That’s all.

Republican or Democrat, if they voted No today, vote them out of office for their irresponsibility.

And let us all pray that we all get out of this without losing too much.

They are so smart they have outsmarted themselves.

NY Times headline: For Stocks, Worst Single-Day Drop in Two Decades

Stocks fell by nearly 9 percent on Monday — the worst single-day drop in two decades — after the government’s bailout plan, touted by its supporters as a balm for the current market stress, failed to pass the House of Representatives, setting off a fresh wave of anxious selling.

In yet another day that has shaken the embattled canyons of Wall Street, the Dow Jones industrials fell 777.68 points after it became clear that the legislation could not muster the support it needed to pass the House.

The broadest measure of the American stock market, the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index, fell 8.77 percent, its biggest drop since October 1987. The Nasdaq composite index fell by more than 9 percent, after the House defeated the bill by a vote of 228-205.

The fear was most pronounced in the world’s credit markets, considered gauges of anxiety among investors. Yields on Treasuries plummeted after the House rejected the plan, with the one-month Treasury note yielding virtually zero.

Banks were charging enormous premiums for short-term financing; the difference between the cost of a three-month loan from a bank, and a three-month loan from the government, rose to the widest point since at least 1984. Other lending rates stayed high.

On Wall Street, the drops were sharp and swift, catching many investors and stock strategists on Wall Street by surprise.

This is going to be a Rosh HaShana with plenty of prayers, by both Jews and gentiles.

About the author

themiddle

17 Comments

  • Actually, it was McCain who said our fundamentals are strong. Oddly, Obama can’t seem to gain any traction about the economy despite everything that has happened over the past years.

  • I especially love how they say that this is WALL STREET against MAIN STREET. As I listened to the pundits, I felt that WALL STREET was a code word JEWS, NY JEWS. And then COngressman Jose Serrano of the SOuth Bronx, who voited AGAINST the bailout bill, said that it was too supportive of wall street “FAT CATS”

    It is all so silly. Most Americans on MAIN STREET have 401K’s and pensions and money markets and accounts that are invested in equities, as well as Mortgages and Car Loans.

    We lost $1 Trillion in stock valuation today due to this, but wasnt it shocking when congressional leaders said that they would not work on a new bill until after the jewish new year?

  • “Oddly, Obama can’t seem to gain any traction about the economy despite everything that has happened over the past years.”

    What do you mean by that, Middle?

    Personally, I’d have thought he’d be getting more traction, but no traction?

  • I’d include Nancy, Barney, Rahm, John, and Eric on the hit list. Five of Pelosi’s own committee chairmen voted against her. One of Frank’s own subcommittee chairs did so. Barney may want to have a chat with his pals Bill Delahunt, Mike Capuano and Stevie Lynch, MA Dems who all voted against the bill.

  • The only problem with your spin, Tom, is that the House Republicans had less votes to begin with and stated that the reason their tally went down even further was because their feelings were hurt. The votes were counted first, so you can go on about which Democrats weren’t there to begin with, but we know who “killed” the bill.

    I’m reminded of that Chris Rock skit when he talks about buying shiny rims for your car, and how enthralled people get to watch how they “they keep spinnin’ and spinnin’ and spinnin’!” 😉

  • Well, I realize I’m liable to break the spirit of the post with that last comment. So regardless of whether it was out of hurt feelings, ideology, or protecting one’s job in congress, Middle’s right: It might be a good idea for all of them to be seeking a little forgiveness.

  • MUL, one of your odd ticks is that you demand to put those who you think differ with you into the Republican box. I think there’s plenty of blame to go around. The Republicans are on the hook because their leadership bargained for changes to the bill: this wasn’t a case of the original version getting rammed down their throats. Boehner looked like an idiot yesterday, as did Cantor.

    As for Pelosi and the rest of the Democrat leadership: Harry Reid set the tone by demanding McCain’s assent to the bill, only to inject presidential politics by accusing McCain of injecting presidential politics when he returned to DC. As for yesterday– you had Rep. Van Hollen on NPR prior to the vote, saying that the Democrats planned to use an aye vote against Republicans in the fall. Meanwhile, Pelosi’s telling certain Dem members they could vote against the bill. She’s asking Republicans to vote in favor while threatening to attack them for it next month.

    And they wonder (or do they care?) why they have a nine per cent approval rating. Plenty of dysfunction to go around.

  • Tom, there may indeed be plenty of “blame” to go around – but one of my even odder ticks is to actually look at the timing and sequence of things, as well as to look at what could be linked to something else in a causal, and not just correlative, way. I will look at these other things you mention, but the whole analysis is moot if one can’t acknowledge the polarization generally as having taken root in the Bush/Rove White House years ago and branched out from there. Rebuilding respect takes time. So am I bit trigger happy to blame Republicans or to put those who smooth over their shenanigans in that box? Perhaps. But I’m just responding out of the environment in Washington they bequeathed to all of us.

    In any event, and getting back to the main point, why you blame the injection of presidential politics on someone pointing out that McCain’s triumphalist yet unsuccessful “return” to Washington was accompanied by all the unnecessary histrionics (including the farcical notion that he actually suspended his campaign to do so, for one) is very strange. Either candidate could have attended, and indeed, both did, without the sense of spectacle that McCain wanted to attach to his version of it. At the end of the day, it didn’t seem to help much with anything anyway – at least not with McCain’s alleged attempts to corral his own troops. And yet, you point to others for simply noting that as the unecessary intrusion. Bizarre.

