Nancy Pelosi's a Whore

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]bald eagle wrote:
rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
I agree. She spouted unecessary partisian vitriol. But I don’t for one second think that actually had people who were for the bailout changing their votes. If it did, they are beyond retarded.

It’s been said about 100 times today, but the dems didn’t need a single republican vote to do this deal.

If it was the crisis they say it is, why didn’t the vote go along party lines, and the dems take full credit for the bail out?

Because they don’t want the blame. They need the republicans for cover to call it a “bipartisan” effort. Plain and simple, the dem defectors are most likely in very tight races, and ANYONE voting for this goat screw of a bill would be committing political suicide back home.

It happened back in 1993 with the tax increase - which led to the revolution of 1994. There will be another revolution in 26 days if anyone it a contested race votes for this shit of a bill.

The only ones not worried about votes are the Senators not in a political race this election cycle.

Don’t forget this - 12 dems on Frank’s own committee voted no. What does that tell everyone? [/quote]

That there’s not universal support for the bailout among democrats either. Either because they don’t agree with the merits or in most cases because they think their constiutents don’t and it’s political suicide. Who’s saying otherwise? However, Pelosi’s really not wrong. Two-thirds of the Democrats did vote for the bailout. The Democrats did ‘deliver’ if you can call it that. It’s just irrelevant and wasn’t necessary to say. Irrelevant at best. Harmful at worst. But then Pelosi’s campaigning just like everyone else. She’s pandering to constitutents across the country who do support the bailout and trying to spin opposition in her favor.

22

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
I agree. She spouted unecessary partisian vitriol. But I don’t for one second think that actually had people who were for the bailout changing their votes. If it did, they are beyond retarded.

It’s been said about 100 times today, but the dems didn’t need a single republican vote to do this deal.

If it was the crisis they say it is, why didn’t the vote go along party lines, and the dems take full credit for the bail out?

Because they don’t want the blame. They need the republicans for cover to call it a “bipartisan” effort. Plain and simple, the dem defectors are most likely in very tight races, and ANYONE voting for this goat screw of a bill would be committing political suicide back home.

It happened back in 1993 with the tax increase - which led to the revolution of 1994. There will be another revolution in 26 days if anyone it a contested race votes for this shit of a bill.

The only ones not worried about votes are the Senators not in a political race this election cycle.

I’m not really sure how this relates to what I posted. But I don’t disagree at all. Both parties are worried about getting reelected. And there are also people in both parties who genuinely don’t agree with the bailout. But most who defected on both sides did so to please constituents. Pretty dam sad. One thing if they don’t agree with the merits of the bailout but a lot of those defectors did. But, hey, that’s politics.[/quote]

How is listening to those who vote for them “pretty damn sad”?

Am I misreading this?

Oddly enough, giving the public time to digest what is going on, has flushed out a lot of experts who think the plan sucks, and was a bad idea from the beginning.

Perhaps voting no will actually require congress to do something that is unpopular in a way that makes it more acceptable, and not fuck the middle class in the process - because it is the middle class who gets nothing from the bailout.

23

[quote]rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
I agree. She spouted unecessary partisian vitriol. But I don’t for one second think that actually had people who were for the bailout changing their votes. If it did, they are beyond retarded.

It’s been said about 100 times today, but the dems didn’t need a single republican vote to do this deal.

If it was the crisis they say it is, why didn’t the vote go along party lines, and the dems take full credit for the bail out?

Because they don’t want the blame. They need the republicans for cover to call it a “bipartisan” effort. Plain and simple, the dem defectors are most likely in very tight races, and ANYONE voting for this goat screw of a bill would be committing political suicide back home.

It happened back in 1993 with the tax increase - which led to the revolution of 1994. There will be another revolution in 26 days if anyone it a contested race votes for this shit of a bill.

The only ones not worried about votes are the Senators not in a political race this election cycle.

I’m not really sure how this relates to what I posted. But I don’t disagree at all. Both parties are worried about getting reelected. And there are also people in both parties who genuinely don’t agree with the bailout. But most who defected on both sides did so to please constituents. Pretty dam sad. One thing if they don’t agree with the merits of the bailout but a lot of those defectors did. But, hey, that’s politics.

How is listening to those who vote for them “pretty damn sad”?

Am I misreading this?

Oddly enough, giving the public time to digest what is going on, has flushed out a lot of experts who think the plan sucks, and was a bad idea from the beginning.

Perhaps voting no will actually require congress to do something that is unpopular in a way that makes it more acceptable, and not fuck the middle class in the process - because it is the middle class who gets nothing from the bailout.

[/quote]

It’s sad that Congressmen who think the bailout is a good thing won’t vote for it because of political factors. A lot of people who aren’t in favor of the bailout don’t understand the full situation. The middle class is the one who NEEDS the bailout most. It’s not about Wall Street and it’s not about the stock market. It’s about a freeze in the credit markets and people and small business not being able to get money. Loans are already becoming more difficult to get. Auto loans are falling apart. The ideological stance that this NEEDS to happen and that stepping in will be worse in the LONGTERM is one thing. But I think there will be a bailout because a lot of constiutents think it’s only about Wall Street. It’s not. It’s not that they think it’s better that they suffer through the hardship. It’s that they don’t understand it will affect them. It will. When they start feeling the effects, the tune will change and there will be pressure FOR the bailout. I have some problems will the substance of the bailout and also question whether it’s better in the longterm for the government to remain uninvolved. But after doing a lot of reading and listening to experts on both sides, I have no doubt that a bailout will alleviate a lot of suffering on the part of the middle class in the SHORT term.

24

Now I am not a sentimental person, but the title to this thread brought a little tear to my eye. If it is good for America, Nasty Pelosi is against it.

25

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

That there’s not universal support for the bailout among democrats either. Either because they don’t agree with the merits or in most cases because they think their constiutents don’t and it’s political suicide. Who’s saying otherwise? However, Pelosi’s really not wrong. Two-thirds of the Democrats did vote for the bailout. The Democrats did ‘deliver’ if you can call it that. It’s just irrelevant and wasn’t necessary to say. Irrelevant at best. Harmful at worst. But then Pelosi’s campaigning just like everyone else. She’s pandering to constitutents across the country who do support the bailout and trying to spin opposition in her favor.[/quote]

What?

She made her speech BEFORE the vote. She lambasted Bush, when there is video proof of the very people crafting this bailout were categorically refusing to even consider that there was a subprime lending problem as recently as 2005.

Additionally - if you are talking about delivering anything - the dems who voted against the bill are the only ones to blame here for a failure to do so. There was no real need for a single republican to vote for the bailout. There is no intelligent way to defend that simple statement of fact.

26

There are problems with the substance of the bailout plan, and it’s questionable whether it’s the appropriate longterm solution. But a lot of people don’t want it because they have the attitude, “I shouldn’t have to pay for Wall Street greed.” They don’t recognize that failure of these banks is going to have consequences far beyond Wall Street and shareholders.

27

What are everyone’s thoughts on recent revelations that the bailout needs to be closer to $1.2 trillion to actually have any real effect?

Honestly, the bailout shouldn’t happen. Yes, things will go bad for a while, but we will be better off in the long run for it in more ways than you can count.

