Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

US House Limits Constituent Emails

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the just-the-fax-ma'am dept.

Government 581

Plechazunga passes along this note from The Hill: "The House is limiting e-mails from the public to prevent its websites from crashing due to the enormous amount of mail being submitted on the financial bailout bill. As a result, some constituents may get a 'try back at a later time' response if they use the House website to e-mail their lawmakers about the bill defeated in the House on Monday in a 205-228 vote."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Dear Constituent (a letter from your government) (5, Insightful)

mfh (56) | more than 6 years ago | (#25209573)

Dear Constituent,

We know you are a human being, or at least you believe that matters to us, but sadly, our mailboxes are too small and cannot possibly handle the number of emails you people wish to send. We lose them anyway and we never read them so why bother. Also, when we built the mailboxes, we only anticipated hearing from 0.001% of our constituents, not this whopping 1.02% contact ratio we're experiencing!

We have assessed the situation and believe that you fall under one of the following categories:

1. You are whining about something that we did to hurt your feelings.
2. You want us to do something.
3. You have a complaint.

Here are some generic responses to help you cope:

Category #1: (You are whining about something that hurt your feelings.)
Sorry. Vote for me in 2008!

Category #2: (You want us to do something.)
We are already doing everything we can. KTHXBYE. Vote for me in 2008!

Category #3: (You have a complaint.)
GTFO. Canada is that way -------> Vote for me in 2008!

Therefore, while we will gladly take your taxes from you, we have some bad news. We can't hear you. La la la la la la la la what? can't hear you! la la la la la...

No no... that's all you have to say.

Besides, we'll do whatever we want to anyway.

Vote for me in 2008!

Kind Regards,
Your Douchebag Government

Re:Dear Constituent (a letter from your government (0, Offtopic)

Korveck (1145695) | more than 6 years ago | (#25209685)

Last time I checked, Canada was to the North of the US... Ummm wait, do you live in Alaska?

Re:Dear Constituent (a letter from your government (4, Funny)

snl2587 (1177409) | more than 6 years ago | (#25209743)

The way my laptop is oriented, the direction is right on.

Re:Dear Constituent (a letter from your government (4, Funny)

garett_spencley (193892) | more than 6 years ago | (#25209803)

Are you Canadian by any chance ? I am in Canada and if I follow that arrow for a really long time I'll end up right back where I am.

How freakin' cool is that ? As you said, spot on!

Re:Dear Constituent (a letter from your government (1)

Korveck (1145695) | more than 6 years ago | (#25209893)

Sorry about the misunderstanding. I thought you tried to send me to Cuba.

Re:Dear Constituent (a letter from your government (-1, Flamebait)

HermDog (24570) | more than 6 years ago | (#25210327)

Sorry about the misunderstanding. I thought you tried to send me to Cuba.

Cuba, Canada. There's a difference?

Re:Dear Constituent (a letter from your government (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25209785)

My monitor faces east, you insensitive clod!

Re:Dear Constituent (a letter from your government (4, Funny)

QuasiEvil (74356) | more than 6 years ago | (#25210027)

F@#$, that's my problem. No wonder the Canada I found looks a lot like Mexico.

Re:Dear Constituent (a letter from your government (3, Informative)

ucblockhead (63650) | more than 6 years ago | (#25209937)

I once sent my senator a letter that said, paraphrased:

Dear Senator, I am very upset that you are considering $Foo. Please reconsider this position because of $bar.

I got a response that said, paraphrased:

Dear Constituent, Thank you for your letter. I thank you for your support in this time of troubles in which we must definitely do $Foo.

Re:Dear Constituent (a letter from your government (4, Funny)

Gat0r30y (957941) | more than 6 years ago | (#25210041)

GTFO. Canada is that way ------->

Dude, you must be lost - that's the way to Mexico.

Yeah... (2, Informative)

dwiget001 (1073738) | more than 6 years ago | (#25209589)

Please shut up, we do not want to hear from you on important matters.

We know what's best, so just get over yourselves.

Signed

House of Representatives

Re:Yeah... (1)

Millennium (2451) | more than 6 years ago | (#25209631)

When the servers crash, nothing gets through at all. Is this not perhaps a lesser evil?

Crashed servers send their own message (2, Insightful)

fotbr (855184) | more than 6 years ago | (#25209691)

Especially if they're stupid enough to try to run the constituent email through the same mailserver (probably a MS Exchange box) that they use for their "business" email (ie, who's having lunch where, and which lobby is paying for it).

