I am quite pleased with her response and defense of her vote.
I hope everyone realizes that explanation covers only the crumbs. The meat is in the $800 Billion treasury guarantee. The rationale for that is:
Bailing Out the Bank of China
Now that Congress has approved the bailout of housing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, those who voted “yes” are soon going to be asked an uncomfortable question: Why are you taking money from U.S. taxpayers to bail out the Bank of China and other nations’ central banks?…
Everyone’s comments and criticisms are spot on. Her letter and defenses of the new law are classic Boxer: emotional, heart-tugging generalizations, obfuscations of the true economic and moral hazard aspects, and a raw power-grab by government. In the tradition of liberals, it helps the irresponsible and ends up hurting the renter and house-seeker.
Everyone’s comments and criticisms are spot on. Her letter and defenses of the new law are classic Boxer: emotional, heart-tugging generalizations, obfuscations of the true economic and moral hazard aspects, and a raw power-grab by government. In the tradition of liberals, it helps the irresponsible and ends up hurting the renter and house-seeker.
Everyone’s comments and criticisms are spot on. Her letter and defenses of the new law are classic Boxer: emotional, heart-tugging generalizations, obfuscations of the true economic and moral hazard aspects, and a raw power-grab by government. In the tradition of liberals, it helps the irresponsible and ends up hurting the renter and house-seeker.
Everyone’s comments and criticisms are spot on. Her letter and defenses of the new law are classic Boxer: emotional, heart-tugging generalizations, obfuscations of the true economic and moral hazard aspects, and a raw power-grab by government. In the tradition of liberals, it helps the irresponsible and ends up hurting the renter and house-seeker.
Everyone’s comments and criticisms are spot on. Her letter and defenses of the new law are classic Boxer: emotional, heart-tugging generalizations, obfuscations of the true economic and moral hazard aspects, and a raw power-grab by government. In the tradition of liberals, it helps the irresponsible and ends up hurting the renter and house-seeker.
I would vote for better representation of the State of California. No right-wing fruit loops though. A ‘Reagan Democrat, or an ‘Obamacan’. Somebody in the middle with more common sense.
I would vote for better representation of the State of California. No right-wing fruit loops though. A ‘Reagan Democrat, or an ‘Obamacan’. Somebody in the middle with more common sense.
I would vote for better representation of the State of California. No right-wing fruit loops though. A ‘Reagan Democrat, or an ‘Obamacan’. Somebody in the middle with more common sense.
I would vote for better representation of the State of California. No right-wing fruit loops though. A ‘Reagan Democrat, or an ‘Obamacan’. Somebody in the middle with more common sense.
I would vote for better representation of the State of California. No right-wing fruit loops though. A ‘Reagan Democrat, or an ‘Obamacan’. Somebody in the middle with more common sense.
I have nothing against partisan politics. But observe that it was Paulson who was having sleepless nights that $ may become Peso if that bill doesn’t pass. He seems to be a fairly middle of the road guy.
I have nothing against partisan politics. But observe that it was Paulson who was having sleepless nights that $ may become Peso if that bill doesn’t pass. He seems to be a fairly middle of the road guy.
I have nothing against partisan politics. But observe that it was Paulson who was having sleepless nights that $ may become Peso if that bill doesn’t pass. He seems to be a fairly middle of the road guy.
I have nothing against partisan politics. But observe that it was Paulson who was having sleepless nights that $ may become Peso if that bill doesn’t pass. He seems to be a fairly middle of the road guy.
