And What About Those 95 Democrats?

But didn’t McCain specifically pull his political stunt last week to talk with House Republicans and convince them to support the bill? The House GOP barely supported this bill at all. At least Pelosi got the target number of Dems to vote.

Last week “We have a deal” Pelosi would have had 0 GOP house votes before McCain went to D.C.

seah sez:
Bring back Hillary and end this madness the democrats have caused.
————————————–
What party does Hillary belong to now?

Boehner was to deliver 100 votes and couldn’t do it. The Dems said, okay we have the cushion.
Then the Reps showed up with 66. No wonder Boehner started to cry at the end of his speech before the vote.
I was watching on cspan and couldn’t believe my eyes.

vs,
No, you are wrong. There has been no news about massive mortgage defaults in this country.
The problem was repackaging and reselling of mortgages for increasingly inflated value by people that had no sense of honor, that cared about keeping their jobs and stockholder happy, that created nothing but a web of lies.
The little guy who was often suckered into an ARM and who,today still wants to keep paying his mortgage is hardly the villan here. Only a rethug or FoxNews could come up with that one.

The mortgages that are still going through foreclosure need to be addressed. There should be a freeze on these, or at least an emergency renegotiation of the rates to prevent as many foreclosures as possible. Work with homeowners to pay what they can afford. This does not let homeowners who purchased bad loans off the hook and does not reward bad loan practices. In the meantime it gives time for these loans to regain their value without costing taxpayers. Unfortunately this will only work if implemented soon.

james
yup the dems are in power but they shouldnt have to shoulder this whole thing
what ahppened to bipartisanship?

jamescbuilder,
Clintons 1993 budget.
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
I’d rather see the whole thing come down that Jeb in 2012.

‘just the facts mam’
We the people know what BIPARTISAN numbers look like.
democrats delivered republicans did not
justify and blame all u want, we are not Palins

It’s time this overlimit credit society get back to basics, maybe then we don’t get hiccups and need bailouts! It’s a blessing in disguise that the rich don’t get richer, the poor gets poorer with a wall street economy drive. Bailout is not the solution in the long run. We need to bring home the jobs outsourced overseas and start investing in research and development. I pity the poor rich people who needs the bailout.

tom,
Without the votes you suggest that Pelosi adjourn for the holiday and do nothing.
Sure, that works to.

what ever happened to superman mccain——-he could not deliver a few votes–12 I BELIEVE—-WE KNOW WHAT HIS PARTY THINKS OF HIM—

FOR ALL YOU OUT THERE I WANT YOU TO REMEMBER THAT WHEN A PERSON WENT TO BUY A HOME HE PLAYED BY THE RULES THAT OUR POLITIONS SET OUT FOR US TO PLAY BY. SO HOW DARE YOU SCORN THE CONSUMER.FOR JUMPING THREW ALL THE HOOPS THAT OUR POLITIONS HAVE SET.THE BLAME LYES SOLY ON POLITIONS AND LAWS THEY MADE.HOW BLIND ARE YOU.STOP LETTING THEM DEVIDE US.WE ALL PLAYED BY THEIR RULES.JUST REMEMBER WHEN YOU POINT YOUR FINGER AT SOMEONE ELES,THERE ARE 3 FINGERS POINTING BACK AT YOU.SO BEFORE YOU SCORN THE PEOPLE JUST THINK OF WHO MADE THE LAWS.

Leonard Peltier wrote: “There has been no news about massive mortgage defaults in this country.”
I don’t know what your definition of “massive” is. But banks foreclosed on 77,295 homes in July and 90,893 homes in August; and there have been more than 770,000 foreclosures since August 2007.
In addition, in just August alone, 303,879 homeowners (1 in 416 U. S. households) received a default notice.

