- This topic has 90 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 11 months ago by
XBoxBoy.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 2, 2008 at 12:34 PM #279416October 2, 2008 at 12:53 PM #279556
DWCAP
ParticipantSenators serve 6 years, elections are scheduled for one third to run for office every 2 years. Every election has senators up for relection, but not all of them. The idea was that this way it would be hard for a popular (but dangerous) movement to take over the gov. The house is elected every 2 years and is much more responisive to the people because it it. (that is not always a good thing!)
Sadly neither of the CA senators can be voted out this election.
October 2, 2008 at 12:53 PM #279825ParticipantSenators serve 6 years, elections are scheduled for one third to run for office every 2 years. Every election has senators up for relection, but not all of them. The idea was that this way it would be hard for a popular (but dangerous) movement to take over the gov. The house is elected every 2 years and is much more responisive to the people because it it. (that is not always a good thing!)
Sadly neither of the CA senators can be voted out this election.
October 2, 2008 at 12:53 PM #279833ParticipantSenators serve 6 years, elections are scheduled for one third to run for office every 2 years. Every election has senators up for relection, but not all of them. The idea was that this way it would be hard for a popular (but dangerous) movement to take over the gov. The house is elected every 2 years and is much more responisive to the people because it it. (that is not always a good thing!)
Sadly neither of the CA senators can be voted out this election.
October 2, 2008 at 12:53 PM #279874ParticipantSenators serve 6 years, elections are scheduled for one third to run for office every 2 years. Every election has senators up for relection, but not all of them. The idea was that this way it would be hard for a popular (but dangerous) movement to take over the gov. The house is elected every 2 years and is much more responisive to the people because it it. (that is not always a good thing!)
Sadly neither of the CA senators can be voted out this election.
October 2, 2008 at 12:53 PM #279887ParticipantSenators serve 6 years, elections are scheduled for one third to run for office every 2 years. Every election has senators up for relection, but not all of them. The idea was that this way it would be hard for a popular (but dangerous) movement to take over the gov. The house is elected every 2 years and is much more responisive to the people because it it. (that is not always a good thing!)
Sadly neither of the CA senators can be voted out this election.
October 2, 2008 at 2:23 PM #279611Arraya
Participanthttp://www.mises.org/story/3132
The Paulson bailout failed in the House. If it isn’t a death blow to the plan, it should be. This is not an economic plan: it is a heist.
It will go down as The Great Bank Robbery of 2008.
The economics behind it are nonsense, but we are naïve if we spend much time even considering the “arguments” for it. This is a money and power grab, pure and simple.
October 2, 2008 at 2:23 PM #279881Participanthttp://www.mises.org/story/3132
The Paulson bailout failed in the House. If it isn’t a death blow to the plan, it should be. This is not an economic plan: it is a heist.
It will go down as The Great Bank Robbery of 2008.
The economics behind it are nonsense, but we are naïve if we spend much time even considering the “arguments” for it. This is a money and power grab, pure and simple.
October 2, 2008 at 2:23 PM #279888Participanthttp://www.mises.org/story/3132
The Paulson bailout failed in the House. If it isn’t a death blow to the plan, it should be. This is not an economic plan: it is a heist.
It will go down as The Great Bank Robbery of 2008.
The economics behind it are nonsense, but we are naïve if we spend much time even considering the “arguments” for it. This is a money and power grab, pure and simple.
October 2, 2008 at 2:23 PM #279929Participanthttp://www.mises.org/story/3132
The Paulson bailout failed in the House. If it isn’t a death blow to the plan, it should be. This is not an economic plan: it is a heist.
It will go down as The Great Bank Robbery of 2008.
The economics behind it are nonsense, but we are naïve if we spend much time even considering the “arguments” for it. This is a money and power grab, pure and simple.
October 2, 2008 at 2:23 PM #279942Participanthttp://www.mises.org/story/3132
The Paulson bailout failed in the House. If it isn’t a death blow to the plan, it should be. This is not an economic plan: it is a heist.
It will go down as The Great Bank Robbery of 2008.
The economics behind it are nonsense, but we are naïve if we spend much time even considering the “arguments” for it. This is a money and power grab, pure and simple.
October 2, 2008 at 4:06 PM #279986XBoxBoy
Participant[quote=cooprider]It looks like it’s all up to the Czar, err, Secretary.[/quote]
Comrade… Surely you don’t mean to question the wisdom of our honorable Comrade Paulson.
Your Comrade in ARMs (Or should that be PayOpts and Helocs?)
XBoxBoy
October 2, 2008 at 4:06 PM #279974Participant[quote=cooprider]It looks like it’s all up to the Czar, err, Secretary.[/quote]
Comrade… Surely you don’t mean to question the wisdom of our honorable Comrade Paulson.
Your Comrade in ARMs (Or should that be PayOpts and Helocs?)
XBoxBoy
October 2, 2008 at 4:06 PM #279933Participant[quote=cooprider]It looks like it’s all up to the Czar, err, Secretary.[/quote]
Comrade… Surely you don’t mean to question the wisdom of our honorable Comrade Paulson.
Your Comrade in ARMs (Or should that be PayOpts and Helocs?)
XBoxBoy
October 2, 2008 at 4:06 PM #279927Participant[quote=cooprider]It looks like it’s all up to the Czar, err, Secretary.[/quote]
Comrade… Surely you don’t mean to question the wisdom of our honorable Comrade Paulson.
Your Comrade in ARMs (Or should that be PayOpts and Helocs?)
XBoxBoy
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.