Tweet
I've read where all of Arizona's reps voted against it, as did 11 of 13 Georgia reps.
-
-
I found it interesting that only 2 Representatives up for re-election voted in favor. Virtually all the votes in favor were from those NOT in jeopardy.
The above quote has imbedded links to a list of those voting each way. See the link above.It's no coincidence then that of the 205 Members who voted in support of the bill today, there are only two -- Reps. Chris Shays (R-Conn.) and Jon Porter (R-Nev.) -- who find themselves in difficult reelection races this fall. The list of the 228 "nays" reads like a virtual target list for the two parties.
This is just the same list in RoyalShock's link above.Comment
-
All representatives are up for re-election every two years are they not?Originally posted by raycI found it interesting that only 2 Representatives up for re-election voted in favor. Virtually all the votes in favor were from those NOT in jeopardy.
The above quote has imbedded links to a list of those voting each way. See the link above.It's no coincidence then that of the 205 Members who voted in support of the bill today, there are only two -- Reps. Chris Shays (R-Conn.) and Jon Porter (R-Nev.) -- who find themselves in difficult reelection races this fall. The list of the 228 "nays" reads like a virtual target list for the two parties.
This is just the same list in RoyalShock's link above.Comment
-
Oops, you are so right!!! I was thinking of the Senate with their staggered terms. THANKS.Comment
-
The point they were making is up for re-election where there is actually a challenge to them.
This is part of the problem. They are scared to vote for it because they want to get re-elected.....sad, sad, sad.
Some of us lost an awful lot of money today. Most of us are hard working and have never cheated anyone out of a penny.
Someone in politics has to pay for this......we should see a bloodletting this November....but we won't.
:cry:Comment
-
It was indicated that congressional members that are now in a tough fight or have faced one within the last 6 years voted against the measure and ones that are relatively safe in their positions voted for the measure.Originally posted by raycComment
-
I think this is why there should be term limits for congressmen. Then maybe those guys would actually take care of business like they should instead of just trying to get re-elected all the time.Comment
-
The rejection of this bill is not a bad thing….why not take the time to improve it. I am tired of the scare tactics used by politicians to encourage a certain point of view and proud of those that called their representatives and voiced their opposition to this bill.
I have heard no mention that this bill included reform of the institutions that got us into this mess in the first place – Fannie and Freddie. Sorry but Frank and his pals are going to have to pay the piper on this one. Has anyone, Paulson, Pelosi, Bush, et al determined how exactly the federal government is going to value this debt before the government spends all this money?
This all scares the heck out of me.Comment
-
I don't know about the others, but Jerry Moran voted against it and there may not be a safer seat in the House than his. And I think there's been speculation of him running for Senate or governor at some point.
I just watched an interview with Newt Gingerich, who says the stock market plunge could be repaired if Congress would simply suspend a rule of Sarbanes-Oxley (something about mark-to-market). Doing so would bring almost immediate liquidity to the market. (Don't ask me how, I have no idea.)
Newt also said he personally believes Paulsen doesn't want to consider any alternatives because he simply wants the power with no oversight, partly so he can take care of his buddies.
Furthermore, in the meetings leading up to the AIG bailout, the only private-sector attendee was the chairman of Goldman Sachs who has a $20 billion stake in AIG.Comment
-
Why not let 'em burn! After the dust settles there will only be three or four major banks in the U.S. Then, when the economy starts to take off again you will see new banks being born and the anti-trust dept. forcing spin-offs from the now behemoth banks. It's all a cycle.
Everything could be okay down the road but it would be a VERY painful process. The Free Market gods can deal a very mean blow to inefficient, irrational agents without the protection of policy.
T
...8)Comment
-
Originally posted by RoyalShock
Everything you need to know! Pay attention to FASB 157.
T
...8)Comment
-
Suspend mark to market? That is incredible. (I have an accounting degree from WSU - I understand this stuff.)
Suspending mark to market allows businesses to record stuff on their books at the price they paid with no regard to what anything is actually worth.
Easy example: If I bought 1,000 acres for development into housing and paid $100,000 an acre, I get to record that as $100 mill on my books. With no one building houses, there is no market for the land other than farm land or someone willing to buy it and sit this deal out until housing construction starts up again. That drops the amount anyone would pay for it to $10,000 an acre (I just made that number up). My 1,000 acres is actually worth $10 mill, but I get to count it as $100 mill for purposes of determining whether I'm still solvent.
I get to count my monumental miscalculation as actually worth real money.The future's so bright - I gotta wear shades.
We like to cut down nets and get sized for championship rings.Comment
-
Newt's answer was to institute a 3-year rolling average to base pricing on.Comment
-
Yeah, I don't believe they want to suspend it entirely.. just relax it a bit to pre-Sarbox days.
T
...8)Comment
-
A Harvard Economist says bankruptcy, not bailout, is the right answer: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/...out/index.html"Don't measure yourself by what you have accomplished, but by what you should accomplish with your ability."
-John WoodenComment
Comment