Everyone is missing the point of the need for this bailout or whatever you want to call it. It has nothing to do with the stock market or what people get paid “on Wall Street.” Banks have no capital to resume lending to anyone. That includes everyday people, small businesses, middle market businesses, large corporations, homebuyers, car buyers, etc. etc. When a lot of the average citizens don’t get their bimonthly paycheck, maybe then they will understand why we need to get this done. Wake up, if companies can’t borrow they won’t make payroll. It’s that simple. It’s the gridlock in the credit markets that is going to throw us into a deep recession and when it hits everyone in their wallet, it will be too late to do anything to prevent that from happening. Congress: show some courage and stop the self dealing before you witness a crash and burn in your constituency. You’ll lose your job anyway if you continue to dither.

HANG TOUGH NANCY——DO WHAT THE MAJORITY WANT—LET WALL ST DEAL WITH THEIR OWN CORRUPT PROBLEMS —MAYBE PUT A FEW IN JAIL.

WOULD IT BE SO BAD FOR ALL IN AMERICA TO BE MIDDLE CLASS.IS THIS NOT TRULY MAKING US ALL EQUAL.LET THE RICH AND POLITIONS FEEL LIKE WE HAVE FOR SO LONG.THEY HAVE BENIFITED AND NOT DONE RIGHT FOR THE COUNTRY. THEY PROSPERED IN HAVE THEY?TIME FOR THEM TO SAVE THE STOCK MARKET THEY WORSHIP SO MUCH.THE SNAKE THEY HAVE BEEN RAISING FOR SO LONG HAS NOW TURNED AGIANST THEM.IS THIS NOT WHAT THE BIBLE HAS TOLD US WOULD HAPPEN.

Playing politics, either presidential or party, with this bill is hugely irresponsible.
If members were voting their conscience, then great. Lots of Republicans thought the bill did too much, a good portion of Dems though it did too little. On Thursday, we might see a bill tailored wholly by Democrats sweep through — they tried bipartisanship, and the Republicans stayed away in droves (with very little in the way of counterproposal that I can see).
McCain and Obama SHOULDN’T have injected themselves into the debate, and the guilty party for landing them in the middle is overeager McCain. I mean, I truly have a difficult time seeing how McCain is forgiven for this grandstanding. Does the American taxpayer not realise that we’re going to get MORE screwed by not having an assistance bill? Don’t get fooled by idealogues, this was the best of bad choices. And in a situation like this, you don’t get to sit back and wait for a GOOD choice.
Should you be on the hook for your neighbour’s mortgage? Hell, no. But at the same time, does your neighbour’s slide into destitution help the country? Also no. All options suck, people. Pick the least damaging alternative, as unsavoury as that is.
What we need from legislators is hard work and resolve. What we need from our presidential candidates (both of whom seem to have been in constant contact with key players, but only one of whom decided to treat the crisis like his own personal drama) is a cool and steady public attitude so the American people don’t freak the hell out.
I understand standing on principle, it can be a really brave thing sometimes. But ignorant tantruming is what’s going on right now. I don’t like the medicine that’s being offered either, but I know that if I don’t take it, things get much worse down the line.

Rodney wrote: “What ever happened to superman mccain——-he could not deliver a few votes–12…”
When Sen. McCain got into Washington DC last week it was reported that there were just FOUR House Republicans on board to vote for the bill. Just FOUR! I don’t doubt that the Republicans had the 12 votes to pass the bill, only to have Speaker Pelosi blow it with her partisan speech.
Many of you commenters just don’t get it. For Conservatives it is a very difficult pill to swallow to vote for a government bailout. That is almost like asking for you Liberals to vote for parental consent before teenage girls can have an abortion. But the 12 were ready to sellout their convictions until Speaker Pelosi raised the ante on swallowing the pill. Then they changed their mind.
Incidentally, THERE WAS NO DEAL that so many Republicans would agree. The Democrats knew that in the beginning their were only four House Republicans supporting the rescue package. It was the Democrats who decided that they had to have a “bipartisan” vote because they wanted to cover their behinds should this rescue package fail to work. If they really believed in the rescue package they should have had 12 of their own House members to change their vote.

