And this bailout bill? Didn't you state
Posted By: I don't get it on 2008-10-01
In Reply to: Because he will likely have a majority in Congress.... - sam
below it was the 94 dem votes they needed and didn't get?
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Final roll call House on bailout bill. sm
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll681.xml
Please print it and remember those who voted to pick your pocket. They are clearly operating outside the consent of the people.
Roll call list on who voted yes/no on bailout bill in Senate. sm
If you are against this bill contact your reps to persuade the House not to pass it. Pressure worked on the House the first time.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00213#position
Obama supported the bailout too didn't he?
I respect your right to vote for who you want to, but why is it whenever something negative is said about Obama it is rumor but whenever something negative is said about Mccain it is fact? Shouldn't it go both ways. I mean I'm not dumb, I know that a lot of the mudslinging on both sides is pure crap, but there is some truth to both sides.
I'm praying with you too, but I'm not praying for one candidate over another. I'm just praying that God will put the person HE wants in there and He will work in their heart to help them make the right decisions. But sometimes I fear we may have already pushed God out of our nation to much and we it may be time for the judgment on America, just like what happened to Israel.
No matter who wins, it's time to batten (right word?) down the hatches and start saving and probably start stocking up on canned food! We are in for a llloonnnggg winter!
So didn't somebody on this board state earlier that
*
Boy Wonder didn't READ the bill, let alone write it!
##
But the President didn't write the stimulus bill.
So how is it meant to be him?
Two Border State Governors Declare Illegal Immigration State of Emergency
Two Border State Governors Declare Illegal Immigration State of Emergency
SIGN THE PETITION!
CLICK HERE!
THANK YOU!
You can have our federal money along with a new state motto: "Michigan - The Slave State". n
NM
When Bill Clinton was in office, OHHH you better believe Bill and Carter have had..sm
their day of mudslinging matches, at the pleasure of a many conservatives. So, no there's not a double standard here.
Bill Maher Takes On Bill O'Reilly
BILL O'REILLY, HOST: In the "Personal Story" segment tonight, political humorist Bill Maher (search), he has a new book out called "New Rules: Polite Musings from a Timid Observer." Of course, Mr. Maher is about as polite as I am and as timid as Dracula. He joins us now from Los Angeles.
You know, you've had some celebrities on your HBO show, "Real Time," which begins again on Friday, talking about policy and war on terror and stuff like that. I get the feeling they don't know very much, but you do. So I'd like to make Bill Maher, right now, the terror czar. Bill Maher, the terror czar. Could be a series.
How would you fight this War on Terror? How would you fight it?
BILL MAHER, HOST, HBO'S "REAL TIME": I think the first and most important thing is to get the politics out of the War on Terror. You know, maybe I'm a cockeyed optimist, Bill, maybe I'm naive, but I thought that 9/11 was such a jarring event that nobody would dare return to business as usual on that one subject after that.
But of course, we found out that nothing could be further from the truth. And your president, my president too, but the one you voted for...
O'REILLY: You don't know that. Were you looking over my shoulder there? I could have voted for Nader. I could have voted for Kerry, but Kerry wouldn't come on the program, so I wouldn't vote. But I could have gone for Ralph. Ralph's a friend of mine.
MAHER: Yes. Anyway, I said the guy you voted for, President Bush, you know, how come this guy, who was supposed to be such a kick-and-take- names kind of guy, how come he has not been able to get the politics out of this?
You know, as a guy who's been accused of treason, I'll tell you what real treason is: Treason is when legislators vote against homeland security measures because it goes against the wishes of their political or financial backers. Treason is the fact that, as a terrorist, you could still buy a gun in this country because the NRA (search) lobby is so strong.
O'REILLY: OK. But you're getting into the political, and I agree with you. I think that the country should be united in trying to seek out and kill terrorists, who would kill us.
But I'd like to have some concrete things that you, Bill Maher, the terror czar — and take this seriously, this could be a series — what would you do?
All right, so you've got bin Laden. You've got Al Qaeda (search). You've got a bunch of other lower-level terrorist groups. What do you do to neutralize them?
MAHER: OK. Well, first of all, you discounted my answer, which is get the politics out, but OK.
O'REILLY: Well, assume you can do that. They're gone.
MAHER: We'll let that go. Keep going. I wouldn't worry that much about bin Laden. I mean, capturing bin Laden at this point, it doesn't really matter whether he's dead or alive. He's already Tupac to the people who care about him and work for him. Capturing bin Laden, killing him would be like when Ray Kroc died, how much that affected McDonald's.
O'REILLY: It would be a morale booster. But I understand. You're not going to send...
