Vice presidential debate
-
Ohio
Aye OH-1 Chabot, Steven [R]
Aye OH-2 Portman, Robert [R]
Aye OH-3 Hall, Tony [D]
Aye OH-4 Oxley, Michael [R]
Aye OH-5 Gillmor, Paul [R]
Aye OH-6 Strickland, Ted [D]
Aye OH-7 Hobson, David [R]
Aye OH-8 Boehner, John [R]
Nay OH-9 Kaptur, Marcy [D]
Nay OH-10 Kucinich, Dennis [D]
Aye OH-11 Jones, Stephanie [D]
Aye OH-12 Kasich, John [R]
Aye OH-13 Brown, Sherrod [D]
Aye OH-14 Sawyer, Thomas [D]
Aye OH-15 Pryce, Deborah [R]
Aye OH-16 Regula, Ralph [R]
Aye OH-17 Traficant, James [D]
No Vote OH-18 Ney, Robert [R]
Aye OH-19 LaTourette, Steven [R]
Oklahoma
Aye OK-1 Largent, Steve [R]
Aye OK-2 Coburn, Thomas [R]
Aye OK-3 Watkins, Wes [R]
Aye OK-4 Watts, J.C. [R]
Aye OK-5 Istook, Ernest [R]
Aye OK-6 Lucas, Frank [R]
Oregon
Aye OR-1 Wu, David [D]
Aye OR-2 Walden, Greg [R]
Aye OR-3 Blumenauer, Earl [D]
Nay OR-4 DeFazio, Peter [D]
Aye OR-5 Hooley, Darlene [D]
Pennsylvania
Nay PA-1 Brady, Robert [D]
Nay PA-2 Fattah, Chaka [D]
Aye PA-3 Borski, Robert [D]
Aye PA-4 Klink, Ron [D]
Aye PA-5 Peterson, John [R]
Aye PA-6 Holden, Tim [D]
Aye PA-7 Weldon, W. [R]
Aye PA-8 Greenwood, James [R]
No Vote PA-9 Shuster, Bill [R]
Aye PA-10 Sherwood, Donald [R]
No Vote PA-11 Kanjorski, Paul [D]
Aye PA-12 Murtha, John [D]
Aye PA-13 Hoeffel, Joseph [D]
Nay PA-14 Coyne, William [D]
Aye PA-15 Toomey, Patrick [R]
Aye PA-16 Pitts, Joseph [R]
Aye PA-17 Gekas, George [R]
Aye PA-18 Doyle, Michael [D]
Aye PA-19 Goodling, William [R]
Aye PA-20 Mascara, Frank [D]
Aye PA-21 English, Philip [R]
Rhode Island
Aye RI-1 Kennedy, Patrick [D]
Aye RI-2 Weygand, Robert [D]
South Carolina
Nay SC-1 Sanford, Marshall [R]
Aye SC-2 Spence, Floyd [R]
Aye SC-3 Graham, Lindsey [R]
Aye SC-4 DeMint, Jim [R]
Aye SC-5 Spratt, John [D]
Aye SC-6 Clyburn, James [D]
South Dakota
Aye SD-0 Thune, John [R]
Tennessee
Aye TN-1 Jenkins, William [R]
Aye TN-2 Duncan, John [R]
Aye TN-3 Wamp, Zach [R]
Aye TN-4 Hilleary, Van [R]
Aye TN-5 Clement, Robert [D]
Aye TN-6 Gordon, Barton [D]
Aye TN-7 Bryant, Ed [R]
Aye TN-8 Tanner, John [D]
Aye TN-9 Ford, Harold [D]
Texas
Aye TX-1 Sandlin, Max [D]
Aye TX-2 Turner, James [D]
Aye TX-3 Johnson, Samuel [R]
Aye TX-4 Hall, Ralph [R]
Aye TX-5 Sessions, Peter [R]
Nay TX-6 Barton, Joe [R]
Aye TX-7 Archer, Bill [R]
Aye TX-8 Brady, Kevin [R]
Aye TX-9 Lampson, Nicholas [D]
Aye TX-10 Doggett, Lloyd [D]
Nay TX-11 Edwards, Thomas [D]
Aye TX-12 Granger, Kay [R]
Aye TX-13 Thornberry, William [R]
No Vote TX-14 Paul, Ronald [R]
Aye TX-15 Hinojosa, Rubén [D]
Aye TX-16 Reyes, Silvestre [D]
Aye TX-17 Stenholm, Charles [D]
Aye TX-18 Jackson-Lee, Sheila [D]
Aye TX-19 Combest, Larry [R]
Aye TX-20 Gonzalez, Charles [D]
Aye TX-21 Smith, Lamar [R]
Aye TX-22 DeLay, Thomas [R]
Aye TX-23 Bonilla, Henry [R]
Aye TX-24 Frost, Jonas [D]
Aye TX-25 Bentsen, Ken [D]
Aye TX-26 Armey, Richard [R]
Aye TX-27 Ortiz, Solomon [D]
Nay TX-28 Rodriguez, Ciro [D]
Aye TX-29 Green, Raymond [D]
Aye TX-30 Johnson, Eddie [D]
Utah
Aye UT-1 Hansen, James [R]
Aye UT-2 Cook, Merrill [R]
Aye UT-3 Cannon, Christopher [R]
Vermont
Nay VT-0 Sanders, Bernard [I]
Virginia
Aye VA-1 Bateman, Herbert [R]
Aye VA-2 Pickett, Owen [D]
Aye VA-3 Scott, Robert [D]
Aye VA-4 Sisisky, Norman [D]