28

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
It’s sad that Congressmen who think the bailout is a good thing won’t vote for it because of political factors. A lot of people who aren’t in favor of the bailout don’t understand the full situation. The middle class is the one who NEEDS the bailout most. It’s not about Wall Street and it’s not about the stock market. It’s about a freeze in the credit markets and people and small business not being able to get money. Loans are already becoming more difficult to get. Auto loans are falling apart. The ideological stance that this NEEDS to happen and that stepping in will be worse in the LONGTERM is one thing. But I think there will be a bailout because a lot of constiutents think it’s only about Wall Street. It’s not. It’s not that they think it’s better that they suffer through the hardship. It’s that they don’t understand it will affect them. It will. When they start feeling the effects, the tune will change and there will be pressure FOR the bailout. I have some problems will the substance of the bailout and also question whether it’s better in the longterm for the government to remain uninvolved. But after doing a lot of reading and listening to experts on both sides, I have no doubt that a bailout will alleviate a lot of suffering on the part of the middle class in the SHORT term.[/quote]

A person is sent to represent the people who elected him. If they say don’t vote - his ultimate duty is to reflect the wishes of his constituency. To not understand this, and go so far as to call it sad is simply amazing.

the middle class needs the plan that was voted down about as much as they need a hole in the head.

Does something need to be done? I won’t disagree - but it can be done for a fraction of the $700B that Paulson says it should cost.

Simply increase the FDIC insurance level, suspend M2M, and insure the failed MBS’s. The market is far more capable of fixing this than Barney Fucking Franks.

Common sense prevailed yesterday. And you can look down your nose at the regular joes - but they know when they are about to get ass fucked like a new prison bitch. ANd they were absolutely correct to revolt yesterday. I was one of them.

29

[quote]rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

That there’s not universal support for the bailout among democrats either. Either because they don’t agree with the merits or in most cases because they think their constiutents don’t and it’s political suicide. Who’s saying otherwise? However, Pelosi’s really not wrong. Two-thirds of the Democrats did vote for the bailout. The Democrats did ‘deliver’ if you can call it that. It’s just irrelevant and wasn’t necessary to say. Irrelevant at best. Harmful at worst. But then Pelosi’s campaigning just like everyone else. She’s pandering to constitutents across the country who do support the bailout and trying to spin opposition in her favor.

What?

She made her speech BEFORE the vote. She lambasted Bush, when there is video proof of the very people crafting this bailout were categorically refusing to even consider that there was a subprime lending problem as recently as 2005.

Additionally - if you are talking about delivering anything - the dems who voted against the bill are the only ones to blame here for a failure to do so. There was no real need for a single republican to vote for the bailout. There is no intelligent way to defend that simple statement of fact. [/quote]

I don’t know what you’re talking about. Her speech was inflammatory, paritisan vitriol. And factually inaccurate (like lauding the ‘flourishing economy’ left by the Clinton administration). That (among other things) is why she’s a whore. But what of it? I don’t for one second actually believe that Republicans wo had PLANNED to vote for the bailout actually decided not to because Nancy Pelosi was ‘partisian’ and ‘mean.’ That’s my point. And your simple statement of fact has nothing to do with anything. You really expect every Democrat in the house to havevoted for the bailout? When is there EVER universal party support of a bill. Very rarely. That’s not the leadership’s ‘fault.’ Two-third’s of the Democrats voted yes. More could have. But the bailout could also have passed if more Democrats voted NO, and the White House and Republican candidate had been successful at rallying their party to support the measure that they endorse. That’s a simple statement of fact. Why would you ever expect every Democrat to vote Yes? And why should they? There are Democrats who are also fundamentally against the bailout. And Democrats who are against the bailout for political reasons and to please constituents. But if it’s simply a matter of ‘towing the party line’ then yeah, Pelosi (for all her whoriness) did a better job of rallying the party.

30

[quote]rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
It’s sad that Congressmen who think the bailout is a good thing won’t vote for it because of political factors. A lot of people who aren’t in favor of the bailout don’t understand the full situation. The middle class is the one who NEEDS the bailout most. It’s not about Wall Street and it’s not about the stock market. It’s about a freeze in the credit markets and people and small business not being able to get money. Loans are already becoming more difficult to get. Auto loans are falling apart. The ideological stance that this NEEDS to happen and that stepping in will be worse in the LONGTERM is one thing. But I think there will be a bailout because a lot of constiutents think it’s only about Wall Street. It’s not. It’s not that they think it’s better that they suffer through the hardship. It’s that they don’t understand it will affect them. It will. When they start feeling the effects, the tune will change and there will be pressure FOR the bailout. I have some problems will the substance of the bailout and also question whether it’s better in the longterm for the government to remain uninvolved. But after doing a lot of reading and listening to experts on both sides, I have no doubt that a bailout will alleviate a lot of suffering on the part of the middle class in the SHORT term.

A person is sent to represent the people who elected him. If they say don’t vote - his ultimate duty is to reflect the wishes of his constituency. To not understand this, and go so far as to call it sad is simply amazing.

the middle class needs the plan that was voted down about as much as they need a hole in the head.

Does something need to be done? I won’t disagree - but it can be done for a fraction of the $700B that Paulson says it should cost.

Simply increase the FDIC insurance level, suspend M2M, and insure the failed MBS’s. The market is far more capable of fixing this than Barney Fucking Franks.

Common sense prevailed yesterday. And you can look down your nose at the regular joes - but they know when they are about to get ass fucked like a new prison bitch. ANd they were absolutely correct to revolt yesterday. I was one of them. [/quote]

Yeah, but you actually understand the situation. You know there will hardship to come. You just feel there are better solutions. You aren’t against the bailout SOLELY because “I don’t want to pay for Wall Street greed.” That’s all a lot of people are going on. They don’t understand the repercussions, and they don’t understand the consequences of the Bailout as planned, alternative measures, or a complete failure to do anything. And politicians and the media aren’t doing enough to educate them.

31

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
There are problems with the substance of the bailout plan, and it’s questionable whether it’s the appropriate longterm solution. But a lot of people don’t want it because they have the attitude, “I shouldn’t have to pay for Wall Street greed.” They don’t recognize that failure of these banks is going to have consequences far beyond Wall Street and shareholders. [/quote]

How can anybody not hear and see the doom and gloom in the papers and on TV? Maybe people do know it will effect all of us. Maybe they don’t have any confidence that the people that got us into this mess are going to get us out.

Maybe they believe this knee jerk reaction is partially an attempt to cover up the massive fuckups that have occurred. There are a handfull of people that carry the majority of blame for one of the worste economic failures we have seen.

Why should we allow these same people to cause anymore harm? Why do I have a sneaking suspision that the the left won’t be calling for investigations on this one?

Ahhh…they’re probably too busy still trying to find something to pin on the Bush administration.

32

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

It’s sad that Congressmen who think the bailout is a good thing won’t vote for it because of political factors. A lot of people who aren’t in favor of the bailout don’t understand the full situation.

The middle class is the one who NEEDS the bailout most. It’s not about Wall Street and it’s not about the stock market. It’s about a freeze in the credit markets and people and small business not being able to get money.

Loans are already becoming more difficult to get. Auto loans are falling apart. The ideological stance that this NEEDS to happen and that stepping in will be worse in the LONGTERM is one thing. But I think there will be a bailout because a lot of constiutents think it’s only about Wall Street.

It’s not. It’s not that they think it’s better that they suffer through the hardship. It’s that they don’t understand it will affect them. It will. When they start feeling the effects, the tune will change and there will be pressure FOR the bailout.

I have some problems will the substance of the bailout and also question whether it’s better in the longterm for the government to remain uninvolved. But after doing a lot of reading and listening to experts on both sides, I have no doubt that a bailout will alleviate a lot of suffering on the part of the middle class in the SHORT term.[/quote]

Good post. My thoughts exactly. I think the biggest “failure” over the last week was not informing the public of the repercussions of action and inaction.

33

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

It’s sad that Congressmen who think the bailout is a good thing won’t vote for it because of political factors. A lot of people who aren’t in favor of the bailout don’t understand the full situation.

The middle class is the one who NEEDS the bailout most. It’s not about Wall Street and it’s not about the stock market. It’s about a freeze in the credit markets and people and small business not being able to get money.

