is American capitalism that gave us the stock market crash of 1929. Even when American capitalism is prospering it makes people miserable through its empire of perpetual wars and gross exploitation. The joke is that American capitalism is no longer strictly American. Amdrican corporations have no national loyalties. You'd think that with wealth the American empire hauls in the American people would be getting a lot of bootie. Well, there ain't no booty for Americans. No universal health care even, which Otto von Bismark gave the Germans in the 19th century. The super rich corporate creeps get the bootie. They'll continue getting the bootie bailout or not in this current meltdown of "free market forces" economics.

The joke is that it is the Republicans who murdered Bush's bailout bill. Yeah, I know, they are blaming Nancy P. because she hurt their feels. But the great irony is that this era of American capitalism without borders it is hometown politics that brought the bill down. The politicians who voted against the bill were afraid of their constituents who by and large hate the idea of bailing out Wall Street while they themselves are hurting.

So what has this got with us in Japan who are not hurting (yet) from the meltdown? Well, probably it is better to toss your money on horses than investing in American financial institutions. (Tip, with no explanation: Avoid All State. Not in the news but avoid. Also avoid the little savings and loan and trust banks Avoid buying foreclosed property). If you absolutely must be the Big Speculator at least hire a financial advisor who is a Marxist, a person who has no illusions about the system and is, therefore, not prone to hubris.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pressed Submit too soon!!!!! First sentence should start: "There is no capitalism like American capitalism." I have no stomach to read the rest. Typo meltdown.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Another thought: Bush is like the little boy who cried "wolf" too often. He got two useless wars started by crying "wolf." His phony "war on terror" is a prolonged cry of "wolf." Well, now that there is a real "wolf" at the economic door no one is taking him seriously.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's Rosh Shashanah, the two-day Jewish New Year, during which Congress is typically not in session although Wall Street is open, and trading is traditionally brisk. I think we may see another vote later this week, but passage will be contingent on the Republicans coming up with more votes. Perhaps a little time for reflection will prove useful and the reality will sink in that "[n]o lawmaker, no matter how safe his or her seat is, wants to be responsible for record stock market losses. If you think Congress is unpopular now, wait till you see the polling when voters realize they can never afford to retire."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I applaud every congressman, Democrat and Republican, who voted against this boondoggle. This is where I part with President Bush.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good for you Sarge. Best thing I've ever read that you've written.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's still going to get passed very soon. Maybe not Thursday or Friday, but it'll get signed. The republicans showed their ass yesterday by voting against the bill because Pelosi hurt their feelings.

Those republican who cried, standing there before the cameras with a copy of Pelosi's speech and crying "this is why we voted against this bill."

But I'm sure as soon as these republicans get home and somebody slaps the crap out of them, they'll see the light.

This also goes for those democrats who refused to help out the American people, also. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am not exactly happy with free market or globalization or unregulated capitalism but if the bailout bill can not pass the congress,how one earth anyone,not only Bush, can handle the situation? Please remember one thing: Fat cats NEVER die,only poor people will go first! In good time,when foreign money flooded the American property market,whole American consummers enjoyed life like there was no tommorrow. This is the bad time, all should help...because they must. Help first to ease the situation and try to change later.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm absolutely no economist, but I can give a super American human perspective on the topic. I hope now that these companies will realize that you can't give a loan to every person that walks in the office. The average American knows little about finances. For several years mortgages and credit cards were being passed out like candy to people who couldn't afford them. [As a college student/waitress, I had more credit in credit cards than money I earned in two years! And I could have had plenty more if I would have accepted the 3 offers I received in the mail everyday!] People gladly signed on for excessive amounts of money because it was the first time in their lives that they had ever gotten approved for anything. The freedom of not living under a landord anymore, or not driving a 10 year old beater anymore is inticing. It's too difficult for most to calculate what those kinds of loans can do to a person when the economy is shaken or gas prices skyrocket. How many middle/lower middle class people have a savings account more than a couple of hundred (or even 1000) bucks? You really can't blame the consumer for their ignorance; economy was not a mandatory class in school. I'm not sure you can blame the company, capitalism demands them to make the maximum amount of money, right?. But I do think that it is irresponsible to loan money to people who don't know what to do with it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge - funny how the one time you disagree with Bush is when he's actually correct. A plan is urgently needed and there are too many misconceptions amongst the general public about this package. As it was described, it's a bale out for main street, not for Wall Street.