Pelosi said she would bring 140 votes to this Republican Bill and she did. The House Republicans did not bring the number in they said they would. It appears the only “leader” of the House Republicans is someone who voted against the Bill along with many others because they all got their feelings hurt by an ill-timed partisan speech. Congress is no place for the emotionally deprived, short-sighted, thin-skinned advocate for the PEOPLE!

Gaye Stathis has it right. This is not an issue that is going to ding Wall Street bankers and leave everyone else unscathed. It does not work like that.
If the banks fail, money slows down. People will not get paid. Companies will cull their workforces because they no longer have the funds to make payroll. People will massively curtail their budgets, to try and stay solvent. The businesses that have fired much of their staff will then be faced with even LESS money coming in, as consumers stop showing up.
This is familiar, this is how a depression works. How people have somehow gotten fooled into thinking that rejecting a bailout will result in “justice”, ie defaulted mortgage-holders and evil bankers getting turned out of their homes, while the guy who saved his money wisely gets to stay put — this is NOT how things work, at all.
I’m starting to think that the past few decades have not only made people unwilling to make sacrifices to improve the country’s situation, but that large portions of the population are now incapable of thinking of personal sacrifice and patriotism in the same concept.
Are the American public no longer able to make reasoned decisions and accept that sometimes the less attractive choice, the one that is less personally advantageous, might just be the necessary one?

“Even during this crisis – democrarts tried to add ACORN crap.”

sad sad sad.. the socialists (once known as Democrats)have hood winked us again, they have lied,& deceived us one time two many,the CEO’s of freddy and fanny should be held accountable, along with the socialist politicians who received large sums of campaign money

“I fear that if Obama is elected we will be going straight from the frying pan directly into the fire.”

The job of the majority leader in the House is to pass legislation. Period. So of course this failure belongs to Nancy Pelosi.
It’s obvious that Pelosi not only failed to pass the bailout, but she did everything possible to derail it for partisan political purposes.
If the market crisis is truly as dire as the “experts” claim, then why did she, Harry Reid and the Democrats spend so much time playing politics, shifting blame, trying to pad the bill with earmarks and slush funds for ACORN and other left-wing allies, and disrupting the negotiations? And then when the bill failed…she, Barney Frank and the rest went out on national TV and CRACKED JOKES.
Either Pelosi and the Democrats were so blinded by partisan hatred and childish spite that they were incapable of reaching across the aisle in a time of national crisis…or they intended that the bill should fail and the crisis continue so they can exploit it for political gain. There is no other alternative.
Assuming, of course, that the crisis is truly that bad, and the whole bailout isn’t simply an attempt to let Wall Street fat cats off the hook for their greed…and Congressional Democrats off the hook for their stupidity.

Oh now we want to talk about the democrats? I mean house republicans did not like this plan from the word “bailout”. just to make the task a bit harder for Boehner they were ignored on negotiations till McCain came to town. Then their idea of insurance (to limit the exposure of taxpayers) was not even put into the bill as a requirement, they were called unpatriotic because democrats did not tell them of a meeting (supposedly on accident), and then the cherry on top was Pelosi spitting in their eyes.
Yet where were democrats even trying to get the bill passed? What was it, 5 committee chairs voted against it? Vulnerable democrats were told they didn’t have to vote for it. There was no whipping of votes what so ever and thats backed up by Clyburn (as Pelosi never told him to). Obama’s co-chair voted against it. obama himself by his own admission did nothing at all to help the bill pass and it seems his only involvement was to spring the ambush on house Republicans at the white house meeting. He never called any republicans, he never even called any wavering democrats.
If the democrats think its so important, perhaps they should act like it.

“I believe that the market will get over this initial shock that the corporate bailout plan did not go through, and that it will recover.”

