They voted against it for a good reason- It was giving money withought imposing any restrictions. No justice with regard to the corrupt practices, no controls on how that money is used, no protections for those whose houses were at risk. I bet that if they DID pass it, you would have blamed them for this lack of oversight.
... and the Republicans, who are anti regulation, stripped the bill of any regulatory teeth it had, which meant that it would have been a simple giveaway which would have achieved nothing but a worsening of US government debt.
what part of they, democrats, rule the house because they are the majority party do you not understand mccrock? here i'll even provide a bbc LINK In Tuesday's poll, Democrats comfortably gained the 15 seats needed to wrest power from the Republicans in the lower chamber. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi - poised to become the chamber's first female Speaker - pledged that the Democrats would work with "civility" and "partnership, not partisanship" in their newly empowered position.......---------- looks like san fran nan lied....and yesterday was the cherry on the sundae ....---------------------------mccrock do you even have the slightest of clues as to how congress works? -----------------------------------how is the FACT that the dems have a controlling majority in the house of reps, with enough votes to pass any legislation they want....they DO NOT need the republicans to get things done...The total number of voting representatives is currently fixed at 435....and one would only need a majority of votes to pass legislation....and there are how many democrats in the house? 235.....so if you look at the math.....435 - 235 = 200....so IF all of the dems would have voted yea the bill would have passed....LINK-----------BTW mccrock i am not a fox ditto-head....i listen to abc, nbc and cbs
what part of they dems rule the house because they are the majority party do you not understand mccrock? here i'll even provide a bbc LINK In Tuesday's poll, Democrats comfortably gained the 15 seats needed to wrest power from the Republicans in the lower chamber. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi - poised to become the chamber's first female Speaker - pledged that the Democrats would work with "civility" and "partnership, not partisanship" in their newly empowered position.......---------- looks like san fran nan lied....and yesterday was the cherry on the sundae ....---------------------------mccrock do you even have the slightest of clues as to how congress works? -----------------------------------how is the FACT that the dems have a controlling majority in the house of reps, with enough votes to pass any legislation they want....they DO NOT need the republicans to get things done...The total number of voting representatives is currently fixed at 435....and one would only need a majority of votes to pass legislation....and there are how many democrats in the house? 235.....so if you look at the math.....435 - 235 = 200....so IF all of the dems would have voted yea the bill would have passed....LINK-----------BTW mccrock i am not a fox ditto-head....i listen to abc, nbc and cbs ---------------------------------------------FACTS are FACTSyou have learned NOTHING....i guess FACTS present a problem for you because you are still ignoring them....LINKThe CRA was passed by the 95th United States Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1977 as a result of national grassroots pressure for affordable housing, and despite considerable opposition from the mainstream banking community......pssst jimmy carter is a democratThe Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) was enacted by the 101st Congress and signed into law by President G. H. W. Bush in the wake of the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s. It increased public oversight of the process.........psssst george hw bush is a republican In early 1993 President Bill Clinton ordered new regulations for the CRA which would increase access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities.[7] The new rules went into effect on January 31, 1995 and featured: requiring strictly numerical assessments to get a satisfactory CRA rating; using federal home-loan data broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race; encouraging community groups to complain when banks were not loaning enough to specified neighborhood, income group, and race; allowing community groups that marketed loans to targeted groups to collect a fee from the banks.....psssst bill clinton is a democratgeorge w bush and john mccain called for reform before the shit hit the fan....LINK1 LINK2 ....pssst they are both republicans
"IF" is a big word, regardless, the MAJORITY of the Democrats voted FOR the bailout, and the MAJORITY of the Repugs voted AGAINST it. It was bush's plan and only the dems went with him - his own PARTY rejected him!!! And you blame the dems for not voting 100% republican? WTF, why then didn't the repugs vote 100% for bush? HUH? Your logic is that of a spoiled child who pouts when he can get what he wants - infantile.
so far everything that has failed was written by the group that controls the house of representatives....democr ats....they left out any republican involvement...until the cries were too loud to ignore....which was another reason the partisan speech given by pelosi was such a slap in the face...
