>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>1/3 of the democrats voted against it. They could have easily passed it if the democrats had supported it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Why is everyone trying to blame it on just one party? They killed it together. If either party had voted just a little differently it would have passed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Blaming the republicans for not passing the bill doesn't make sense because they were voting according to the party policies and their constituents wishes. What makes sense is to blame the Republicans for not wanting a bailout, or in essence, their economic policies.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Even with token Republican participation, this was always a Democratic bill which needed Republican support. That was why they needed McCain to get involved to push the party towards it. It didn't get the Republican support and it didn't even get full democratic support.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>It was a democratic bill? I clearly missed something. I thought this came from Bush and Paulson.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It seems that you confuse American and Canadian political systems. In Canada Prime Minister is supposed to have parlamentary majority (correct me if I am wrong, he is also a member of the Parlament) so he initiates legislative process in the Parlament. In America, President does not necessarily have majority, as it is the case now, so he cannot initiate legislative process. It is entirely up to US Congress leadership to start the process. In another words every meaningful law coming through the Congress is initiated by the party having majority in the Congress (specifically, in the House of Representatives). Administration can say whatever it wants, and it can convey information to the Congress, but it does not make laws.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In the Canadian system. The Prime Minister may or may not have a parliamentary majority. In fact, right now, Canada has a 'minority' government. It's what happens with a 4 or more party system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>But you are correct that I did not fully understand how the legislative process is initiate in the U.S. So in other words, the bill may have been thought up and put forward by Bush and Paulsen, but in order for it to be considered for vote, it has to actually be introduced (in this case) by the Dems. So, if the Dems had wanted to kill the bill, they could have done so right up front and simply not have introduced it? Is that correct?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Absolutely. Firstly, bill is introduced in the committee. All minority attempts got usually buried there. If the committee votes yes, then it can go to the House floor. Majority party controls all committee chairmanships and have majority votes in every committee.
>>>>>
>>>>>What about changes to the bill? I know that Reps and Dems alike did not like the fact that the whole bill was 3 pages long and they wanted middle class protectios attached to it. I don't know what, if any changed were finally made before it was introduced. If it was introduced as written, then I can certainly see why members of both sides voted against it, since it would not have been a bill they felt they could support.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, it was changed, and got longer that 3 pages. However, many Congressmen and their constituencies didn't like the bill, in principle, i.e. not because it was too short.
>>>
>>>I think that the idea of a 'plan' being ready in a week that would commit more taxpayers money than the Iraq war has cost in its entirety seemed rather like BS.
>>
>>Paulson said few weeks ago that financial system is sound. Was it a truthful statement? It creates an impression, imo, that he could better submit resignation request rather than the bailout proposal.
>
>My assumption was that this bill put was to put responsibility of fixing the financial system squarely in his hands. It also made him the scapegoat when it surely failed.

It is interesting that his chances to do anything substantial are very limited anyway, because time is almost over. I tend to believe that he got a 'history' syndrome: people should remember his name. Anyway, if system was sound just few weeks ago then how it is happened that it is so bad now? Naturally, a person making wrong systemic assessment in the recent past cannot be trusted with fixing the system. Also, I think that grand enlargement of Secretary of Treasury powers creates too much of conflict of interest if this post is held by WS insider.