Lets take a moment to understand what's happening here.
President Bush delivered a two page document, very basic skeleton, of the bailout bill to congress and said, "you guys need to hash this out and sign it. No veto."
The congress has a Democrat majority with no need of any of the republican components to agree on this bill, sign it and send it out the door. So basically they can work it into anything that they want, sign it and be done.
President Bush asked McCain and Obama to help facilitate this process because it is absolutely necessary for the economy, and he was hopeful this would avoid politics on either side coming in the way of the agreement.
So the question is, why did Reed and Pelosi make such a fuss about McCain and the other Republicans not agreeing with what the Democrats have morphed this bill into?
Why the media grandstanding, when they know that there is nothing that Republicans can do to stop them?
They don't need McCain, his advice, or any of the other Republicans to agree on anything. They don't need any of the Republican votes on this bill.
Why the hold up and fuss? Why are they demanding agreement on a bill that any reasonable conservative would never agree to?
Within the bill we now have provisions for millions of dollars to go to ACORN and the National Council of La Raza, and millions of other dollars to be funneled here and there, and over here, and around there. This is a Democratic dream bill. All they have to do is pass it and celebrate.
So I ask again why the fuss?
Here's why, the bill is absolutely necessary, but it is also an enormous trap. It is impossible for the Democrats to pass a simple bill without handouts to their various keepers. Additionally, every element in this bill that takes away from the free market is a noose for a Democrat. This was a huge opportunity for a clean functional bail out bill and Reed and Pelosi have come to realize that they cannot do it.
Reed is inflamed making statements about McCain holding up the process, when he has no power over the process.
The Democrats are in agreement about what they want in this bill, they just can't figure out a way to get away with it without it coming back to bite them.
If they get bipartisan participation on the bill, they can avoid blame once all of the filthy little elements are scrutinized. Well it's not going to happen. They need to just get over it and get on with it.
After all they are the wisest minds in american politics. They created Fannie and Freddy. They fed them by putting an end to redlining mortgages during the Clinton Admin.
So why are they so upset when they are awarded Carte-Blanch to fix the problem, and to distribute some money?
. . . Because, they know the consequences.
While they were letting their imaginations run free, reality came back to bite them.
Time to suck it up and sign. They can even proudly call it The Democratic Bailout Plan.
There is a holdup on the 700 billion land fall as whether we should reward the those who by their negligence, have used the mortgage industry to inflate the housing industry where by the soft dollar many jobs are being lost as companies reduce their work force.
Still the builders of the golden parachutes want the working poor to keep the wind under the parachutes as they loose their homes in foreclosures.
The reduction at Arkansas Whirlpool operation and moving to a new plant in Mexico, leaving some 700 employees, with unnumbered mortgages payments, can be construed to mean that if they cannot have cheap labor here they will take their production to where there is cheap labor.
There is no solution to the inability of the working poor to maintain their payments as they loose their jobs or have their hours cut. When the smoke clears a little we can expect to see the pensions being in default. Then the retail sales will faultier on which we have used to create an exploding local governments. Inflation since the past years on foods have increased from 20-30% still we compare the sales taxes from a year ago with an increase in the single digits...
The Airlines need to be baled out. FDIC could not cover the losses of one bank. The trillions in pension plans have not been address. The American Financial intuition is as Humpty-Dumpy teetering on the wall. The Euro has gained strength while the Dollar becomes weaker from inflation. We are into another war without any solution in mind except to reinstall an exiled government. We want to interfere in Russia civil war. Russia is extending credit to south America to buy missiles. China has become a power to recon with. Mexico's citizens are buying our utilities and lands.
Roosevelt used all the tricks in the Great Depression in the 1933 area,
Who in hell would want to be president at this time in history?
GYOFB (//%22http://www.definition-of.com/GYOFB%22)
Summary of dems responsibility for Freddie & Fannie debacle:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
I like the B.J. Clinton sound bite at the end.
So how did we get ourselves into the mess anyway? Wouldn't have anything to do with Dubya and his obsession with war, would it? Meanwhile everyone suffers because those of you who voted for the idiot, couldn't see your derriere from your elbow?
quote:
Originally posted by HoneySuckle
So how did we get ourselves into the mess anyway? Wouldn't have anything to do with Dubya and his obsession with war, would it? Meanwhile everyone suffers because those of you who voted for the idiot, couldn't see your derriere from your elbow?
That's right, Bush's obsession with the Iraq war and the war on terror was the exact reason why Congress buried its head in the sand (or accepted Fannie/Freddie bribes, er, campaign contributions) and refused to act after being warned by federal regulators about problems. Did you even watch the video?
"Red State Update" weighs in on the bailout"
http://www.sitemason.com/newspub/fQKJvW?id=59380
quote:
Originally posted by HoneySuckle
So how did we get ourselves into the mess anyway? Wouldn't have anything to do with Dubya and his obsession with war, would it? Meanwhile everyone suffers because those of you who voted for the idiot, couldn't see your derriere from your elbow?
No, actually it wouldn't. Not even close.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by HoneySuckle
So how did we get ourselves into the mess anyway? Wouldn't have anything to do with Dubya and his obsession with war, would it? Meanwhile everyone suffers because those of you who voted for the idiot, couldn't see your derriere from your elbow?
No, actually it wouldn't. Not even close.
Not to say that Dubya is absolve from any blame though. More than one administration caused this mess, without a doubt. Time to quit pointing fingers and get it fixed, even if the package sucks. I hate footing the bill, but what else can we do?
Colbert: We now need to give the powers that be, more powers that will be.
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by HoneySuckle
So how did we get ourselves into the mess anyway? Wouldn't have anything to do with Dubya and his obsession with war, would it? Meanwhile everyone suffers because those of you who voted for the idiot, couldn't see your derriere from your elbow?
No, actually it wouldn't. Not even close.
Not to say that Dubya is absolve from any blame though. More than one administration caused this mess, without a doubt. Time to quit pointing fingers and get it fixed, even if the package sucks. I hate footing the bill, but what else can we do?
I was pointing out that the WOT had nothing to do with the sub-prime debacle and financial bailout.
My only hope is people who play loose and fast with the "facts" don't vote.
What steams me is that these behemoth companies didn't want government intervention when everything was "going great" now they want the gov't to save their bacon after their stupidity and greed have led to near-demise.
Nostalgia
New York Times Sept 1999,
"In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring."
CAN'T WAIT!
If you have 8 minutes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o
Just got voted down in the house 193 yea's 220 nays and I think I saw 21 not participating
How'd the Oklahoma delegation vote?
I don't know bout OK yet and Holy Crap, there is one vote just switched, 207/226 and one no vote now. The vote is not gaveled and they must be trying to find 10 to swap sides. And Pelosi will not call order. Crazy.
Wow. Dow plummets more than 700 at one point . . . has rebounded now to -400ish.
Wall Street no likey.
YEA NAY PRES NV
DEMS 141 94
REPS 65 133 1
--------------
TOTAL 207 227
217 needed to pass
38%+ of DEMS voted against this.
67% of REPS voted against this.
The people didn't want this nonsense and they've made their voices heard.
The Dems couldn't even muster enough of their own to pass this bill. The constituents of both parties were pressing hard to kill this bill.
I wonder what's going to happen tomorrow when we all wake up and world isn't on fire?
No-one running for re-election wants to vote yes.
I'd love to see what the break-down is along those lines.
Here's the roll-call
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
The people didn't want this nonsense and they've made their voices heard.
The Dems couldn't even muster enough of their own to pass this bill. The constituents of both parties were pressing hard to kill this bill.
I wonder what's going to happen tomorrow when we all wake up and world isn't on fire?
It's not on fire today?
No swake.
You should listen, and I can't believe that I'm saying this, to Barney Frank's speech that he just gave.
He's conceding that this crisis might be largely hype. He's even proposed looking at the republican bill introduced earlier that calls for suspending mark-to-market in addition to other ideas like insuring mortgages rather than purchasing them outright.
quote:
Originally posted by cks511
Here's the roll-call
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml
Thanks for the link, but I'd have to research who's up for reelection. I don't want to know that badly.
Looks like Oklahoma was pretty evenly split with 1 more no than yes.
They had the vote locked up for approval, but then Pelosi gave a lead-up speech that made those on the Right angry, and those on the left nervous.
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/184803.html
You go girl!
Poison the well right before the vote!
I wonder if she will ever be elected to anything ever again?
She apparently doesn't own a watch...
They are saying this speech is the reason 2/3rds of the Republicans voted no.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Thanks for the link, but I'd have to research who's up for reelection. I don't want to know that badly.
You are aware this was a house vote right?
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
She apparently doesn't own a watch...
They are saying this speech is the reason 2/3rds of the Republicans voted no.
Can't watch it at work, so I'll withhold opinion, but will say that if it only took a speech to derail this vote, then it was probably headed for disaster already.
Sullivan, Lucas and Fallin were OK noes
Boren and Cole the OK ayes
Treasurys soar, credit pipes frozen
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/markets/bondcenter/treasury_prices/index.htm?postversion=2008092914
Dow down 700 points
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3683270/
European banks are beginning to fail, worldwide stock markets down 7 – 13%
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/7837686
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
She apparently doesn't own a watch...
They are saying this speech is the reason 2/3rds of the Republicans voted no.
Can't watch it at work, so I'll withhold opinion, but will say that if it only took a speech to derail this vote, then it was probably headed for disaster already.
It was. The Pelosi gambit is a cynical ploy. House leaders were informed this morning that they wouldn't have their half of the votes necessary. They figured 70 or less.
They not only ***** slapped their president but left their presidential candidate hung out to dry.
Nitwits.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Thanks for the link, but I'd have to research who's up for reelection. I don't want to know that badly.
You are aware this was a house vote right?
What's your point?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Thanks for the link, but I'd have to research who's up for reelection. I don't want to know that badly.
You are aware this was a house vote right?
What's your point?
