The Bailout

Dan McKenzie · Post by **Dan McKenzie** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 7:59 am

How is it that it comes down to needing to have a plan put it place in a weeks time when this crisis has been building momentum for more than a year? What kind of shell game are they playing now?

I think it's pure b.s. to shove this down American throats, and have taxpayers bail these guys out by buying their bad debt. I say if this is the case then we should also get a piece of all future profits of these companies instead of taking their bad debt and having to hope that it can be sold at a later time. The executives of these firms will walk away with outrageous sums of taxpayers money and laugh their arses off all the way to the bank.

talk about kool-aid, take another drink and you'll feel better.

Ringer · Post by **Ringer** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:15 am

Socialism at it's finest. Republicans and democrats are both responsible for the fleecing of America. Let it crash and we can suffer another great depression. I am willing to give it all up for my grandson to have a life with some opportunity. Hey, let's allocate a few hundred billion extra to bail out the dumb arses on main street while we are at it. Morons one and all.

getalife · Post by **getalife** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:30 am

Ringer wrote:Let it crash and we can suffer another great depression. I am willing to give it all up for my grandson to have a life with some opportunity.

I have been thinking the same thing... Let it all crash. Lets take all the pain now so we can start to recover. This bailout may just be prolonging the inevitable.

Greg_Cornish · Post by **Greg_Cornish** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:38 am

Listening to the radio this morning. Feinstein was on telling how she's been told by the big cheeses that they are telling her that the position we're in right now is, "Like waking up on Friday and finding you have no credit, aren't insured and that businesses won't do business with other businesses, there is no food at the supermarkets and no gas at the pumps."

She says the public is not being told this because they might panic. Well, is she trying to panic the public? I don't get her reasoning. She never hesitated to insert self congratulations on her work on this issue and condemn the other side while talking up bipartisanism to solve the problem. Gawd when will both side stop this crap?

Dan McKenzie · Post by **Dan McKenzie** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 9:01 am

I agree. Right now we have a 9 trillion dollar debt and we will continue adding to that with the bailout. They say 700 billion, by the time they finish with us it'll be double or triple that number. Whatever happens this is going to be a huge pill to swallow.

Greg_Cornish · Post by **Greg_Cornish** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 9:18 am

getalife wrote:....Let it all crash. Lets take all the pain now so we can start to recover. This bailout may just be prolonging the inevitable.

Can you expect the grandchildren to survive a depression?

Greg_Cornish · Post by **Greg_Cornish** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 11:22 am

sTony · Post by **sTony** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 2:47 pm

Looking at that grid brought back something into my memory from 1981 and Reagan's Address before a joint session of the Congress on the Program for Economic Recovery

"Can we, who man the ship of state, deny it is somewhat out of control? Our national debt is approaching $1 trillion. A few weeks ago I called such a figure, a trillion dollars, incomprehensible, and I've been trying ever since to think of a way to illustrate how big a trillion really is. And the best I could come up with is that if you had a stack of thousand-dollar bills in your hand only 4 inches high, you'd be a millionaire. A trillion dollars would be a stack of thousand-dollar bills 67 miles high. The interest on the public debt this year we know will be over $90 billion, and unless we change the proposed spending for the fiscal year beginning October 1st, we'll add another almost $80 billion to the debt."

By the looks of the graph, spending under Reagan just continued to ramp upwards.

But here's more, the source being http://www.newscred.com/:

"If you could balance a trillion-dollar stack of $1000 bills, it would actually rise to just over 63 miles. But Reagan's speechwriter was bad at more than arithmetic. His image failed because few Americans had ever seen a $1000 bill. Calculating with the currency we are most familiar with - the $20 that ATMs spit out - the stack would have been 3150 miles high when Reagan delivered that speech. By the time he left office and was transformed into a Republican icon, the national debt had nearly tripled from the $993 billion owed when he arrived to $2.6 trillion. The twenties would have soared 8190 miles high.

Compared with the current White House occupant, however, Reagan was thrifty. Mister Bush has already added $4 trillion to the debt, 12,600 miles tacked onto the imaginary stack, putting it at 30,240 miles, with 119 days yet to go in his term. And that's before adding another trillion dollars for the bailout."

Interesting stuff, ya think?

sTony

PS - Those Clinton #'s are astonishing to me.

