Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on March 16, 2009 at 11:47

Jim are you inferring that the current administration would have let Citigroup, Fannie, Freedie, Aig, GM, etc go down the tubes and the only reason they are still around is because a Republican President, against the wishes of the Democratic majority in Congress, forced it down their throats?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on March 16, 2009 at 12:05

Jim, you state the obvious and I don't necessarily disagree with you re the opposition to the bailouts. My question is what would the Dems have done differently after watching the havoc caused by the downfall of Lehman? Would they have added Citi, Fannie, Freddie, etc to the havoc created by Lehman's demise?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Don767 on March 21, 2009 at 12:32

Jim,
You are a liberal uneducated obama cool aid drinking IDIOT

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on March 21, 2009 at 14:00

Kool-Aid, Kool-Aid, tastes great, wish we had some, can't wait.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jay Murrell on March 16, 2009 at 12:49

You know, while it is true that the last administration proposed bailing out banks, it is also true that the Bush administration attempted to rein in Frannie and Freddie in 2005, but Chris Dodd and Barney Frank shot the effort down in their committees. Some would argue that the Community Reinvestment Act - lending to people that were not credit worthy - is at the crux of our present dilemma.

We could all play the blame game til the cows come home. Obama and his supporters will forever blame our economic predicament on the "mess they inherited".... I say they should take a look at Chris and Barney, but they wont.

Whatever.

The fact is that Maxine Waters speaks for most all liberal Democrats in Congress and she and Obama are Socialists. No ifs ands or buts. All one needs to do is look at his FY 2010 budget. These people are scary.....and isn't she special...:-)

The really good news is that according to the Rasmussen daily tracking poll the Bamster is down to a mere +4% net favorable (he was at +16% on March 6th). Here's what this means for those of us that have been wandering in the desert since January: along about the time he moves to dead even his support in Congress for his SOCALIST agenda will begin to seriously erode and maybe then we can start turning this liberal runaway train around.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by w.r. frank on March 16, 2009 at 14:02

In 2005, the Republican's controlled Congress (both Senate & house). Plus, you had old Mr. Veto in the Pres. Of course, he never saw a spending bill that needed vetoing.

Barney and Chris had about as much chance of "shooting down the effort" as the current minority Repubs do.

For the real truth, please look up the Republican lobbying effort ($2MM) solely with Repub US Senators which scuttled the Hagel effort in the Senate to rein in Freddie & Fannie. Also, check the volume of subprime and Alt. A loans originated from 2002 to 2005 with a Repub Pres and Repub control of Senate & House.

Let's see, when was Bush running for reelection and touting how many Americans had realized their dream of home ownership under his leadership in his first administration?

By the way, Rasmussen is a total Repub pollster. Check out his consistent out-of-whack polls all fall which had McCain far closer than any other poll.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jay Murrell on March 16, 2009 at 15:45

W.R. Frank:

You're right. Bush was not a conservative. He made some very serious mistakes. Couldn't agree more.

As to Rasmussen being a total Republican. I quess well see.

I sense Obama is slipping though. Time will tell.

JM

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on March 16, 2009 at 17:00

Mr. Krow - I'm considered grossly misinformed & naive, but I'll share some of my reading with you. Of course, I'm sure we've been reading this same material all along anyway. IMO, these minutes seem to confirm your take on this matter.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomccalendars.htm

Thanks, and best - sesport :0)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by OGCalifornia on March 17, 2009 at 3:54

Spring Branch, Mineral Owner,

They're still around grabbing multi-million dollar bonuses that they don't deserve, at the tax payer's expense. If they had failed where would those bonuses be right now? The Republican President should have protect us better. Someone yesterday proposed a 100% tax on that bonus money. I for one hope that happens. Otherwise it appears they're is nothing that can be done to to get that money back.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by olddog573 on March 17, 2009 at 5:07

I'd like to add to this thread. The best way I know how is to let Ronald Reagan speak for me.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.

Man is not free unless government is limited.


The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jay Murrell on March 16, 2009 at 11:56

I believe that Maxine Waters pretty well sums up the sentiment of a good number of liberal Democrats in the Congress. There are those here who view all income, personal or corporate, as belonging to the Feds. Witness how they lament the Treasury "losing" revenues because of lawful tax avoidance opportunities.

That's their mindset. Scary.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by J. A. on March 16, 2009 at 12:43

You make an ass out of yourself with your assumptions that he reads only the times.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 15
• Next ›
• Page