Well you really shouldn't count people who collect government paychecksXXXIV wrote:
Believe it or not....There are still some morons out there who think there is no government waste..

Moderators: Bill_Abner, ScoopBrady
Well you really shouldn't count people who collect government paychecksXXXIV wrote:
Believe it or not....There are still some morons out there who think there is no government waste..
RobVarak wrote:Well you really shouldn't count people who collect government paychecksXXXIV wrote:
Believe it or not....There are still some morons out there who think there is no government waste..
Then in these debates they bring up who passed or rejected these bills and you never know what the true reason was. Why isn't there a law that you can't add on anything "unrelated" to an existing bill or that any bill over a certain amount must stand alone. This bs has got to stop!XXXIV wrote:These assholes do this s*** with every bill...They add and add and add to pass them.JackB1 wrote:I just read that this $700B bill had an additional $1.7Billion attached to it.
Why is this stuff even allowed? It's disgraceful. But what's another $1.7 Billion amongst friends?
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/ar ... RE,XLF,SPY
BUT...
Believe it or not....There are still some morons out there who think there is no government waste..
Remember, these are the people who use the Constitution's grant of power over interstate commerce to regulate whatever they damn well please by drawing some ludicrously tenuous connection to interstate commerce.JackB1 wrote:Then in these debates they bring up who passed or rejected these bills and you never know what the true reason was. Why isn't there a law that you can't add on anything "unrelated" to an existing bill or that any bill over a certain amount must stand alone. This bs has got to stop!XXXIV wrote:These assholes do this s*** with every bill...They add and add and add to pass them.JackB1 wrote:I just read that this $700B bill had an additional $1.7Billion attached to it.
Why is this stuff even allowed? It's disgraceful. But what's another $1.7 Billion amongst friends?
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/ar ... RE,XLF,SPY
BUT...
Believe it or not....There are still some morons out there who think there is no government waste..
The markets seem to think it's worse in Europe than in the U.S. That is why the dollar has been posting massive gains despite the ballooning U.S. budget deficit applying downward pressure.Rodster wrote:It looks like the US isn't the only one with a Banking crisis. You can add Europe to the list as well. Germany had to rescue one of it's Banks yesterday.
One guy is trying.JackB1 wrote:
Then in these debates they bring up who passed or rejected these bills and you never know what the true reason was. Why isn't there a law that you can't add on anything "unrelated" to an existing bill or that any bill over a certain amount must stand alone. This bs has got to stop!
McCain also said that "if we don't stop the earmarking, we're not going to stop the abuses of power here in Washington." He suggested that his own party was largely responsible.
"In 1994, when the Congress was taken over by Republicans, there were 4,000 earmarks on appropriations bills," he told the committee. "Last year there were 15,000. It's disgraceful, this process."
Stop it JD, you know that the McCain running today isn't the same one from 2006JackDog wrote:One guy is trying.JackB1 wrote:
Then in these debates they bring up who passed or rejected these bills and you never know what the true reason was. Why isn't there a law that you can't add on anything "unrelated" to an existing bill or that any bill over a certain amount must stand alone. This bs has got to stop!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01285.html
McCain also said that "if we don't stop the earmarking, we're not going to stop the abuses of power here in Washington." He suggested that his own party was largely responsible.
"In 1994, when the Congress was taken over by Republicans, there were 4,000 earmarks on appropriations bills," he told the committee. "Last year there were 15,000. It's disgraceful, this process."
These events are not unforseen and were never intended to be directly addressed by the bailout.And it's particularly scary given the news that European super-bank Fortis may fail on Monday. We're potentially looking at a liquidity crisis that won't even be addressed by this bailout and which will require re-tooling the FDIC and other measures to prevent cascading bank failures.
She doesn't have to. They rope-a-doped the republicans into going along with them, so now, like always, the finger of blame can be leveled elsewhere. I think she'll blame the house republicans for not doing it sooner. b*tch.pk500 wrote:I wonder if Pelosi will take the floor of the Senate today and blame herself for the Dow dropping below 10,000 in a speech filled with partisan rancor.
And how do Hank Paulson's stock options look right now?
Take care,
PK
Easy, now. Don't forget that the King Cowboy of the GOP has pushed this bailout to the hilt from the start, and so has the GOP candidate for president.Teal wrote:She doesn't have to. They rope-a-doped the republicans into going along with them, so now, like always, the finger of blame can be leveled elsewhere. I think she'll blame the house republicans for not doing it sooner. b*tch.
Oh, yeah, I'm well aware of that, and Bush isn't winning any support from me over this baloney. I was actually just referring to the house republicans who were smart enough note to vote for this thing the first time. Bohner will not get my vote to go back to Washington, either. I have only one represenative who didn't sign off on this mess, and he'll get my vote.pk500 wrote:Easy, now. Don't forget that the King Cowboy of the GOP has pushed this bailout to the hilt from the start, and so has the GOP candidate for president.Teal wrote:She doesn't have to. They rope-a-doped the republicans into going along with them, so now, like always, the finger of blame can be leveled elsewhere. I think she'll blame the house republicans for not doing it sooner. b*tch.
This thing is a bi-partisan Band-Aid.
Take care,
PK
The explanation for why McCain and others supported the bill is available throughout this thread. I suggest checking out the Freakonomics links that I posted several pages back for analysis written mostly in English.matthewk wrote:Does anyone have any links explaining why McCain voted for this? He keeps talking about eliminating wasteful spending, but he voted for a bill where they added another $100 billion in earmarks.
The whole thing is coming apart at the seams. On one level it's a pretty fundamental failure involving lack of effective government regulation and financial industry incentives to deliberately distort the management of risk.wco81 wrote:Part of what's happening now is that the EU countries are trying to decide if they need to do a bailout.
Also the market seems to be clamoring for cuts in interest rates, not only from the Fed but coordinated with the ECB, the BOE and other central banks.
You could say the market is holding governments hostage around the world.
Oh and on another forum, I glanced at a thread title claiming that AIG execs. spent over $400k at some resort AFTER Uncle Sam said they'd give them money.
A little while back I went and visited a friends mother in a nursing home.dougb wrote:
However, when the underpinnings of the economy for some time now have been ever increasing levels of consumer debt, there's a sense that there is something fundamentally wrong with the way the economy is structured. Flat real wage growth combined with robust growth in spending doesn't seem like a scenario that generally ends well.
Best wishes,
Doug