Democrats Want The Bill, Republicans Don't

[Garry AKA Pod]

I would have thought that the Republican Party would be the ones crying out for the Bill to go through, but it seems to be the Democrats.

Can anyone explain why?

[blankster]

Because they think they'll be in power when the benefits start to show?

[punter]

I would have thought that the Republican Party would be the ones crying out for the Bill to go through, but it seems to be the Democrats.

Can anyone explain why?

the democrats love socialism but 94 of them voted against it, Republicans voted 2:1 against they're mostly conservative people who reject a bailout on principle

[Y-QUERK]

the democrats love socialism but 94 of them voted against it

ffs this was socialism for the rich.

[Garry AKA Pod]

the democrats love socialism but 94 of them voted against it, Republicans voted 2:1 against they're mostly conservative people who reject a bailout on principle

But I was always under the impression that the nasty republicans were in the pockets of bankers and Oil Tycoons etc, so this comes as quite a surprise.

Fair play to them though.

[terryturbojr]

ffs this was socialism for the rich.

It's a lovely soundbite but how do people back this statement up?

[punter]

ffs this was socialism for the rich.

it had a lot of goodies in there for democrats so they broadly support it whilst most Republicans reject it

[terryturbojr]

But I was always under the impression that the nasty republicans were in the pockets of bankers and Oil Tycoons etc, so this comes as quite a surprise.

Fair play to them though.

They generally turned it down based on their love of free markets and so the intervention went against their principles.

[punter]

But I was always under the impression that the nasty republicans were in the pockets of bankers and Oil Tycoons etc, so this comes as quite a surprise.

Fair play to them though.

a lot of bankers don't want the bailout!

it's just wall street firms and investment bankers, these special interests own most of the democrats too

[Y-QUERK]

It's a lovely soundbite but how do people back this statement up?

If Wall Street was flying high would they "socialise it"?

[Guest adp]

it had a lot of goodies in there for democrats so they broadly support it whilst most Republicans reject it

You actually have to look at the map for this one. Republican members are mostly from the bible belt which is poor and farmer (Virginia for example) who were hardest hit by the Iraq war. Most of their voters have lost sons from the last Bush panic bill. They want to be reelcted.

[runforthehills]

Republicans are voting against it because they know their constituents don't want it and they will be voted out. It's all about covering your own job/ass...

[markinspain]

I would have thought that the Republican Party would be the ones crying out for the Bill to go through, but it seems to be the Democrats.

Can anyone explain why?

I must admit, I was wondering about that myself. The only thing I could think of is that the Democrats have a greater following in the states with large cities and therefore lots of service jobs, whereas the Republicans have a greater following in the agriculural and industrial states - ie where all the real work is done. Anyone got any better ideas?

[punter]

I must admit, I was wondering about that myself. The only thing I could think of is that the Democrats have a greater following in the states with large cities and therefore lots of service jobs, whereas the Republicans have a greater following in the agriculural and industrial states - ie where all the real work is done. Anyone got any better ideas?

it just has a lot of welfare and the statists like the idea of government taking over banks, hence democrat support.

all the leaders in all the parties want this, including the president, the Republican leadership in congress want it and the Democrat leadership want it but the rank and file members don't and are holding firm.

[bear-curious]

You actually have to look at the map for this one. Republican members are mostly from the bible belt which is poor and farmer (Virginia for example) who were hardest hit by the Iraq war. Most of their voters have lost sons from the last Bush panic bill. They want to be reelcted.

Yep. Many of them are in the equivalent of what we call 'marginal seats'. It's the rank and file they're taking orders from now, not the big swinging dicks in Washington. So by default their actions = democracy (however temporarily).

[wonderpup]

Whats strange here is how shocked we all are that democracy, that precious thing that the US seem to want to ram down the throat of everyone on the planet has in this case actualy worked!

Who would have belived that in the first decade of the 21st century that elected officals would actualy carry out the wishes of those that voted for them-I'm as shocked as everyone else.

And how ironic that it's the democrats who voted yes and the republicans who voted no.

[Guest adp]

Yep. Many of them are in the equivalent of what we call 'marginal seats'. It's the rank and file they're taking orders from now, not the big swinging dicks in Washington. So by default their actions = democracy (however temporarily).

Which rather begs the question will any bill be possible? It would now have to be a democrat one but do the dems have the guts to draft a wall st bailout that is not bipartisan?

[stormymonday_2011]

The East Coast Democrats have always received lots of funding from Wall Street. It is in their back yard.

Most Democrats are no more socialist than Tony Blair or Gordon Brown.

[Guest adp]

The East Coast Democrats have always received lots of funding from Wall Street. It is in their back yard.

Most Democrats are no more socialist than Tony Blair or Gordon Brown.

Yeah but they still don't want to come out of the closet and would rather be masked behind bipartisanship. Coin toss at the minute ...

[terryturbojr]

If Wall Street was flying high would they "socialise it"?

That's a lot clearer now. Cheers.

[stormymonday_2011]

And how ironic that it's the democrats who voted yes and the republicans who voted no.

I gather 90 plus Democrats (mainly from the left) also voted no.

If all Democrats had voted in favour it would have passed easily since they are the majority party

Grass roots Democrat opinion as measured from posts on this web site also seems to have been very anti the bailout

http://www.democraticunderground.com/

The divide is establishment against people or Main Street versus Wall Street rather than a conventional political party split

Edited September 29, 2008 by up2nogood

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

I'm watching the Dems Press conference on Fox News.

Congressman Barney Franks was brilliantly funny.

Someone from the press asked," whether the the rebel Republicans had voted again the bill because Nancy Pelosi the speaker had upset their feelings."

Congressman Franks responded saying, "Well that is accusation that I hadn't thought of levelling at my opponents. If you are suggesting that those 13 Republicans are so sensitive that they decided to hurt the country rather than vote for the bill, the next time tell me who they are and I will go and speak to them in a uncharacteristically sensitive way."

Edited September 29, 2008 by mikelivingstone

[Guest adp]

I'm also confused - used to rooting for the good guys and the voting doesn't seem to match!

Guess it's a return to principles, the.left believe in intervention, the right don't...

The democrats are not a leftist party in the US - they are just further to the left than the right wing republicans. You must remember that even with a majority congress and senate of democrats over the last number of years, there is no health care in the US. Think about it, a minimum of 50 grand to have a baby in the US.

[IDN]

bROWN strikes again!!!!

just a few days ago he said a bail out would be good!!!!!

incredible- on sat he said arsenal would hammer hull!!!!

[yaakov]

I'm also confused - used to rooting for the good guys and the voting doesn't seem to match!

Guess it's a return to principles, the.left believe in intervention, the right don't...

Maybe the fiscal conservatives in the Republican Party have finally woken up and realised their country is being ruined by the other lunatics (the Christian fundamentalists) in their party. The Christian fundamentalists are not really conservatives - they're some bizarre set of radical activists.