MAHER: A morale booster, right. Well, we've had plenty of morale boosting. We've had plenty of window dressing. What we need is concrete action.
In the book I wrote before this one about terrorism, I suggested that we have a Secret Service for the people. I said whenever the president goes anywhere, he has very high-level, intelligent detectives who look around at a crowd. They know what they're looking for. They're highly paid. They're highly trained.
We don't have that in this country. We should have that. We should have a cadre of 10,000 highly trained people who would guard all public events, bus stations, train stations, airports — and stop with this nonsense that this robotic sort of window dressing...
O'REILLY: OK, so you would create a homeland security office that was basically a security firm for major targets and things like that. It's not a bad idea. Costs a lot of money. Costs a lot of money. It's not a bad idea.
MAHER: Costs a lot of money compared to what? If you paid 10,000 people a salary of $100,000 a year, that would, I think, cost $10 billion or something. That's nothing. There's that much pork in the transportation bill before you get...
O'REILLY: Yes, 10,000 wouldn't do it, but I get your drift.
MAHER: Whatever it costs.
O’REILLY: You would create a super-security apparatus. OK, that's not bad. That's not bad. How about overseas now?
MAHER: What we need to do is what I call get Israeli about this. Because the Israelis are not afraid of profiling. The Israelis are not afraid to bury politics in the greater cause of protecting their nation. We don't act that way. You know, I'm afraid 9/11 really changed nothing.
O'REILLY: Boy, your ACLU (search) pals aren't going to like that. You're going to lose your membership card there.
MAHER: I'm not a member of the ACLU.
O'REILLY: Oh, sure you are, just like I voted for Bush. You're a member of the ACLU. I can see the card right in your pocket there.
MAHER: Bill, I'm not a joiner. I'm not a joiner. I don't like organizations.
O'REILLY: They won't have you, Maher, let's be honest about that. All right, now, in your book, which is very amusing, by the way — if you want a few laughs buy Maher's book.
MAHER: Thank you.
O'REILLY: You take some shots at FOX News, which is your wont, and I just want to know why you think we're so fabulously successful here.
MAHER: Well, I think that question has been answered many times. It's because the conservative viewer in this country, or on radio the conservative listener, is very predictable. They like to hear what they like to hear. They like to hear it over and over again.
O'REILLY: All the surveys show that the viewers are all over the map. They're not conservative in a big bloc. Some of them are moderate. Some of them are Democrats. Some of them are Moroccans. I mean, they're everywhere. That's your analysis? That just the conservatives watch us?
MAHER: Well, I think mostly the conservatives do watch you. That's not to take anything away from what you guys have achieved over there. It's a very well-produced broadcast, and they have excellent personalities like yourself, Bill. Who could resist watching you when you get home from work at night?
O'REILLY: Whoopi Goldberg, maybe? I don't know.
MAHER: Yes.
O'REILLY: Anyone who doesn't watch here is misguided. We identify them as such.
But look, I think there's more to it than — you're in TV. You know the ratings game. I mean, if you don't provide a product that is satisfying people, no matter what your ideology, they tell you to take a hike.
There's a guy over at MSNBC. He's a very conservative guy. He was hired and nobody's watching him. They hire liberals. Nobody watches them. Air America (search). Nobody's listening to it.
I mean, there's got to be a reason why we're No. 1, a punch line for you, and No. 2, you know, becoming the most powerful news network in the world.
MAHER: Well, I think, as I say, it's a well-produced product. You know, your program moves along, always at a clip that never seems to bore. You know, you move along to the next topic, the next guest. It never sort of drags. I don't think a lot of people know how to produce that stuff that way.
O'REILLY: All right. It's bells and whistles and my charming personality. That's what I thought it was.
Last thing: You know, one thing I like about Maher is he's not a hypocrite. He drives a little hybrid vehicle. Right? You putter around there. Does it have training wheels? What's it like?
MAHER: Actually, I had the Prius hybrid for three years. I was one of the first ones to get it right after 9/11. And I traded it in a few months ago for the Lexus hybrid.
O'REILLY: I think we should all cut back on our energy consumption, and I think we should all get these hybrids as fast as we can.
Hey, Bill, always nice to see you. Thanks very much. Good luck with the season on the TV show.
MAHER: Continued success there, Mr. No. 1.
O'REILLY: All right. Thank you.
Watch "The O'Reilly Factor" weeknights at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET and listen to the "Radio Factor!"
Content and Programming Copyright 2005 Fox News Network, L.L.C. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2005 eMediaMillWorks, Inc. (f/k/a Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.), which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon Fox News Network, L.L.C.'s and eMediaMillWorks, Inc.'s copyrights or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.
