Reply With Quote
Amazing how unified the forum is on this. Something libs and conservs are both agreeing on in large numbers.
Paulson is telling us to give him money or else. Well before you think you should listen check this out.
First take the time to listen to Hank Greenberg, former AIG CEO who built the company, talk about how he was trying to save the company (without public money) but got the cold shoulder from AIG and Paulson.
http://www.charlierose.com/shows/200...hank-greenberg
Now we find out that that only private sector voice Paulson listened to about AIG was from Goldman Sachs (Paulson former company). Who just happened to have $20 billion to lose if AIG went down.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/bu...in&oref=slogin
Does something smell fishy to you? Do you really want to give Paulson $700 billion so that he can go shopping?
Last edited by SnakeBoy; 09-29-2008 at 09:52 PM.
Amazing how unified the forum is on this. Something libs and conservs are both agreeing on in large numbers.
Spitzer forced Greenberg out of AIG. My guess is that Greenburg, among others, was involved forcing out Spitzer. Greenberg ain't no saint.
He's sorta sounds like Greenspan, "ain't my fault, I was cool"
We should be. Congress and Paulson are trying to fleece us all.
+1...Newt Gingrich and Steve Forbes were just talking about him on Fox...
You notice it's all the millionaires and billionaires ing the loudest right?
Unlike the VCrew...I stand with Ron Paul on this one.
Yeah cuz those guys couldn't possibly have ulterior motives for doing so. Anyone else notice how ing crazy Steve Forbes seems? I'm afraid he's gonna straight up slice someone's face off when he does in studio interviews.
bet - M$M partisans will somehow attempt to nip this in the bud...we can't have a populist uprising with both Dems and Republicans now can we?
If you took McCain's foreign policy views and packaged them with Paul's domestic and economic platform, you'd have damn near a perfect candidate.
I'll take Newt's 'ulterior motives' over the ex-CEO of Goldman Sachs being pissed that the taxpayers won't hand him $700 billion to save his rich friends from Wall Street, thank you.
Forbes has always been a free market guy.
Your voice can make a difference...who knew?
Fortune: Why the bailout bombed
Republicans might blame Pelosi's rhetoric, but the message that mattered was the one that came from voters back home.
By Nina Easton, Washington bureau chief
September 29, 2008
WASHINGTON (Fortune) --CNN MoneyBarely containing his temper, Virginia's Eric Cantor, deputy whip for the House Republicans, stepped to the microphone this afternoon to blame the bailout defeat on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's "failure to listen" and her charged partisan rhetoric in condemning President George Bush's "budgetary recklessness" and "anything-goes mentality."
If only it were that simple. If only the failure of the White House to muster enough votes from its own party to avert what it calls looming financial disaster could be blamed on a few ill-chosen words uttered on the House floor by San Francisco's hyper-partisan speaker.
In fact, Monday's surprise defeat of the $700 billion rescue package - meant to blunt a burgeoning financial crisis - can be traced to a failure on the part of the president and his treasury secretary, Henry Paulson, to fully appreciate the ferocity of the popular revolt they touched off nine days ago.
Republicans today voted against the measure by two to one. With only 60% of Democrats also voting in favor, the plan to have the government buy up hundreds of billions in assets, mostly mortgage-backed securities, went down to defeat.
The reality is that conservative House members were less interested in the ear-ache they got from Pelosi than the earful they've been getting from cons uents. Calls to Congressional offices have been running overwhelmingly against the rescue - just five weeks before cons uents go to the polls to vote on their members....
***
(T)here were many fence-sitters who, as of Monday morning, the White House had assumed were in its column. Pelosi may not have helped, but the plan died because Republicans weren't willing to ignore a revolt among the folks back home and cast a rushed vote on a massively complex subject with an almost unfathomable price tag....
You know is whack when Dan quotes a mainstream news source.
I particularly like that he wants to tell the UN to go eff themselves. It's not even all of his foreign policy really...just his military policy IMO.
Paul's isolationist at ude ignores the entire nature of 20th century conflict...plus it's irresponsible. Other than that I agree with him on most stuff.
Yes it'd be nice to stay out of foreign entanglements...no it's not an option, in fact it'll actually end up causing more American deaths and get us into more wars.
Last edited by whottt; 09-30-2008 at 01:14 AM.
I am with Whott on this. Rom Paul can school a bunch of these guys on economics. I like his foreign policy perspective better than McCain's to some degree. It would be great if we broke from supporting zionist Isreali policies by supporting their moderates more and started moving from an oil-based economy. Both of those issues keep the Middle East churning. The problem with Paul's economics is that it too simple and disregards some of the complexities of a modern society (public roads & infrastructure, do let people die in the doorways of hospitals, polluted air & water doesn't respect political boundaries, etc.) but right he is golden on calling them out on debasing the currency.
Here are some compiled Ron Paul speeches. He's nailing it.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...aspx?source=nl
Last edited by byrontx; 09-30-2008 at 09:05 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
