Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Ya-ta Boy]

WASHINGTON - In a stunning vote that shocked the capital and worldwide markets, the House on Monday defeated a $700 billion emergency rescue for the nation's financial system, ignoring urgent warnings from President Bush and congressional leaders of both parties that the economy could nosedive without it. The Dow Jones industrials plunged nearly 800 points, the most ever for a single day...

The House was to reconvene on Thursday instead of adjourning for the year as planned...

Stocks began falling even before the 228-205 vote to reject the bill was officially announced on the House floor. The 777-point decline for the day surpassed the 721-point previous record, on the day after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, though in percentage terms it was well short of the drops on Black Monday of October 1987 and at the start of the Depression...

More than two-thirds of Republicans and 40 percent of Democrats opposed the bill.

The overriding question for congressional leaders was what to do next. Congress has been trying to adjourn so that its members can go out and campaign for the election that is just five weeks away...


Republicans blamed Pelosi's scathing speech near the close of the debate � which attacked Bush's economic policies and a "right-wing ideology of anything goes, no supervision, no discipline, no regulation" of financial markets � for the vote's failure.

"We could have gotten there today had it not been for the partisan speech that the speaker gave on the floor of the House," Minority Leader John Boehner said. Pelosi's words, the Ohio Republican said, "poisoned our conference, caused a number of members that we thought we could get, to go south."

Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., the whip, estimated that Pelosi's speech changed the minds of a dozen Republicans who might otherwise have supported the plan.

That was a remarkable accusation by Republicans against Republicans, said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the House Financial Services Committee: "Because somebody hurt their feelings, they decided to punish the country."...

"We're all worried about losing our jobs," Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., declared in an impassioned speech in support of the bill before the vote. "Most of us say, 'I want this thing to pass, but I want you to vote for it � not me.'"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080929/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown

I admit to being clueless on this bill. I supported it simply because the leaders of both parties said it was the thing to do.

The question is: Now what?

I read the following article last night. It talks at length about the public resistance to the bailout plan.

Main Street turns against Wall Street
A populist backlash is changing America's political climate. Inflamed by the financial crisis and bailouts, a form of class warfare could haunt business leaders for years to come.
By Nina Easton, Washington bureau chief

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- In one frenzied month Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke remade Wall Street. Along the way they may also have recast American politics. A month of historic government interventions shows signs of triggering a political version of climate change - unleashing a new era of class fury that could hurt U.S. companies, business leaders, and wealthy investors for years...

By contrast, the implosion of Wall Street, followed by Paulson's escalating series of multibillion-dollar rescues, has fired up populist sentiments that were already building in American politics, promising to reshape legislative battles over everything from tax and trade policies to federal regulation. Union leaders like the AFL-CIO's John Sweeney suddenly sound as if they're in the mainstream of public opinion with statements like this: "One thing is certain. No one - no politician, no investment banker, no television commentator, no economist - should be able to say again with a straight face that here in the United States we just let markets do whatever markets do and everything works out for the best."


http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/26/news/economy/easton_backlash.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008092811

[KOREAN_MAN]

I think it really is the right thing to do. In the short-run, it might not seem like so. But over the long haul, it should keep inflation under control. I'm just surprised that it was the Republicans who said no. What did Bush do to piss them off???

[xCustomx]

Does this mean the won will gain some of what it has lost recently? I thought it had depreciated because investors assumed the $700 bill would pass, thus strengthening demand for the dollar.

[Ya-ta Boy]

[Ya-ta Boy]

[mises]

[Ya-ta Boy]

One of my concerns is why people voted against it. Did they vote 'no' because they really think it is the wrong thing to do, because this particular bill was a bad bill, or because they are afraid of their constituents kicking them out of office in 5 weeks? Is it anti-Wall Street populism discussed in that article above? (or other reasons...)

[TexasPete]

I'm not sure how to take this news. I'm against the bailout on one hand based on principal--they shouldn't give out so much tax payer money to reward incompetence. On the other hand, a lot of people were saying this had to happen and that it was the only thing to do.

Does anyone know where i can find a list of who voted what on this bill?

[KOREAN_MAN]

[TexasPete]

[ddeubel]

And why don't they "bailout" the right way?

Meaning, give each voting American the 2-3,000 bucks that they can invest in whatever financial institution they wish. The funds must be invested by X date and cannot be withdrawn for Y amount of time. The financial markets get the liquidity and ability to repay. The PEOPLE get the return directly, as good government should try to do.....

This is the only solution IMO. The rest is just saving the fat cats and has nothing to do with "reality".

DD

[Gatsby]

Some people make fun of Obama's speaking ability. But it is times like this where it is vital to have a leader who is articulate and able to persuade and inspire people.

On this score, George Bush failed miserably. I was not inspired and I had no idea why, exactly, we needed to pass a bailout, aside from, Trust me. We're in trouble. That no longer flies, coming from George Bush. And Paulson's original plan was nothing less than an insult to Congress and the American people, with its Trust Me squared approach.

I don't know what McCain told Congress when he parachuted in to negotiations, but it clearly didn't work. Which raises a question, several questions.

We are in trouble, possibly very deep trouble. But even with the bailout we were in trouble, possibly deep trouble.

I don't know the specific details of the bailout package. Perhaps it would have helped a lot. Certainly, it raised market expectations. But even when it seemed likely to pass the market was trending downward, as I recall.

America is running out of options. At least fiscal options. I don't know if Obama is up to the job of fixing all of America's problems. But I do know McCain was a key cause of the problems. I would rather have someone young and energetic in there who can think straight and listen to complex advice. If Palin ever took over, it would be Nero fiddling while Rome burned.

I guess Congress will try again. They must. Even it it fails again.

[TexasPete]

I'm not entirely sure what this means:

[mises]

No, the 630 was supposed to be in addition to the 700bn.

[xCustomx]

The won has gone to hell. It's already approaching 1250. WTH is going on with the market. Yesterday it lost value because the bill was supposed to pass, thus strengthening the dollar. The bill didn't pass, and the won still loses value? It defies logic