Posted on 10/03/2008 12:28:50 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
WASHINGTON (AFP) — US President George W. Bush on Friday signed a mammoth economic rescue package aimed at saving troubled US banks and easing a credit crunch that he warned could spell disaster for the US public.
After campaigning for the bailout for two weeks and courting reluctant lawmakers in person and by telephone, Bush signed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 before leaving Washington for the weekend.
(Excerpt) Read more at afp.google.com ...
As of right now, I’m voting against anybody I can who is currently in power. I don’t care if it means voting DemonRat. That goes for anybody, even if they voted against the bill. As far as I’m concerned, they weren’t trying hard enough to talk their colleagues out of voting for this travesty.
Suck it Congress, and I hope Bush gets hit by a meteor on his next day at the golf course. P.S. Get bent.
The only thing that picture is missing is a pic of the Mrs. and little Johnny and little Susie with screws running through their bodies standing behind him.
A lot of us are using that tagline.
Is there any, any way in the near future to challange this as unconstitutional? Or did they write out our ability to do that too.
Wait...checks/balances complete control to treasury...
Doesn’t leave a good American many choices does it?
I think you are wrong on the history of Bush.
You assume the left ends up in control.
I think the system falls apart ans they must start again WO leftists.
Compassionate Socialism by George W. Bush
No matter what we call it, we have been sold down thw road.
Obama will bleed us dry.
Ummm, no. It worked different from that. The pork passed the Senate TWICE. It passed the Senate on September 23, 2008 by a 93-2 margin. The two NAY votes were Democrats, but still, that's overwhelming support for the pork. See H.R.6049.
That very same pork was passed by the Senate a second time, in October, in combination with the House-rejected bailout. Both the bailout and the pork underwent relatively minor amendment during the combination process, all of which "minor amendment" was conducted in the smokey backrooms. Still, the differences can be ferreted out by comparing the various bills as passed by the two chambers of Congress. Pretty much what passed was HR 6049 as passed by the Senate, and bailout as rejected by the House.
Your ultimate conclusion doesn't hold up given that the pork was passed with zero objection from Republicans, on September 23rd.
Perhaps you would go a bit further, to explain how there was not a pork barrel awairting a way to push it through the House, since you’re telling me that I was wrong. Thanks
Is it 8000. for every citizen or for every taxpayer?
Big difference.
-- The Harry Reid Senate was sitting on a pork list [already passed in the Senate but not passed by the House] they wanted to pass [wanted to pass through the House] but had no other bill to which they could hang the strips of rotting bacon, so Harry and Nancy had a great adventure. --
Doe sthat help, or are you just on a mission to try and create an argument?
Sure. I'll do so by rebutting your assumptions and argument in a little finer detail.
The Harry Reid Seante was sitting on a pork list they wanted to pass but had no other bill to which they could hang the strips of rotting bacon
You obviously weren't aware of H.R.6049 and its contents, because if you were, you would have known that the Harry Reid Senate not only had a bill under which to pass all the pork, the Harry Reid Senate, with the unanimous cooperation of all voting Republicans, had in fact already passed all that pork on September 23rd. I don't think there's anything wrong with you being unaware of this - the media never mentions it, and the only reason I know it is that I shun the media in favor of base source material as a matter of daily routine.
Pelosi had HR 6049 sitting in the House as of September 29th. She could have brought it up and passed it, but she objected to some tax relaxation measure (I don't recall exactly what) not having a corresponding revenue increasing tax. Her objection may have been related to revising the threshold for imposing AMT (not a controversial proposition in its own right, but historically held hostage for tax increases elsewhere) or may have been related to a tax relief for energy business. Whatever the difference, it was something that could have been worked out between the chambers in one or two back and forth cycles, but given the time available in the 110th Congress, the bill was going to (unfortunately, in the eyes of Republican and Democrat leadership) die via inaction.
Had the House passed the MOnday [bailout only] bill, the Senate could have added layers of pork, but then the redesigned bill would have been sent to the House for conferencing and the process would have taken perhaps weeks.
The Senate had already sent the pork package to the House. If the Senate had obtained the bailout-only language on Monday, it would have passed it without amendment! The Senate (and President Bush) was pissed that House Republicans didn't pass the bailout-only bill. If it had passed the House on Monday, it would have been law by Wednesday.