Barney Frank, Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, and Obama were warned many times about the inherent dangers in Fannie and Freddie. They had lovers and campaign lenders in the these companies and conflict of interest was rampant. The press gave them a free ride because the risk seemed low enough. But now we know these companies as Fannie May I and Freddie Cruger for what they have done to our country. Pelosi says Dems bare no responsibility. She’s either a lunatic or a liar. You be the judge

What if voting down the bailout bill was the right thing to do? What if partisan politicians actually saved us from worse mistakes?
But what if the bailout, as originally proposed and in its latest incarnation, would spend $700 billion of taxpayers’ money and actually make the economy worse? Believe it or not, there is good evidence this may happen. The inflationary prospects of the bailout price tag may lead to spikes in oil and crop prices that could hit ordinary Americans in their cars and on their kitchen tables. And government purchases of financial assets could ironically further constrain credit through causing write-downs on even the balance sheets of financial firms not participating in the bailout by worsening the effects of mark-to-market accounting rules.
An Associated Press story paraphrases American Enterprise Institute scholar Vincent Reinhart, a former Federal Reserve monetary affairs director, as saying that “if the auctions set too low a price for mortgage-related assets, other institutions with bad debt may be forced to take the distressed valuation onto their books under mark-to-market accounting rules.” Similarly a Washington Post story by financial reporter Neil Irwin says that the purchase could force more regional banks to write their assets down. Thus, regional banks as well as big banks will be subject to credit constraints.

Mark-to-Market
“Because the mark-to-market rules require writedowns of even performing loans based on the last sale of similar assets, good banks holding mortgages that haven’t been impaired often have to adjust their books based on another bank’s sale — even if they plan to hold their loans to maturity. And because the rules are tied to solvency requirements from the government’s bank regulators, banks lose “regulatory capital,” even if the loss is only on paper. Thus, in the scramble to conserve capital, financial firms have less money to lend.”
Mark-to Market is a post-Enron cure, Freddie and Fannie are a low income home ownerships cure. Congress has created many more Enrons with its cures. Seems Congress should get out of the healing business.
Is it possible that this bailout an incompetent Treasury Secretary’s over reaction when he sees his own portfolio spilling blood? After all Leahman Brothers CEO was reduced from a billionaire to a 50-millionaire when Treasury refused to bail it.

12 of 37 Democrats on Barney Frank’s own committee voted against the package & he has the gall to call out Republicans?
Pelosi announces a meeting for leaders only then gets on TV to call the Republicans who were not invited unpatriotic.
Peolsi is willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of her fellow citizens’ jobs in a down economy to make political points and the uncurious mainstream media lets her get away with it.

“Why then didn’t she press her own troops on board?”

“12 of 37 Democrats on Barney Frank’s own committee voted against the package & he has the gall to call out Republicans?”

Pelosi stated early on, and didn’t hide the fact, that this bill would have to be bipartisan. Meaning that it would be voted in by a majority of Democrats and Republicans. That the bill wasn’t even coming up for a vote until this was assured.
Well, as we can see, one side delivered.
Whether you agree with the bill or not, you have to put the blame (or credit) on the Republicans for this one. And that includes Bush, who has lost so much credibility that when he cries out “crises” no one, including his own party, believes him.

“And that includes Bush, who has lost so much credibility that when he cries out “crises” no one, including his own party, believes him.”

Maybe the Democrats, if there are any left, should put impeachment BACK “on the table”, before Bush seizes the Treasury in some “emergency” move.

The blame is on the Republicans? Step away from the koolaid.
Dodd and Frank, and Obama through ACORN caused the mess to begin with. Doesn’t matter if you want to banter that point or just plain lie, it’s registered fact. NOW to get out of the mess they made, they want Republicans to vote with them, why? Because they don’t want to put their at risk democrats in a precarious situation on election day. Now, you tell me, what’s NON PARTISAN about that? AND WHY should Republicans put themselves on the block to help assure that the democrats don’t lose any on election day? I think your koolaid is spiked.

