Final roll call House on bailout bill. sm
Posted By: LVMT on 2008-10-03
In Reply to:
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.
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
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
And this bailout bill? Didn't you state
below it was the 94 dem votes they needed and didn't get?
Been trying to call the white house....busy ALL DAY!!
--
The House just passed the bill??? No wonder the earth was shaking, that was the new crator...sm
 the country is falling into!
um...you're thinking of Bill and Hill, walking out of the white house with everything
That was a fact, overlooked by most libs.
House Passes Bill Allowing Government-Funded Religious Discrimination
House Passes Bill Allowing Government-Funded Religious Discrimination
Immediate Release
The Interfaith Alliance
September 22, 2005
Contact: Jon Niven or Don Parker 202.639.6370
House Passes Bill Allowing Government-Funded Religious Discrimination
Washington, September 22 – Today, The U.S. House of Representatives passed an amendment and a bill to allow government-funded religious discrimination
The School Readiness Act (H.R. 2123), a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Head Start program, was passed 48-0 in committee. However, during floor debate Thursday, Rep. Charles Boustany Jr. (R-LA) added an amendment allowing Head Start providers to exercise religious discrimination in choosing teachers and volunteers. As a result, the final vote on the bill (231-184) was stripped of the unanimous, bipartisan support displayed in committee.
The Interfaith Alliance is very disappointed in the members of Congress who insist on reacting to one crisis by beginning another one, said the Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, President of The Interfaith Alliance. The Boustany amendment is a prime example of political opportunists taking advantage of a national tragedy to institute policies that are unconstitutional and have been previously rejected by the Congress.
The Interfaith Alliance was joined by more than 50 organizations in opposition to the bill's passage if it contained the Boustany amendment. The National Head Start Association, which represents more than 2.5 million children and families, program staff and volunteers that comprise the Head Start and Early Head Start community, came out against the entire bill if the Boustany Amendment was attached saying:
In spite of its positive provisions, if HR 2123 contains a religious discrimination amendment, we must reluctantly oppose the bill.
This amendment will subsidize religious discrimination with tax dollars, turning back civil rights protections that currently apply to nearly 200,000 Head Start teachers and over 1.4 million parent volunteers.
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the levees protecting religious liberty are being breached, and the wall between church and state is cracking, Gaddy said. If those in Congress who seek to repeal religious liberty safeguards are successful, thousands of children, teachers and parent volunteers who have dedicated themselves to this program could find themselves no longer welcome at religiously-affiliated Head Start programs because they are of a different faith than the sponsoring organization.
The Senate passed a similar bill, but without the Boustany amendment, so the House version will now go to a House-Senate conference committee. Members of The Interfaith Alliance will urge Senators to strip the bill of the Boustany amendment in conference.
Initiated in 1965 in the wake of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, Head Start has been widely recognized as one of the most successful government programs ever created. It has provided early childhood education and development programs that have helped millions of low-income families overcome inequities for more than forty years.
He is definitely on a roll!
As he now has Iowa and New Hampshire (pretty much according to polls) the largest hurdles are behind him now. I think Hillary's attacks on him isn't doing herself any favors and may be pushing more to look at Obama. This whole inexperience mantra is starting to bug me. Although I admire Hillary for some civic work she has done in the past, she doesn't have much more experience than Obama when it comes right down to it. Makes her look small and desperate.
The only thing I can say in negative toward Obama is that he does not debate well. His speeches are very inspiring but his debating is weak and it frustrates me to listen to him because he talks a lot but doesn't really say much. Thus, I wonder how good he is at thinking on his feet. On that note, if he surrounds himself with the right people in the white house, he should do okay. At least with that personality trait, he is less likely to go off shooting at the hip than our current impulsive pres. :o)
I'm more than a little disappointed that Edwards didn't pick up more votes in New Hampshire. I have been leaning towards him in the last few weeks.
roll
in the muck, baseline aspersions, innuendo, dire warnings. What a way to waste your precious days.
ROTFLMBO! You're on a roll, there AW.
Better to roll with the punches than getting all mired down
No doubt there will be plenty of curve balls thrown his way. Your acquaintance dialog is a one-way conversation on its way to a dead end.
final result
I think pretty much this debate was McCain's best hope. His strength, according to most, is foreign policy. I thought that all O really needed to do was avoid being seen as weak on foreign affairs. He more than lived up to that. The clear frontrunner is O. This debate did not change that. The next two pres debates will show O's strengths and Mc weaknesses. The Sarah/Joe debate is going to be high theatre. I am so looking forward to that one.
Another point. I don't get all misty when Mc tells his bracelet/POW stories. I think they are blatant attempts at pulling emotional strings and I cringe when anyone, anywhere tries to manipulate me. I am saying he uses stories for his benefit instead of feeling them. So as far as I am concerned they backfire.
I am afraid Sir Percy was on a roll and just had to get all that hate out! nm
My husband is furious. I made him roll over
his pension when he went self-employed. He wanted to spend it. I do have him in some safe (is anything safe?) plans but one risky one.
Granted, we don't have much saved, and cannot live the good life when we retire, but we worked hard for this money.
Yes, and regarding that final paragraph re: Iran
Seymour Hersh has yet to get it wrong, no matter how much the King George and his men attack.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact
Saddam's in his final hours....sm
By CHRISTOPHER TORCHIA and QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - The official witnesses to Saddam Hussein's impending execution gathered Friday in Baghdad's fortified Green Zone in final preparation for his hanging, as state television broadcast footage of his regime's atrocities.
With U.S. forces on high alert for a surge in violence, the Iraqi government readied all the necessary documents, including a red card - an execution order introduced during Saddam's dictatorship. As the hour of his death approached, Saddam received two of his half brothers in his cell on Thursday and was said to have given them his personal belongings and a copy of his will.
Najeeb al-Nueimi, a member of Saddam's legal team in Doha, Qatar, said he too requested a final meeting with the deposed Iraqi leader. His daughter in Amman was crying, she said 'Take me with you,' al-Nueimi said late Friday. But he said their request was rejected.
An adviser to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saddam would be executed before 6 a.m. Saturday, or 10 p.m. Friday EST. Also to be hanged at that time were Saddam's half-brother Barzan Ibrahim and Awad Hamed al-Bandar, the former chief justice of the Revolutionary Court, the adviser said.
The time was agreed upon during a meeting Friday between U.S. and Iraqi officials, said the adviser, who declined to be named because he is not authorized to speak to the media.
Saddam will be handed over shortly before the execution, the official said. The physical transfer of Saddam from U.S. to Iraqi authorities was believed to be one of the last steps before he was to be hanged. Saddam has been in U.S. custody since he was captured in December 2003.
Al-Nueimi said U.S. authorities were maintaining physical custody of Saddam to prevent him from being humiliated before his execution. He said the Americans also want to prevent the mutilation of his corpse, as has happened to other deposed Iraqi leaders.
The Americans want him to be hanged respectfully, al-Nueimi said. If Saddam is humiliated publicly or his corpse ill-treated that could cause an uprising and the Americans would be blamed, he said.
Munir Haddad, a judge on the appeals court that upheld Saddam's death sentence, said he was ready to attend the hanging and that all the paperwork was in order, including the red card.
All the measures have been done, Haddad said. There is no reason for delays.
As American and Iraqi officials met in Baghdad to set the hour of his death, Saddam's lawyers asked a U.S. judge for a stay of execution.
Saddam's lawyers issued a statement Friday calling on everybody to do everything to stop this unfair execution. The statement also said the former president had been transferred from U.S. custody, though American and Iraqi officials later denied that.
Al-Maliki said opposing Saddam's execution was an insult to his victims. His office said he made the remarks in a meeting with families of people who died during Saddam's rule.
Our respect for human rights requires us to execute him, and there will be no review or delay in carrying out the sentence, al-Maliki said.
State television ran footage of the Saddam era's atrocities, including images of uniformed men placing a bomb next to a youth's chest and blowing him up in what looked like a desert, and handcuffed men being thrown from a high building.
About 10 people registered to attend the hanging gathered in the Green Zone before they were to go to the execution site, the Iraqi official said.
Those cleared to attend the execution included a Muslim cleric, lawmakers, senior officials and relatives of victims of Saddam's brutal rule, the official said. He did not disclose the location of the gallows.
Raed Juhi, spokesman for the High Tribunal court that convicted Saddam, said documents related to the execution would be read to Saddam before the execution. The documents included the red card, al-Maliki's signed approval of the sentence and the appeal court's decision.
On Thursday, two half brothers visited Saddam in his cell, a member of the former dictator's defense team, Badee Izzat Aref, told The Associated Press by telephone from the United Arab Emirates. He said the former dictator handed them his personal belongings.
A senior official at the Iraqi defense ministry also confirmed the meeting and said Saddam gave his will to one of his half brothers. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.
Saddam's lawyers later issued a statement saying the Americans gave permission for his belongings to be retrieved.