FishaHallic · Post by **FishaHallic** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:25 pm

For some reason republicans think that it's ok to run up a deficit but yet harp on people that live beyond there means. Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.

StockOption · Post by **StockOption** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 4:15 pm

Please.

So tell me why did the good ole USA spend all that money while Bush was in office? You certainly cannot keep a straight face and think it was solely his doing and/or the republicans by themselves?

The effects of 9/11 (which in case you forgot was an unprecedented attack within the continental USA by a terrorist enemy the likes of which we've never dealt with before) certainly was and continues to be one of the MAJOR spending contributors. And I have NO PROBLEM spending as much as it takes to combat that enemy from now to eternity. (Also it's worth noting that Bush's approval rating shortly following 9/11 was the highest ever recorded, but I bet you forgot that too.)

Too bad too, as one could argue that if Clinton had spent a little more time and money on defense and national security that this tremendous expenditure could have been avoided in the following administration.

sTony · Post by **sTony** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 5:05 pm

StockOption wrote:And I have NO PROBLEM spending as much as it takes to combat that enemy from now to eternity.

Evenif it bankrupts your country?

Is that what we're doing in Iraq? Ousted the ruling regime. Never found the WMD that the Bush 'intelligence' said was there. Afghanistan I understand completely. Iraq? Not so sure. And couldn't we have done something about Hussein years earlier when Daddy Bush was in office and our troops were on the doorstep and could have moved right on in. Seems to me Jr. Bush wanted to clean up dear old dad's unfinished business. Sure blame Clinton. But if you use the old Reagan V Carter mantra, "Are you better off now then you were before", I'd have to say most Americans would say without hesitation, NO.

sTony

StockOption · Post by **StockOption** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 5:40 pm

We did find a WMD. In fact the biggest one (responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths of Iraqis and Kuwaitis) was found hiding in a spider hole. And you know what, it was worth it to have him left hanging on a rope for all of eternity. If that is all we get out of Iraq I'm good with that, if by chance we get a free and democratic state in that part of the world, well that would be an even greater accomplishment. Definitely acceptable risk in my opinion.

And actually I am better off than I was 8 years ago. But that has more to do with my decision making, work ethic and personal responsibility than anything the government has done to me or for me. I plan to succeed no matter who is calling the shots

StockOption · Post by **StockOption** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 5:42 pm

Ohh and I would not "blame" Clinton. But he certainly can bear some responsibility for the events that transpired on 9/11, clearly.

Guy Kelley · Post by **Guy Kelley** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:11 pm

So what ?? and who really cares, Do you really think this administration really cares about who or what you or I really think !? He's a lame duck !!

Bush sold us a bill of crap when he went after Hussein in the first place ! I agree totally it was to clean up Daddy's mess and secure the oil fields. Remember Halliburton and that Bush is a Oil Man !!! It made seance to me to be in Afganistan and kick the Taliban and Al-quata butts back to the stone age. The Sunni and Shiites have been killing each other for a thousand years, and will do so for a thousand more ! Long after we leave !!

Now if ya ask me who is going to profit from this finances house of cards that has been built, those are the guys and gals, that I would like to pull out of there spider holes and hang on WALL STREET ! Sort of like the short stockers and oil future speculators !

fishsmith · Post by **fishsmith** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:31 pm

sTony wrote:
PS - Those Clinton #'s are astonishing to me.

Gotta love those Gingrich years

smittyfish · Post by **smittyfish** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 7:03 pm

Hey sTony,

What exactly is Bush "inteligence"?????

The ultimate oxymoron with emphisis on moron.

FishaHallic · Post by **FishaHallic** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 7:14 pm

StockOption wrote:Please.

So tell me why did the good ole USA spend all that money while Bush was in office? You certainly cannot keep a straight face and think it was solely his doing and/or the republicans by themselves?

The effects of 9/11 (which in case you forgot was an unprecedented attack within the continental USA by a terrorist enemy the likes of which we've never dealt with before) certainly was and continues to be one of the MAJOR spending contributors. And I have NO PROBLEM spending as much as it takes to combat that enemy from now to eternity. (Also it's worth noting that Bush's approval rating shortly following 9/11 was the highest ever recorded, but I bet you forgot that too.)

.

No the republicans are not completly responsible but by far they bear the brunt of the problem. If I remember right during the second term of Clinton we had a republican house and senate. For the first 6 years fo Bush we had a republican house and senate, am I right on this or not? So yes, I think the republicans can take 90% of the blame and we can match that up with McSame agreeing with Bush 90% of the time which will = DOOM.

I certainly won't blame Bush for 9/11 but him more than Clinton that is for sure. And as far as GWs approval rating, well that's called the country coming together. I'm sure you don't want to talk about his approval rating now do you?

Stock Option you also said this "We did find a WMD. In fact the biggest one (responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths of Iraqis and Kuwaitis) was found hiding in a spider hole. And you know what, it was worth it to have him left hanging on a rope for all of eternity. If that is all we get out of Iraq I'm good with that, if by chance we get a free and democratic state in that part of the world, well that would be an even greater accomplishment. Definitely acceptable risk in my opinion. "

I am sure most of the 4,000+ american soldiers killed in Iraq don't think it was an acceptable risk. And if you have a thought of Iraq being a free and democratic state you must be a dreamer because it is not going to happen in my life time or yours.

StockOption · Post by **StockOption** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 7:21 pm

smittyfish wrote:Hey sTony,

What exactly is Bush "inteligence"?????

The ultimate oxymoron with emphisis on moron.

It's the same intelligence that the other "morons" used to decide to remove Saddam from power by authorizing military use in Iraq with Joint Resolution 114 voted on October 11, 2002 in congress:

US Senate: 77 Yea, 23 Nea
US House: 296 Yea, 133 Nea

So either Bush was smart enough to fool 373 of our esteemed congressional leaders or the intelligence presented, combined with the time, combined with the past history of Saddam was enough to finally have us go finish this dictator.

I do 100% agree that we should have handled this when he first invaded Kuwait.

StockOption · Post by **StockOption** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 7:36 pm

FishaHallic wrote:I am sure most of the 4,000+ american soldiers killed in Iraq don't think it was an acceptable risk. And if you have a thought of Iraq being a free and democratic state you must be a dreamer because it is not going to happen in my life time or yours.

Perhaps, but I can almost assure you that far more of our men and women do think bringing peace and stability to this part of the world (or any part for that matter) is noble, is a worthwhile risk and is a role they are comfortable in fulfilling.

We should all want this to be successful, the people of Iraq deserve to live in peace after living under the horror of this brutal dictator (who by the way used WMD's several times himself) for decades.

StockOption · Post by **StockOption** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 7:49 pm

Guy Kelley wrote:So what ?? and who really cares, Do you really think this administration really cares about who or what you or I really think !? He's a lame duck !!

That's the problem no administration does care or really has. But each party trying to win power falls over themselves proclaiming how they and only they can represent and help us "the masses". It seems our government is all about the "government". (PERIOD)

That's why I tend to lean towards the more conservative ideals of smaller government, less taxes and more personal responsibility. I will not argue that the Bush administration has held up many of these tenents it clearly hasn't.

I can take care of myself and my family and the day I'm left waiting for the government to come and rescue me or bail me out is the day I hope the good lord decides to come and take me home.

Dan McKenzie · Post by **Dan McKenzie** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 7:59 pm

If you honestly believe that congress got the same intel as the Bushites, then you are pretty gulible. Approving the use of force isn't the same as declaring war. I wholeheartedly believe this administration had a pre-conceived plan to go after Saddam, with reckless abandon, without regard to the ultimate consequences. They cooked it and then spoon fed it to all of us like babies in a highchair. They did it under the guise of patriotism and the war on terror. The terrorists were never there before we arrived.

And meanwhile Bin Laden, the real terrorist is still out there, justice never having been served. Why? One man and his ragtag group of cowards agaisnt the might of the USA. Hogwash, I don't believe for a single second if we had sent America's finest after him in earnest that he wouldn't have already taken his last breath.

Bush has done a masterful job keeping people pre-occupied with "terror", they're around every corner, red light, amber light blah blah blah terror alerts. Terror cells in every community, lurking behind closed doors and drawn shades-ooh it's the boogey man and they are going to get you. Do you really believe this crap?

Why do you think in the middle of the war on terror, a general like Colin Powell goes by the wayside for Rice? Yeah she had a great deal of experience.