you have learned NOTHING....i guess FACTS present a problem for you because you are still ignoring them....LINKThe CRA was passed by the 95th United States Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1977 as a result of national grassroots pressure for affordable housing, and despite considerable opposition from the mainstream banking community......pssst jimmy carter is a democratThe Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) was enacted by the 101st Congress and signed into law by President G. H. W. Bush in the wake of the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s. It increased public oversight of the process.........psssst george hw bush is a republican In early 1993 President Bill Clinton ordered new regulations for the CRA which would increase access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities.[7] The new rules went into effect on January 31, 1995 and featured: requiring strictly numerical assessments to get a satisfactory CRA rating; using federal home-loan data broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race; encouraging community groups to complain when banks were not loaning enough to specified neighborhood, income group, and race; allowing community groups that marketed loans to targeted groups to collect a fee from the banks.....psssst bill clinton is a democratgeorge w bush and john mccain called for reform before the shit hit the fan....LINK1 LINK2 ....pssst they are both republicans
OK you want FACTS: Here are, cut and pasted from what I wrote in another forum.There were no enforcement clauses in the bill. That means it has no teeth.-No penalties, no fines, no imprisonment for those executives that have stolen millions of dollars from investors.-It does nothing to enforce the rewriting of mortgages to avoid forclosure-It was merely "suggested" that the Government should eventually be repaid- AND over 200 economists wrote that this action will cause more of a problem, and, while it may delay a meltdown, it would severely worsen it once it happened, by feeding a deflating bubble.-It is like giving money to a problem gambler and (A) not expecting to be paid back (b) not expecting him to pay back those he stole from (C) not expecting him to stop gambling and (D) not punishing him for stealing what he stole to feed his gambling addiction. What Bush was trying to push through was all bailout and no enforcement of responsibility. Even his allies in Congress rejected it. THAT is why it was defeated, even though Wall Street threatened ordinary people's mortgage funds.
Yes, and they made a decision, along with a majority of the Republicans, that the plan that was put forward by the Bush administration, was not appropriate. It is not that the rescue is NOT going to happen, it means that it must be adjusted if it IS going to happen. This deal is the equivalent of more than $2000 for every American man, woman, and child. And it is money that must be borrowed, and then paid off. And how are they going to do this? Print more money? Borrow it from somewhere? Either way will definately boost inflation, and if such a massive amount of money is borrowed, then it will affect interest rates, which will boost inflation. And who is effected most by inflation? Regular people like you and me, yes, me, even though I am an Australia living in Melbourne, a downturn in the US economy has global ramifications.
no lie....how can me pointing out that if all democrats would have voted for the bill it would have passed....are you not aware that the democrats hold the MAJORITY in the house? are you so dense to not be able to figure out the republicans are not needed? IF all the democrats would have voted for the bail out plan, wall street wouldn't have dropped like a rock yesterday....
LMMFAO....you koolaid drinkers can't change the facts....democrats hold the majority in the house....they DO NOT need the republicans to vote....if they can get all their democrat members to sign on then they can get it passed by themselves without one republican casting a vote.....FACTS are pesky little things aren't they?
Because Pelosi rightly criticized Repugs for causing this mess by doing nothing and following bush down the drain. It hurt their feelings, and like 4 y.o.s, attacked anyone who disagreed with daddies failed policies - don't forget they like mommy and daddy, drunk or sober and aren't mature enough to know the difference OR what it means.
From Andrew Sullivan:.And I totally understand why. Here's the Roll Call: Democrats backed the bailout by 140 - 95 votes, or roughly 60 - 40. Republicans opposed it by 133 to 65, or 67 - 33.
Lets see... The 40% of Democrats do not vote for the bill. That is not anywhere near enough to bring it down. There must have been a LOT of Republicans who didnt vote for it too, who found something bad in the bill that they felt compelled to defeat it.
You have a source for your allegations? A final vote is a final vote. Either you vote for, against or abstain. The Republicans voted against the Prez AND Democrats. WTF? Don't blame the Democrats for everything, like some FOX ditto-head.
wrong....provide alink to your accusations
They voted against it for a good reason- It was giving money withought imposing any restrictions. No justice with regard to the corrupt practices, no controls on how that money is used, no protections for those whose houses were at risk. I bet that if they DID pass it, you would have blamed them for this lack of oversight.
