What just happened to the stock market?!

[Bob Juch]

The DJI has been down around 300 all day, but I just looked and it's down over 500 now. What bad news triggered that?!

[Beebs52]

The DJI has been down around 300 all day, but I just looked and it's down over 500 now. What bad news triggered that?!

The House rejected the bailout bill.

[Rexer25]

CNN says there's talk the bailout bill will fail, and the Nervous Nellies are panicking.

[Bob Juch]

Thanks; I'm on a conference call so couldn't check broadcast news.

[gsabc]

If the voting on C-Span 1 is the bailout bill, it's been defeated, 207-226. Look out below.

Edited: it may be a vote on an amendment, not the entire bill. The description of the item being voted on is very unclear.

[silverscreenselect]

If the voting on C-Span 1 is the bailout bill, it's been defeated, 207-226. Look out below.

The vote is, as I understand, technically still open so the House leaders may be able to do some arm twisting to swing a few votes.

[Bob Juch]

If the voting on C-Span 1 is the bailout bill, it's been defeated, 207-226. Look out below.

The vote is, as I understand, technically still open so the House leaders may be able to do some arm twisting to swing a few votes.

What I'm reading says it's toast.

The vote was 205-228.

[gsabc]

They're voting now to suspend the rules and take the real vote. I think. The subject reads "On motion to suspend the rules and pass". Pass what? Pass along to vote on the bill? Pass the bill itself?

[christie1111]

CNN says it failed.

[danielh41]

The networks are all saying it failed. Good. Maybe now Congress can put something together that's not formed out of panic, doesn't promote socialism, and is actually Constitutional.

[silverscreenselect]

1) Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and company are completely and utterly worthless as leaders. If they had been captaining the Titanic, they couldn't have gotten an agreement to launch the lifeboats.

2) The reason that Sec. Paulson asked John McCain to come to Washington to help on the bailout was that a lot of Republicans were deeply and ideologically opposed to the bailout and that unless McCain twisted a few arms and delivered about 100 votes or so, it was going down in the house (65 Republicans eventually voted for the bailout).

3) McCain took up the request, which the Democrats then turned into an opportunity to cut him off at the knees with their rather snide statements about how his help wasn't needed. This seems to be paying dividends in the polls right now. Not only that, but the Democratic leadership spent the weekend lauding about how the bailout incorporated the principles that Obams holds dear and crediting his wisdom and leadership.

4) Based on 2 and 3 above, it's no surprise that a lot of Republicans refused to go along with the dog and pony show and the result is Reid and Pelosi with more egg on their face, Obama deprived of his big talking point and the country still not any closer to working out this mess.

[Bob78164]

The networks are all saying it failed. Good. Maybe now Congress can put something together that's not formed out of panic, doesn't promote socialism, and is actually Constitutional.

I haven't immersed myself enough in the details to form an opinion regarding whether the bill is good policy, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that it was unconstitutional. What do you have in mind? --Bob

[Flybrick]

1) Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and company are completely and utterly worthless as leaders. If they had been captaining the Titanic, they couldn't have gotten an agreement to launch the lifeboats.

2) The reason that Sec. Paulson asked John McCain to come to Washington to help on the bailout was that a lot of Republicans were deeply and ideologically opposed to the bailout and that unless McCain twisted a few arms and delivered about 100 votes or so, it was going down in the house (65 Republicans eventually voted for the bailout).

3) McCain took up the request, which the Democrats then turned into an opportunity to cut him off at the knees with their rather snide statements about how his help wasn't needed. This seems to be paying dividends in the polls right now. Not only that, but the Democratic leadership spent the weekend lauding about how the bailout incorporated the principles that Obams holds dear and crediting his wisdom and leadership.

4) Based on 2 and 3 above, it's no surprise that a lot of Republicans refused to go along with the dog and pony show and the result is Reid and Pelosi with more egg on their face, Obama deprived of his big talking point and the country still not any closer to working out this mess.

Will you marry me?! That was an excellent summary of the defeat of this bill.

Pelosi's cheap shots at the end of the debate cost this bill its chance.

Utterly worthless as a leader.

[Bob78164]

2) The reason that Sec. Paulson asked John McCain to come to Washington to help on the bailout was that a lot of Republicans were deeply and ideologically opposed to the bailout and that unless McCain twisted a few arms and delivered about 100 votes or so, it was going down in the house (65 Republicans eventually voted for the bailout).

I guess there's a downside to refusing to run for Miss Congeniality. And it's hard to imagine McCain, of all people, having the pull to move conservative Republicans off an ideologically held position. I don't think they trust the guy. So do you think that McCain is responsible for any of those 65 Republican votes?

