![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
FAILout: More Detailed Commentary
Sep. 30th, 2008 11:21 am1. Republicans who voted for the bailout blame Democrats who voted for the bailout for the bailout failing. Huh?
According to them, Pelosi's speech before the vote blamed Republicans for the current economic problems, which made at least 12 of them so butthurt that they voted against the bailout out of spite. I actually have too much respect for the Republicans to believe that (which is really saying something), but it's kind of sickening how they're willing to paint their colleagues as whiny and vindictive crybabies. No, I'm willing to believe that those who voted against the bailout made their votes on principle (or at least programming*).
Actually, I'm overall glad the bailout bill didn't pass. We've had enough of legislation being shoved through without time to read or analyze it. When politicians try to shove unpopular legislation through that no one understands adequately, it should get rejected. Yes, this is a crisis, but it could have waited at least one goddamn day.
2. Republicans are also trying to blame this on Bill Clinton and poor people. Regarding Clinton, he's been out of office eight years, guys. This has gone beyond "beating a dead horse" into necrosadobestiality territory (and I thought Republicans were supposed to be against that sort of thing).
Regarding poor people, are the Republicans really blaming people for wanting to own homes? Guess they really aren't so much for "the American dream" after all. Seriously, poor people had nothing to do with real estate speculators (who may have inadvertently been helped by government regulations designed to help poor people, but banks went way beyond any sort of government-mandated minimum). Poor people had nothing to do with securities upon securities or other convoluted investment structures. Poor people were told (just as the banks told themselves) that these rather creative mortgages were safe because home values always go up.
(Side inquiry: Why did home values go up relative to inflation? Of course, demand for homes rises with population and wealth, but the rise in home values occurred concurrently with massive new residential development, which was also expected to be a safe and continuously growing venture. Were they simply expecting urban decay to outstrip suburban sprawl so that supply of housing would still grow slower than demand, even though new houses were being built at a high rate? Or, failing that, that income levels would rise enough that competition for the best houses (and demand for houses as opposed to apartments) would push prices up enough to keep the mean increasing (possibly even as the median price fell), with the best houses being in those new suburban developments (which keeps those worthwhile)?)
3. It's been pointed out that the vast majority of representatives in swing elections opposed the bill, while those not running for reelection (even Republicans) overwhelmingly supported it. Two things about this:
First, I've heard at least one person suggest that the retirees are most likely to think about "the country's best interest", that their votes are on principle and the swing-election representative votes are on politics. They seem to believe that the retirees' support indicates that the bill is good. I'm not sure that's correct, though. The swing-election reps were clearly influenced by the opinion of their constituents. Isn't that how representative democracy is supposed to work? To give an exaggerated example, are dictators better able to serve "the country's best interests" because they don't have to worry about reelection politics? More seriously, it's not "politics vs. principle" necessarily, democracy is a principle. At least listening to your constituents can be a principled stance (although I'll admit it's sometimes pure pandering).
If "vulnerable" Republicans voted the same as "non-vulnerable" Republicans, 7 instead of 3 would have voted for the bill (4 votes difference). If "vulnerable" Democrats had voted the same as "non-vulnerable" Democrats, 12.4 instead of 5 would have voted for the bill (7.4 votes difference, 11.4 votes total difference). 116.4 for to 116.6 against. So if contested elections were not a factor, the expected vote would be 116 for, 117 against, although that's a very close call. Swing election representatives were a factor, but it's not justified to say that they "doomed the bill". As much as I'd like to "blame" democracy, I have to give Republican ideology some credit for once.
* "DEREGULATE! DEREGULATE! THE MARKET WILL BE DE-REG-U-LAT-ED!"**
** This would have been a much funnier answer to the question about whether time travel should be legal a few posts back.
According to them, Pelosi's speech before the vote blamed Republicans for the current economic problems, which made at least 12 of them so butthurt that they voted against the bailout out of spite. I actually have too much respect for the Republicans to believe that (which is really saying something), but it's kind of sickening how they're willing to paint their colleagues as whiny and vindictive crybabies. No, I'm willing to believe that those who voted against the bailout made their votes on principle (or at least programming*).
Actually, I'm overall glad the bailout bill didn't pass. We've had enough of legislation being shoved through without time to read or analyze it. When politicians try to shove unpopular legislation through that no one understands adequately, it should get rejected. Yes, this is a crisis, but it could have waited at least one goddamn day.
2. Republicans are also trying to blame this on Bill Clinton and poor people. Regarding Clinton, he's been out of office eight years, guys. This has gone beyond "beating a dead horse" into necrosadobestiality territory (and I thought Republicans were supposed to be against that sort of thing).
Regarding poor people, are the Republicans really blaming people for wanting to own homes? Guess they really aren't so much for "the American dream" after all. Seriously, poor people had nothing to do with real estate speculators (who may have inadvertently been helped by government regulations designed to help poor people, but banks went way beyond any sort of government-mandated minimum). Poor people had nothing to do with securities upon securities or other convoluted investment structures. Poor people were told (just as the banks told themselves) that these rather creative mortgages were safe because home values always go up.
(Side inquiry: Why did home values go up relative to inflation? Of course, demand for homes rises with population and wealth, but the rise in home values occurred concurrently with massive new residential development, which was also expected to be a safe and continuously growing venture. Were they simply expecting urban decay to outstrip suburban sprawl so that supply of housing would still grow slower than demand, even though new houses were being built at a high rate? Or, failing that, that income levels would rise enough that competition for the best houses (and demand for houses as opposed to apartments) would push prices up enough to keep the mean increasing (possibly even as the median price fell), with the best houses being in those new suburban developments (which keeps those worthwhile)?)
3. It's been pointed out that the vast majority of representatives in swing elections opposed the bill, while those not running for reelection (even Republicans) overwhelmingly supported it. Two things about this:
First, I've heard at least one person suggest that the retirees are most likely to think about "the country's best interest", that their votes are on principle and the swing-election representative votes are on politics. They seem to believe that the retirees' support indicates that the bill is good. I'm not sure that's correct, though. The swing-election reps were clearly influenced by the opinion of their constituents. Isn't that how representative democracy is supposed to work? To give an exaggerated example, are dictators better able to serve "the country's best interests" because they don't have to worry about reelection politics? More seriously, it's not "politics vs. principle" necessarily, democracy is a principle. At least listening to your constituents can be a principled stance (although I'll admit it's sometimes pure pandering).
If "vulnerable" Republicans voted the same as "non-vulnerable" Republicans, 7 instead of 3 would have voted for the bill (4 votes difference). If "vulnerable" Democrats had voted the same as "non-vulnerable" Democrats, 12.4 instead of 5 would have voted for the bill (7.4 votes difference, 11.4 votes total difference). 116.4 for to 116.6 against. So if contested elections were not a factor, the expected vote would be 116 for, 117 against, although that's a very close call. Swing election representatives were a factor, but it's not justified to say that they "doomed the bill". As much as I'd like to "blame" democracy, I have to give Republican ideology some credit for once.
* "DEREGULATE! DEREGULATE! THE MARKET WILL BE DE-REG-U-LAT-ED!"**
** This would have been a much funnier answer to the question about whether time travel should be legal a few posts back.