Bush and his goons have stepped into one preverbial pile after another, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Georgia, Bolivia, Venezuela, blah blah blah. He's accomplished one thing, world wide instability, strained relations with nearly every ally we have (had).

Your right the Democrats are at fault, for backing down to this punk at almost every turn, and each and everyone of us is at fault for not demanding accountability from our elected representitives.

Oh well you can't squeeze lemonade from a turnip, a pig with lipstick is still a pig, the price of gas is still outrageous, groceries are skyrocketing, heating your home this winter should be interesting (glad I put that pellet stove in!) The sum result of the past 8 years is failed policies and a government out of control.

Since this thread got jacked, figured I add wood to the pile.

StockOption · Post by **StockOption** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:09 pm

Dan McKenzie wrote:If you honestly believe that congress got the same intel as the Bushites, then you are pretty gulible. Approving the use of force isn't the same as declaring war. I wholeheartedly believe this administration had a pre-conceived plan to go after Saddam, with reckless abandon, without regard to the ultimate consequences. They cooked it and then spoon fed it to all of us like babies in a highchair. They did it under the guise of patriotism and the war on terror. The terrorists were never there before we arrived.

I've heard this over and over again and have never seen a single reliable, fact to back this up. How do you know for sure that congress didn't receive the same intel? And then I have a lot of trouble with the ultimate motivation the administration would be serving with this "the greatest guise" ever laid on the American public. Oil? Cause Dad didn't finish? ...??

I find it hard to believe that folks who think Bush and his administration are such ultimate dolts are cabable of such a devious plan. It don't add up, sorry.

sTony · Post by **sTony** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:52 pm

StockOption wrote:And actually I am better off than I was 8 years ago.

Good for you Stocks!!! That's truly good to hear. I know you're not alone.

Working in my industry, fishing, has got a lot of people who worked hard, had a good work ethic and so on still reeling because most of us are experiencing some pretty tough times. I've seen boat dealerships close and most others are on the ropes right now. Tackle stores are really having a tough go of it as well, so in turn so are the manufacturers. Fishing and Hunting News closed its doors after 65 years and the other mags are struggling at best. It's certainly gut check time. We here exist on advertising revenues from the above, so when they feel the pinch, so do we. It's been a tough last few months. Hopefully there's a light at the end of the tunnel.

sTony

reddhedd · Post by **reddhedd** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 9:44 pm

This has to be the most civil political thread on this forum...atleast from the short time I have been here. Props to all that have posted.

Couple of points:

1-If this whole deal in Iraq was to secure the oil fields, why would the US stand by and let gas prices go through the roof. If it was about oil, we'd be controling the fields and getting the oil cheap. I am glad we went in and got rid of Saddam, but at this point in the whole situtation, Iraq needs to cover the costs of securing their country instead of stock pilling billions while we foot the bill.

2-The graph was interesting. Assuming I am understanding it correctly (average debt of the American citizen) this is my take...Clinton was in the right place at the right time. He didn't do a whole lot to make the boom happen, he just happened to be president when the interenet sky rocketed. (if someone can post some info on what Clinton did to make it happen, I'd love to see it) Again, this is my take...agree or disagree, but things were good-no-they were great!, then 911 happened. Business slowed to a crawl and people were still in the mindset they were when money was basically growing on trees. How do you continue that life style even though the trees dried up...CREDIT.

3-This current fiasco about the bailout - How could the banks, the administration, and congress not see this coming. I'm in one of these Neg Am loans. I qualified for one of these loans based on being able to make my minimum payment which wasn't even covering all the interest. No way in hell could I have covered the $4000 payment my loan would go to at the end of the term at the time I qualified. I got the house for about $75000 less than the going rate for my area. My plan was to get into a house with a Neg Am then refi in 2 years into a REAL loan. Nope... Luckily some good career decisions over those 2 years and we're able to. Not the case for most. My point, how did they figure people would be able to afford a loan that went from $2000 a month to $4000!

4-What is my opinion on what the federal gov't should be? - Protection, law and order, and infastructure. That simple. The gov't shouldn't be bailing you out whether you made bad business decisions or decided to have 4 kids with 4 different deadbeats. I guess it's too late, at this point, to not do anything to fix the credit crisis. However, it goes back to protection. They should have gotten involved when the lending got out of hand, just like they get involved when a company produces a faulty car or an unsafe kids toy, or a crop is tanted.

