Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentElections · 1 decade ago

Are Repubs that changed their mind and voted No"bailout" more concerned with their future, then this country?

Some of the Republicans stated they did not like what the House speaker had to say about those responsible for getting us in this mess in the first place,so they changed their vote against the bill

Which are they more concerned about the US economy,business or getting re-elected or the taxpayers that will be bearing the brunt of either situation without regulations being back into place? Are nt they a little late on good decisions? Are they going to do to fix what they helped create?

Update:

Truth is: neither side WANTS to give a handout and they should not have to be, little late for that now,but it will not fix the problem of NOT giving a loan with some rules and both sides need a minimum vote yes to get it through.

18 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Almost all those who voted NO are up for re-election and they were concerned that the voters would turn against them if they voted for the bailout, so once again we see politics at work, though I do hope they can improve the plan they have and come to some decision soon based on whats best for the economy.

  • PN
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    Pelosi and the democrats did not want the bail out to pass and that is why she went in to such a tirade before the vote. Her idea was for 60% Democrat votes for it so she could blame it on the Republicans, the Dem's had the votes to pass it without the Repubs. I was filled with pork for groups like ACORN, LaRaza and more. If the Republicans had passed it they would be accused of giving entitlements to those groups when the country is in crisis. I am glad it did not pass but if anyone wants to assign blame, I would start with Pelosi.

  • 1 decade ago

    Please see the attached to know who created this.

    Also, 95 democrats did not vote for this bill but there has been no reporting why they voted no.

    I guess people do like this to be a political circus of the blame game than what it really is. Our country is being sold off little by little and all Americans will pay for this by a depression which a lot of poor people don't really mind because it was a way to redistribute the wealth from the beginning. Who thinks this is joke now? Who is going to get the last laugh?

  • 1 decade ago

    No my Dear.......This is all on the Dems back. They allowed this to happen on their watch. Pelosi did again play the blame game as usual so that those stupid enough not to know the facts would blame the Bush Administration. Remember she is still trying to make the point that Bush =McCain but that is not at all true. Furthermore the reason most on both sides voted NO was because they heard loud and clear from their constitutes NO BAILOUT and so close to election time they are also covering their butts.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    The Republicans voted against it on Principle, whereas the Democrats voted against it for self preservation, knowing that they would lose their majority if they voted for it as it was...and by the way, the bill that the Democrats tried to pass was so ridiculously overburdened with billions of earmarks for their special interest groups. They even tried to give "more" money to the criminal ACORN group, in a bill meant to specifically bail out the banks...not to further fund their socialist agenda.

    It's complete political maneuvering.

  • 1 decade ago

    You can say the same of several Democrats. It has been reported that Speaker Pelosi allowed those Democrats in close races for re-election to vote against it without "punishment" if it helps their re-election.

    My representative is in such a race, a Democrat, and voted no (Rep Gillibrand of NY).

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    The repubs are more concerned about the country and a little ticked off they are catching bleep, for changes the dems did that caused the mess. The changes to the Community redevelopment act which require "consideration of other factors" and prohibited reliance on credit score and minimum down payment -required banks to issue sub-prime loans - Dem bill - signed by clinton.

  • 1 decade ago

    The Democrats could have passed the bill on their own! 12 Democrat members of Barney Frank's own banking committee voted against ot!

  • 1 decade ago

    Copying a response from a similar question I posted:

    The government has no business interfering with the market unless you are looking for a change to socialism with government controlled banks and lending institutions.

    The government could have gone the route of federally insuring mortgage loans instead of buying up the bad paper.

    The responsibility for the fiasco should be layed where it belongs - in the laps of the Democruds who failed to heed the warnings of economists and Republicruds to change the rules and regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (which rules the Democruds urged on the mortgage institutes to begin with) to prevent the granting of mortgages to people unqualified and of insufficient income to make payments on the loans they were given.

    Responsibility lies with every politician who received campaign contributions (totaling in the millions of $s) from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It should have been illegal for those semi-private-semi-government institutions to make ANY campaign contributions seeing as how they were affiliated with government to begin with.

    It was mostly Democruds that recieved those funds, but with today's politics, we can't rule out anybody, especially the Republicruds.

    If a business fails at being successful at it's business, why should the government be responsible for keeping it in business. This sounds more like communism or socialism to me than any form of capitalism I've ever heard of.

    Let 'em sink or swim. The country will survive and maybe even become a little stronger financially at the end.

    The Chinese already own so much of our debt, that to offer them more would be financial suicide should they ever call in that debt. Why offer them to noose to hang us?

    Other such great answers:

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Au11Z...

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    93? dems jumped ship as well and the main reason was the thousands of messages from constituents saying dont you dare vote for this. We may need a plan but history tells us that rushing in has seldom resulted in positive results

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.