Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: I support the 95 Dems who opposed this Bill
Randi Rhodes Message Board > Main Forums > General Discussion
Pages: 1, 2
rememberearth
QUOTE (Christine @ Sep 29 2008, 10:07 PM) *
But he answers to the oversight committee...he is only empowered to enact the bill as it is written. that's what I get from it...just read it. Seems to be a good bill and Obama has said he will fine tune it once elected and I think there will be oversight. the taxpayers are supposed to make money on this deal. I'd rather go with this than do nothing....Alot of people who are not high rollers have a lot to lose.

i did read it, don't start.
Seeker1
QUOTE (beachgirl @ Sep 29 2008, 10:12 PM) *
what are the chances that the "crash of the dow" is entirely manipulated by the fed in order to squeeze/create a panic/force people to vote for the bailout... let's just see how much pain it takes?


The Fed has many powers ... controlling the Dow Jones average is not one of them.

It's just an aggregate number ... controlled ultimately by the actions of millions of people buying and selling stock and its change in value thereof.


TitusMaximus
QUOTE (Christine @ Sep 29 2008, 10:07 PM) *
But he answers to the oversight committee...he is only empowered to enact the bill as it is written. that's what I get from it...just read it. Seems to be a good bill and Obama has said he will fine tune it once elected and I think there will be oversight. the taxpayers are supposed to make money on this deal. I'd rather go with this than do nothing....Alot of people who are not high rollers have a lot to lose.


Obama said he would fine tune once elected? Is he not a sitting Senator? If it needs fine tuning he should fulfill his duty now as a Senator.

Give me a break this bill is not all the great take this statment:

QUOTE
SEC. 103. CONSIDERATIONS.
24 In exercising the authorities granted in this Act, the
25 Secretary shall take into consideration—
13
1 (1) protecting the interests of taxpayers by
2 maximizing overall returns and minimizing the impact on the national debt;


How in the world could you minize the effect 200 to 700 billions of dollars to the national debt? You can not unless you keep it off the books. This bill will further devalue the dollar considering the treasuery has no money to begin with.

I appauld all the Reps that voted against this sham of a bill.
rememberearth
the commission of the board as defined by the bill would be compiled of as follows
QUOTE
the chairman of the board of governors of the federal reserve system
the secretary of treasury
the director of the federal home finance agency
the chairman of the securities exchange commission
the secretary of housing and urban development
CHAIRPERSON- the chairperson of the financial stability oversight board shall be elected by the members of the board from among the members of the secretary

how convenient for them.
LibLaw
Thing is we have systems in place FDIC for example, that will help the little guy and retirement funds and such are set on long term investment, so long term investment should recover. So who is really adversely effected by all this?
rememberearth
QUOTE (LibLaw @ Sep 29 2008, 10:36 PM) *
Thing is we have systems in place FDIC for example, that will help the little guy and retirement funds and such are set on long term investment, so long term investment should recover. So who is really adversely effected by all this?

everyone.
beyond that all i have is speculation.
youngworkingandwhite
does anyone have the list of who voted yes and who voted no?
rememberearth
QUOTE (HouTX-lil-J @ Sep 29 2008, 06:39 PM) *

CowboySteve
QUOTE (beachgirl @ Sep 29 2008, 07:56 PM) *
what are the chances that the "crash of the dow" is entirely manipulated by the fed/powers that be, in order to squeeze/create a panic/force people to vote for the bailout... let's just see how much pain it takes?

The "Plunge Team" has already bought into Wall Street so hard, that they can bob the market up and down with hidden buys/sells.

One of the goals of the Bushies was to get the Federal Government (see Plunge Team) into the market so that it could be manipulated. THAT was the WHOLE POINT of "Privatizing Social Security" - I.E. Federalizing Soc.Sec. funds invested in the Market . Who gets to move them around? Georges buds.
LibLaw
QUOTE (CowboySteve @ Sep 29 2008, 11:22 PM) *
The "Plunge Team" has already bought into Wall Street so hard, that they can bob the market up and down with hidden buys/sells.

One of the goals of the Bushies was to get the Federal Government (see Plunge Team) into the market so that it could be manipulated. THAT was the WHOLE POINT of "Privatizing Social Security" - I.E. Federalizing Soc.Sec. funds invested in the Market . Who gets to move them around? Georges buds.

