Medhb Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 This time next year it will be the auto industry getting bailed out. What auto industry? not buch left to bail out is there? But if Obama is able to impliment his plans Detroit will be manufacturing again using alternative fuel sources...I hope so for the sake of Michigan. Oh, I heard McCain just bailed on Michigan since he's down by double digits there. But Sarah wants to go there and rescue the state.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docron Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 It would be interesting to see a comparison graph of how many of those 17 other times also had jobs/wages and house values not increasing. This triple threat has the potential for a perfect storm. Each of the other two examples you cite had their own contexts that lead to their spirals. It's not as bad as '29, such comparisons are insulting, but even if the impact isn't as immediately drastic as it was then, this situation has the potential to have more gradual, and longer implications in terms of global economy and shift of power. You'll have to excuse me, I didn't mean to come off as rude... You raise a good point that the other markets should be included... I know the stock market is not the only factor - but I'm a mechanical engineer, by no means a financial genious, and such a thing that took every market into account would take alot of time to figure out for anyone, let alone me... I was just trying to illustrate that its not the worst thing (as of yet, I guess) that has ever happened to us. Aside: don't blame the president for causing the market crash... blame (or) praise him for how he handles it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pb Derigable Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 Gas has been dropping in my neck of the woods lately. Went down another 6 cents today and is at the lowest in quite a while. $3.61 here. What the hell is going on? But do I dare apply for credit? they say no way right now. Do you think credit will improve before Christmas? I hope so or Ill be stuck in Christmastown all winter. You can still get credit if you have good credit. The rumor that there is no money out there is slightly false. There is no money for the poor. You cans still get a car loan, mortgage, or a small business lean, if you meet the requirements. Which is the way it should be. I just got a loan to start a plowing business with my brother. ( I do not plow, but i like money) We can get three trucks with equipment as long as we submit a 15% down payment, which the banker said we would've had to do if there was no credit crunch at all, but she also said, they do more background checks now. They can clearly see we can do this without over extending. You may have good credit, but now you have to prove you can pay it. They crawled up my brother and I ass to see if we can Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrycja Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 You'll have to excuse me, I didn't mean to come off as rude... You raise a good point that the other markets should be included... I know the stock market is not the only factor - but I'm a mechanical engineer, by no means a financial genious, and such a thing that took every market into account would take alot of time to figure out for anyone, let alone me... I was just trying to illustrate that its not the worst thing (as of yet, I guess) that has ever happened to us. Aside: don't blame the president for causing the market crash... blame (or) praise him for how he handles it! Oh I didn't think you came across as rude at all, no worries. I agree with you that people tend to duck and panic sometimes and it's important to just stop and think. I'm no financial whiz either and so rely on tried and true don't spend more than you've got (well, most times ). I learned that the hard way. But I also know how lucky I am and agree with you that as bad as things are now, we're nowhere near 1929. Please don't think I meant that you were insulting, what's insulting is when people whine about relatively small sacrifices and compare them to what people back then had to endure. And yeah, as much as I dislike Bush's policies, blaming him solely is reductive; this has been a long time brewing and a lot of factors have contributed to it. I like what Chesterson said once, "The problem, dear sir, is me." Looking back is useful insofar as it helps to move forward. Like you said, what's important now is how to stem the economic storm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docron Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 By passing this bill they will do the same thing that happened in 1929, except longer...it will make the decline less steep, but prolong it by 10 years. The correction would have taken care of itself! Mass hysteria will be the Obama way to "nirvana"............ WE ARE FUCKED! "The Rover " is right! What do you mean? The reason the 1929 market wouldn't see another record high till 1954 wasn't because of a bill... it was because investors didn't trust the market. Everyone was getting comfortable with rapid expansion, and everyone planned accordingly. No one planning for the bottom to ever fall out, not even the government... then when the market bottomed out and everyone panic-sold their stocks. The slow recovery in the years that followed were due to people being pessemistic. Everyone was trying to sell and nobody was trying to buy... put simply, people weren't consuming their asses off like they were in the years leading up to the depression... supply and demand really. The lack of government fail-safes and reluctancy to intervine in the market is what killed the peoples trust in the economy. The rapid recovery of the market in 1987, on the other hand, was attributed to swift action by the government Federal Reserve... letting consumers maintain their confidence in the market. Unlike 1929, the market would reach new record-highs in less than 2 years, before the end of 1989. The difference between 1929 and 1987/2008, you ask? Federal deposit insurance, unemployment insurance and Social Security insurance and other elements of what has come to be known as "the safety net". These not only guarantee against widespread destitution, but their very existence should also help to prevent the kind of financial panic that fed on itself in the 1929 depression. In 1929 there was no such thing as insurance of bank deposits, you didn't have the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and you had much less knowledge of how the economy worked. No bill caused the slow recovery in 1929... in fact, it was the lack of government intervention that caused it. Any other "end of the world" conspiracies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrycja Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 You can still get credit if you have good credit. The rumor that there is no money out there is slightly false. There is no money for the poor. You cans still get a car loan, mortgage, or a small business lean, if you meet the requirements. Which is the way it should be. I just got a loan to start a plowing business with my brother. ( I do not plow, but i like money) We can get three trucks with equipment as long as we submit a 15% down payment, which the banker said we would've had to do if there was no credit crunch at all, but she also said, they do more background checks now. They can clearly see we can do this without over extending. You may have good credit, but now you have to prove you can pay it. They crawled up my brother and I ass to see if we can Well some have it, some have run out. Your case shows that things aren't at a complete standstill, but there are also examples of mortgages and other loans having been approved but now having to be delayed. They could come on here and say, watch out, it's getting worse! It depends on how much is needed, what banks have to give and whether they are sure enough people are good for the loans. How nice to hear that your bank didn't simply get you a 'Liar's Loan' where you verify your own employment and income, wink wink. No, that's not a joke. Isn't it unbelievable? Accountability is returning with a huge back wind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrycja Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 What do you mean? The reason the 1929 market wouldn't see another record high till 1954 wasn't because of a bill... it was because investors didn't trust the market. Everyone was getting comfortable with rapid expansion, and everyone planned accordingly. No one planning for the bottom to ever fall out, not even the government... then when the market bottomed out and everyone panic-sold their stocks. The slow recovery in the years that followed were due to people being pessemistic. Everyone was trying to sell and nobody was trying to buy... put simply, people weren't consuming their asses off like they were in the years leading up to the depression... supply and demand really. The lack of government fail-safes and reluctancy to intervine in the market is what killed the peoples trust in the economy. The rapid recovery of the market in 1987, on the other hand, was attributed to swift action by the government Federal Reserve... letting consumers maintain their confidence in the market. Unlike 1929, the market would reach new record-highs in less than 2 years, before the end of 1989. The difference between 1929 and 1987/2008, you ask? Federal deposit insurance, unemployment insurance and Social Security insurance and other elements of what has come to be known as "the safety net". These not only guarantee against widespread destitution, but their very existence should also help to prevent the kind of financial panic that fed on itself in the 1929 depression. In 1929 there was no such thing as insurance of bank deposits, you didn't have the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and you had much less knowledge of how the economy worked. No bill caused the slow recovery in 1929... in fact, it was the lack of government intervention that caused it. Any other "end of the world" conspiracies? That's a really nice post, and I would just like to add that the spend while you've got it in the early roaring 20's post WWI coupled with crippling droughts later also contributed to the broad economic crisis in 1929. So people who talk about just pulling yourself up by your bootstraps are not addressing forces beyond people's control. Yes many put themselves in their own holes, but what to do with say natural disasters or illness, age? Sad to say, but the boom in the 50's arose in large part from the economic wheels that WWII propelled. But the safety net of social security was already in place because it is the government's responsibility to help those who cannot help themselves. Does that get taken advantage of? Yes. Is it necessary? Yes. ok, I crossed eyed with tiredness...that's it for tonight... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 I agree for the most part with this statement, I do think people should take more responsability into the money they borrow but the banks should also be responsible in their lending of money, so that the ones who play fair aren't the ones paying for both of the responsible parties fault. Definitely the banks have to be responsible for their actions. Their lending practices should be fair and in good faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pb Derigable Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 So you are going to start plowing and never did before? I hope your customers take down their mailboxes! haha. Seriously though, it is always risky going into small business. With your plowing, you have to worry about someone suing you over something you didnt really do. Worry about the hydraulic lift burning out. (about $1500 to replace one). Wear and tear on the trucks. And are you going to do contracts? Ie a flat rate for the entire winter and then you are gambling on the weather? I wish you luck. There is certainly money to be made in it. I hope you dont mind working the wee hrs? Thats why I say I don't plow, I do not want to work the wee hours. My brother has been doing it for another guy and the guy is getting out.(too old) I know a few people in the supermarket industry and my brother has verbal agreements with most of his old customers. Most of the work will be supermarkets and industrial parks. I want to stay away from people and deal with business. I have done plowing before and don't mind it if its a business. I will end up doing my fair share of it. I have an area behide my house to store three trucks and salt, thats pretty much why im involved. Its not much a get rich quick scheme, but more like Im my brothers keeper and just in case i get slow at work during the winter months. If i come out even with a clean driveway, thats fine. I wish i can find something for the trucks to do during the summer. My brother and I will use two for work (travel) and the third will sit. Still, it's like any other risk, we understand what we are getting into and we feel comfortable. We live in chicago, So bad weather will come. but we are not relying on 12 feet of snow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docron Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 What auto industry? not buch left to bail out is there? But if Obama is able to impliment his plans Detroit will be manufacturing again using alternative fuel sources...I hope so for the sake of Michigan. Oh, I heard McCain just bailed on Michigan since he's down by double digits there. But Sarah wants to go there and rescue the state.... Are you suprised? Don't get me wrong, I'm not racist, but let me break it down for you. Detroit: Population 916,952: 82% of which is black, 26.1% of which lives below the poverty line. Thats 1/5 of Michigan's population automatically going to a democrat, especially an african-american one. I can't argue with McCain bailing on us. Theres just no way in hell hes going to win anything here. From a political viewpoit, why wouldn't he focus elsewhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rover Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 Shame on the Democrats for Bailout By Matthew Rothschild, October 3, 2008 http://www.progressive.org/mag/wx100308b.html Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid betrayed their own party—and what remains of its populist roots—in pushing through the bailout bill. They got rolled by Henry Paulson. They succumbed to blackmail by the banks. And rather than address the legitimate concerns of their own progressive members, they veered off to placate rightwing Republicans. In so doing, they tossed away the most leverage they will ever have to bring Wall Street to heel. At a moment of maximum weakness and vulnerability on the part of the financial institutions, which almost literally came begging cup in hand, Pelosi and Reid demanded absolutely nothing of them in return for $800 billion. No re-regulation. No resurrection of Glass-Steagall. No repeal of Phil Gramm’s Commodities Futures Modernization Act. No demand that banks that lend mortgages must keep those mortgages, rather than peddle them on Wall Street. On top of that, the consumer who got fleeced by the unscrupulous mortgage dealers did not get a moratorium on foreclosures, or a freeze on interest rates. Nor did Congress allow judges to renegotiate mortgages of people who fall into foreclosure—except the rich, of course. Under current law, judges already can help them on their second homes. Nor did the bill contain any stimulus for the economy, which would help people get jobs. The House capitulated just hours after the government released data that another 159,000 Americans were looking for work last month. The bill did raise the federally insured deposit limit in banks from $100,000 to $250,000 but who but the rich has that kind of money to stash, anyway? This entire bill redistributed wealth from those with little to those with a lot. As Bernie Sanders noted, “It is grossly unfair that the middle class, whose standard of living is declining, is forced to pick up the tab for Wall Street’s greed and irresponsibility, and not the top 1 percent who have benefited from Bush’s reckless policies.” Wall Street should send bouquets to Harry Reid and Henry Paulson, and it’s already c.o.d. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docron Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 Shame on the Democrats for Bailout By Matthew Rothschild, October 3, 2008 http://www.progressive.org/mag/wx100308b.html Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid betrayed their own party—and what remains of its populist roots—in pushing through the bailout bill. They got rolled by Henry Paulson. They succumbed to blackmail by the banks. And rather than address the legitimate concerns of their own progressive members, they veered off to placate rightwing Republicans. In so doing, they tossed away the most leverage they will ever have to bring Wall Street to heel. At a moment of maximum weakness and vulnerability on the part of the financial institutions, which almost literally came begging cup in hand, Pelosi and Reid demanded absolutely nothing of them in return for $800 billion. No re-regulation. No resurrection of Glass-Steagall. No repeal of Phil Gramm’s Commodities Futures Modernization Act. No demand that banks that lend mortgages must keep those mortgages, rather than peddle them on Wall Street. On top of that, the consumer who got fleeced by the unscrupulous mortgage dealers did not get a moratorium on foreclosures, or a freeze on interest rates. Nor did Congress allow judges to renegotiate mortgages of people who fall into foreclosure—except the rich, of course. Under current law, judges already can help them on their second homes. Nor did the bill contain any stimulus for the economy, which would help people get jobs. The House capitulated just hours after the government released data that another 159,000 Americans were looking for work last month. The bill did raise the federally insured deposit limit in banks from $100,000 to $250,000 but who but the rich has that kind of money to stash, anyway? This entire bill redistributed wealth from those with little to those with a lot. As Bernie Sanders noted, “It is grossly unfair that the middle class, whose standard of living is declining, is forced to pick up the tab for Wall Street’s greed and irresponsibility, and not the top 1 percent who have benefited from Bush’s reckless policies.” Wall Street should send bouquets to Harry Reid and Henry Paulson, and it’s already c.o.d. First and foremost, put down the crayons for a second. How is this a bad thing? In all probability, the middle class has less than $100k to put in the bank anyways, so who cares if the upper-insured limit is increased? Although it doesn't immidiately (notice I said immidiately) help the middle class, it doesn't hurt them either! Its a good strategy because the people who do have that kind of money to stash will likely stash more of it... this will bail out some of the banks who are in a crisis - this neither hurts nor helps the middle class, and it doesn't necessarily help the upper class so much as it helps the banks. The last thing the economy needs is for the middle class, the largest group of consumers, to stash away their money and stop consuming - that would make this exactly like what happened in 1929! The upper class will spend no matter what, because they can afford to bank alot and spend large amounts simeulaneously - with the larger insured ceiling, they can trust more of their money with the banks and keep them from collapsing, effectively controlling interest rates to save the middle and lower classes. When the banks don't collapse, interest rates don't go out of control, effectively helping - you guessed it - middle class people that are in the middle of morgtages or loans. Have you even looked into what you posted, or did you just post it because of someone else? Stay on the ball man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del Zeppnile Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 Well if anyone knows how to act and think like Neanderthal Man, it's you, Del... And what kind of man do you act like sunshine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhb Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 And what kind of man do you act like sunshine? I think that would be called 'modern man' sweetheart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I have got a horsey Posted October 4, 2008 Author Share Posted October 4, 2008 I think that would be called 'modern man' sweetheart It's wonderful now that I've put Del on ignore, but it's a shame that I have to see some of his garbage when people quote his posts, I wish there was some way to fix that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhb Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 It's wonderful now that I've put Del on ignore, but it's a shame that I have to see some of his garbage when people quote his posts, I wish there was some way to fix that Oh! Sorry bout that! I won't respond to such nonsense anymore. No sense in it anyway really.