Moreover, what little press coverage I heard over the weekend suggested singled out Pelosi for doing a good hands-on job putting together a viable package. I'm guessing that something will pass soon that looks an awful lot like what just got voted down. --Bob

[danielh41]

The networks are all saying it failed. Good. Maybe now Congress can put something together that's not formed out of panic, doesn't promote socialism, and is actually Constitutional.

I haven't immersed myself enough in the details to form an opinion regarding whether the bill is good policy, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that it was unconstitutional. What do you have in mind? --Bob

I'm not a constitutional law expert, so all I'm suggesting is that the bailout bill's constitutionality is questionable. What I had in mind was the separation of powers and how the Secretary of Treasury would have been given such a large role in this. A Google search of bailout bill constitutionality returned quite a few items.

[BackInTex]

Moreover, what little press coverage I heard over the weekend suggested singled out Pelosi for doing a good hands-on job putting together a viable package. I'm guessing that something will pass soon that looks an awful lot like what just got voted down. --Bob

Of course the press would say Pelosi did a good job. But what were the results? Would you say she did a good job? The market doesn't think so.

A good job a SOTH would have been to deliver something that would have passed. She did not use the proper tactics to ensure her strategy worked to acheive the objective. Being a good SOTH, or politician for that matter, is to be able to get agreement across the aisle when needed. Pelosi has stabbed too many people in the back, slapped too many in the face, and just down right pissed too many people off to be effective.

[silverscreenselect]

Moreover, what little press coverage I heard over the weekend suggested singled out Pelosi for doing a good hands-on job putting together a viable package. I'm guessing that something will pass soon that looks an awful lot like what just got voted down. --Bob

Of course the press would say Pelosi did a good job. But what were the results? Would you say she did a good job? The market doesn't think so.

A good job a SOTH would have been to deliver something that would have passed. She did not use the proper tactics to ensure her strategy worked to acheive the objective. Being a good SOTH, or politician for that matter, is to be able to get agreement across the aisle when needed. Pelosi has stabbed too many people in the back, slapped too many in the face, and just down right pissed too many people off to be effective.

Pelosi/Reid/Frank et al had two choices. Either craft a package that the Democrats wanted and force it through on virtually a straight party vote or try to work out a compromise. They paid lip service to a compromise but it was pretty clear that they were interested in using this issue to score points politically. Every time Pelosi and Reid spoke it was to praise the "Obama principles" or to bash Bush and/or McCain.

My sense is that a number of Republicans were willing to go along with even a badly flawed bill if they got some concessions (which McCain tried to bring up for discussion last Thursday when he floated a number of possibilities) and if McCain would give them some cover politically (if the President and the Presidential nominee both ask you to do something for the good of the country, you sometimes suck it up and do it).

McCain grandstanded somewaht with his "suspending" his campaign, although I think it's more his nature than anything else. But the Democrats took over the grandstanding and turned it into a three ring circus from Thursday through today, ending up with Pelosi's comments which were completely ridiculous. They practically drove McCain out of Washington with their comments. They were dead set on making this whole thing a victory for themselves and Obama and an indictment of Bush and McCain. They got what they deserved.

If McCain becomes president, Hillary will very likely become Majority Leader and the level of competence and maturity in both those positions will increase tremendously.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Moreover, what little press coverage I heard over the weekend suggested singled out Pelosi for doing a good hands-on job putting together a viable package. I'm guessing that something will pass soon that looks an awful lot like what just got voted down. --Bob

Here the mustard Pelosi put on the crap sandwich she wanted the House Republicans to eat, from the floor debate

PELOSI: When was the last time anyone ever asked you for $700 billion?

It’s a staggering figure and many questions have arisen from that request. And we have been hearing a very informed debate on all sides of this issue here today. I’m proud of the debate.

$700 billion. A staggering number, but only a part of the cost of the failed Bush economic policies to our country. Policies that were built on budget recklessness when Pres. Bush took office, he inherited Pres. Clinton’s surpluses - four years in a row budget surpluses on a trajectory of $5.6 trillion in surplus. And with his reckless economic policies, within two years, he had turned it around. And now 8 years later, the foundation of that fiscal irresponsibility, combined with an “anything goes” economic policy, has taken us to where we are today.

They claim to be free-market advocates, when it’s really an anything goes mentality. No regulation, no supervision, no discipline. And if you fail, you will have a golden parachute and the taxpayer will bail you out.

Those days are over. The party is over in that respect.