This country needs some serious cleaning up and I am not confident that either of the candidates can do it.

The People · Post by **The People** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:48 pm

StockOption wrote: I find it hard to believe that folks who think Bush and his administration are such ultimate dolts are cabable of such a devious plan. It don't add up, sorry.

Bush is the dolt; the puppet if you will, of other individuals in his administration who are political geniuses. Not only political geniuses are they, but masters of manipulation as well.

Congress had the same "intelligence" that the Bush Admin had, but only after it had been filtered and edited and cherry-picked to make the case for war. Congress only had what had been fed to them by the White House. The CIA reports to the President, not to congress. To say that they had the same intel as the White House is to ignore the gross misrepresentation of the intel that the White House engaged in when presenting it to Congress.
Basically, the Bush Administration lied. They lied to Congress and lied to the American People about the real threat from Iraq. We can't blame Bush, because he was not the architect of the manipulation. I think he honestly believed that the reason to invade Iraq was to spread democracy. Unfortunately, he was and still is being played, just as Congress was painted in to a corner by the manipulative individuals who were chomping at the bit to invade Iraq, and just needed a large scale event like 9-11 to confuse the public and build support for the invasion.

The benefit to the manipulators? (Again, not Bush since he is a willing puppet in this and every other mess we're dealing with now) The benefit was the wholesale enrichment of the defense contractors and the oil industry, from which all of the Bush administration higher-ups are former members of and current investors in. This administration will go down in history as the largest and most profitable collection of thieves in U.S. history. And they stole it all from you and me, and every other tax payer in the country, and all of our children and grandchildren who will be saddled with the debt that was incurred to enrich the elite few.

The People · Post by **The People** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:59 pm

reddhedd wrote:This has to be the most civil political thread on this forum...atleast from the short time I have been here. Props to all that have posted.

Couple of points:

1-If this whole deal in Iraq was to secure the oil fields, why would the US stand by and let gas prices go through the roof. If it was about oil, we'd be controling the fields and getting the oil cheap. I am glad we went in and got rid of Saddam, but at this point in the whole situtation, Iraq needs to cover the costs of securing their country instead of stock pilling billions while we foot the bill.

2-The graph was interesting. Assuming I am understanding it correctly (average debt of the American citizen) this is my take...Clinton was in the right place at the right time. He didn't do a whole lot to make the boom happen, he just happened to be president when the interenet sky rocketed. (if someone can post some info on what Clinton did to make it happen, I'd love to see it) Again, this is my take...agree or disagree, but things were good-no-they were great!, then 911 happened. Business slowed to a crawl and people were still in the mindset they were when money was basically growing on trees. How do you continue that life style even though the trees dried up...CREDIT.

3-This current fiasco about the bailout - How could the banks, the administration, and congress not see this coming. I'm in one of these Neg Am loans. I qualified for one of these loans based on being able to make my minimum payment which wasn't even covering all the interest. No way in hell could I have covered the $4000 payment my loan would go to at the end of the term at the time I qualified. I got the house for about $75000 less than the going rate for my area. My plan was to get into a house with a Neg Am then refi in 2 years into a REAL loan. Nope... Luckily some good career decisions over those 2 years and we're able to. Not the case for most. My point, how did they figure people would be able to afford a loan that went from $2000 a month to $4000!

4-What is my opinion on what the federal gov't should be? - Protection, law and order, and infastructure. That simple. The gov't shouldn't be bailing you out whether you made bad business decisions or decided to have 4 kids with 4 different deadbeats. I guess it's too late, at this point, to not do anything to fix the credit crisis. However, it goes back to protection. They should have gotten involved when the lending got out of hand, just like they get involved when a company produces a faulty car or an unsafe kids toy, or a crop is tanted.

This country needs some serious cleaning up and I am not confident that either of the candidates can do it.

Great post Red!