Re:Yeah... (4, Insightful)

dwiget001 (1073738) | more than 6 years ago | (#25209779)

Could be.

However, I would like to see more of a "Due to the large volume of people wanting to communicate to their representatives on the bailout vote and other matters, we are greatly expanding and refining our e-mail services to ensure that your messages get through".

Notice, that I just wrote *is not* what they are doing.

I guess, to a degree, curbing the amount of traffic is like the bailout they are proposing, it is just a bandaid, doesn't actually solve the real thing that needs solving.

Re:Yeah... (2, Funny)

infonography (566403) | more than 6 years ago | (#25209951)

$SUBJECT="Vote No!!!!"
$TO=congresscritter@house.of.ill.repute.gov
$BODY="See you in November....."

mailx -s "$SUBJECT" "$TO" " /dev/null

add has cron script every 4 sec then stand back.

This is another GWBUSH Texas Stampede, and I am while I am on the Left I don't think we need it. It's an open bar at an AA meeting. the market is way over inflated and houses need to start selling for much less.

Re:Yeah... (5, Insightful)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 6 years ago | (#25209977)

Oh please. I'm no fan of the government, but they're not in a position to just "fix" the problems with the economy, and they don't really need Joe Sixpack's crap advice piling up.

Of all the coverage I've seen on the current problems, hardly any of it actually hits the real roots of the issue. The 700,000,000,000 bailout is being pushed (hilariously) not because anyone who knows really thinks it'll solve the problem, but because the people who are pushing it know it will be perceived that way, and calm down the markets.

The whole issue revolves around the new FAS regulation from a year ago (157, if anyone cares) which required the banks to revalue their investment holdings based on the daily current market values, which, due to a current housing market glut, are tanking. In the long term most of these assets have a much higher (and more stable) value, but since they're being measured in the short term, these horrible reports are coming out and scaring the shit out of everyone.

Frankly, having the government snap up a chunk of semi-stable investments which, in all likelihood, will render an eventual profit isn't a bad deal if it will get all the goddamn market amateurs to stop having hourly shit-hemorrhages.

But all the average scmuck knows about the situation is that the government is going to "throw away" 700bil on something that will (depending on their view) save/destroy the economy. They've got no idea, no more than the better informed people who are pushing it, and their attempts to get in the way are just causing problems.

To use an IT metaphor; the mainframe has eaten itself, and you're trying to fix it, and you've got to do things that may or may not destroy data, but that have to be done regardless just to get the system running again. Is it productive to listen to all the people who have a stake in the data screaming their uninformed opinions? Not really. I think Congress is displaying a distinct lack of tact, but I've been known to tell a CFO to go fuck themselves sideways a time or two myself, and I'm finding it hard to blame them.

Re:Yeah... (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 6 years ago | (#25210177)

Wow, I think that's the most insightful and honest description of the current problem. And I found it on .. slashdot.

I think I'll let everyone else digest that fact for themselves.

Re:Yeah... (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 6 years ago | (#25210263)

To use an IT metaphor; the mainframe has eaten itself, and you're trying to fix it, and you've got to do things that may or may not destroy data, but that have to be done regardless just to get the system running again.

Yup. Basically, the way I figure it, either people aren't cognizant of the fact that, like it or not, the government has to intervene in some sort of "bailout-like" scenario in order to save the economy, or they're simply choosing to cut off their noses to spite their faces. The latter is simply irrational. The former is simply ignorance.

Re:Yeah... (2, Informative)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 6 years ago | (#25210279)

isn't a bad deal

other than the fact that they have no constitutional authority to do so...

Congress has been Slashdotted (4, Funny)

cashman73 (855518) | more than 6 years ago | (#25209599)

Subject says it all!

Re:Congress has been Slashdotted (1)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 6 years ago | (#25209739)

Most of the Congressmen I've called also have voicemail's that are completely filled up.

Don't dare complain about it either! To them (Keith Ellison's staff) it isn't their job to clear the voicemail after business hours.

Re:Congress has been Slashdotted (4, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 6 years ago | (#25209839)

Complete awesomeness!!!

I'd like to see Congress and the Senate Slashdotted handily for every bill up for a vote, well at least the really big ones. I don't really care if the bill is just about congressional medals or something similar.

When it becomes common in the House and Senate for a legislator to take the floor and start off by saying "my constituents have been very clear on this matter via email and telephone..... I vote xyz" then we might consider that we have representative government.