Bill Clinton and his ties to India (yes, Bill),...
and China (yes, Bill) sent a lot of our jobs their way. Google it some time. Even I was amazed.
Look, it is simple economics. The big bad corporations everyone hates...first of all, it is not 5 or 6 rich guys and that's it. They employee thousands of people just like us...and when the government puts those huge taxes on them, if they want to stay in business, they are forced to move offshore. Higher taxes are responsible for more jobs going overseas than "greed." The DNC has told its members for years that "corporations" and "the rich" are the cause of all their problems and they have bought that Marxist rhetoric hook, line, and sinker. Corporations are not the cause of ill in this country. They are the backbone of the economy in this country. That is simple economics 101. And I am certainly not rich...and I certainly am not on the upper echelon of a corporation, but I do understand reality and I understand how the economy works. Yes, there is wrongdoing by some upper level folks in corporations. There is wrongdoing in the government. Where there is power, there will be wrongdoing. But for every Enron there are thousands of other good, solid companies that employ thousands of Americans, but the DNC does not share the success stories, because it does not promote their agenda. In order to control people they want them beholden to government and hating free enterprise. They want big government, total power, and control. And following Alinksy's program...you have to instill class warfare. You have to make corporations the enemy. You have to make classes envy the next rung up. Classic Marxist socialism. It is being played out in this country every day.
It is just that some of us have not bought the myth and jumped on the socialism train.
Did you read the bill? It was a regulatory reform bill...
asking them to regulate, not de-regulate. But Democrats blocked it...no wonder. Fannie was greasing a lot of Democratic palms...and Frederick Raines, the Dem CEO at the time...was in the Clinton administration. They were taking care of their own...and we are paying for it.
Laws vary state-to-state
Many people were confined against their will just because someone wanted them "out of the way." These were normal people with no mental illness - that is why it is so difficult - don't blame the liberals. Blame your state.
CONFINING THE MENTALLY ILL
In the legal space between what a society should and should not do, taking action to restrict the liberty of people who are mentally ill sits in the grayest of gray areas.
Our notions about civil and constitutional rights flow from an assumption of "normalcy." Step beyond the boundaries and arrest and prison may legally follow. Short of that, government's ability to hold people against their will is severely and properly limited. Unusual behavior on the part of someone who is mentally ill is not illegal behavior. Freedom can't be snatched away on a whim, or on the thought that a person is hard to look at, hard to hear, hard to smell.
It was only a few decades ago that the promise of new medications and a change in attitude opened the doors of the mental hospitals and sent many patients into society. There, they would somehow "normalize" and join everyone else, supported by networks of out-patient facilities, job training, special living arrangements and regular, appropriate medication. But the transition has been imperfect, long and difficult.
In some parts of urban America there is little professional support for those with mental health problems. A new generation of drug and alcohol-fueled mental illness has come on the scene. People frequently end up on the street, un-medicated and exhibiting a full range of behaviors that are discomforting at the very least and threatening at their worst.
Deny, deny, deny. Didn't work for Bill either. (nm)
nm
if abe is on the $5 bill & george is on the $1 bill, what is Obama on?
****censored****
Red state, blue state?
Written last Thanksgiving: "Some would argue that two different nations actually celebrated: upright, moral, traditional red America and the dissolute, liberal blue states clustered on the periphery of the heartland. The truth, however, is much more complicated and interesting than that.
Take two iconic states: Texas and Massachusetts. In some ways, they were the two states competing in the last election. In the world's imagination, you couldn't have two starker opposites. One is the homeplace of Harvard, gay marriage, high taxes, and social permissiveness. The other is Bush country, solidly Republican, traditional, and gun-toting. Massachusetts voted for Kerry over Bush 62 to 37 percent; Texas voted for Bush over Kerry 61 to 38 percent.
So ask yourself a simple question: which state has the highest divorce rate? Marriage was a key issue in the last election, with Massachusetts' gay marriages becoming a symbol of alleged blue state decadence and moral decay. But in actual fact, Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country at 2.4 divorces per 1,000 inhabitants. Texas - which until recently made private gay sex a criminal offence - has a divorce rate of 4.1. A fluke? Not at all. The states with the highest divorce rates in the U.S. are Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. And the states with the lowest divorce rates are: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Every single one of the high divorce rate states went for Bush. Every single one of the low divorce rate states went for Kerry. The Bible Belt divorce rate, in fact, is roughly 50 percent higher than the national average.
Some of this discrepancy can be accounted for by the fact that couples tend to marry younger in the Bible Belt - and many clearly don't have the maturity to know what they're getting into. There's some correlation too between rates of college education and stable marriages, with the Bible Belt lagging a highly educated state like Massachusetts. But the irony still holds. Those parts of America that most fiercely uphold what they believe are traditional values are not those parts where traditional values are healthiest. Hypocrisy? Perhaps. A more insightful explanation is that these socially troubled communities cling onto absolutes in the abstract because they cannot live up to them in practice.