The only thing I'll respond to is #1 on your list.
I don't think the invasion was purely for oil, at least not domestic oil supply. It was more about controlling world-wide oil invetory. If a company or a small collection of companies can control supply, they can then manipulate demand and set prices to where they are most profitable. By eliminating a portion of the world's oil supply, the vendors can justify price hikes at the pump by claiming supply and demand. Which is exactly what they've done. Profitablility is also controlled by consumers, and when gas prices hit a level at which people started driving less and decreasing demand, we saw gas prices fall a bit then stabilize. So apparently, somewhere around $4 a gallon is where Americans can justify paying at the pump for the convenience of mobility that automobiles provide. Above that and consumers don't think it's worth the expense. And that's what we have now, gas prices hovering just below $4 a gallon on average. And the public is happy to pay that much, as long as prices don't reach the $5 neighborhood again. And with our blind satisfaction in the small drop of prices at the pump, big oil continues to rake in record profits and will continue to do so as long as we remain blind to their game.

sTony · Post by **sTony** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 11:16 pm

I think we're all kind of wondering where the option is for us when buying gasoline. I still gripe at paying $3.59 a gallon. It's highway robbery to my mind. I also get upset when I listen to the 'media' talking about the oil dependent culture we have. Since when have I ever had an option? I drive a truck so I can tow the boat, both use extreme amounts of gasoline. But since when was I ever presented an option? And yes, I truly believe several options have been curtailed to keep the status quo.

But make no mistake about it, I don't think anybody is any 'happier' paying $3.50 a gallon then they were when it was over $4.

sTony

The People · Post by **The People** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 11:46 pm

sTony, there are options out there.

Your truck and bass boat could easily be powered by natural gas or biodiesel instead of gasoline, but it would take a wholesale change in mindset of the American people and the automobile industries to make it happen and give you the choice you desire.

There are many alternative energy sources that are technologically sound, reliable and renewable. Big oil has done everything in their power to supress alternative energy sources, even to the tune of running television commercials trying to convince us that all of the alternative solutions combined would not meet our consumption needs. It is utter bologna. Solar panels, using current technology, on a home's roof can provide that home with all its electricity needs. Natural gas vehicles currently exist and run much cleaner, with greater fuel efficiency, than current oil combustion engines do. There is enough wind and opportunities for wind energy capture to power the entirety of the United States on a day-to-day basis, without ever dipping into a deficit energy consumption no matter what the temperature or weather conditions of the nation.

The problem right now is that our current suppliers of energy would like you and all of us to believe that they are the only game in town. Not true. We CAN break our dependence on oil, but only if industry, government, and the public demand it.

sTony · Post by **sTony** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 4:08 am

That's what I said, I can't pull up anywhere and purchase an option. There's only one game in town so to speak.

sTony

StockOption · Post by **StockOption** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:29 am

The People wrote:Basically, the Bush Administration lied. They lied to Congress and lied to the American People about the real threat from Iraq. We can't blame Bush, because he was not the architect of the manipulation. I think he honestly believed that the reason to invade Iraq was to spread democracy. Unfortunately, he was and still is being played, just as Congress was painted in to a corner by the manipulative individuals who were chomping at the bit to invade Iraq, and just needed a large scale event like 9-11 to confuse the public and build support for the invasion.

Again where is the proof for any of this?

There is no irrefutable evidence to back up any of these assertions. If there was any hard proof whatsoever, trust you and me the dem's would have started formal impeachment proceedings with light speed. Especially after the way their hero was impeached in the previous adminstration.

Again it doesn't add up.

Dan McKenzie · Post by **Dan McKenzie** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:43 am

As for intelligence, All Intelligence agencies in the US report to the President and are under his direct control. Congress gets what the President wants them to have.

Hereâ€™s what Bush said:
Bushâ€™s Claim
Reality

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.â€

StockOption · Post by **StockOption** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:14 pm

Reality: The inspections were a sham and were tightly orchestrated and controlled by Saddam. The UN weapons inspectors were NEVER given free, unfettered, random access to do their jobs. Ever.

Reality: Saddam himself used gas multiple times against his own population killing thousands. How can anyone not think he had access to gas?

Sorry, none of your "reality" "points" would pass muster in a court of law or within impeachment proceedings.

getalife · Post by **getalife** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 4:09 pm

State of the Union Address â€“ 1/28/2003
Iraq has 30,000 weapons capable of dumping chemical weapons on people
Not True

They are called SCUD's and they did exist! As StockOption said, we KNOW that Saddam had chemical and biological agents because he used them on his own people.

â€œWe have also discovered through intelligence
that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."

The 30,000 SCUD missiles were capable of delivering chemical and biological agents across broad areas.

