So after 8 years off Bush...less than 30 days of Obama it's the republicans who are being responsible and it's the democrats who are screwing the pooch?

HA HA HA

WOW

The republican administration that nationalized banks, handed working peoples money to Wall Street, blew through our budget surpluses, borrowed money from China, increased the size of government to obscene levels and created a debt it will take generations to recover from they are your fiscally responsible heroes for voting no as a group?

Knowing full well the measure would pass this was nothing but a political move.

What a bright and shining bunch of idiots we have here responding to it too.

The fake partisanship/tribalism just about makes me ill.

It's both sides causing all this trouble, the standing up and voting no that the GOP did is just to create more of the divide and conquer mentality that has this country so at odds with itself... and in denial about whats really going on here.

after 8 years off Bush / The republican administration that nationalized banks, handed working peoples money to Wall Street

Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution says...

The Congress shall have the Power to collect taxes...NOT THE PRESIDENT !!...

HA HA HA

Some peoples ability to lie to themselves is just amazing.

Or is it believing the lies of others...

I'd do her !...and...vote for her !...at the same time even...

ummmmmmm...If I remember correctly...those right wing nuts...controlled Congress when the budget was finally balanced...[ 6 of the 8 years Clinton was in office ]...afterall...isn't the Congress who determines what can and cannot be spent...If Bush failed anywhere...it was the fact that he didn't veto those bloated bills...but...at the same time he was trying to fund the war...so...he was in somewhat of a Catch 22...

well...I do love to fish...lol...largemouth bass is my specialty...by the way welcome aboard...It's good to have another voice of reason and opposition...

Foreclosure Phil

NEWS: Years before Phil Gramm was a McCain campaign adviser and a lobbyist for a Swiss bank at the center of the housing credit crisis, he pulled a sly maneuver in the Senate that helped create today's subprime meltdown.

By David Corn

July/August 2008 Issue

Who's to blame for the biggest financial catastrophe of our time? There are plenty of culprits, but one candidate for lead perp is former Sen. Phil Gramm. Eight years ago, as part of a decades-long anti-regulatory crusade, Gramm pulled a sly legislative maneuver that greased the way to the multibillion-dollar subprime meltdown. Yet has Gramm been banished from the corridors of power? Reviled as the villain who bankrupted Middle America? Hardly. Now a well-paid executive at a Swiss bank, Gramm cochairs Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign and advises the Republican candidate on economic matters. He's been mentioned as a possible Treasury secretary should McCain win. That's right: A guy who helped screw up the global financial system could end up in charge of US economic policy. Talk about a market failure.

Gramm's long been a handmaiden to Big Finance. In the 1990s, as chairman of the Senate banking committee, he routinely turned down Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Arthur Levitt's requests for more money to police Wall Street; during this period, the sec's workload shot up 80 percent, but its staff grew only 20 percent. Gramm also opposed an sec rule that would have prohibited accounting firms from getting too close to the companies they audited—at one point, according to Levitt's memoir, he warned the sec chairman that if the commission adopted the rule, its funding would be cut. And in 1999, Gramm pushed through a historic banking deregulation bill that decimated Depression-era firewalls between commercial banks, investment banks, insurance companies, and securities firms—setting off a wave of merger mania.

But Gramm's most cunning coup on behalf of his friends in the financial services industry—friends who gave him millions over his 24-year congressional career—came on December 15, 2000. It was an especially tense time in Washington. Only two days earlier, the Supreme Court had issued its decision on Bush v. Gore. President Bill Clinton and the Republican-controlled Congress were locked in a budget showdown. It was the perfect moment for a wily senator to game the system. As Congress and the White House were hurriedly hammering out a $384-billion omnibus spending bill, Gramm slipped in a 262-page measure called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. Written with the help of financial industry lobbyists and cosponsored by Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the chairman of the agriculture committee, the measure had been considered dead—even by Gramm. Few lawmakers had either the opportunity or inclination to read the version of the bill Gramm inserted. "Nobody in either chamber had any knowledge of what was going on or what was in it," says a congressional aide familiar with the bill's history.