The entire house is up for reelection every 2 years. Know your civics/govt.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
She apparently doesn't own a watch...
They are saying this speech is the reason 2/3rds of the Republicans voted no.
Can't watch it at work, so I'll withhold opinion, but will say that if it only took a speech to derail this vote, then it was probably headed for disaster already.
I agree. Had to be a shaky plan, but the speech was inflammatory and very very stupid. She was making an attempt to deflect blame and use the opportunity to bash the Republicans, and the administration.
It was by far the dumbest thing I have ever seen a politician do. All she had to do was shut her yapper and the vote would have passed. Then Barney (not the dinosaur) came out and blamed the Republicans again, even though it was his fellow Democrats that fled from the bill.
This is what we get. We as a people will certainly learn from this.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
They had the vote locked up for approval, but then Pelosi gave a lead-up speech that made those on the Right angry, and those on the left nervous.
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/184803.html
You go girl!
Poison the well right before the vote!
I wonder if she will ever be elected to anything ever again?
Are you
KIDDING ME??? Even assuming you are correct, what does that say about the house republicans? They are so upset about a speech, they decided to
risk the American economy?Do they have any idea how petty they look?
To the House Republicans: If you want to not vote for the bill because you don't think its necessary, you don't think it will work, fine, though I think you are wrong. But to not vote for a bill out of some sort of political spite, well that is childish and dangerous. You need to be thrown out of office.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
They had the vote locked up for approval, but then Pelosi gave a lead-up speech that made those on the Right angry, and those on the left nervous.
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/184803.html
You go girl!
Poison the well right before the vote!
I wonder if she will ever be elected to anything ever again?
Are you KIDDING ME??? Even assuming you are correct, what does that say about the house republicans? They are so upset about a speech, they decided to risk the American economy?
Do they have any idea how petty they look?
To the House Republicans: If you want to not vote for the bill because you don't think its necessary, you don't think it will work, fine, though I think you are wrong. But to not vote for a bill out of some sort of political spite, well that is childish and dangerous. You need to be thrown out of office.
Most didn't intend to vote for it anyway. But You're right a few of them did turn tail.
quote:
Originally posted by bbriscoe
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Thanks for the link, but I'd have to research who's up for reelection. I don't want to know that badly.
You are aware this was a house vote right?
What's your point?
The entire house is up for reelection every 2 years. Know your civics/govt.
I don't seem to recall ever mentioning that ALL of these idiots were up for reelection. I wanted to know how many who voted against the bill were up for reelection.
You should read the thread first before posting.
I think this whole thing sounds like a bad TV sitcom.
Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae sound like characters from a Beverly Hillbillies show.
Weren't they part of the band with the old guy playing the jug? What was their name...the Lehman Brothers jug band?
Even President Bush has a brother named Jeb...probably like Jed Clampett...of course, no one ever speaks about the other brother Neil...the one who caused the largest Savings and Loan failure in American history...
That treasury Secretary sure looks and sounds like Mr. Drysdale...
Please...somebody change the channel...
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
They had the vote locked up for approval, but then Pelosi gave a lead-up speech that made those on the Right angry, and those on the left nervous.
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/184803.html
You go girl!
Poison the well right before the vote!
I wonder if she will ever be elected to anything ever again?
Reminds me of the speech from Harry Reid the other day where he chided the insertion of presidential politics and then in the next breath, inserted presidential politics by attacking McCain.
Both sides of this suck.
The "King Paulson" bill sucked, the democrats "Heavy and Bloated" version sucked, and the dems and repubs who voted against it won't come out and say the bills sucked and why.
Lastly, I don't want to hear one more of these stupid mother f'ers blame anyone else for a collective problem.
In fact, I don't want to hear about who caused this again until they fix the problem.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by bbriscoe
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Thanks for the link, but I'd have to research who's up for reelection. I don't want to know that badly.
You are aware this was a house vote right?
What's your point?
The entire house is up for reelection every 2 years. Know your civics/govt.
I don't seem to recall ever mentioning that ALL of these idiots were up for reelection. I wanted to know how many who voted against the bill were up for reelection.
You should read the thread first before posting.
Please think about this.
Everyone who voted "No" is up.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
They had the vote locked up for approval, but then Pelosi gave a lead-up speech that made those on the Right angry, and those on the left nervous.
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/184803.html
You go girl!
Poison the well right before the vote!
I wonder if she will ever be elected to anything ever again?
Are you KIDDING ME??? Even assuming you are correct, what does that say about the house republicans? They are so upset about a speech, they decided to risk the American economy?
Do they have any idea how petty they look?
To the House Republicans: If you want to not vote for the bill because you don't think its necessary, you don't think it will work, fine, though I think you are wrong. But to not vote for a bill out of some sort of political spite, well that is childish and dangerous. You need to be thrown out of office.
Does Chatty Nancy Doll have any idea how petty she
sounded?
This **** used to be done without sounding as pathetic and pedantic as the House of Commons.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by bbriscoe
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Thanks for the link, but I'd have to research who's up for reelection. I don't want to know that badly.
You are aware this was a house vote right?
What's your point?
The entire house is up for reelection every 2 years. Know your civics/govt.
I don't seem to recall ever mentioning that ALL of these idiots were up for reelection. I wanted to know how many who voted against the bill were up for reelection.
You should read the thread first before posting.
Please think about this.
Everyone who voted "No" is up.
That's what I was asking for. Do you have any proof of this or are you just assuming? I think it's a safe bet to assume so, but I wanted to know.
Either way, it shows that people who are about to be held accountable are scared of their constituents and that a GOOD thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
They had the vote locked up for approval, but then Pelosi gave a lead-up speech that made those on the Right angry, and those on the left nervous.
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/184803.html
You go girl!
Poison the well right before the vote!
I wonder if she will ever be elected to anything ever again?
Are you KIDDING ME??? Even assuming you are correct, what does that say about the house republicans? They are so upset about a speech, they decided to risk the American economy?
Do they have any idea how petty they look?
To the House Republicans: If you want to not vote for the bill because you don't think its necessary, you don't think it will work, fine, though I think you are wrong. But to not vote for a bill out of some sort of political spite, well that is childish and dangerous. You need to be thrown out of office.
Does Chatty Nancy Doll have any idea how petty she sounded?
This **** used to be done without sounding as pathetic and pedantic as the House of Commons.
To be honest, I didn't see ANY partisanship out of the speech..granted I just read it. Even a GOP staffer agrees.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2FlNmI0YjhmMmEyMjNkZGU2ZTBkNjhhYjQ2NGE0MDU=
So, if it comes down to someone getting their panties in a bunch over perceived partisanship, it's time those someone's leave DC and let people with the big-boy pants step up.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Looks like Oklahoma was pretty evenly split with 1 more no than yes.
elaborate....The devil needs to pounce on the no voters who are sending us into a depression.
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
They had the vote locked up for approval, but then Pelosi gave a lead-up speech that made those on the Right angry, and those on the left nervous.
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/184803.html
You go girl!
Poison the well right before the vote!
I wonder if she will ever be elected to anything ever again?
Are you KIDDING ME??? Even assuming you are correct, what does that say about the house republicans? They are so upset about a speech, they decided to risk the American economy?
Do they have any idea how petty they look?
To the House Republicans: If you want to not vote for the bill because you don't think its necessary, you don't think it will work, fine, though I think you are wrong. But to not vote for a bill out of some sort of political spite, well that is childish and dangerous. You need to be thrown out of office.
Does Chatty Nancy Doll have any idea how petty she sounded?
This **** used to be done without sounding as pathetic and pedantic as the House of Commons.
To be honest, I didn't see ANY partisanship out of the speech..granted I just read it. Even a GOP staffer agrees.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2FlNmI0YjhmMmEyMjNkZGU2ZTBkNjhhYjQ2NGE0MDU=
So, if it comes down to someone getting their panties in a bunch over perceived partisanship, it's time those someone's leave DC and let people with the big-boy pants step up.
Well, let's start with her blaming the Admin, completely for this crisis. Anyone who is paying attention knows the Admin has a share in the blame, but only a fool or a partisan would ignore the collective incompetence of Dodd and Frank.
In the spirit of Dan Akroyd, Nancy, you ignorant slut, stop pointing fingers and take care of business.
And you bozos give me crapolla for going after Palin. That's off base calling the head of the house a slut. If she's a slut, the repiglicans are pimps.
Dow down 778, worst point drop ever, after the House rejects the $700 billion bank bailout plan.
TRAGEDY how the politics superceeded the safety of our system.....more drop on Tuesday as many money managers take to their houses of worship.
You other ones might consider mass and communion.....pray for sanity over votes.
FOTD: Keepin' it classy.
[B)]
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by bbriscoe
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Thanks for the link, but I'd have to research who's up for reelection. I don't want to know that badly.
You are aware this was a house vote right?
What's your point?
The entire house is up for reelection every 2 years. Know your civics/govt.
I don't seem to recall ever mentioning that ALL of these idiots were up for reelection. I wanted to know how many who voted against the bill were up for reelection.
You should read the thread first before posting.
Please think about this.
Everyone who voted "No" is up.
That's what I was asking for. Do you have any proof of this or are you just assuming? I think it's a safe bet to assume so, but I wanted to know.
Either way, it shows that people who are about to be held accountable are scared of their constituents and that a GOOD thing.
Constitution of the United States
Section 2
Clause 1:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
Now, There may be a couple of reps who are not contested, but that is rare.
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
They had the vote locked up for approval, but then Pelosi gave a lead-up speech that made those on the Right angry, and those on the left nervous.
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/184803.html
You go girl!
Poison the well right before the vote!
I wonder if she will ever be elected to anything ever again?
Are you KIDDING ME??? Even assuming you are correct, what does that say about the house republicans? They are so upset about a speech, they decided to risk the American economy?
Do they have any idea how petty they look?