... and the Republicans, who are anti regulation, stripped the bill of any regulatory teeth it had, which meant that it would have been a simple giveaway which would have achieved nothing but a worsening of US government debt.
what part of they, democrats, rule the house because they are the majority party do you not understand mccrock? here i'll even provide a bbc LINK In Tuesday's poll, Democrats comfortably gained the 15 seats needed to wrest power from the Republicans in the lower chamber. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi - poised to become the chamber's first female Speaker - pledged that the Democrats would work with "civility" and "partnership, not partisanship" in their newly empowered position.......---------- looks like san fran nan lied....and yesterday was the cherry on the sundae ....---------------------------mccrock do you even have the slightest of clues as to how congress works? -----------------------------------how is the FACT that the dems have a controlling majority in the house of reps, with enough votes to pass any legislation they want....they DO NOT need the republicans to get things done...The total number of voting representatives is currently fixed at 435....and one would only need a majority of votes to pass legislation....and there are how many democrats in the house? 235.....so if you look at the math.....435 - 235 = 200....so IF all of the dems would have voted yea the bill would have passed....LINK-----------BTW mccrock i am not a fox ditto-head....i listen to abc, nbc and cbs
what part of they dems rule the house because they are the majority party do you not understand mccrock? here i'll even provide a bbc LINK In Tuesday's poll, Democrats comfortably gained the 15 seats needed to wrest power from the Republicans in the lower chamber. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi - poised to become the chamber's first female Speaker - pledged that the Democrats would work with "civility" and "partnership, not partisanship" in their newly empowered position.......---------- looks like san fran nan lied....and yesterday was the cherry on the sundae ....---------------------------mccrock do you even have the slightest of clues as to how congress works? -----------------------------------how is the FACT that the dems have a controlling majority in the house of reps, with enough votes to pass any legislation they want....they DO NOT need the republicans to get things done...The total number of voting representatives is currently fixed at 435....and one would only need a majority of votes to pass legislation....and there are how many democrats in the house? 235.....so if you look at the math.....435 - 235 = 200....so IF all of the dems would have voted yea the bill would have passed....LINK-----------BTW mccrock i am not a fox ditto-head....i listen to abc, nbc and cbs ---------------------------------------------FACTS are FACTSyou have learned NOTHING....i guess FACTS present a problem for you because you are still ignoring them....LINKThe CRA was passed by the 95th United States Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1977 as a result of national grassroots pressure for affordable housing, and despite considerable opposition from the mainstream banking community......pssst jimmy carter is a democratThe Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) was enacted by the 101st Congress and signed into law by President G. H. W. Bush in the wake of the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s. It increased public oversight of the process.........psssst george hw bush is a republican In early 1993 President Bill Clinton ordered new regulations for the CRA which would increase access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities.[7] The new rules went into effect on January 31, 1995 and featured: requiring strictly numerical assessments to get a satisfactory CRA rating; using federal home-loan data broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race; encouraging community groups to complain when banks were not loaning enough to specified neighborhood, income group, and race; allowing community groups that marketed loans to targeted groups to collect a fee from the banks.....psssst bill clinton is a democratgeorge w bush and john mccain called for reform before the shit hit the fan....LINK1 LINK2 ....pssst they are both republicans
"IF" is a big word, regardless, the MAJORITY of the Democrats voted FOR the bailout, and the MAJORITY of the Repugs voted AGAINST it. It was bush's plan and only the dems went with him - his own PARTY rejected him!!! And you blame the dems for not voting 100% republican? WTF, why then didn't the repugs vote 100% for bush? HUH? Your logic is that of a spoiled child who pouts when he can get what he wants - infantile.
so far everything that has failed was written by the group that controls the house of representatives....democr ats....they left out any republican involvement...until the cries were too loud to ignore....which was another reason the partisan speech given by pelosi was such a slap in the face...
