I don't know anything about the economy.

[rebel with a cause]

That is why I have read what I could understand about the current situation and emailed my old economic professor for his opinion on it. I got his answer today. Before I post it, let me say a bit about the man. He is a good Christian, a strong Democrat and one of the nicest men I have ever met. He is also a great teacher, because he got me a liberal arts person to pass a class in economics that I was fully unprepared to take. I am not going to give his name, just because I did not get his permission to or to share this with you. Only that I was going to use it in my discussions on the subject.

"I know all of this is complex. There's a lot of it that is beyond many of us. But, I do realize that we're in a very serious situation. It's a shame that the "rescue" bill has not been properly explained to the American people. This is not a Wall Street bailout but very literally a bailout that may save Main Street. Now there is pending disaster that could pull us ALL down. The credit markets are close to shutting down. If that happens, then there will be a domino effect as small business along with large businesses and private citizens are unable to buy on credit. Credit card companies are already starting to cut cardholders back. It's going to nearly impossible for people to get loans for cars and homes.

I am so mad at the conservative Republicans in the house over the defeat of this bill that I've been pacing the floor. I've called Shimkus' office as well as the minority leader"s office. The minority leader's office is not even answering the phone. You have to leave a message. And boy, did I leave a message!!! They are playing politics with the economy of the country. I hope this backfires on the Republicans big time. The stakes are way too high to be playing political chicken.

I'll stop now. As you can see, I'm quite exercised over the whole thing!"

:shrug: I am taking his word for it and I am now offically for the bill to be passed. Flame on.

[dana_b]

1. why flame when you are listening to the opinion of someone that you respect?

I'm not even sure. I've heard both sides but I have a reeeeeaaaallly hard time believing ANYTHING that Bush and his buddies say or wanting what they want.

[rebel with a cause]

4. I know, that was my problem with it, that bush wanted it.

But then I trust Obama, and the people he has to advise him. Then I think about my lack of knowledge on economics and all this type of things. Although my instincts tell me something needs to be done, I still don't want money going to the guys on top. I want oversight on any money given to this type of bailout, and I want it to be tight. That is why I finally gave in and emailed my old teacher and asked his opinion. After all he got me to understand graphs and diagrams. :7

[Jade Fox]

2. Thanks, It's nice to here from trustworthy people.....

who know what they're talking about.

[rebel with a cause]

3. That is what I was wanting.

Some one that I trusted to give me their honest opinion. I have been torn because I don't trust bush but I do trust Obama. So now I have decided for now. Something may happen to change my mind, but until then..... I guess I should check what Durbin is saying. ;)

[WePurrsevere]

5. I don't trust Bush either but then again I also don't trust most of the 'CONs...

because they don't normally care jack for "Main Street" but are all about "Wall Street" (Corporations and BIG money). If they don't want this then logically it has to benefit them and/or their big $$ buddies in some way.

Then it occurred to me... maybe Bush wants this for the opposite reason that the others don't... he's a "lame duck" so he doesn't have to worry about re-election or his corp donors anymore so maybe now he's looking out for himself in a different way and is worried about his legacy.

Anyway, this morning I read an article in Slant that helped make some sense of my some of suspicions as to why the votes may have gone as they did (although I think there are more reasons then just this for some): Failure To Lead

While some lawmakers pointed to ideological reasons for rejecting the rescue package, everyone says that the surge in angry calls and e-mails from constituents opposed to the measure played a pivotal role. As the LAT notes, there was no grass-roots movement in favor of the bill, but there were plenty of groups that angrily opposed the measure. "People's re-elections played into this to a much greater degree than I would have imagined," said Rep. Deborah Pryce, a Republican from Ohio who is retiring. Other lawmakers were clearly worried about how their vote would play with their constituents a mere five weeks before Election Day. Although members may cite other reasons, "it was old-fashioned politics that killed the bill. … oo many lawmakers weren't willing to risk losing their jobs," declares USAT.

The WSJ goes inside with a look at who cast the "no" votes and says they "came from a strange-bedfellows coalition" that spanned the ideological spectrum. Many of these nays came from representatives of low-income districts, but the one thing many had in common is a tough re-election fight. While the majority of Democratic freshmen and all of the first-term Republican lawmakers voted against the bill, the overwhelming majority of those retiring from Capitol Hill voted in favor. But the LAT also points out that many of the no votes came from safe districts, partly because years of redistricting have created "politically polarized" areas where "members from those districts have less incentive to compromise with the other party."

[rebel with a cause]

6. Thanks, I had not seen this.

It makes for interesting reading and like you said, makes some sense of suspicions as to why the votes may have gone as they did. I think that people (congress) are so afraid of being linked with another bush fiasco that they will not vote for it. Republicans are wanting to pin the blame on the Democrats and make it like they are in bed with bush. And the people seem to have gone ape sh*t over it. I will tell you one thing. I am not getting the sense that this is another of those things (bush's folly's), if the bill the Democrats want goes through where there is oversight and help for those not at the top. Regulations must be put back in place, there was a reason for them. JMHO

[WePurrsevere]

7. YW. :-) IMO regulations on this industry should never have been removed. n/t