It's not exactly like Gramm hid his handiwork—far from it. The balding and bespectacled Texan strode onto the Senate floor to hail the act's inclusion into the must-pass budget package. But only an expert, or a lobbyist, could have followed what Gramm was saying. The act, he declared, would ensure that neither the sec nor the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (cftc) got into the business of regulating newfangled financial products called swaps—and would thus "protect financial institutions from overregulation" and "position our financial services industries to be world leaders into the new century."

It didn't quite work out that way. For starters, the legislation contained a provision—lobbied for by Enron, a generous contributor to Gramm—that exempted energy trading from regulatory oversight, allowing Enron to run rampant, wreck the California electricity market, and cost consumers billions before it collapsed. (For Gramm, Enron was a family affair. Eight years earlier, his wife, Wendy Gramm, as cftc chairwoman, had pushed through a rule excluding Enron's energy futures contracts from government oversight. Wendy later joined the Houston-based company's board, and in the following years her Enron salary and stock income brought between $915,000 and $1.8 million into the Gramm household.)

But the Enron loophole was small potatoes compared to the devastation that unregulated swaps would unleash. Credit default swaps are essentially insurance policies covering the losses on securities in the event of a default. Financial institutions buy them to protect themselves if an investment they hold goes south. It's like bookies trading bets, with banks and hedge funds gambling on whether an investment (say, a pile of subprime mortgages bundled into a security) will succeed or fail. Because of the swap-related provisions of Gramm's bill—which were supported by Fed chairman Alan Greenspan and Treasury secretary Larry Summers—a $62 trillion market (nearly four times the size of the entire US stock market) remained utterly unregulated, meaning no one made sure the banks and hedge funds had the assets to cover the losses they guaranteed.

In essence, Wall Street's biggest players (which, thanks to Gramm's earlier banking deregulation efforts, now incorporated everything from your checking account to your pension fund) ran a secret casino. "Tens of trillions of dollars of transactions were done in the dark," says University of San Diego law professor Frank Partnoy, an expert on financial markets and derivatives. "No one had a picture of where the risks were flowing." Betting on the risk of any given transaction became more important—and more lucrative—than the transactions themselves, Partnoy notes: "So there was more betting on the riskiest subprime mortgages than there were actual mortgages." Banks and hedge funds, notes Michael Greenberger, who directed the cftc's division of trading and markets in the late 1990s, "were betting the subprimes would pay off and they would not need the capital to support their bets."

These unregulated swaps have been at "the heart of the subprime meltdown," says Greenberger. "I happen to think Gramm did not know what he was doing. I don't think a member in Congress had read the 262-page bill or had thought of the cataclysm it would cause." In 1998, Greenberger's division at the cftc proposed applying regulations to the burgeoning derivatives market. But, he says, "all hell broke loose. The lobbyists for major commercial banks and investment banks and hedge funds went wild. They all wanted to be trading without the government looking over their shoulder."

Now, belatedly, the feds are swooping in—but not to regulate the industry, only to bail it out, as they did in engineering the March takeover of investment banking giant Bear Stearns by JPMorgan Chase, fearing the firm's collapse could trigger a dominoes-like crash of the entire credit derivatives market.

No one in Washington apologizes for anything, so it's no surprise that Gramm has failed to issue any mea culpa. Post-Enron, says Greenberger, the senator even called him to say, "You're going around saying this was my fault—and it's not my fault. I didn't intend this."

Whether or not Gramm had bothered to ponder the potential downsides of his commodities legislation, having helped set off an industry free-for-all, he reaped the rewards. In 2003, he left the Senate to take a highly lucrative job at ubs, Switzerland's largest bank, which had been able to acquire investment house PaineWebber due to his banking deregulation bill. He would soon be lobbying Congress, the Fed, and the Treasury Department for ubs on banking and mortgage matters. There was a moment of poetic justice when ubs became one of the subprime crisis' top losers, writing down $37 billion as of this spring—an amount equal to its previous four years of profits combined. In a report explaining how it had managed to mess up so grandly, ubs noted that two-thirds of its losses were the fault of collateralized debt obligations—securities backed largely by subprime instruments—and that credit default swaps had been "key to the growth" of its out-of-control cdo business. (Gramm declined to comment for this article.)

