Democrats Reject $700 Billion Blank Check

[Psychoblues]

It's about time the adults spoke up!!!!!!!!!!!

Tuesday 23 September 2008
by: Carolyn Lochhead, The San Francisco Chronicle


US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke at a Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee hearing.

Washington - Congressional Democrats worked Monday to reshape the lame-duck Bush administration's jaw-dropping request for an additional $700 billion and unprecedented authority to buy distressed assets to prevent a financial meltdown, amid a sense of deja vu on Capitol Hill over a similarly open-ended war resolution that Congress gave the administration six years ago.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, insisted on altering the proposal made over the weekend by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to include greater oversight of the new Treasury fund that would buy and dispose of distressed assets, more aid for homeowners facing foreclosure, and curbs on huge Wall Street compensation packages.

Democrats are caught between wide agreement that the nation stood on the brink of an economic abyss last week when credit markets froze and constituent anger at bailing out Wall Street................

More: http://www.truthout.org/article/democrats-reject-700-billion-blank-check

This is the result of deregulation of an industry absorbed in greed and is now absorbed with creating for themselves additional unearned billions by soaking the American taxpayers!!!!!!!!! They remind me of a kid that steals a cookie from his Mother's cookie jar, denies it and tells the same lie when he is caught with his hand in it!!!!!!!!!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[avatar4321]

First, Republicans are opposing it as well.

Second, by definition, there is no blank check if it's $700 Billion. That would be an contradiction.

The idea that we have to act now without any sort of information or research is ridiculous.

[Psychoblues]

Let's be honest about this, a'21, OK? The rethugs have been running on a deregulation ticket for a long time, like since the days of Eisenhower if my memory is correct. If no regulation exists, they ignore the problems and blame regulation for everything else. Doesn't that sound rather stupid in a complex society? I agree.



First, Republicans are opposing it as well.

Second, by definition, there is no blank check if it's $700 Billion. That would be an contradiction.

The idea that we have to act now without any sort of information or research is ridiculous.

It now appears both parties agree that deregulation has been the nemesis of the American people in this just one instance. How entertaining of them!!!!!!!!! Just think where we might be in nuclear technology and the worldwide spread of it with just a tad more of the regulation that many so adamantly oppose?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Or, perhaps world and perpetual war was the objective all along?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[Silver]

Take your meds and get educated....

Sorry to hit you with indisputable facts.....



How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis: Kevin Hassett

http://tinyurl.com/3ho6eh

Bloomberg.com: News

Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The financial crisis of the past year has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story.

Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems so complex.

But really, it isn't. Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.

Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.

In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn't make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.

The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.

Turning Point

Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it's hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.

It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.

Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.

Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.

Greenspan's Warning

The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''

What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.

Different World

If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.

But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''

Mounds of Materials

Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.

But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.

Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.

Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.

There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.

Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.

[avatar4321]

Okay you want to be honest? The problems been overregulation and corruption. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been the personal piggie banks of the Democrat party for the last several decades.

Liberal policies have destroyed the financial institutions. Unfortunately we have a President who isnt trying to impliment conservative policies.

[Psychoblues]

Aside from your lies, I can generally excuse your ignorance, a'21.




Okay you want to be honest? The problems been overregulation and corruption. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been the personal piggie banks of the Democrat party for the last several decades.

Liberal policies have destroyed the financial institutions. Unfortunately we have a President who isnt trying to impliment conservative policies.

Have you ever considered that the failures from your side of the political equation are simply your failures as well? The values that I have as a left of center Democrat continue to hold well for me.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[avatar4321]

Aside from your lies, I can generally excuse your ignorance, a'21.





Have you ever considered that the failures from your side of the political equation are simply your failures as well? The values that I have as a left of center Democrat continue to hold well for me.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

Again, its impossible for these to be the fail of conservatism when its not being used. as for your accusation of me lying, back it up. I have no reason to lie. It's not as though I gain anything for saying what I've said.

[Kathianne]

Total $4,844,572

Includes contributions from PACs and individuals. 2008 cycle totals based on data released electronically by the Federal Election Commission on Sept. 2, 2008.