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I have got a horsey Posted October 4, 2008 Author Share Posted October 4, 2008 Oh! Sorry bout that! I won't respond to such nonsense anymore. No sense in it anyway really.... No no I'm not having a dig at you, I just wish there was some way you could rectify on the forum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rover Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 First and foremost, put down the crayons for a second. How is this a bad thing? In all probability, the middle class has less than $100k to put in the bank anyways, so who cares if the upper-insured limit is increased? Although it doesn't immidiately (notice I said immidiately) help the middle class, it doesn't hurt them either! Its a good strategy because the people who do have that kind of money to stash will likely stash more of it... this will bail out some of the banks who are in a crisis - this neither hurts nor helps the middle class, and it doesn't necessarily help the upper class so much as it helps the banks. The last thing the economy needs is for the middle class, the largest group of consumers, to stash away their money and stop consuming - that would make this exactly like what happened in 1929! The upper class will spend no matter what, because they can afford to bank alot and spend large amounts simeulaneously - with the larger insured ceiling, they can trust more of their money with the banks and keep them from collapsing, effectively controlling interest rates to save the middle and lower classes. When the banks don't collapse, interest rates don't go out of control, effectively helping - you guessed it - middle class people that are in the middle of morgtages or loans. Have you even looked into what you posted, or did you just post it because of someone else? Stay on the ball man. 171 Congressmen and women, Democrats and Reublicans, in the House of Rep. thought to Vote Against this bill. Maybe you should ask each of them why they thought it was not a good idea to pass this bill. In times like these we do not need lemmings..... RU1 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cryingbluerain Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 Baldwin Blames Financial Crisis on Clinton, Dems and Barney Frank By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive) October 4, 2008 - 11:47 ET If a Bush-bashing, Republican-hating nincompoop like Alec Baldwin understands that Democrats are responsible for the current financial crisis, and is willing to say so on national television, why can't America's so-called "real" journalists? Although it seems unlikely that Baldwin watches "The Factor," it is awfully coincidental that roughly 24 hours after Fox News's Bill O'Reilly tore Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) apart for his role in propping up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the typically inept Baldwin, appearing on HBO's "Real Time," not only pointed fingers at Frank for the current crisis, but also blamed former President Clinton and fellow Democrats. Maybe more delicious, this came moments after comedian Garry Shandling blamed it all on -- wait for it -- George W. Bush (video embedded right, h/t American Thinker's Marc Sheppard): Story Continues Below Ad ↓ GARRY SHANDLING, COMEDIAN: Is it as simple as George Bush doesn't listen to Suzy Orman who has the simplest, little basic laws like "Don't spend more than you have?" So, you go back to the war. Don't you go back to the war? ALEC BALDWIN, ACTOR: That Suzy Orman knows her stuff, I'll tell you. She does. SHANDLING: Alec, what did..What, what did you say? BALDWIN: I said that Suzy Orman knows some stuff, she really does. You can't deny that. But I want to say one quick thing. I just blew his mind. SHANDLING: Hold on... BALDWIN: I wanted to pull the camera away, so I just threw that dirt in his face. SHANDLING: I said you're aggressive. BALDWIN: I put the rosin on my glove. SHANDLING: I love it. C'mon, let's get it on. BALDWIN: Let's get it on. BILL MAHER, HOST: What is your... BALDWIN: I'm gonna rape you...The, the thing we have to remember, a friend of mine who is very close to the financial community in New York pointed out that Democrats have a lot of the responsibility for this as well. I mean, it was Clinton who killed the Glass-Steagall, and it happened under a Democratic president. Barney Frank and his committee, they, they kept propping up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac saying everything's fine, everything's fine, everything's good. And it was his job to know everything wasn't fine. And Barney Frank let you down and let us down as well. And so, but I want to say there's blame to go both ways. But I will say, I want to, I maybe keep beating this to death, but I still think anyone in this Congress who voted to add $140 billion to that bill, they should be ashamed of themselves. That is a disgrace. It's a disgrace. This Congress is a disgrace, Democrat and Republican. Imagine that. A man who typically seems incapable of finding the floor when he wakes up in the morning clearly understands the current financial crisis better than the overwhelming majority of Obama-loving sycophants in the press. Although this occurred on a political comedy talk show, the joke is really on us for if the media were actually doing their jobs, we might be talking about the possibility of a Republican landslide at the polls next month rather than Obama taking over the White House with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. As such, before we applaud Baldwin for doing what so few in the press are willing to, we should still be asking ourselves why the truth being uttered on national television should be at all so surprising. For the record, what Baldwin was referring to was 1999's Financial Services Modernization Act -- better known under the names of its authors Gramm-Leach-Bliley -- which, amongst other things: Repeal[ed] the restrictions on banks affiliating with securities firms contained in sections 20 and 32 of the Glass-Steagall Act. Create[d] a new "financial holding