Nederlaget for 700-milliarder dollar redningspakken i Representantenes Hus var et sjokk. At folkevalgte kunne stemme ned planen som skulle redde finanssektoren og huseiere, åpner døren til det ukjente. Wall Street falt mer enn første dag etter 9/11.
Medlemmer av det moderne samfunn er overbevist om at det finnes et sikkerhetsnett som redder oss ut av kriser. Det kan aldri gå helt galt. Vår teknologi og smartness vil alltid redde situasjonen. Redningspakken skulle gjøre biffen, alt var klart. Det var forhandlet frem endringer som sikret bedre politisk kontroll. Men så går representantene bort og stemmer nei, og det var flere republikanere enn demokrater som gjorde det, hvilket kan bli et problem for John McCain:
In the House, "no" votes came from both the Democratic and Republican sides of the aisle. More than two-thirds of Republicans and 40 percent of Democrats opposed the bill. Several Democrats in close election fights waited until the last moment, then went against the bill as it became clear the vast majority of Republicans were opposing it.Thirteen of the 19 most vulnerable Republicans and Democrats in an Associated Press analysis voted against the bill despite the pleas from Bush and their party leaders to pass it.
In all, 65 Republicans joined 140 Democrats in voting "yes," while 133 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted "no."
Dow Jones falt 777 poeng, mot 684 etter 9/11. Representantenes Hus fjernet troen på at det finnes et ansvar og en sikkerhetsmekanisme. Usikkerheten blir fundamental og truer systemet.
George Bush' presidentperiode trues av kaos. Som den demokratiske formannen for bankkomiteen sa: Republikanerne stemte mot sin egen president.
Det er vanskelig å forstå hvordan nei-representantene tenkte. Avstemningen kan skyve ikke bare USA, men også verden ut i en alvorlig resesjon, og utløse uro. Alle vante parametre er blåst bort.
House rejects $700B bailout in stunning defeat
Kanskje dei tenkte slik som denne representanten?">http://redstaterebels.org/2008/09/wall-streets-greed-game/>
"Rep Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) gave the best speech of the day railing
against the financial industry and defending the interests of working
class Americans.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich: "The $700 bailout bill is being driven by fear
not fact. This is too much money, in too short of time, going to too
few people, while too many questions remain unanswered. Why aren't we
having hearings...Why aren't we considering any other alternatives
other than giving $700 billion to Wall Street? Why aren't we passing
new laws to stop the speculation which triggered this? Why aren't we
putting up new regulatory structures to protect the investors? Why
aren't we directly helping homeowners with their debt burdens? Why
aren't we helping American families faced with bankruptcy? Isn't time
for fundamental change to our debt-based monetary system so we can
free ourselves from the manipulation of the Federal Reserve and the
banks? Is this the US Congress or the Board of Directors of Goldman Sachs?”
There was greater opposition to the Paulson bill than any legislation
in the last half century. The groundswell of public outrage has been
unprecedented, and yet, Congress, completely insulated from the
demands of their constituents, continues to blunder ahead following
the same pro-industry script as their ideological twins in the White
House. There's not a dime's worth of difference between the two
parties. Not surprisingly, neither Pelosi nor any of the Democratic
leadership has even met with any of the more than 200 leading
economists who have stated unequivocally that the bailout will not
address the central problems that are wreaking havoc on the financial
system. Instead, they have caved in to Bush's demagoguery and the
spurious claims of G-Sax bagman Henry Paulson, a man who has misled
the public on every issue related to the subprime/financial fiasco so far.
There are parts of Paulson's Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of
2008 that every US taxpayer should understand, even though the media
is keeping those facts obscured. In sections 128 and 132; the proposed
bill would have suspend "mark to market" accounting. This means that
the banks would no longer be required to assess the worth of their
assets according to what similar assets fetched on the open market.
For example, Merrill Lynch just sold $31 billion of mortgage-backed
securities for $6 billion, which means that similar bonds should be
similarly priced. Simple; right? The banks need to adjust the value of
those assets on their balance sheet accordingly. This gives investors
and depositors the ability to know whether their bank is in bad shape
or not. But Paulson's bill lifted this requirement and allowed the
banks to assign their own arbitrary value to these assets, which is
the same old Enron-style accounting scam."
">http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney09292008.html>