An Iraqi appeals court upheld Saddam's death sentence Tuesday for the killing of 148 people who were detained after an attempt to assassinate him in the northern Iraqi city of Dujail in 1982. The court said the hanging should take place within 30 days.
There had been disagreements among Iraqi officials in recent days as to whether Iraqi law dictates the execution must take place within 30 days and whether President Jalal Talabani and his two deputies had to approve it.
In his Friday sermon, a mosque preacher in the Shiite holy city of Najaf called Saddam's execution God's gift to Iraqis.
Oh, God, you know what Saddam has done! He killed millions of Iraqis in prisons, in wars with neighboring countries and he is responsible for mass graves, said Sheik Sadralddin al-Qubanji, a member of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, known as SCIRI, a dominant party in al-Maliki's coalition. Oh God, we ask you to take revenge on Saddam.
Final Palin segment
I was very impressed with Charlie Gibson. I am not an ABC news watcher, so I did not know what to expect. He brought up all the important issues involved in the contradictions between Maverick and Reformer claims including per diem, keeping the money from bridge to nowhere, lobbyists for Alaska, abuse of power in Troopergate, etc. I thought he allowed her to expose her lack of knowledge on foreign affairs. I thought he, for the most part, keep questioning her on points when she tried to evade questions by throwing out the slogans and talking points.
The one point that I had not heard before was the fact that the sendoff for the soldiers she staged in Alaska was timed to be on 9/11 for the publicity, and that the soldiers were not in fact going to leave for 2 to 3 more weeks.
All in all, I thought it was a good introduction of the actual Sarah Palin. When you add the tape of McCain disparaging mayors and short-time governors, it was a definitive package for those who have not yet made up their minds in this election.
Head in the sand....final thoughts
You said: I am truly sorry that any of you on the right equate not wanting to fight, not wanting to kill, eshewing revenge shrouded as justice and preferring diplomacy to preemptive attacks with **lily-liveredness.**
My answer: First of all, to say that going into Iraq was revenge does a huge disservice to the people who died on 9-11 and to the soldiers who have died in Iraq since. I think a statement like that is unconsciable. It is your right to say it, my right to disagree strongly, which I do. I have a hard time understanding how any American could think that.
Second, I have never referred to anyone as lily-livered. No one WANTS to kill. You and the left keep saying that like Republicans or anyone NOT liberal (sound familiar?) WANTS to kill. That is just nuts. However, some people do believe that our way of life, our country, are worth dying for or killing for if necessary. That being said, for diplomacy to work, both sides have to be interested in a peaceful outcome. In what alternate reality do you imagine that Saddam Hussein, Al Qaeda, Al-Zawahiri, the Taliban, or ANY terrorist would be interested in a peaceful outcome, when their stated purpose is the destruction of the United States and Israel, and eventually anything not Muslim? Where in there do you see ANY room for diplomacy? THAT is what I mean when I (not others who post, I cannot speak for them) say *head in the sand.* Do you actually believe that diplomacy will work with these people? I do not for the life of me understand how you can look at the history of terrorist attacks, their escalation, and say that somehow talking with these people will make a difference. Perhaps you can clue me in on the possibility that you see in diplomatically stopping the terrorist threat? How that could possibly happen? I would be willing to listen.
You said: I see those as strength of character, the courage of conviction and fairhandness.
I say: Strength of character is also standing tall and saying *your plan of terrorizing and separating this country and her people will not work. If you plan to attack us, know that we will fight back.* Strength of character is also not kowtowing to bullies. Common sense tells you bullies do not respond to diplomacy. Bullies win by intimidation, sneak attacks, and fear. It is impossible to negotiate with these people, because you cannot give them what they want. Saddam violated how many UN resolutions before 9-11? His word was worthless, absolutely worthless. Simply because YOU desire that kind of diplomacy and YOU have those kinds of values, if they are absent on the other side, you might as well chop your own head off and save them the trouble. Yes, I remember how you said you did not fear having your head chopped off. The trouble is, it is not just YOU they are after, and your seeming lack of caring for what happens to your country and other Americans is pretty darn scary. THAT is what I mean when I say the left has become about me, me, me and the heck with the rest of you. And look at Kim Jong Il and Admadinejad...diplomacy is really working with them, isn't it? When are you and the left going to learn, for it to work both sides have to WANT it to work.
