Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

QUESTON: If meltdown were really imminent,

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
snot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-08 03:41 PM
Original message
QUESTON: If meltdown were really imminent,
Edited on Mon Sep-29-08 03:42 PM by snot
why wouldn't those pushing the bailout present something that had a better chance of quick passage?

The bill defeated today was still outrageously deficient -- no meaningful oversight, no meaningful enforcement ability whatsoever, etc. (see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4116021 )

If they really needed something to sail through, they should have trimmed their wish list. The fact that they did not indicates to me that they either don't really care about averting meltdown or they don't really believe it's imminent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
soulcore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-08 03:43 PM
Response to Original message
1. It's a $700 billion bluff! n/t
Edited on Mon Sep-29-08 04:36 PM by soulcore
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-08 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
2. I think they did, according to their lights. If they'd have gone for more
it might not have been worth it for them, maybe? But that's an interesting idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-08 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
3. I vote for the second option, *they didn't really believe it's imminent*.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-08 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
4. Republicans wanted less oversight and a tax cut
They didn't even want the oversight we've got. How would adding more oversight get more Republican votes? And if you're talking about Dem votes, their plan is completely different and wouldn't get a signature. This is the best that could be agreed to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lapfog_1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-08 03:46 PM
Response to Original message
5. You do realize that the people that voted against this
want LESS regulation and LESS corporate taxes and NO capital gains tax, right?

It wasn't the lack of oversight or enforcement that caused this bill's defeat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-08 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Lib Dems voted for it for the right reasons.
Conservatives voted against it for the wrong reasons.

And they were both wrong.

The bill sucked. It deserved to die.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lapfog_1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-08 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. It's likely to be the best that they can achieve.
Or are you one of the ones that wants no bailout?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-08 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. If this was so dire wouldn't Busholini have declared a
Natl Emergency & forced some form of Rescue?

The Rethugs just want a Bailout for the Wealthy so their Rethug Party coffers will still be replenished.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-08 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. Not even sure they were planning to share with the Party.
But MY! didn't they just think they were clever!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
razors edge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-08 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. My Rep, M. Kaptur voted against it
on principal, (political principal that is) it just stank too bad to drag around on your shoe as you campaign in the future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
I_Will Donating Member (211 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-08 03:49 PM
Response to Original message
7. if it were really imminent...

...they wouldn't be telling us about it :)




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kimmerspixelated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-08 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Touche'!!!
Welcome to DU!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kip Humphrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-08 04:07 PM
Response to Original message
11. Not as important as a religious holiday! ...no worry.
What a fucked up country!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 06:40 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC