Shall we just suspend the Constitution because those trying to sell the bill couldn’t get 50% to vote for it?

Surely 435-0 would have been even more assuring to the nation.

One wonders why we even bother with this inconvenient voting thing anyway.

Once the “rescue” is law, there will be no more leverage. The street will crank up again and go back to business as usual. Sure, the MBS game is over, but a new game will start. CDS is too big a game to be stopped. No underlying causes will be fixed because without an overwhelming crisis, money will talk again.

The time to do something fundamental is now. What we need is leadership, but there is little to be found. If you tune out the government, the street, and the MSM you can just make out a few lone voices in the wilderness with ideas, but no seat at the table.

We’ll, of course, squander the chance. They’ve already “temporarily” caved on mark-to-market accounting rules (so the unreasonably low valuations can now be unreasonably high again). Who thinks that won’t be permanent?

They’re saying, stop the bleeding and fix the causes later. But there will be no later. Any more than there was after the S&L “rescue”. The country will simply be $1-2T further in the hole.

But the mess in our credit markets really is the result of laissez faire capitalism, and its champion, Ronald Reagan. Now we are seeing the bankrupt result of a bankrupt philosophy.

The idea that the bill failed because people were upset at Pelosi’s speech is so preposterous it’s almost laughable.

The bill failed, IMO, because:

1) it was marketed as a bailout. Paulsen went to Congress in a panic because the credit markets froze. THAT is the real problem. And today, the credit markets are still frozen. There were a couple of days last week when people were willing to take a return of LESS than zero percent on TBills! Think about that. Anyone who thinks the credit markets can stay frozen without having a disastrous impact on the economy as a whole is either uninformed or a demagogue.

2) Because of the initial errors in describing the crisis, Joe Citizen thinks the $700 billion is going straight into the pockets of those who created the crisis. Under Paulsen’t initial plan, that might have been true, but much of that was changed.

3) The Democrats delivered 2/3 of their caucus. It would have been political suicide for them to deliver any more votes without at least 50% of the Republicans. If you don’t believe that, take a look at the ad the RNC sent out to TV stations before the bill failed. It castigates Obama for voting for the bill ! The Republicans are far more concerned about turning this into a “win” for their party than they are about getting the country going again. That’s not to say that some Dems aren’t politicking as well, but the numbers on the vote speak for themselves.

I think it’s telling that retiring House members voted for the measure 23-2.

To try and make political hay with a deal on the line is extremely irresponsible for someone who is two heartbeats away from the Presidency.

As I said, I agree with you that if someone changed their vote because of Pelosi (and not their feelings on the bill) is very irresponsible.

I think it was a bit of both, I think the Whip was off and some Republicans changed late.

That said, if this is as important as both sides claim, why do you even allow folks to vote no? Isn’t that just as irresponsible? Wouldn’t a 400-35 AYE vote be more assuring to the nation than a 250-185 AYE vote? Why take the risk? So those in tight races can play politics with the issue?

The whole deal stinks and how both parties are dealing with it stinks. Heck, on the morning news there was a D on that talked about how it was all the Rs fault and that we need to quit placing blame and being partisan. Huh? Pot, Kettle.

Either the Republicans intentionally sabotaged the bill or their whip count was way way off when the measure came up for a vote.

Obama and Pelosi did not influence ‘loyal’ Democrats to support the bill.

I just think the failed one had huge downside risks (almost certainties), with negligible upside. It would almost certainly not do what was hoped, but would almost certainly make things worse.

It would’ve been like putting $700 billion into a black hole, never to be seen again. Likely, it would’ve only inflated the commodities markets a bit.

A real plan would look something like this:

http://www.michaelalanmiller.com/?p=814