Comments:US House of Representatives rejects bail out bill in vote
Question One: Should the bill have passed? / Question Two: Why didn't the bill pass?
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
I never thought in a million years that a Liberal congress wouldn't let a Conservative bill pass!!! Wow, all this sarcasm is killing me... --22.214.171.124 18:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Odd, the bill was not liberal or conservative, just bad. Members of the House, whether Democratic or Republican, voted against it because they believed they were putting their constituent's interest ahead of Wall Street. It's not a surprise why many people believe that our government (Democratic and Republican party members alike) is owned by corporations. b t 18:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- The irony to your comment is the fact that over 60% of the Democrats voted for the bill (had it been up to them, it would have passed). The reason it failed was because of the Republicans, not the "Liberals". Jade Knight (talk) 07:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
It is impossible to place the blame on one party or another - the bill simply failed to meet the expectations of many congressmen on BOTH sides of the aisle. 700 billion dollars is nothing to juggle around carelessly, and while all of our congressmen surely understand this, they also understand that the bill is flawed in its current state. The bailout plan certainly needs to be revisited, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
It,s unsuprising that congress voted down what was essentially adding 700 billion to te deficit. I belive the bill probably should have passed, but it failed because Congress was, understandably, nervous.--Ipatrol (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
No, this bill should not have passed. It is not a government responsibility to be involved in private industry failures. It is time for the markets to make the proper adjustments. This vote affects my retirement and I am retirement age, however we will be a stronger economy because we did not provide an artificial solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
if it is passed there would be a surge in global financial markets tomorrow. but if it is passed, it would be irrational and illogical in rewarding the fat cats .
it was not passed because of the mounting pressure of the people on their representatives not to pass it. they did not want to bail out the business houses at the cost of tax payers' money.----geyamala
“We the People” understand the economic situation our country faces today and tomorrow. We need leadership in this time of stress and uncertainty. We are Americans and believe as our founding fathers prescribed… Limited Government. The USA is a democratic-republic, not a socialist state. We believe in the Capitalist System with no or extremely limited government interference. The bill failed because the will of the people prevailed. If it doesn't kill you IT will make you stronger!
to whom reelection ma be a concern your #REDIRECT[[#REDIRECTRedirected to]]no vote was a very bad choice............ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Shock to me
Well Bush is a republican. I am surprised to see that the majority of republicans voted against the bill and democrats for. Usually its the other way around. I am glad it did not pass. Wallstreet does not deserve the money I earn every day at my job. They already steal enough of it as it is. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
It is beyond comprehension that the elected members of Congress would put their own selfish agendas ahead of the nation they are supposed to be serving. Rest assured, this completely irresponsible act will get you NO votes!!! Thanks to all of you, people are loosing their life savings, pensions & shortly to come their jobs since their companies can no longer funtion. Just how many people do you think are going to happy then that you voted 'NO' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Horrid proposal. The government buying all the bad assets of these large corporations is only going to make for a government in as bad shape as these corporations as well as freeing these corporations to repeat the same mistakes they have to get us to this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I am glad this didnt pass, If this would have passed then the government could have bought out wall street and turned the US into a communist country. Just like when they wanted to make a North American Currency —Ub3rst4r (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
"The bipartisan economic rescue plan addresses the root cause of the financial crisis -- the assets related to home mortgages that have lost value during the housing decline." Funny, I thought it had something to do with banks giving away money they couldn't have reasonably expected to get back (even when they were in huge amounts) of debt and generally just throwing money around. Kind of like what this plan is doing, considering the deficit.
"I know many Americans are worried about the cost of the bill, and I understand their concern. This bill commits up to 700 billion taxpayer dollars, because a large amount of money is necessary to have an impact on our financial system. However, both the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget expect that the ultimate cost to the taxpayer will be far less than that". I really don't think he does understand (or just doesn't care), because no matter what happens to the financial institutions, the government has enough debt as it is, and if they don't break it even would be terrible. So much for the free market. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smackdat (talk • contribs) 12:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
"...both the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget expect that the ultimate cost to the taxpayer will be far less than that." The Bush administration also thought that the "war on terror" would be over within six months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank *Insert deity here*
Hearing that this bill did not pass allows me to breathe easier. The mere fact that this was being proposed served to the stupidity of our government (my own opinion) but the rejection of such a bill is proof otherwise. It did not even remotely address the situation, which was that the banks actually made a poor business move, in making such high risk loans, and to bail themselves out of the money they lost, foreclosing the house that the money bought, on an already dying house market. Personal opinion on this is that if anything remotely related to this bill should pass, it is that we should bail out the people of the 700 billion dollars in debt we are. Not the companies. Also, I'm a Freshmen college student, and though this might have no direct impact on me for the next few years, it still infuriated me