Gramm's record as a reckless deregulator has not affected his rating as a Republican economic expert. Sen. John McCain has relied on him for policy advice, especially, according to the campaign, on housing matters. The two have been buddies ever since they served together in the House in the 1980s; in 1996, McCain chaired Gramm's flop of a presidential campaign. (Gramm spent $21 million and earned only 10 delegates during the gop primaries.) In 2005, McCain told a Wall Street Journal columnist that Gramm was his economic guru. Two years later, Gramm wrote a piece for the Journal extolling McCain as a modern-day Abraham Lincoln, and he's hailed McCain's love of tax cuts and free trade. Media accounts have identified Gramm as a contender for the top slot at the Treasury Department if McCain reaches the White House. "If McCain gets in," frets Lynn Turner, a former chief sec accountant, "we'll have more of the same deregulatory mess. I like John McCain, but given what I know about Phil Gramm, I wouldn't vote for McCain."

As a thriving bank exec and presidential adviser, Gramm has defied a prime economic principle: Bad products are driven out of the market. In John McCain, he has gained an important customer, so his stock has gone up in value. And there's no telling when the Gramm bubble will burst.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/07/foreclosure-phil.html

I hope all is well with you...

Where were Republicans when Bush Jr. and Cheney were shoveling out boatloads of cash to their corporate buddies in the form of tax breaks and other giveaways?

Cheney was still getting money from Halliburton while he was handing out plum contracts to them that no one else got to bid on.

Where were the cries of 'restraint' then?

I guess we all know the answer to that!

This was the sole reason. Not becuase it would be good for the country and its people, but becuase its good politics, pathetic.

I was curious and had to look up why they voted against it. I found

* $600 Million To Buy New Cars For Government Workers\. These cars would be "green" friendly cars - however very few gas pumps have the right gas to run these cars. The Federal government already spends $3.5 billion a year.

* $10M for bike and walking trails

* $200M for plug-in car stations

* $400 million for NASA scientists to conduct climate change research

* $800 million to clean up Superfund

* $600 million for grants for diesel emission reduction

* $650 million for "alternative energy technologies, energy efficiency enhancements and deferred maintenance at Federal facilities"

* $1.5 billion for construction of "Green Schools"


* $2.7B in NIH grants which would be targeted to among other things embryonic stem cell experimentation.


* $75 million for smoking cessation This contradicts the latest version of SCHIP that is funded largely by new taxes on cigarettes.

* $4.19 billion open to ACORN. The Pelosi-Reid bill makes groups like ACORN eligible for a $4.19 billion pot of money for "neighborhood stabilization activities."

* $54 billion will go to federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as "ineffective" or unable to pass basic financial audits.

* $462 Million for Equipment, Construction, and Renovation of Facilities at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)

* $150 Million for Repairs to Smithsonian Institution Facilities

* $44 million to the Agricultural Research Service

* $227 million for oversight of the pork barrel spending in the stimulus

* $1 Billion for The Follow-Up To The 2010 Census


a lot of worthy items in there. BUT the spending to rescue the economy is not the place to fund em

It was a total shot at the democrats, actually. It pretty much was a "this is how it is written. take it or leave it" situation.

The irony is that the liberals declare the republicans un-american and against bipartisanship for voting against a bill that is against every conservative economic principle. It's completely ignorant. I align with Reagan (maybe even more right) fiscally and think every venture into the marketplace by the government is uncalled for and unnecessary. The conservative economic model is a free marketplace where it essentially heals itself in a secure manner. not this bailout crap where it creates a few million jobs for a few years then they all disappear.

i've said it a million times but bailing out the economy like this just perpetuates losing ideologies. Every economy has ups and downs. The problem lies in the technology boom of the 1990s under Clinton and the boom we experienced in the mid 2000s under W. Both resulted in good times spending and very little restraint on the part of both government and the private sector. Unfortunately, that lack of restraint put us in the situation we are in today.

