Why did Republicans vote no?

[Damnsammit]

Just curious.

The Republican leaders and the Bush administration was asking it's members to vote for the bill and they overwhelmingly voted against it.

Is this a last stand for true conservatives/free market capitlists who believe the market should fix itself or was this an attempt to put more items on the legislation in the coming days?

Personally, I think Ron Paul has done an outstanding job in expressing his concerns with the bill and his reasoning for being against it, but a lot of the other congressmen I have seen on CSPAN, CNN, etc. have just been basically saying "well I got a lot of faxes and phone calls telling me to vote 'no'."

I understand wanting to please your constituents, but isn't there a point where you take the position of the elected official and make the decision you determine is right? I don't know if the right answer is the bailout or not, but I do know that they better have a better explanation than, "well the citizens of my district don't want it."

Details? You are congressmen for fucks sake.

I think it was John Culberson (R-Texas) that I saw on CSPAN. He basically just agreed with every single thing that they asked even when it was contradictorary from a previous question and when asked why he opposed he just said "well we have to do what the constituents say". It was pretty weak. Sounded like the guy knew jack shit about what was going on and that the only reason he voted 'no' was because he wants to keep his seat come 2009. Personally, I would like a better reason for their decisions.

[DataBass]

Originally Posted by Damnsammit

I understand wanting to please your constituents, but isn't there a point where you take the position of the elected official and make the decision you determine is right? I don't know if the right answer is the bailout or not, but I do know that they better have a better explanation than, "well the citizens of my district don't want it."

I hate it when elected officials represent their constituents. What is this country coming to?

[Damnsammit]

Originally Posted by DataBass

I hate it when elected officials represent their constituents. What is this country coming to?

I'm not saying that they SHOULDN'T represent them, but I think that they should be smart enough to come up with a better reason for voting against a bill than "they told me not to".

Maybe I am stupid in thinking this but I think it makes them look spineless and completely clueless as to what is going on.

[DataBass]

Isn't that why we elect officials? i.e. in a most basic sense, to represent the will of the people via popular sovereignty?

[Damnsammit]

I mean, I am against the bill but it's not because someone told me I should be against it. I am against it because I think that the big corporations that caused this mess should have to deal with it themselves. It's going to fuck a lot of shit up, but if we continue to give in to the big corporations' demands then it really isn't solving the problem. I also think it's funny how the main people on TV/News advocating quick passage of this bill have numerous ties to Wall Street and would benefit greatly from it's swift passage.

It seems to me that the stupid people who took out an ARM loan that they couldn't afford didn't get bailed out... they got their homes foreclosed on. I don't know why these multi-billion dollar corporations and their CEO's deserve a second chance. I say let them burn and if it fucks up the global economy then we deserve it. It's going to suck now and for a few years, but it will get better. If we keep letting it get worse and toss more taxpayers dollars to these giant corporations what are we to get then? Trickle down economics used to work, but now they stopped trickling down. It seems the only people to benefit from this bailout will be the people who took the large risks and got burned. Personally, I don't give a shit about them.

Originally Posted by DataBass

Isn't that why we elect officials? i.e. in a most basic sense, to represent the will of the people via popular sovereignty?

Nah, you are right. I shouldn't be mad at them for their vote. I guess I am more just shocked that they actually listen to their constituents, and offer no other personal opinion of the matter.

Were the Democrats' constituents just apathetic to the bailout, or did the congressmen not listen? It seems that Democrats would be more opposed to the bailout than Republicans but the number of votes says otherwise.

[Ash]

pandering to constituents isn't the only reason congressmen vote the way that they do.

[Deff Gordon]

they didn't have time to attach a new RAVE Act.

[DataBass]

Originally Posted by Deff Gordon

they didn't have time to attach a new RAVE Act.

rofl.

[Damnsammit]

Originally Posted by Ash

pandering to constituents isn't the only reason congressmen vote the way that they do.

And it shouldn't be, in my opinion, but they should not use their constituents as a scape goat when drilled by others as to why they voted against their party leaders.

[Ash]

Originally Posted by Damnsammit

And it shouldn't be, in my opinion, but they should not use their constituents as a scape goat when drilled by others as to why they voted against their party leaders.

and smart people can see right through that smokescreen. if their lips are moving, bullshit is likely coming out.

[johnny861]

In principal, Republicans should be against bills like this, but I'm not for sure of the real motivations behind it... I remember not being enough oversight being one issue at one point...

[PETA]

65 House Republicans voted for it but it was awfully difficult not to give a "fuck you" no vote after working hard to reach a consensus and hearing this from the Speaker...