Please demonstrate to me how terrorists will respond to courage of conviction or fair-handedness. When did they ever show fair-handedness? They make cowardly craven attacks designed to murder as many as possible in one strike. There is no courage or fair-handedness in 9-11, in the Achille Lauro, in Beirut marine bombing, in the Cole, and the gazillion suicide bombings over the years, the embassy bombings...where in ANY of that do you think diplomacy would work? They are not of a country with whom you CAN negotiate. And you are willing to just keep the courage of your convictions, even knowing there is no possibility that will work, and allow yourself AND your fellow Americans who might not be like-minded to be murdered? And that is okay with you? No, sorry, I will NEVER understand that.
You said: No need for you to comment on this because I already know **I have my head in the sand** and do not need to hear you tell me again what a naive person I am, but they are my beliefs and I honor them and are proud of them because, no matter what happens, they are good and decent values and Iraq will not change my mind or my values.
I say: I do not believe you are naive. I believe you just choose to ignore and or rationalize what does not fit with your stated ideals, and I believe you have some noble ideas, and perhaps with a strong charactered, fair-handed enemy those ideals would be fruitful. They are not. They are the antithesis of strong character and fair-handedness.
But, I am sure you will be relieved to hear, I get it. I will not be foisting my opinion on you any longer, because as you say, there is no changing your mind, which is EXACTLY the point I am trying to make. As married as you are to your ideals, multiply that by about a gazillion and you know how the terrorists are married to their ideals. THEY are not going to change THEIR minds either, and we are NOT going to change THEIR minds by talking to them about strength of character and fair-mindedness.
And the rest of the story is that as long as there are still some Americans like us remaining, who are willing to go to the mat for America and ALL Americans, perhaps you will not ever have to give up the country and the way of life that let you form and hold those ideals.
You're welcome.
God bless.
never say cinch till the final tally is in!
x
She didn't have to be leading going into the final round to win, obviously!
There wouldn't be much point in the final round otherwise, would there? All five contestants in the final round are there because they have high enough scores that any of them can win.
About the same damage Clinton did in his final months after the election (NM)
x
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.
if abe is on the $5 bill & george is on the $1 bill, what is Obama on?
****censored****
Call me what you want, just don't call me late for dinner. LOL....
GP, I like your sense of humor.
You call it hysteria, some call it concern for the
nm
Then call it what it is...or call for conservation...
but don't make up a myth to try to gain control. That is what Gore is after...what all the global warming hoohah is after. They have an agenda...pure and simple. And the base fact is that a very low percentage of the greenhouse gas effect is from cars. Every time you breathe out, you contribute. Are we all going to stop breathing? Are cows going to stop belching? I have no problem with ethanol...I have used it. My husband is from Iowa...I would love it if we started using ethanol more extensively. But in previous years, Democrats (Hillary being a primary one) opposed the use of ethanol. I guess if I believed any of those people out there hawking global warming actually believed what they were saying it would be different...but I don't. The science is not there. As I said...if the real interest is conservation with the side benefit of less CO2...fine. Just say so. But as the article pointed out...if it is as bad as they say it is, you can't stop it anyway. It just does not make good sense to me.
Fine. Call if whatever you want to call it....
I will call it as I see it. I look at a totality of things. He has embraced black liberation theology which is racist and has Marxist tones for 20 years. There is no way the man went to that church for 20 years and did not know their doctrine. But, if you choose to believe that, again, fine. I do not. I believe he knows that theology backward and forward and believes it to his core. You don't have to. That is the wonderful thing about America. We can agree or disagree. On this we disagree.
Yes, I am feeling a pinch. But I don't think the government should take money from you and give it to me. I don't think they should take money from any private business and give it to me. If you think that is fair, fine. I don't. That is how socialism/Marxism takes hold. Historically it ends the same way. I don't want that for America. Perhaps you do...you want the pinch eased for you and if that means taking money from someone else that they earned, and giving it to you, who did not earn it, to you it is all good. To me it isn't.
He never has said who the $1000 checks are going to. I am thinking not every person in the whole US of A...so not only does he get to choose who he takes the money from, he gets to choose who to give it to. That would be another interesting piece of the puzzle. If he confirms to the Marxist view, it would be issuing checks to the "poor." And he gets to define who that is. You may be okay with that...me, not so much.
And by the way...have you ever researched an oil company profit margin? It is not as huge as Obama would like you to believe. But, again, he is counting on no one researching what he says. They hear free money and that's all they want to hear. Also, do you think oil companies don't employ people? You think it is one CEO at a desk in an office raking in billions? You don't think there are rank and file regular folks who work for oil companies? Whose jobs might be impacted by you and others wanting to take money away from their employers and doling it out to people who have not earned it? You think there is a chance they might have a problem with that?
I call, fax, and call again and I do campaign....
xx
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
|