I'll stop at McCain. So which of these top 10 recipients do you think carry some weight regarding financing:


All Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008 This is a 9 year period of gifts given out to our elected politicians, so they can royally screw up these two agencies--costing us 700 BILLION dollars! Note: That Barack Obama is the # 2 donor receipitant at $126,349--but has only been in the senate for the last 3 years. McCain recieved $21,500 over the 9 year period, but did not receive any PAC money. The only names that ARE NOT IN THIS LIST are --Sarah Palin & Joe Biden.

TOTAL PAC Individual
Dodd, Christopher D $165,400 $48,500 $116,900
Obama, Barack D $126,349 $ 6,000 $120,349
Kerry, John D $111,000 $ 2,000 $109,000
Bennett, Robert R $107,999 $71,499 $ 36,500
Bachus, Spencer R $103,300 $70,500 $ 32,800
Blunt, Roy R $ 96,950 $78,500 $ 18,450
Kanjorski, Paul D $ 96,000 $57,500 $ 38,500
Bond, Christopher R $ 95,400 $64,000 $ 31,400
Shelby, Richard R $ 80,000 $23,000 $ 57,000
Reed, Jack D $ 78,250 $43,500 $ 34,750
Reid, Harry D $ 77,000 $60,500 $ 16,500 **
Clinton, Hillary D $ 76,050 $ 8,000 $ 68,050
Davis, Tom R $ 75,499 $13,999 $ 61,500
Boehner, John R $ 67,750 $60,500 $ 7,250
Conrad, Kent D $ 64,491 $22,000 $ 42,491
Reynolds, Tom R $ 62,200 $53,000 $ 9,200
Johnson, Tim D $ 61,000 $20,000 $ 41,000
Pelosi, Nancy D $ 56,250 $47,000 $ 9,250
Carper, Tom D $ 55,889 $31,350 $ 24,539
Hoyer, Steny D $ 55,500 $51,500 $ 4,000
Pryce, Deborah R $55,500 $45,000 $10,500
Emanuel, Rahm D $51,750 $16,000 $35,750
Isakson, Johnny R $49,200 $35,500 $13,700
Cantor, Eric R $48,500 $46,500 $ 2,000
Crapo, Mike R $47,250 $40,500 $ 6,750
Frank, Barney D $42,350 $30,500 $11,850
Bean, Melissa D $41,249 $34,999 $6,250
Bayh, Evan D $41,100 $16,500 $24,600
McConnell, Mitch R $41,000 $40,000 $1,000
Maloney, Carolyn D $39,750 $16,500 $23,250
Dorgan, Byron L D $38,750 $30,500 $8,250
Miller, Gary R $38,000 $31,500 $6,500
Rangel, Charles D $38,000 $14,750 $23,250
Tiberi, Patrick J R $35,700 $32,600 $3,100
Bunning, Jim R $33,802 $29,650 $4,152
Stabenow, Debbie D $33,450 $32,000 $1,450
Chambliss, Saxby R $33,250 $22,500 $10,750
Menendez, Robert D $31,250 $30,500 $750
Enzi, Mike S WY R $31,000 $27,500 $3,500
Van Hollen, Chris D $30,700 $11,000 $19,700
Landrieu, Mary L D $30,600 $20,000 $10,600
Murray, Patty D $30,000 $23,000 $7,000
Clyburn, James E D $29,750 $26,000 $3,750
Crowley, Joseph D $29,700 $25,500 $4,200
Sessions, Pete R $29,472 $24,000 $5,472
McCrery, Jim R $29,000 $26,000 $3,000
Hooley, Darlene D $28,750 $19,500 $9,250
Royce, Ed R $28,600 $4,000 $24,600
Renzi, Rick R $28,250 $28,000 $250
Lieberman, Joe I $28,250 $11,500 $16,750
Baucus, Max D $27,500 $21,000 $6,500
Moore, Dennis D $26,550 $25,500 $1,050
Coleman, Norm R $24,690 $12,000 $12,690
Matheson, Jim D $24,500 $24,000 $500
Schumer, Charles D $24,250 $1,500 $22,750
Durbin, Dick D $23,750 $14,000 $9,750
Rogers, Mike R $22,750 $21,000 $1,750
Lynch, Stephen D $22,500 $13,500 $9,000
Rockefeller, Jay D $22,250 $5,000 $17,250
Smith, Gordon R $22,000 $20,000 $2,000
Mikulski, Barbara D $21,750 $16,500 $5,250
McCain, John R $21,550 $0 $21,550 **