All that pork was already in the House as HR 6049, and adding it to House-passed bailout-only would have put the bailout language at risk at worst, and would have delayed it at best.
But even if the Senate had added all that pork as a big fat amendment (stranger things have happened), there is no need for a House/Senate conference or weeks of delay. The House can take up the House bill with the Senate amendment, and vote on it. In fact, this "pass it back and forth without a conference" is the norm. If Reid had planned to attach HR 6049 to what had been "bailout only," he would have cleared it with Pelosi and even with the GOP leadership in both chambers, to test the water for quick coming up for a vote, and to probe for any necessary changes before combining the two bills. And in fact, that's exactly what happened.
Democratic and Republican leadership had two bills, HR 6049 and bailout, both of which they wanted but each of which needed some relatively small changes to be palatable. Backroom negotiations found common ground, and the margin of passage in each chamber speaks for itself.
Those who lost the base of their 401Ks on Tuesday were ignored as the Democrats worked their criminal magic to get their pork through.
The "pork" in HR 6049 is bipartisan, and a funny thing is that some of the items that are being ridiculed (wooden arrows, rum, auto racing) actually represent a lessening of government intrusion, which is usually "a good thing" to a conservative.
You have a pleasant evening ... professor.
If "We the People" aren't willing to do anything about it, why not?
No. I'm not asserting that Reid thought HR 6049 was going to fly through the House. In fact, he knew it wasn't going anywhere, due to the reason I alluded to in my previous - that House DEMs objected to some tax relief without a corresponding tax increase.
But your argument that Reid and Peolsi had a grand plan to reject bailout-only in the House, so they (and only the DEMs being interested in the pork) could combine it with HR 6049 redux, well that theory is full of holes.
-- You have a pleasant evening ... professor. --
You are an insulting jerk, calling me "professor," and comparing me with Paul Begala.
Well, I’m buying more ammo.
Incidentally, it is the House where legislation is written, then it passes through the Senate, and if sent back with changes, conference between the two Houses seeks to rectify any changes, then it must be voted upon unchanged, again by both Houses of Congress, in order to become something passed to the President for signing.
You tried to imply I didn't understand that Senate pork had been passed in the Senate but had not been passed in exact same language in the House. Your agenda to impugn Republicans seems to be tainting your mental acuity.
Bill Clinton gave us GW Bush. GW Bush gave us Obama.
Odd seeing as GHW Bush gave us Bill Clinton.
Odd, but true.
Honestly haven't heard that one in a looooong time.
Well, H.R.6049 is in fact a House-originated bill. It was written in the House and passed by the House in May 2008. The fact that it was amended by the Senate, passed on Sept 23 and sent back to the House on Sept 29, without any request for a conference, shows that (had there been time available in this Congress) it was on the more common path of "Motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the House bill" sort of process. That is, it was not on a path to conference committee. Most bills are passed without conference, and it is very common for a House bill to be amended by the Senate, then passed as amended, by the House. That sequence result in both chambers passing identical language.
Riddick's Senate Procedure describes the inter-chamber amendment process, as well as the conditions that trigger and formalities that attach to calling for a conference committee. Small differences that can be worked out in one or two "back and forth" passes aren't subjected to the more cumbersome Conference Committee process.
Not relevant here, but legislation often originates in the Senate, and is subsequently passed by the House and then into law. So your general "it is the House where legislation is written, then it passes through the Senate" is only partially or sometimes true. Hit Browse Public Laws : 110th Congress and scan for items denominated "S.xxx," to see examples.
-- You tried to imply I didn't understand that Senate pork had been passed in the Senate but had not been passed in exact same language in the House. --
Actually, I assumed that to be the case [that you didn't know the pork had been passed as HR 6049 on September 23, and again in HR 1424 on October 1st], and intended to state so directly. Nothing in your original post indicated awareness that the Senate passed the pork twice, about one week between the votes. I thought the fact that the Senate passed the pork twice, once on near unanimity in a stand-alone basis (two Democrats voting against), before being passed as a companion to the bailout, was interesting.
-- Your agenda to impugn Republicans seems to be tainting your mental acuity. --
Your agenda to give Republicans a pass for unanimously approving the pork on September 23 seems to be tainting yours. At least I bothered to review the record, and I think I've presented it in a fairly non-judgmental fashion.
-- I was in fact insulting you with the Begala reference. --
You ought to be ashamed.
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.