Re:Congress has been Slashdotted (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 6 years ago | (#25210205)

If you want a representative government, then replace congress with an online poll server.

Re:Congress has been Slashdotted (2, Funny)

Gat0r30y (957941) | more than 6 years ago | (#25210329)

Ok, but will it be reddit or digg?

ducks...
sorry

Re:Congress has been Slashdotted (4, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 6 years ago | (#25210211)

"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion"
    - Edmund Burke

I would not want to live in a world where representatives vote solely based on the opinions of their most vocal (and therefore usually most extreme) constituents. It's bad enough that most of them allow themselves to be so influenced by their most generous contributors.

Re:Congress has been Slashdotted (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 6 years ago | (#25210255)

I desire only that the voice of the common man is heard as loudly as that of paid lobbyists... or something to that effect.

Re:Congress has been Slashdotted (1)

rev_g33k_101 (886348) | more than 6 years ago | (#25210277)

I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Seriously this is what I have been saying for years.

I have never been more proud to be a republican... (5, Insightful)

teknopurge (199509) | more than 6 years ago | (#25209607)

then I have this week. And by republican i mean REAL republican, not a neo-con like in recent years. Regardless of the fact that some house republicans were going to vote for it, it was enough in the end that an individual's ego made them stick to their principles.

Re:I have never been more proud to be a republican (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25209649)

You must mean conservative, Republican has meant many things, before and since the Reagan-conservative bit.

Re:I have never been more proud to be a republican (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25209703)

You are a protosocialist abolitionist?

Re:I have never been more proud to be a republican (2, Informative)

insane_membrane (1366135) | more than 6 years ago | (#25209793)

You mean fiscal conservative don't you?

Re:I have never been more proud to be a republican (1)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 6 years ago | (#25209831)

How is that different from a Libertarian?

Re:I have never been more proud to be a republican (4, Funny)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 6 years ago | (#25209901)

Libertarians smoke pot.

Re:I have never been more proud to be a republican (3, Informative)

3p1ph4ny (835701) | more than 6 years ago | (#25210121)

Not all of us do.

Re:I have never been more proud to be a republican (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 6 years ago | (#25210331)

You're right, Bob Barr probably doesn't. ;)

Re:I have never been more proud to be a republican (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 6 years ago | (#25210171)

How is that different from a Libertarian?

See here [wikipedia.org] . If you're fiscally *and* socially conservative, you're not a libertarian.

Well.. (4, Insightful)

msauve (701917) | more than 6 years ago | (#25210233)

Republicans want into your bedroom. Democrats want into your wallet. Libertarians want neither.

Re:I have never been more proud to be a republican (2, Insightful)

GlobalColding (1239712) | more than 6 years ago | (#25209851)

Pardon me, I am somewhat new to Slashdot... Is it the norm here for pro-Republican to be insta tagged as Trolling? Last I checked the URL it was news.slashdot.org and not obama.slashdot.org or democrats.slashdot.org or for that matter republicans.shasdot.org... People are entitled to their opinions one way or the other. I am not looking for a fight or to hurt anyones feelings - cant we all just behave like grownups and display our allegiances without fear of punitive tagging?

Re:I have never been more proud to be a republican (1, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 6 years ago | (#25209921)

You must be new here.

(BTW, I agree with you on principle, but certain opinions always get modded up or down, based on whether or not people agree with this opinions, and it has nothing to do with how the person presented those opinions. For instance, try suggesting that Windows is superior to Linux in every way, or that Apple sucks. See how you get modded.)

Re:I have never been more proud to be a republican (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 6 years ago | (#25210019)

Last I checked the URL it was news.slashdot.org and not obama.slashdot.org or democrats.slashdot.org

That hostname (news.slashdot.org) is now a CNAME entry that points to socialism.slashdot.org

Re:I have never been more proud to be a republican (1, Informative)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 6 years ago | (#25210235)

Most of the conservatives here are fiscal and civil liberty conservatives, not moral and social conservatives.

In other words, they're Libertarians, not Republicans.

Re:I have never been more proud to be a republican (3, Insightful)

Gat0r30y (957941) | more than 6 years ago | (#25209857)

Full disclosure: Most of you would probably call me a pinko commie liberal.
But here goes: I have to say a big thank you to the house republicans. They did the right thing, which this time was the conservative thing by voting against the stupid bailout.
Now the the real issue

System engineers are working to resolve this issue and we appreciate your patience.