But doesn't being born again help bring down divorce rates? Jesus, after all, was mum on the subject of homosexuality, but was very clear about divorce, declaring it a sin unless adultery was involved. A recent study, however, found no measurable difference in divorce rates between those who are "born again" and those who are not. 29 percent of Baptists have been divorced, compared to 21 percent of Catholics. Moreover, a staggering 23 percent of married born-agains have been divorced twice or more. Teen births? Again, the contrast is striking. In a state like Texas, where the religious right is extremely strong and the rhetoric against teenage sex is gale-force strong, the teen births as a percentage of all births is 16.1 percent. In liberal, secular, gay-friendly Massachusetts, it's 7.4, almost half. Marriage itself is less popular in Texas than in Massachusetts. In Texas, the percent of people unmarried is 32.4 percent; in Massachusetts, it's 26.8 percent. So even with a higher marriage rate, Massachusetts manages a divorce rate almost half of its "conservative" rival.
Or take abortion. America is one of the few Western countries where the legality of abortion is still ferociously disputed. It's a country where the religious right is arguably the strongest single voting bloc, and in which abortion is a constant feature of cultural politics. Compare it to a country like Holland, perhaps the epitome of socially liberal, relativist liberalism. So which country has the highest rate of abortion? It's not even close. America has an abortion rate of 21 abortions per 1,000 women aged between 15 and 44. Holland has a rate of 6.8. Americans, in other words, have three times as many abortions as the Dutch. Remind me again: which country is the most socially conservative?
Even a cursory look at the leading members of the forces of social conservatism in America reveals the same pattern. The top conservative talk-radio host, Rush Limbaugh, has had three divorces and an addiction to pain-killers. The most popular conservative television personality, Bill O'Reilly, just settled a sex harassment suit that indicated a highly active adulterous sex life. Bill Bennett, the guru of the social right, was for many years a gambling addict. Karl Rove's chief outreach manager to conservative Catholics for the last four years, Deal Hudson, also turned out to be a man with a history of sexual harassment. Bob Barr, the conservative Georgian congressman who wrote the "Defense of Marriage Act," has had three wives so far. The states which register the highest ratings for the hot new television show, "Desperate Housewives," are all Bush-states.
The complicated truth is that America truly is a divided and conflicted country. But it's a grotesque exaggeration to say that the split is geographical, or correlated with blue and red states. Many of America's biggest "sinners" are those most intent on upholding virtue. In fact, it may be partly because they know sin so close-up that they want to prevent its occurrence among others. And some of those states which have the most liberal legal climate - the Northeast and parts of the upper MidWest - are also, in practice, among the most socially conservative. To ascribe all this to "hypocrisy" seems to me too crude an explanation. America is simply a far more complicated and diverse place than crude red and blue divisions can explain.
I don't know what state you live in but in my state
they are adding police and only in the big cities do they have paid firemen. The rest are volunteers.
I look at it this way: If a state can't stay in the black, then they have to cut spending some place that wouldn't jeopardize the safety of the citizens. Threats of cutting essential services like Barney Fife stated today are unjustified. Cut the non-essential services first.
Our governor talks about cutting back on services, laying off government workers, which I think is a good idea because government is too big anyway, but then he turns around and spends more money on non-essential items. Doesn't make sense.
Bailout
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of our money, frist by inflation and then by deflation; the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks) will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered"
-President Thomas Jefferson
here's your bailout
I think that all the CEOs of the big three along with all their members of the board and whatnot, all the big wigs, that have made millions screwing people over for years and years should dip into their OWN pockets and sell a few houses, cancel a few vacations, cash in a few money markets and get their own companies out of debt. Then, when the books are balanced, the people who have been making 80,000 a year to push a button should take a pay cut and NOT go on strike and live like the rest of real America. Then they should be fine.
Bailout
if they fail, do you realize it would affect everyone. Millions of jobs in the auto industry alone. If people don't have jobs, they can't spend money anywhere. Stores will start to close, etc. It will affect everyone.
Bailout
I totally agree 1000% with your analysis - the only time these greedy CEO's give a hoot about us is when they see their profits increase. You can bet your last five cents that if one of us went to them asking for money - they would call the police!! It would be interesting to see the salaries of CEO's in Europe as opposed to what these guys continually fleece us for... 
About That First Bailout
Do you remember who told us "we had to act now or we might face dooms day (sic)" with all that bailout money? It was Hank Paulsen and George Bush. We may as well have flushed that first TARP payment down the toilet. There was no accountability, and no one knows where all that money went.