[Bob Juch]

Moreover, what little press coverage I heard over the weekend suggested singled out Pelosi for doing a good hands-on job putting together a viable package. I'm guessing that something will pass soon that looks an awful lot like what just got voted down. --Bob

Of course the press would say Pelosi did a good job. But what were the results? Would you say she did a good job? The market doesn't think so.

A good job a SOTH would have been to deliver something that would have passed. She did not use the proper tactics to ensure her strategy worked to acheive the objective. Being a good SOTH, or politician for that matter, is to be able to get agreement across the aisle when needed. Pelosi has stabbed too many people in the back, slapped too many in the face, and just down right pissed too many people off to be effective.

Pelosi/Reid/Frank et al had two choices. Either craft a package that the Democrats wanted and force it through on virtually a straight party vote or try to work out a compromise. They paid lip service to a compromise but it was pretty clear that they were interested in using this issue to score points politically. Every time Pelosi and Reid spoke it was to praise the "Obama principles" or to bash Bush and/or McCain.

My sense is that a number of Republicans were willing to go along with even a badly flawed bill if they got some concessions (which McCain tried to bring up for discussion last Thursday when he floated a number of possibilities) and if McCain would give them some cover politically (if the President and the Presidential nominee both ask you to do something for the good of the country, you sometimes suck it up and do it).

McCain grandstanded somewaht with his "suspending" his campaign, although I think it's more his nature than anything else. But the Democrats took over the grandstanding and turned it into a three ring circus from Thursday through today, ending up with Pelosi's comments which were completely ridiculous. They practically drove McCain out of Washington with their comments. They were dead set on making this whole thing a victory for themselves and Obama and an indictment of Bush and McCain. They got what they deserved.

If McCain becomes president, Hillary will very likely become Majority Leader and the level of competence and maturity in both those positions will increase tremendously.

Are there any Democrats you like besides Hillary?

Maybe you two should go off and start your own party,

[PlacentiaSoccerMom]

I haven't checked our investments in a while. I just don't want to know. The way that I look at it, we are buying low and it's going to rebound that's how I keep my sanity.

[Thousandaire]

1) Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and company are completely and utterly worthless as leaders. If they had been captaining the Titanic, they couldn't have gotten an agreement to launch the lifeboats.

2) The reason that Sec. Paulson asked John McCain to come to Washington to help on the bailout was that a lot of Republicans were deeply and ideologically opposed to the bailout and that unless McCain twisted a few arms and delivered about 100 votes or so, it was going down in the house (65 Republicans eventually voted for the bailout).

3) McCain took up the request, which the Democrats then turned into an opportunity to cut him off at the knees with their rather snide statements about how his help wasn't needed. This seems to be paying dividends in the polls right now. Not only that, but the Democratic leadership spent the weekend lauding about how the bailout incorporated the principles that Obams holds dear and crediting his wisdom and leadership.

4) Based on 2 and 3 above, it's no surprise that a lot of Republicans refused to go along with the dog and pony show and the result is Reid and Pelosi with more egg on their face, Obama deprived of his big talking point and the country still not any closer to working out this mess.

When congresspersons vote based on personal animosity, rather than what's right for the country, they should be shot. I suspect what's more at work here is the Congressmen who heard 99% opposition from their constituents. I hope so, anyway.

[JBillyGirl]

It does sound like Pelosi went overboard in giving her speech a partisan edge. (Talk about exactly the wrong time to do something like that.) However, I have no sympathy whatsoever for the Republicans who were going to vote for the bill but then changed their minds after her speech. You should vote on a bill based on its merits (or lack thereof), not because you didn't like something someone said. Especially now that the stakes are so high.

[Timsterino]

I haven't checked our investments in a while. I just don't want to know. The way that I look at it, we are buying low and it's going to rebound that's how I keep my sanity.

Same here. Yikes is all I am thinking right now. I am just glad I am 36 and not 56 right now.

[peacock2121]

I wish I knew what the right answer was.

I do not.

I feel a bit helpless.

My 'guy' says we will weather this.

I asked if he meant 'we', like the country or 'we' like Sting and me and him.

He said both with some less fortunate types in my country not weathering it as well as I will.

[gsabc]

I haven't checked our investments in a while. I just don't want to know. The way that I look at it, we are buying low and it's going to rebound that's how I keep my sanity.

Those who have a goodly number of years before retirement should be okay. Those who do not may be screwed if they had not moved into more stable and safe investments.

As half of an older couple pouring the maximum into our 401(k)s, I am a bit concerned about how deep this fall might be. The length of time until retirement isn't all that large.