House ignores Bush, rejects $700B bailout bill

[IAMX 3,055]

SRVT -

Do you understand that many of the people who took those loans SHOULD have been renters, and NOT homeowners? A flood of foreclosed homes on the markets will NOT empower new homeowners. The markets have TIGHTENED lending guidelines in the last several months. Tighter underwriting guidelines; a glut of real estate inventory; and falling wages does not equal loads of people out there buying their first house and putting up a white picket fence around it.

If you tell someone they can have a house if they cut corners with you and they say yes to it, are they not a participant in this? Do you really think people are that unaware of their credit and income when they go to buy a house? I'm not entirely blaming the person for wanting a house, in fact I give them less than half the blame, as history shows business dealings happen the way they do because of the uneducated consumer (as is the case with ARMs). But without them, there is no deal, and they're forced either to take a more reasonable loan and fixed rate, or buy a more reasonably priced house. Also, this was a prominent story in the Bay Area recently:

Yes they lose their house, but they also get a second chance at another home at an affordable rate with new regulations in place. This was quite a prominent story over the radio a few weeks ago on NPR.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Actually if Exxon execs brought out the profits that they have then they deserve to feed at the trough while the getting is good. The price of fuel may have gone up and cost my industry more to move product but I assure you we pass the cost along. We do not work for free.

No $hit, $herlock.

See my reference to the price of a gallon of milk.

Yeah thats it lets sue BIG OIL! Lets SUE BIG FANNIE OR BIG FREDDIE!

[rebeccajo 14]

Bring on the Depression, b1tchez.

F*ckin A, u r right.

[rebeccajo 14]

SRVT -

Do you understand that many of the people who took those loans SHOULD have been renters, and NOT homeowners? A flood of foreclosed homes on the markets will NOT empower new homeowners. The markets have TIGHTENED lending guidelines in the last several months. Tighter underwriting guidelines; a glut of real estate inventory; and falling wages does not equal loads of people out there buying their first house and putting up a white picket fence around it.

If you tell someone they can have a house if they cut corners with you and they say yes to it, are they not a participant in this? Do you really think people are that unaware of their credit and income when they go to buy a house? I'm not entirely blaming the person for wanting a house, in fact I give them less than half the blame, as history shows business dealings happen the way they do because of the uneducated consumer (as is the case with ARMs). But without them, there is no deal, and they're forced either to take a more reasonable loan and fixed rate, or buy a more reasonably priced house. Also, this was a prominent story in the Bay Area recently:

Yes they lose their house, but they also get a second chance at another home at an affordable rate with new regulations in place. This was quite a prominent story over the radio a few weeks ago on NPR.

They should be renters. That is what a free market economy will bear.

Homeownership is not a right. It's a privilege. A free market economy will sift the wheat from the chaff insofar as people who are ready for that privilege.

Joe OverExtendedHomeowner only got that way because the predatory lenders were out there and because PredLender could sell the product to UnRegulatedInvestmentBanker. If plain old fashioned accounting principles and market models had been checking the greed, those folks wouldn't have been tempted to buy. They couldn't have.

[luckytxn 2,265]

I never compared it to another industry at all and never said that. The housing went bye bye. My industry was swimming in money and gorging on the flow of money. It went belly up way before this financial melt down. The financial melt down in this instance is the same thing.

The trucking industry has always been in consumables. It is the bread and butter and always will be. The housing lending boom ignited a huge amount of new product for us. It looked great for a long time. The industry I am in grew and bought new trucks and enlarged their capacity and bought out smaller oufits and went in a feeding frenzy. The housing industry went kaboom. 2 years now we have been in turmoil. I expected it and always have my funds set aside to tide me over.

Now you are saying it seems that the government should come in and bail out the financials so regular people do not go through what I have had to do in the last 2 years. I say BS. It is a cycle and correction that was due and needs to continue. Next time we may all listen and watch out more.

Well holy #######.

Are you mad because somebody took your cookie the last two years and now you think everybody else ought to suffer also?

That's kinda not right. Especially because A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE HAVEN'T HAD IT SO HOT the last few years. This crappy economy didn't swell up overnight.

Wages have not been increasing to the rate of inflation for several quarters. Heating costs are soaring. Old people are choosing medicine or food. What's the percentage of Americans with no health insurance? Milk costs $1.50 more a gallon than it did 9 months ago.

You don't seriously think everybody else has been rollling in dough all this time, do you?

Look if I make you mad then just tell me. No one has hurt me. I saw bad times coming and did something about it. I think life is good and it treats me right for sure.

No I wish everyone could be just fine and never have hard times. That would be my wish.

Now I have said this before and will again just because I like to talk and say my point of view and no one can do a thing about it here. No bailout should happen just so others do not hurt. It is bad for another reason. It will make matters worse in the long run. It has been tried in the past and it just did not work. It will eventually cause a worse melt down. Then what do we do? Throw more money at it? No then we will be even in a worse mess.

Let it shake out and then we can dust ourselves off and move on. The ones that didn't save for a rainy day then next time will maybe do so.

[IAMX 3,055]

Do you understand that you are campaigning FOR regulation?

Do you think we will get regulation WITHOUT the bailout?

Oh wait.....we will. After the collapse...............

There's already one step:

Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008

But as clear as day, that wasn't meant to stop the collapse. It is a short and semi-long term solution to restore confidence in the market after the bottom hits.

It isn't like this country is going to be rubble or blown back into the third world at the end of this collapse. There is a clear cost to this, and the cost must be equally enough for people to learn a lesson about unabated capitalism and lack of oversight when it comes to transactions involving large sums of money. Because this bailout affects who? US. TAXPAYERS. So basically taxpayers get to shoulder a fvckup of both Congress for it's deregulation and mortgage lenders for their predatory practices and sorry self-regulation.

Sorry but some things in life should not get a free pass.

[IAMX 3,055]

They should be renters. That is what a free market economy will bear.

If you haven't figured it out yet, I'm not much of a free market person. That's your argument with a few others here.

Homeownership is not a right. It's a privilege. A free market economy will sift the wheat from the chaff insofar as people who are ready for that privilege.

I disagree. If we can justify giving welfare to people to help them work, and we can hand off all of this free money to corporations to build infrastructure such as POTS or cable companies, designated to corporations like AT&T, or Comcast, or Charter, or Qwest, or Verizon, we can justify subsidizing lower priced homes for PEOPLE who also happen to have a history of earning it by paying taxes, so they can have a home. Of course, they'd work it off, and would be guaranteed a fixed interest rate, and reasonable cost that matches their home with their income. Last I checked, people > corporation/business. Yet you want to justify giving all this money to companies and not people? And try to make ME seem like I'm the selfish one?

Joe OverExtendedHomeowner only got that way because the predatory lenders were out there and because PredLender could sell the product to UnRegulatedInvestmentBanker. If plain old fashioned accounting principles and market models had been checking the greed, those folks wouldn't have been tempted to buy. They couldn't have.

Take that up with the Congress in 1999. The ones you might want to directly take it up with are in some "accountability" thread. One of the links in there which I'm too lazy to fetch. This sort of accountability and regulation was legislated. Then it vanished.

Edited September 30, 2008 by SRVT

[rebeccajo 14]

They should be renters. That is what a free market economy will bear.

If you haven't figured it out yet, I'm not much of a free market person. That's your argument with a few others here.

Homeownership is not a right. It's a privilege. A free market economy will sift the wheat from the chaff insofar as people who are ready for that privilege.

I disagree. If we can justify giving welfare to people to help them work, and we can hand off all of this free money to corporations to build infrastructure such as POTS or cable companies, designated to corporations like AT&T, or Comcast, or Charter, or Qwest, or Verizon, we can justify subsidizing lower priced homes for PEOPLE who also happen to have a history of earning it by paying taxes, so they can have a home. Of course, they'd work it off, and would be guaranteed a fixed interest rate, and reasonable cost that matches their home with their income. Last I checked, people > corporation/business. Yet you want to justify giving all this money to companies and not people? And try to make ME seem like I'm the selfish one?

Joe OverExtendedHomeowner only got that way because the predatory lenders were out there and because PredLender could sell the product to UnRegulatedInvestmentBanker. If plain old fashioned accounting principles and market models had been checking the greed, those folks wouldn't have been tempted to buy. They couldn't have.

Take that up with the Congress in 1999. The ones you might want to directly take it up with are in some "accountability" thread. One of the links in there which I'm too lazy to fetch. This sort of accountability and regulation was legislated. Then it vanished.

I don't think you get what I am saying.

I'm a former Republican turned Democrat for a good, conflicted reason. I believe in working hard, being able to start my own business, profit from that and reap the rewards. I believe that those who practice unsound business principles will pay the price naturally in a free market. BUT - and here's the big 'but' - when a marketplace is so free that ETHICS run amuck as well as profitability, then I have a problem. It's SO simple - it's like kids on a playground - they are only gonna play nice for so long. Sooner or later the bigger ones start picking on the little ones. What are you gonna do, let them bloody the noses of all the smaller ones in the interest of survival of the fittest?

I call you selfish because I don't get you saying - one on hand - that accountabilty should occur, BUT since it hasn't - oh well let it all be damned and the chips fall where they may. And when that happens, then you'll be able to buy real estate. ####### is up with that? You want accountability and equity in commerce - then guess what - you don't get to just say "groovy" and then flip over through the real estate section of your local paper looking for bargains taken off the back of JoeOverextended who lost his butt because there WAS no regulation.

That makes no ethical sense - which is the problem on Wall Street, and the problem in Washington. Parlay the misfortune of someone else to your own personal gain. You're a better capitalist than you thought you were!

Saying to you that some people should be renters and some homeowners and never the twain should meet doesn't make me an advocate of free-fall capitalism. Homeownership is a state of mind as well as a responsibility which some folks just don't have the chops for. It's NOT the same thing as saying you don't believe people deserve a roof over their head - there is no excuse for this nation having a single homeless person on the street. But that doesn't mean they all should be owning homes that require care and maintenance (which some people don't have the physical or financial means to accomplish). There is a reason that the economic Gods invented rentals and it wasn't just to suck rent money off of poor slobs. It's a different product in the marketplace, that's all.

[NavarreMan 10]

you can't blame how you react to a scathing speech for voting down legislation you would otherwise support. How thin-skinned are these people?

I must confess I'm baffled at this behavior myself. I'm not blaming Pelosi directly but surely, this is a woman that can't keep her mouth shut!

Berating and provoking those that you're trying to bring on board to your point of view is, well, plain stupidity.......

You should be very aquainted with this concept.

[SteveLaura 0]

you can't blame how you react to a scathing speech for voting down legislation you would otherwise support. How thin-skinned are these people?

I must confess I'm baffled at this behavior myself. I'm not blaming Pelosi directly but surely, this is a woman that can't keep her mouth shut!

Berating and provoking those that you're trying to bring on board to your point of view is, well, plain stupidity.......

Surely this can't be the same Kaydee who, if the situation was reversed, would be typing:

Poor liddle diddums. Did the nasty Speaker hurt your feelings den?

[symbiosis 0]

I've emailed my congressman to implore him to get this thing done....I hope they make those responsible for killing this bill pay with their jobs, both dems and republicans...

I'm fcuking pissed- Was -18% down, now....who the ** knows!

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.

Democratic and Republican leaders alike pledged to try again, though the Democrats said GOP lawmakers needed to provide more votes. Bush huddled with his economic advisers about a next step. The House was to reconvene on Thursday instead of adjourning for the year as planned.

The stock plunge began even before the 228-205 vote to reject the bill was officially announced on the House floor. The 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.

In the House chamber, as a digital screen recorded a cascade of "no" votes against the bailout, Democratic Rep. Joe Crowley of New York shouted news of the falling stocks. "Six hundred points!" he yelled, jabbing his thumb downward.

Bush and a host of leading congressional figures had implored the lawmakers to pass the legislation despite howls of protest from their constituents back home. Not enough members were willing to take the political risk just five weeks before an election.

"No" votes came from both the Democratic and Republican sides of the aisle. 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. "We are ready to continue to work on this," said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

"The legislation may have failed; the crisis is still with us," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in a news conference after the defeat.

"What happened today cannot stand," Pelosi said. "We must move forward, and I hope that the markets will take that message."

At the White House, Bush said, "I'm disappointed in the vote. ... We've put forth a plan that was big because we've got a big problem." He pledged to keep pressing for a measure that Congress would pass.

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.

Frank said that was a remarkable accusation by Republicans against Republicans: "Because somebody hurt their feelings, they decided to punish the country."

The presidential candidates kept close track — from afar.

In Colorado, Democrat Barack Obama said, "Democrats, Republicans, step up to the plate, get it done."

Republican John McCain spoke with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke before leaving Ohio for a campaign stop in Iowa, a spokeswoman said.

Monday's action had been preceded by unusually aggressive White House lobbying, and Fratto said that Bush had been making calls to lawmakers until shortly before the vote.

Bush and his economic advisers, as well as congressional leaders in both parties had argued the plan was vital to insulating ordinary Americans from the effects of Wall Street's bad bets. The version that was up for vote Monday was the product of marathon closed-door negotiations on Capitol Hill over the weekend.

"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.' "

With their dire warnings of impending economic doom and their sweeping request for unprecedented sums of money and authority to bail out cash-starved financial firms, Bush and his economic chiefs have focused the attention of world markets on Congress, Ryan added.

"We're in this moment, and if we fail to do the right thing, Heaven help us," he said.

The legislation the administration promoted would have allowed the government to buy bad mortgages and other rotten assets held by troubled banks and financial institutions. Getting those debts off their books should bolster those companies' balance sheets, making them more inclined to lend and easing one of the biggest choke points in the credit crisis. If the plan worked, the thinking went, it would help lift a major weight off the national economy that is already sputtering.

More than a repudiation of Democrats, Frank said, Republicans' refusal to vote for the bailout was a rejection of their own president.

source

you really believe Pelosi's lame little speech turned the GOP 2-to-1 against this measure?

It's patently absurd and anyone using .03% of their brain mass would recognize it.

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

WOW, I just read the funniest s@#t haha!

"The first thing I would do is say, 'Let's not call it a bailout. Let's call it a rescue," McCain said in a CNN interview.

Quoting my friend Obama, "You can put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig." They think that the American people are still stupid enough to, ok ok the MAJORITY of the American people are still stupid enough to buy this #######. It is just like nominating a hot momma for VP just because there is a lot of Hillary supporters that hate Obama's guts and trying to sell it as if she is the best choice and not slightly related to Hillary.

Republicans are just too patronizing.

Edited September 30, 2008 by GueraYTavo

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Trading one euphemism for another is just spin.

[HAL 9000 96]

SRVT -

Do you understand that many of the people who took those loans SHOULD have been renters, and NOT homeowners? A flood of foreclosed homes on the markets will NOT empower new homeowners. The markets have TIGHTENED lending guidelines in the last several months. Tighter underwriting guidelines; a glut of real estate inventory; and falling wages does not equal loads of people out there buying their first house and putting up a white picket fence around it.