To the House Republicans: If you want to not vote for the bill because you don't think its necessary, you don't think it will work, fine, though I think you are wrong. But to not vote for a bill out of some sort of political spite, well that is childish and dangerous. You need to be thrown out of office.
Does Chatty Nancy Doll have any idea how petty she sounded?
This **** used to be done without sounding as pathetic and pedantic as the House of Commons.
To be honest, I didn't see ANY partisanship out of the speech..granted I just read it. Even a GOP staffer agrees.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2FlNmI0YjhmMmEyMjNkZGU2ZTBkNjhhYjQ2NGE0MDU=
So, if it comes down to someone getting their panties in a bunch over perceived partisanship, it's time those someone's leave DC and let people with the big-boy pants step up.
Come on now, I can sign off on anything anonymously as "a concerned GOP staffer".
I could create an identity on any number of blogs and forums as "Obama Staffer" and plaster all sorts of moonbat stuff to be attributed as being from an Obama staffer.
How much more inflamatory could she have gotten?
"$700 billion. A staggering number, but only a part of the cost of the failed Bush economic policies to our country. Policies that were built on budget recklessness when Pres. Bush took office, he inherited Pres. Clinton's surpluses - four years in a row budget surpluses on a trajectory of $5.6 trillion in surplus. And with his reckless economic policies, within two years, he had turned it around. And now 8 years later, the foundation of that fiscal irresponsibility, combined with an "anything goes" economic policy, has taken us to where we are today.
They claim to be free-market advocates, when it's really an anything goes mentality. No regulation, no supervision, no discipline. And if you fail, you will have a golden parachute and the taxpayer will bail you out.
Those days are over. The party is over in that respect.
Democrats believe in a free market. We know that it can create jobs, it can create wealth, many good things in our economy. But in this case, in this unbridled form, as encouraged and supported by the Republicans — some Republicans, not all — it has created not jobs, not capital, it has created chaos. And it is that chaos that the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Fed came to see us, just about a week and a half ago. It seems like an eternity, doesn't it? So much has happened. The news was so bad. They described a very dismal situation."
Michelle Malkin called it a "crap sandwich". [}:)]
Umm--who just voted down the bill? I don't give a sh** what Pelosi said (I haven't watched it). You don't risk your country as "pay back".
The vote against the bill can be explained either one of two ways:
1. They never planned to back the bill. Knowing that there would be horrible economic repercussions, they decided to try to politicize the vote by killing the bill and blaming a democrat.
2. They did plan to back the bill, but because they are so petty and insecure, they decided to risk the American economy, not to mention the global one, and changed their mind when someone made a speech.
If they really thought it was a bad bill, why then don't they have the guts to say it? Why are they blaming their vote on someone else? If they thought the bill was necessary, why in the world would they vote against it?
Could we get some adults in the House?
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
They had the vote locked up for approval, but then Pelosi gave a lead-up speech that made those on the Right angry, and those on the left nervous.
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/184803.html
You go girl!
Poison the well right before the vote!
I wonder if she will ever be elected to anything ever again?
Are you KIDDING ME??? Even assuming you are correct, what does that say about the house republicans? They are so upset about a speech, they decided to risk the American economy?
Do they have any idea how petty they look?
To the House Republicans: If you want to not vote for the bill because you don't think its necessary, you don't think it will work, fine, though I think you are wrong. But to not vote for a bill out of some sort of political spite, well that is childish and dangerous. You need to be thrown out of office.
Does Chatty Nancy Doll have any idea how petty she sounded?
This **** used to be done without sounding as pathetic and pedantic as the House of Commons.
To be honest, I didn't see ANY partisanship out of the speech..granted I just read it. Even a GOP staffer agrees.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2FlNmI0YjhmMmEyMjNkZGU2ZTBkNjhhYjQ2NGE0MDU=
So, if it comes down to someone getting their panties in a bunch over perceived partisanship, it's time those someone's leave DC and let people with the big-boy pants step up.
....
Michelle Malkin called it a "crap sandwich". [}:)]
Yep, because horseface Michelle can spot a crap sandwich from a mile away.
She's no better than O'Reilly or Hannity.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
Umm--who just voted down the bill? I don't give a sh** what Pelosi said (I haven't watched it). You don't risk your country as "pay back".
The vote against the bill can be explained either one of two ways:
1. They never planned to back the bill. Knowing that there would be horrible economic repercussions, they decided to try to politicize the vote by killing the bill and blaming a democrat.
2. They did plan to back the bill, but because they are so petty and insecure, they decided to risk the American economy, not to mention the global one, and changed their mind when someone made a speech.
If they really thought it was a bad bill, why then don't they have the guts to say it? Why are they blaming their vote on someone else? If they thought the bill was necessary, why in the world would they vote against it?
Could we get some adults in the House?
It was clear from speeches given on the House floor today that the bill wasn't popular. The speaker knew it wasn't going to pass before they had the vote. It was being reported ALL day that the bill wasn't going to pass.
Even if I believed those were the only two choices, you fail to give a reason why 40% of democrats voted against the bill.
I don't recall a SINGLE democrat who voted against the bill speaking out against the bill.
Why are you overlooking your party?
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Constitution of the United States
Section 2
Clause 1:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
Now, There may be a couple of reps who are not contested, but that is rare.
Are you really this dense?
I know that half the House is up and that all of them voted one way or the other.
READ THE FOLLOWING VERY CAREFULLY:I was asking how many of those up for reelection, voted AGAINST the bill. Asked another way, did anyone up for reelection vote FOR the bill?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Even if I believed those were the only two choices, you fail to give a reason why 40% of democrats voted against the bill.
Those 40%? Oh those are all DINO's.
It's been pointed out Democratic 'leadership' asked the House to vote on this WITHOUT EVEN LETTING THEM READ THE THING!
...no wonder if failed.
I'm sure Nancy's little pre-vote 'pep' speech didn't help much, stated to be overly partisan. Can't wait to hear that one.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Constitution of the United States
Section 2
Clause 1:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
Now, There may be a couple of reps who are not contested, but that is rare.
Are you really this dense?
I know that half the House is up and that all of them voted one way or the other.
READ THE FOLLOWING VERY CAREFULLY:
I was asking how many of those up for reelection, voted AGAINST the bill. Asked another way, did anyone up for reelection vote FOR the bill?
To answer your question in a word : YES. There were house members up for re-election who voted FOR the bill.
Your assumption that only half of the members of the house are up for re-election is DEAD WRONG. By law, ALL HOUSE MEMBERS run for re-election every 2 years, and all at the same time. The terms are not staggered. EVERYONE in the house is up for re-election on Nov 4 regardless of how they voted today. Please get that thru your head.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Even if I believed those were the only two choices, you fail to give a reason why 40% of democrats voted against the bill.
Those 40%? Oh those are all DINO's.
Aren't they all? I love how she conveniently forgets to mention democrats in her post completely.
I'd be interested in finding out why a democrat would oppose this bill. It had everything a good little democrat would like. Power grabs, expanded regulation, possible new government agencies, the prospect of more useless laws, and on and on...
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
It's been pointed out Democratic 'leadership' asked the House to vote on this WITHOUT EVEN LETTING THEM READ THE THING!
...no wonder if failed.
I'm sure Nancy's little pre-vote 'pep' speech didn't help much, stated to be overly partisan. Can't wait to hear that one.
I'll summarize it for you. Democrats good, Bush bad, give us your money.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
It's been pointed out Democratic 'leadership' asked the House to vote on this WITHOUT EVEN LETTING THEM READ THE THING!
...no wonder if failed.
I'm sure Nancy's little pre-vote 'pep' speech didn't help much, stated to be overly partisan. Can't wait to hear that one.
I'll summarize it for you. Democrats good, Bush bad, give us your money.
The devil advocates you change "Bush" to "McCain".....
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
Umm--who just voted down the bill? I don't give a sh** what Pelosi said (I haven't watched it). You don't risk your country as "pay back".
The vote against the bill can be explained either one of two ways:
1. They never planned to back the bill. Knowing that there would be horrible economic repercussions, they decided to try to politicize the vote by killing the bill and blaming a democrat.
2. They did plan to back the bill, but because they are so petty and insecure, they decided to risk the American economy, not to mention the global one, and changed their mind when someone made a speech.
If they really thought it was a bad bill, why then don't they have the guts to say it? Why are they blaming their vote on someone else? If they thought the bill was necessary, why in the world would they vote against it?
Could we get some adults in the House?
It was clear from speeches given on the House floor today that the bill wasn't popular. The speaker knew it wasn't going to pass before they had the vote. It was being reported ALL day that the bill wasn't going to pass.
Even if I believed those were the only two choices, you fail to give a reason why 40% of democrats voted against the bill.
I don't recall a SINGLE democrat who voted against the bill speaking out against the bill.
Why are you overlooking your party?
If they knew it wasn't going to pass, why did they need to blame it on a speech? Why not just admit it? Just looking for a scapegoat?
It was stupid for both parties to vote against it.
It was childish and petty for the
REPUBLICANS to blame it on a speech. Nothing more than ridiculous political posturing.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
Umm--who just voted down the bill? I don't give a sh** what Pelosi said (I haven't watched it). You don't risk your country as "pay back".
The vote against the bill can be explained either one of two ways:
1. They never planned to back the bill. Knowing that there would be horrible economic repercussions, they decided to try to politicize the vote by killing the bill and blaming a democrat.
2. They did plan to back the bill, but because they are so petty and insecure, they decided to risk the American economy, not to mention the global one, and changed their mind when someone made a speech.
If they really thought it was a bad bill, why then don't they have the guts to say it? Why are they blaming their vote on someone else? If they thought the bill was necessary, why in the world would they vote against it?
Could we get some adults in the House?
It was clear from speeches given on the House floor today that the bill wasn't popular. The speaker knew it wasn't going to pass before they had the vote. It was being reported ALL day that the bill wasn't going to pass.
Even if I believed those were the only two choices, you fail to give a reason why 40% of democrats voted against the bill.