So let’s see:
- Pelosi brings the bill to a vote, yet no speaker does that unless they know they have the votes beforehand.
- She has at least five different Democratic committee chairman vote no and at least 12 Democrats on Frank’s committee vote no.
- More than 90 Democrats in total vote no. ALL of them are in tight races or traditional Republican districts.
- The bill fails, and when Republicans tried to ask for extended time to twist some arms the Democrats, INCLUDING BARNEY FRANK, screamed for “Regular Order”, meaning no special cirumstances should be allowed. Pelosi agreed, closing the vote.
Conclusion: Pelosi did not want the bill to pass. Why? A poor economy is good for Obama, that’s why. Simultaneously she made Bush look like an even bigger fool (if that’s possible) and blamed the poor economy on House Republicans. Pelosi is willing to send the country headlong into a depression as long as it makes Obama look good. Democrats, what has happened to the party of JFK?

“Pelosi is willing to send the country headlong into a depression as long as it makes Obama look good. Democrats, what has happened to the party of JFK?”

Who is going to pay for foreclosure workouts. Not the taxpayer stupid! The voters will not allow that. Just like we won’t pay for a wall street bailout.

A Republican caused bill? Who, back in the 90′s, decided it would be “nice” to allow lenders to loosen up requirements for loans? Do the names Barney Franks, Maxine Watters, Chris Dodd, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc. come to mind? Your party thought it would be a grand idea to let people, who couldn’t afford it, to get home loans and not worry about paying it back. In the name of “fairness”. You guys brought this mess on and now we all have to clean it up. Repeal the CRA and hopefully banks will be able to stop giving loans to people who can’t pay for them.

The Congressional Black Caucus overwhelmingly voted “no” on the bill, effectively killing it! Where was Obama’s leadership? The CBC has been virulently following and supporting Obama. They will do everything Obama tells them to do. But Obama DIDN’T get the CBC to vote for the bailout bill. Why is that? Could it be because the more people who get destroyed financially, the better it is for Obama. You can only conclude that Obama didn’t want this bill to pass because he benefits politically from the economic collapse.

I’m surprised to see even official party media asking why the Dems didn’t get this done. Questioning their masters? So brave!

It was a bad bill. The GOP would have done better to have said they wouldn’t vote for a flawed bill, instead of whining about Pelosi.
This was in the bill:
SEC. 202. INCREASED FLEXIBILITY FOR THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD TO ESTABLISH RESERVE REQUIREMENTS.
Section 19(b)(2)(A) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 461(b)(2)(A)) is amended–
(1) in clause (i), by striking `the ratio of 3 per centum’ and inserting `a ratio of not greater than 3 percent (and which may be zero)’; and
(2) in clause (ii), by striking `and not less than 8 per centum,’ and inserting `(and which may be zero),’.
That means that each depository institution could maintain zero reserves against its transaction accounts, starting 10/1/2008.
Does that get your interest? It should.
There are many other provisions in this measure that I di not like, and my Dem Rep. in the House voted against this bill as well.
It was not a good bill.

“They have roused the drowsy beast of popular anger at last, and no one can say what might happen next. Probably nothing — or rather, more of the same, in some form or another. But still, it is good to see the icy beads of panic dotting the brows of elites who have inflicted and/or countenanced so much death, destruction, terror and degradation in the past few years.
“Today they have suffered a very rare defeat in the relentless, remorseless class war they have been waging against us for decades. And that it is something to celebrate — at least for one night.”
– Chris Floyd

there was a bipartisan consensus to vote NO! and a bipartisan leadership for wanting this bill come pass. it’s the fault of the leadership for not communicating to not only their respective partisan house members, but to the american people as to why it was so urgent to compromise and get this bill passed. mccain or obama should have faught more to encourage, but with obama he was AT LEAST correct as to not put himself into this mess because it would of caused a huge distraction as proven by mccain, hence maybe a LARGE part of the reason why this failed to go through the way it showed.

