In favor of the bailout: Jim McDermott, Adam Smith, Rick Larsen, Norm Dicks, Brian Baird
Opposed to the bailout: Dave Reichert, Jay Inslee
Posted by BerenForCongress at September 29, 2008 11:53 AM | Email ThisThe P-I blog quotes McMorris-Rodgers as saying: "The financial crisis we are facing right now is greater than anyone could imagine. It is difficult for all of us to get our arms around the depth and complexity of this crisis. The decision on whether to support this package is one of the most difficult I have faced. I agree this bill is much better than the one we started with. It does more to protect the taxpayer, it does more to ensure Wall Street executives are held accountable, and it does more to increase oversight. Despite the positive changes that were made, I voted against this bill because, on principle, I am not convinced it is the right approach and I believe there are still numerous questions about its feasibility. Committing 700 billion of our tax dollars requires a longer, more thoughtful debate."
And the same P-I blog quotes Doc Hastings as saying: "I judged this bill on two primary grounds: what could the cost be to the taxpayers and is it good policy for the federal government to seize the financial markets in this way. The final bill provides more taxpayer protections than the first proposal, yet it still potentially leaves taxpayers holding the $700 billion bag for the reckless actions of Wall Street and that is something I cannot support. And on the question of increased government intervention in the marketplace, I am just plain opposed to such a massive intrusion into the economy and the marketplace. As to the crisis about which we are warned, I hope it can be abated, though I do believe additional steps can be taken to allow for the infusion of new capital, instead of focusing solely on preventing a freeze of existing capital. I also believe an insurance-centered approach would allow for relief in a way that places the responsibility for paying on Wall Street and those being bailed out."
Earlier today, prior to the vote, I said the following:
"I'm a strong opponent of the proposed $700 billion bailout.... If this $700 billion bailout is such a good 'investment,' it is not necessary - because in that case, letting the market work would eventually bring forth those investors. And if this $700 billion bailout is not a good 'investment,' it won't become a worthwhile investment just because the taxpayers are put on the hook. Instead of dropping a $700 billion bill on the taxpayers, we should face the current economic challenges with long-term and fundamental solutions that promote economic growth and increased flow of capital investment. We need to lower corporate taxes, sharply reduce the size of government, reverse the negative economic effects of illegal immigration, and reverse the negative economic effects of dependence on Mideast oil."
Posted by: Steve Beren on September 29, 2008 12:26 PMSeems Nancy is going to add back the Democrat/liberal goodies in the next goaround and just ignore Rs.
I hear a lot that something is needed from a lot of sources, but this whole thing is above my pay grade and I have to assume a bailout is needed.
I was really pleased that McCain was able to stop the first railroad just by showing up but I don't know the final answer. This one today is throat-clearing (or so they say) but 50% better than the one last week.
Where do we go from here? Bush will sign anything.
Posted by: swatter on September 29, 2008 01:25 PMIf we lower taxes for individuals, people will have more take home pay and more liberty - they will be better able to pay their own expenses without government help, they'll be less likely to need to borrow at disadvantageous interest rates, they'll have a chance to have a better credit rating, and they'll be better able to pay loans when they do need to borrow.
If we eliminate or sharply reduce corporate taxes, businesses will be encouraged to invest more, promoting economic growth - and they will be less likely to default on their own debts.
We could also improve our economy a great deal - perhaps $700 billion a year worth - by ending our dependence on Mideast oil. If we drill for domestic oil and increase supply, the resulting decrease in the price of gasoline would make the average American family more able to meet their own needs and less likely to default on their debts.
And what about illegal immigration, which depresses the take home pay of American workers while creating a large underclass of illegals who are able to get loans but unable to pay them off.
I believe in "reverse earmarks." There should never be any new or increased federal spending - whether $7 million or $700 billion - without a dollar-for-dollar increase elsewhere in the federal budget.
Solving such problems as energy independence, over-taxation, massive expansion of government, and illegal immigration would strengthen the economy.
Will the Democrats act on these crises? Why do the Democrats feel it is urgent to put the taxpayers on the hook for $700 billion to bail out the mortgage industry - but not urgent to reduce the price of gas, decrease taxes, stop illegal immigration, and reduce the size of government?
Posted by: Steve Beren on September 29, 2008 02:22 PMPearl of Wisdom: "The socialist bailout failed because so many Democrats opposed it. Where was the community organizer, Obama, getting his people in line? Nancy Pelosi can point fingers at Republicans, but Democrats have a majority. They could have passed this bill without a single GOP vote. What does this tell you about the bitter clingers in these Democrat districts? This has huge general election consequences."- Rush LimbaughPosted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 29, 2008 03:00 PM
2) I understand that the votes had been there initially, but Pelosi decided to get stupid and badmouthed republicans quite needlessly, so the Rs gave her their NO votes instead. Nancy, Nancy. You will catch more flies with honey. I know you're freaking out about being the most hated congress in history, but now is not the time for garbage partisanship of that kind you showed today.
Posted by: Michele on September 29, 2008 03:35 PMMcDermott made a sppech last week blasting the bailout, and got a bit of publicity for doing so. But when the chips were down, he (along with Adam Smith, Rick Larsen, Norm Dicks, and Brian Baird) went along with Nancy Pelosi.
McDermott, of course, is pre-disposed to supporting bailouts. When he broke the law with regard to the handling of a wiretapped conversation of some political opponents in congress, he eventually owed over $1 million in fines and legal fees. Of course, he never paid a cent out of his own money - he was "bailed out" by Democratic Party donors.
Posted by: Steve Beren on September 29, 2008 04:52 PM