I don't recall a SINGLE democrat who voted against the bill speaking out against the bill.
Why are you overlooking your party?
If they knew it wasn't going to pass, why did they need to blame it on a speech? Why not just admit it? Just looking for a scapegoat?
It was stupid for both parties to vote against it.
It was childish and petty for the REPUBLICANS to blame it on a speech. Nothing more than ridiculous political posturing.
It was also pretty stupid for Barney Frank to blame the Republicans for its defeat. 95 Democrats voted against it too. The Republicans have already been thrown out of the majority, so how much can you really blame on them? There is no filibuster in the House so if the majority sticks together, the minority is irrelevant. The majority party has to take responsibility.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
It's been pointed out Democratic 'leadership' asked the House to vote on this WITHOUT EVEN LETTING THEM READ THE THING!
...no wonder if failed.
I'm sure Nancy's little pre-vote 'pep' speech didn't help much, stated to be overly partisan. Can't wait to hear that one.
Uh, it was posted online last night.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
Umm--who just voted down the bill? I don't give a sh** what Pelosi said (I haven't watched it). You don't risk your country as "pay back".
The vote against the bill can be explained either one of two ways:
1. They never planned to back the bill. Knowing that there would be horrible economic repercussions, they decided to try to politicize the vote by killing the bill and blaming a democrat.
2. They did plan to back the bill, but because they are so petty and insecure, they decided to risk the American economy, not to mention the global one, and changed their mind when someone made a speech.
If they really thought it was a bad bill, why then don't they have the guts to say it? Why are they blaming their vote on someone else? If they thought the bill was necessary, why in the world would they vote against it?
Could we get some adults in the House?
It was clear from speeches given on the House floor today that the bill wasn't popular. The speaker knew it wasn't going to pass before they had the vote. It was being reported ALL day that the bill wasn't going to pass.
Even if I believed those were the only two choices, you fail to give a reason why 40% of democrats voted against the bill.
I don't recall a SINGLE democrat who voted against the bill speaking out against the bill.
Why are you overlooking your party?
If they knew it wasn't going to pass, why did they need to blame it on a speech? Why not just admit it? Just looking for a scapegoat?
It was stupid for both parties to vote against it.
It was childish and petty for the REPUBLICANS to blame it on a speech. Nothing more than ridiculous political posturing.
Absolutely.
Well,
We'll soon see if Bernanke/Paulsons predictions are accurate.
If so, we should see many large bankruptcies in the next 8 weeks.
It's amazing to watch businesses become insolvent over issues of liquidity when their underlying operations are doing fine.
The saddest part is Main Street does not realize what's coming their way. Trickle down disaster?
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
Umm--who just voted down the bill? I don't give a sh** what Pelosi said (I haven't watched it). You don't risk your country as "pay back".
The vote against the bill can be explained either one of two ways:
1. They never planned to back the bill. Knowing that there would be horrible economic repercussions, they decided to try to politicize the vote by killing the bill and blaming a democrat.
2. They did plan to back the bill, but because they are so petty and insecure, they decided to risk the American economy, not to mention the global one, and changed their mind when someone made a speech.
If they really thought it was a bad bill, why then don't they have the guts to say it? Why are they blaming their vote on someone else? If they thought the bill was necessary, why in the world would they vote against it?
Could we get some adults in the House?
It was clear from speeches given on the House floor today that the bill wasn't popular. The speaker knew it wasn't going to pass before they had the vote. It was being reported ALL day that the bill wasn't going to pass.
Even if I believed those were the only two choices, you fail to give a reason why 40% of democrats voted against the bill.
I don't recall a SINGLE democrat who voted against the bill speaking out against the bill.
Why are you overlooking your party?
If they knew it wasn't going to pass, why did they need to blame it on a speech? Why not just admit it? Just looking for a scapegoat?
It was stupid for both parties to vote against it.
It was childish and petty for the REPUBLICANS to blame it on a speech. Nothing more than ridiculous political posturing.
It was also childish for Pelosi to get up and give her partisan rant before such a vote. Political posturing has no boundaries; democrat or republican.
Scapegoat Pelosi and you miss the point or are avoiding the culprit.....McCain't opened this whole fiasco last week for another failed Hail Mary and so it's third down long and your potty is gonna get slammed....hard. The incumbants always get the heave hoe in bad times.....so what's going to happen in November?
I'm not afraid to say why 1/3 of the Democrats voted against it while 2/3 or Republicans voted against it. Leadership of both parties agreed to cover their butts by having half of each party voting in favor of the republican proposed, democrat adjusted bill. That prevented both sides from attacking their opponents as having passed the unpopular bailout. They all had cover.
The republicans were rumored to be reneging on the deal. Their leadership could not rope the fiscal conservatives in to the deal and it became obvious this morning it wouldn't pass. That left Democrats holding the bag for its passage and being blamed in elections back home for siding with Bush. They refused and began their retreat. Pelosi's speech reflected her anger at the eminent collapse and was not the cause of it.
They're all nitwits. Playing politics while Rome burns.
There is a far more simple reason why the "Bailout" failed....
"The Front Fell Off" (//%22http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcU4t6zRAKg%22)
Rico... unfortunately this boat was made of paper.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I'm not afraid to say why 1/3 of the Democrats voted against it while 2/3 or Republicans voted against it. Leadership of both parties agreed to cover their butts by having half of each party voting in favor of the republican proposed, democrat adjusted bill. That prevented both sides from attacking their opponents as having passed the unpopular bailout. They all had cover.
The republicans were rumored to be reneging on the deal. Their leadership could not rope the fiscal conservatives in to the deal and it became obvious this morning it wouldn't pass. That left Democrats holding the bag for its passage and being blamed in elections back home for siding with Bush. They refused and began their retreat. Pelosi's speech reflected her anger at the eminent collapse and was not the cause of it.
They're all nitwits. Playing politics while Rome burns.
The republicans that voted against this bill didn't propose the bill that they voted on today. The Admin proposed the original bill and this Admin ain't been Republican for a while now...[;)]
quote:
Originally posted by bokworker
Rico... unfortunately this boat was made of paper.
Damned straight.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I'm not afraid to say why 1/3 of the Democrats voted against it while 2/3 or Republicans voted against it. Leadership of both parties agreed to cover their butts by having half of each party voting in favor of the republican proposed, democrat adjusted bill. That prevented both sides from attacking their opponents as having passed the unpopular bailout. They all had cover.
The republicans were rumored to be reneging on the deal. Their leadership could not rope the fiscal conservatives in to the deal and it became obvious this morning it wouldn't pass. That left Democrats holding the bag for its passage and being blamed in elections back home for siding with Bush. They refused and began their retreat. Pelosi's speech reflected her anger at the eminent collapse and was not the cause of it.
They're all nitwits. Playing politics while Rome burns.
The republicans that voted against this bill didn't propose the bill that they voted on today. The Admin proposed the original bill and this Admin ain't been Republican for a while now...[;)]
So now your going to throw the Republican Party under the bus just to cover your tracks? Isn't that what all Republicans do instead of trying to change what they perceive as wrong.
quote:
Michelle Malkin called it a "crap sandwich". [}:)]
She ought to know, Michelle sure serves up enough of it.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Constitution of the United States
Section 2
Clause 1:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
Now, There may be a couple of reps who are not contested, but that is rare.
Are you really this dense?
I know that half the House is up and that all of them voted one way or the other.
READ THE FOLLOWING VERY CAREFULLY:
I was asking how many of those up for reelection, voted AGAINST the bill. Asked another way, did anyone up for reelection vote FOR the bill?
Jeebus, are you really a lawyer?
The WHOLE house is up. Every election cycle. Two year terms, it's in that little quote I gave you.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Constitution of the United States
Section 2
Clause 1:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
Now, There may be a couple of reps who are not contested, but that is rare.
Are you really this dense?
I know that half the House is up and that all of them voted one way or the other.
READ THE FOLLOWING VERY CAREFULLY:
I was asking how many of those up for reelection, voted AGAINST the bill. Asked another way, did anyone up for reelection vote FOR the bill?
Jeebus, are you really a lawyer?
The WHOLE house is up. Every election cycle. Two year terms, it's in that little quote I gave you.
Lawyers obviously don't have to excel at math while in college.
Unless they're small claims civil lawyers, then it would behoove them to do so.
[:O]
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
The people didn't want this nonsense and they've made their voices heard.
The Dems couldn't even muster enough of their own to pass this bill. The constituents of both parties were pressing hard to kill this bill.
I wonder what's going to happen tomorrow when we all wake up and world isn't on fire?
Things are going great.
Australia:
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSSYD15308520080930
Japan:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26949764/
Belgium:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26932297/
United Kingdom:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26939852/
Canada:
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5iEbgjRLbNSoZX2Tle8AmuwB4w22w
Germany:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=aIBE_fN.ZPlI&refer=germany
China:
http://www.chinaknowledge.com/News/news-detail.aspx?id=17819&cat=FIN
Economic collapse on an epic scale is the enema this country needs. The writing's been on the wall for many years now and we've just carried on with the dysfunction in a delusional state of denial. If there is a bailout, we'll just find ourselves in the same situation a few years down the road and nothing will really change. Times of great sacrifice and suffering have historically made this nation a better place as a result. Maybe the best thing in the long run for this shell game of an economy is to let it crash and burn. Addicts and enablers don't get real recovery until they hit rock bottom. We're so strung out that without hitting rock bottom, intervention is probably just a recipe for relapse once we're released from rehab when the insurance runs out.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Economic collapse on an epic scale is the enema this country needs. The writing's been on the wall for many years now and we've just carried on with the dysfunction in a delusional state of denial. If there is a bailout, we'll just find ourselves in the same situation a few years down the road and nothing will really change. Times of great sacrifice and suffering have historically made this nation a better place as a result. Maybe the best thing in the long run for this shell game of an economy is to let it crash and burn. Addicts and enablers don't get real recovery until they hit rock bottom. We're so strung out that without hitting rock bottom, intervention is probably just a recipe for relapse once we're released from rehab when the insurance runs out.