;shiver: you would have to bring up privatizing Social Security, that should be a dead issue for some time to come. Pity the small business owner who's been operating on a margin, either borrowing for supplies or salaries. and now he's cut off. The dollar wont buy as much abroad so anyone in imports will be short sheeted. like I said, glad I don't have a dog in that hunt. I work in the medical field and have been forced to live pay check to pay check for some time now, I know how to survive. Wall Street, welcome to my world...
IndpendentConserLibertar
QUOTE (LibLaw @ Sep 29 2008, 10:36 PM) *
Thing is we have systems in place FDIC for example, that will help the little guy and retirement funds and such are set on long term investment, so long term investment should recover. So who is really adversely effected by all this?


Well, the news said some of the main problems will show next year if more FDIC insured banks need help which would cause the FDIC to say they need help from the tax payers. It's ironic though, the news also likes to emphasize that the FDIC has lasted for over 70 years without a problem.

But, that is in a long line of other problems people have to contend with, along with a failing Social Security System, Medicaid, and Medicare too.
jkun17
QUOTE (rememberearth @ Sep 29 2008, 07:15 PM) *
do you really trust the committee?
i don't

Do you trust the government to do anything?
LibLaw
QUOTE (IndpendentConserLibertar @ Sep 29 2008, 11:36 PM) *
Well, the news said some of the main problems will show next year if more FDIC insured banks need help which would cause the FDIC to say they need help from the tax payers. It's ironic though, the news also likes to emphasize that the FDIC has lasted for over 70 years without a problem.

But, that is in a long line of other problems people have to contend with, along with a failing Social Security System, Medicaid, and Medicare.



But it's the government and they have a HUGE credit card... wink.gif
IndpendentConserLibertar
QUOTE (LibLaw @ Sep 29 2008, 11:39 PM) *
But it's the government and they have a HUGE credit card... wink.gif


Yeah, you can only hope.

*KNOCK ON WOOD*.
rememberearth
ah fuck!
here we go.
rememberearth
QUOTE (jkun17 @ Sep 29 2008, 11:37 PM) *
Do you trust the government to do anything?

did you not read about the oversight committee and how they were compiled?

QUOTE
the chairman of the board of governors of the federal reserve system
the secretary of treasury
the director of the federal home finance agency
the chairman of the securities exchange commission
the secretary of housing and urban development
CHAIRPERSON- the chairperson of the financial stability oversight board shall be elected by the members of the board from among the members of the secretary
rememberearth
QUOTE (LibLaw @ Sep 29 2008, 11:39 PM) *
But it's the government and they have a HUGE credit card... wink.gif

that rapes the commoners' pockets.
IndpendentConserLibertar
QUOTE (LibLaw @ Sep 29 2008, 11:39 PM) *
But it's the government and they have a HUGE credit card... wink.gif


And the hugh credit card is the American people by the way.
jkun17
QUOTE (rememberearth @ Sep 29 2008, 08:42 PM) *
did you not read about the oversight committee and how they were compiled?

Who else is qualified to make those decisions?

We mock Sarah Palin for being a complete dunce on everything, do we really want another super-outsider like that controlling the economy?

You still haven't answered my first question, do you even trust the government to do anything?

The power is slightly diffused, but not diffused enough for you; there's an oversight committee, but you don't trust the oversight committee; the new commission doesn't have power over all $700billion and they need to get approval from Congress for the lion's share of the money; they need to report to Congress in intervals no greater than two months. What do you want?
rememberearth
QUOTE (jkun17 @ Sep 29 2008, 11:51 PM) *
Who else is qualified to make those decisions?

We mock Sarah Palin for being a complete dunce on everything, do we really want another super-outsider like that controlling the economy?

You still haven't answered my first question, do you even trust the government to do anything?

The power is slightly diffused, but not diffused enough for you; there's an oversight committee, but you don't trust the oversight committee; the new commission doesn't have power over all $700billion and they need to get approval from Congress for the lion's share of the money; they need to report to Congress in intervals no greater than two months. What do you want?

i want people in elected positions to stop lying and appointing liars or those who scratched their backs at one point and time.
i want to be able to trust people in elected positions to appoint others who do not further their agendas and line their wallets.
its a stretch but at one time it happened.
rememberearth
and just for that;
LibLaw
QUOTE (IndpendentConserLibertar @ Sep 29 2008, 11:49 PM) *
And the hugh credit card is the American people by the way.