[No1tovote4]

Total $4,844,572

Includes contributions from PACs and individuals. 2008 cycle totals based on data released electronically by the Federal Election Commission on Sept. 2, 2008.

I'll stop at McCain. So which of these top 10 recipients do you think carry some weight regarding financing:
Which of the top two were part of the party-line vote to reject McCain's bill at committee that would have regulated the FM&FM activity?

Hint: Pick either of them and you will be right.

[Kathianne]

Which of the top two were part of the party-line vote to reject McCain's bill at committee that would have regulated the FM&FM activity?

Hint: Pick either of them and you will be right.

You noticed too? :laugh2: Emanuel is way up there, a bit behind Reid and Clinton. There's no question of which party picked up the most $$$.

[Psychoblues]

Are we going to reduce this conversation as to just whose ass is the blackest?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!!?

Typical. The mantra of the rethugs has and continues to be deregulation, that is until now.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[No1tovote4]

You noticed too? :laugh2: Emanuel is way up there, a bit behind Reid and Clinton. There's no question of which party picked up the most $$$.

Of the top 25 only 9 were republicans. Which one of them appeared bought, the one who tried to make a law to regulate their activity, or the one who stopped it?

Dodd even went as far as to tell us all how great the companies were doing and how it was unnecessary to add any regulation when he led the party-line vote in the committee.

[No1tovote4]

Are we going to reduce this conversation as to just whose ass is the blackest?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!!?

Typical. The mantra of the rethugs has and continues to be deregulation, that is until now.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

Says the guy who tried to make it solely an "R" thing with his first post.

Comparing the candidates actual record on this very thing is a smart thing to do, that it makes your guy look bad doesn't change that.

[Psychoblues]

My words, chickenshit, "It's about time the adults spoke up".




Says the guy who tried to make it solely an "R" thing with his first post.

Comparing the candidates actual record on this very thing is a smart thing to do, that it makes your guy look bad doesn't change that.

I made no mention of party. Did the title, correctly posted, confuse you?

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[No1tovote4]

My words, chickenshit, "It's about time the adults spoke up".





I made no mention of party. Did the title, correctly posted, confuse you?

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:
Yeah, because we can't figure out implication by the fact that the title celebrated only one party. :rolleyes:

I reject disingenuous attempts to spin out of partisanship. You were caught out attempting to paint somebody with your own brush, live with it.

People hate a little introspection and in their embarrassment they look like cats in the cat box.

[Kathianne]

I'm just wondering when the FBI is going to investigate Congress? Oh yeah, their self-policing.

I've always been against term limits, I've changed my mind and two terms in the Senate would be one too many, as demonstrated by Obama.

[Psychoblues]

Kiss my ass, no1tofuckwith.


Yeah, because we can't figure out implication by the fact that the title celebrated only one party. :rolleyes:

I reject disingenuous attempts to spin out of partisanship. You were caught out attempting to paint somebody with your own brush, live with it.

People hate a little introspection and in their embarrassment they look like cats in the cat box.

I did not mention any party in the original post as you insist. I merely posted an article with which to share with you and you insist on somehow blaming me personally for the dissatisfaction that you obviously have for the information in it. That's rethug 101. Get a grip, lonely one!!!!!!!!!!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[No1tovote4]

Kiss my ass, no1tofuckwith.



I did not mention any party in the original post as you insist. I merely posted an article with which to share with you and you insist on somehow blaming me personally for the dissatisfaction that you obviously have for the information in it. That's rethug 101. Get a grip, lonely one!!!!!!!!!!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:
Yeah, because your bipartisanship is apparent in all your posts. Either you think we don't remember years worth of posts crossing over from another board and that every post of yours is in a vacuum. Or you pretend that you didn't post this because it was negative on "rethugs".