At least the present stimulus package has accountability built into it and some limits as to what can and can't be done with the money.
the bailout IS making
the US a socialist country - compliments of your beloved GWB and McPalin. congratulations you got your wish.
No Bailout for the rich
Say no to the bailout. The FBI is investigating all of these companies for criminal mortgage fraud.
Why the rush for the bailout
There Is No Crisis--Summary by: Chris BowersTue Sep 23, 2008 at 16:22
Things are getting a little suspicious about this crisis.
1) Why did the Bush administration suddenly declare a crisis during the final two weeks when Congress would be in session during his presidency? Is it maybe because, after the election, Congress would know it wasn't dealing with Bush anymore?
2) If this is such a sudden crisis, why is it that the Bush administration was drawing up the plan for this bill for months beforehand?
3) Why is it that Congress is supposed to bail out many banks and firms that are actually quite successful and profitable right now, and not just those that are failing?
4) Why is Paulson blatantly lying to Congress about oversight?
5) Where did the $700 billion figure come from?
6) Why is Paulson urging that debate on the matter be held after the legislation is passed?The burden of proof should always be placed on those who are demanding a huge government bailout, not upon those who are skeptical that one is needed. And yet the questions keep mounting, with no answers in sight.
I am not saying that there is no need for government intervention. I am saying that the case for a $700 billion bailout is far from having been made. Until the case is made, there is no need to go forward. We will elect a new President in 42 days. We swear in a new Congress in 103 days. What is the rush? Why does this all of a sudden need to be done while the Bush administration is still in charge? The case hasn't been made, and answers are slow in coming, if they come at all. Chris Bowers :: There Is No Crisis--Summary
I don't agree with the bailout
We have some savings, but we still live paycheck-to-paycheck, not wanting to touch the savings. I really don't agree that we taxpayers should have to fund this. I think that the higher ups that walked away with 100s of thousands or even millions should have to pay for this. Charge them with fraud and make them give it back. I certainly don't feel I've put anyone in this situation and therefore don't feel I should have to pay for it.
only 24% of us support the bailout
Yesterday it was reported only 24% of Americans support the bailout, 56% are opposed so 20% have no opinion. Senators' and reps' offices were flooded with calls and emails all day asking that the bailout be opposed. And I was one of those. Everyone should be contacting their own reps to express their opinions. That's they only way they will know what the people want.
Yes, and how about the bailout, ACORN, and
nm
Well.....look at it this way....if they don't push this bailout...
there are folks who know "where the bodies are buried." There is probably so much we DON'T know about all this...and yes, it is disgusting. Dodd and Frank, if they had an ounce of integrity, would apologize to the American people and resign. Pelosi, if SHE had an ounce of integrity, would demand it. So far John McCain is the ONLY one who has said someone should resign, and that was Christopher Cox, the Republican head of the SEC. He SHOULD resign. So should the treasury secretary, Paulson. Every member of that committee that voted back in 2006 to kill the bill McCain co-sponsored should resign. They should all be investigated criminally as well as far as I am concerned. I know the FBI is looking at Fannie/Freddie but talk about a day late and dollar short after Raines, Johnson, Howard, and Gorelick raped the American public for millions.
You're right. They should ALL have to go and start over.
SNL skit on the bailout. sm
Funny but sad because it is true.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/37758/saturday-night-live-c-span-bailout#s-p1-st-i1
TheSmokingGun/bailout
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1007083aig1.html
AIG spa trip, right after gov. bailout approved. This is disgusting.
Not a bailout, entirely voluntary (nm
x
I think we MT's need a bonus and a bailout!
nm
Again, I don't think the problem is the bailout itself, (sm)
but rather the way it's used, which right now leaves a lot to be desired. As far as the rest of the country being screwed, well that's coming either way. We have 2 choices--we can either do nothing, lose millions of jobs and go into a full-blown depression; or we can take a chance with bailing them out (preferably with stipulations) and owe a lot of money. I think my preference would be to pay more taxes if need be, but still have a job so I could feed my family instead of not being able to do either of the above.
But, the first bailout passed because
the dems had the majority of votes. Am I right or did I lose my mind? DON"T ANSWER THAT QUESTION, PLEASE. LOL
Bailout dies in Senate.........sm
It's over, at least for this year. I don't know, and the article did not state, whether there will be more talks after the first of the year.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE4B50CL20081212?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
I have some ideas about auto bailout
Let the oil companies bail them out since they directly benefited from some of the bad management decisions.
Don't bail out the companies. Give the money to the workers for re-education, etc., while the auto companies restructure.