Aye VA-5 Goode, Virgil [R]
Aye VA-6 Goodlatte, Robert [R]
Aye VA-7 Bliley, Tom [R]
Aye VA-8 Moran, James [D]
Aye VA-9 Boucher, Frederick [D]
Aye VA-10 Wolf, Frank [R]
Aye VA-11 Davis, Thomas [R]
Washington
Nay WA-1 Inslee, Jay [D]
Aye WA-2 Metcalf, Jack [R]
Aye WA-3 Baird, Brian [D]
Aye WA-4 Hastings, Doc [R]
Aye WA-5 Nethercutt, George [R]
Aye WA-6 Dicks, Norman [D]
Nay WA-7 McDermott, James [D]
Aye WA-8 Dunn, Jennifer [R]
Aye WA-9 Smith, Adam [D]
West Virginia
No Vote WV-1 Mollohan, Alan [D]
Aye WV-2 Wise, Robert [D]
Aye WV-3 Rahall, Nick [D]
Wisconsin
Aye WI-1 Ryan, Paul [R]
Nay WI-2 Baldwin, Tammy [D]
Aye WI-3 Kind, Ronald [D]
Aye WI-4 Kleczka, Gerald [D]
Nay WI-5 Barrett, Thomas [D]
Aye WI-6 Petri, Thomas [R]
Nay WI-7 Obey, David [D]
Aye WI-8 Green, Mark [R]
Aye WI-9 Sensenbrenner, F. [R]
Wyoming
Aye WY-0 Cubin, Barbara [R]For those keeping track at home:
Dems in Favor: 151 Against: 50 No Vote: 4
Reps in Favor: 210 Against: 5 No Vote: 10So, tell me again Gary how this was "In fact it was the DEMOCRATS ALONE, including bill clinton that passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999."
Again, I'm keeping the sig until you can disprove what I have posted.
-
I am in favor of fixing the government when the government is broken. CRA is a government program. Fannie/Freddie are "quasi" public organizations. The FED, which is this evil quasi-private mostly public thing, is definitely Uncle Sam's problem.
All of the stuff I was mentioning that the dems blocked reform over were institutions of government. I am for putting the brakes on stupid government. I am against regulating the market place (in general).
I actually may have misread what you posted originally. I just refuse to give one inch on the idea that there wasn't sufficient market regulation going on here. There was too much market intervention by government or quasi-governmental agencies, and those agencies and programs operated without sufficient economic oversight and as such distorted the market place making whatever foolish decisions individual actors might have made considerably worse and higher impact. Had the government NOT been involved, the bubble would have burst sooner, and there'd likely be no pressure for the feds to do anything.
As it is, all of us just bought mortgages we couldn't afford. Congratulations -- you now own a share of however many tanked subprime mortgages were out there.
I want my own country. Desperately.
-
thrash;239831 wrote:
I am in favor of fixing the government when the government is broken. CRA is a government program. Fannie/Freddie are "quasi" public organizations. The FED, which is this evil quasi-private mostly public thing, is definitely Uncle Sam's problem.I agree. But all of the blame cannot be put on Freddie/Fannie. AIG, WaMu, Lehman, and the rest of failed banks/investors made just as risky of choices because they were essentially following the same rules as F/F.
What I would like to know is if the CRA loans were more likely/less likely/just as likely to have the problems of non-CRA loans. I'm having trouble finding that data so if you have info, please share. I may like to debate, but I like to learn more than win a debate.
