Damn - we need another Boston Tea Party. Only instead of tossing crates of tea, we should toss all these bozos into Boston Harbor - or the Potomac since it's closer to Capital Hill! :bangQuote:
Originally Posted by Aggie Hoopsfan
Printable View
Damn - we need another Boston Tea Party. Only instead of tossing crates of tea, we should toss all these bozos into Boston Harbor - or the Potomac since it's closer to Capital Hill! :bangQuote:
Originally Posted by Aggie Hoopsfan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aggie Hoopsfan
Rick Noriega
what is sad is that Cornyn himself said he was getting emails 100-1 against. The race was a statistical tie, until tommorrow. How fast do think it will take Rick to put up a commerical about this shit?
McCain sucks ass for voting for this after saying he'd veto any pork and make em famous. Stupid move especially since he could have voted against it and it would have still passed...that's going to be used against him now. What an idiot.
And no I'm not voting for Obama because of it. The enthusiastic socialist is still much worse than the reluctant one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
This guy is a socialist, that is his admitted political affiliation. The first one ever elected to the Senate in American History. I bet he's supportive of it.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ie_Sanders.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders
Bernard "Bernie" Sanders (born September 8, 1941) is the current junior United States Senator from Vermont. Sanders was elected on November 7, 2006, and is currently a member of the 110th United States Congress. Before becoming Senator, Sanders represented Vermont's at-large district in the United States House of Representatives for 16 years.
Sanders is a self-described democratic socialist, but because he does not belong to a formal political party he appears as an independent on the ballot.
But not the last.
McCain is a fucking idiot. This asshole is trying to throw the election. I'm convinced. :lmao
One minute he's against it, the next for it. Then he voted against it.Quote:
Originally Posted by whottt
I thought it was McCain on a landslide... :rolleyesQuote:
Originally Posted by whottt
Actually it's exactly what Alexander Hamilton did do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aggie Hoopsfan
I think Krugman put it well...
I think it has a chance to fail the house, but its really small. The "audible" reaction that congress was hearing before this was that the general public hated the bill. After the 777 drop the other day, the general public does NOT oppose the bill in the same manner. I still think its hard to tell exactly what the public feels, but I think after the Dow drop more people are scared of what might happen and are thus in favor of voting for this bill.Quote:
Here’s the thing: it’s very hard for Congress to originate complex financial rescues, so it’s normally up to the executive to put things together. Unfortunately, Paulson came up with an awful plan. Ideally, the Dems would have ripped the thing up and started over, but that was never realistic. So instead they made it significantly better, but still building on the original, misconceived structure; it became better than nothing, but not good.
And then it failed in the House, so the Senate has larded it up, with stuff like SEC. 503. EXEMPTION FROM EXCISE TAX FOR CERTAIN WOODEN ARROWS DESIGNED FOR USE BY CHILDREN.
I think that Congressional leaders know that it’s a bad bill, but feel compelled to defend it, because they’re (rightly) scared of the financial consequences of a second rejection. And to some extent economists like myself are in the same position; I think I called it the “hold your nose caucus.”
So am I for the bill? Yuk, phooey, I guess so. And I’m very angry at Paulson for putting us in this position.
That being said, if the House members voted against this figuring that this sway in public opinion would happen then I'm pretty damn impressed since that was a genius political move. I'm not sure that's the case, but if that was discussed behind closed doors then some people are on the (political - not necessarily economic) ball.
It's ridiculous that people are saying the wealthy aren't going to eat it on a collapse...I can't believe anyone believes that shit. You notice it's mainly the wealthy saying we need to do it for the people?
All these people thinking they've saved their IRA's major loss are in for a rude awakening when they market finally does collapse....and they get a total loss.
I suggest all you guys that were in favor of this to save your 401k or IRA's see what you can do to better protect your assets. It's easy to do with a 401K...
Sanders was actually giving a speech about an amendment that he proposed to the bill ("The Sanders Amendment"), that would have paid for much of the bailout by taxing the rich.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
Quote:
Sanders’ amendment calls for a 10-percent tax surcharge on individuals who make more than $500,000 annually and couples earning more than $1 million.
Sanders will not vote for the broader Senate bailout bill unless it contains the amendment he authored, said Will Wiquist, the senator’s spokesman today.
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/a...EWS03/81001041
You know it's sad that we've gone from fighting about which President will make the better candidate to, "Oh well, it doesn't matter, they both fucked us over and now our economy is going to tank because of it."
...
Sad day to be an American. :(
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cry Havoc
Hey, look on the bright side, if you got more than 100K in a single bank account you're now insured for up to 250k.
I know I lose sleep at night over losing that 100k I keep in my checking account :tu
Sweeeet. 250k might be enough to buy a month's worth of groceries soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by whottt