If the government keeps their damn hands out of it, eventually, the banks that did well buy out the losers and rebuild, restructure, and rise again. Same with companies on wall street. That is the nature of a capitalist free market. those at the top fall, the next down take over, and the cycle begins anew. no other form of economy is self-healing in that manner.

yeah, there are those that will not have jobs in the meantime. yeah, there are those that will lose their homes. yeah, some will go hungry. that is the nature of life. nobody ever said it was fair or easy. you make the best with what you have. just because you exist does not mean you're entitled to anything.

I personally applaud the repubs for their vote, whether it be a political statement or not. it's exactly what I would have done and thus far, any further failure of this bill (because the last stimulus and bailout worked soooooo well) will entirely rest on the democrats' shoulders.


No matter what the outcome, I hope the one thing people get out of this is to realize that what goes up must come down sometime. maybe next time we should save a bit more from the up to lessen the impact of the down.

That and maybe the idea that socialist principles obviously do not create long-term stability and growth. That's more a dream than anything.

The budget was never balanced. they "borrowed" billions from social security and other funds in order to make the bottom line work. if you check our national debt, it still rose every year clinton was in office. the surplus crap was nothing but fun with numbers.

*EDIT* that is, total national debt, no just that to external sources.

take a look at where the money was going--it's posted above you. There were a few, maybe, long-term future good things on there, but most of it was pork spending, none of that necessary for the economy. And even the long-term projects won't help the shape we're in right now.

Maybe in three or so years, you may get more cross-party voting when the economy starts moving back up and we have the money to spend on parks, for example. But this is about principles, not who the guy is who's going to sign it in. However, for us conservatists, it was a pretty good laugh, I must say.. A bonus, you could call it)

So, again, read thru the list of what was on the bill and let us know which things are vital to stimulating the economy.

why would they say yes anyway. first they have no power, second they wasted enough money over the last 8 years.

EXACTLY what I thought when all the racists and sheeple elected the biggest liar in history. Barry had Bush beat before he was even elected, but none of those morons cared what the end result was, just that they got to vote "black". Now THAT was sickening, the way they rejoiced, paraded and flaunted their racist hate.

Gee...the op mentioned the vote in the house. This is not the end of the process and is far from the final word on the subject.

I look forward to the republicans coming out with their happy a$$ spin on this when the bill emerges in it's final form almost as much as I look forward to reading some posters comment on the final bill and the republican spin.


If you are acquainted with the mechanism for making law you will know that of course. However for those of you who do not know there's some useful info below.

I highly recommend Project Vote Smart to all posters here. Especially those that seem to have a less than firm grasp on the workings of government. Isn't civics a required course anymore?


A.


Legislation is Introduced - Any member can introduce a piece of legislation

House - Legislation is handed to the clerk of the House or placed in the hopper.

Senate - Members must gain recognition of the presiding officer to announce the introduction of a bill during the morning hour. If any senator objects, the introduction of the bill is postponed until the next day.

* The bill is assigned a number. (e.g. HR 1 or S 1)
* The bill is labeled with the sponsor's name.
* The bill is sent to the Government Printing Office (GPO) and copies are made.
* Senate bills can be jointly sponsored.
* Members can cosponsor the piece of Legislation.

B.


Committee Action - The bill is referred to the appropriate committee by the Speaker of the House or the presiding officer in the Senate. Most often, the actual referral decision is made by the House or Senate parliamentarian. Bills may be referred to more than one committee and it may be split so that parts are sent to different committees. The Speaker of the House may set time limits on committees. Bills are placed on the calendar of the committee to which they have been assigned. Failure to act on a bill is equivalent to killing it. Bills in the House can only be released from committee without a proper committee vote by a discharge petition signed by a majority of the House membership (218 members).