Loans are already becoming more difficult to get. Auto loans are falling apart. The ideological stance that this NEEDS to happen and that stepping in will be worse in the LONGTERM is one thing. But I think there will be a bailout because a lot of constiutents think it’s only about Wall Street.

It’s not. It’s not that they think it’s better that they suffer through the hardship. It’s that they don’t understand it will affect them. It will. When they start feeling the effects, the tune will change and there will be pressure FOR the bailout.

I have some problems will the substance of the bailout and also question whether it’s better in the longterm for the government to remain uninvolved. But after doing a lot of reading and listening to experts on both sides, I have no doubt that a bailout will alleviate a lot of suffering on the part of the middle class in the SHORT term.

Good post. My thoughts exactly. I think the biggest “failure” over the last week was not informing the public of the repercussions of action and inaction. [/quote]

We haven’t seen this because they have no clue how this will play out either way.

34

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

It’s sad that Congressmen who think the bailout is a good thing won’t vote for it because of political factors. A lot of people who aren’t in favor of the bailout don’t understand the full situation.

The middle class is the one who NEEDS the bailout most. It’s not about Wall Street and it’s not about the stock market. It’s about a freeze in the credit markets and people and small business not being able to get money.

Loans are already becoming more difficult to get. Auto loans are falling apart. The ideological stance that this NEEDS to happen and that stepping in will be worse in the LONGTERM is one thing. But I think there will be a bailout because a lot of constiutents think it’s only about Wall Street.

It’s not. It’s not that they think it’s better that they suffer through the hardship. It’s that they don’t understand it will affect them. It will. When they start feeling the effects, the tune will change and there will be pressure FOR the bailout.

I have some problems will the substance of the bailout and also question whether it’s better in the longterm for the government to remain uninvolved. But after doing a lot of reading and listening to experts on both sides, I have no doubt that a bailout will alleviate a lot of suffering on the part of the middle class in the SHORT term.

Good post. My thoughts exactly. I think the biggest “failure” over the last week was not informing the public of the repercussions of action and inaction. [/quote]

When was there time to inform the public? This bill was rushed through, and attempted to be rammed down taxpayers’ throats.

You don’t need to go to Harvard to smell a good old fashioned ass raping when your about to to be the main event.

You guys make the horrible mistake of assuming that more education would have resulted in the bill being passed. it could have resulted in the opposite. The more I learn, and the more time that is given to those who were suspiciously over looked and ignored over the past week would seem to support the notion that the bill was a very bad thing.

The average joe got it right - regardless of what elitists think. Now the plan will have to be more joe-friendly.

How you guys can possibly think this is a bad thing is just beyond belief.

35

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Yeah, but you actually understand the situation. You know there will hardship to come. You just feel there are better solutions. You aren’t against the bailout SOLELY because “I don’t want to pay for Wall Street greed.” That’s all a lot of people are going on. They don’t understand the repercussions, and they don’t understand the consequences of the Bailout as planned, alternative measures, or a complete failure to do anything. And politicians and the media aren’t doing enough to educate them.[/quote]

That’s not the sole reason. It’s Wall Street greed, and allowing your neighbor to skate on a home loan he never should have received, and being forced to pay to allow him to stay in his home.

But deciding not to want to bail out idiots on Wall Street is more than reason enough to vote the plan down.

Failure to do anything would be a better plan than passing the shit that was voted down yesterday.

36

[quote]rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Yeah, but you actually understand the situation. You know there will hardship to come. You just feel there are better solutions. You aren’t against the bailout SOLELY because “I don’t want to pay for Wall Street greed.” That’s all a lot of people are going on. They don’t understand the repercussions, and they don’t understand the consequences of the Bailout as planned, alternative measures, or a complete failure to do anything. And politicians and the media aren’t doing enough to educate them.

That’s not the sole reason. It’s Wall Street greed, and allowing your neighbor to skate on a home loan he never should have received, and being forced to pay to allow him to stay in his home.

But deciding not to want to bail out idiots on Wall Street is more than reason enough to vote the plan down.

Failure to do anything would be a better plan than passing the shit that was voted down yesterday.

[/quote]

Irrespective of inability to attain small business loans, loans for education, auto loans and mortgages for people who had nothing to do with the creation of this crisis?

Because that IS what’s going to happen without some action. Maybe the dimensions of this plan need some work, but you can’t deny that there’s going to be a lot of suffering among the middle class without government intervention.

Maybe the market will self-correct, but not without a lot of pain for the average person. Maybe you think that’s fine, but a lot of people who are against a ‘bailout’ don’t understand that this is what’s going to happen. They think it’s Wall Street’s problem.

It’s not Wall Street’s problem. It’s Wall Street’s fault. And the fault of the government as a result of BAD regulation and indeed DEregulation. Repeal of the Glass-Steagal act championed by Gramm was one of the prime causes of this mess.

But it’s everyone’s problem. People would be investing to save themselves. Not just to bail out Wall Street and the deadbeat neighbors. People need to understand that this is what’s about.

It’s a choice between intervention and giving the market a chance to self-correct, but acknowledging that a lot of innocent people are going to face a lot of financial difficulties if we choose that second route.

37

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Yeah, but you actually understand the situation. You know there will hardship to come. You just feel there are better solutions. You aren’t against the bailout SOLELY because “I don’t want to pay for Wall Street greed.” That’s all a lot of people are going on. They don’t understand the repercussions, and they don’t understand the consequences of the Bailout as planned, alternative measures, or a complete failure to do anything. And politicians and the media aren’t doing enough to educate them.

That’s not the sole reason. It’s Wall Street greed, and allowing your neighbor to skate on a home loan he never should have received, and being forced to pay to allow him to stay in his home.

But deciding not to want to bail out idiots on Wall Street is more than reason enough to vote the plan down.

Failure to do anything would be a better plan than passing the shit that was voted down yesterday.

Irrespective of inability to attain small business loans, loans for education, auto loans and mortgages for people who nothing to do with the creation of this crisis? Because that IS what’s going to happen without some action. Maybe the dimensions of this plan need some work, but you can’t deny that there’s going to be a lot of suffering among the middle class without government intervention. Maybe the market will self-correct, but not without a lot of pain for the average person.

Maybe you think that’s fine, but a lot of people who are against a ‘bailout’ don’t understand that this is what’s going to happen. They think it’s Wall Street’s problem. It’s not Wall Street’s problem. It’s Wall Street’s fault. And the fault of the government as a result of BAD regulation and indeed DEregulation. Repeal of the Glass-Steagal act championed by Gramm was one of the prime causes of this mess. But it’s everyone’s problem. People would be investing to save themselves.

Not just to bail out Wall Street and the deadbeat neighbors. People need to understand that this is what’s about. It’s a choice between intervention and giving the market a chance to self-correct, but acknowledging that a lot of innocent people are going to face a lot of financial difficulties if we choose that second route.[/quote]

The credit market is still moving. IT has just weeded out the questionable credit and is moving much slower than it did 2 months ago.

This is not a bad thing.

You have no fucking clue what is going to happen. If you did, you would not be on an internet forum ranting about it, you would be filling your pockets.

The argument that no plan is better than Paulson’s plan is gaining ground.

Look - for whatever reason - a very, very, very, very bad plan was voted down. People are paying more attention. Perhaps the rush to do “something” will be replaced with a need to actually think about this shit instead of taking the word of the Sec of Treasury.

To assume that the fucknuts in DC know anymore about this crisis than joe-public is quite a stretch - especially given the fact that they are allowing the people who created the crisis the authority to “fix” it.

38

Actually, I think I agree with Rainjack. The rush that was on to try to get “something, anything” passed was a major problem all around. I also agree with jsbrook, part of the reason for voting against it was because many people thought it was “only” helping out wall street. This thing affects everyone.

39