Madam Speaker, when was the last time someone asked you for $700B?

It is a number that is staggering, but tells us only the costs of the Bush administration's failed economic policies: policies built on budgetary recklessness, on an anything-goes mentality, with no regulation, no supervision, and no discipline in the system.

Democrats believe in the free market, which can and does create jobs, wealth, and capital. But left to its own devices, it has created chaos.

That chaos is the dismal picture painted by Treasury Secretary [Henry)] Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman [Ben] Bernanke a week and a half ago in the Capitol. As they pointed out, we confront a crisis of historic magnitude that has the ability to do serious injury not simply to our economy but to the American people; not just to Wall Street, but to everyday Americans on Main Street.

It is our responsibility today, to help avert that catastrophic outcome. Let us be clear: This is a crisis caused on Wall Street. But it is a crisis that reaches to Main Street in every city and town of the United States.

It is a crisis that freezes credit, causes families to lose their homes, cripples small businesses, and makes it harder to find jobs. It is a crisis that never had to happen. It is now the duty of every member of this body to recognise that the failure to act responsibly, with full protections for the American taxpayer, would compound the damage already done to the financial security of millions of American families.
Over the past several days, we have worked with our Republican colleagues to fashion an alternative to the original plan of the Bush administration.

I must recognise the outstanding leadership provided by [the chairman of the House financial services committee and Democrat of Massachusetts] Barney Frank, whose enormous intellectual and strategic abilities have never before been so urgently needed, or so widely admired.

I also want to recognise [Illinois Democratic Republican] Rahm Emanuel, who combined his deep knowledge of financial institutions with his pragmatic policy experience to resolve key disagreements.

Secretary Paulson deserves credit for working day and night to help reach an agreement, and for his flexibility in negotiating changes to his original proposal.
Democrats insisted that legislation responding to this crisis must protect the American people and Main Street from the meltdown on Wall Street.

The American people did not decide to dangerously weaken our regulatory and oversight policies. They did not make unwise and risky financial deals. They did not jeopardise the economic security of the nation. And they must not pay the cost of this emergency recovery and stabilisation bill.

So we insisted that this bill contain several key provisions. This legislation must contain independent and ongoing oversight to ensure that the recovery programme is managed with full transparency and strict accountability. The legislation must do everything possible to allow as many people to stay in their homes rather than face foreclosure.

The corporate CEOs whose companies will benefit from the public's participation in this recovery must not benefit by exorbitant salaries and golden parachute retirement bonuses.

Our message to Wall Street is this: the party is over. The era of golden parachutes for high-flying Wall Street operators is over. No longer will the US taxpayer bail out the recklessness of Wall Street. The taxpayers who bear the risk in this recovery must share in the upside as the economy recovers.

And should this programme not pay for itself, the financial institutions that benefited, not the taxpayers, must bear responsibility for making up the difference.

These were the Democratic demands to safeguard the American taxpayer, to help the economy recover, and to impose tough accountability as a central component of this recovery effort.

This legislation is not the end of congressional activity on this crisis. Over the course of the next few weeks, we will continue to hold investigative and oversight hearings to find out how the crisis developed, where mistakes were made, and how the recovery must be managed to protect the middle class and the American taxpayer.
With passage of this legislation today, we can begin the difficult job of turning our economy around, of helping those who depend on a growing economy and stable financial institutions for a secure retirement, for the education of their children, for jobs and small business credit.

Today we must act for those Americans, for Main Street, and we must act now, with the bipartisan spirit of cooperation which allowed us to fashion this legislation.
This not enough. We are also working to restore our nation's economic strength by passing a new economic recovery stimulus package, a robust, job-creating bill that will help Americans struggling with high prices, get our economy back on track and renew the American dream.

Today we will act to avert this crisis, but informed by our experience of the past eight years, with the failed economic leadership that has left us less capable of meeting the challenges of the future.

We choose a different path. In the new year, with a new Congress and a new president, we will break free with a failed past and take America in a new direction to a better future.

Its hard to support the bill after getting bashed like that by Speaker Pelosi


Further, 95 House Dems voted against it..... I think that all the Dems needed was another 10 votes in the affirmative so the Bill was killed not by the GOP but by those 95 Dems

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml

[Damnsammit]

Originally Posted by Ash

and smart people can see right through that smokescreen. if their lips are moving, bullshit is likely coming out.

Well, I just don't see how blaming the constituents is going to get you re-elected... especially if you state that goal as your whole intent on voting with them anyways.