company" under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act. Such holding company can engage in a statutorily provided list of financial activities, including insurance and securities underwriting and agency activities, merchant banking and insurance company portfolio investment activities. Activities that are "complementary" to financial activities also are authorized. The nonfinancial activities of firms predominantly engaged in financial activities (at least 85% financial) are grandfathered for at least 10 years, with a possibility for a five year extension. For those unfamiliar, the Glass-Steagall Act was the 1933 legislation separating the functions of banks, brokerage firms, and insurance companies designed to prevent another crash like what occurred in 1929. Congress has been whittling away at these restrictions since 1980, and finally removed the last vestiges with Gramm-Leach-Bliley in 1999. Readers are advised that this bill passed by a vote of 362-57 in the House, and 90-8 in the Senate. As such, it passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. Maybe more important, as it was signed into law on November 12, 1999, despite all the blame disgraceful Democrats and media members have been assigning President Bush during this financial crisis, he had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the legislation that allowed financial institutions to engage in the activities that have led to and caused the current banking and lending meltdown. Absolutely nothing. That someone as intellectually challenged as Alec Baldwin knows this, while virtually no major mainstream press members other than those on Fox News either do or are willing to admit it, is truly disgraceful. —Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...ms-barney-frank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhb Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...ms-barney-frank That is a fine point. In reality this situation can't be blamed on either the Democratic party or the Republican party. There were people from both parties who saw it coming and warned of it and there were people from both parties that fought against many proposals to address the situation before it got out of hand. Bottom line....our SYSTEM failed. So, how do we get our representatives to work together to resolve the situation and to move ahead with a plan to avoid future occurances? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 ALEC BALDWIN, ACTOR: That Suzy Orman knows her stuff, I'll tell you. She does. September 22, 2008, 5:46 pm Suze Orman in FDIC Campaign The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. launched a public awareness campaign Monday featuring personal finance expert Suze Orman to educate customers about how government insurance works on bank accounts. In addition to television spots, the FDIC is promoting a website – myFDICinsurance.gov – which has a calculator called EDIE the Estimator that helps people determine how much of their accounts are covered by federal deposit insurance. Friday’s closure of West Virginia-based Ameribank marked the 12th bank failure this year, the most that have failed in one year since 1994. http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/09/22/...=googlenews_wsj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rover Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 I've got less than 100K in my bank, so I'm not going to take any money out of fear. It's all covered by the FDIC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docron Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 171 Congressmen and women, Democrats and Reublicans, in the House of Rep. thought to Vote Against this bill. Maybe you should ask each of them why they thought it was not a good idea to pass this bill. In times like these we do not need lemmings..... RU1 ? Why are you getting bent out of shape? Is it because I've found major flaws in your "end of the world" post about the "worst market crash ever", and now this one about the bill..? ... must eat away at your insides, no? Sorry mate, you'll have to be looking elsewhere because I don't have any Pepto Bismol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zepyep Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 Hi all, You know why this stinks? [post answer here:] Who is going to pay for this? [post answer here:] You like the pork attached to the bill? [post answer here:] You like the finger pointing and the non-responsibility? [post answer here:] You think anyone is going to jail for this? [answer: no!] KB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euro Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 You know why this stinks? Because Wallstreet believes in Capitalism when markets are rising and socialism when markets are falling Who is going to pay for this? The American taxpayer in perpetuity You like the pork attached to the bill? No but who says the US treats its citizens fairly-it is all about privilege and buying influence You like the finger pointing and the non-responsibility? Dems blam Rep and vice versa after all the name on the political game is either to blame another political party,level of government or foreign government You think anyone is going to jail for this? No why would you want to deny the American people of these great entrepreneurs.Also as long as their is plausible denialbility it is difficult to pin anything on anyone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.