Do you ever get tired of attempting to cover that pile? Smilies don't cover up your inanity.

You are a serious hack trying to paint other people as hacks, regardless of their political views. I'm libertarian. The only "lonely" person is the one you see in the mirror.

At least you are clear on how much you should "f*ck" with me.

[Psychoblues]

Your simpleassed insults aside, dumbo, you have no idea as to my bipartisanship and my very successful efforts within the concept.



Yeah, because your bipartisanship is apparent in all your posts.

Do you ever get tired of attempting to cover that pile?

You are a serious hack trying to paint other people as hacks, regardless of their political views. I'm libertarian. The only "lonely" person is the one you see in the mirror.

How about that lawsuit Bob Barr just lost in Texas, dumbo. How much more lonely can you get?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[No1tovote4]

Your simpleassed insults aside, dumbo, you have no idea as to my bipartisanship and my very successful efforts within the concept.




How about that lawsuit Bob Barr just lost in Texas, dumbo. How much more lonely can you get?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:
Barr is no libertarian. And yes, I have more idea than your sorry memory can contemplate. I've "known" you for longer than you appear to think.

The only thing you have going for you is your capacity to understand exactly how much you should "f*ck" with me.

All it takes is noting the source for me to understand how important libblogs are to your opinion. Posting from "truthout" is like wearing a sign saying "Liberal Hack Here"....

[Psychoblues]

So,,,,,,I can only assume that you just forgot that the article I posted was an msm one that was merely reposted in "Truthout"?




Barr is no libertarian. And yes, I have more idea than your sorry memory can contemplate. I've "known" you for longer than you appear to think.

The only thing you have going for you is your capacity to understand exactly how much you should "f*ck" with me.

All it takes is noting the source for me to understand how important libblogs are to your opinion. Posting from "truthout" is like wearing a sign saying "Liberal Hack Here"....

It's not the article or "Truthout" that you have such a problem with is it, dumbo? It's just me. Carry on, little one.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[No1tovote4]

So,,,,,,I can only assume that you just forgot that the article I posted was an msm one that was merely reposted in "Truthout"?





It's not the article or "Truthout" that you have such a problem with is it, dumbo? It's just me. Carry on, little one.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

No, only kool-aid drinkers and true believers don't realize that truthout seeks out the articles they think will present their views.

A smart poster who really wanted to appear "bipartisan" would have posted the link from the MSM. But it wouldn't change anything. You have history, it is easy to follow.

And yes, the problem was a hack attempting to call others hacks, without any apparent memory of the past.

[Psychoblues]

One more thing, dumbo. Bob Barr is running as the presidential nominee for the Libertarian Party.




Barr is no libertarian. And yes, I have more idea than your sorry memory can contemplate. I've "known" you for longer than you appear to think.

The only thing you have going for you is your capacity to understand exactly how much you should "f*ck" with me.

All it takes is noting the source for me to understand how important libblogs are to your opinion. Posting from "truthout" is like wearing a sign saying "Liberal Hack Here"....

How much more idiotic information are you willing to share with us, dumbo?

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[No1tovote4]

One more thing, dumbo. Bob Barr is running as the presidential nominee for the Libertarian Party.





How much more idiotic information are you willing to share with us, dumbo?

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:
I know he is, the L Party selected a former religious right republican. It doesn't make him libertarian, it just makes them look foolish.

Barr is not a libertarian, he is their attempt to take votes from the R party and get more than a minimal percentage of votes this time around.

I am libertarian, not Libertarian. There is a difference.

[Psychoblues]

You said Bob Barr is no libertarian. Now you are saying he is no Libertarian. You say much the same about yourself.




I know he is, the L Party selected a former religious right republican. It doesn't make him libertarian, it just makes them look foolish.

Barr is not a libertarian, he is their attempt to take votes from the R party and get more than a minimal percentage of votes this time around.