Thank you for this post. While what you say here sounds all London tough and Punk, it's obviously idiocy.
This should finally remove any last idea that anyone would want to ever take anything that you have to say seriously. To root for people to have the kind of real and life-threatening hardship that was the great depression is immoral and disgusting and shows your ignorance. This is what happens when all you know of history are the lyrics from punk rock songs.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Economic collapse on an epic scale is the enema this country needs. The writing's been on the wall for many years now and we've just carried on with the dysfunction in a delusional state of denial. If there is a bailout, we'll just find ourselves in the same situation a few years down the road and nothing will really change. Times of great sacrifice and suffering have historically made this nation a better place as a result. Maybe the best thing in the long run for this shell game of an economy is to let it crash and burn. Addicts and enablers don't get real recovery until they hit rock bottom. We're so strung out that without hitting rock bottom, intervention is probably just a recipe for relapse once we're released from rehab when the insurance runs out.
Thank you for this post. While what you say here sounds all London tough and Punk, it's obviously idiocy.
This should finally remove any last idea that anyone would want to ever take anything that you have to say seriously. To root for people to have the kind of real and life-threatening hardship that was the great depression is immoral and disgusting and shows your ignorance. This is what happens when all you know of history are the lyrics from punk rock songs.
Agree strongly. What bothers me is that I think his attitude may reflect some thinking in Congress by representatives who can't comprehend the ramifications of their deeply held, fiscally morally superior beliefs. Its no longer conservative business, conservative politics, its some kind of "end times" religion.
Edit: As the Greatest Generation fades away, so does the memory of the widespread hardships, fears and turmoil of the Great Depression. But I have to say that I am becoming fearful of a bailout structured by this President, in this manner. I think we should cool off and really consider other plans. There will be paper losses in the market but those directly affected have been huge transgressors. It will take a while for the effects to trickle down and there is no assurance that they won't trickle down with the passage of this chunk of money thrown at the banks.
David Sirota makes some plausible arguments in his HuffPo comments today. His five reasons to vote no on the bailout are persuasive.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
The people didn't want this nonsense and they've made their voices heard.
The Dems couldn't even muster enough of their own to pass this bill. The constituents of both parties were pressing hard to kill this bill.
I wonder what's going to happen tomorrow when we all wake up and world isn't on fire?
Things are going great.
They most certainly are.
Finally heard a statistic which puts some framework around all this. The $700 Billion represents approximately 50% of ALL real property in the US!
That means your government was going to purchase every other house, building or property.
...doesn't that sound a little extreme, especially on a Taylor-Copyrighted "Hurry Up" deal?
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Finally heard a statistic which puts some framework around all this. The $700 Billion represents approximately 50% of ALL real property in the US!
That means your government was going to purchase every other house, building or property.
...doesn't that sound a little extreme, especially on a Taylor-Copyrighted "Hurry Up" deal?
LOL. MYTH ALERT here! Check snopes next time you get an email forwarded off the internet.
According to a 2004 Flow of Funds study in 2004, in the Investments text I teach from, total real estate in the US is worth $31 trillion. That puts the bailout at a mere 2.25% of all real estate.
I think we should use the opportunity to force some honesty in the banking industry. Tell the banks we will bail you out but no more excessive fees, exorbitant credit card rates, etc.
There's no way that was close. Weren't they putting the sub-prime defaults alone at $5 Trill awhile back? And that was a percentage of the total mortgage market.
I dunno, maybe after adjusting for the bubble $1.4 trill is all it's worth now. [}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by bbriscoe
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Finally heard a statistic which puts some framework around all this. The $700 Billion represents approximately 50% of ALL real property in the US!
That means your government was going to purchase every other house, building or property.
...doesn't that sound a little extreme, especially on a Taylor-Copyrighted "Hurry Up" deal?
LOL. MYTH ALERT here! Check snopes next time you get an email forwarded off the internet.
According to a 2004 Flow of Funds study in 2004, in the Investments text I teach from, total real estate in the US is worth $31 trillion. That puts the bailout at a mere 2.25% of all real estate.
If so, I'll retract. But it and yourself are the first to try and put it into perspective. btw, it wasn't an email, it was a news source, so they apparently had it wrong, assuming, of course, your numbers are accurate.
EDIT: I suppose it's possible I mis-heard what they said, too. Perhaps it was 50% of 2008's mortgages, or such. Don't know now.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
I think we should use the opportunity to force some honesty in the banking industry. Tell the banks we will bail you out but no more excessive fees, exorbitant credit card rates, etc.
I'm with you on this.
Financial industry has been out of control for so long, they now think it normal.
I remember when ATM's first came out, banks were promoting them as cost-saving since it meant they could hire fewer tellers. Now they charge you a fee to use them.
Frankly, I'm opposed to the concept of 'selling debt' altogether. At least as it's done now.
There's something wrong about waking up one day and being obligated fiscally to someone to whom you've never spoken, much less agreed to pay.
My deal was never with them. Going out of business and having assets acquired by someone is one thing, but existing companies simply dumping off to another entity, without acceptance by both parties, seems contrary to contract law.
Letterman III:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUujTFwWJhU&eurl
The Shadow of the Pitchfork: Elite Panic Attack as Bailout Goes Bust
http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/3/1618-the-shadow-of-the-pitchfork-elite-panic-attack-as-bailout-goes-bust.html
"The vote by the House of Representatives to defeat the Wall Street bailout plan is the first act of political courage that the Congress of the United States has mounted in the last seven years. The fact that it was due largely to right-wing Republicans afraid of going down with the sinking ship of the witless leader they have followed blindly throughout his reign is a delicious irony -- but the whys and wherefores of the vote are not important. What matters is that one of America's moribund institutions has flickered to life long enough to derail a disastrous action that would have shoved the nation even deeper into the pit of corruption and ruin where it has been mired for so long.
The New York Times called the House vote "a catastrophic political defeat for President Bush, who had put the full weight of the White House behind the measure." But this is manifestly untrue. As everyone but the nation's media -- and the Democratic Party -- knows, George W. Bush has no "political weight" to use, or lose. Yes, he still retains the authoritarian powers that the spineless Democrats have given him with scarcely a whimper of protest (and often with boundless enthusiasm); but as a political force -- i.e., someone whose opinions and statements can sway popular opinion -- he has been a dead and rotting carcass for a long time. He is the most unpopular president in American history; and I can report from first-hand, eyewitness knowledge that he is thoroughly despised by some of the most rock-ribbed, Bible-believing, flag-waving, down-home, John Wayne-loving Heartland types that you can imagine. Even his own party -- a party fashioned in his own image, the Frankensteinian melding of willfully ignorant religious primitivism and rapaciously greedy crony capitalism that he has embodied in his twerpish person -- kept him away from their convention this year.
Nothing -- absolutely nothing -- could be politically safer than opposing George W. Bush. And yet the entire Democratic leadership, Barack Obama included, lined up to support a cockamamie plan proposed by this scorned and shriveled figure, a plan that was transparently nothing more than an audacious raid on the Treasury by Big Money hoods and yet another authoritarian power grab by a gang of murderous, torturing, warmongering toadies. This was the plan and these were the people that the Democrats decided to fight for.
What's more, the Democrats stood shoulder to shoulder with the president on what is apparently the only issue that can now stir Americans to genuine anger and widespread protest: a direct threat to their bank accounts. Wars of aggression like the Nazis used to wage; elaborate tortures like the KGB used to practice; concentration camps, lawbreaking leaders, diminishment of liberty, the slaughter of a million innocent people in a land destroyed by an illegal and pointless invasion -- all of that stuff is pretty much OK, easily swallowable, worth no more than a shrug or perhaps a frowny "tsk tsk" before going on to the sports pages or flipping over to another channel. But put out an open ploy to steal their money and give it to the filthy rich -- and baby, it's pitchfork time! Yet here, as the public face of just such a ploy, is where the Democrats chose to make their stand.
So Monday's rejection of the bailout plan is not a catastrophic political defeat for George W. Bush; he has no political standing, no political future. But it is a vast and humiliating defeat for the Democratic leadership, across the board, who, as Democrat Lloyd Dogget of Texas said
"never seriously considered any alternative" to the administration's plan, and had only barely modified what they were given. He criticized the plan for handing over sweeping new powers to an administration that he said was to blame for allowing the crisis to develop in the first place.
Now the Democratic elites have had their collective head handed to them on a platter. It is a dish most richly deserved. And although it is almost possible to believe that they will learn anything from this episode, there is now a chance -- a chance -- that we can at least have a discussion of alternatives to the Bush scheme.
I still believe it is unlikely any genuinely effective program -- one that could manage and mitigate the now-unavoidable effects of the Wall Street/Washington-induced disaster -- will ever get enacted. After all, the Democrats are largely owned by the same corrupt and greedy elites now seeking a handout. And it seems reasonable to assume that the Bipartisan Bailout Bunch will eventually find some kind of sugar to tempt away the two dozen votes they need for their next "compromise" on the Bush-Paulson plan.
Then again, who knows? There are obviously a lot of very powerful and privileged people sweating more bullets tonight than they have sweated in many and many a year. They have roused the drowsy beast of popular anger at last, and no one can say what might happen next. Probably nothing -- or rather, more of the same, in some form or another. But still, it is good to see the icy beads of panic dotting the brows of elites who have inflicted and/or countenanced so much death, destruction, terror and degradation in the past few years. Today they have suffered a very rare defeat in the relentless, remorseless class war they have been waging against us for decades. And that is something to celebrate -- at least for one night."
The bailout is a monetary methadone maintenance program that just trades one opiate for another that is synthesized by more debt and deficit spending. Making future generations pay for our debt driven credit crackhead lifestyles so we can sustain a ponzi scheme to live beyond our means is truly disgusting, immoral and ignorant.
FOTD, This flies in the face of the usual schlock you peddle around here.
Glad I am an independent... unfortunately I still dont have anyone I would like to vote for. Just lessors of 2 evils, both of which are more of the same.
But its our own fault. Politicians dont dare say what really needs to be done or they wont get elected. There are good ideas on the left and right that need to see the light of day, but what happens is neither. We end up locked in battle and dont move anywhere except down the same sad path. If one politician embraced a major idea of the other party, enough of his own party would abandon him that he would lose the election.
Perhaps we really do need a crisis that will cause a "reality check" in this country. We keep trying to maintain the status quo, the way we have always done things and lived... by artificial means which postpone the "day of reckoning" and exacerbates it.
We fight and whine about silly things because we can afford to.
We dont make changes, because we can afford to not make them....
Instead of taking our hand off the hot stove, we take an asprin to relieve the pain, and if that doesnt work we want more of the same. While the other side argues that we should have taken tylenol. Now we are debating a shot of morphine.
Well said Artiest.
The problem with our politicians is that they are politicians.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
FOTD, This flies in the face of the usual schlock you peddle around here.
In your opinion. The devil advocates fairness and objectivity. You are too one sided to see this aspect of the devil's postings.
Try this on for irony....
"It gets me angry," said O'Reilly. "I do talk radio and most talk radio is conservative-dominated ideologues; Kool-Aid drinking idiots. Idiots. Screaming at you that this is socialism, this is this, this is that. 'It's Clinton's fault.' It's Clinton's fault? He hasn't been in office in 8 years. It's Bush's fault! It happened under Bush's watch."
But then O'Reilly's tirade seemed to aim at Rush Limbaugh-without actually naming him.
"But let's get back to this talk radio stuff," said O'Reilly. "These idiots. I mean, they're misleading you. They're lying to you. They're rich, these guys. Big cigars. All of that. 'Yeah, oh yeah, my private jet!' And they're saying, 'Oh, no! No bail out!' Uh, uh, no way!
"Hey! You're going to get it, not them!" O'Reilly continued. "That foreign investment pulls out, we are toast! And they'll pull out if this bailout doesn't happen. Are you getting the message here? Walk away from these liars, these right-wing liars. Walk away from them! They're not looking out for you."
Holy Irony, Batman!
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Glad I am an independent... unfortunately I still dont have anyone I would like to vote for. Just lessors of 2 evils, both of which are more of the same.
But its our own fault. Politicians dont dare say what really needs to be done or they wont get elected. There are good ideas on the left and right that need to see the light of day, but what happens is neither. We end up locked in battle and dont move anywhere except down the same sad path. If one politician embraced a major idea of the other party, enough of his own party would abandon him that he would lose the election.
Perhaps we really do need a crisis that will cause a "reality check" in this country. We keep trying to maintain the status quo, the way we have always done things and lived... by artificial means which postpone the "day of reckoning" and exacerbates it.
We fight and whine about silly things because we can afford to.
We dont make changes, because we can afford to not make them....
Instead of taking our hand off the hot stove, we take an asprin to relieve the pain, and if that doesnt work we want more of the same. While the other side argues that we should have taken tylenol. Now we are debating a shot of morphine.
Well put.
A successful politician takes care of corporate interests but does it while making individuals feel like they have their best interests at heart.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
FOTD, This flies in the face of the usual schlock you peddle around here.
In your opinion. The devil advocates fairness and objectivity. You are too one sided to see this aspect of the devil's postings.
Try this on for irony....
"It gets me angry," said O'Reilly. "I do talk radio and most talk radio is conservative-dominated ideologues; Kool-Aid drinking idiots. Idiots. Screaming at you that this is socialism, this is this, this is that. 'It's Clinton's fault.' It's Clinton's fault? He hasn't been in office in 8 years. It's Bush's fault! It happened under Bush's watch."
But then O'Reilly's tirade seemed to aim at Rush Limbaugh-without actually naming him.
"But let's get back to this talk radio stuff," said O'Reilly. "These idiots. I mean, they're misleading you. They're lying to you. They're rich, these guys. Big cigars. All of that. 'Yeah, oh yeah, my private jet!' And they're saying, 'Oh, no! No bail out!' Uh, uh, no way!
"Hey! You're going to get it, not them!" O'Reilly continued. "That foreign investment pulls out, we are toast! And they'll pull out if this bailout doesn't happen. Are you getting the message here? Walk away from these liars, these right-wing liars. Walk away from them! They're not looking out for you."
Holy Irony, Batman!
I would love to see that link. I try to watch O'Reilly but his personality makes me freak. This crisis certainly has made strange bedfellows.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
FOTD, This flies in the face of the usual schlock you peddle around here.
In your opinion. The devil advocates fairness and objectivity. You are too one sided to see this aspect of the devil's postings.
Try this on for irony....
"It gets me angry," said O'Reilly. "I do talk radio and most talk radio is conservative-dominated ideologues; Kool-Aid drinking idiots. Idiots. Screaming at you that this is socialism, this is this, this is that. 'It's Clinton's fault.' It's Clinton's fault? He hasn't been in office in 8 years. It's Bush's fault! It happened under Bush's watch."
But then O'Reilly's tirade seemed to aim at Rush Limbaugh-without actually naming him.
"But let's get back to this talk radio stuff," said O'Reilly. "These idiots. I mean, they're misleading you. They're lying to you. They're rich, these guys. Big cigars. All of that. 'Yeah, oh yeah, my private jet!' And they're saying, 'Oh, no! No bail out!' Uh, uh, no way!
"Hey! You're going to get it, not them!" O'Reilly continued. "That foreign investment pulls out, we are toast! And they'll pull out if this bailout doesn't happen. Are you getting the message here? Walk away from these liars, these right-wing liars. Walk away from them! They're not looking out for you."
Holy Irony, Batman!
I would love to see that link. I try to watch O'Reilly but his personality makes me freak. This crisis certainly has made strange bedfellows.
I hate to be one to inject humor into this thread, but the talk of O'Reilly made me do this:
Lil' O'Reilly (//%22http://www.veoh.com/videos/v16096911YHDtkf4N?source=embed%22)
Heh, Li'l O'Reilly even nailed his delivery. I like that as much as "Pearl The Landlord" with Will Ferrell. (If you have not seen that, look it up on youtube).
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Heh, Li'l O'Reilly even nailed his delivery. I like that as much as "Pearl The Landlord" with Will Ferrell. (If you have not seen that, look it up on youtube).
When someone sent that to me I almost fell out of my chair laughing.
Pearl is funny too.
"I gotta get my drink on"....
[:D]
And actually, the Pearl series can be found easier at http://www.funnyordie.com/search/landlord
The Hidden Secret Behind the Financial Bailout.
http://www.politicalbull.net/hidden_secret_of_the_financial_crisis.html
"There is a hidden elephant in the economy that is being overlooked in the media but represents the driving force behind the fear in the financial markets. It is well known that the economy is driven by credit. Consumer spending relies upon it and businesses cannot grow without it. However; Americans unable to get credit is not the major issue surrounding the financial bailout.
Prior to 2007 there was a group of economists that saw no problem with this fact. The key to the new economy, they asserted, was not how much the United States was producing, nor how much the United States was spending. The real key was that foreign capital was funding it. In all prior economic environments government spending came at the expense of private spending. If the government had to borrow money it did so by getting it from domestic banks, which removed it from the private sector. In the new economy government spending excess is provided, not by dipping into the domestic money supply, but by bringing in new revenue from foreign capital. In this way government deficits were seen not as a problem but rather a benefit. Essentially the government could fuel the economy with OPM (other people's money). Likewise, banks and lending institutions could do the same and fuel the domestic economy with imported capital. That American assets were bleeding out of the nation was not perceived as a major issue. With $73 trillion in assets the United States could afford this trickle of blood for a number of decades until it had completely restructured the economy to not only stop the bleeding but begin re-aquiring those assets. The economists, bankers, and theoreticians believed they had found the perfect economic system and they knew they were smarter than everyone else.
The crisis in the financial markets puts this entire rationale at risk. The real fear is not domestic bank failures; but rather, that the influx of foreign capital will slow or stop if the government does not buy up the bad debt. If foreign capital is spent elsewhere the American economy will simply not have adequate revenue to maintain itself. Wall Street banks know very well that the bailout is needed to protect the integrity of the United States as a recipient of foreign capital. It is desperate to alleviate the losses to foreign capital suppliers. Otherwise they will simply invest in other regions. The American economy is largely dependent on bringing in outside revenue. If the United States financial system cannot protect the foreign suppliers it is destined to crash. The federal bailout is viewed as absolutely essential to reassuring the international capital markets that the United States is still a safe credit risk. If the American financial community cannot protect its international money flow from bad debt that flow will evaporate and take with it the financial system that has been built up over the past two decades.
For obvious reasons this is an impossible sale to the American public which would never willingly accept bailing out the Saudis or the government of Singapore. However; this is exactly what the bailout is required to do and why it is absolutely necessary. For Wall Street this ulterior need must be kept well hidden or it will never fly. Oops. I think I just spilled the beans."
Well, the devils guess we had better start producing products in this country again....sad that since we don't make much here anymore the broader economy will not recover as quickly because we have gutted the manufacturing sector and even parts of the service sector. The "hollowed out" economy will not be able to support standards of living like we have seen in the past. Hard to find the bright side lately...
Lost credibility leads to lost leadership
By LEONARD PITTS JR.
lpitts@miamiherald.com
http://www.miamiherald.com/living/columnists/leonard-pitts/story/703139.html
"Memo to the next president: There's an old fable I'm sure you know. It's usually credited to Aesop, and the version I found online at storyarts.org, goes like this:
``There once was a shepherd boy who was bored as he sat on the hillside watching the village sheep. To amuse himself he took a great breath and sang out, ``Wolf! Wolf! The Wolf is chasing the sheep!''
The villagers came running up the hill to help the boy drive the wolf away. But when they arrived at the top of the hill, they found no wolf. The boy laughed at the sight of their angry faces.
