why would they say they reached a deal without having the majority necessary to pass the bill?


As to the question - failure to pass the bill could have adverse consequences if the bill was going to provide the necessary liquidatity so that banks would loosen their lending policies. The problem is banks are not lending for anything, including normal short term credit obligations of corporations, which can cause severe economic consequences. we already saw 4 european banks fail today, and if the commercial paper market doesn't resume its normal functioning very shortly, we could see more bank failures and corporations cutting expenses to save cash for internal financing (in short - job cuts) it otherwise would have received in the credit markets.

Portuguese TV just said the stock market at São Paulo, Brazil, was losing 10% and they had to close it temporarily.

Holy shit.

___________________
sempre contra a corrente do jogo

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 why would they say they reached a deal without having the majority necessary to pass the bill?

defeated 225-208 in the House. i would guess those 17 or so votes who were very disgusted with the whole deal to begin with but were reluctantly ready to follow Republican leadership got pissed at what Pelosi said on the floor at the last minute.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo defeated 225-208 in the House. i would guess those 17 or so votes who were very disgusted with the whole deal to begin with but were reluctantly ready to follow Republican leadership got pissed at what Pelosi said on the floor at the last minute.

which goes to show how petty, and unfit congressional members are to be running a country. personal squabbles over the health of a nation. makes sense to me.

WE'RE ALL GONNA DIEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo defeated 225-208 in the House. i would guess those 17 or so votes who were very disgusted with the whole deal to begin with but were reluctantly ready to follow Republican leadership got pissed at what Pelosi said on the floor at the last minute.

Pelosi certainly did kill it. I was watching on C-span. The mood seemed to be very agreeable on the house floor in the hours before the vote. Every republican was saying as disgusted as they were with the package, they were going to vote for it for the good of the country. There was general consensus that it needed to be passed, then this dumb bitch made hugely partisan comments in her opening remarks.



This certainly turned at least 6 people from "yes" to "no"..causing the deal to fail. WTF was she thinking?

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Pelosi certainly did kill it. I was watching on C-span. The mood seemed to be very agreeable on the house floor in the hours before the vote. Every republican was saying as disgusted as they were with the package, they were going to vote for it for the good of the country. There was general consensus that it needed to be passed, then this dumb bitch made hugely partisan comments in her opening remarks. This certainly turned at least 6 people from "yes" to "no"..causing the deal to fail. WTF was she thinking?

I am disappointed that several members of both parties chose to vote no. THey simply do not get it. But I cannot believe that after last week's promise to get something done, she would come out with this kind of partisanship. There is just no place for this right now. I would certainly be offended by this grandstanding, but not enough so to miss the big picture. She shouldn't have done this, and congressional members should not have voted no.

Nancy Pelosi, typical loudmouth San Francisco Liberal...truly making my fellow Californians proud.

What a disgrace.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I am disappointed that several members of both parties chose to vote no. THey simply do not get it. But I cannot believe that after last week's promise to get something done, she would come out with this kind of partisanship. There is just no place for this right now. I would certainly be offended by this grandstanding, but not enough so to miss the big picture. She shouldn't have done this, and congressional members should not have voted no.

If you don't mind me asking, what makes you think this 700 billion dollar giveaway is a good idea? What effects do you believe it will have?

Anyone else can answer this question as well, thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby If you don't mind me asking, what makes you think this 700 billion dollar giveaway is a good idea? What effects do you believe it will have? Anyone else can answer this question as well, thanks.

In short: the government is willing to buy assets noone else will purchase. That will exchange virtually unmarketable securities with cash, which in turn, will allow the banks to relend the cash to get the credit markets flowing again. Right now, the banks can't lend because their capital is tied up in assets noone is willing to buy. Until they free up their balance sheets they can't and won't lend.

At the moment, with the credit markets virtually frozen, banks are not lending money as they would normally. If you have been in the market for a loan (student, home, car) you would notice it is increasingly difficult to get that money. I recently had some minor difficulties getting funding for a federally subsidized student loan (and i have excellent credit - not in the subprime CDO sense - and an above average salary). If something doesn't happen soon, it will only get more difficult, and that will ultimately hurt the overall economy because as we all know the US economy is based 2/3 on consumer purchases.

you can't view the bailout as a gift to banks. While it does help the banks, the banking system is vital to the health of the economy. If the financial systemt fails, the system we rely on to match capital with capital needs disappears. Said differently, we need our banks so that businesses can get the cash they need to create jobs.

Last edited by jerZ07002 on Sep-29-2008 at 20:58

Simply put, money/credit lubricates the wheels of commerce. The system is essentially frozen right now for myriad reasons that have been discussed before, namely bad mortgage assets, leverage, etc. In order for credit to flow again, balance sheets need to deleverage by getting rid of the toxic assets that are bogging them down. The only balance sheet big enough to park these bad assets on is the government's (unless you know someone else that can just drum up $700B at near-zero cost).

Once the bad assets are gone, financial institutions can re-capitalize and hopefully regain trust and start to give out credit once again, though certainly not at the loose terms that prevailed in the last 10-15 years.

And if that doesn't work, well...I'd rather not have to look down that abyss yet.