My first suggestion was a little cynical, but I'm not sure why the second hasn't occurred to anyone. ...
A little satire about the bailout scam. sm
A sense of humor can help in stressful times.
From The Nation to the nation:
"Dear Lucky American:
I need to ask you to support an urgent secret business relationship with a transfer of funds of great magnitude.
I am Ministry of the Treasury of the Republic of America. My country has had crisis that has caused the need for large transfer of funds of 800 billion dollars US. If you would assist me in this transfer, it would be most profitable to you.
I am working with Mr. Phil Gram, lobbyist for UBS, who will be my replacement as Ministry of the Treasury in January. As a Senator, you may know him as the leader of the American banking deregulation movement in the 1990s. This transactin is 100% safe.
This is a matter of great urgency. We need a blank check. We need the funds as quickly as possible. We cannot directly transfer these funds in the names of our close friends because we are constantly under surveillance. My family lawyer advised me that I should look for a reliable and trustworthy person who will act as a next of kin so the funds can be transferred.
Please reply with all of your bank account, IRA and college fund account numbers and those of your children and grandchildren to wallstreetbailout@treasury.gov so that we may transfer your commission for this transaction. After I receive that information, I will respond with detailed information about safeguards that will be used to protect the funds.
Yours Faithfully Minister of Treasury Paulson"
Bailout as a Nigerian Request for Help
Ron Paul's comments on the bailout. sm
Dr. No is still working for us in Congress.
Dear Friends:
The financial meltdown the economists of the Austrian School predicted has arrived.
We are in this crisis because of an excess of artificially created credit at the hands of the Federal Reserve System. The solution being proposed? More artificial credit by the Federal Reserve. No liquidation of bad debt and malinvestment is to be allowed. By doing more of the same, we will only continue and intensify the distortions in our economy - all the capital misallocation, all the malinvestment - and prevent the market's attempt to re-establish rational pricing of houses and other assets.
Last night the president addressed the nation about the financial crisis. There is no point in going through his remarks line by line, since I'd only be repeating what I've been saying over and over - not just for the past several days, but for years and even decades.
Still, at least a few observations are necessary.
The president assures us that his administration "is working with Congress to address the root cause behind much of the instability in our markets." Care to take a guess at whether the Federal Reserve and its money creation spree were even mentioned?
We are told that "low interest rates" led to excessive borrowing, but we are not told how these low interest rates came about. They were a deliberate policy of the Federal Reserve. As always, artificially low interest rates distort the market. Entrepreneurs engage in malinvestments - investments that do not make sense in light of current resource availability, that occur in more temporally remote stages of the capital structure than the pattern of consumer demand can support, and that would not have been made at all if the interest rate had been permitted to tell the truth instead of being toyed with by the Fed.
Not a word about any of that, of course, because Americans might then discover how the great wise men in Washington caused this great debacle. Better to keep scapegoating the mortgage industry or "wildcat capitalism" (as if we actually have a pure free market!).
Speaking about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the president said: "Because these companies were chartered by Congress, many believed they were guaranteed by the federal government. This allowed them to borrow enormous sums of money, fuel the market for questionable investments, and put our financial system at risk."
Doesn't that prove the foolishness of chartering Fannie and Freddie in the first place? Doesn't that suggest that maybe, just maybe, government may have contributed to this mess? And of course, by bailing out Fannie and Freddie, hasn't the federal government shown that the "many" who "believed they were guaranteed by the federal government" were in fact correct?
Then come the scare tactics. If we don't give dictatorial powers to the Treasury Secretary "the stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet." Left unsaid, naturally, is that with the bailout and all the money and credit that must be produced out of thin air to fund it, the value of your retirement account will drop anyway, because the value of the dollar will suffer a precipitous decline. As for home prices, they are obviously much too high, and supply and demand cannot equilibrate if government insists on propping them up.
It's the same destructive strategy that government tried during the Great Depression: prop up prices at all costs. The Depression went on for over a decade. On the other hand, when liquidation was allowed to occur in the equally devastating downturn of 1921, the economy recovered within less than a year.
The president also tells us that Senators McCain and Obama will join him at the White House today in order to figure out how to get the bipartisan bailout passed. The two senators would do their country much more good if they stayed on the campaign trail debating who the bigger celebrity is, or whatever it is that occupies their attention these days.
F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for showing how central banks' manipulation of interest rates creates the boom-bust cycle with which we are sadly familiar. In 1932, in the depths of the Great Depression, he described the foolish policies being pursued in his day - and which are being proposed, just as destructively, in our own:
Instead of furthering the inevitable liquidation of the maladjustments brought about by the boom during the last three years, all conceivable means have been used to prevent that readjustment from taking place; and one of these means, which has been repeatedly tried though without success, from the earliest to the most recent stages of depression, has been this deliberate policy of credit expansion.