But - as ever - we can rely on the GOP in their ignorance to do the wrong thing

0 ( +0 / -0 )

frontandcentre - The wrong thing to do would be to waste $700 billion of the taxpayers' money on a Wall Street boondoggle. Heck, even YangYong agrees with me here.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge - "I applaud every congressman, Democrat and Republican, who voted against this boondoggle. This is where I part with President Bush."

Sarge, I am stunned - this is the first thing you and I have agreed on in - what is it - 6 years?

I need to sit down... :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And it just gets better for America -

"Now, with the financial crisis front and center, Bush has reappeared on the landscape and the race is no longer an Obama referendum.

The damage is registering powerfully on the electoral map and in state and national polling, officials say. McCain has lost ground in at least eight key swing states, and the officials say his path to victory is so narrow that it allows virtually no room for error.

Recent polls have shown Obama ahead in Colorado, Michigan and Pennsylvania, with gains in Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana and New Mexico.

Two recent national tracking polls – from Gallup and The Hotline – both show Obama enjoying a six-point lead. A Washington Post-ABC News poll out Tuesday night showed Obama with a four-point advantage among likely voters (50 to 46), down from an anomalous nine points the week before."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge: LOL. I see, it's ME agreeing with you. Funny... ish.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let me get this straight - Yangyong and Sushi agree with me here, and frontandcentre doesn't. This means frontandcentre is at odds with YangYong and Sushi... hmmm...

Sushi - "Obama enjoying a six point lead ( in the polls )"

He's going to lose the poll on November 4.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge - I certainly don't agree with them, or you (we call this approach "thinking for yourself"...). Bush is correct on this - or rather Paulson is - but the trouble is that no-one takes Bush seriously at all and the republicans have shown themselves to care more about trying to save their own skins than the national interest.

If you think that this is simply money to rescue Wall Street from its previous bad decisions then you really haven't read enough to understand what's at stake. Further weakening the economy just to spite a small group of overpaid investment bankers is the daftest thing that Congress could effectively vote to do. The markets are so far reasonably sanguine because they are expecting the bill to pass with some modifications, but largely in the same form. To continue to reject it would be suicidal - but can we expect the reps to EVER get something right?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

f&c - "the republicans have shown themselves to care more about trying to save their own skins than the national interest"

More like, the Republicans have shown themselves to care more about the national interest than the Democrats. Still, kudos to the 90 or so Democrats who voted against the boondoggle. What's it to you, anyway?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"What's it to you, anyway?"

I think that comment summarises your considerable lack of understanding about this situation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No Sarge it's YOU agreeing with us, well done.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

f&c - Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why you're so concerned about the internal affairs of another nation.

YangYong - I agreeing with you, you ageeing with me ( on this issue ), whatever - you need to talk to frontandcentre - he thinks this boondoggle is necessary.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why you're so concerned about the internal affairs of another nation.

Perhaps because it isn't an internal affair?

a vote that shook the government, Wall Street and markets around the world

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cleo, than you need to look toward your own government and figure out why you feel they're not lookin' after your best interests.

Don't fawn this off on the US when the problem lies in your own backyard.

That would be... wrong.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cleo - We can't help it if the rest of the world wants to follow us.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Cleo, than you need to look toward your own government and figure out why you feel they're not lookin' after your best interests.Don't fawn this off on the US when the problem lies in your own backyard."

USARonin, I totally agree. Too many nations out there were more than eager to jump on the "sell it to the Americans" band wagon for dozens of years ! They shut down their markets to US products and sold-sold-sold to the US. Then they turned around to double dip by investing in the Americans banks and stock markets. Well, when American factories started to shut down and move overseas, not much squakin there. But then oil pricesd went through the roof and factories really started to close down. All those home mortgage payments went bust and viola ! A world-wide credit crunch with everyone pointing the finger at Uncle Sam. Listen up worlds, do yerself some good... buy American ! Get them US factories up and runnin ! Put more money back in the pocket of "your" consumers and watch the benefits come back to you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites