Um. Okay. No bailout for now.

[xiphias]

So, the House Republicans -- as well as a pretty good number of House Democrats -- have rejected the bailout plan.

I have absolutely no idea if this is a good thing or a bad thing. None whatsoever.

In general, though, if this means that they have to go back and put together a new plan that actually has THOUGHT behind it, one that they can EXPLAIN to people, I suspect that would be a good thing. I was uncomfortable with the "AAAGHHH! PASS THIS BILL NOW SKY FALLING EMERGENCY DANGER WILL ROBINSON GIVE US MONEY THIS SECOND" thing.

I could very well be wrong. Maybe I ought to be buying a shotgun and rifle and stocking up on canned goods -- I have no idea.

. . . I kinda want a .22 bolt action rifle, anyway . . .

Comments

[ron_newman]

I say "good thing". Congress is supposed to act in a deliberative manner, not be stampeded into panic action by a lame-duck executive branch.

[jehanna.livejournal.com]

I agree that this should be a good thing, and that they should all now go back and say, "well, we didn't have the votes and the people hated this one, so let's make something that we can pass that doesn't suck".

Instead, though, I think we're in for a lot of partisan finger-pointing and general time-wasting.

[navrins]

In the short term, it's almost certainly a bad thing.

In the long term, though... much harder to say. At the very least, I'm very pleased with Congress actually having some backbone. Even if they've made a mistake, having the backbone to make a decision, rather than just do what they're told, is an improvement over the last 7 years.

Now someone just needs to come up with a plan people can understand and see why it's probably the best idea around.

Bueller?

[tylik.livejournal.com]

If this means that they can get a more populist bill through (I'm thinking mortgage relief) then good. If they can do it quickly. The current bill has been appalling badly communicated.

But if this means that people are just grandstanding so that they can make it through the elections (which I think is a lot of it) and they're going to continue to let the market collapse... then we're all screwed. I'm kind of amazed how many people don't seem to see the connection between widespread bank collapse, credit collapse, and everyone but particularly people who need paychecks being utterly screwed. Or maybe it's just a few too many loud people screaming "Let them fail! It'll serve them right!" It seems like a lot of them. (Do people not study economic history in school? I mean, yeah, background in poli-econ and all, but I'm pretty sure I learned this at my Marxist highschool, and I was only there for one year.)

I'm not looking to stock up on canned goods. On general principle. (Okay, I do keep a well stocked pantry.) But I'm pretty fruck, really.

[voltbang.livejournal.com]

We need, umm, 700 billion dollars, to pick a number at random, and we need absoloutely no oversight on how it is used, and we can't tell you how we will use it, and we need it RIGHT NOW!

The .22 will be more fun to shoot at the range, but less useful when society collapses. And it won't stop a zombie.

[unquietsoul5.livejournal.com]

Well it means no vote on a new plan until after Columbus Day, I suspect. We're waiting to see our quarterly 401k report to see if any of this is really directly affecting us.

I don't think the original Paulson plan was a good idea. I do think they need to put back in all the breakers and failsafes and oversight that used to be in place from the New Deal. I also believe that if the economy is at such a high risk, we'd be better off taking half that 700B and putting it into a national Infrastructure and public works project.

700 Billion is a lot of money. A better investment would be to give every single taxpayer a million dollar check with the strings attached that they must pay off outstanding debt from it, period. It would cost less, clear the books for the majority of American debt and end the 'worthless state' of all that corporate paper (except that which was purely built by corporate games and not actual people getting mortgages).

[kightp.livejournal.com]

All I know yet is that the "no" votes came overwhelmingly from people in swing district races, on both sides of the aisle.

The next one of them who makes noises about "playing politics" deserves *such* a slap.

Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com]

One very reliable rule in finance is: If someone is using high- pressure tactics to urge you to give them money right now or else, walk away. It is a scam.

No situation is so bad that panic can't make it a whole lot worse. People in Washington need to calm down and do some research to find a real solution.

Or they're likely to find themselves out of a job next month, and in this economy, that would suck. For them.

[sunnycowgirl.livejournal.com]

The stock market dropped allot worse than this in 1987, and we still survived, no one bailed the ranchers and farmers out when the market dropped, and you couldn't give away a cow or a pig. We survived then and we'll survive now, it's called living within your means, and not just charging things that you want, or buying a house that you cannot afford, just because you want it.

Do what the rancher's and farmers did back in the 80's, foreclose, hold a farm auction, and auction off all of your belongings for dirt cheap, go Chapter 7, refinance and then go on with your life, picking up the pieces, and living within your means.

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

I don't know what the answer is. But I do know that as long as I have beans, water, fire and a pot, you and cheshyre have dinner.

[dichroic.livejournal.com]

The ironic part is - bipartisan effort, at last.

I do wish they'd managed to act together at *first*. (Or maybe not, depending on the action in question.)