All of the stuff I was mentioning that the dems blocked reform over were institutions of government. I am for putting the brakes on stupid government. I am against regulating the market place (in general).
We can agree on this point
I actually may have misread what you posted originally. I just refuse to give one inch on the idea that there wasn't sufficient market regulation going on here. There was too much market intervention by government or quasi-governmental agencies, and those agencies and programs operated without sufficient economic oversight and as such distorted the market place making whatever foolish decisions individual actors might have made considerably worse and higher impact. Had the government NOT been involved, the bubble would have burst sooner, and there'd likely be no pressure for the feds to do anything.
I'm not sure what (if any) regulations need to be put in place....or if they would be of help. I do think there needs to be rules for banks as they are essentially dealing with the health/well being of the economy. How drastic those rules need to be, is a matter of debate, and I'm willing to bet that you, me and Gary aren't that far apart on this issue.
As it is, all of us just bought mortgages we couldn't afford. Congratulations -- you now own a share of however many tanked subprime mortgages were out there.
See my post below this one for a view from a Libertarian on this....I don't necessarily agree with him or disagree with the guy I'm going to quote...but I'm throwing it out for discussion.
I want my own country. Desperately.
Me too, I'd make a great dictator.
-
http://musefree.wordpress.com/2008/09/22/why-the-bailout-isnt-that-bad-for-libertarianism/ wrote:
In this post, I’ll defend a thesis that my libertarian friends will probably disagree strongly with — that the economic panic culminating in the $700 billion bailout isn’t all that bad for capitalist and libertarian ideals in the long run.Don’t get me wrong. The bailout is a monstrosity, a tremendous allocation of power to competent but unaccountable (and unelected) officials like Paulson and Bernanke and will add an unbelievable $2500 per person to the national debt. It will tax the many and reward the few. It will use the power of the state to reward businesses that ought to fail and will nationalise a significant chunk of the banking sector. As a measure, the whole thing is as unlibertarian as it gets.
But my point is this: it could have been worse. Under the current circumstances, the bailout might be one of the better things that may have happened. Here’s why:
-
Capitalism, especially of the kind that we have currently, invariably produces booms and busts. Some businesses will fail and others will grow. In the long run, it is one of the best concepts man has ever come up with. Unfortunately, voters are more impatient than that. It is a fact that with the economic turmoil of the last week and with the housing market yet to bottom out, a diving stock market would bleaken the economic outlook of the country to the extent that a new administration, likely a democratic one, would be emboldened to enact far worse regulation that the bailout itself. Think of a socialistic counterpart of ‘disaster capitalism’. The bailout will reduce the chances of that happening.
-
Yes, there were other ways the government could have intervened instead of buying bad assets, such as partial debt forgiveness or infusion of capital. However the proposed prescription has the advantage of creating a strong backlash from the electorate about their tax money being used directly to rescue the fat cats of Wall Street. There is some evidence that this is already happening. In the long run, this sentiment may develop into a general mood against government intervention and corporate subsidy. And that would be a really good thing.
-
There have been many comparisons made between the present bail-out and the massive government intervention almost eighty years ago which ended up prolonging the Great Depression. However, such comparisons miss a crucial point. The fall of the money supply that happened then under the aegis of the Federal Reserve will not happen today. As Bernanke himself said in 2002, “Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You’re right, we did it. We’re very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again.”
-
The plan is a vague one. It is not clear that Paulson actually intends to spend the entire $700 billion, nor is it clear how the government will price these bad assets. The liberal economist Paul Krugman suspects that the whole thing “looks like an attempt to restore confidence in the financial system” rather than go to the root of the problem. From a libertarian perspective, this is not such a bad thing. Remember that Paulson and Bernanke, the architects of the bailout, are no socialists. I am hopeful that their vision of the plan centers not around massive spending but in giving investors enough confidence and the banks enough time so that they can recover. (As Paulson himself has remarked in the past, “If you’ve got a bazooka, and people know you’ve got it, you may not have to take it out.”) If the government does buy mortgage assets, I hope that they do so at a price that transfers a signicant burden upon those who made these bad decisions.
-
The events of the last week essentially kills the Glass Steagall Act, one of the lasting vestiges of Roosevelt’s policies. Essentially, that act separated the commercial and investment banking sectors, which was unfortunate because unified banking is now recognized to be much safer. The act was basically repealed during the Clinton era but BOA’s acquisition of Merrill last week was the final nail in the coffin. We are now back to the situation of the 1920s, when commercial banks could plunge into the market, and that’s a good thing.