"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

Saddam himself admitted that he perpetuated these rumors as a deterrent to an American invasion. Saddam did not allow full access to inspectors, and after inspectors were kicked out he had plenty of time to destroy or move the WMD's. It's real easy to make those statements in hindsight, Dan, but to insinuate that it is a deliberate scheme, cooked up by the Bush "puppetmasters" to line the pockets of Haliburton and "Big Oil" is just irresponsible.

Andy Lippert · Post by **Andy Lippert** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 4:16 pm

Damn....Making fun of Bush is a common occurrence, but Smitty, if you're going to insult someones "intelligence" PLEASE don't misspell two words in your message. Makes you look pretty foolish.

Andy Lippert

fishsmith · Post by **fishsmith** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 4:42 pm

Andy Lippert wrote:Damn....Making fun of Bush is a common occurrence, but Smitty, if you're going to insult someones "intelligence" PLEASE don't misspell two words in your message. Makes you look pretty foolish.

Andy Lippert

Greg_Cornish · Post by **Greg_Cornish** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 4:58 pm

Classic Conservative method Kurt. When you start losing an argument, change the subject.

StockOption · Post by **StockOption** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 6:13 pm

Greg_Cornish wrote:Classic Conservative method Kurt. When you start losing an argument, change the subject.

Read again my friend. Not my fault if my logic and facts escape you.

Indeed.

1) The original assertion that the "republicans ran up the debt" by themselves was wrong.

2) If there was a "shred of actual proof of the biggest lie ever" Bush would have been impeached. There isn't any at all.

Classic liberal response when facts cannot be overcome.

LOL

Dan McKenzie · Post by **Dan McKenzie** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 6:15 pm

I am shocked that we differ on opinion

It would be irresponsible to not voice what you believe. It would be irresponsible to turn a blind eye and accept everything in the face of so many lies. It is irresponsible for a President of the USA to blatantly tell us over these so many months that the "fundementals of the economy are strong" and then to put forth a plan to not only bail out these giant investment banks, but want to do it without any oversight whatsoever, and to do it in a few days. This Administration has played this act over and over again, how could anyone not believe that they have lied and withheld the truth?

I agree that you and I disagree and I'll leave it at that.

StockOption · Post by **StockOption** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 6:26 pm

Sure Dan.

The thing I cannot reconcile and I don't see how anyone honestly can following our strict tenets of justice and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is that if there was any hard proof , any at all - Bush would have been impeached. Hell all the republican members of congress that got thrown out of power a few years back would have done it themselves, I'm sure.

Sorry it clearly doesn't add up when "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard.

FishaHallic · Post by **FishaHallic** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:09 pm

All I know is, this is the first time I have ever added my thoughts to a thread and have someone later say that everyone was civil

.

Greg_Cornish · Post by **Greg_Cornish** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:13 pm

StockOption wrote:LOL

You should put that LOL in your signature then you wouldn't need to type it so much. Must be noisy around your house

The People · Post by **The People** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:39 pm

There is one reason and one reason only that impeachment hearings have not been pursued. Bush is not the real guilty party. True, he delivered the State of the Union address with the "yellow cake" threat that was basically invented out of thin air, along with a bunch of other lies, but Bush did not write the SOTU. He is just the messenger. The one Congress would have to go after for missleading them is Cheney, since he delivered the evidence for war to Congress.
In order to impeach Cheney, they'd have to go through Bush. In other words, impeach them both. Who then would be the President? Madame Speaker Pelosi. And that would reek of political strong arming by the majority in congress. It would basically look alot like what the Republican majority actually did to Clinton.
And actually, there is a second reason. The Dems are spineless twits who have yet to stand up to Bushco. They'll probably cave again when the Bush Admin tells them to send them the 700 Billion with no strings attached, no oversight, no regulation of the industries, no disclosure of how our money will be spent, and with a clause that it can never be investigated or heard by a court of law. That's actually what they're asking for. Should we have any doubt that this will the third great heist of the Bushco presidency?

Marty · Post by **Marty** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:54 pm

Let us do a review from two years ago - On January 5, 2007

- The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at about 12,400.
- The New York-based Conference Board said its consumer confidence index was at 110.3.
- The Bureau of Labor Statistics had the unemployment rate at 4.6%
- According to CNN gasoline a gallon of gasoline, in January 2007, averaged about $2.20.