So what are they doing to fix this exactly? Hoping everyone looses interest so they don't have to increase their capacity? I dunno if thats gonna work - people seem pretty pissed (I am one of those people by the way).

Re:I have never been more proud to be a republican (-1, Troll)

Enahs (1606) | more than 6 years ago | (#25209877)

You do realize it was Republicans who proposed this little coup, and tried to push it through with fear, right? That fact escaped you, or are you going to be like the rest of the herd, ignore history as recent as last week, and pretend this was a Democratic proposal?

The partisan politics must stop. If there is to be an actual revolution, I will gladly and without reservation end anyone who believes that someone is either worthy or unworthy just for being in a political party. The situation is that serious, and our first President had the forsight (or more accurately, a knowledge of history) to see the danger of partisan politics.

Re:I have never been more proud to be a republican (2, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 6 years ago | (#25209943)

Bush proposed it. I don't know if it is fair to say that Republicans tried to push it through, when by percentages they have been the ones most opposed to it.

Re:I have never been more proud to be a republican (2, Informative)

corbettw (214229) | more than 6 years ago | (#25210013)

That fact escaped you, or are you going to be like the rest of the herd, ignore history as recent as last week, and pretend this was a Democratic proposal?

Speaker Pelosi gave a rousing speech in favor of this monstrosity; President Bush did so, as well. Guess which party has clean hands in all of this?

Re:I have never been more proud to be a republican (1, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 6 years ago | (#25210015)

Quite right.

The idea here was that EVERYONE was supposed to get their
heads together and figure out a solution that EVERYONE
could live with... ...you know, a bi-partisan sort of effort.

There's probably enough blame to go around but NO ONE
should be feeling "proud" about any of these guys right
now. They were set to a task and failed to do it.

Ok, so the right answer isn't a "bail out". That doesn't
mean you end up at the end of the process with nothing
to show for it.

This was not the Texas Gerrymandering debacle.

Re:I have never been more proud to be a republican (0, Redundant)

kwerle (39371) | more than 6 years ago | (#25209973)

THAN you have, this week. THAN. Comparing A to B means you use an A. THAN.

I'm feeling like a democrat - as I usually have. I dunno. I don't think I'm all that proud of either party. But I'm pleased that it didn't pass, too.

(too, as in also. see - two o's because there is more than one. THAN one. GUH)

Yeah, yeah. -1, troll, offtopic, uptight, etc.

Re:I have never been more proud to be a republican (5, Insightful)

Sorthum (123064) | more than 6 years ago | (#25210079)

Agreed. I consider myself a Goldwater republican, but it's gotten to the point where people ask my affiliation, I mumble something about being a Libertarian and change the subject.

Good on the House Republicans...

40 Dems (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 6 years ago | (#25210181)

Good on the House Republicans...

Yeah, but we really owe something to the 40 Dems who broke rank on this. They have a majority in the House and could have passed it on a party-line vote.

I even wrote my 99%-Pelosi rep a thank you note. OK, so I added a push for a capital gains tax holiday in the thank you note reflexively too.

The Dollar is lucky this happened so close to an election.

Re:40 Dems (1)

Sorthum (123064) | more than 6 years ago | (#25210301)

Oh, most definitely. Didn't mean to seem partisan-- I think for the first time in a while our elected officials have actually carried out the will of their constituents.

Re:I have never been more proud to be a republican (1)

daigu (111684) | more than 6 years ago | (#25210119)

Saying your a "real" republican is like saying you are a real "hacker" and the other guys should be called "cracker". If you are a Republican, then you are part of the fuckin' problem. If you want to be something else, classical liberal, Old Right, or what have you - then use the appropriate term. Republican is already being used.

Re:I have never been more proud to be a republican (1)

vovin (12759) | more than 6 years ago | (#25210133)

You do realize that it wasn't conservative ideals that led them to vote no? It was the annoying strings attached to the corporate welfare.
The only fiscally responsible option is 'no way'.

Re:I have never been more proud to be a republican (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25210215)

Are you also proud of being in the party of the deregulators then led us to this mess?

Re:I have never been more proud to be a republican (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 6 years ago | (#25210317)

I truly agree with this. Before this week, I believed that religion fundamentalism had emptied the Republican party of every fiscal conservative and replaced them with borrow and spend irresponsible fiscal extremists and religious fundamentalist whose primary concern was to create a government big enough to enforce the beliefs of the few on the people. The nomination of Sarah Palin did nothing to tame these beliefs.

