>>>>>>>Nancy Pelosi says the Rs failed, but, as Sheppard Smith pointed out, the Ds have the votes to pass this thing, without the Rs. Then she wants to rail against the Rs for this mess, when the whole housing thing was brought about by the Ds forcing lending agencies to loan money to people who could not pay.....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Come on John. The Dems voted to pass it, and the Reps voted to kill it. If a mere 12 of the 133 Rep 'no' votes had been 'yes' votes, it would have passed. You can spin this any way you want, but the vote went the way it did and it's on record. I even see that Pelosi voted to pass it.
>>>>>
>>>>>What if 12 Dems voted yes? It comes to generics, Alan. Let's look at this board. As I see it, correct me if I am wrong, Democrats essentially supported the bill, and Republicans not. Would it be difficult to put your vote where your words are?
>>>>
>>>>???
>>>>
>>>>Dems supported it and Reps did not. Yes. That's exactly what I said. John wants to blame the Dems for not passing the bill, but it was the reps who overwhelmingly voted against it. What was it you thought I said?
>>>
>>>I understood your message clearly, Alan, and it was a wrong message, showing, hopefully, certain level of political naivety (don't mind, I know you).
>>>When a political party wants to put a bill through then it marches all members in strict order, very few can go against the party when vote really wanted by party leadership. Dem support was half-hearted, 90 Dems voted against. I don't mind it, because I don't like the bill, but you (in political sense) are the different story. You wanted the bill and still you don't care that 90 people from your side voted against it. Would it be a bit more honest to explain your side moves in clearer terms before going for bad guys in the opposite corner?
>>
>>There is only one valid question by which to judge the vote: was it was a good bill as written? I am sure it will be improved but is not time to play games. It should be clear that the issue is to prevent a 1930's style meltdown while avoiding serious "moral risk" in the future. Equity holders in bailed out institutions should lose their money and those that commited fraud, set up the scam, or were imprudent should be fired or do serious time.
>
>I think Henry Paulson and Warren Buffett are both pretty darned smart guys about money and they were both unequivocally for it. "There is no Plan B," Buffett said.

It is not just about money, i.e. the latter is an important issue but not the most important.