    Second, if Republicans don’t have enough of a conscience or the intellectual faculties necessary for defending their vote regardless of how one (anyone!) later would cast it, that’s their problem. I’m of the nostalgic notion that if a legislator wants to defend their job, let alone the supposed nobility of their own profession, it’s incumbent upon them to reconcile their actions with their constituents in a way that they feel ideological comfortable with. Period.

    If Pelosi were more Macchiavelian she should have just saved her powder for then. But she was just speaking her mind. Oh, the humanity of it! But this is Bush’s DC.

    And third, both sides realized, accounted for and approved that some of their members would support it and some wouldn’t. At least, before the vote they did. As they’re supposed to do. It’s called vote counting.

    Any one of the other factors you mention would be worth looking into, but I simply don’t see why the hurt feelings of public servants should derail a vote. Does Pelosi deserve some blame for that? I suppose in a perfect world where the presumption of emotional maturity is not absolutely assured she does. Do the Democrats deserve to be lambasted for the House’s approval rating? Perhaps. But that will only matter to the public once a real Democratic leader emerges and wipes aside the penchant for subterfuge created by the current administration. And hopefully that won’t be too hard to accomplish this November. I don’t think this vote or the current crisis will hurt it much either way.

  • If this is so important, why would congress take two days off for Rosh
    Hasanah? If this is a financial “Pearl Harbor”, why aren’t these great leaders hard at work? C’mon, the most important financial legislation in many years and they go on Holiday after defeat?

    This is absurd.

    Shalom….

  • Tom, there may indeed be plenty of “blame” to go around – but one of my even odder ticks is to actually look at the timing and sequence of things, as well as to look at what could be linked to something else in a causal, and not just correlative, way. I will look at these other things you mention, but the whole analysis is moot if one can’t acknowledge the polarization generally as having taken root in the Bush/Rove White House years ago and branched out from there. So am I bit trigger happy to blame Republicans or to put those who smooth over their shenanigans in that box? Perhaps. But I’m just responding out of the environment in Washington they bequeathed to all of us.

    In any event, and getting back to the main point, why you blame the injection of presidential politics on someone pointing out that McCain’s triumphalist yet unsuccessful “return” to (or march onto ;-)) Washington was accompanied by all the unnecessary histrionics (including the farcical notion that he actually suspended his campaign to do so, for one) is very strange. Either candidate could have attended, and indeed, they both did. But only one of them did it without the sense of spectacle that McCain wanted to attach to his version of it. At the end of the day, it didn’t seem to help much with anything anyway – at least not with McCain’s alleged attempts to corral his own troops. And yet, you point to others for simply noting that as the unecessary intrusion. Bizarre.

    Second, if Republicans don’t have enough of a conscience or the intellectual faculties necessary for defending their vote regardless of how one (anyone!) later would cast it, that’s their problem. I’m of the nostalgic notion that if a legislator wants to defend their job, let alone the supposed nobility of their own profession, it’s incumbent upon them to reconcile their actions with their constituents in a way that they feel ideological comfortable with. Period.

    Perhaps if Pelosi were more Macchiavellian she would have kept her powder dry until after the election. But she was just speaking her mind. Oh, the humanity of it! But then again, this is Bush’s DC. She just vies for power within it. Speaking one’s mind seems to have become an endemic thing, doesn’t it?

    And third, both sides realized, accounted for and approved that some of their members would support it and some wouldn’t. At least, before the vote they did. As they’re supposed to. It’s called vote counting. Any one of the other factors you mention would be worth looking into, but I simply don’t see why the hurt feelings of public servants should derail a vote. Does Pelosi deserve some blame for that? I suppose in a perfect world where the presumption of emotional maturity is not absolutely assured she does. Do the Democrats deserve to be lambasted for the House’s approval rating? Perhaps. But that will only matter to the public once a real Democratic leader emerges and wipes aside the penchant for subterfuge created by the current administration. And hopefully that won’t be too hard to accomplish this November. This vote and the crisis created by its detractors party shouldn’t derail that prediction too badly.

    And finally, fourth, it seems that even Republican David Gergen isn’t having any of this letting the Republicans off the hook talk when it comes to assessing primary responsibility.

    Cheers!

  • I’ve got a good response, Tom. But for some reason the system is denying my attempts at logorrhea this morning. So, what can I say? In any event, cheers!

  • My Democratic member of Congress voted against the bill. In my blog (see link), I included the text of the letter I’m sending her in response.

  • GET RID OF THE ONES WHO VOTED YES. OUR GOVERNMENT CA– USED THIS CRAP. STICK IT TO US ONE MORE TIME AND BAIL OUT THE FATCATS. WHAT A CROCK!!!

  • AMTRAK is going to get their bill passed. This means more rail, less oil. It looks like some western routes will be restores. Certainly, today we can appreciate this. But some appreciated it long ago.

    Look:

    “The money the Hiawatha lost will go into the fuel tanks and the pockets of Arab countries,” a Chronicle editorial warned on October 7, 1979. “Now that makes sense, if you don’t know what you’re doing.”

    Link: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/amtrak_to_consider_restoring_western_routes/C41/L41/

Leave a Comment