To combat the depression by a forced credit expansion is to attempt to cure the evil by the very means which brought it about; because we are suffering from a misdirection of production, we want to create further misdirection - a procedure that can only lead to a much more severe crisis as soon as the credit expansion comes to an end... It is probably to this experiment, together with the attempts to prevent liquidation once the crisis had come, that we owe the exceptional severity and duration of the depression.
The only thing we learn from history, I am afraid, is that we do not learn from history.
The very people who have spent the past several years assuring us that the economy is fundamentally sound, and who themselves foolishly cheered the extension of all these novel kinds of mortgages, are the ones who now claim to be the experts who will restore prosperity! Just how spectacularly wrong, how utterly without a clue, does someone have to be before his expert status is called into question?
Oh, and did you notice that the bailout is now being called a "rescue plan"? I guess "bailout" wasn't sitting too well with the American people.
The very people who with somber faces tell us of their deep concern for the spread of democracy around the world are the ones most insistent on forcing a bill through Congress that the American people overwhelmingly oppose. The very fact that some of you seem to think you're supposed to have a voice in all this actually seems to annoy them.
I continue to urge you to contact your representatives and give them a piece of your mind. I myself am doing everything I can to promote the correct point of view on the crisis. Be sure also to educate yourselves on these subjects - the Campaign for Liberty blog is an excellent place to start. Read the posts, ask questions in the comment section, and learn.
H.G. Wells once said that civilization was in a race between education and catastrophe. Let us learn the truth and spread it as far and wide as our circumstances allow. For the truth is the greatest weapon we have.
In liberty,
Ron Paul
Letter to Congress re the bailout. sm
The bailout has stalled. Please contact your reps and tell them NO to the bailout. Phone calls, emails, and letters are having an impact. People have already lost their homes and jobs. According to experts in economics, this is going to cause inflation to soar and a depression.
Letter below is from someone who is on the verge of losing their home, and gave permission to copy it.
Almost 300 years ago the founders of this country believed in freedom and liberty so much that they risked everything—their property, prosperity, comfort, honor, and even their very lives—on the near impossible gamble of taking on the world’s greatest superpower, at that time, to win the liberty that we enjoy today. That example has inspired Americans through the ages until the present day to reach for greatness despite the presence of risk and uncertainty. Against these dangers the intrepid push forward, knowing the price of failure, yet never succumbing to fear because our system is so robust in its scope that failure can be overcome and the rewards of hard work eventually achieved. In these troubled financial times, we are tempted by fear to shy away from the responsibility that liberty requires and instead hearken to the safety net of socialism. George Washington and his men had no safety net. The price of failure for them was certain death.
More money can always be made, but once we give up our freedom for socialism we can only buy it back with blood and death. CongressPerson, that is too high a price for the rescue of a few banks that should have known better. Let them suffer the consequences of their actions. Let the markets buy up their assets and redistribute them as only a free market can. Bring back sound money and the value backed currency the Constitution requires. Stop the central bankers at the Federal Reserve from ruining our country. There will be some pain, just like there was in the winter at Valley Forge, but in the spring, the economy will thrive again just as did the army that won our freedom.
I call on you now CongressPerson to fight for our freedom. Fight with all your might and strength the way our troopers did at Cowpens. Do not surrender. Do not sell us out. Fight for us and our liberty CongressPerson, as if we were about to lose it…because we are.
RJH
Norman, OK
PS I am a homeowner in distress. I stand to avoid the specter of foreclosure if you pass the bailout…but PLEASE DON’T PASS IT! I would rather lose my house than see America lose her freedom. In time I can buy another house.
The Roundtable is chatting about the bailout.
Newt Gingrich, George Will, Steven Pearlstein, and Robert Reich are "debating".
The terms of the bailout will be posted on line around noon today. I think we all should read it to see what it's all about.
Because the bailout is a corrupt piece of
Most people do not even realize that HALF that money they are stealing from us is going DIRECTLY to foreign investors, i.e., the China
2-step......read up on it. Better yet, I'll send a link... sickens me to no end!!!!!
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=234
The O also voted for the bailout package. (nm)
x
Where is it documented that the man in charge of the bailout...
is Muslim? He's Indian-American by all I can find out. Would not matter if he was Muslim; however, I can't find anything credible saying that he is.
For those who support the auto bailout........ sm
please answer me this.