Again...just throwing this out for comment
-
-
here is a copy/paste of a very simplistic reasoning why the bailout was needed:
I consider myself to be a pretty well-informed, well-educated person. And I've read a lot in these past few weeks about the congressional bailout plan for the financial sector. But even still, I haven't really understood how and why such a measure is needed, and certainly not why it has to be done, like, yesterday.
Our leaders, including Barack Obama, have not done much in the way of explaining the situation except to tell us it's serious, and I don't blame people for not blindly believing what the Bush Administration says, particularly in crises (it shows we can learn!). So we're left to figure it out on our own.
I just had a conversation about all of this with my mom (who is the office manager/billing department/payroll person/all around money-handler at a local law firm). She broke this "credit crunch" down for me, explaining how already it is having an impact on even very successful companies like hers. And what I learned scared the heck out of me.
My fundamental mental stumbling block was around this whole notion of small businesses (and not-so-small businesses) needing credit to cover their payroll, which is the one specific thing we have heard repeated by the pols and talking heads. As a consumer, my frame of reference for credit involves long-term financing. So my reaction has been, "Well jeeze, if they have to borrow money to pay ther employees, something's wrong anyway!" But what I now understand is that for businesses, a lot of credit is actually used for short-term funding.
This is how it works. Widgets Inc. sells widgets. It sends out bills to its customers, with payment due on the 1st of each month. While some customers promptly pay their bills when they receive them, most wait until the last minute. In the meantime, Widgets has its own bills to pay. It has to pay rent, suppliers, and of course, its employees. When all the customers pay their bills, Widgets will have a good deal of money on-hand. But that's not until the first of the month, and employees get paid every week. So by the end of the month, Widgets needs a little carry-over cash. They use their credit line to cover payroll the last week of the month, and then pay the bank bank a few days later when the money comes in. This has been the pattern for years, and has never been a problem.
But now, because of things far beyond their control or ability to predict, Widgets can no longer get that short-term credit from the bank.
The company decides to make payroll the top budget priority: when money comes in, it goes towards payroll until that expense is fully-funded; only then do suppliers and other bills get paid. The problem is that many of the suppliers are themselves small businesses in the same exact position. So when Widgets Inc. only partially pays its bill to Dongles Ltd., the supplier has less money to put towards its payroll. And, conversely, more and more of Widgets' customers are making partial payments on their bills, meaning Wigets has an increasingly difficult time affording its employees.
Eventually, hiring is frozen and layoffs begin. Those folks, suddenly without a paycheck, have difficulty making their house and car payments. The banks are left holding more and more property, with less and less cash coming in -- and therefore less credit to extend to businesses. It's a self-reinforcing cycle, and we're already in it.
What I didn't realize, in addition to how this system works, is just how quickly it can all fall apart. Businesses don't get to just not pay their bills until the banks get this sorted out; people have to be paid, bills have to be paid, groceries need to be bought, etc. So the fact that Congress has been dithering on about this for 2+ weeks already has started to tighten the pressure on small businesses.
Now that the bill has been passed by both houses of the legislature, and Bush is due to sign it into law later today, it's possible that credit will start to loosen. (The whole idea of the plan is to buy some of the bad assets from the banks so that they have a better balance sheet and can more freely extend credit.) The Washington Post argues that as far as credit goes, the rescue plan may simply not be enough. But it's something, and in this case, something is definitely better than nothing.
For what's it's worth, I lay blame at the feet of all of the politicians and pundits who failed to explain in simple terms what this is all about and why it's so urgent. This conceivably could have been done four days ago if House Republicans had not been besieged by underinformed voters. A good leader should strive to inspire buy-in by the people he or she leads, not by scaring them with generalities, but by educating them and helping them see how a plan or project is beneficial. By that standard, we have seen dismal leadership in Washington and on the campaign trail during this crisis.
-
Not saying I agree/disagree with what is above, but it kind of explains the impact it would have had (ok....might have had) on the public had it been defeated.
-
US dollar up against euro though
-
"But now, because of things far beyond their control or ability to predict, Widgets can no longer get that short-term credit from the bank."
can anybody elaborate on why they cant get short term credit from the bank?
-
Their theory is the domino affect....one can't pay, the next can't pay, the next can't pay....eventually loans don't get repaid and their line of credit gets shut off...which causes more stuff to not be paid, which shuts off another line of credit...never ending cycle.
Basically the intent was to ensure that the banks have the money to borrow out to keep the country afloat.
-
I can name a large number of businesses that use a revolving line of credit to cover all expenses....much like I can name a number of people who buy EVERYTHING with their credit cards and then pay it all off each month.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login