Bingo...when you consider the ramifications of all this it's mind boggling...The Nikkei is down almost 3 points...I feel a mighty big disturbance in the force...
LibLaw
QUOTE (rememberearth @ Sep 29 2008, 11:45 PM) *
that rapes the commoners' pockets.

eventually, but here's the bright side. Now the Democrats get to craft a bill and shove it down the Repubs throat
jkun17
QUOTE (rememberearth @ Sep 29 2008, 08:57 PM) *
i want people in elected positions to stop lying and appointing liars or those who scratched their backs at one point and time.
i want to be able to trust people in elected positions to appoint others who do not further their agendas and line their wallets.
its a stretch but at one time it happened.

1) Do you see that happening any time soon or ever?
2) Do you really think doing nothing, which is essentially what the no vote was, is going to work better than doing something?

It doesn't matter what institution is set up you'll come across the same problems of dependability. You want universal healthcare but given your statements here you don't want to give government the ability to give it to you. You want a renewable energy initiative, but you'd probably deny that power to the government as well. You're working to elect Barack Obama expecting some kind of change, but from what you've said you probably still wouldn't give even him the ability to change the country for you.

How do you think they're going to administer universal healthcare if it comes to pass? They're just going to leave a big trough of money out front with a sign that says, "private citizens only"? Of course not, you'd be mental to think so. They'll set up a 'gasp' committee or a bureau, probably with a Secretary, maybe the Surgeon General to administrate the program. Are they going to be trustworthy? Whomever they are they'll be appointed by the President what with it having to be part of the executive branch, separation of powers etc.

Look, you can either think the government is going to be competent or not. You don't get to play both sides of this where it's competent enough for universal healthcare but not enough for economic policy.

Me, I don't trust the government. I just trust them more than I trust business.

Also, the spoils system has been in place since Jackson was President.
jkun17
QUOTE (LibLaw @ Sep 29 2008, 09:09 PM) *
eventually, but here's the bright side. Now the Democrats get to craft a bill and shove it down the Repubs throat

What? The bill that just died today -- that was the Democrats' bill.
LibLaw
QUOTE (jkun17 @ Sep 30 2008, 12:24 AM) *
What? The bill that just died today -- that was the Democrats' bill.

No that was the White Houses Bill that the Democrats worked on. I'm talking a real alternative to it. Start from scratch and build it like they want it.
rememberearth
QUOTE (jkun17 @ Sep 30 2008, 12:23 AM) *
1) Do you see that happening any time soon or ever?
2) Do you really think doing nothing, which is essentially what the no vote was, is going to work better than doing something?

It doesn't matter what institution is set up you'll come across the same problems of dependability. You want universal healthcare but given your statements here you don't want to give government the ability to give it to you. You want a renewable energy initiative, but you'd probably deny that power to the government as well. You're working to elect Barack Obama expecting some kind of change, but from what you've said you probably still wouldn't give even him the ability to change the country for you.

How do you think they're going to administer universal healthcare if it comes to pass? They're just going to leave a big trough of money out front with a sign that says, "private citizens only"? Of course not, you'd be mental to think so. They'll set up a 'gasp' committee or a bureau, probably with a Secretary, maybe the Surgeon General to administrate the program. Are they going to be trustworthy? Whomever they are they'll be appointed by the President what with it having to be part of the executive branch, separation of powers etc.

Look, you can either think the government is going to be competent or not. You don't get to play both sides of this where it's competent enough for universal healthcare but not enough for economic policy.

Me, I don't trust the government. I just trust them more than I trust business.

Also, the spoils system has been in place since Jackson was President.

i do not trust this president.
Obama yes, i trust.
this piece of shit that passes for executive, no.
not ever nor have i ever trusted him.
LibLaw
QUOTE (jkun17 @ Sep 30 2008, 12:23 AM) *
1) Do you see that happening any time soon or ever?
2) Do you really think doing nothing, which is essentially what the no vote was, is going to work better than doing something?

It doesn't matter what institution is set up you'll come across the same problems of dependability. You want universal healthcare but given your statements here you don't want to give government the ability to give it to you. You want a renewable energy initiative, but you'd probably deny that power to the government as well. You're working to elect Barack Obama expecting some kind of change, but from what you've said you probably still wouldn't give even him the ability to change the country for you.

How do you think they're going to administer universal healthcare if it comes to pass? They're just going to leave a big trough of money out front with a sign that says, "private citizens only"? Of course not, you'd be mental to think so. They'll set up a 'gasp' committee or a bureau, probably with a Secretary, maybe the Surgeon General to administrate the program. Are they going to be trustworthy? Whomever they are they'll be appointed by the President what with it having to be part of the executive branch, separation of powers etc.

Look, you can either think the government is going to be competent or not. You don't get to play both sides of this where it's competent enough for universal healthcare but not enough for economic policy.

