The failure of the bill (beginning with the term, "bailout") had nothing to do with Pelosi, and everything to do with a realization by
everyone that the blame for this belongs squarely on the GOP and the culture of non-interference that they have championed for decades. The bill represents a clear repudiation of everything they have stood for, so it was very difficult to get past that. Pelosi may have said it out loud, but they already understood this. Allowing the government to function is what is so hard to swallow, not Pelosi's words.
Why the bailout bill went down -
CS Monitor.
I'm with
Checkerboard, though.
THIS bill should have died, because it was a last-ditch effort by the administration to maintain control - and in a particularly egregious way - over a crisis that they had created (perhaps deliberately, but probably simply by gross incompetence). What should happen instead is a bipartisan bill, with completely different terms, that represents a realistic approach to
changing the system and not just putting more lipstick, rouge, and false eyelashes on this decidedly odious pig.
Here are some sensible points by one of the best economists to look at this picture:
What Wall Street Should Be Required to Do, to Get A Blank Check From Taxpayers - Robert Reich's blog. Paul Krugman has also made some cogent arguments, although they are harder to access. Here's a cogent, if borrowed, one:
People I agree with, part one - NYT
