[UPDATE Can we have the Incredible HOLC now? -- lambert]
[UPDATE Oddly, or not, nobody that I can find is framing this as a victory for the American people, who were overwhelmingly and vociferously against this bill. -- lambert]
[UPDATE Keep calling your representatives, either to thank them if they did the right thing, or to chastise them and offer alternatives if they did wrong. -- lambert]
[UPDATE McClatchy gets it: See below. -- lambert]
By a vote of 205-228, the House has killed the current version of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout bill.
Well! Nice work, Nance. You too, Barry.
I expect our experts in strategic behavior will inflict more shock and pain in service of their greed. But I think they have some "Step One" work to do.... "We admitted we were powerless against the aroused American people." Then, maybe at some point, they could do that "fearless and searching moral inventory" thing.
UPDATE Obama, dancing with who brung him, blames partisanship. Hilarity ensues.
UPDATE Krugman blames the House Republicans, says we've become "a banana Republic with nukes." Which I'd agree with, since given Bush + Reid + Pelosi + Frank + Obama + Paulson I might as well be wearing my underwear on the outside -- were it not for the overwhelming popular opposition to the plan. The case could be made that the country, after being a banana republic (if that) for the last eight years, finally took a step toward democracy today.
UPDATE Wall Street drops. But as I said somewhere today, if it takes an act of Congress to support the Dow, then we, or at least they, are fucked anyhow, come what may.
UPDATE Stirling has a plan: A shot of adrenaline to get us through to January. I like the slogan: "Too sick to lend is too sick to live." That should turn some bankers liquid. So does Ian (hat tip, CD).
UPDATE Via McClatchy:
For once, Congress heard as voters protested bailout plan
Almost until the early afternoon vote Monday on the financial rescue plan, voters bombarded congressional offices, protesting almost in unison: Don't bail out renegade financial executives and companies.
On Monday, House members, who face the voters in five weeks, listened to their constituents rather than their party leaders and rejected the $700 billion financial rescue package. For many, it was just too much to swallow too quickly, and too hard to explain.
Most House members said, "I want this thing to pass, but I want you to vote for it, not me," explained Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., who voted for the bill.
Most lawmakers knew that what had happened was something much more fundamental: Members voted to please the folks back home, not their leaders in Washington or the titans of Wall Street.
"This is the same politics of fear we are hearing from the fat cat financial bullies from Wall Street," said Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, who voted no.
Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., recalled how many people voted for hard-to-understand measures such as the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill or 2002 legislation giving President Bush broad authority to wage war in Iraq, only to learn later that they'd signed blank checks to Bush that would come to haunt them.
"There were a lot of eyes rolling on this bailout. We're heard this kind of thing before," said Flake, who voted no.
And what's next?
The Senate, where only 34 of 100 seats are up on Nov. 4, is expected to pass the legislation easily. After the chaos Monday in the House, the Senate's mood was calm, and people remained upbeat about eventual passage.
"A lot of people have misgivings," said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., one of the Senate's leading conservative voices. "I have a lot of misgivings, but I'm still going to vote for it."
Well, I guess we're going to have to make the Senate upset, then.