After Monday, I must humbly retract these views, and state that only 33% of the Republican party are fiscal socialists. The number of Al-Qaeda like religious extremist are unknown.

The fact that only 1/3 of democrats voted against it is troubling, but what can be done. Democrats tend to give money away, but usually in small amounts so we don't tend to end up with a trillion dollar bill at the end of the administration. Much better to pay in out in manageable installments of 10 billion dollars a month, like the war. The war was a much more civilized way to move one trillion dollars from the middle to ultra rich. It has a the proper finesse, not so much obvious theft involved.

La la la la la (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 6 years ago | (#25209613)

... we can't hear you ! la la la la la la .... something about blood of tyrants and patriots comes to mind.

So? (3, Insightful)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 6 years ago | (#25209647)

This is just good system administration happening. The systems can't handle the load so the admins have programmed the mailservers to drop a percentage down /dev/null until the load drops back to manageble levels.

My mail server (and almost certainly yours) has many such throttles built in, It will stop accepting mail if the load average is too great, if available mail spool is too low, etc.

Re:So? (0, Flamebait)

arth1 (260657) | more than 6 years ago | (#25209789)

This is just good system administration happening.

Is it? I thought good system administration was ensuring that the mail servers could handle a few hundred thousand e-mails per day, and planning for worst case scenarios.

Those who look at averages instead of peaks we don't call sysadmins, we call them MCSAs.

Re:So? (1)

Danny Rathjens (8471) | more than 6 years ago | (#25210311)

My first thought is that it is completely incompetent system administration happening if their mail servers somehow have the ability to crash their web servers. I'm hoping this is just inaccurate reporting of the true reasons, though.

Re:So? (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 6 years ago | (#25210131)

drop a percentage down to /dev/null?

Hell, in most companies that would get you fired. You *never* drop mail. Set up a gateway server (or a cluster of them, if load is that much of a problem) queueing the mail before it's ready to be processed by the mailserver. Disk space is dirt cheap - a 1Tb raid array can be had for next to nothing these days, and you can store a *lot* of mail on that.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25210195)

This is just good system administration happening. The systems can't handle the load so the admins have programmed the mailservers to drop a percentage down /dev/null until the load drops back to manageble levels.

Please tell me the name of the company you work for, so I can be sure never to do business with them again.

This is *PISS POOR* systems administration. A mail server should ***NEVER*** intentionally drop mail. Once a system has accepted email, it is responsible for delivering it to the destination. If it can't it must notify the sender.

My mail server (and almost certainly yours) has many such throttles built in

Yours might be set up this poorly, but don't lump everyone else into your private incompetance party.

It will stop accepting mail if the load average is too great, if available mail spool is too low, etc.

This is the only sane thing in your post, and the correct behaviour.

It's just too bad that you think it's the same as "dropping a percentage down /dev/null". Rejecting mail is good. Accepting and then deleting it is bad.

Yet another win for open government! (5, Informative)

omega_dk (1090143) | more than 6 years ago | (#25209657)

I would like to take this chance to encourage everyone to support groups working towards open government, from Black Box Voting [slashdot.org] to Verified Voting [verifiedvoting.org] , and everything in between.

The government is supposed to work for us; until we limit how often lobbyists talk to them, what right do they have to limit how much we talk to them?

Think they read them anyway? (5, Insightful)

compumike (454538) | more than 6 years ago | (#25209661)

Given that they're all probably receiving thousands of e-mails asking them to reject the bailout, I doubt they're really doing much with them. I'd actually be surprised even you get the standard form-letter reply if they're so overwhelmed.

But I think the overall message is clear. It's not a cacophony, it's thousands of people singing the same message: reject the bailout or we'll reject you in a few weeks!

Ultimately, they're doing the worst possible thing right now, which is preserving the hope of a bailout. This leads to a further credit freeze, because banks won't sell their troubled assets at the (very low) market price because there's still the possibility that they'll be getting a much better price from Uncle Sam.

If you want to free up credit again, we really need one of the presidential candidates to stand up and say, "There will be no bailout." That will force banks to start doing transactions again. Some might go under, but that's OK. We just need to end this idea that a bailout might happen, because right now that uncertainty is what is preventing people from liquidating their assets.