If the Big 3 are truly in the dire financial straites they claim to be, surely this did not come on overnight. Surely they did not wake up one morning a couple of weeks ago and say "wow, we have a problem. Let's go get help from Washington." GM has already received help from the government before and it didn't seem to keep them solvent. With that line of thinking, what makes those of you who support the bailout think that they will manage whatever funds (it's up to $34K and possibly growing) they receive wisely and will not allow this to happen again?
Yes, Bush proposed a bailout....
the majority democratic congress rejected HIS and made one of their own...you don't remember all the haggling back and forth? Bush by himself couldn't have done squat. Actually more republicans were against it than democrats and got castigated for stalling the bill that was going to save us all. Then the dems had to add a little pork into it (money for wooden arrows and some such) before it finally passed. However, if Chris Dodd (D) chair of banking and finance committees and Barney Frank (D) in the House had not blocked EVERY attempt by Bush and yes, John McCain, to regulate Fannie and Freddie it would be a moot point, because we would NOT BE in this mess. Whatever else Bush has done, he had NOTHING to do with this economic crisis. That was all Dems, all the time, to make sure every american whether you could afford one or not got into a house.
The bailout isn't going to help-Diana Olick
"The TARP money isn’t going directly to bail out the housing market, and let’s just say a lot of folks are PO’d.
The argument is that a lot of folks don’t qualify, there’s a 3% upfront fee on the FHA insurance, a 1.5 percent fee for the duration of the loan, and a lot of lenders still don’t want to write down principal, as is required by the program.
So then we get to the Hill this morning, and what I can only describe as a skewering of Neel Kashkari, the Treasury’s Interim Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability. Congressman Dennis Kucinich of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform took Mr. Kashkari to task for changing the rules to the game of Monopoly, TARP edition. In fact, here’s a little montage with Kashkari, Kucinich, Cong. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), and Cong. Darrell Issa (R-CA), just the best bits from the testimony:
Kashkari: The secretary is very passionate about this as well-
Kucinich: Passionate about what?
Kashkari: Helping homeowners, congressman -
Kucinich: wwww- he is? in what country??
Cummings: You're on TV. You’re the man. I don't know how much we're paying you, but you're our employee...
Issa: Y'know, we could go ring around the rosie here, but you are here because Congress feels you played a bait and switch game...
Kashkari: I don’t think it's a good use of taxpayer money to put taxpayer capital into an institution that's going to fail-
Kucinich: Boy y'know, that statement you just made, you will hear about for the rest of your career.
Cummings: Is Kashkari a chump? "
Auto Bailout is on C-Span. If you
want to watch it tonight, it will be on at 8 p.m. In the meantime, the plans of GM and Ford are online.
I feel sorry for the Chryler guy. He seems to be the most honest and wants the least amount of money. Sen. Corker - TN told him right out he doubts Chrysler is going to make it even with the money and they should just be bought out by someone and leave the company go.
He was also tough on the UAW Gettlefinger (or whatever his name is). I don't blame him there. The guy was squirming but he kept talking about all the concessions hurting the workers; i.e., not willing to make concessions.
Hope the link works.
I don't agree with not giving them the bailout.
I think part of the problem is that now the foreign car makers who have plants here want a piece of the pie if the big 3 get it. I think that's what is turning them off.
They should never have started this bailout crap. I was against it from the start. But do our lawmakers listen to us? Nope. They should have held a special election and let the people vote on it.
I think we need to start throwing out the guys who are not listening to their constiuents. A good wake up call might just straighten these jerks up.
Auto industry bailout...(sm)
I happen to think that the auto industry does need a bailout. No, I don't agree with keeping the current management, and I do believe in making stipulations for how that money is spent. I know most of you will disagree with that, but here's what I'm seeing in TN.
Congressman Zach Wamp (R) from TN was on the tube last night talkiing about how he does not want to do the bailout. If that's his opinion that fine ----- However, lets look at his reason. TN has been bidding for a new Volkswagon plant which has recently come to fruition---right here in my home town by the way. He has been pushing for this for years. This is obviously a good thing for people in TN because of the jobs it would create. What I find ironic though is that he would let American companies go down the tubes and yet support a foreign auto maker. My honest opinion about guys like this, is that they want the job creation, regardless of where the real money is going (overseas) and they would like to do this in such a manner so as to cut out unions.
ARRRGGGGHHHH!!!! 
CITI group bailout
Okay, MSN just said the new administration will go into significant deficit spending to fund programs and bailout. They are talking a 700 Billion package here. Can anyone tell me how they will do that and where does deficit money come from? Seriously. I don't get it. Are we losing more and more of our future personal security here? Does this get borrowed from other sources (as in the spending they did instead of funding our social security?) Without that Social Security income in my future (not too far off, I might add) on top of what I have lost in my 401K and IRA, I am doomed.
|