“why it was so urgent to compromise and get this bill passed”

McCain demonstrated, once again, his political courage by directly engaging in a personally risky effort to pass bi-partisan legislation wildly unpopular with the voters. Passage could only occur IF both he and Obama took equal hands-on roles, assuring at the same time that neither party pointed blame or claimed credit. He invited Obama to equally participate and Obama and the democrats said “no”, seeing it was to their partisan advantage to keep the economy roiling. Obama and his election first, the economy second.
The democrats are far, far more to blame for this sub-prime mortgage crisis than past republican presidents, the past republican congressional majority, or Bush. Yet, McCain said, “Fix the blame later, fix the problem now”. Obama, and Pelosi, using the Big Lie technique, sought a partisan advantage at all costs, whatever the economic fall-out. They blamed republicans for the crisis and signalled their latest campaign position. Perhaps the defeated bill was not the best option–maybe the next proposal will be much worse–but the opportunity for true bi-partisan effort may well have come and gone and with it our economy. Ironically, McCain takes a hit in the polls and Obama benefits.
When it comes to leadership, character, and courage, it looks like the voters are about to get what they deserve–a Congress led by the likes of Pelosi(two heartbeats away from the presidency)and Obama, who leads by the theory of “present” and unaccounted for.” May God help us all get through the next four years.

@ belle star…
the urgency is the fact that history DOES repeat itself when left ignored. all you have to do is read about how the “great depression” came into manifestation in the 1st place….it’s virtually identical to whut’s happening now and mostly due to the government ineffectiveness to calm the stock market. when the stock market crashed in 1929..it too slightly bounced back that next day, but it consistently spiraled a down trend like it’s going now with banks swallowed up and eventually forcing things that effected wallstreet affecting extreme hardships mainstreet and globally…it’s not going to be immediate, but a gradual fall out until everything is completely bleek.
we’re going into the same trend as back then and doing absolutely NOTHING is the worst thing to do….we have to come together and make some sort of compromise, and adjust the bill as it goes along….something is always better than nothing

“Pelosi allowed the 95 most-contested-races Dem members to vote against the bill … “

@ M BURKE
mccain, mistakenly, put himself out there for political points with nothing to show for it. by putting himself out there he became part of the distraction and adding on into this spin circus that’s going on right now.
obama, on the other hand was smart enough to stray away from the bargaining of the bill, because presidential politics in such a urgent situation as this one is always a no-no. with that said, obama has some fault with this because he could of done better in reaching his own constituents in making this deal work. this isn’t or suppose to be a republican deal or democratic deal, but a bipartisan deal because every american regardless of party affiliation are getting affected by this

That’s only one guy, but reportedly, Democrats were being told on the House floor that it was OK to vote “no”. 12 people on Barney Frank’s committee voted no, and Frank reportedly did nothing to change their minds. A news story today stated that most of those voting “no” were in vulnerable districts.
This vote was a setup to make Republicans look bad. Pelosi wanted total buy-in from the Republicans, but Democrats were given a pass. Pelosi didn’t care about passing the economic relief bill.
Barack Obama apparently did nothing to get this passed. There were several Representatives from Illinois that he is close to who voted “no”.

Is this arguing about who is to blame for setting the ship’s course while the Titanic continues to steam toward disaster? If the politicans are currently so engaged, do we citizens and voters have to be? Is yesterday’s news more important now than tomorrow’s solution? What is the best idea out there to go along with, like it or not?

“… the Titanic continues to steam toward disaster?”

@ george,
that’s right…obama SHOULD have done more even his own people, jesse jackson jr., who works in his campaign voted no!
with that said, mccain had NOBODY from arizona supporting this bill, and whut’s so said is that mccain was under MORE pressure than obama in trying to get people together to get this bill passed as proof of his “leadership” and even his campaign yesterday was claiming “victory” for reaching an agreement before it got rejected…then flipped flopped stating he NEVER wanted this bill passed while in the meantime mccain all this morning is stating the exact opposite.
sometimes keeping your distance is a GOOD thing….this is something the house of representatives have to no without any outside interference

The cause of these problems is that the government, via the Community Reinvestment Act, enouraged Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac etc. to make loans to people who couldn’t afford to pay them back, particularly poor minorities. The goal was to increase home ownership, but it obviously doesn’t do anybody a favor to have banks lending out money to people who can’t pay the mortgage.
This is not a failure of the free markets. This is a failure of the government. And, as far as I can see, there’s nothing in the Paulson plan that will alleviate the problem. If Congress comes up with another bad plan, it will be voted down again. Most Americans are against the plan so there’s a definite disadvantage to anyone in congress who’s voting for it.

C’mon, Eyedoc. You’re making everyone who reads this page dumber. please note that neither Fannie Mae nor Freddie Mac originate loans. Further, most (probably closer to all, but I don’t have the numbers handy) of sub-prime mortgages sold in the last 10 years were sold by institutions who are not subject to the CRA.
The bottom line is mortgage-backed securities were big money-makers, and you can’t sell mortgage-backed securities if you don’t have mortgages to bundle together. This is a case of pure, unfettered, short-term driven capitalism collapsing in on itself. Which was brought on by a) real estate prices leveling off, then falling, b) a decrease in disposable income, in part because of c) an increase in inflation, and d) an increase in unemployment.
The sudden “crisis” actually started in 2005. But now that its affecting the banks and brokerages who have been whistling merrily on their way to their doom for the past 3 years, the federal government (a wholly owned subsidiary of those banks and brokerages) is trying to hustle their way out.

Raising the FDIC limit is a red herring. It will only affect people who have more than $100,000 on deposit in a single FDIC institution. If you have over $100,000 on deposit (probably less than 1% of the population) and you’re dumb enough to put all of it in the same account (probably less than 0.1% of that 1%), you might be talking about 3 out of 300,000,000 Americans that raising the FDIC limit would affect.
Is this what passes for ‘governing’ these days? I’m genuinely afraid that we’ll get the government we deserve. <:(

With some banks failing and others being bought up it should be obvious that we are in a period of consolidation in the financial industry. This can create a lot of uncertainty with depositors…my mother is a perfect example. She is 73 and widowed living on SS and the interest on a few 100k CD’s in different banks. If one bank is bought up by another and she has a CD in both she is no longer protected fully.
Raising the limit is one way of adding some confidence and may stem sum large depositers from making large withdrawals making our banking problem worse. Once again, Will, and other Liberal Democrats who think like him haven’t a clue.

Jon, re: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lowering their standards. Isn’t that exactly what conservatives wanted to accomplish by loosening/eliminating regulations?
Again, it was great when everybody was making money on mortgage-backed securities, and homeowners could refinance over and over again because the price of their home was going up 5% (or more) every year.
Also, I don’t have any objection to raising the FDIC limit. It just seems a little bit like the ‘proper tire pressure will lower gas prices’ argument. It won’t hurt, but if the problem is a crunch in the credit market, more insurance on deposit accounts is not a solution.

do you people just like to hear the sound of your voice? Most of us have a horse in this race-a 401 K, a pension plan or something that ties us to the market-go ahead and shoot yourself in the other foot so you can be completely crippled-WE lost over a trillion dollars in the stock market yesterday-As much as I hate to bail anyone else out-we are also bailing ourselves out you numb nuts-you and you and you –can be the next in line to lose your job-businesses are falling like rocks daily-this thing is just getting more disaserous every day-while these idiots posture all over washington-Get it DONE!!!

the meme is that the stock market lost a “trillion dollars” the day after because the bailout failed to go thru yet a “rescue plan” of 700 billion dollars was supposed to make a difference..
now listen carefully ..no bailout of only $700 billion CAUSED a TRILLION dollar loss in A SINGLE DAY ..how does that even begin to make sense..