Posted on 10/01/2008 10:24:51 PM PDT by bruinbirdman
The prospect of a second defeat for George Bush’s rescue package for the US economy is looming, as members of the lower House of Representatives expressed their discontent with the government’s revised plan.
The new version of the bill, including a 250 per cent increase in the amount the US government will insure in peoples’ savings accounts, is expected to pass the Senate in a vote on Wednesday night.
But with the world waiting anxiously for an agreement in Washington, considerable wrangling still lies ahead in the lower house, which rejected the first draft on Monday.
On a day of rising tension on Capitol Hill, supporters of the bailout faced delicate calculations of how many Democrats or Republicans would be won or lost by changes to the bill.
Left wing Democrats in the lower House of Representatives expressed their unhappiness with the addition of tax cuts for businesses and the lack of provision for home owners in danger of defaulting because of sub-prime mortgages.
Members of the Black Congressional Caucus and Hispanic Congressional Caucus, who represent poor communities blighted by foreclosed homes and who voted heavily No on Monday, insisted on more aid for their constituents before changing their votes.
“The poor – poor blacks, poor whites, Native Americans, Latinos – get little help from this administration. Then they come in here and ask us to bail out Wall Street. I’m not prepared to,” said John Lewis, from Georgia.
Right-wing Democrats on the other hand asked how the proposed tax cuts for businesses would be paid for. “I’m not particularly pleased with that addition myself, very frankly,” said Steny Hoyer, leader of the Democrats in the House. “There’s no doubt the tax package is very controversial.”
Architects of the revised bill will be hoping that rebellious Democrats are won over
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution states that, “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”
Doesn’t this suggest that the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 could not have originated from the U.S. Senate.
I can see that the U.S. Senate can amend existing appropriation bills. But the original “bailout” bill was defeated by the House of Representatives.
Shouldn’t this new bill have originated from the House of Representatives? And if so, couldn’t the House of Representatives ignore this bill because it did not follow Constitutional procedure?
Ha, ha, you’re a funny guy. How long has it been since anyone in Washington paid any attention to the Constitution?
I think that would apply to a bill associated with taxes. I don't see it affecting this bailout bill.
That would sure leave egg on the face of the Senators who pushed through this travesty!
are ppl forgetting the other $300 billion that was passed to help mortgage forclosures?
I don’t suppose there’s time to start a real third party before Nov. 4....
There are amendments to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986...doesn’t that have to do with taxes??
We have a Constitution?
Who knew?
The senate knew they could not originate this bill, so they took an old House bill, gutted it, and placed this crap sandwich on it and voted for the gutted house bill.
This whole crap sandwich was prepared in knowing violation of the Constitution. But the Senate doesn't believe the Constitution applies to them.
There is no amount money that can be thrown at people who are facing mortgage foreclosure that will help them. We have to help them by looking at the root of the problem. None of these loans were “toxic loans” until the interest rates went from fixed interest rates to variable interest rates. The solution is to put everyone back to their fixed interest rate status that they had before they adjusted. Most borrowers could afford their loans before they adjusted.
It didn't 'originate' in the Senate technically. The bill number refers the 'H.R.' meaning House of Representatives.
They basically took an existing House bill that had nothing to do with the bailout and sent it to the Senate.
The Senate then added an amendment that threw out the complete text of the original bill and added the bailout text.
This is what they voted on.
Scummy, I know - but that's the way the do things in Washington (and most states for that matter).
This has long since gone beyond just being about mortgages. It’s about credit liquidity and keeping tens of thousands of small businesses that have nothing to do with home mortgatges from going belly up.
While I was reading the gutted H.R. 1424 I realized that the case was indeed that the Senate took the House’s bill and “amended” it. I hope the folks in the House defeat this bill, too.
The fact that the executive branch supports any of this exemplifies the meaning of “lame duck”. I love Bush for what he has done, but this is not very impressive.
Understood.
Baloney it’s not Bush’s rescue plan anymore it’s been changed considerably. They are just taking a jab at Bush.
And the $400B+ the Federal Reserve and the FDIC has lent, spent or been obligated to?
yitbos
To: Brazzmm22
This has long since gone beyond just being about mortgages. It’s about credit liquidity and keeping tens of thousands of small businesses that have nothing to do with home mortgatges from going belly up.
*******************************
That is exactly right.
Finally a voice of sanity in the sea of madness that is FR these days.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.