Committee Steps:

1. Comments about the bill's merit are requested by government agencies.
2. Bill can be assigned to subcommittee by Chairman.
3. Hearings may be held.
4. Subcommittees report their findings to the full committee.
5. Finally there is a vote by the full committee - the bill is "ordered to be reported."
6. A committee will hold a "mark-up" session during which it will make revisions and additions. If substantial amendments are made, the committee can order the introduction of a "clean bill" which will include the proposed amendments. This new bill will have a new number and will be sent to the floor while the old bill is discarded. The chamber must approve, change or reject all committee amendments before conducting a final passage vote.
7. After the bill is reported, the committee staff prepares a written report explaining why they favor the bill and why they wish to see their amendments, if any, adopted. Committee members who oppose a bill sometimes write a dissenting opinion in the report. The report is sent back to the whole chamber and is placed on the calendar.
8. In the House, most bills go to the Rules committee before reaching the floor. The committee adopts rules that will govern the procedures under which the bill will be considered by the House. A "closed rule" sets strict time limits on debate and forbids the introduction of amendments. These rules can have a major impact on whether the bill passes. The rules committee can be bypassed in three ways: 1) members can move rules to be suspended (requires 2/3 vote)2) a discharge petition can be filed 3) the House can use a Calendar Wednesday procedure.

C.


Floor Action

1. Legislation is placed on the Calendar

House: Bills are placed on one of four House Calendars. They are usually placed on the calendars in the order of which they are reported yet they don't usually come to floor in this order - some bills never reach the floor at all. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader decide what will reach the floor and when. (Legislation can also be brought to the floor by a discharge petition.)

Senate: Legislation is placed on the Legislative Calendar. There is also an Executive calendar to deal with treaties and nominations. Scheduling of legislation is the job of the Majority Leader. Bills can be brought to the floor whenever a majority of the Senate chooses.

2. Debate

House: Debate is limited by the rules formulated in the Rules Committee. The Committee of the Whole debates and amends the bill but cannot technically pass it. Debate is guided by the Sponsoring Committee and time is divided equally between proponents and opponents. The Committee decides how much time to allot to each person. Amendments must be germane to the subject of a bill - no riders are allowed. The bill is reported back to the House (to itself) and is voted on. A quorum call is a vote to make sure that there are enough members present (218) to have a final vote. If there is not a quorum, the House will adjourn or will send the Sergeant at Arms out to round up missing members.

Senate: debate is unlimited unless cloture is invoked. Members can speak as long as they want and amendments need not be germane - riders are often offered. Entire bills can therefore be offered as amendments to other bills. Unless cloture is invoked, Senators can use a filibuster to defeat a measure by "talking it to death."

3. Vote - the bill is voted on. If passed, it is then sent to the other chamber unless that chamber already has a similar measure under consideration. If either chamber does not pass the bill then it dies. If the House and Senate pass the same bill then it is sent to the President. If the House and Senate pass different bills they are sent to Conference Committee. Most major legislation goes to a Conference Committee.

D.


Conference Committee

1. Members from each house form a conference committee and meet to work out the differences. The committee is usually made up of senior members who are appointed by the presiding officers of the committee that originally dealt with the bill. The representatives from each house work to maintain their version of the bill.
2. If the Conference Committee reaches a compromise, it prepares a written conference report, which is submitted to each chamber.
3. The conference report must be approved by both the House and the Senate.

E.


The President - the bill is sent to the President for review.

1. A bill becomes law if signed by the President or if not signed within 10 days and Congress is in session.
2. If Congress adjourns before the 10 days and the President has not signed the bill then it does not become law ("Pocket Veto.")
3. If the President vetoes the bill it is sent back to Congress with a note listing his/her reasons. The chamber that originated the legislation can attempt to override the veto by a vote of two-thirds of those present. If the veto of the bill is overridden in both chambers then it becomes law.

F.


The Bill Becomes A Law - once a bill is signed by the President or his veto is overridden by both houses it becomes a law and is assigned an official number.

http://www.votesmart.org/resource_govt101_02.php