--
Hey code monkey... learn electronics! Powerful microcontroller kits for the digital generation. [nerdkits.com]

OK? (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 6 years ago | (#25209861)

If you want to free up credit again, we really need one of the presidential candidates to stand up and say, "There will be no bailout." That will force banks to start doing transactions again. Some might go under, but that's OK.

Is it? Have you asked the people who have their money in those banks, and rely on it to survive?

Yes, OK (5, Informative)

dazedNconfuzed (154242) | more than 6 years ago | (#25209955)

A bank "going under" does not take all the depositors' money with it. If bankrupt, the bank is given time to reorganize and recover intact. If sold or taken over, assets, which include bank accounts, investments, and deposits, are sold to another company which will maintain the customers. There is also FDIC and other regulations in place to ensure you'll get your money back unless you did something stupid.

The days of "sorry, no money, we're closed" are gone (unless we suffer a vast & total meltdown of our economy, which is still far off).

Re:Yes, OK (4, Insightful)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 6 years ago | (#25210207)

Exactly... banks should be allowed to fail, just like any other business. The deposits are protected anyway.

I love the way they're trying to say that banks will stop lending money. That's how they *make* money - a debt to us is a credit to the bank - the more loans they have the more asseets they have to play around with (provided they're loans to people who can pay them back.. but if a bank is loaning to someone who can't pay they didn't do their due dilligence and deserve everything they get).

Re:OK? (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 6 years ago | (#25210179)

Is it? Have you asked the people who have their money in those banks, and rely on it to survive?

Just the fact that you asked such an idiotic question shows you have no understanding of the banking system. Furthermore, it's shortsighted greed like yours that's causing this mess in the first place.

Re:OK? (1)

vovin (12759) | more than 6 years ago | (#25210319)

FDIC insurance is up to 100000 per deposit acct.

What sane person or business (with lots and lots of cash) keeps it all in one low interest bearing account?

Don't most push that kind of cash into non-insured instruments?

Basically I'm saying that nobody asked that person because they don't exist. Either they are aware of the S&L failure in 1991 and don't exceed the FDIC maximum or they are betting on some other non-insured instrument (bonds, funds, money market accts, stocks that pay dividends, etc).

Re:Think they read them anyway? (1)

Gat0r30y (957941) | more than 6 years ago | (#25209947)

I'd actually be surprised even you get the standard form-letter reply if they're so overwhelmed.

I got a standard form-letter reply from my rep, Udall (D- CO). BTW - he voted Nay.

Re:Think they read them anyway? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25210239)

I call BS, they weren't even proposing this idea 2 months ago!

Re:Think they read them anyway? (4, Insightful)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 6 years ago | (#25209961)

If you want to free up credit again, we really need one of the presidential candidates to stand up and say, "There will be no bailout." That will force banks to start doing transactions again. Some might go under, but that's OK. We just need to end this idea that a bailout might happen, because right now that uncertainty is what is preventing people from liquidating their assets.

There are at least 4 Presidential candidates that have stood up and said no to the bailouts (Nader, Baldwin, Barr and McKinney). They also called for the Federal Reserve to be audited. It is just too bad none of them are taken seriously.

I also find it funny that the FED pumped into the financial system almost $700 billion last week and $630 billion yesterday, yet the mainstream press focuses on the "bailout" bill as if that money is really going to do anything. The fact of the matter is the "bailout" bill goes far beyond giving out $700 billion. It is essentially making the treasury/FED a 4th branch of government.

Re:Think they read them anyway? (1)

cyphercell (843398) | more than 6 years ago | (#25210003)

You're absolutely right. JP Morgan and Citigroup would love nothing more than to purchase up, every other financial institution in the US. There is absolutely no reason the American people should purchase companies like Wachovia at $1/share, let's leave the real profits to the companies that already stand a great chance to profit from this. While we're at it let's just let housing prices fall into the dirt, so the JP Morgan's can prey equally on Mainstreet homeowners as well.

Retards

Re:Think they read them anyway? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25210023)

I wrote my Representative for the first time that I can recall, although I am only 24. She is a house Republican and unfortunately voted for the Paulson bailout. I did receive a canned response when I wrote her about my concerns about using inflationary policies to end a problem that is driven fundamentally by inflationary policies.

Re:Think they read them anyway? (3, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#25210127)

If no one is willing to sell, is it really a market price?

Re:Think they read them anyway? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25210249)

"But I think the overall message is clear. It's not a cacophony, it's thousands of people singing the same message: reject the bailout or we'll reject you in a few weeks!"

This interpretation is strongly reinforced by the observation that among the congresscritters up for election, the great majority of voted against the bill (I think the ratio was > 4:1), whereas among the ones whose seats are not up for election, the vote was roughly 50:50 (in both parties).

Be like McCain, phone it in. (3, Insightful)

richardkelleher (1184251) | more than 6 years ago | (#25209669)

The phone number for each member of the House and Senate is posted on their respective web pages. A phone call is so much more personal. I've got my Senators and Representative programmed into my cell phone.

Re:Be like McCain, phone it in. (4, Informative)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 6 years ago | (#25209783)

Most of the Congressmen I've called within the past week have gone to voicemail, which is full of course.

Simple Solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25209677)

Buyout one of the failing bank's data-centers, use it for email.

Another Simple Solution (2, Insightful)

richardkelleher (1184251) | more than 6 years ago | (#25209725)

They could each get a gmail account. Google will keep their servers up...

Re:Another Simple Solution (1)

jorx (975057) | more than 6 years ago | (#25209813)

heh, until someone hacks it a la Palin fiasco

Re:Another Simple Solution (1)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 6 years ago | (#25210067)

heh, until someone hacks it a la Palin fiasco

Just tell them not to answer truthfully on the "security" questions since the answers are probably in the public domain and accessible via google.

Re:Another Simple Solution (1)

richardkelleher (1184251) | more than 6 years ago | (#25210157)

heh, until someone hacks it a la Palin fiasco

I didn't say anything about getting hacked, I just said the servers would have the capacity to handle the load. Who cares if they get hacked. :)

Re:Another Simple Solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25210033)

That worked out great for Sarah Palin.

How lobbying works (5, Insightful)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | more than 6 years ago | (#25209761)

I don't know about how email lobbying works, but I've been involved in lobbying campaigns before. When you call a representative's office, you tell them you're for or against the bill in question and say which way you want them to vote on it. The operator say "OK, I'll let him know." They then count the number of people calling in on either side of the issue, and pass that info on to the representative. Of course you can't send bribes by phone, so whether or not this is effective is open to debate.

I think it's interesting that what is normally a dry subject is generating so much public interest. I'm glad to see the American public sitting up and taking notice of important things for a change instead of just vegetating in front of reality TV and celebrity gossip while politicians try to take money out of the public's pockets to cover their own failure to properly regulate the finance industry. Maybe there's hope for American democracy yet.

Bribes by phone, why not... (1)

richardkelleher (1184251) | more than 6 years ago | (#25209913)

Of course you can't send bribes by phone, so whether or not this is effective is open to debate.

All you need to do is offer your credit card number. I'm sure they can figure out how to process a transaction, they're the government after all.

Re:How lobbying works (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25210001)

Well, Its not everyday you hear the term "$700 BILLION Dollar Bailout"

Re:How lobbying works (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25210187)

Where's the outrage in the cost of the war? By conservative estimates, it costs just as much if not more as this proposed bailout.

Re:How lobbying works (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 6 years ago | (#25210287)

I'm afraid that this is a "panic" situation, and about 5-9s of the phone calls and letters are from people who know absolutely nothing about what precipitated the problem, nor how to fix it, and are simply calling to get them to either "stop the market dropping" or "don't socialize it."

Personally, I'd like to see them bail out the firms, and then put a line in the tax code with a 95% tax bracket above 250k with a 3 (or 5) year look back period to recoup some of the costs. I'm not worried about socializing the system; I think they (the government) would rather sell it back and wash their hands asap. Then again, I'd also like to see ridiculously strict controls, such as eliminating all derivatives, short selling, and futures where the buyer does not take physical delivery. In those cases, I think the Nevada Gaming Commission can fill the gaps for those "investors" quite adequately.

Re:How lobbying works (1)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 6 years ago | (#25210289)

No what happens is many political organizations ask people to email reps from outside their district or even outside their state. This is fraudulent behavior. The idea is to pretend that there's a sudden interest in something, when really its just the same 500 guys over at the freerepublic.com telling your rep Sarah Palin is awesome and to continue to fund the bridge to nowhere.

Nowadays I see a lot of submission forms that ask your for your address and a call back number. That seems a more elegant solution than letting crazies astroturf inboxes.

Try back at a later time.... (3, Funny)

Itninja (937614) | more than 6 years ago | (#25209765)

Ha! The US government has been slashdotted by its' own subjects. Sounds like it's time to write a script that will continuously submit an email until it's accepted (or forever, you know whatever).

Ummm yeah... (3, Funny)

GlobalColding (1239712) | more than 6 years ago | (#25209769)

This is why when the goverment asks us for 700 billion to bail them out, we must tell them to "COME BACK LATER". Like waaaaaaaaaaay later.

Phone calls always worked better.. (2, Funny)

FireStormZ (1315639) | more than 6 years ago | (#25209771)

Besides do you really think they read the majority of mail they get?

Remember back when you could use email to email? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25209799)

And didn't have to rely on a separate service, web, being available?

I emailed a member of congress once... (2, Informative)

SupremoMan (912191) | more than 6 years ago | (#25209825)

I got a follow up phone call 8 months later. Dare I say I was stunned! I know it was 8 months later, and the person who called me worked for some vendor trying to clear the backlog of emails, but it's nice to know they didn't just delete it.

You can always do what I did on the broadcast flag (2, Interesting)

sesshomaru (173381) | more than 6 years ago | (#25209905)

Back when they were pursuing the Broadcast Flag unfunded mandate, I had my objection hand delivered for a fee by http://www.congress.org/ [congress.org]

I got a nice letter back explaining why I was all wrong and the broadcast flag was the greatest thing since sliced peaches, but at least they got my letter.

1+1 does not equal 3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25209963)

The current "selling line" I hear now is that we may make money on the deal. We "might" pay something like 20 cents on the dollar. I have seen many homes go in foreclosure (have been in the market for the last 1.5 years). I looked up there records, found out how much they were purchased for and then followed how much they sold for. Are banks loosing money yes, but not 80%! So far they have lost 20%-30% why would they sell for less.

Sum

Second the prices are obviously out of wack because to many people were in the market due to to the credit handout. That won't happen again so why will these house prices recover. It's like saying your recover from a cancer that just fell out by growing the cancer again. It was a false economy the prices were not supposed to be that high and yes we were not doing as well as we thought.

The other thing they whine about is "now credit." Well rather than bail out banks that obviously did not run their business well, why not just borrow directly from the Fed. We have everything in place we just need to open the doors to regular people than just banks.

No thanks take your snake oil somewhere else and if we need more credit (which got in to this mess) I don't need to fund a middle man.

Re:1+1 does not equal 3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25210169)

Are banks loosing money yes...

Which banks are loosing money, and where are they turning it loose? Wait, wait, let me get my butterfly net.

Anyway, I think you meant "loosening".

you have the right to remain silent (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25210009)

that's about it now. greed, fear & ego are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of yOUR dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children, not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one. see you on the other side of it. the lights are coming up all over now. conspiracy theorists are being vindicated. some might choose a tin umbrella to go with their hats. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

http://news.google.com/?ncl=1216734813&hl=en&topic=n
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/ap_on_re_us/tent_cities;_ylt=A0wNcyS6yNJIZBoBSxKs0NUE
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/world/29amnesty.html?hp
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/02/nasa.global.warming.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/05/severe.weather.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/02/honore.preparedness/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01dowd.html?em&ex=1212638400&en=744b7cebc86723e5&ei=5087%0A
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/05/senate.iraq/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/washington/17contractor.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/world/middleeast/03kurdistan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080708/cheney_climate.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080805/pl_politico/12308;_ylt=A0wNcxTPdJhILAYAVQms0NUE
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/18/voting.problems/index.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080903/ts_nm/environment_arctic_dc;_ylt=A0wNcwhhcb5It3EBoy2s0NUE
(talk about cowardlly race fixing/bad theater/fiction?) http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/19/news/economy/sec_short_selling/index.htm?cnn=yes

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=weather+manipulation&btnG=Search
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying

'The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

Patently Unconstitutional on its Face! (5, Insightful)

Catalina588 (1151475) | more than 6 years ago | (#25210047)

What part of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does Congress not understand? The current situation is a "redress of grievances" to the average citizen.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Financial bailout bill? (2, Funny)

OriginalArlen (726444) | more than 6 years ago | (#25210053)

That's the first I've heard of it. Could someone explain what's this is all about, please?

Give me $700 Billion ..... (2, Funny)

bizitch (546406) | more than 6 years ago | (#25210083)

... and I bet I could get the government some infrastructure that can handle the load

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?