I am libertarian, not Libertarian. There is a difference.

Go join whatever circlejerk group you can find, dumbo. I really don't give a good rat's ass. You can call yourselves dumbasses or Dumbasses or nickleasses or Nickleasses or jerks or Jerks but the fact remains that you are just plain ignorant and stand naked attempting to convince the rest of us that we have no clothes. Pitiful.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[No1tovote4]

You said Bob Barr is no libertarian. Now you are saying he is no Libertarian. You say much the same about yourself.





Go join whatever circlejerk group you can find, dumbo. I really don't give a good rat's ass. You can call yourselves dumbasses or Dumbasses or nickleasses or Nickleasses or jerks or Jerks but the fact remains that you are just plain ignorant and stand naked attempting to convince the rest of us that we have no clothes. Pitiful.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:
He is a religious right republican dressed up in L clothing. Don't be deliberately obtuse. We know that it is difficult for you, but you can do it. We believe in you.

[Psychoblues]

Oh no, I didn't say anything of the kind, no1tofuckwith.



He is a religious right republican dressed up in L clothing. Don't be deliberately obtuse. We know that it is difficult for you, but you can do it. We believe in you.

But I did imply that like you and others like you he is simply a "nut".

Are you now satisfied?

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[No1tovote4]

Oh no, I didn't say anything of the kind, no1tofuckwith.




But I did imply that like you and others like you he is simply a "nut".

Are you now satisfied?

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:
Again you accurately describe how much you should f*ck with me. This shows some ability to maintain a modicum of intelligence.

:cool:

Well, it's been fun teasing the troll.

[Psychoblues]

I think you misinterpreted my implication, no1tofuckwith.



Again you accurately describe how much you should f*ck with me. This shows some ability to maintain a modicum of intelligence.

:cool:

Well, it's been fun teasing the troll.

That is fairly typical coming from you self absorbed libertarians or is it Libertarians?

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[No1tovote4]

I think you misinterpreted my implication, no1tofuckwith.




That is fairly typical coming from you self absorbed libertarians or is it Libertarians?

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:
Now you are just boring. One thing I did notice, there was no refutation of the facts that started this relentless trolling.

Obama took cash and then voted not to do anything while the other candidate presented legislaton to stave off the current problem.

Change? Yeah, he'll be getting "change" in Washington... Too bad the idiots who vote for him won't.

[Psychoblues]

Let me refresh your feeble memory, nofucks.

"Democrats Reject $700 Billion Blank Check"

No one, including your sorry ass, has even attempted to dispel that truth. Carry on, junior.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[No1tovote4]

Let me refresh your feeble memory, nofucks.

"Democrats Reject $700 Billion Blank Check"

No one, including your sorry ass, has even attempted to dispel that truth. Carry on, junior.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:
I'm glad they rejected it and hope that the entire package is rejected. I hope that no bailout happens at all.

Now, we can remember that conversations progress, it is natural to seek the root cause and the instances where problems were either exacerbated or simply ignored by the unprepared.

Unfortunately the Ds will not be able to avoid, just one more time, giving in to Bush and will pass the largest inflation load our dollar has ever taken.

They'll cave on drilling too. Their idiotic "plan" to allow access to the minimum will phail and stack another log on the pile they try to cover with "change" and "hope" and a trillion in payouts.

All while they vote for a bought and paid for candidate. Yeah, you got a real "winner" there. He attempts to avoid controversy but hasn't enough vision to understand rejecting regulation after getting paid for it will end all pretense of "change" and "hope".

[Psychoblues]

No 'caving" or "giving" involved, dumborino. It's called democratic legislation for lack of any better description.



I'm glad they rejected it and hope that the entire package is rejected. I hope that no bailout happens at all.

Now, we can remember that conversations progress, it is natural to seek the root cause and the instances where problems were either exacerbated or simply ignored by the unprepared.

Unfortunately the Ds will not be able to avoid, just one more time, giving in to Bush and will pass the largest inflation load our dollar has ever taken.