Last Thursday at about 1 pm Eastern (September 2008)
- The Dow had hit a bottom of about 10,500 before Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke intervened. That is a drop of about 15% in the Dow from two years ago.

- The Conference Board's latest take on the pulse of consumer confidence had it at a very low 56.9 in August - a drop of about 48%

- The unemployment rate in August was reported at 6.1% by the BLS an increase of 33%.

- Gasoline prices are at about $3.70 a whopping 68% jump.

What's changed? Nancy Pelosi and her cronies took control of the House and appointed the follow to oversight Committees.

- Rep. Barney Frank (D-Ma) and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Ct) took control of the House and Senate â€œBANKINGâ€

The People · Post by **The People** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:22 pm

You've either happily gobbled up some major league spin and reprtinted it here, or you've just invented one whopper of a pantload.

I'll start with the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, which you have called the "Senate Banking Committee" since that is the most appropriate item given the topic of this thread.

This committee in question does not regulate the banking industry. It's job is to review proposed legislation, petitions, messages and memorials only.

Current members of the Committee are:
Christopher J. Dodd Chairman (D-CT)
Richard C. Shelby Ranking Member (R-AL)
Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Robert F. Bennett (R-UT)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Wayne Allard (R-CO)
Charles E. Schumer (D-NY)
Michael B. Enzi (R-WY)
Evan Bayh (D-IN)
Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
Tom Carper (D-DE)
Jim Bunning (R-KY)
Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI)
Elizabeth Dole (R-NC)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Mel Martinez (R-FL)
Robert P. Casey (D-PA)
Bob Corker (R-TN)
Jon Tester (D-MT)

Marty · Post by **Marty** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:39 pm

The People · Post by **The People** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:48 pm

Marty wrote:

That's pretty substantive.

I'll continue with the fact that deregulation of all of these industries happened prior to 2006, under the Republican controlled Congress with a Republican Executive. Basically, the Reps gave their buddies tax breaks, free-wheeling market practice permission, and enough rope to hang themselves.

Can you give me any specifics about the Dems and why they are at fault, other than the fact that they have held a majority in Congress for almost 2 years? I'm talking policy.

StockOption · Post by **StockOption** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:53 pm

The People wrote:There is one reason and one reason only that impeachment hearings have not been pursued. Bush is not the real guilty party. True, he delivered the State of the Union address with the "yellow cake" threat that was basically invented out of thin air, along with a bunch of other lies, but Bush did not write the SOTU. He is just the messenger. The one Congress would have to go after for missleading them is Cheney, since he delivered the evidence for war to Congress.
In order to impeach Cheney, they'd have to go through Bush. In other words, impeach them both. Who then would be the President? Madame Speaker Pelosi. And that would reek of political strong arming by the majority in congress. It would basically look alot like what the Republican majority actually did to Clinton.
And actually, there is a second reason. The Dems are spineless twits who have yet to stand up to Bushco. They'll probably cave again when the Bush Admin tells them to send them the 700 Billion with no strings attached, no oversight, no regulation of the industries, no disclosure of how our money will be spent, and with a clause that it can never be investigated or heard by a court of law. That's actually what they're asking for. Should we have any doubt that this will the third great heist of the Bushco presidency?

Proof as facts that prove beyond a reasonable doubt?

There are none.

StockOption · Post by **StockOption** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:54 pm

The People wrote:So, I've just given you the specifics about what the republicans have done to cause this problem. Can you give me any specifics about the Dems, other than the fact that they have held a majority in Congress for almost 2 years? I'm talking policy.

So damn easy.......from another thread. Just listen to Barney

LOL

StockOption wrote:Heh.

Barney is my favorite. Imagine how that idiot feels today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QBRIsCkGQ0

You Tube just for you Greg

Marty · Post by **Marty** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:04 pm

The reason for is because I deleted my post and was being nice to you â€œPersonâ€

The People · Post by **The People** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:10 pm

StockOption wrote:So damn easy.......from another thread. Just listen to Barney

That footage is from 2003 and not at all pertinent to Freddy and Fannie's demise, which began with the housing bubble burst in 2007.

And, you still have not addressed my request for a specific policy issue that can lead anyone to believe that this mess is "all the Dem's fault."

Tags

Notice