I think we need to ask a hard question about the "democrats" in Congress.

[leftofthedial]

Why were the Democrats saddled with sponsorship of a supply-side bailout?

Thank wad that the repukes opposed it, even if it was because they demanded something even more egregiously supply-sided.

These are the same "democrats" who've gone along with king george every step of the way in Iraq, in eliminating civil liberties, in pushing our economy farther and farther into "free market" madness...

It makes me wonder who, if anyone, in DC is on the side of the people.

[Roland99]

1. It's an election year. Congress will pass *something*. They're too chickenshit to do the right thing

[David Dunham]

2. Because blue states like NY, CA and IL will be killed if there is no bailout

NY, CA, and IL all depend on finance-driven banks, investment companies, and the like

[Fresh_Start]

3. at DE, MN, NJ, and CT

at a minimum to the mix of states with huge financial services employment

[rvablue]

4. That's interesting because

there were quite a few nays from the California Democrats.

I haven't really come down one side or another on this bail out because I don't know JACK about economics or the stock market.

But if CA is so in need of this, maybe those people should have voted for it.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

5. Unsurprisingly, most of the economy depends on money.

I know this may come as a shock to many people here, who believe the economy runs on ideas and hard work.

[Clear Blue Sky]

6. With leadership comes responsibility.

Pelosi and Reid earned the majority and 2006. They need to be leaders, not complainers.

If the bail out bill was so great, Pelosi and Reid should have gotten the votes to pass it. After all, they do control the majority. If the bill is not so great, then things worked out for the best today.

[AwareOne]

7. Exactly, I see Dodd and Frank pimping for

Bush and his Treasury secretary and voting against the will of the American people once again. Why are the Democrats championing Bush's bailout? How about the will of the people?

[ColbertWatcher]

8. The Democrats showed that we were willing to do something ...

... to stop a crash.

The GOP showed they want to behave like petulant children.

[leftofthedial]

10. Then why didn't the "democrats" put together a package

that was even remotely in keeping with Democratic principles?

they backed off every provision designed to help working people and the middle class, but fought hard to pass a bailout for the corporations and their wealthiest owners.

They were pushing the package that bush wanted, that cheney threatened people if they didn't support it, that wall street big wigs wanted...

I find it ironic that repukes were mainly responsible for defeating the biggest supply-side ripoff in history (and that's saying something considering the rip-offs they've already pulled).

I find it disturbing that "democrats" have become such top-down economic thinkers.

[ColbertWatcher]

12. I don't think you understand what happened here.

The GOP claimed the bailout was needed IMMEDIATELY.

Did the Dems give them that?

Sometimes you give your opponent a pawn to save your king.

[leftofthedial]

13. If you are saying the Democrats were just pretending

and wanted the bailout to fail,

I'd say you need to share the mushrooms.

[ColbertWatcher]

14. I think you exaggerate. n/t

[BuyingThyme]

9. KneffinR!

[EFerrari]

11. Nancy Pelosi is not on my side She is betting the farm on the election.

Maybe that's her job. But, it's not the same thing.

[leftofthedial]

15. Her job is to preserve the status quo

not to promote justice.