Me, I don't trust the government. I just trust them more than I trust business.

Also, the spoils system has been in place since Jackson was President.



When you say government you aren't taking into consideration that our government is fluid. Because I don't trust Bush doesn't mean I wouldn't trust Obama.
jkun17
QUOTE (LibLaw @ Sep 29 2008, 09:35 PM) *
When you say government you aren't taking into consideration that our government is fluid. Because I don't trust Bush doesn't mean I wouldn't trust Obama.

And then say heaven forbid another Republican follows Obama what then? You're going to want to close every single program? Shut down everything for four to eight years because someone you don't like is now in power?
LibLaw
QUOTE (jkun17 @ Sep 30 2008, 12:46 AM) *
And then say heaven forbid another Republican follows Obama what then? You're going to want to close every single program? Shut down everything for four to eight years because someone you don't like is now in power?

Now your being silly. Bush is not someone I'd trust no matter which party he's in.
jkun17
QUOTE (LibLaw @ Sep 29 2008, 09:49 PM) *
Now your being silly. Bush is not someone I'd trust no matter which party he's in.

I'm not being silly, it's a serious question.

A Republican follows Obama; are you going to want to terminate all his programs upon his leaving for fear that some incompetent boob is going to take over?
rememberearth
QUOTE (jkun17 @ Sep 30 2008, 12:46 AM) *
And then say heaven forbid another Republican follows Obama what then? You're going to want to close every single program? Shut down everything for four to eight years because someone you don't like is now in power?

gingrich did it with bill clinton.
LibLaw
QUOTE (jkun17 @ Sep 30 2008, 12:50 AM) *
I'm not being silly, it's a serious question.

A Republican follows Obama; are you going to want to terminate all his programs upon his leaving for fear that some incompetent boob is going to take over?

Depends on if Obama has leveled out the checks and balances system and yes it is silly, your taking my statements to a ridiculous conclusion. I never said anything about abandoning all his programs that would be ridiculous and you know it.
jkun17
QUOTE (LibLaw @ Sep 29 2008, 10:12 PM) *
Depends on if Obama has leveled out the checks and balances system and yes it is silly, your taking my statements to a ridiculous conclusion. I never said anything about abandoning all his programs that would be ridiculous and you know it.

Yes, it would be.

So why does it matter whether this program is initiated now or a similar program initiated in January of 2009. At worst nothing would even start until mid October giving the current Treasury Secretary a grand total of two and a half months to do anything at all.
jkun17
QUOTE (rememberearth @ Sep 29 2008, 10:01 PM) *
gingrich did it with bill clinton.

And that was right?

Is it really wise to liken yourself to the grand Newt?
rememberearth
QUOTE (LibLaw @ Sep 30 2008, 01:12 AM) *
Depends on if Obama has leveled out the checks and balances system and yes it is silly, your taking my statements to a ridiculous conclusion. I never said anything about abandoning all his programs that would be ridiculous and you know it.

don't even fucking bother. anyone who challenges his way of thought he will twist to meet whatever suits his argument at the time.
its the typical cryababy tactic.
ignore facts and bulldoze.
FreeTxn
AMEN Brother! The people won round one. and to think, we have Republicans to thank. WE ARE ALL REPUBLICANS NOW!!! NOT. In the end, we will loose however. Wall Street will stop at nothing to get an infusion of $700 billion. As they look around, it's the only place where they can turn a profit this year. After all they've got that $50K a year to pay for the 5 year old's exclusive private school education, not to mention the 10,000 sq. ft cottage and 40 ft yacht in the Hamptons. Give me a break. Nothing will change until they too feel some pain.
jkun17
QUOTE (rememberearth @ Sep 29 2008, 10:34 PM) *
don't even fucking bother. anyone who challenges his way of thought he will twist to meet whatever suits his argument at the time.
its the typical cryababy tactic.
ignore facts and bulldoze.

Yeah shut me up and shut me out. That's going to fix everything. If I don't hear it, it doesn't exist.

It's called a forum, not a circle jerk.
LibLaw
QUOTE (jkun17 @ Sep 30 2008, 01:34 AM) *
Yes, it would be.

So why does it matter whether this program is initiated now or a similar program initiated in January of 2009. At worst nothing would even start until mid October giving the current Treasury Secretary a grand total of two and a half months to do anything at all.

you tell me...
jkun17
QUOTE (LibLaw @ Sep 29 2008, 10:52 PM) *
you tell me...

I don't think it matters enough to sit on our hands for three months. I'm asking you why you think so.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2009 Invision Power Services, Inc.