'Don't cry `wolf', shepherd boy,'' said the villagers, ''when there's no wolf!'' They went grumbling back down the hill.
Later, the boy sang out again, ''Wolf! Wolf! The wolf is chasing the sheep!'' To his naughty delight, he watched the villagers run up the hill to help him drive the wolf away.
When the villagers saw no wolf they sternly said, 'Save your frightened song for when there is really something wrong! Don't cry `wolf' when there is NO wolf!''
But the boy just grinned and watched them go grumbling down the hill once more.''
You know what happened next. A real wolf slunk out of the woods and the boy cried frantically for help, but the villagers ignored him. At sunset, they realized he hadn't come home and wondered why.
While millions of school children have absorbed the moral of that story, the man you seek to replace was apparently not one of them. Which has led over the last week to a standoff that once would have been difficult to conceive: the president sounding the alarm, declaring the emergency, warning of apocalyptic fiscal consequences if immediate action (defined as a $700 billion Wall Street bailout) is not taken, and lawmakers of both parties ignoring him, making clear that they would act on their timetable, not his.
As Rep. Joe Barton put it, ''Just because God created the world in seven days doesn't mean we have to pass this bill in seven days.'' Barton, let the record show, is a Republican. From Texas.
After almost eight years, then, it has come to this: Not even his own believe him. And he has only himself to blame. As the crisis we face is caused by the profligate way Wall Street has handled money, so President Bush's inability to rally the nation is caused by the profligate way he has handled credibility. Now, like the shepherd boy, he sees the wolf for real and tries to sound the alarm. Unfortunately, like that boy, his believability is spent, his integrity overdrawn, his credibility bankrupt.No one can be surprised. Not after the way Team Bush fudged facts and faked urgency, invoked mushroom clouds and conflated a connection to Sept. 11 that did not exist, in order to stampede the nation into invading Iraq. Not after the way it censored science and politicized truth on every subject from abortion to global warming to education to health. Not after the way it buffaloed its way through whenever reality threatened to intrude, shouldered it aside with a win-at-all-costs brazenness that seemed to ask -- apologies to Groucho Marx -- ''Who are you gonna to believe, us, or your lying eyes?'' Not after it elevated blame shifting and responsibility avoidance to the level of art. And not after the way it was abetted and supported in all this by a corps of sycophantic true believers for whom no lie was ever too big, no intellectual disconnect ever too wide, a cult of personality that could see no flaw in, nor countenance any criticism of, the great and powerful Bush.
Now even they have fled, as evidenced by the president's subterranean poll numbers and near invisibility at his own party's convention. Meanwhile, the rest of us are left to pick up the pieces and pay the bill. And to hope that, at the very least, the moral of the story that so profoundly escaped your predecessor is not lost on you:
Guard your credibility. You never know when you might need it. "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUujTFwWJhU&eurl
The new and improved(NOT) bail out that the Senate will vote on later today is out...some of the earmarks, beyond our $700bn are:
- Film and Television Productions (Sec. 502)
- Wooden Arrows designed for use by children (Sec. 503)
- 6 page package of earmarks for litigants in the 1989 Exxon Valdez incident, Alaska (Sec. 504)
Tax earmark "extenders" in the bailout bill.
- Virgin Island and Puerto Rican Rum (Section 308)
- American Samoa (Sec. 309)
- Mine Rescue Teams (Sec. 310)
- Mine Safety Equipment (Sec. 311)
- Domestic Production Activities in Puerto Rico (Sec. 312)
- Indian Tribes (Sec. 314, 315)
- Railroads (Sec. 316)
- Auto Racing Tracks (317)
- District of Columbia (Sec. 322)
- Wool Research (Sec. 325)
You can download ALL 451 pages here:
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/01/read-the-senate-bailout-bill-here/
Good luck to us all...holy crap.
[vent]
I have been reading today in EU rags like Der Spooger and comments from Putin about how we're no longer an economic super power, blah, blah, blah, blah. I'm sick of hearing it.
Who do these assh%les think they are? They have no idea how dependent they are on our economy to survive, and what an economic collapse here would mean to them.
I say we purposefully tank the economy and in turn wreck their respective economies beyond repair.
We're far more competent at surviving a crisis than these fools. We can rebuild after irreparable damage has been inflicted against these idiots.
[/vent off]
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
[vent]
I have been reading today in EU rags like Der Spooger and comments from Putin about how we're no longer an economic super power, blah, blah, blah, blah. I'm sick of hearing it.
Who do these assh%les think they are? They have no idea how dependent they are on our economy to survive, and what an economic collapse here would mean to them.
I say we purposefully tank the economy and in turn wreck their respective economies beyond repair.
We're far more competent at surviving a crisis than these fools. We can rebuild after irreparable damage has been inflicted against these idiots.
[/vent off]
There was never any doubt about Iplawlessness nose snipping to spite his face!
You don't see this on netwerk tee wee....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Il2cZJ8q_zk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xp-tZ2SSlLI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbFfNxk5sJw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG2ojZhDsps
Kinda revolutionary don't you think? Man, what happends when the other shoes drop?
Those New Yawkers.....
Subtitle B on page 310:
"Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008"
pancakes is crap like this doing in an economic bail-out bill?
Sounds like gotcha crap that will come out as "Senator Blowhard voted against mental health and helping those with addictions" if they vote against this package.
Sweet Jeebus, they are off the hinges in DC....
Edit: It gets worse, I finally had to close the file, I got too pissed. All I can say as I read each new thing thrown in: pancakes? pancakes?
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
If so, I'll retract. But it and yourself are the first to try and put it into perspective. btw, it wasn't an email, it was a news source, so they apparently had it wrong, assuming, of course, your numbers are accurate.
Not to knock you in particular, but we would all do well to sanity check figures we are fed by news sources. If 700 billion were 50% of the real property in the US, we'd only have 7 million homes worth $200,000 and zero commercial property and other real estate.
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
If so, I'll retract. But it and yourself are the first to try and put it into perspective. btw, it wasn't an email, it was a news source, so they apparently had it wrong, assuming, of course, your numbers are accurate.
Not to knock you in particular, but we would all do well to sanity check figures we are fed by news sources. If 700 billion were 50% of the real property in the US, we'd only have 7 million homes worth $200,000 and zero commercial property and other real estate.
I'd agree. Usually give it more than a thought, but happened to be in the forum posting when I heard it, didn't get time to settle.
Then again, it's a question scale. Most Americans aren't used to flipping billions around like politicians.
I heard once, sometime ago, when Bill Gates interviewed (yeah, personally, each one back then) a prospective new employee, he'd ask a series of pointed questions to help him evaluate the candidate. One was said to be, "How many gas stations are there in the Continental U.S.?".
The candidate was expected to take a deep breath, scratch their chin and in the course of 10 seconds or so, produce a number, or logic which would hit the target within Bill's expectations, something like 10%.
If we were talking houses, it'd go something like this: Tulsa has about 150,000 homes. (some local reference expected to be known). Tulsa is one of the top 50 largest cities in the US. If those 50 made up half of all housing, the average of those 50 cities might be twice the count of Tulsa, so 300,000, since Tulsa is nearer to #50 than the middle. Times 50 would be 15,000,000 homes, double that and one would get about 30,000,000 homes in the US.
I have no idea how many there actually are, just the logic of how one arrived at a number would be important here.
Further, if the average retail price of a home in the US were $200,000, then the value of all those homes would be about $6 Trillion.
That's residential, and doesn't appear to come close to the stated $31 Trillion prior. But, is it possible Commercial real estate does come to four times the value of all houses? Could be.
Scale does funny things to everything, including numbers.
The difference between six ounces and six pounds of fudge wouldn't seem great, unless one were required to eat it all.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Subtitle B on page 310:
"Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008"
pancakes is crap like this doing in an economic bail-out bill?
Sounds like gotcha crap that will come out as "Senator Blowhard voted against mental health and helping those with addictions" if they vote against this package.
Sweet Jeebus, they are off the hinges in DC....
Edit: It gets worse, I finally had to close the file, I got too pissed. All I can say as I read each new thing thrown in: pancakes? pancakes?
When I looked at the first deal, it was a three part program with only the first dealing with the bailout. The other two were totally unrelated and included many eyebrow-raising proposals, including allowing the IRS to actively spy on people.
Senate version approved by House
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
Senate version approved by House
With over $100 billion in earmarks.Sec. 101. Extension of alternative minimum tax relief for nonrefundable personal credits.
Sec. 102. Extension of increased alternative minimum tax exemption amount.
Sec. 103. Increase of AMT refundable credit amount for individuals with longterm unused credits for prior year minimum tax liability, etc.
Sec. 201. Deduction for State and local sales taxes.
Sec. 202. Deduction of qualified tuition and related expenses.
Sec. 203. Deduction for certain expenses of elementary and secondary school teachers.
Sec. 204. Additional standard deduction for real property taxes for nonitemizers.
Sec. 205. Tax-free distributions from individual retirement plans for charitable purposes.
Sec. 206. Treatment of certain dividends of regulated investment companies.
Sec. 207. Stock in RIC for purposes of determining estates of nonresidents not citizens.
Sec. 208. Qualified investment entities.
Sec. 301. Extension and modification of research credit.
Sec. 302. New markets tax credit.
Sec. 303. Subpart F exception for active financing income.
Sec. 304. Extension of look-thru rule for related controlled foreign corporations.
Sec. 305. Extension of 15-year straight-line cost recovery for qualified leasehold improvements and qualified restaurant improvements; 15-year straight-line cost recovery for certain improvements to retail space.
Sec. 306. Modification of tax treatment of certain payments to controlling exempt organizations.
Sec. 307. Basis adjustment to stock of S corporations making charitable contributions of property.
Sec. 308. Increase in limit on cover over of rum excise tax to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
Sec. 309. Extension of economic development credit for American Samoa.
Sec. 310. Extension of mine rescue team training credit.
Sec. 311. Extension of election to expense advanced mine safety equipment.
Sec. 312. Deduction allowable with respect to income attributable to domestic production activities in Puerto Rico.
Sec. 313. Qualified zone academy bonds.
Sec. 314. Indian employment credit.
Sec. 315. Accelerated depreciation for business property on Indian reservations.
Sec. 316. Railroad track maintenance.
Sec. 317. Seven-year cost recovery period for motorsports racing track facility.
Sec. 318. Expensing of environmental remediation costs.
Sec. 319. Extension of work opportunity tax credit for Hurricane Katrina employees.
Sec. 320. Extension of increased rehabilitation credit for structures in the Gulf Opportunity Zone.
Sec. 321. Enhanced deduction for qualified computer contributions.
Sec. 322. Tax incentives for investment in the District of Columbia.
Sec. 323. Enhanced charitable deductions for contributions of food inventory.
Sec. 324. Extension of enhanced charitable deduction for contributions of book inventory.
Sec. 325. Extension and modification of duty suspension on wool products; wool research fund; wool duty refunds.
Sec. 401. Permanent authority for undercover operations.
Sec. 402. Permanent authority for disclosure of information relating to terrorist activities.
Sec. 501. $8,500 income threshold used to calculate refundable portion of child tax credit.
Sec. 502. Provisions related to film and television productions.
Sec. 503. Exemption from excise tax for certain wooden arrows designed for use by children.
Sec. 504. Income averaging for amounts received in connection with the Exxon Valdez litigation.
Sec. 505. Certain farming business machinery and equipment treated as 5-year property.
Sec. 506. Modification of penalty on understatement of taxpayer's liability by tax return preparer.
Sec. 512. Mental health parity.
Sec. 601. Secure rural schools and community self-determination program.
Sec. 602. Transfer to abandoned mine reclamation fund.
Sec. 702. Temporary tax relief for areas damaged by 2008 Midwestern severe storms, tornados, and flooding.
Sec. 703. Reporting requirements relating to disaster relief contributions.
Sec. 704. Temporary tax-exempt bond financing and low-income housing tax relief for areas damaged by Hurricane Ike.
Sec. 706. Losses attributable to federally declared disasters.
Sec. 707. Expensing of Qualified Disaster Expenses.
Sec. 708. Net operating losses attributable to federally declared disasters.
Sec. 709. Waiver of certain mortgage revenue bond requirements following federally declared disasters.
Sec. 710. Special depreciation allowance for qualified disaster property.
Sec. 711. Increased expensing for qualified disaster assistance property.
Sec. 712. Coordination with Heartland disaster relief.
Sec. 801. Nonqualified deferred compensation from certain tax indifferent parties.WOW!
So, if I'm reading this correctly, the government is arranging a bunch of tax credits or extending existing ones as a method of economic stimulus?
I'm a bit perplexed and have too much to do than to read through 400 some pages of text at the moment.
That's a lot of new spending with a lot of new tax cuts or exemptions.
Sec. 317. Seven-year cost recovery period for motorsports racing track facility
thank God?
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
Sec. 317. Seven-year cost recovery period for motorsports racing track facility
thank God?
I was going to address that one directly, I'm a huge racing fan, but that's a pet pancakes earmark if I ever saw one.
I'm curious who the developer is.
Here's a good one:
Sec. 503. Exemption from excise tax for certain wooden arrows designed for use by children.
A lot of legislators just voted for their own re-election.
Claims like this are suspect election year fodder:
"The renewable energy part of the package alone, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, will "create and save half-a-million good-paying jobs in America immediately."
Virtually all of the tax breaks already exist. But many of them expired Jan. 1 for use in the current tax year, and the others will expire three months from now unless Congress renews them."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081003/ap_on_go_co/meltdown_tax_breaks
Everyone can go home to their own district and tell their constituents how they voted for their interests. How sweet.
We, the taxpayer, just funded a $700 bln re-election campaign for 535 of the most corrupt people in America.
"Double **** burger with sleaze, coming up! GHACK!!!"
In Section 117 we are going to do a "Carbon Audit" of the tax code.
Huh?
That's easy. The thousands of pages of the tax code are not carbon neutral. Delete 99% of them.
I forgot to mention that the above is only a small sample of "Democratic Earmark Bill 1424."
It looks quite a bit different than the administrations 3 page bill, but mark my words, if it is a failure it will be the "Failed Bush Bailout Bill of 2008" if it is a success it will be the "Democratic Economic Rescue Bill of 2008"
Either way, it proves the usefulness of our current legislature and the GLARING need for earmark reform that many have pushed for years.
The American people were being held over the falls and Congress used it as an opportunity for blackmail.
OUTSTANDING!
OUTFREEKINGSTANDING!
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
A lot of legislators just voted for their own re-election.
Claims like this are suspect election year fodder:
"The renewable energy part of the package alone, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, will "create and save half-a-million good-paying jobs in America immediately."
Virtually all of the tax breaks already exist. But many of them expired Jan. 1 for use in the current tax year, and the others will expire three months from now unless Congress renews them."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081003/ap_on_go_co/meltdown_tax_breaks
Everyone can go home to their own district and tell their constituents how they voted for their interests. How sweet.
We, the taxpayer, just funded a $700 bln re-election campaign for 535 of the most corrupt people in America.
"Double **** burger with sleaze, coming up! GHACK!!!"
"Everyone can go home to their own district and tell their constituents how they voted for their interests. How sweet. "
Except for Inhofe eh?Isn't that the reason people think he is valuable to Oklahoma? Where's the Pork big guy?
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
In Section 117 we are going to do a "Carbon Audit" of the tax code.
Huh?
That's easy. The thousands of pages of the tax code are not carbon neutral. Delete 99% of them.
I forgot to mention that the above is only a small sample of "Democratic Earmark Bill 1424."
It looks quite a bit different than the administrations 3 page bill, but mark my words, if it is a failure it will be the "Failed Bush Bailout Bill of 2008" if it is a success it will be the "Democratic Economic Rescue Bill of 2008"
Either way, it proves the usefulness of our current legislature and the GLARING need for earmark reform that many have pushed for years.
The American people were being held over the falls and Congress used it as an opportunity for blackmail.
OUTSTANDING!
OUTFREEKINGSTANDING!
What? Most of the earmarks, or 'sweeteners' were to get enough Republicans on board to guarantee the bill would pass in the House.
Sullivan lost my vote today
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
In Section 117 we are going to do a "Carbon Audit" of the tax code.
Huh?
That's easy. The thousands of pages of the tax code are not carbon neutral. Delete 99% of them.
I forgot to mention that the above is only a small sample of "Democratic Earmark Bill 1424."
It looks quite a bit different than the administrations 3 page bill, but mark my words, if it is a failure it will be the "Failed Bush Bailout Bill of 2008" if it is a success it will be the "Democratic Economic Rescue Bill of 2008"
Either way, it proves the usefulness of our current legislature and the GLARING need for earmark reform that many have pushed for years.
The American people were being held over the falls and Congress used it as an opportunity for blackmail.
OUTSTANDING!
OUTFREEKINGSTANDING!
What? Most of the earmarks, or 'sweeteners' were to get enough Republicans on board to guarantee the bill would pass in the House.
I don't care what party proposed them. They were not related to the purpose of this bill.
Most of the Republicans still voted against the bill 108 to 91. Several votes changed on both sides, but I'm not sure it was a result of the earmarks. They had a gun to their heads.
Either way. Those responsible for the earmarks must be ousted! Republican, Democrat, or Cheeseweasel.
Sullivan lost my vote, thank the gods, I really didn't want to vote for him in the first place. Lucas was the only OK congressman to hold his NO vote.
My boyfriend and I are seriously considering going to Canada. I'm not kidding.
Sad sad day for America.
Yes, you don't just "make up" for a $700 billion bailout with other issues. This is it.
EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN WOODEN ARROW SHAFTS.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any shaft consisting of all natural wood with no laminations or artificial means of enhancing the spine of such shaft (whether sold separately or incorporated as a part of a finished or unfinished product) of a type used in the manufacture of any arrow which after its assembly (i) measures 5/16 of an inch or less in diameter and (ii) is not suitable for use with a bow described in paragraph (1)(A). The amendments made by this section shall apply to shafts first sold after the date of enactment of this Act.
Well, the whole 5/16 of an inch shaft diameter requirement rules out any lawmakers conflict of interest.
quote:
Originally posted by jne
EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN WOODEN ARROW SHAFTS.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any shaft consisting of all natural wood with no laminations or artificial means of enhancing the spine of such shaft (whether sold separately or incorporated as a part of a finished or unfinished product) of a type used in the manufacture of any arrow which after its assembly (i) measures 5/16 of an inch or less in diameter and (ii) is not suitable for use with a bow described in paragraph (1)(A). The amendments made by this section shall apply to shafts first sold after the date of enactment of this Act.
Well, the whole 5/16 of an inch shaft diameter requirement rules out any lawmakers conflict of interest.
I enjoy your sense of irony. You, Cannon, and I need to have a beer soon down at The Colony. Or some of his fine homebrew in his garage.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by jne
EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN WOODEN ARROW SHAFTS.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any shaft consisting of all natural wood with no laminations or artificial means of enhancing the spine of such shaft (whether sold separately or incorporated as a part of a finished or unfinished product) of a type used in the manufacture of any arrow which after its assembly (i) measures 5/16 of an inch or less in diameter and (ii) is not suitable for use with a bow described in paragraph (1)(A). The amendments made by this section shall apply to shafts first sold after the date of enactment of this Act.
Well, the whole 5/16 of an inch shaft diameter requirement rules out any lawmakers conflict of interest.
I enjoy your sense of irony. You, Cannon, and I need to have a beer soon down at The Colony. Or some of his fine homebrew in his garage.
I'm down, haven't seen the Fodder about lately, but I've been real busy (sounds like he has too).