If you tell someone they can have a house if they cut corners with you and they say yes to it, are they not a participant in this? Do you really think people are that unaware of their credit and income when they go to buy a house? I'm not entirely blaming the person for wanting a house, in fact I give them less than half the blame, as history shows business dealings happen the way they do because of the uneducated consumer (as is the case with ARMs). But without them, there is no deal, and they're forced either to take a more reasonable loan and fixed rate, or buy a more reasonably priced house. Also, this was a prominent story in the Bay Area recently:

Yes they lose their house, but they also get a second chance at another home at an affordable rate with new regulations in place. This was quite a prominent story over the radio a few weeks ago on NPR.

To be honest... how many people can afford the price of most real estate in the Bay Area?

[IAMX 3,055]

I call you selfish because I don't get you saying - one on hand - that accountabilty should occur, BUT since it hasn't - oh well let it all be damned and the chips fall where they may. And when that happens, then you'll be able to buy real estate. ####### is up with that? You want accountability and equity in commerce - then guess what - you don't get to just say "groovy" and then flip over through the real estate section of your local paper looking for bargains taken off the back of JoeOverextended who lost his butt because there WAS no regulation.

Look, if you want to harp on me saying I want a house, like I'm sure everyone else does, and call me selfish for it, then by all means try that brilliant maneuver, and it may fly with others, and maybe yourself, but not with me. These prices should have never went this high, but they did, and now they must come back down to reasonable levels. If the government does this bailout out, they will not, especially any time soon. All that would be left is more rich people to gobble up somewhat cheaper foreclosed houses and rent them out, leaving little option for a first time buyer.

I'm well aware of your position, but there's not a chance in hell I will agree, as subsidies on houses especially for low income is, last I checked, not such a selfish idea. You conveniently ignored that part, huh. Hence, why I don't take you seriously in your attempt here.

That makes no ethical sense - which is the problem on Wall Street, and the problem in Washington. Parlay the misfortune of someone else to your own personal gain. You're a better capitalist than you thought you were!

Read above.

Saying to you that some people should be renters and some homeowners and never the twain should meet doesn't make me an advocate of free-fall capitalism. Homeownership is a state of mind as well as a responsibility which some folks just don't have the chops for. It's NOT the same thing as saying you don't believe people deserve a roof over their head - there is no excuse for this nation having a single homeless person on the street. But that doesn't mean they all should be owning homes that require care and maintenance (which some people don't have the physical or financial means to accomplish). There is a reason that the economic Gods invented rentals and it wasn't just to suck rent money off of poor slobs. It's a different product in the marketplace, that's all.

Of course, right here you want to impose your own ideals of house ownership upon others. Hey, what's this, sounds like selfish!

This idea of "free-fall capitalism" isn't a state of perpetuity. I already told you about regulations, I already told you about stricter limits and assistance. Once again, you just ignored them to try and make some foolish moral point about being selfish. The market free-falling is an offset to it doing just the opposite, going skyward way too fast thanks to a lack of regulation. With such regulations put in place, after this fall is done, there won't be another "skyward" unless the market value demands it with regulations in place (which would also mean cost of living is dramatically risen, as well as incomes).

Sometimes, RJ, you have to let people fall so they can get up. Welcome to the school of tough love called life.

To be honest... how many people can afford the price of most real estate in the Bay Area?

Working families who work in the Bay Area.

Single income isn't much the norm anymore except in places with the cheapest real estate in the country where you can get by on Wal-Mart jobs.

I would say you're good off if you have 2 workers making at minimum a combined $70,000 - $125,000 a year, if you want to live "comfortably" (which is my idea of living). Right out of college there are many non-ultra specialized jobs that don't demand specific engineering degrees (like NASA-type jobs), which you'll see at Google and Microsoft, for instance. These start around $50,000/year, and these grads I've seen both Google and Microsoft take are people with English or Sociology or Communications degrees which they put into frontpage or advertising/marketing/HR/finance. Then they work their way up. In some cases a single income might work if you skimp on trips and extravagant things, or already made a plan and have those.