you have learned NOTHING....i guess FACTS present a problem for you because you are still ignoring them....LINKThe CRA was passed by the 95th United States Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1977 as a result of national grassroots pressure for affordable housing, and despite considerable opposition from the mainstream banking community......pssst jimmy carter is a democratThe Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) was enacted by the 101st Congress and signed into law by President G. H. W. Bush in the wake of the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s. It increased public oversight of the process.........psssst george hw bush is a republican In early 1993 President Bill Clinton ordered new regulations for the CRA which would increase access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities.[7] The new rules went into effect on January 31, 1995 and featured: requiring strictly numerical assessments to get a satisfactory CRA rating; using federal home-loan data broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race; encouraging community groups to complain when banks were not loaning enough to specified neighborhood, income group, and race; allowing community groups that marketed loans to targeted groups to collect a fee from the banks.....psssst bill clinton is a democratgeorge w bush and john mccain called for reform before the shit hit the fan....LINK1 LINK2 ....pssst they are both republicans
look at the answer above....geesh....use a little reasoning....
and if those 40% of democrats would have voted for it...it would have passed....NEXT
OK you want FACTS: Here are, cut and pasted from what I wrote in another forum.There were no enforcement clauses in the bill. That means it has no teeth.-No penalties, no fines, no imprisonment for those executives that have stolen millions of dollars from investors.-It does nothing to enforce the rewriting of mortgages to avoid forclosure-It was merely "suggested" that the Government should eventually be repaid- AND over 200 economists wrote that this action will cause more of a problem, and, while it may delay a meltdown, it would severely worsen it once it happened, by feeding a deflating bubble.-It is like giving money to a problem gambler and (A) not expecting to be paid back (b) not expecting him to pay back those he stole from (C) not expecting him to stop gambling and (D) not punishing him for stealing what he stole to feed his gambling addiction. What Bush was trying to push through was all bailout and no enforcement of responsibility. Even his allies in Congress rejected it. THAT is why it was defeated, even though Wall Street threatened ordinary people's mortgage funds.
Yes, and they made a decision, along with a majority of the Republicans, that the plan that was put forward by the Bush administration, was not appropriate. It is not that the rescue is NOT going to happen, it means that it must be adjusted if it IS going to happen. This deal is the equivalent of more than $2000 for every American man, woman, and child. And it is money that must be borrowed, and then paid off. And how are they going to do this? Print more money? Borrow it from somewhere? Either way will definately boost inflation, and if such a massive amount of money is borrowed, then it will affect interest rates, which will boost inflation. And who is effected most by inflation? Regular people like you and me, yes, me, even though I am an Australia living in Melbourne, a downturn in the US economy has global ramifications.
they can't handle the truth....
no lie....how can me pointing out that if all democrats would have voted for the bill it would have passed....are you not aware that the democrats hold the MAJORITY in the house? are you so dense to not be able to figure out the republicans are not needed? IF all the democrats would have voted for the bail out plan, wall street wouldn't have dropped like a rock yesterday....
LMMFAO....you koolaid drinkers can't change the facts....democrats hold the majority in the house....they DO NOT need the republicans to vote....if they can get all their democrat members to sign on then they can get it passed by themselves without one republican casting a vote.....FACTS are pesky little things aren't they?
Because Pelosi rightly criticized Repugs for causing this mess by doing nothing and following bush down the drain. It hurt their feelings, and like 4 y.o.s, attacked anyone who disagreed with daddies failed policies - don't forget they like mommy and daddy, drunk or sober and aren't mature enough to know the difference OR what it means.
so why are they blaming the Democrats for defeating the bill?
From Andrew Sullivan:.And I totally understand why. Here's the Roll Call: Democrats backed the bailout by 140 - 95 votes, or roughly 60 - 40. Republicans opposed it by 133 to 65, or 67 - 33.
Lets see... The 40% of Democrats do not vote for the bill. That is not anywhere near enough to bring it down. There must have been a LOT of Republicans who didnt vote for it too, who found something bad in the bill that they felt compelled to defeat it.
You have a source for your allegations? A final vote is a final vote. Either you vote for, against or abstain. The Republicans voted against the Prez AND Democrats. WTF? Don't blame the Democrats for everything, like some FOX ditto-head.