They'll cave on drilling too. Their idiotic "plan" to allow access to the minimum will phail and stack another log on the pile they try to cover with "change" and "hope" and a trillion in payouts.

All while they vote for a bought and paid for candidate. Yeah, you got a real "winner" there. He attempts to avoid controversy but hasn't enough vision to understand rejecting regulation after getting paid for it will end all pretense of "change" and "hope".

I see you have all the reichwing slanders against our country's laws and obligations, so why don't you just switch on over and become the normal lemming like Republican that you really want to be?!?!?!?!?!??!??!?!?

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[No1tovote4]

No 'caving" or "giving" involved, dumborino. It's called democratic legislation for lack of any better description.




I see you have all the reichwing slanders against our country's laws and obligations, so why don't you just switch on over and become the normal lemming like Republican that you really want to be?!?!?!?!?!??!??!?!?

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:
Rubbish. Bush proposes legislation, they pass it after peeing a bit in it, they like the flavor better after it smells like them.

Thankfully they are going to hold onto the minimum of control they already ignore concerning their constitutional authority over money policy.

The only thing they've "rejected" was the portion that there would be no oversight over Paulson.

Retarded emotive election year legislation, proposed by Bush, passed by Democrats. It is what we will have. They'll cave like they always have.

[Psychoblues]

You are just so damned ignorant, nofucks. The Dems do not have veto proof majority. How much more information about that circumstance do you need?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?



Rubbish. Bush proposes legislation, they pass it after peeing a bit in it.

Thankfully they are going to hold onto the minimum of control they already ignore concerning their constitutional authority over money policy.

The only thing they've "rejected" was the portion that there would be no oversight over Paulson.

Retarded emotive election year legislation, proposed by Bush, passed by Democrats. It is what we will have. They'll cave like they always have.

There will certainly be new laws passed as a result of this malfeasance on the part of Wall Street and the deregulation spirit of the Republican Party and the Democrats will see to it that the American people are protected despite the advances and ill-will of the jerks that want only to somehow personally profit from this disaster. Even then, some will certainly take advantage and probably spend a few of your dollars while enjoying their retirement in the Bahamas. That doesn't give us any excuse not to continue our pursuit of fairness, justice and the protection of generally accepted American values and jurisprudence, does it?

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[bullypulpit]

It's about time the adults spoke up!!!!!!!!!!!

Tuesday 23 September 2008
by: Carolyn Lochhead, The San Francisco Chronicle


US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke at a Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee hearing.

Washington - Congressional Democrats worked Monday to reshape the lame-duck Bush administration's jaw-dropping request for an additional $700 billion and unprecedented authority to buy distressed assets to prevent a financial meltdown, amid a sense of deja vu on Capitol Hill over a similarly open-ended war resolution that Congress gave the administration six years ago.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, insisted on altering the proposal made over the weekend by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to include greater oversight of the new Treasury fund that would buy and dispose of distressed assets, more aid for homeowners facing foreclosure, and curbs on huge Wall Street compensation packages.

Democrats are caught between wide agreement that the nation stood on the brink of an economic abyss last week when credit markets froze and constituent anger at bailing out Wall Street................

More: http://www.truthout.org/article/democrats-reject-700-billion-blank-check

This is the result of deregulation of an industry absorbed in greed and is now absorbed with creating for themselves additional unearned billions by soaking the American taxpayers!!!!!!!!! They remind me of a kid that steals a cookie from his Mother's cookie jar, denies it and tells the same lie when he is caught with his hand in it!!!!!!!!!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

Henry "Mr. Hanke" Paulson's proposal is nothing more than the privatization of the profits the industry has reaped under the Bush administration while socializing the losses. This is known as fascism.

[Psychoblues]

Exactly, bp, exactly.




Henry "Mr. Hanke" Paulson's proposal is nothing more than the privatization of the profits the industry has reaped under the Bush administration while socializing the losses. This is known as fascism.

When these lemmings decide that it was their good names used in this propagation of fascism maybe then they will begin to rebell against the all powerful machine of Golden Rule boys. The one that has the gold, rules. In this case, it is collective.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute: