Everyone please call or E mail your senators about tonight's vote. I hope you agree with me that the bailout must be stopped, but even if you don't,let them know you are watching! It is time for us to take our country back!

Sent to Russ Feingold & Herb Kohl, Wisconsin's Senators
--------------------------------------------------

Vote "NO" tonight on the bank bailout. I WILL NOT VOTE FOR ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS THIS BILL. Working Americans are watching. I am to the point of giving up, why work for everyone else? I cannot afford a house, healthcare, savings or investments. I see myself working until I am simply to sick & tired to go on. I know there will be no safty net for me, so tell me WHY SHOULD I CONTINUE TO WORK & PAY TAXES TO BENIFIT THE GREEDY SOBS THAT ARE RAPING THIS COUNTRY? We NEED a strong correction in the housing market & stock market. Let it happen!

Let them also know that you DO understand the consequences.

But the consequences to future generations of Americans will be far worse if we do not let this market correct itself.

When the dust settles those that fleeced us will be no more.

Solvent well run business will be the ones that control the clensing of the market.

Business that have been raping us will not have the ability to compete because they have gambled on a false premise.

The only thing congress should be doing is NOTHING... which they do very well... except easing the burden on the bottom levels of the economy which they can do by simple adjustments to our existing laws and a STRICT TIGHTENING OF THE PURSE STRINGS as they have been asked to to by us the TAXPAYERS.

Come on people Do not let them get away with this!

i concur


phone book of senate

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

my email

-------

i feel a bailout of wall street is a sell out of the people of the united states

those responsible for the situation should be held accountable

yes the fallout in the near future will be hard no doubt

but to bailout wall street would lead to a destroying the future for descendants

it will lead to other irresponsible actions by other ceo and cfo officers in the future

they pat themselves on the back with big bonuses and then expect (yes expect and if it happens it will get worse) the tax payers to bail them out

sorry but no bail out will strengthen the economy far more than a bailout (in actuality the bailout will weaken the economy for decades to come)

Good write DJ, Thank you ! I am simply too tired from working all the time to be eloquent. I am truly sick & tired, & I hope my e mail shows that without looking ignorant.

Feingold "no", Kohl "yes"

The SOBs PASSED IT!

see how your senators voted for this new improved bailout of 400 plus pages filled with goodies.


This is the official vote count by party and by state.

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/washington/ROLLCALL.html?currentChamber=senate&currentSession=2&currentCongress=110&currentRoll=213

both ohio voted yes

jerks need replaced

one each voinivich (r) y

brown (d) y

as for prez candidates

obama (d) y

mccain (r) y

guess who won't get my vote

my senators reply to my email

--------------

Dear Mr.

Thank you for expressing your concerns with the problems in the financial sector and how we address them.

A lot of Ohioans, including me, are angry at the thought of bailing out people who made a lot of money making bad business decisions that created problems in neighborhoods across Ohio. I agree that we need to avoid rewarding excessive risk taking. These institutions made unwise decisions, and taxpayers should not be expected to simply cover their losses.

On September 20th, Treasury Secretary Paulson sent a proposal to Congress that would have given him almost unfettered authority to spend $700 billion purchasing troubled assets from financial institutions. A few days later, my colleagues on the Banking Committee and I held a hearing at which Secretary Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke, and others testified.

They made a strong case for the need to act quickly to prevent further damage to our economy. The turmoil in the credit markets has the potential to do great damage to a lot of innocent bystanders. I am afraid that if we do not act, the economic instability could affect thousands of American jobs and the savings of countless middle class families.

But Secretary Paulson’s proposal was not the right answer. No Secretary should be given a $700 billion blank check. Taxpayers must be given an opportunity to recover their money, and assurances their tax dollars will not fund lavish pay and golden parachutes. We need strong rules to guard against abuse and we need to ensure that Ohio is helped and not just Wall Street. The legislation adopted by the Senate, with my support, makes each of these changes.

This was a difficult vote. But Ohio has already lost 200,000 manufacturing jobs over the past seven years as our unemployment rate has spiked. Retirement and college savings accounts have shriveled. Credit is becoming more expensive for small businesses. We cannot gamble on even greater economic dislocation.

This week’s vote was not the end of our work on this issue. In the months ahead we need to enact tough rules to govern our financial markets to ensure we never find ourselves in this situation again.
Sincerely,
Sherrod Brown

----------------

what a crock like that 700 billion is gonna bring jobs or save jobs in ohio

Funny isn't it that McCain voted for it then said as president he would veto it.

Is that like being for it before he was against it?

could be

lol

I just got a response from Russ Feingold, Democrat, Wisconsin. No response yet from Senator Herb Kohl or Representative David Obey, both of whom voted for the bill.

--------------------------------------------------

Thank you for contacting me to share your thoughts on the administration's proposal to purchase up to $700 billion of bad mortgage debt. I very much appreciated hearing from you.



I opposed the bailout plan passed by Congress, because though well intentioned, and certainly much improved over the administration's original proposal, it remained deeply flawed. It failed to offset the cost of the plan, leaving taxpayers to bear the burden of serious lapses of judgment by private financial institutions, their regulators, and the enablers in Washington who paved the way for this catastrophe by removing the safeguards that had protected consumers and the economy since the great depression. Second, this bill did not include meaningful provisions to help families facing foreclosure. This is more than just a matter of fairness - the housing crisis is the root cause of the credit market collapse, and unless we address it, any rescue package is far less likely to work. Finally, the measure failed to address the deeply flawed regulatory structure that paved the way for this crisis. Taxpayers deserve a plan that puts their concerns ahead of those who got us into this mess.



Again, thank you for contacting me. Please feel free to do so again in the future

Reply from senator Coleman (Mn)

Dear Mr. Gallo:



Thank you for taking the time to contact me to voice your concerns with the financial crisis we're facing. I hear you loud and clear and want to assure you that I took your thoughts to heart prior to casting my vote. I appreciate having the chance to respond to your well-founded frustration.



I am deeply concerned about the financial crisis and its impact on our already troubled economy. While this crisis may seem to be only about Wall Street, in reality it touches each and every Minnesotan. Jobs, personal and retirement savings, loans for businesses, college and car loans, and mortgages are all at stake. Prior to the vote, I received a multitude of real-life stories from Minnesotans who were facing issues such as the inability to make payroll or get a student loan.



I am frustrated that the case-by-case approach up to this point in dealing with the financial crisis had failed to solve the problem. Unfortunately, we entered a new and dangerous phase in which our entire financial system hangs in the balance. Dramatic action was required to respond to economic disaster. I did not take lightly for one minute allocating $700 billion in taxpayer money. In fact, I am infuriated that we are at this point, but I did come to the ultimate conclusion that it was necessary.



In response to the crisis, which was brought on by outright greed, mismanagement and a failed financial regulatory system, the Administration proposed on September 19, 2008, a $700 billion plan to systematically stabilize the financial system and protect the economy by buying toxic mortgage-related assets that have been paralyzing the financial system. As originally proposed, I could not support the Administration's plan. In fact, on September 29, I sent a letter to Senate Banking Committee Chairman Dodd, Ranking Member Shelby, House Financial Services Chairman Frank, and Ranking Member Bachus making it known that in order to gain my support, any financial rescue plan needed to uphold the principles of Wall Street accountability, taxpayer protections, and no blank checks or golden parachute payouts to Wall Street executives.



As you may know, on October 1, 2008, I joined 73 of my colleagues in passing revised financial stabilization legislation that included my required principles. More specifically, the financial stabilization legislation doesn't give a blank check for Wall Street, provides for strong oversight and judicial review, limits executive compensation, and prohibits golden parachutes for participating institutions. Signed by President Bush on October 3, this legislation provides $700 billion, in installments, for programs to buy and insure these toxic assets. $250 billion will be given upfront; another $100 billion if the President certifies need, and the last $350 billion will be subject to Congressional disapproval.



It is important to point out that these assets have underlying value. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that the net cost to the taxpayer would be "substantially less than $700 billion." Moreover, a number of well-respected market observers have suggested that the government could actually earn a profit on these assets. In the event that a profit is not made, the President must report to Congress with a plan on how to make up any shortfall from the financial industry. And if there are profits, they must be used for debt reduction.



In addition, this legislation directs the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to suspend mark-to-market accounting if it is found to be in the public interest, raises the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insurance limit from $100,000 to $250,000, provides responsible homeowner relief such as a three-year extension of mortgage debt forgiveness, and protects middle-class Minnesotans from higher taxes.



Going forward, we cannot go back to business as usual. The need to aggressively undertake financial regulatory reform is a top priority of mine and will remain so until we pass much-needed legislation. Our current system is broken - we must have a forward looking regulatory system for our 21st century economy. We need greater transparency and accountability across our entire financial system so that regulators and consumers fully understand financial products and their possible risks. We also need to put more "cops on the beat" to better police Wall Street.



You may also be interested to know that I have called on Wall Street executives to repay any and all ill-gotten bonuses they may have received, and I have also asked Attorney General Mukasey to investigate whether Wall Street executives engaged in criminal conspiracy and fraudulent activities. Executives who clearly helped to create this crisis must be held accountable, and those who have broken our laws should be punished through fines and jail time.



This was not an easy vote. In fact, this was one of the most politically unpopular votes I have had to take. But the thing is, I don't think Minnesotans sent me to Washington to cast easy votes. You sent me here to weigh pros and cons and do what is best for our state. At the end of the day, and after laying everything out on the table, the dangers of not acting far outweighed any political fallout that may come because of my vote.



These are extremely challenging times. Please know I will continue to do everything in my power to support the economy and protect the taxpayer.



While we may not view this issue the same way, I do appreciate the chance to respond. I respect and appreciate your advice and hope you will continue to share your thoughts and ideas with me.







Sincerely,
Norm Coleman
United States Senate

I just got my reply from congressman David Obey. My message to him was simple. "you have another cahnce to do the right thing. Vote "nay" for the bailout Bill or I vote "nay" to you!" I will not be voting for him on Nov. 4th.
Dear Ms. Johnston:

Thank you for contacting me about the President’s request for a massive $700 billion bailout of the financial markets. I agree with virtually every criticism that has been voiced about the economic recovery package that the President and the Senate were pushing. Frankly, I am mad as hell that things have come to this.

Let me be clear:

• Wall Street does not deserve to be rescued.

• Financial institutions that tried to make an extra fast buck by inventing arcane
financial instruments that even they sometimes misunderstood, who by their
reckless lending put people in houses they clearly could not afford, do not deserve
to be rescued.

• Individual homebuyers who bought houses on speculation in order to make a
quick buck by flipping them, do not deserve to be rescued.

• Individuals who abandoned a sense of personal responsibility by buying houses
far beyond their ability to afford, do not deserve to be rescued.

• The public and hardworking taxpayers, who did exercise a sense of personal
responsibility and who were in no way responsible for this mess, do not
deserve to be caught in this crunch.

• Politicians, who since the 1980s, in their hell bent zeal to gut government’s ability
to keep the big boys honest and rational, gutted the ability of regulatory agencies
to protect taxpayers and investors, do deserve to get scalded.




It’s important to understand how this all started. We are now paying a huge price for the fact that for over 20 years we’ve had massive deregulation of the financial sector of our economy and, at the same time, economic policies that have favored the top dogs at the expense of everybody else.

If you take all of the income growth that has occurred in this country in the last eight years and see who got it, over 95 percent of all of the income growth in the country went to the wealthiest 10 percent of families. That means 90 percent of American families – 9 out of 10 – were left to struggle to get a piece of just 4.7 percent of the total income growth that’s occurred in the last eight years.

As a result, people who, in real terms, have had their income frozen for nearly a decade have tried to keep their heads above water by borrowing. In fact, over the last eight years, mortgage debt alone has gone up by $7 trillion. And with the umpire off the field because of the relentless drive for less regulation by the Reagan and Bush Administrations, and on occasion the Clinton Administration as well, many on Wall Street who were looking for a way to make a bigger buck than ever, have made the problem worse.

I fought that pressure time and time again.

For example, I was one of 57 members in the House who opposed the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which was enacted during the FDR Administration. Glass-Steagall was enacted to keep investment banking and community banking separate, because they didn't want the high-flying, risk-taking actions of investment bankers to infect the community banking system. It stood us in good stead for generations. During debate on the House Floor during the vote to repeal Glass-Steagall, I said that the bill was:

"consumer fraud masquerading as financial reform. There is nothing wrong
with modernizing financial institutions. It is nice to see that my colleagues are
going to try to set up one-stop shopping services for financial services. But
returning 1999 to 1929 is not reform in my book.”

I very much disliked a number of the provisions the Bush Administration was pushing through Congress. I am also angry because the Senate loaded the bill up with a bunch of junk. I especially resent the fact that the Administration, while it pushed this rescue package, refused to support my legislation to try to help people on Main Street who are suffering because of this crisis. We have been trying to make greater investments in the country's infrastructure by beefing up our sewer and water construction and highway and airport construction in order to create a good number of well paying private sector jobs. We also want to extend unemployment insurance to help address the fact that 600,000 Americans have lost their jobs this year. And we are also trying to provide some budget support for states so they do not wind up knocking poor children off health care rolls.

Before the Administration and the Senate produced the final package, we were able to make a number of changes to the proposal to protect the taxpayer’s interest:

• First, we included a provision ensuring that the taxpayer would get the benefit of
any recovery in the value of the assets the government is buying from financial
institutions.

• Second, the plan has a mechanism by which Wall Street can pay a significant
share of the tab so taxpayers don't get stuck with the whole load.

• Third, there will be an independent review board looking over the shoulder of the
Fed as it makes financial decisions to blow the whistle if problems develop.

• Fourth, there are now limitations on compensation to the executives of the
companies receiving federal aid and no golden parachutes.

• Fifth, there will be reinvigoration of oversight by regulatory agencies to prevent
this from happening again.

Some of those provisions are not nearly as strong as they should be, but they are a whole lot better than they were originally.

I voted for this package because the economy could be near the brink of catastrophe.

Example: In September jobs were cut by the fastest rate in almost six years. Unemployment has risen by 50 percent in just a few months.

Example: Fear about the shaky condition of financial institutions is causing a huge and dangerous collapse of the ability of average families and businesses to get credit. If that is not changed, it could be catastrophic for every American family.

Numerous small business people have told me that their ability to get credit is drying up and they are afraid that they will not be able to meet payrolls. I have received urgent calls from auto dealers who have warned me that their sales are collapsing because of the inability, even of people with good credit ratings, to finance car purchases. GMAC is substantially cutting back on their willingness to finance auto purchases.

Recently, a business owner from my district wrote:

“Yesterday we were advised by GMAC that they are curtailing the financing of
used inventory due to their inability to raise capital in the capital markets.
Our dealership has other sources of financing which are intact for now, but this
will ultimately affect our ability to take trade-ins on new cars, in what is already
a severely distressed market.”





Another businessman described similar financing problems and said:

“I have been in business for over 21 years now and have never seen it so bad.”

The auto industry appears to be collapsing. Their orders for steel, for plastic, for rubber are all collapsing and that will produce hundreds of thousands of layoffs across the country, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry that supplies Detroit with material. House values are continuing to collapse because of the credit crisis, which could lead to at least a million more foreclosures.

This situation is urgent. I am not at all convinced that the package pushed by the Administration will do the job and stop the bleeding. And I certainly do not believe that there is enough balance between the help being given to the banks and the help being given to others in the economy. But I did not have the opportunity to amend this package. When the bill came before us for a vote, I only had one choice: up or down.

In my judgment the risk of doing nothing was too high a risk to take with the lives and welfare of average working people and businesses hanging in the balance. As I said on the House Floor, if there were no consequences for those families and businesses, I really wouldn’t care if the high-flyers on Wall Street took a tumble from their elevated spots on the economic ladder. But if they fall, they will fall on innocent people below them on that ladder and the results will be that businesses will not be able to meet payroll, pension funds will be depleted by a crash in the market, families will be unable to borrow from banks to send their kids to college, consumers will not be able to get loans to finance their car purchases, homebuyers will not be able to get mortgages, and housing values will collapse because of the inability of the banking system to finance those mortgages. I don’t want that on my conscience.

I have no doubt we are heading into a significant recession with all that means to the average American worker and family. I do not honestly know how much this package will do to help limit the damage, but I do believe it will help and that is what counts right now. With all of its shortcomings, this package can be used to buy some time to take more effective action when we have a new Administration that is more flexible and fair-minded.

At the time, I could have done one of two things: First, vote against the package and blame those politicians who brought about this crisis by their deregulatory push. Or second, vote for the only package on the table to try to ease the crisis.

I cannot allow my anger to overcome my judgment. During all my time in Congress, I’ve always tried to do the responsible thing that would help the country. Sometimes in politics and in life, if you are responsible, you not only have to clean up your own messes, you also have to help clean up the messes caused by other people. Sometimes in life the choices we get are between awful and god awful, and this was one of those times.

When the people of Wisconsin hired me to represent them in Congress, they didn’t just hire my vote; they hired my judgment. I’m bringing that judgment to bear on this issue. It may be right. It may be wrong. But as much as I detest aspects of this legislation, I had no real choice if I care about the welfare of the country and the people I represent. As Franklin Roosevelt said in his inaugural address in 1932 when he was facing a similar collapse of the financial sector of the economy, "we need action and now."

Thank you again for taking the time to get in touch. I understand your frustration and anger, and believe me I share it!

Sincerely,

David Obey
Your Congressman