"A cruel debate opponent" "Pagan blasphemer" "Reverse-iconoclast" "don't get pissed at him b/c he pwn yalls whiney asses"
My Photo
Location: Indiana, United States

Miscellaneous meanderings and philosophical ramblings. The title from a spiral notebook I used to jot down my thoughts on religion and other matters some years ago. I like to write, think and express my views on various issues. Robust discussion is welcome.

Chris of Rights and Charles Martin <-- Lists of debunked Sarah Palin rumors

"Lan astaslem."
I will not submit. I will not surrender.
Choose your language: Francais/French Deutsch/German Italiano/Italian Portugues/Portuguese Espanol/Spanish 日本語/Japanese 한국어/Korean 中文(简体)/Chinese Simplified

Monday, September 29, 2008

Financial bailout fails in the House

I guess I still have time to get a no down payment ARM, default on it and then benefit from a Democrat larded up bailout.

First, let's address the market downturn. Good points are made here:


What is good for stockholders isn't necessarily good for the economy as a whole. Normally, I'm not much moved by populist rhetoric about how the interests of "Main Street" are at odds with those of "Wall Street." This, however, is one of the rare cases where such cliches have a measure of truth. If Congress were planning to pass a bill providing, say, a $100 per share subsidy to stockholders at the expense of taxpayers, no doubt stock values would rise in anticipation and then fall precipitously if the plan were unexpectedly voted down. That is essentially what happened here. Many stockholders owned shares in firms that expected to be bailed out. In addition to the financial firms that would have been the immediate beneficiaries of the bailout, shareholders in many other industries could foresee a "slippery slope" under which their firms could expect an increased chance of a bailout for themselves.

Be sure to read it all and the comments which include an interesting discussion of some of the points in the post. This doesn't mean we are not in a crisis, but let's not panic. Things may get worse but that doesn't mean we lost our best and only chance to correct the situation.

Correcting the problems will require a bit less gamesmanship from certain people though. Judging from the media and Democrats spinning it's not surprising that many would think it was just the Republicans who are at fault here. Let's get some facts straight.

Pelosi said this needed to pass in a bipartisan manner.

She has enough Democrats in the House, Republicans are not needed.

Despite wanting bipartisanship she attacks the Bush administration and says Republicans were not patriotic. I guess it's do as I say, not as I do in her world.

She had 95 Democrats vote against the bill. She only need 12 more voting for it, for the bill to pass. To see how thoroughly Democrats were playing games with this listen to Karl Rove here (thanks to HotAir, be sure to go there for the update).

So princess Pelosi demands bipartisanship and yes votes from Republicans, while attacking them and letting her own people vote against the bill.

Stay classy Nancy.

And where was the leadership of Barack Obama?



Trackback URI                             Submit this post on! width=                     View blog reactions
<< Home

Click for Latest Posts

Creative Commons License

As defined and limited by the license, any use of work from this blog, must be attributed to Mark K. Sprengel and include a link back to this blog.

Get updates by e-mail:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Widgetize! Subscribe Social Bookmark Blogs that link here
My Technorati profile

Also, follow me on Twitter

Search this blog:

powered by Aditya

Recent Comments: