- This topic has 289 replies, 30 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 11 months ago by
Arraya.
-
AuthorPosts
-
-
March 25, 2008 at 11:46 AM #12243
-
March 25, 2008 at 11:54 AM #175978
patientlywaiting
ParticipantI would rather spend $30 billion to help out the FBs in America and 10 times more, each year, to continue the war in Iraq.
Doug Kmiec endorsed Obama.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120641048754261255.htmlOn Sunday, Mr. Obama was also endorsed by a lesser-known but more surprising figure — a constitutional law professor who headed the Office of Legal Counsel for both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.
Doug Kmiec is a respected professor at Pepperdine Law School, where Ken Starr serves as dean. He certainly hasn’t shown much previous inclination towards political apostasy — earlier this month he was still serving as co-chair of the Mitt Romney campaign’s Committee on the Courts and the Constitution.Then he moves to the crux of his decision, which comes down to the Iraq War: “Our president has involved our nation in a military engagement without sufficient justification or clear objective. In so doing, he has incurred both tragic loss of life and extraordinary debt jeopardizing the economy and the well-being of the average American citizen.”
Mr. Kmiec then goes on to assert: “The office of the presidency, which it was once my privilege to defend… has been distorted beyond its constitutional assignment.”
-
March 25, 2008 at 12:32 PM #176018
Casca
ParticipantOf course you would PW, but you’re the sort with no skin in the game. Thus, easily drawn into lawyerly dithering. We’re in the process of unscrewing something another nitwit democrat foolishly created thirty years ago. Some of us are unwilling to accept the head-in-the-sand approach of the Clinton years.
McCain is wrong about a lot of things, but not on these two subjects, and not nearly as wrong in general as the opposition.
-
March 25, 2008 at 12:32 PM #176371
Casca
ParticipantOf course you would PW, but you’re the sort with no skin in the game. Thus, easily drawn into lawyerly dithering. We’re in the process of unscrewing something another nitwit democrat foolishly created thirty years ago. Some of us are unwilling to accept the head-in-the-sand approach of the Clinton years.
McCain is wrong about a lot of things, but not on these two subjects, and not nearly as wrong in general as the opposition.
-
March 25, 2008 at 12:32 PM #176377
Casca
ParticipantOf course you would PW, but you’re the sort with no skin in the game. Thus, easily drawn into lawyerly dithering. We’re in the process of unscrewing something another nitwit democrat foolishly created thirty years ago. Some of us are unwilling to accept the head-in-the-sand approach of the Clinton years.
McCain is wrong about a lot of things, but not on these two subjects, and not nearly as wrong in general as the opposition.
-
March 25, 2008 at 12:32 PM #176381
Casca
ParticipantOf course you would PW, but you’re the sort with no skin in the game. Thus, easily drawn into lawyerly dithering. We’re in the process of unscrewing something another nitwit democrat foolishly created thirty years ago. Some of us are unwilling to accept the head-in-the-sand approach of the Clinton years.
McCain is wrong about a lot of things, but not on these two subjects, and not nearly as wrong in general as the opposition.
-
March 25, 2008 at 12:32 PM #176469
Casca
ParticipantOf course you would PW, but you’re the sort with no skin in the game. Thus, easily drawn into lawyerly dithering. We’re in the process of unscrewing something another nitwit democrat foolishly created thirty years ago. Some of us are unwilling to accept the head-in-the-sand approach of the Clinton years.
McCain is wrong about a lot of things, but not on these two subjects, and not nearly as wrong in general as the opposition.
-
-
March 25, 2008 at 11:54 AM #176330
patientlywaiting
ParticipantI would rather spend $30 billion to help out the FBs in America and 10 times more, each year, to continue the war in Iraq.
Doug Kmiec endorsed Obama.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120641048754261255.htmlOn Sunday, Mr. Obama was also endorsed by a lesser-known but more surprising figure — a constitutional law professor who headed the Office of Legal Counsel for both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.
Doug Kmiec is a respected professor at Pepperdine Law School, where Ken Starr serves as dean. He certainly hasn’t shown much previous inclination towards political apostasy — earlier this month he was still serving as co-chair of the Mitt Romney campaign’s Committee on the Courts and the Constitution.Then he moves to the crux of his decision, which comes down to the Iraq War: “Our president has involved our nation in a military engagement without sufficient justification or clear objective. In so doing, he has incurred both tragic loss of life and extraordinary debt jeopardizing the economy and the well-being of the average American citizen.”
Mr. Kmiec then goes on to assert: “The office of the presidency, which it was once my privilege to defend… has been distorted beyond its constitutional assignment.”
-
March 25, 2008 at 11:54 AM #176336
patientlywaiting
ParticipantI would rather spend $30 billion to help out the FBs in America and 10 times more, each year, to continue the war in Iraq.
Doug Kmiec endorsed Obama.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120641048754261255.htmlOn Sunday, Mr. Obama was also endorsed by a lesser-known but more surprising figure — a constitutional law professor who headed the Office of Legal Counsel for both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.
Doug Kmiec is a respected professor at Pepperdine Law School, where Ken Starr serves as dean. He certainly hasn’t shown much previous inclination towards political apostasy — earlier this month he was still serving as co-chair of the Mitt Romney campaign’s Committee on the Courts and the Constitution.Then he moves to the crux of his decision, which comes down to the Iraq War: “Our president has involved our nation in a military engagement without sufficient justification or clear objective. In so doing, he has incurred both tragic loss of life and extraordinary debt jeopardizing the economy and the well-being of the average American citizen.”
Mr. Kmiec then goes on to assert: “The office of the presidency, which it was once my privilege to defend… has been distorted beyond its constitutional assignment.”
-
March 25, 2008 at 11:54 AM #176339
patientlywaiting
ParticipantI would rather spend $30 billion to help out the FBs in America and 10 times more, each year, to continue the war in Iraq.
Doug Kmiec endorsed Obama.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120641048754261255.htmlOn Sunday, Mr. Obama was also endorsed by a lesser-known but more surprising figure — a constitutional law professor who headed the Office of Legal Counsel for both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.
Doug Kmiec is a respected professor at Pepperdine Law School, where Ken Starr serves as dean. He certainly hasn’t shown much previous inclination towards political apostasy — earlier this month he was still serving as co-chair of the Mitt Romney campaign’s Committee on the Courts and the Constitution.Then he moves to the crux of his decision, which comes down to the Iraq War: “Our president has involved our nation in a military engagement without sufficient justification or clear objective. In so doing, he has incurred both tragic loss of life and extraordinary debt jeopardizing the economy and the well-being of the average American citizen.”
Mr. Kmiec then goes on to assert: “The office of the presidency, which it was once my privilege to defend… has been distorted beyond its constitutional assignment.”
-
March 25, 2008 at 11:54 AM #176429
patientlywaiting
ParticipantI would rather spend $30 billion to help out the FBs in America and 10 times more, each year, to continue the war in Iraq.
Doug Kmiec endorsed Obama.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120641048754261255.htmlOn Sunday, Mr. Obama was also endorsed by a lesser-known but more surprising figure — a constitutional law professor who headed the Office of Legal Counsel for both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.
Doug Kmiec is a respected professor at Pepperdine Law School, where Ken Starr serves as dean. He certainly hasn’t shown much previous inclination towards political apostasy — earlier this month he was still serving as co-chair of the Mitt Romney campaign’s Committee on the Courts and the Constitution.Then he moves to the crux of his decision, which comes down to the Iraq War: “Our president has involved our nation in a military engagement without sufficient justification or clear objective. In so doing, he has incurred both tragic loss of life and extraordinary debt jeopardizing the economy and the well-being of the average American citizen.”
Mr. Kmiec then goes on to assert: “The office of the presidency, which it was once my privilege to defend… has been distorted beyond its constitutional assignment.”
-
March 25, 2008 at 11:56 AM #175983
Aecetia
ParticipantGood for McCain. No permanent bailout! It sounds like he is getting up to speed on this issue: “ ‘We must have greater transparency in the lending process so that every borrower knows exactly what he is agreeing to and where every lender is required to meet the highest standards of ethical behavior,’ he said.
Mr. McCain did not rule out a bailout, instead saying any such aid should be temporary and ‘no assistance should be given to speculators.’
‘Any assistance for borrowers should be focused solely on homeowners, not people who bought houses for speculative purposes, to rent or as second homes,’ he said.”
-
March 25, 2008 at 12:38 PM #176034
Navydoc
ParticipantSo where does that leave folks who “speculated” that their home would go up in value, so they could take that teaser rate and option arm to afford a place they wouldn’t qualify for? In Claifornia I think there are a lot of these people, and they ARE actually living in the home. How do they get bailed out? I just don’t think there is enough money at the governments disposal to solve this problem.
Pehaps I’m overestimating the number of people out there like this, but I pesonally know a large number of them, so I kind of doubt it.
-
March 25, 2008 at 1:00 PM #176045
patientlywaiting
ParticipantNavydoc, I know a number of people like that too. The Fed can lower interest rates all they want but when the monthly mortgage doubles (rather than triples) those homeowners will still eventually lose their houses. It’s just a matter of time.
Acetia, I’m a libertarian and voted Republican many times. The problem with Mc Cain is that he wants to stay 100 years in Iraq; and, by his own admission, Mc Cain knows nothing about the economy.
Remember Econ 101? Big government spending is depriving the private sector of needed financing. The Iraq War is a huge reason why we are entering recession.
-
March 25, 2008 at 2:17 PM #176075
Dukehorn
ParticipantConsidering that the Fed just bailed out Bear Sterns, maybe you should worry more about what this current administration is doing.
I’m not happy about “bailing out” some of these homebuyers, but I’m less inclined to be saving investment bankers/analysts making over $200,000 in NYC.
Also, just wondering what price you put on people’s lives. How much “cost” do you associate with those 4,000 dead American soldiers and the numerous wounded besides the explicit cost of the war?
Considering the cost to date of the Iraq War is over 500 billion, I’d say that the 10 billion that Obama is offering up to save some Americans is chump change.
Feel free to disagree. As for nitwit Democrats, I’d rather have a nitwit than a moron that deliberately lied to the American people and put us in a war that’s lasted longer than WWII (though it’s technically not a war since that’s bad PR and he doesn’t want us to “sacrifice” our cushy lifestyle). Ironic, much??
-
March 25, 2008 at 2:51 PM #176098
kev374
ParticipantAs much as I dislike squandering so much for this senseless war I am more opposed to a bailout. So for me a democrat is out of the question as they will make this bailout happen and increase taxes on the upper middle class who are already penalized too much for doing the right thing
-
March 25, 2008 at 3:12 PM #176113
raptorduck
ParticipantDid I hear Hilary correctly on NPR that she wants to set aside $50 billion to buy foreclosed homes for towns in distress that will then be converted to low income housing?
-
March 25, 2008 at 3:12 PM #176466
raptorduck
ParticipantDid I hear Hilary correctly on NPR that she wants to set aside $50 billion to buy foreclosed homes for towns in distress that will then be converted to low income housing?
-
March 25, 2008 at 3:12 PM #176471
raptorduck
ParticipantDid I hear Hilary correctly on NPR that she wants to set aside $50 billion to buy foreclosed homes for towns in distress that will then be converted to low income housing?
-
March 25, 2008 at 3:12 PM #176475
raptorduck
ParticipantDid I hear Hilary correctly on NPR that she wants to set aside $50 billion to buy foreclosed homes for towns in distress that will then be converted to low income housing?
-
March 25, 2008 at 3:12 PM #176566
raptorduck
ParticipantDid I hear Hilary correctly on NPR that she wants to set aside $50 billion to buy foreclosed homes for towns in distress that will then be converted to low income housing?
-
March 25, 2008 at 3:12 PM #176119
Arraya
ParticipantAs much as I dislike squandering so much for this senseless war I am more opposed to a bailout.
How many people will a bailout kill?
Personally I think you are all naive to think that the Wall Street will not get bailed out, whomever gets elected. They all speak with forked tongues pandering to their base.
The best bailout for the 0 down folks is to walk away from their home. Any attempt to keep people paying is a bailout for the IBs.
On that note I don’t think any of the candidates will withdraw from Iraq, no matter what they say.
-
March 25, 2008 at 3:12 PM #176472
Arraya
ParticipantAs much as I dislike squandering so much for this senseless war I am more opposed to a bailout.
How many people will a bailout kill?
Personally I think you are all naive to think that the Wall Street will not get bailed out, whomever gets elected. They all speak with forked tongues pandering to their base.
The best bailout for the 0 down folks is to walk away from their home. Any attempt to keep people paying is a bailout for the IBs.
On that note I don’t think any of the candidates will withdraw from Iraq, no matter what they say.
-
March 25, 2008 at 3:12 PM #176476
Arraya
ParticipantAs much as I dislike squandering so much for this senseless war I am more opposed to a bailout.
How many people will a bailout kill?
Personally I think you are all naive to think that the Wall Street will not get bailed out, whomever gets elected. They all speak with forked tongues pandering to their base.
The best bailout for the 0 down folks is to walk away from their home. Any attempt to keep people paying is a bailout for the IBs.
On that note I don’t think any of the candidates will withdraw from Iraq, no matter what they say.
-
March 25, 2008 at 3:12 PM #176481
Arraya
ParticipantAs much as I dislike squandering so much for this senseless war I am more opposed to a bailout.
How many people will a bailout kill?
Personally I think you are all naive to think that the Wall Street will not get bailed out, whomever gets elected. They all speak with forked tongues pandering to their base.
The best bailout for the 0 down folks is to walk away from their home. Any attempt to keep people paying is a bailout for the IBs.
On that note I don’t think any of the candidates will withdraw from Iraq, no matter what they say.
-
March 25, 2008 at 3:12 PM #176571
Arraya
ParticipantAs much as I dislike squandering so much for this senseless war I am more opposed to a bailout.
How many people will a bailout kill?
Personally I think you are all naive to think that the Wall Street will not get bailed out, whomever gets elected. They all speak with forked tongues pandering to their base.
The best bailout for the 0 down folks is to walk away from their home. Any attempt to keep people paying is a bailout for the IBs.
On that note I don’t think any of the candidates will withdraw from Iraq, no matter what they say.
-
March 25, 2008 at 2:51 PM #176451
kev374
ParticipantAs much as I dislike squandering so much for this senseless war I am more opposed to a bailout. So for me a democrat is out of the question as they will make this bailout happen and increase taxes on the upper middle class who are already penalized too much for doing the right thing
-
March 25, 2008 at 2:51 PM #176456
kev374
ParticipantAs much as I dislike squandering so much for this senseless war I am more opposed to a bailout. So for me a democrat is out of the question as they will make this bailout happen and increase taxes on the upper middle class who are already penalized too much for doing the right thing
-
March 25, 2008 at 2:51 PM #176461
kev374
ParticipantAs much as I dislike squandering so much for this senseless war I am more opposed to a bailout. So for me a democrat is out of the question as they will make this bailout happen and increase taxes on the upper middle class who are already penalized too much for doing the right thing
-
March 25, 2008 at 2:51 PM #176551
kev374
ParticipantAs much as I dislike squandering so much for this senseless war I am more opposed to a bailout. So for me a democrat is out of the question as they will make this bailout happen and increase taxes on the upper middle class who are already penalized too much for doing the right thing
-
March 25, 2008 at 2:17 PM #176427
Dukehorn
ParticipantConsidering that the Fed just bailed out Bear Sterns, maybe you should worry more about what this current administration is doing.
I’m not happy about “bailing out” some of these homebuyers, but I’m less inclined to be saving investment bankers/analysts making over $200,000 in NYC.
Also, just wondering what price you put on people’s lives. How much “cost” do you associate with those 4,000 dead American soldiers and the numerous wounded besides the explicit cost of the war?
Considering the cost to date of the Iraq War is over 500 billion, I’d say that the 10 billion that Obama is offering up to save some Americans is chump change.
Feel free to disagree. As for nitwit Democrats, I’d rather have a nitwit than a moron that deliberately lied to the American people and put us in a war that’s lasted longer than WWII (though it’s technically not a war since that’s bad PR and he doesn’t want us to “sacrifice” our cushy lifestyle). Ironic, much??
-
March 25, 2008 at 2:17 PM #176430
Dukehorn
ParticipantConsidering that the Fed just bailed out Bear Sterns, maybe you should worry more about what this current administration is doing.
I’m not happy about “bailing out” some of these homebuyers, but I’m less inclined to be saving investment bankers/analysts making over $200,000 in NYC.
Also, just wondering what price you put on people’s lives. How much “cost” do you associate with those 4,000 dead American soldiers and the numerous wounded besides the explicit cost of the war?
Considering the cost to date of the Iraq War is over 500 billion, I’d say that the 10 billion that Obama is offering up to save some Americans is chump change.
Feel free to disagree. As for nitwit Democrats, I’d rather have a nitwit than a moron that deliberately lied to the American people and put us in a war that’s lasted longer than WWII (though it’s technically not a war since that’s bad PR and he doesn’t want us to “sacrifice” our cushy lifestyle). Ironic, much??
-
March 25, 2008 at 2:17 PM #176436
Dukehorn
ParticipantConsidering that the Fed just bailed out Bear Sterns, maybe you should worry more about what this current administration is doing.
I’m not happy about “bailing out” some of these homebuyers, but I’m less inclined to be saving investment bankers/analysts making over $200,000 in NYC.
Also, just wondering what price you put on people’s lives. How much “cost” do you associate with those 4,000 dead American soldiers and the numerous wounded besides the explicit cost of the war?
Considering the cost to date of the Iraq War is over 500 billion, I’d say that the 10 billion that Obama is offering up to save some Americans is chump change.
Feel free to disagree. As for nitwit Democrats, I’d rather have a nitwit than a moron that deliberately lied to the American people and put us in a war that’s lasted longer than WWII (though it’s technically not a war since that’s bad PR and he doesn’t want us to “sacrifice” our cushy lifestyle). Ironic, much??
-
March 25, 2008 at 2:17 PM #176525
Dukehorn
ParticipantConsidering that the Fed just bailed out Bear Sterns, maybe you should worry more about what this current administration is doing.
I’m not happy about “bailing out” some of these homebuyers, but I’m less inclined to be saving investment bankers/analysts making over $200,000 in NYC.
Also, just wondering what price you put on people’s lives. How much “cost” do you associate with those 4,000 dead American soldiers and the numerous wounded besides the explicit cost of the war?
Considering the cost to date of the Iraq War is over 500 billion, I’d say that the 10 billion that Obama is offering up to save some Americans is chump change.
Feel free to disagree. As for nitwit Democrats, I’d rather have a nitwit than a moron that deliberately lied to the American people and put us in a war that’s lasted longer than WWII (though it’s technically not a war since that’s bad PR and he doesn’t want us to “sacrifice” our cushy lifestyle). Ironic, much??
-
March 26, 2008 at 4:15 PM #176654
jficquette
ParticipantMcCain must have mispoke(g). How can he not know about the economy? He has been in the Senate forever.
John
-
March 26, 2008 at 4:15 PM #177007
jficquette
ParticipantMcCain must have mispoke(g). How can he not know about the economy? He has been in the Senate forever.
John
-
March 26, 2008 at 4:15 PM #177008
jficquette
ParticipantMcCain must have mispoke(g). How can he not know about the economy? He has been in the Senate forever.
John
-
March 26, 2008 at 4:15 PM #177015
jficquette
ParticipantMcCain must have mispoke(g). How can he not know about the economy? He has been in the Senate forever.
John
-
March 26, 2008 at 4:15 PM #177106
jficquette
ParticipantMcCain must have mispoke(g). How can he not know about the economy? He has been in the Senate forever.
John
-
March 25, 2008 at 1:00 PM #176394
patientlywaiting
ParticipantNavydoc, I know a number of people like that too. The Fed can lower interest rates all they want but when the monthly mortgage doubles (rather than triples) those homeowners will still eventually lose their houses. It’s just a matter of time.
Acetia, I’m a libertarian and voted Republican many times. The problem with Mc Cain is that he wants to stay 100 years in Iraq; and, by his own admission, Mc Cain knows nothing about the economy.
Remember Econ 101? Big government spending is depriving the private sector of needed financing. The Iraq War is a huge reason why we are entering recession.
-
March 25, 2008 at 1:00 PM #176401
patientlywaiting
ParticipantNavydoc, I know a number of people like that too. The Fed can lower interest rates all they want but when the monthly mortgage doubles (rather than triples) those homeowners will still eventually lose their houses. It’s just a matter of time.
Acetia, I’m a libertarian and voted Republican many times. The problem with Mc Cain is that he wants to stay 100 years in Iraq; and, by his own admission, Mc Cain knows nothing about the economy.
Remember Econ 101? Big government spending is depriving the private sector of needed financing. The Iraq War is a huge reason why we are entering recession.
-
March 25, 2008 at 1:00 PM #176407
patientlywaiting
ParticipantNavydoc, I know a number of people like that too. The Fed can lower interest rates all they want but when the monthly mortgage doubles (rather than triples) those homeowners will still eventually lose their houses. It’s just a matter of time.
Acetia, I’m a libertarian and voted Republican many times. The problem with Mc Cain is that he wants to stay 100 years in Iraq; and, by his own admission, Mc Cain knows nothing about the economy.
Remember Econ 101? Big government spending is depriving the private sector of needed financing. The Iraq War is a huge reason why we are entering recession.
-
March 25, 2008 at 1:00 PM #176496
patientlywaiting
ParticipantNavydoc, I know a number of people like that too. The Fed can lower interest rates all they want but when the monthly mortgage doubles (rather than triples) those homeowners will still eventually lose their houses. It’s just a matter of time.
Acetia, I’m a libertarian and voted Republican many times. The problem with Mc Cain is that he wants to stay 100 years in Iraq; and, by his own admission, Mc Cain knows nothing about the economy.
Remember Econ 101? Big government spending is depriving the private sector of needed financing. The Iraq War is a huge reason why we are entering recession.
-
-
March 25, 2008 at 12:38 PM #176385
Navydoc
ParticipantSo where does that leave folks who “speculated” that their home would go up in value, so they could take that teaser rate and option arm to afford a place they wouldn’t qualify for? In Claifornia I think there are a lot of these people, and they ARE actually living in the home. How do they get bailed out? I just don’t think there is enough money at the governments disposal to solve this problem.
Pehaps I’m overestimating the number of people out there like this, but I pesonally know a large number of them, so I kind of doubt it.
-
March 25, 2008 at 12:38 PM #176391
Navydoc
ParticipantSo where does that leave folks who “speculated” that their home would go up in value, so they could take that teaser rate and option arm to afford a place they wouldn’t qualify for? In Claifornia I think there are a lot of these people, and they ARE actually living in the home. How do they get bailed out? I just don’t think there is enough money at the governments disposal to solve this problem.
Pehaps I’m overestimating the number of people out there like this, but I pesonally know a large number of them, so I kind of doubt it.
-
March 25, 2008 at 12:38 PM #176395
Navydoc
ParticipantSo where does that leave folks who “speculated” that their home would go up in value, so they could take that teaser rate and option arm to afford a place they wouldn’t qualify for? In Claifornia I think there are a lot of these people, and they ARE actually living in the home. How do they get bailed out? I just don’t think there is enough money at the governments disposal to solve this problem.
Pehaps I’m overestimating the number of people out there like this, but I pesonally know a large number of them, so I kind of doubt it.
-
March 25, 2008 at 12:38 PM #176485
Navydoc
ParticipantSo where does that leave folks who “speculated” that their home would go up in value, so they could take that teaser rate and option arm to afford a place they wouldn’t qualify for? In Claifornia I think there are a lot of these people, and they ARE actually living in the home. How do they get bailed out? I just don’t think there is enough money at the governments disposal to solve this problem.
Pehaps I’m overestimating the number of people out there like this, but I pesonally know a large number of them, so I kind of doubt it.
-
-
March 25, 2008 at 11:56 AM #176335
Aecetia
ParticipantGood for McCain. No permanent bailout! It sounds like he is getting up to speed on this issue: “ ‘We must have greater transparency in the lending process so that every borrower knows exactly what he is agreeing to and where every lender is required to meet the highest standards of ethical behavior,’ he said.
Mr. McCain did not rule out a bailout, instead saying any such aid should be temporary and ‘no assistance should be given to speculators.’
‘Any assistance for borrowers should be focused solely on homeowners, not people who bought houses for speculative purposes, to rent or as second homes,’ he said.”
-
March 25, 2008 at 11:56 AM #176341
Aecetia
ParticipantGood for McCain. No permanent bailout! It sounds like he is getting up to speed on this issue: “ ‘We must have greater transparency in the lending process so that every borrower knows exactly what he is agreeing to and where every lender is required to meet the highest standards of ethical behavior,’ he said.
Mr. McCain did not rule out a bailout, instead saying any such aid should be temporary and ‘no assistance should be given to speculators.’
‘Any assistance for borrowers should be focused solely on homeowners, not people who bought houses for speculative purposes, to rent or as second homes,’ he said.”
-
March 25, 2008 at 11:56 AM #176344
Aecetia
ParticipantGood for McCain. No permanent bailout! It sounds like he is getting up to speed on this issue: “ ‘We must have greater transparency in the lending process so that every borrower knows exactly what he is agreeing to and where every lender is required to meet the highest standards of ethical behavior,’ he said.
Mr. McCain did not rule out a bailout, instead saying any such aid should be temporary and ‘no assistance should be given to speculators.’
‘Any assistance for borrowers should be focused solely on homeowners, not people who bought houses for speculative purposes, to rent or as second homes,’ he said.”
-
March 25, 2008 at 11:56 AM #176434
Aecetia
ParticipantGood for McCain. No permanent bailout! It sounds like he is getting up to speed on this issue: “ ‘We must have greater transparency in the lending process so that every borrower knows exactly what he is agreeing to and where every lender is required to meet the highest standards of ethical behavior,’ he said.
Mr. McCain did not rule out a bailout, instead saying any such aid should be temporary and ‘no assistance should be given to speculators.’
‘Any assistance for borrowers should be focused solely on homeowners, not people who bought houses for speculative purposes, to rent or as second homes,’ he said.”
-
March 25, 2008 at 3:34 PM #176133
capeman
ParticipantWell, Dubya claimed he wouldn’t allow bailouts either but he signed the deal on BSC. These guys are politicians and they do what they have to for their party and the ones who line their pockets. I am already voting for McCain due to his tendancy to handout less but if push comes to shove he’ll change his mind to suit his political agenda.
-
March 25, 2008 at 4:10 PM #176148
Enorah
ParticipantWho here actually believes the crap that comes out of their mouths? They are trying to get elected (as if that is the way it really works anymore anyways). They are all speaking their particular party speak. None of it is real.
-
March 25, 2008 at 4:39 PM #176168
nostradamus
ParticipantI think it’s pretty safe to say that no matter who gets elected, American military presence in Iraq will be permanent (like Korea, Japan, Germany) and the investment banks will be getting bailed out as much as possible. All paid for by us.
The question is, how long are Americans going to take this? I for one am sick of being an ostrich. At least 1/3 of most people’s lifelong working career is dedicated to paying taxes, and those taxes are being used to enrich a privileged few. After sales tax and everything else we probably pay the equivalent of taxes in a socialist society but we don’t get any of the benefits of one (health care, retirement, etc).
Check this out, especially all the taxes and acts that led up to it. Please do not take this as incitement, rather just an historical observation of the similarities between then and now.
-
March 25, 2008 at 4:51 PM #176173
-
March 25, 2008 at 4:51 PM #176527
-
March 25, 2008 at 4:51 PM #176531
-
March 25, 2008 at 4:51 PM #176535
-
March 25, 2008 at 4:51 PM #176623
-
March 25, 2008 at 5:02 PM #176188
patientlywaiting
Participantnostradamus, you’re quite right in saying that after all the leves of taxes, fees and costs, we are paying just as much, or more than in socialist countries, yet we don’t have the benefits.
Some of my friends in Europe cannot believe how much we pay in property taxes and HOA as well as health care and education. Most Americans don’t realize it but their health insurance contributions at work as well as co-payments are taxes.
The difference with the military installations in Korea, Japan and Germany is that unlike, Iraq, the locals don’t want to kill us. They never did. 4000 Americans never died after the military hostilities ended in Korea, Japan, and Germany combined.
I’m sick of the Bush Administration talking about the heroes in Iraq. Think about what those talented heroes could be doing if their wonderful skills were used in the private sector.
-
March 25, 2008 at 6:43 PM #176223
svelte
ParticipantBlackbox, your headline only makes sense if your view is that speculators are the irresponsible. McCain states he will consider bailing out homeowners.
By the way, a little light-hearted ribbing…it’s kind of ironic that someone with the handle “blackbox” supports someone calling for more transparency! 🙂
-
March 25, 2008 at 7:11 PM #176248
kev374
ParticipantAgreed that politicians are all the same, a bunch of liars who are only hand in glove with those that are greasing their palms.
-
March 25, 2008 at 7:23 PM #176253
cashman
ParticipantDitto kev374 comments that as much as I oppose the Iraq war, I would rather not have socialism imposed by the Democrats. Let’s be honest, how many people who bought in the last few years were duped into the mess they are in now? I think it’s a very small percentage. Most people were just plain greedy, and now they’re getting burnt, deservedly so. Do you want your increased taxes to bail them out?
-
March 26, 2008 at 7:40 AM #176328
Sandi Egan
ParticipantI don’t think the POTUS gets to decide on economy matters. It’s the likes of Bernanke and Paulson who run the economy, having the president justify their actions in light of his own policy.
But foreign policy is different, and I am terrified by the possibility of an explicitly war-mongering neocon getting into the office.
I understand that for many of us current economic situation seems more important at the moment than foreign policy, but please don’t forget the price of waging multiple wars. That’s much, much more than anything a dem would be willing to spend on bailouts and health care. And much less beneficial for this country.
-
March 26, 2008 at 9:48 AM #176383
Casca
ParticipantYou high-minded anti-war types might make sense of “this senseless war” one day. Probably right after the Iranians start popping nukes.
-
March 26, 2008 at 10:08 AM #176403
patientlywaiting
ParticipantIt was not a senseless war from the Iranian point of view. The invasion of Iraq was America’s greatest gift to Iran by removing Iran’s #1 enemy.
If Iran is the real threat, then why are we in Iraq?
-
March 26, 2008 at 10:20 AM #176428
nostradamus
Participant15 of the 19 terrorists in the 9/11 attacks were from Saudi Arabia and were trained in Afghanistan. We know that the info about weapons of mass destruction and the supposed threat posed by Iraq was falsified. Can someone tell me why we’re in Iraq?
-
March 26, 2008 at 10:24 AM #176438
LA_Renter
ParticipantWell since this is a political thread I thought I would post this report confirming Hillary’s statements about Bosnia.
-
March 26, 2008 at 4:20 PM #176659
jficquette
ParticipantIn that she just proves to be a liar. In this http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=67734 she looks just dumb.
She says she speaks millions of words each week and its easy to say “things”.
Basically she is saying that “I talk so much that I am bound to lie about something”.
If she were to be president then how can anyone believe anything she says about anything. How can the Russians or Chinese believe anything either?
John
-
March 26, 2008 at 4:53 PM #176673
Arraya
ParticipantIf she were to be president then how can anyone believe anything she says about anything. How can the Russians or Chinese believe anything either?
Especially after such straight talkers like bush and cheney.
-
March 26, 2008 at 5:15 PM #176683
jficquette
Participant“Especially after such straight talkers like bush and cheney”.
Exactly!
-
March 26, 2008 at 7:42 PM #176734
zk
Participant“Especially after such straight talkers like bush and cheney”.
Exactly!
jficquette,
Unless I am (or you are) confused, you’re turning arraya’s sarcasm around and saying that you actually believe that Bush and Cheney are straight talkers. Is that what you’re saying?
-
March 26, 2008 at 7:52 PM #176747
Arraya
ParticipantUnless I am (or you are) confused, you’re turning arraya’s sarcasm around and saying that you actually believe that Bush and Cheney are straight talkers. Is that what you’re saying?
Are there really people that would not get that as sarcasm? Sometimes I feel like I’m in the twilight zone…
-
March 26, 2008 at 11:34 PM #176808
cashman
ParticipantLife’s a bitch, don’t vote for one.
-
March 26, 2008 at 11:34 PM #177161
cashman
ParticipantLife’s a bitch, don’t vote for one.
-
March 26, 2008 at 11:34 PM #177170
cashman
ParticipantLife’s a bitch, don’t vote for one.
-
March 26, 2008 at 11:34 PM #177173
cashman
ParticipantLife’s a bitch, don’t vote for one.
-
March 26, 2008 at 11:34 PM #177262
cashman
ParticipantLife’s a bitch, don’t vote for one.
-
March 26, 2008 at 7:52 PM #177097
Arraya
ParticipantUnless I am (or you are) confused, you’re turning arraya’s sarcasm around and saying that you actually believe that Bush and Cheney are straight talkers. Is that what you’re saying?
Are there really people that would not get that as sarcasm? Sometimes I feel like I’m in the twilight zone…
-
March 26, 2008 at 7:52 PM #177105
Arraya
ParticipantUnless I am (or you are) confused, you’re turning arraya’s sarcasm around and saying that you actually believe that Bush and Cheney are straight talkers. Is that what you’re saying?
Are there really people that would not get that as sarcasm? Sometimes I feel like I’m in the twilight zone…
-
March 26, 2008 at 7:52 PM #177109
Arraya
ParticipantUnless I am (or you are) confused, you’re turning arraya’s sarcasm around and saying that you actually believe that Bush and Cheney are straight talkers. Is that what you’re saying?
Are there really people that would not get that as sarcasm? Sometimes I feel like I’m in the twilight zone…
-
March 26, 2008 at 7:52 PM #177197
Arraya
ParticipantUnless I am (or you are) confused, you’re turning arraya’s sarcasm around and saying that you actually believe that Bush and Cheney are straight talkers. Is that what you’re saying?
Are there really people that would not get that as sarcasm? Sometimes I feel like I’m in the twilight zone…
-
March 26, 2008 at 7:42 PM #177087
zk
Participant“Especially after such straight talkers like bush and cheney”.
Exactly!
jficquette,
Unless I am (or you are) confused, you’re turning arraya’s sarcasm around and saying that you actually believe that Bush and Cheney are straight talkers. Is that what you’re saying?
-
March 26, 2008 at 7:42 PM #177095
zk
Participant“Especially after such straight talkers like bush and cheney”.
Exactly!
jficquette,
Unless I am (or you are) confused, you’re turning arraya’s sarcasm around and saying that you actually believe that Bush and Cheney are straight talkers. Is that what you’re saying?
-
March 26, 2008 at 7:42 PM #177099
zk
Participant“Especially after such straight talkers like bush and cheney”.
Exactly!
jficquette,
Unless I am (or you are) confused, you’re turning arraya’s sarcasm around and saying that you actually believe that Bush and Cheney are straight talkers. Is that what you’re saying?
-
March 26, 2008 at 7:42 PM #177187
zk
Participant“Especially after such straight talkers like bush and cheney”.
Exactly!
jficquette,
Unless I am (or you are) confused, you’re turning arraya’s sarcasm around and saying that you actually believe that Bush and Cheney are straight talkers. Is that what you’re saying?
-
March 26, 2008 at 5:15 PM #177037
jficquette
Participant“Especially after such straight talkers like bush and cheney”.
Exactly!
-
March 26, 2008 at 5:15 PM #177044
jficquette
Participant“Especially after such straight talkers like bush and cheney”.
Exactly!
-
March 26, 2008 at 5:15 PM #177045
jficquette
Participant“Especially after such straight talkers like bush and cheney”.
Exactly!
-
March 26, 2008 at 5:15 PM #177137
jficquette
Participant“Especially after such straight talkers like bush and cheney”.
Exactly!
-
March 26, 2008 at 6:11 PM #176712
DoJC
ParticipantEven John & Ken from KFI AM 640 today said that, after hearing about the plans of Obama and Clinton to bail out borrowers, anyone would be a fool to vote for them now.
And, even worse, is that after all the mud slinging and namecalling, that if Obama gets nominated 26% of Clinton’s followers would vote for McCain, and if Clinton gets it that 18% of Obama’s followers would vote for him.
Either way, with a really bad economy, growing inflation, massive housing values drops, increasing joblessness, and several other factors I find it hard to imagine ANYONE seeking election to the Presidency would even think about raising taxes, much less propose incredibly costly ideas like borrower bailouts.
– Doug
-
March 26, 2008 at 6:11 PM #177062
DoJC
ParticipantEven John & Ken from KFI AM 640 today said that, after hearing about the plans of Obama and Clinton to bail out borrowers, anyone would be a fool to vote for them now.
And, even worse, is that after all the mud slinging and namecalling, that if Obama gets nominated 26% of Clinton’s followers would vote for McCain, and if Clinton gets it that 18% of Obama’s followers would vote for him.
Either way, with a really bad economy, growing inflation, massive housing values drops, increasing joblessness, and several other factors I find it hard to imagine ANYONE seeking election to the Presidency would even think about raising taxes, much less propose incredibly costly ideas like borrower bailouts.
– Doug
-
March 26, 2008 at 6:11 PM #177069
DoJC
ParticipantEven John & Ken from KFI AM 640 today said that, after hearing about the plans of Obama and Clinton to bail out borrowers, anyone would be a fool to vote for them now.
And, even worse, is that after all the mud slinging and namecalling, that if Obama gets nominated 26% of Clinton’s followers would vote for McCain, and if Clinton gets it that 18% of Obama’s followers would vote for him.
Either way, with a really bad economy, growing inflation, massive housing values drops, increasing joblessness, and several other factors I find it hard to imagine ANYONE seeking election to the Presidency would even think about raising taxes, much less propose incredibly costly ideas like borrower bailouts.
– Doug
-
March 26, 2008 at 6:11 PM #177070
DoJC
ParticipantEven John & Ken from KFI AM 640 today said that, after hearing about the plans of Obama and Clinton to bail out borrowers, anyone would be a fool to vote for them now.
And, even worse, is that after all the mud slinging and namecalling, that if Obama gets nominated 26% of Clinton’s followers would vote for McCain, and if Clinton gets it that 18% of Obama’s followers would vote for him.
Either way, with a really bad economy, growing inflation, massive housing values drops, increasing joblessness, and several other factors I find it hard to imagine ANYONE seeking election to the Presidency would even think about raising taxes, much less propose incredibly costly ideas like borrower bailouts.
– Doug
-
March 26, 2008 at 6:11 PM #177162
DoJC
ParticipantEven John & Ken from KFI AM 640 today said that, after hearing about the plans of Obama and Clinton to bail out borrowers, anyone would be a fool to vote for them now.
And, even worse, is that after all the mud slinging and namecalling, that if Obama gets nominated 26% of Clinton’s followers would vote for McCain, and if Clinton gets it that 18% of Obama’s followers would vote for him.
Either way, with a really bad economy, growing inflation, massive housing values drops, increasing joblessness, and several other factors I find it hard to imagine ANYONE seeking election to the Presidency would even think about raising taxes, much less propose incredibly costly ideas like borrower bailouts.
– Doug
-
March 26, 2008 at 4:53 PM #177027
Arraya
ParticipantIf she were to be president then how can anyone believe anything she says about anything. How can the Russians or Chinese believe anything either?
Especially after such straight talkers like bush and cheney.
-
March 26, 2008 at 4:53 PM #177029
Arraya
ParticipantIf she were to be president then how can anyone believe anything she says about anything. How can the Russians or Chinese believe anything either?
Especially after such straight talkers like bush and cheney.
-
March 26, 2008 at 4:53 PM #177033
Arraya
ParticipantIf she were to be president then how can anyone believe anything she says about anything. How can the Russians or Chinese believe anything either?
Especially after such straight talkers like bush and cheney.
-
March 26, 2008 at 4:53 PM #177127
Arraya
ParticipantIf she were to be president then how can anyone believe anything she says about anything. How can the Russians or Chinese believe anything either?
Especially after such straight talkers like bush and cheney.
-
March 26, 2008 at 4:20 PM #177012
jficquette
ParticipantIn that she just proves to be a liar. In this http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=67734 she looks just dumb.
She says she speaks millions of words each week and its easy to say “things”.
Basically she is saying that “I talk so much that I am bound to lie about something”.
If she were to be president then how can anyone believe anything she says about anything. How can the Russians or Chinese believe anything either?
John
-
March 26, 2008 at 4:20 PM #177013
jficquette
ParticipantIn that she just proves to be a liar. In this http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=67734 she looks just dumb.
She says she speaks millions of words each week and its easy to say “things”.
Basically she is saying that “I talk so much that I am bound to lie about something”.
If she were to be president then how can anyone believe anything she says about anything. How can the Russians or Chinese believe anything either?
John
-
March 26, 2008 at 4:20 PM #177019
jficquette
ParticipantIn that she just proves to be a liar. In this http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=67734 she looks just dumb.
She says she speaks millions of words each week and its easy to say “things”.
Basically she is saying that “I talk so much that I am bound to lie about something”.
If she were to be president then how can anyone believe anything she says about anything. How can the Russians or Chinese believe anything either?
John
-
March 26, 2008 at 4:20 PM #177111
jficquette
ParticipantIn that she just proves to be a liar. In this http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=67734 she looks just dumb.
She says she speaks millions of words each week and its easy to say “things”.
Basically she is saying that “I talk so much that I am bound to lie about something”.
If she were to be president then how can anyone believe anything she says about anything. How can the Russians or Chinese believe anything either?
John
-
March 26, 2008 at 10:24 AM #176791
LA_Renter
ParticipantWell since this is a political thread I thought I would post this report confirming Hillary’s statements about Bosnia.
-
March 26, 2008 at 10:24 AM #176794
LA_Renter
ParticipantWell since this is a political thread I thought I would post this report confirming Hillary’s statements about Bosnia.
-
March 26, 2008 at 10:24 AM #176800
LA_Renter
ParticipantWell since this is a political thread I thought I would post this report confirming Hillary’s statements about Bosnia.
-
March 26, 2008 at 10:24 AM #176891
LA_Renter
ParticipantWell since this is a political thread I thought I would post this report confirming Hillary’s statements about Bosnia.
-
March 26, 2008 at 10:38 AM #176448
Arraya
ParticipantCan someone tell me why we’re in Iraq?
Pay no attention to the last reserves of sweet crude being pillaged and plundered.
“By some estimates there will be an average of two per cent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three per cent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from? Governments and the national oil companies are obviously in control of about ninety per cent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer greet oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greeter access there, progress continues to be slow.”
-Dick Cheney 1999
If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck
-
March 26, 2008 at 10:38 AM #176802
Arraya
ParticipantCan someone tell me why we’re in Iraq?
Pay no attention to the last reserves of sweet crude being pillaged and plundered.
“By some estimates there will be an average of two per cent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three per cent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from? Governments and the national oil companies are obviously in control of about ninety per cent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer greet oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greeter access there, progress continues to be slow.”
-Dick Cheney 1999
If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck
-
March 26, 2008 at 10:38 AM #176805
Arraya
ParticipantCan someone tell me why we’re in Iraq?
Pay no attention to the last reserves of sweet crude being pillaged and plundered.
“By some estimates there will be an average of two per cent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three per cent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from? Governments and the national oil companies are obviously in control of about ninety per cent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer greet oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greeter access there, progress continues to be slow.”
-Dick Cheney 1999
If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck
-
March 26, 2008 at 10:38 AM #176809
Arraya
ParticipantCan someone tell me why we’re in Iraq?
Pay no attention to the last reserves of sweet crude being pillaged and plundered.
“By some estimates there will be an average of two per cent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three per cent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from? Governments and the national oil companies are obviously in control of about ninety per cent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer greet oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greeter access there, progress continues to be slow.”
-Dick Cheney 1999
If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck
-
March 26, 2008 at 10:38 AM #176901
Arraya
ParticipantCan someone tell me why we’re in Iraq?
Pay no attention to the last reserves of sweet crude being pillaged and plundered.
“By some estimates there will be an average of two per cent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three per cent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from? Governments and the national oil companies are obviously in control of about ninety per cent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer greet oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greeter access there, progress continues to be slow.”
-Dick Cheney 1999
If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck
-
March 26, 2008 at 10:20 AM #176781
nostradamus
Participant15 of the 19 terrorists in the 9/11 attacks were from Saudi Arabia and were trained in Afghanistan. We know that the info about weapons of mass destruction and the supposed threat posed by Iraq was falsified. Can someone tell me why we’re in Iraq?
-
March 26, 2008 at 10:20 AM #176784
nostradamus
Participant15 of the 19 terrorists in the 9/11 attacks were from Saudi Arabia and were trained in Afghanistan. We know that the info about weapons of mass destruction and the supposed threat posed by Iraq was falsified. Can someone tell me why we’re in Iraq?
-
March 26, 2008 at 10:20 AM #176790
nostradamus
Participant15 of the 19 terrorists in the 9/11 attacks were from Saudi Arabia and were trained in Afghanistan. We know that the info about weapons of mass destruction and the supposed threat posed by Iraq was falsified. Can someone tell me why we’re in Iraq?
-
March 26, 2008 at 10:20 AM #176881
nostradamus
Participant15 of the 19 terrorists in the 9/11 attacks were from Saudi Arabia and were trained in Afghanistan. We know that the info about weapons of mass destruction and the supposed threat posed by Iraq was falsified. Can someone tell me why we’re in Iraq?
-
March 26, 2008 at 10:08 AM #176754
patientlywaiting
ParticipantIt was not a senseless war from the Iranian point of view. The invasion of Iraq was America’s greatest gift to Iran by removing Iran’s #1 enemy.
If Iran is the real threat, then why are we in Iraq?
-
March 26, 2008 at 10:08 AM #176758
patientlywaiting
ParticipantIt was not a senseless war from the Iranian point of view. The invasion of Iraq was America’s greatest gift to Iran by removing Iran’s #1 enemy.
If Iran is the real threat, then why are we in Iraq?
-
March 26, 2008 at 10:08 AM #176765
patientlywaiting
ParticipantIt was not a senseless war from the Iranian point of view. The invasion of Iraq was America’s greatest gift to Iran by removing Iran’s #1 enemy.
If Iran is the real threat, then why are we in Iraq?
-
March 26, 2008 at 10:08 AM #176854
patientlywaiting
ParticipantIt was not a senseless war from the Iranian point of view. The invasion of Iraq was America’s greatest gift to Iran by removing Iran’s #1 enemy.
If Iran is the real threat, then why are we in Iraq?
-
March 26, 2008 at 9:48 AM #176737
Casca
ParticipantYou high-minded anti-war types might make sense of “this senseless war” one day. Probably right after the Iranians start popping nukes.
-
March 26, 2008 at 9:48 AM #176738
Casca
ParticipantYou high-minded anti-war types might make sense of “this senseless war” one day. Probably right after the Iranians start popping nukes.
-
March 26, 2008 at 9:48 AM #176745
Casca
ParticipantYou high-minded anti-war types might make sense of “this senseless war” one day. Probably right after the Iranians start popping nukes.
-
March 26, 2008 at 9:48 AM #176834
Casca
ParticipantYou high-minded anti-war types might make sense of “this senseless war” one day. Probably right after the Iranians start popping nukes.
-
March 26, 2008 at 7:40 AM #176682
Sandi Egan
ParticipantI don’t think the POTUS gets to decide on economy matters. It’s the likes of Bernanke and Paulson who run the economy, having the president justify their actions in light of his own policy.
But foreign policy is different, and I am terrified by the possibility of an explicitly war-mongering neocon getting into the office.
I understand that for many of us current economic situation seems more important at the moment than foreign policy, but please don’t forget the price of waging multiple wars. That’s much, much more than anything a dem would be willing to spend on bailouts and health care. And much less beneficial for this country.
-
March 26, 2008 at 7:40 AM #176686
Sandi Egan
ParticipantI don’t think the POTUS gets to decide on economy matters. It’s the likes of Bernanke and Paulson who run the economy, having the president justify their actions in light of his own policy.
But foreign policy is different, and I am terrified by the possibility of an explicitly war-mongering neocon getting into the office.
I understand that for many of us current economic situation seems more important at the moment than foreign policy, but please don’t forget the price of waging multiple wars. That’s much, much more than anything a dem would be willing to spend on bailouts and health care. And much less beneficial for this country.
-
March 26, 2008 at 7:40 AM #176691
Sandi Egan
ParticipantI don’t think the POTUS gets to decide on economy matters. It’s the likes of Bernanke and Paulson who run the economy, having the president justify their actions in light of his own policy.
But foreign policy is different, and I am terrified by the possibility of an explicitly war-mongering neocon getting into the office.
I understand that for many of us current economic situation seems more important at the moment than foreign policy, but please don’t forget the price of waging multiple wars. That’s much, much more than anything a dem would be willing to spend on bailouts and health care. And much less beneficial for this country.
-
March 26, 2008 at 7:40 AM #176782
Sandi Egan
ParticipantI don’t think the POTUS gets to decide on economy matters. It’s the likes of Bernanke and Paulson who run the economy, having the president justify their actions in light of his own policy.
But foreign policy is different, and I am terrified by the possibility of an explicitly war-mongering neocon getting into the office.
I understand that for many of us current economic situation seems more important at the moment than foreign policy, but please don’t forget the price of waging multiple wars. That’s much, much more than anything a dem would be willing to spend on bailouts and health care. And much less beneficial for this country.
-
March 25, 2008 at 7:23 PM #176607
cashman
ParticipantDitto kev374 comments that as much as I oppose the Iraq war, I would rather not have socialism imposed by the Democrats. Let’s be honest, how many people who bought in the last few years were duped into the mess they are in now? I think it’s a very small percentage. Most people were just plain greedy, and now they’re getting burnt, deservedly so. Do you want your increased taxes to bail them out?
-
March 25, 2008 at 7:23 PM #176611
cashman
ParticipantDitto kev374 comments that as much as I oppose the Iraq war, I would rather not have socialism imposed by the Democrats. Let’s be honest, how many people who bought in the last few years were duped into the mess they are in now? I think it’s a very small percentage. Most people were just plain greedy, and now they’re getting burnt, deservedly so. Do you want your increased taxes to bail them out?
-
March 25, 2008 at 7:23 PM #176615
cashman
ParticipantDitto kev374 comments that as much as I oppose the Iraq war, I would rather not have socialism imposed by the Democrats. Let’s be honest, how many people who bought in the last few years were duped into the mess they are in now? I think it’s a very small percentage. Most people were just plain greedy, and now they’re getting burnt, deservedly so. Do you want your increased taxes to bail them out?
-
March 25, 2008 at 7:23 PM #176707
cashman
ParticipantDitto kev374 comments that as much as I oppose the Iraq war, I would rather not have socialism imposed by the Democrats. Let’s be honest, how many people who bought in the last few years were duped into the mess they are in now? I think it’s a very small percentage. Most people were just plain greedy, and now they’re getting burnt, deservedly so. Do you want your increased taxes to bail them out?
-
March 25, 2008 at 7:11 PM #176602
kev374
ParticipantAgreed that politicians are all the same, a bunch of liars who are only hand in glove with those that are greasing their palms.
-
March 25, 2008 at 7:11 PM #176605
kev374
ParticipantAgreed that politicians are all the same, a bunch of liars who are only hand in glove with those that are greasing their palms.
-
March 25, 2008 at 7:11 PM #176610
kev374
ParticipantAgreed that politicians are all the same, a bunch of liars who are only hand in glove with those that are greasing their palms.
-
March 25, 2008 at 7:11 PM #176701
kev374
ParticipantAgreed that politicians are all the same, a bunch of liars who are only hand in glove with those that are greasing their palms.
-
March 25, 2008 at 6:43 PM #176577
svelte
ParticipantBlackbox, your headline only makes sense if your view is that speculators are the irresponsible. McCain states he will consider bailing out homeowners.
By the way, a little light-hearted ribbing…it’s kind of ironic that someone with the handle “blackbox” supports someone calling for more transparency! 🙂
-
March 25, 2008 at 6:43 PM #176579
svelte
ParticipantBlackbox, your headline only makes sense if your view is that speculators are the irresponsible. McCain states he will consider bailing out homeowners.
By the way, a little light-hearted ribbing…it’s kind of ironic that someone with the handle “blackbox” supports someone calling for more transparency! 🙂
-
March 25, 2008 at 6:43 PM #176585
svelte
ParticipantBlackbox, your headline only makes sense if your view is that speculators are the irresponsible. McCain states he will consider bailing out homeowners.
By the way, a little light-hearted ribbing…it’s kind of ironic that someone with the handle “blackbox” supports someone calling for more transparency! 🙂
-
March 25, 2008 at 6:43 PM #176675
svelte
ParticipantBlackbox, your headline only makes sense if your view is that speculators are the irresponsible. McCain states he will consider bailing out homeowners.
By the way, a little light-hearted ribbing…it’s kind of ironic that someone with the handle “blackbox” supports someone calling for more transparency! 🙂
-
March 25, 2008 at 5:02 PM #176542
patientlywaiting
Participantnostradamus, you’re quite right in saying that after all the leves of taxes, fees and costs, we are paying just as much, or more than in socialist countries, yet we don’t have the benefits.
Some of my friends in Europe cannot believe how much we pay in property taxes and HOA as well as health care and education. Most Americans don’t realize it but their health insurance contributions at work as well as co-payments are taxes.
The difference with the military installations in Korea, Japan and Germany is that unlike, Iraq, the locals don’t want to kill us. They never did. 4000 Americans never died after the military hostilities ended in Korea, Japan, and Germany combined.
I’m sick of the Bush Administration talking about the heroes in Iraq. Think about what those talented heroes could be doing if their wonderful skills were used in the private sector.
-
March 25, 2008 at 5:02 PM #176545
patientlywaiting
Participantnostradamus, you’re quite right in saying that after all the leves of taxes, fees and costs, we are paying just as much, or more than in socialist countries, yet we don’t have the benefits.
Some of my friends in Europe cannot believe how much we pay in property taxes and HOA as well as health care and education. Most Americans don’t realize it but their health insurance contributions at work as well as co-payments are taxes.
The difference with the military installations in Korea, Japan and Germany is that unlike, Iraq, the locals don’t want to kill us. They never did. 4000 Americans never died after the military hostilities ended in Korea, Japan, and Germany combined.
I’m sick of the Bush Administration talking about the heroes in Iraq. Think about what those talented heroes could be doing if their wonderful skills were used in the private sector.
-
March 25, 2008 at 5:02 PM #176548
patientlywaiting
Participantnostradamus, you’re quite right in saying that after all the leves of taxes, fees and costs, we are paying just as much, or more than in socialist countries, yet we don’t have the benefits.
Some of my friends in Europe cannot believe how much we pay in property taxes and HOA as well as health care and education. Most Americans don’t realize it but their health insurance contributions at work as well as co-payments are taxes.
The difference with the military installations in Korea, Japan and Germany is that unlike, Iraq, the locals don’t want to kill us. They never did. 4000 Americans never died after the military hostilities ended in Korea, Japan, and Germany combined.
I’m sick of the Bush Administration talking about the heroes in Iraq. Think about what those talented heroes could be doing if their wonderful skills were used in the private sector.
-
March 25, 2008 at 5:02 PM #176638
patientlywaiting
Participantnostradamus, you’re quite right in saying that after all the leves of taxes, fees and costs, we are paying just as much, or more than in socialist countries, yet we don’t have the benefits.
Some of my friends in Europe cannot believe how much we pay in property taxes and HOA as well as health care and education. Most Americans don’t realize it but their health insurance contributions at work as well as co-payments are taxes.
The difference with the military installations in Korea, Japan and Germany is that unlike, Iraq, the locals don’t want to kill us. They never did. 4000 Americans never died after the military hostilities ended in Korea, Japan, and Germany combined.
I’m sick of the Bush Administration talking about the heroes in Iraq. Think about what those talented heroes could be doing if their wonderful skills were used in the private sector.
-
March 25, 2008 at 4:39 PM #176522
nostradamus
ParticipantI think it’s pretty safe to say that no matter who gets elected, American military presence in Iraq will be permanent (like Korea, Japan, Germany) and the investment banks will be getting bailed out as much as possible. All paid for by us.
The question is, how long are Americans going to take this? I for one am sick of being an ostrich. At least 1/3 of most people’s lifelong working career is dedicated to paying taxes, and those taxes are being used to enrich a privileged few. After sales tax and everything else we probably pay the equivalent of taxes in a socialist society but we don’t get any of the benefits of one (health care, retirement, etc).
Check this out, especially all the taxes and acts that led up to it. Please do not take this as incitement, rather just an historical observation of the similarities between then and now.
-
March 25, 2008 at 4:39 PM #176526
nostradamus
ParticipantI think it’s pretty safe to say that no matter who gets elected, American military presence in Iraq will be permanent (like Korea, Japan, Germany) and the investment banks will be getting bailed out as much as possible. All paid for by us.
The question is, how long are Americans going to take this? I for one am sick of being an ostrich. At least 1/3 of most people’s lifelong working career is dedicated to paying taxes, and those taxes are being used to enrich a privileged few. After sales tax and everything else we probably pay the equivalent of taxes in a socialist society but we don’t get any of the benefits of one (health care, retirement, etc).
Check this out, especially all the taxes and acts that led up to it. Please do not take this as incitement, rather just an historical observation of the similarities between then and now.
-
March 25, 2008 at 4:39 PM #176528
nostradamus
ParticipantI think it’s pretty safe to say that no matter who gets elected, American military presence in Iraq will be permanent (like Korea, Japan, Germany) and the investment banks will be getting bailed out as much as possible. All paid for by us.
The question is, how long are Americans going to take this? I for one am sick of being an ostrich. At least 1/3 of most people’s lifelong working career is dedicated to paying taxes, and those taxes are being used to enrich a privileged few. After sales tax and everything else we probably pay the equivalent of taxes in a socialist society but we don’t get any of the benefits of one (health care, retirement, etc).
Check this out, especially all the taxes and acts that led up to it. Please do not take this as incitement, rather just an historical observation of the similarities between then and now.
-
March 25, 2008 at 4:39 PM #176618
nostradamus
ParticipantI think it’s pretty safe to say that no matter who gets elected, American military presence in Iraq will be permanent (like Korea, Japan, Germany) and the investment banks will be getting bailed out as much as possible. All paid for by us.
The question is, how long are Americans going to take this? I for one am sick of being an ostrich. At least 1/3 of most people’s lifelong working career is dedicated to paying taxes, and those taxes are being used to enrich a privileged few. After sales tax and everything else we probably pay the equivalent of taxes in a socialist society but we don’t get any of the benefits of one (health care, retirement, etc).
Check this out, especially all the taxes and acts that led up to it. Please do not take this as incitement, rather just an historical observation of the similarities between then and now.
-
March 25, 2008 at 4:54 PM #176163
Aecetia
ParticipantPatientlywaiting I am not a big McCain fan. However, I suggest you properly research the 100 year quote to see what he really said. I do not think anyone Libertarian, Republican or Democrat wants to spend 100 years there or in any other war.
Here is a link to the quote:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/25/politics/politico/main3965272.shtml -
March 25, 2008 at 4:54 PM #176517
Aecetia
ParticipantPatientlywaiting I am not a big McCain fan. However, I suggest you properly research the 100 year quote to see what he really said. I do not think anyone Libertarian, Republican or Democrat wants to spend 100 years there or in any other war.
Here is a link to the quote:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/25/politics/politico/main3965272.shtml -
March 25, 2008 at 4:54 PM #176521
Aecetia
ParticipantPatientlywaiting I am not a big McCain fan. However, I suggest you properly research the 100 year quote to see what he really said. I do not think anyone Libertarian, Republican or Democrat wants to spend 100 years there or in any other war.
Here is a link to the quote:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/25/politics/politico/main3965272.shtml -
March 25, 2008 at 4:54 PM #176523
Aecetia
ParticipantPatientlywaiting I am not a big McCain fan. However, I suggest you properly research the 100 year quote to see what he really said. I do not think anyone Libertarian, Republican or Democrat wants to spend 100 years there or in any other war.
Here is a link to the quote:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/25/politics/politico/main3965272.shtml -
March 25, 2008 at 4:54 PM #176613
Aecetia
ParticipantPatientlywaiting I am not a big McCain fan. However, I suggest you properly research the 100 year quote to see what he really said. I do not think anyone Libertarian, Republican or Democrat wants to spend 100 years there or in any other war.
Here is a link to the quote:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/25/politics/politico/main3965272.shtml
-
-
March 25, 2008 at 4:10 PM #176502
Enorah
ParticipantWho here actually believes the crap that comes out of their mouths? They are trying to get elected (as if that is the way it really works anymore anyways). They are all speaking their particular party speak. None of it is real.
-
March 25, 2008 at 4:10 PM #176505
Enorah
ParticipantWho here actually believes the crap that comes out of their mouths? They are trying to get elected (as if that is the way it really works anymore anyways). They are all speaking their particular party speak. None of it is real.
-
March 25, 2008 at 4:10 PM #176508
Enorah
ParticipantWho here actually believes the crap that comes out of their mouths? They are trying to get elected (as if that is the way it really works anymore anyways). They are all speaking their particular party speak. None of it is real.
-
March 25, 2008 at 4:10 PM #176598
Enorah
ParticipantWho here actually believes the crap that comes out of their mouths? They are trying to get elected (as if that is the way it really works anymore anyways). They are all speaking their particular party speak. None of it is real.
-
-
March 25, 2008 at 3:34 PM #176486
capeman
ParticipantWell, Dubya claimed he wouldn’t allow bailouts either but he signed the deal on BSC. These guys are politicians and they do what they have to for their party and the ones who line their pockets. I am already voting for McCain due to his tendancy to handout less but if push comes to shove he’ll change his mind to suit his political agenda.
-
March 25, 2008 at 3:34 PM #176490
capeman
ParticipantWell, Dubya claimed he wouldn’t allow bailouts either but he signed the deal on BSC. These guys are politicians and they do what they have to for their party and the ones who line their pockets. I am already voting for McCain due to his tendancy to handout less but if push comes to shove he’ll change his mind to suit his political agenda.
-
March 25, 2008 at 3:34 PM #176493
capeman
ParticipantWell, Dubya claimed he wouldn’t allow bailouts either but he signed the deal on BSC. These guys are politicians and they do what they have to for their party and the ones who line their pockets. I am already voting for McCain due to his tendancy to handout less but if push comes to shove he’ll change his mind to suit his political agenda.
-
March 25, 2008 at 3:34 PM #176583
capeman
ParticipantWell, Dubya claimed he wouldn’t allow bailouts either but he signed the deal on BSC. These guys are politicians and they do what they have to for their party and the ones who line their pockets. I am already voting for McCain due to his tendancy to handout less but if push comes to shove he’ll change his mind to suit his political agenda.
-
March 26, 2008 at 10:22 AM #176433
SHILOH
Participant“Did I hear Hilary correctly on NPR that she wants to set aside $50 billion to buy foreclosed homes for towns in distress that will then be converted to low income housing?
Yeah…didn’t you read about that in “It Takes A Project”?
In 2006, It Takes a Village was republished as the “10th Anniversary Edition” with a new cover design and an introduction by the author. Clinton did not shy away from its conclusions; during her own presidential campaign in 2007, she said “I still believe it takes a village to raise a child.” Wikipedia
-
March 26, 2008 at 10:22 AM #176786
SHILOH
Participant“Did I hear Hilary correctly on NPR that she wants to set aside $50 billion to buy foreclosed homes for towns in distress that will then be converted to low income housing?
Yeah…didn’t you read about that in “It Takes A Project”?
In 2006, It Takes a Village was republished as the “10th Anniversary Edition” with a new cover design and an introduction by the author. Clinton did not shy away from its conclusions; during her own presidential campaign in 2007, she said “I still believe it takes a village to raise a child.” Wikipedia
-
March 26, 2008 at 10:22 AM #176789
SHILOH
Participant“Did I hear Hilary correctly on NPR that she wants to set aside $50 billion to buy foreclosed homes for towns in distress that will then be converted to low income housing?
Yeah…didn’t you read about that in “It Takes A Project”?
In 2006, It Takes a Village was republished as the “10th Anniversary Edition” with a new cover design and an introduction by the author. Clinton did not shy away from its conclusions; during her own presidential campaign in 2007, she said “I still believe it takes a village to raise a child.” Wikipedia
-
March 26, 2008 at 10:22 AM #176793
SHILOH
Participant“Did I hear Hilary correctly on NPR that she wants to set aside $50 billion to buy foreclosed homes for towns in distress that will then be converted to low income housing?
Yeah…didn’t you read about that in “It Takes A Project”?
In 2006, It Takes a Village was republished as the “10th Anniversary Edition” with a new cover design and an introduction by the author. Clinton did not shy away from its conclusions; during her own presidential campaign in 2007, she said “I still believe it takes a village to raise a child.” Wikipedia
-
March 26, 2008 at 10:22 AM #176886
SHILOH
Participant“Did I hear Hilary correctly on NPR that she wants to set aside $50 billion to buy foreclosed homes for towns in distress that will then be converted to low income housing?
Yeah…didn’t you read about that in “It Takes A Project”?
In 2006, It Takes a Village was republished as the “10th Anniversary Edition” with a new cover design and an introduction by the author. Clinton did not shy away from its conclusions; during her own presidential campaign in 2007, she said “I still believe it takes a village to raise a child.” Wikipedia
-
March 26, 2008 at 12:10 PM #176538
SHILOH
ParticipantIt seems to me, like it or not, oil is linked to national security. Suppose our country used 9/11 or WMD as a reason or excuse to gain a foothold in the Middle East – There is supposedly a lot of oil there –and Americans are voracious consumers of natural resources—especially “cheap” oil needed to maintain our standard of living – for the time being.
It would be a fallacy to think that our government hasn’t acted in the interest of private profit or national security to acquire more oil. I agree with others that a permanent presence in the Middle East is the trend.I war for oil makes people mad but it appears this is the way of the world.
-
March 26, 2008 at 12:36 PM #176558
Casca
ParticipantNostrodamus, since you asked, although to do the subject justice it would take a book. There is an oil component, but more directly our aim was to put the Iranians back in their box. They are the world sponsors of terror, and have been since Jimmy Carter pulled the rug out from under the Shah. Geopolitically, we couldn’t work against them from anywhere else. Saudi Arabia was and is problematic. If the Iranians ultimately gained control of Iraq, they’d have half the world’s oil supply. We couldn’t let that happen. With a democracy planted on their doorstep, that’s where they have to keep their eye, and that is why we’re in this for the long haul. Our venture in Iraq is the price of doing business, and staying in business. Bailing out homeowners, not so much.
-
March 26, 2008 at 12:36 PM #176912
Casca
ParticipantNostrodamus, since you asked, although to do the subject justice it would take a book. There is an oil component, but more directly our aim was to put the Iranians back in their box. They are the world sponsors of terror, and have been since Jimmy Carter pulled the rug out from under the Shah. Geopolitically, we couldn’t work against them from anywhere else. Saudi Arabia was and is problematic. If the Iranians ultimately gained control of Iraq, they’d have half the world’s oil supply. We couldn’t let that happen. With a democracy planted on their doorstep, that’s where they have to keep their eye, and that is why we’re in this for the long haul. Our venture in Iraq is the price of doing business, and staying in business. Bailing out homeowners, not so much.
-
March 26, 2008 at 12:36 PM #176914
Casca
ParticipantNostrodamus, since you asked, although to do the subject justice it would take a book. There is an oil component, but more directly our aim was to put the Iranians back in their box. They are the world sponsors of terror, and have been since Jimmy Carter pulled the rug out from under the Shah. Geopolitically, we couldn’t work against them from anywhere else. Saudi Arabia was and is problematic. If the Iranians ultimately gained control of Iraq, they’d have half the world’s oil supply. We couldn’t let that happen. With a democracy planted on their doorstep, that’s where they have to keep their eye, and that is why we’re in this for the long haul. Our venture in Iraq is the price of doing business, and staying in business. Bailing out homeowners, not so much.
-
March 26, 2008 at 12:36 PM #176919
Casca
ParticipantNostrodamus, since you asked, although to do the subject justice it would take a book. There is an oil component, but more directly our aim was to put the Iranians back in their box. They are the world sponsors of terror, and have been since Jimmy Carter pulled the rug out from under the Shah. Geopolitically, we couldn’t work against them from anywhere else. Saudi Arabia was and is problematic. If the Iranians ultimately gained control of Iraq, they’d have half the world’s oil supply. We couldn’t let that happen. With a democracy planted on their doorstep, that’s where they have to keep their eye, and that is why we’re in this for the long haul. Our venture in Iraq is the price of doing business, and staying in business. Bailing out homeowners, not so much.
-
March 26, 2008 at 12:36 PM #177011
Casca
ParticipantNostrodamus, since you asked, although to do the subject justice it would take a book. There is an oil component, but more directly our aim was to put the Iranians back in their box. They are the world sponsors of terror, and have been since Jimmy Carter pulled the rug out from under the Shah. Geopolitically, we couldn’t work against them from anywhere else. Saudi Arabia was and is problematic. If the Iranians ultimately gained control of Iraq, they’d have half the world’s oil supply. We couldn’t let that happen. With a democracy planted on their doorstep, that’s where they have to keep their eye, and that is why we’re in this for the long haul. Our venture in Iraq is the price of doing business, and staying in business. Bailing out homeowners, not so much.
-
-
March 26, 2008 at 12:10 PM #176892
SHILOH
ParticipantIt seems to me, like it or not, oil is linked to national security. Suppose our country used 9/11 or WMD as a reason or excuse to gain a foothold in the Middle East – There is supposedly a lot of oil there –and Americans are voracious consumers of natural resources—especially “cheap” oil needed to maintain our standard of living – for the time being.
It would be a fallacy to think that our government hasn’t acted in the interest of private profit or national security to acquire more oil. I agree with others that a permanent presence in the Middle East is the trend.I war for oil makes people mad but it appears this is the way of the world.
-
March 26, 2008 at 12:10 PM #176894
SHILOH
ParticipantIt seems to me, like it or not, oil is linked to national security. Suppose our country used 9/11 or WMD as a reason or excuse to gain a foothold in the Middle East – There is supposedly a lot of oil there –and Americans are voracious consumers of natural resources—especially “cheap” oil needed to maintain our standard of living – for the time being.
It would be a fallacy to think that our government hasn’t acted in the interest of private profit or national security to acquire more oil. I agree with others that a permanent presence in the Middle East is the trend.I war for oil makes people mad but it appears this is the way of the world.
-
March 26, 2008 at 12:10 PM #176900
SHILOH
ParticipantIt seems to me, like it or not, oil is linked to national security. Suppose our country used 9/11 or WMD as a reason or excuse to gain a foothold in the Middle East – There is supposedly a lot of oil there –and Americans are voracious consumers of natural resources—especially “cheap” oil needed to maintain our standard of living – for the time being.
It would be a fallacy to think that our government hasn’t acted in the interest of private profit or national security to acquire more oil. I agree with others that a permanent presence in the Middle East is the trend.I war for oil makes people mad but it appears this is the way of the world.
-
March 26, 2008 at 12:10 PM #176991
SHILOH
ParticipantIt seems to me, like it or not, oil is linked to national security. Suppose our country used 9/11 or WMD as a reason or excuse to gain a foothold in the Middle East – There is supposedly a lot of oil there –and Americans are voracious consumers of natural resources—especially “cheap” oil needed to maintain our standard of living – for the time being.
It would be a fallacy to think that our government hasn’t acted in the interest of private profit or national security to acquire more oil. I agree with others that a permanent presence in the Middle East is the trend.I war for oil makes people mad but it appears this is the way of the world.
-
March 26, 2008 at 11:48 PM #176818
patientrenter
ParticipantI couldn’t give a rat’s ass about the political tripe that gets debated on various blogs, but hearing McCain sound a note of caution, limits, and personal responsibility on the housing bubble problems was so refreshing and unusual that I have decided who would get my vote this year.
Patient renter in OC
-
March 27, 2008 at 8:18 AM #176883
jpinpb
ParticipantI’m not in favor of a bailout of homeowners. That’s BS, unless they are going to give me now a zero down, no doc loan at a very low fixed rate.
That said, I do not approve of corporate welfare either. Basically helping Bear Stears was exactly that.
Not only am I on the fence about buying a house, I’m on the fence about the election. When she first said she was going to run, I thought about it. But then when she started talking about helping the homeowners by fixing their rate. But I heard the government can’t interfere w/contracts like that. I ended up voting for Obama. He wasn’t saying things like that back then.
Now I don’t know.
-
March 27, 2008 at 9:56 AM #176930
patientlywaiting
ParticipantBush’s War is now on Frontline.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/Let’s not make it Mc Cain’s war.
-
March 27, 2008 at 1:29 PM #177123
Casca
ParticipantI watched all three hours of that hitpiece. How anyone could watch and not notice that all the interviews were given by malcontents so that they might grind their axes is beyond reason. Armitage is Colin Powell’s bitch, and this is Powell & Co’s version of the history. It lacks veracity, but will be gobbled up by the weakminded.
-
March 27, 2008 at 2:51 PM #177213
zk
ParticipantCasca,
Of course they’re all malcontents. Anybody with common sense who worked for incompetent fools like Bush and Cheney would be a malcontent.
I’d say anyone who prefers Bush and Cheney’s version of history to Powell and Co’s version of history is weak minded. Only a very few (percentage-wise) Americans still see Bush and Cheney as honest and competent. They are, like the weak-minded Bush, absolutely unable to admit that they are wrong. Their desire to see themselves as being in the right overwhelms the evidence that they see. So they continue to believe Bush and Cheney despite the fact that Bush and Cheney have been shown to be incompetent liars.
-
March 27, 2008 at 2:51 PM #177566
zk
ParticipantCasca,
Of course they’re all malcontents. Anybody with common sense who worked for incompetent fools like Bush and Cheney would be a malcontent.
I’d say anyone who prefers Bush and Cheney’s version of history to Powell and Co’s version of history is weak minded. Only a very few (percentage-wise) Americans still see Bush and Cheney as honest and competent. They are, like the weak-minded Bush, absolutely unable to admit that they are wrong. Their desire to see themselves as being in the right overwhelms the evidence that they see. So they continue to believe Bush and Cheney despite the fact that Bush and Cheney have been shown to be incompetent liars.
-
March 27, 2008 at 2:51 PM #177574
zk
ParticipantCasca,
Of course they’re all malcontents. Anybody with common sense who worked for incompetent fools like Bush and Cheney would be a malcontent.
I’d say anyone who prefers Bush and Cheney’s version of history to Powell and Co’s version of history is weak minded. Only a very few (percentage-wise) Americans still see Bush and Cheney as honest and competent. They are, like the weak-minded Bush, absolutely unable to admit that they are wrong. Their desire to see themselves as being in the right overwhelms the evidence that they see. So they continue to believe Bush and Cheney despite the fact that Bush and Cheney have been shown to be incompetent liars.
-
March 27, 2008 at 2:51 PM #177579
zk
ParticipantCasca,
Of course they’re all malcontents. Anybody with common sense who worked for incompetent fools like Bush and Cheney would be a malcontent.
I’d say anyone who prefers Bush and Cheney’s version of history to Powell and Co’s version of history is weak minded. Only a very few (percentage-wise) Americans still see Bush and Cheney as honest and competent. They are, like the weak-minded Bush, absolutely unable to admit that they are wrong. Their desire to see themselves as being in the right overwhelms the evidence that they see. So they continue to believe Bush and Cheney despite the fact that Bush and Cheney have been shown to be incompetent liars.
-
March 27, 2008 at 2:51 PM #177667
zk
ParticipantCasca,
Of course they’re all malcontents. Anybody with common sense who worked for incompetent fools like Bush and Cheney would be a malcontent.
I’d say anyone who prefers Bush and Cheney’s version of history to Powell and Co’s version of history is weak minded. Only a very few (percentage-wise) Americans still see Bush and Cheney as honest and competent. They are, like the weak-minded Bush, absolutely unable to admit that they are wrong. Their desire to see themselves as being in the right overwhelms the evidence that they see. So they continue to believe Bush and Cheney despite the fact that Bush and Cheney have been shown to be incompetent liars.
-
March 27, 2008 at 1:29 PM #177476
Casca
ParticipantI watched all three hours of that hitpiece. How anyone could watch and not notice that all the interviews were given by malcontents so that they might grind their axes is beyond reason. Armitage is Colin Powell’s bitch, and this is Powell & Co’s version of the history. It lacks veracity, but will be gobbled up by the weakminded.
-
March 27, 2008 at 1:29 PM #177484
Casca
ParticipantI watched all three hours of that hitpiece. How anyone could watch and not notice that all the interviews were given by malcontents so that they might grind their axes is beyond reason. Armitage is Colin Powell’s bitch, and this is Powell & Co’s version of the history. It lacks veracity, but will be gobbled up by the weakminded.
-
March 27, 2008 at 1:29 PM #177491
Casca
ParticipantI watched all three hours of that hitpiece. How anyone could watch and not notice that all the interviews were given by malcontents so that they might grind their axes is beyond reason. Armitage is Colin Powell’s bitch, and this is Powell & Co’s version of the history. It lacks veracity, but will be gobbled up by the weakminded.
-
March 27, 2008 at 1:29 PM #177577
Casca
ParticipantI watched all three hours of that hitpiece. How anyone could watch and not notice that all the interviews were given by malcontents so that they might grind their axes is beyond reason. Armitage is Colin Powell’s bitch, and this is Powell & Co’s version of the history. It lacks veracity, but will be gobbled up by the weakminded.
-
March 27, 2008 at 9:56 AM #177281
patientlywaiting
ParticipantBush’s War is now on Frontline.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/Let’s not make it Mc Cain’s war.
-
March 27, 2008 at 9:56 AM #177290
patientlywaiting
ParticipantBush’s War is now on Frontline.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/Let’s not make it Mc Cain’s war.
-
March 27, 2008 at 9:56 AM #177294
patientlywaiting
ParticipantBush’s War is now on Frontline.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/Let’s not make it Mc Cain’s war.
-
March 27, 2008 at 9:56 AM #177382
patientlywaiting
ParticipantBush’s War is now on Frontline.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/Let’s not make it Mc Cain’s war.
-
-
March 27, 2008 at 8:18 AM #177236
jpinpb
ParticipantI’m not in favor of a bailout of homeowners. That’s BS, unless they are going to give me now a zero down, no doc loan at a very low fixed rate.
That said, I do not approve of corporate welfare either. Basically helping Bear Stears was exactly that.
Not only am I on the fence about buying a house, I’m on the fence about the election. When she first said she was going to run, I thought about it. But then when she started talking about helping the homeowners by fixing their rate. But I heard the government can’t interfere w/contracts like that. I ended up voting for Obama. He wasn’t saying things like that back then.
Now I don’t know.
-
March 27, 2008 at 8:18 AM #177244
jpinpb
ParticipantI’m not in favor of a bailout of homeowners. That’s BS, unless they are going to give me now a zero down, no doc loan at a very low fixed rate.
That said, I do not approve of corporate welfare either. Basically helping Bear Stears was exactly that.
Not only am I on the fence about buying a house, I’m on the fence about the election. When she first said she was going to run, I thought about it. But then when she started talking about helping the homeowners by fixing their rate. But I heard the government can’t interfere w/contracts like that. I ended up voting for Obama. He wasn’t saying things like that back then.
Now I don’t know.
-
March 27, 2008 at 8:18 AM #177251
jpinpb
ParticipantI’m not in favor of a bailout of homeowners. That’s BS, unless they are going to give me now a zero down, no doc loan at a very low fixed rate.
That said, I do not approve of corporate welfare either. Basically helping Bear Stears was exactly that.
Not only am I on the fence about buying a house, I’m on the fence about the election. When she first said she was going to run, I thought about it. But then when she started talking about helping the homeowners by fixing their rate. But I heard the government can’t interfere w/contracts like that. I ended up voting for Obama. He wasn’t saying things like that back then.
Now I don’t know.
-
March 27, 2008 at 8:18 AM #177337
jpinpb
ParticipantI’m not in favor of a bailout of homeowners. That’s BS, unless they are going to give me now a zero down, no doc loan at a very low fixed rate.
That said, I do not approve of corporate welfare either. Basically helping Bear Stears was exactly that.
Not only am I on the fence about buying a house, I’m on the fence about the election. When she first said she was going to run, I thought about it. But then when she started talking about helping the homeowners by fixing their rate. But I heard the government can’t interfere w/contracts like that. I ended up voting for Obama. He wasn’t saying things like that back then.
Now I don’t know.
-
March 27, 2008 at 5:32 PM #177278
ltokuda
ParticipantThe CEO of BSC just sold all of his stock for $61 million. He can thank the US tax payer for bailing him out … otherwise, his stock would have been worth zero. Its good to see that our hard earned money is going to help the needy.
-
March 27, 2008 at 6:10 PM #177293
jpinpb
ParticipantThat burns me. This is a good reason why it’s hard for me to vote Rep. Always bailing out those poor corporations.
At the same time, I don’t want to help losers who are not working looking for government bailouts (or scam investors for that matter).
I was thinking a happy medium is allow people to write off their education. Helps people help themselves. Get training, get a job, get off your a$$ and work. As an incentive, you pay for your education and you can write it off, or maybe part of it. Seems like a win-win. Get the dregs off the government’s charity. Helps society generally. Less tax dollars, though. Or maybe alternatively giving companies some kind of tax break for training U.S. workers.
Anyway, I am sick of reading my tax dollars going to help people or corporations. I need the help myself, damn it!
-
March 27, 2008 at 7:17 PM #177303
Ash Housewares
ParticipantDitto what zk said. Anyone who looks at the record will conclude the Bush foreign policy is a disaster. People like Casca argue that the war is part of a larger struggle in the middle east involving Iran, etc, and they use scare tactics to make their points. But they never seem to mention that the reason the war was started, if we our to believe Bush, was over Iraq’s WMD program. Since that didn’t pan out they are just grasping at straws for another justification to make it look like some brilliant well thought out plan, like countering Iran was the idea all along. It’s revisionist history at best.
-
March 27, 2008 at 8:15 PM #177328
Anonymous
GuestThere will be a government bailout of homeowners regardless of who is elected. The reality is that 68% of households are homeowners. Anyone who owns a home is going to want a bailout so that their primary asset doesn’t lose its value. The politicians know this. Unfortunately, those of use who don’t own are in the minority and our tax dollars are going to pay for the bailout of the a-holes.
-
March 27, 2008 at 9:26 PM #177373
socrattt
ParticipantI think the scariest thing about this country is the fact that we can’t obtain a certain level no matter how hard we try, unless corruption is involved. I feel like a peasant at times in America and yet my paychecks run well into the 6 figures. I invest my retirement into stocks that seem to have potential and yet someone at the top decides he wants more so I get less.
This country is spinning its’ wheel in the wrong direction. Clinton, Obama and McCain are all wrong for this country. Power and greed are tearing this country apart and unfortunately nothing is going to stop this country from ultimately destroying itself. It doesn’t make a difference who becomes our next President because we are currently in a mess that truly can’t be fixed. This country is definitely headed into a depression and a well deserved one. GREED KILLS!!!
-
March 28, 2008 at 12:21 AM #177463
bob007
ParticipantMcCain’s remark on the housing crisis was right out of the piggington board. It is refreshing to hear a prominent politician come out swinging.
McCain is a man of honor. He served his country with distinction in Vietnam. I disagree with him on Iraq. I am willing to defer to him given his past service to the country. That is something I would never give Bush.
He has bucked the party line on campaign finance (I agree with him) and immigration (where I disagree). I hope he has an independent mind when he governs as a President.
I say “Vote for McCain”
-
March 28, 2008 at 6:19 AM #177478
raptorduck
ParticipantInteresting dialog. Ok, for the record, I was a Guliani supporter and gave generously to his campaign. But now that he is out, McCain has my full support.
If Hilary wins, I am moving to overseas.
-
March 28, 2008 at 9:21 AM #177563
larrylujack
ParticipantMcCain = More of the same
Neocon Bush/Cheney foreign policy. If your in favor of continued neocon foreign policy, well, McCain’s your man.
Personally, I like the majority of other Americans have had enough of the wasted lives and squandered billions in Iraq.
Consequently, to consider a short tempered war lover as commander in chief that promises to give us more of the same, particularly in view of what an abject failure neocon foreign policy has been for the past 8 years, is sheer folly.LL
-
March 28, 2008 at 10:32 AM #177598
ltokuda
ParticipantUnfortunately, McCain has already endorsed a massive bailout for the irresponsible. He endorsed the $30 billion dollar bail out of BSC and the $200 billion bail out of the big investment banks. No matter which candidate you vote for, you’re going to be bailing out some group of speculators.
Do you want to bail out guys like the CEO of BSC, who sold all his shares yesterday for $61 million dollars when they should have been worth zero? Or do you want to bail out homeowners who bet on prices going up forever? Pick your charity.
-
March 28, 2008 at 10:32 AM #177951
ltokuda
ParticipantUnfortunately, McCain has already endorsed a massive bailout for the irresponsible. He endorsed the $30 billion dollar bail out of BSC and the $200 billion bail out of the big investment banks. No matter which candidate you vote for, you’re going to be bailing out some group of speculators.
Do you want to bail out guys like the CEO of BSC, who sold all his shares yesterday for $61 million dollars when they should have been worth zero? Or do you want to bail out homeowners who bet on prices going up forever? Pick your charity.
-
March 28, 2008 at 10:32 AM #177957
ltokuda
ParticipantUnfortunately, McCain has already endorsed a massive bailout for the irresponsible. He endorsed the $30 billion dollar bail out of BSC and the $200 billion bail out of the big investment banks. No matter which candidate you vote for, you’re going to be bailing out some group of speculators.
Do you want to bail out guys like the CEO of BSC, who sold all his shares yesterday for $61 million dollars when they should have been worth zero? Or do you want to bail out homeowners who bet on prices going up forever? Pick your charity.
-
March 28, 2008 at 10:32 AM #177965
ltokuda
ParticipantUnfortunately, McCain has already endorsed a massive bailout for the irresponsible. He endorsed the $30 billion dollar bail out of BSC and the $200 billion bail out of the big investment banks. No matter which candidate you vote for, you’re going to be bailing out some group of speculators.
Do you want to bail out guys like the CEO of BSC, who sold all his shares yesterday for $61 million dollars when they should have been worth zero? Or do you want to bail out homeowners who bet on prices going up forever? Pick your charity.
-
March 28, 2008 at 10:32 AM #178053
ltokuda
ParticipantUnfortunately, McCain has already endorsed a massive bailout for the irresponsible. He endorsed the $30 billion dollar bail out of BSC and the $200 billion bail out of the big investment banks. No matter which candidate you vote for, you’re going to be bailing out some group of speculators.
Do you want to bail out guys like the CEO of BSC, who sold all his shares yesterday for $61 million dollars when they should have been worth zero? Or do you want to bail out homeowners who bet on prices going up forever? Pick your charity.
-
March 28, 2008 at 10:39 AM #177603
Dukehorn
ParticipantSome of the revisionist history here is truly amazing. I guess you have long term memory amnesia and just store up what FoxNews says the last few weeks.
Certain people must have just blocked out all the interviews given by Cheney in 2003.
“We will be welcomed as liberators.”
“We will not be in Iraq for any significant period of time.”
“Iraq has WMDs.”Some of you forgot that Rumself vetoed the commanders that said that post-War Iraq would require more troops than the administration was going to send.
Did you forget that the “Surge” happened in 2007? 4 years after the recommendation made by our military, which was initially vetoed by this administration.
If there are malcontents, it’s because they’re astonished in how things have gone to @#[email protected] since 2001 when we (a) had a good economy and (b) had allies all over the world.
For a bunch of guys that never served in combat, they’ve done a pretty good job of getting our military bogged down and of not listening to guys who have served.
All that being said, I’m not willing to withdraw from Iraq at this juncture due to my foreign policy beliefs (I’m a pragmatic militarist) so there is a chance that I will support McCain. But to pretend that Bush and Cheney need to get plaudits for the sad state of our country is amazing.
-
March 28, 2008 at 10:39 AM #177956
Dukehorn
ParticipantSome of the revisionist history here is truly amazing. I guess you have long term memory amnesia and just store up what FoxNews says the last few weeks.
Certain people must have just blocked out all the interviews given by Cheney in 2003.
“We will be welcomed as liberators.”
“We will not be in Iraq for any significant period of time.”
“Iraq has WMDs.”Some of you forgot that Rumself vetoed the commanders that said that post-War Iraq would require more troops than the administration was going to send.
Did you forget that the “Surge” happened in 2007? 4 years after the recommendation made by our military, which was initially vetoed by this administration.
If there are malcontents, it’s because they’re astonished in how things have gone to @#[email protected] since 2001 when we (a) had a good economy and (b) had allies all over the world.
For a bunch of guys that never served in combat, they’ve done a pretty good job of getting our military bogged down and of not listening to guys who have served.
All that being said, I’m not willing to withdraw from Iraq at this juncture due to my foreign policy beliefs (I’m a pragmatic militarist) so there is a chance that I will support McCain. But to pretend that Bush and Cheney need to get plaudits for the sad state of our country is amazing.
-
March 28, 2008 at 10:39 AM #177962
Dukehorn
ParticipantSome of the revisionist history here is truly amazing. I guess you have long term memory amnesia and just store up what FoxNews says the last few weeks.
Certain people must have just blocked out all the interviews given by Cheney in 2003.
“We will be welcomed as liberators.”
“We will not be in Iraq for any significant period of time.”
“Iraq has WMDs.”Some of you forgot that Rumself vetoed the commanders that said that post-War Iraq would require more troops than the administration was going to send.
Did you forget that the “Surge” happened in 2007? 4 years after the recommendation made by our military, which was initially vetoed by this administration.
If there are malcontents, it’s because they’re astonished in how things have gone to @#[email protected] since 2001 when we (a) had a good economy and (b) had allies all over the world.
For a bunch of guys that never served in combat, they’ve done a pretty good job of getting our military bogged down and of not listening to guys who have served.
All that being said, I’m not willing to withdraw from Iraq at this juncture due to my foreign policy beliefs (I’m a pragmatic militarist) so there is a chance that I will support McCain. But to pretend that Bush and Cheney need to get plaudits for the sad state of our country is amazing.
-
March 28, 2008 at 10:39 AM #177970
Dukehorn
ParticipantSome of the revisionist history here is truly amazing. I guess you have long term memory amnesia and just store up what FoxNews says the last few weeks.
Certain people must have just blocked out all the interviews given by Cheney in 2003.
“We will be welcomed as liberators.”
“We will not be in Iraq for any significant period of time.”
“Iraq has WMDs.”Some of you forgot that Rumself vetoed the commanders that said that post-War Iraq would require more troops than the administration was going to send.
Did you forget that the “Surge” happened in 2007? 4 years after the recommendation made by our military, which was initially vetoed by this administration.
If there are malcontents, it’s because they’re astonished in how things have gone to @#[email protected] since 2001 when we (a) had a good economy and (b) had allies all over the world.
For a bunch of guys that never served in combat, they’ve done a pretty good job of getting our military bogged down and of not listening to guys who have served.
All that being said, I’m not willing to withdraw from Iraq at this juncture due to my foreign policy beliefs (I’m a pragmatic militarist) so there is a chance that I will support McCain. But to pretend that Bush and Cheney need to get plaudits for the sad state of our country is amazing.
-
March 28, 2008 at 10:39 AM #178058
Dukehorn
ParticipantSome of the revisionist history here is truly amazing. I guess you have long term memory amnesia and just store up what FoxNews says the last few weeks.
Certain people must have just blocked out all the interviews given by Cheney in 2003.
“We will be welcomed as liberators.”
“We will not be in Iraq for any significant period of time.”
“Iraq has WMDs.”Some of you forgot that Rumself vetoed the commanders that said that post-War Iraq would require more troops than the administration was going to send.
Did you forget that the “Surge” happened in 2007? 4 years after the recommendation made by our military, which was initially vetoed by this administration.
If there are malcontents, it’s because they’re astonished in how things have gone to @#[email protected] since 2001 when we (a) had a good economy and (b) had allies all over the world.
For a bunch of guys that never served in combat, they’ve done a pretty good job of getting our military bogged down and of not listening to guys who have served.
All that being said, I’m not willing to withdraw from Iraq at this juncture due to my foreign policy beliefs (I’m a pragmatic militarist) so there is a chance that I will support McCain. But to pretend that Bush and Cheney need to get plaudits for the sad state of our country is amazing.
-
April 3, 2008 at 4:32 PM #180425
bob007
ParticipantIgnoring his rhetoric I expect McCain to pullout the US troops from Iraq. He is a soldier. He will seek a honorable way out.
-
April 3, 2008 at 4:47 PM #180435
blahblahblah
ParticipantHowever, I want a democratic president in the white house becuause unlike Republicans, they care for the common, working-class man.
Man I wish that were still true. Maybe in the days of FDR and JFK but I don’t think so anymore. President Bubba gave China permanent favored-nation trading status to keep his Arkansas Wal-Mart buddies happy, so now we don’t make anything here anymore and instead buy all of our goods from a communist hellhole that uses slave labor to keep costs down. And good old President Bubba dropped the NAFTA atomic bomb on Mexican agribusiness, forcing tens of millions of poor farmworkers north in search of food. As an added bonus to make them even more miserable he extended the border fence 700 miles inland to make their trek northward horrifically dangerous. These two acts damaged America (and Mexico) as much as anything Bush has done to our economy while simultaneously strengthening China. Most of us in the middle class thought everything was great during the Clinton years because our tech stock portfolios looked fantastic, but in actuality it just took a few years before the real damage from his policies would be felt.
In Bubba’s defense I will say that his wars were smaller and killed fewer people, but only by a little. His nonstop 8-year bombing of Iraq and the continuation of Gulf War sanctions killed hundreds of thousands.
We are so screwed. I don’t care who we vote for, there is going to be more war, more debt, more bailouts for rich bankers, and more misery for the common American. Obama might be the only one that would do anything different but who knows. God help us.
-
April 3, 2008 at 4:47 PM #180776
blahblahblah
ParticipantHowever, I want a democratic president in the white house becuause unlike Republicans, they care for the common, working-class man.
Man I wish that were still true. Maybe in the days of FDR and JFK but I don’t think so anymore. President Bubba gave China permanent favored-nation trading status to keep his Arkansas Wal-Mart buddies happy, so now we don’t make anything here anymore and instead buy all of our goods from a communist hellhole that uses slave labor to keep costs down. And good old President Bubba dropped the NAFTA atomic bomb on Mexican agribusiness, forcing tens of millions of poor farmworkers north in search of food. As an added bonus to make them even more miserable he extended the border fence 700 miles inland to make their trek northward horrifically dangerous. These two acts damaged America (and Mexico) as much as anything Bush has done to our economy while simultaneously strengthening China. Most of us in the middle class thought everything was great during the Clinton years because our tech stock portfolios looked fantastic, but in actuality it just took a few years before the real damage from his policies would be felt.
In Bubba’s defense I will say that his wars were smaller and killed fewer people, but only by a little. His nonstop 8-year bombing of Iraq and the continuation of Gulf War sanctions killed hundreds of thousands.
We are so screwed. I don’t care who we vote for, there is going to be more war, more debt, more bailouts for rich bankers, and more misery for the common American. Obama might be the only one that would do anything different but who knows. God help us.
-
April 3, 2008 at 4:47 PM #180777
blahblahblah
ParticipantHowever, I want a democratic president in the white house becuause unlike Republicans, they care for the common, working-class man.
Man I wish that were still true. Maybe in the days of FDR and JFK but I don’t think so anymore. President Bubba gave China permanent favored-nation trading status to keep his Arkansas Wal-Mart buddies happy, so now we don’t make anything here anymore and instead buy all of our goods from a communist hellhole that uses slave labor to keep costs down. And good old President Bubba dropped the NAFTA atomic bomb on Mexican agribusiness, forcing tens of millions of poor farmworkers north in search of food. As an added bonus to make them even more miserable he extended the border fence 700 miles inland to make their trek northward horrifically dangerous. These two acts damaged America (and Mexico) as much as anything Bush has done to our economy while simultaneously strengthening China. Most of us in the middle class thought everything was great during the Clinton years because our tech stock portfolios looked fantastic, but in actuality it just took a few years before the real damage from his policies would be felt.
In Bubba’s defense I will say that his wars were smaller and killed fewer people, but only by a little. His nonstop 8-year bombing of Iraq and the continuation of Gulf War sanctions killed hundreds of thousands.
We are so screwed. I don’t care who we vote for, there is going to be more war, more debt, more bailouts for rich bankers, and more misery for the common American. Obama might be the only one that would do anything different but who knows. God help us.
-
April 3, 2008 at 4:47 PM #180778
blahblahblah
ParticipantHowever, I want a democratic president in the white house becuause unlike Republicans, they care for the common, working-class man.
Man I wish that were still true. Maybe in the days of FDR and JFK but I don’t think so anymore. President Bubba gave China permanent favored-nation trading status to keep his Arkansas Wal-Mart buddies happy, so now we don’t make anything here anymore and instead buy all of our goods from a communist hellhole that uses slave labor to keep costs down. And good old President Bubba dropped the NAFTA atomic bomb on Mexican agribusiness, forcing tens of millions of poor farmworkers north in search of food. As an added bonus to make them even more miserable he extended the border fence 700 miles inland to make their trek northward horrifically dangerous. These two acts damaged America (and Mexico) as much as anything Bush has done to our economy while simultaneously strengthening China. Most of us in the middle class thought everything was great during the Clinton years because our tech stock portfolios looked fantastic, but in actuality it just took a few years before the real damage from his policies would be felt.
In Bubba’s defense I will say that his wars were smaller and killed fewer people, but only by a little. His nonstop 8-year bombing of Iraq and the continuation of Gulf War sanctions killed hundreds of thousands.
We are so screwed. I don’t care who we vote for, there is going to be more war, more debt, more bailouts for rich bankers, and more misery for the common American. Obama might be the only one that would do anything different but who knows. God help us.
-
April 3, 2008 at 4:47 PM #180779
blahblahblah
ParticipantHowever, I want a democratic president in the white house becuause unlike Republicans, they care for the common, working-class man.
Man I wish that were still true. Maybe in the days of FDR and JFK but I don’t think so anymore. President Bubba gave China permanent favored-nation trading status to keep his Arkansas Wal-Mart buddies happy, so now we don’t make anything here anymore and instead buy all of our goods from a communist hellhole that uses slave labor to keep costs down. And good old President Bubba dropped the NAFTA atomic bomb on Mexican agribusiness, forcing tens of millions of poor farmworkers north in search of food. As an added bonus to make them even more miserable he extended the border fence 700 miles inland to make their trek northward horrifically dangerous. These two acts damaged America (and Mexico) as much as anything Bush has done to our economy while simultaneously strengthening China. Most of us in the middle class thought everything was great during the Clinton years because our tech stock portfolios looked fantastic, but in actuality it just took a few years before the real damage from his policies would be felt.
In Bubba’s defense I will say that his wars were smaller and killed fewer people, but only by a little. His nonstop 8-year bombing of Iraq and the continuation of Gulf War sanctions killed hundreds of thousands.
We are so screwed. I don’t care who we vote for, there is going to be more war, more debt, more bailouts for rich bankers, and more misery for the common American. Obama might be the only one that would do anything different but who knows. God help us.
-
April 3, 2008 at 4:47 PM #180809
blahblahblah
ParticipantHowever, I want a democratic president in the white house becuause unlike Republicans, they care for the common, working-class man.
Man I wish that were still true. Maybe in the days of FDR and JFK but I don’t think so anymore. President Bubba gave China permanent favored-nation trading status to keep his Arkansas Wal-Mart buddies happy, so now we don’t make anything here anymore and instead buy all of our goods from a communist hellhole that uses slave labor to keep costs down. And good old President Bubba dropped the NAFTA atomic bomb on Mexican agribusiness, forcing tens of millions of poor farmworkers north in search of food. As an added bonus to make them even more miserable he extended the border fence 700 miles inland to make their trek northward horrifically dangerous. These two acts damaged America (and Mexico) as much as anything Bush has done to our economy while simultaneously strengthening China. Most of us in the middle class thought everything was great during the Clinton years because our tech stock portfolios looked fantastic, but in actuality it just took a few years before the real damage from his policies would be felt.
In Bubba’s defense I will say that his wars were smaller and killed fewer people, but only by a little. His nonstop 8-year bombing of Iraq and the continuation of Gulf War sanctions killed hundreds of thousands.
We are so screwed. I don’t care who we vote for, there is going to be more war, more debt, more bailouts for rich bankers, and more misery for the common American. Obama might be the only one that would do anything different but who knows. God help us.
-
April 3, 2008 at 4:47 PM #180811
blahblahblah
ParticipantHowever, I want a democratic president in the white house becuause unlike Republicans, they care for the common, working-class man.
Man I wish that were still true. Maybe in the days of FDR and JFK but I don’t think so anymore. President Bubba gave China permanent favored-nation trading status to keep his Arkansas Wal-Mart buddies happy, so now we don’t make anything here anymore and instead buy all of our goods from a communist hellhole that uses slave labor to keep costs down. And good old President Bubba dropped the NAFTA atomic bomb on Mexican agribusiness, forcing tens of millions of poor farmworkers north in search of food. As an added bonus to make them even more miserable he extended the border fence 700 miles inland to make their trek northward horrifically dangerous. These two acts damaged America (and Mexico) as much as anything Bush has done to our economy while simultaneously strengthening China. Most of us in the middle class thought everything was great during the Clinton years because our tech stock portfolios looked fantastic, but in actuality it just took a few years before the real damage from his policies would be felt.
In Bubba’s defense I will say that his wars were smaller and killed fewer people, but only by a little. His nonstop 8-year bombing of Iraq and the continuation of Gulf War sanctions killed hundreds of thousands.
We are so screwed. I don’t care who we vote for, there is going to be more war, more debt, more bailouts for rich bankers, and more misery for the common American. Obama might be the only one that would do anything different but who knows. God help us.
-
April 3, 2008 at 4:32 PM #180768
bob007
ParticipantIgnoring his rhetoric I expect McCain to pullout the US troops from Iraq. He is a soldier. He will seek a honorable way out.
-
April 3, 2008 at 4:32 PM #180769
bob007
ParticipantIgnoring his rhetoric I expect McCain to pullout the US troops from Iraq. He is a soldier. He will seek a honorable way out.
-
April 3, 2008 at 4:32 PM #180770
bob007
ParticipantIgnoring his rhetoric I expect McCain to pullout the US troops from Iraq. He is a soldier. He will seek a honorable way out.
-
April 3, 2008 at 4:32 PM #180771
bob007
ParticipantIgnoring his rhetoric I expect McCain to pullout the US troops from Iraq. He is a soldier. He will seek a honorable way out.
-
April 3, 2008 at 4:32 PM #180801
bob007
ParticipantIgnoring his rhetoric I expect McCain to pullout the US troops from Iraq. He is a soldier. He will seek a honorable way out.
-
April 3, 2008 at 4:32 PM #180803
bob007
ParticipantIgnoring his rhetoric I expect McCain to pullout the US troops from Iraq. He is a soldier. He will seek a honorable way out.
-
April 3, 2008 at 8:47 PM #180585
svelte
Participantto consider a short tempered war lover as commander in chief…is sheer folly.
I had never thought of it that way – I love this statement. I’m going to borrow that phrase!
-
April 11, 2008 at 1:21 PM #185068
patientlywaiting
ParticipantIs anyone surprised by this?
McCain Shifts on Aid to Some Mortgage Holders
Article Tools Sponsored By
By MICHAEL COOPER
Published: April 11, 2008Senator John McCain, who drew criticism last month after he warned against broad government intervention to solve the deepening mortgage crisis, pivoted Thursday and called for the federal government to aid some homeowners in danger of losing their homes, by helping them to refinance and get federally guaranteed 30-year mortgages.
-
April 11, 2008 at 2:05 PM #185079
Arraya
ParticipantNo, because the banks call the shots, politicians are just puppets. I’m sure these proposals were written by investment bank higher ups that in some way defraud the tax payers out of money while lining someone’s pocket and not really helping anybody.
-
April 11, 2008 at 2:05 PM #185093
Arraya
ParticipantNo, because the banks call the shots, politicians are just puppets. I’m sure these proposals were written by investment bank higher ups that in some way defraud the tax payers out of money while lining someone’s pocket and not really helping anybody.
-
April 11, 2008 at 2:05 PM #185123
Arraya
ParticipantNo, because the banks call the shots, politicians are just puppets. I’m sure these proposals were written by investment bank higher ups that in some way defraud the tax payers out of money while lining someone’s pocket and not really helping anybody.
-
April 11, 2008 at 2:05 PM #185130
Arraya
ParticipantNo, because the banks call the shots, politicians are just puppets. I’m sure these proposals were written by investment bank higher ups that in some way defraud the tax payers out of money while lining someone’s pocket and not really helping anybody.
-
April 11, 2008 at 2:05 PM #185135
Arraya
ParticipantNo, because the banks call the shots, politicians are just puppets. I’m sure these proposals were written by investment bank higher ups that in some way defraud the tax payers out of money while lining someone’s pocket and not really helping anybody.
-
April 11, 2008 at 1:21 PM #185083
patientlywaiting
ParticipantIs anyone surprised by this?
McCain Shifts on Aid to Some Mortgage Holders
Article Tools Sponsored By
By MICHAEL COOPER
Published: April 11, 2008Senator John McCain, who drew criticism last month after he warned against broad government intervention to solve the deepening mortgage crisis, pivoted Thursday and called for the federal government to aid some homeowners in danger of losing their homes, by helping them to refinance and get federally guaranteed 30-year mortgages.
-
April 11, 2008 at 1:21 PM #185113
patientlywaiting
ParticipantIs anyone surprised by this?
McCain Shifts on Aid to Some Mortgage Holders
Article Tools Sponsored By
By MICHAEL COOPER
Published: April 11, 2008Senator John McCain, who drew criticism last month after he warned against broad government intervention to solve the deepening mortgage crisis, pivoted Thursday and called for the federal government to aid some homeowners in danger of losing their homes, by helping them to refinance and get federally guaranteed 30-year mortgages.
-
April 11, 2008 at 1:21 PM #185119
patientlywaiting
ParticipantIs anyone surprised by this?
McCain Shifts on Aid to Some Mortgage Holders
Article Tools Sponsored By
By MICHAEL COOPER
Published: April 11, 2008Senator John McCain, who drew criticism last month after he warned against broad government intervention to solve the deepening mortgage crisis, pivoted Thursday and called for the federal government to aid some homeowners in danger of losing their homes, by helping them to refinance and get federally guaranteed 30-year mortgages.
-
April 11, 2008 at 1:21 PM #185124
patientlywaiting
ParticipantIs anyone surprised by this?
McCain Shifts on Aid to Some Mortgage Holders
Article Tools Sponsored By
By MICHAEL COOPER
Published: April 11, 2008Senator John McCain, who drew criticism last month after he warned against broad government intervention to solve the deepening mortgage crisis, pivoted Thursday and called for the federal government to aid some homeowners in danger of losing their homes, by helping them to refinance and get federally guaranteed 30-year mortgages.
-
April 3, 2008 at 8:47 PM #180896
svelte
Participantto consider a short tempered war lover as commander in chief…is sheer folly.
I had never thought of it that way – I love this statement. I’m going to borrow that phrase!
-
April 3, 2008 at 8:47 PM #180898
svelte
Participantto consider a short tempered war lover as commander in chief…is sheer folly.
I had never thought of it that way – I love this statement. I’m going to borrow that phrase!
-
April 3, 2008 at 8:47 PM #180930
svelte
Participantto consider a short tempered war lover as commander in chief…is sheer folly.
I had never thought of it that way – I love this statement. I’m going to borrow that phrase!
-
April 3, 2008 at 8:47 PM #180933
svelte
Participantto consider a short tempered war lover as commander in chief…is sheer folly.
I had never thought of it that way – I love this statement. I’m going to borrow that phrase!
-
March 28, 2008 at 9:21 AM #177916
larrylujack
ParticipantMcCain = More of the same
Neocon Bush/Cheney foreign policy. If your in favor of continued neocon foreign policy, well, McCain’s your man.
Personally, I like the majority of other Americans have had enough of the wasted lives and squandered billions in Iraq.
Consequently, to consider a short tempered war lover as commander in chief that promises to give us more of the same, particularly in view of what an abject failure neocon foreign policy has been for the past 8 years, is sheer folly.LL
-
March 28, 2008 at 9:21 AM #177923
larrylujack
ParticipantMcCain = More of the same
Neocon Bush/Cheney foreign policy. If your in favor of continued neocon foreign policy, well, McCain’s your man.
Personally, I like the majority of other Americans have had enough of the wasted lives and squandered billions in Iraq.
Consequently, to consider a short tempered war lover as commander in chief that promises to give us more of the same, particularly in view of what an abject failure neocon foreign policy has been for the past 8 years, is sheer folly.LL
-
March 28, 2008 at 9:21 AM #177930
larrylujack
ParticipantMcCain = More of the same
Neocon Bush/Cheney foreign policy. If your in favor of continued neocon foreign policy, well, McCain’s your man.
Personally, I like the majority of other Americans have had enough of the wasted lives and squandered billions in Iraq.
Consequently, to consider a short tempered war lover as commander in chief that promises to give us more of the same, particularly in view of what an abject failure neocon foreign policy has been for the past 8 years, is sheer folly.LL
-
March 28, 2008 at 9:21 AM #178019
larrylujack
ParticipantMcCain = More of the same
Neocon Bush/Cheney foreign policy. If your in favor of continued neocon foreign policy, well, McCain’s your man.
Personally, I like the majority of other Americans have had enough of the wasted lives and squandered billions in Iraq.
Consequently, to consider a short tempered war lover as commander in chief that promises to give us more of the same, particularly in view of what an abject failure neocon foreign policy has been for the past 8 years, is sheer folly.LL
-
March 28, 2008 at 6:19 AM #177831
raptorduck
ParticipantInteresting dialog. Ok, for the record, I was a Guliani supporter and gave generously to his campaign. But now that he is out, McCain has my full support.
If Hilary wins, I am moving to overseas.
-
March 28, 2008 at 6:19 AM #177837
raptorduck
ParticipantInteresting dialog. Ok, for the record, I was a Guliani supporter and gave generously to his campaign. But now that he is out, McCain has my full support.
If Hilary wins, I am moving to overseas.
-
March 28, 2008 at 6:19 AM #177845
raptorduck
ParticipantInteresting dialog. Ok, for the record, I was a Guliani supporter and gave generously to his campaign. But now that he is out, McCain has my full support.
If Hilary wins, I am moving to overseas.
-
March 28, 2008 at 6:19 AM #177934
raptorduck
ParticipantInteresting dialog. Ok, for the record, I was a Guliani supporter and gave generously to his campaign. But now that he is out, McCain has my full support.
If Hilary wins, I am moving to overseas.
-
March 28, 2008 at 12:21 AM #177816
bob007
ParticipantMcCain’s remark on the housing crisis was right out of the piggington board. It is refreshing to hear a prominent politician come out swinging.
McCain is a man of honor. He served his country with distinction in Vietnam. I disagree with him on Iraq. I am willing to defer to him given his past service to the country. That is something I would never give Bush.
He has bucked the party line on campaign finance (I agree with him) and immigration (where I disagree). I hope he has an independent mind when he governs as a President.
I say “Vote for McCain”
-
March 28, 2008 at 12:21 AM #177822
bob007
ParticipantMcCain’s remark on the housing crisis was right out of the piggington board. It is refreshing to hear a prominent politician come out swinging.
McCain is a man of honor. He served his country with distinction in Vietnam. I disagree with him on Iraq. I am willing to defer to him given his past service to the country. That is something I would never give Bush.
He has bucked the party line on campaign finance (I agree with him) and immigration (where I disagree). I hope he has an independent mind when he governs as a President.
I say “Vote for McCain”
-
March 28, 2008 at 12:21 AM #177830
bob007
ParticipantMcCain’s remark on the housing crisis was right out of the piggington board. It is refreshing to hear a prominent politician come out swinging.
McCain is a man of honor. He served his country with distinction in Vietnam. I disagree with him on Iraq. I am willing to defer to him given his past service to the country. That is something I would never give Bush.
He has bucked the party line on campaign finance (I agree with him) and immigration (where I disagree). I hope he has an independent mind when he governs as a President.
I say “Vote for McCain”
-
March 28, 2008 at 12:21 AM #177918
bob007
ParticipantMcCain’s remark on the housing crisis was right out of the piggington board. It is refreshing to hear a prominent politician come out swinging.
McCain is a man of honor. He served his country with distinction in Vietnam. I disagree with him on Iraq. I am willing to defer to him given his past service to the country. That is something I would never give Bush.
He has bucked the party line on campaign finance (I agree with him) and immigration (where I disagree). I hope he has an independent mind when he governs as a President.
I say “Vote for McCain”
-
March 27, 2008 at 9:26 PM #177726
socrattt
ParticipantI think the scariest thing about this country is the fact that we can’t obtain a certain level no matter how hard we try, unless corruption is involved. I feel like a peasant at times in America and yet my paychecks run well into the 6 figures. I invest my retirement into stocks that seem to have potential and yet someone at the top decides he wants more so I get less.
This country is spinning its’ wheel in the wrong direction. Clinton, Obama and McCain are all wrong for this country. Power and greed are tearing this country apart and unfortunately nothing is going to stop this country from ultimately destroying itself. It doesn’t make a difference who becomes our next President because we are currently in a mess that truly can’t be fixed. This country is definitely headed into a depression and a well deserved one. GREED KILLS!!!
-
March 27, 2008 at 9:26 PM #177734
socrattt
ParticipantI think the scariest thing about this country is the fact that we can’t obtain a certain level no matter how hard we try, unless corruption is involved. I feel like a peasant at times in America and yet my paychecks run well into the 6 figures. I invest my retirement into stocks that seem to have potential and yet someone at the top decides he wants more so I get less.
This country is spinning its’ wheel in the wrong direction. Clinton, Obama and McCain are all wrong for this country. Power and greed are tearing this country apart and unfortunately nothing is going to stop this country from ultimately destroying itself. It doesn’t make a difference who becomes our next President because we are currently in a mess that truly can’t be fixed. This country is definitely headed into a depression and a well deserved one. GREED KILLS!!!
-
March 27, 2008 at 9:26 PM #177741
socrattt
ParticipantI think the scariest thing about this country is the fact that we can’t obtain a certain level no matter how hard we try, unless corruption is involved. I feel like a peasant at times in America and yet my paychecks run well into the 6 figures. I invest my retirement into stocks that seem to have potential and yet someone at the top decides he wants more so I get less.
This country is spinning its’ wheel in the wrong direction. Clinton, Obama and McCain are all wrong for this country. Power and greed are tearing this country apart and unfortunately nothing is going to stop this country from ultimately destroying itself. It doesn’t make a difference who becomes our next President because we are currently in a mess that truly can’t be fixed. This country is definitely headed into a depression and a well deserved one. GREED KILLS!!!
-
March 27, 2008 at 9:26 PM #177829
socrattt
ParticipantI think the scariest thing about this country is the fact that we can’t obtain a certain level no matter how hard we try, unless corruption is involved. I feel like a peasant at times in America and yet my paychecks run well into the 6 figures. I invest my retirement into stocks that seem to have potential and yet someone at the top decides he wants more so I get less.
This country is spinning its’ wheel in the wrong direction. Clinton, Obama and McCain are all wrong for this country. Power and greed are tearing this country apart and unfortunately nothing is going to stop this country from ultimately destroying itself. It doesn’t make a difference who becomes our next President because we are currently in a mess that truly can’t be fixed. This country is definitely headed into a depression and a well deserved one. GREED KILLS!!!
-
March 27, 2008 at 8:15 PM #177681
Anonymous
GuestThere will be a government bailout of homeowners regardless of who is elected. The reality is that 68% of households are homeowners. Anyone who owns a home is going to want a bailout so that their primary asset doesn’t lose its value. The politicians know this. Unfortunately, those of use who don’t own are in the minority and our tax dollars are going to pay for the bailout of the a-holes.
-
March 27, 2008 at 8:15 PM #177689
Anonymous
GuestThere will be a government bailout of homeowners regardless of who is elected. The reality is that 68% of households are homeowners. Anyone who owns a home is going to want a bailout so that their primary asset doesn’t lose its value. The politicians know this. Unfortunately, those of use who don’t own are in the minority and our tax dollars are going to pay for the bailout of the a-holes.
-
March 27, 2008 at 8:15 PM #177695
Anonymous
GuestThere will be a government bailout of homeowners regardless of who is elected. The reality is that 68% of households are homeowners. Anyone who owns a home is going to want a bailout so that their primary asset doesn’t lose its value. The politicians know this. Unfortunately, those of use who don’t own are in the minority and our tax dollars are going to pay for the bailout of the a-holes.
-
March 27, 2008 at 8:15 PM #177782
Anonymous
GuestThere will be a government bailout of homeowners regardless of who is elected. The reality is that 68% of households are homeowners. Anyone who owns a home is going to want a bailout so that their primary asset doesn’t lose its value. The politicians know this. Unfortunately, those of use who don’t own are in the minority and our tax dollars are going to pay for the bailout of the a-holes.
-
March 27, 2008 at 7:17 PM #177656
Ash Housewares
ParticipantDitto what zk said. Anyone who looks at the record will conclude the Bush foreign policy is a disaster. People like Casca argue that the war is part of a larger struggle in the middle east involving Iran, etc, and they use scare tactics to make their points. But they never seem to mention that the reason the war was started, if we our to believe Bush, was over Iraq’s WMD program. Since that didn’t pan out they are just grasping at straws for another justification to make it look like some brilliant well thought out plan, like countering Iran was the idea all along. It’s revisionist history at best.
-
March 27, 2008 at 7:17 PM #177664
Ash Housewares
ParticipantDitto what zk said. Anyone who looks at the record will conclude the Bush foreign policy is a disaster. People like Casca argue that the war is part of a larger struggle in the middle east involving Iran, etc, and they use scare tactics to make their points. But they never seem to mention that the reason the war was started, if we our to believe Bush, was over Iraq’s WMD program. Since that didn’t pan out they are just grasping at straws for another justification to make it look like some brilliant well thought out plan, like countering Iran was the idea all along. It’s revisionist history at best.
-
March 27, 2008 at 7:17 PM #177670
Ash Housewares
ParticipantDitto what zk said. Anyone who looks at the record will conclude the Bush foreign policy is a disaster. People like Casca argue that the war is part of a larger struggle in the middle east involving Iran, etc, and they use scare tactics to make their points. But they never seem to mention that the reason the war was started, if we our to believe Bush, was over Iraq’s WMD program. Since that didn’t pan out they are just grasping at straws for another justification to make it look like some brilliant well thought out plan, like countering Iran was the idea all along. It’s revisionist history at best.
-
March 27, 2008 at 7:17 PM #177757
Ash Housewares
ParticipantDitto what zk said. Anyone who looks at the record will conclude the Bush foreign policy is a disaster. People like Casca argue that the war is part of a larger struggle in the middle east involving Iran, etc, and they use scare tactics to make their points. But they never seem to mention that the reason the war was started, if we our to believe Bush, was over Iraq’s WMD program. Since that didn’t pan out they are just grasping at straws for another justification to make it look like some brilliant well thought out plan, like countering Iran was the idea all along. It’s revisionist history at best.
-
March 27, 2008 at 6:10 PM #177646
jpinpb
ParticipantThat burns me. This is a good reason why it’s hard for me to vote Rep. Always bailing out those poor corporations.
At the same time, I don’t want to help losers who are not working looking for government bailouts (or scam investors for that matter).
I was thinking a happy medium is allow people to write off their education. Helps people help themselves. Get training, get a job, get off your a$$ and work. As an incentive, you pay for your education and you can write it off, or maybe part of it. Seems like a win-win. Get the dregs off the government’s charity. Helps society generally. Less tax dollars, though. Or maybe alternatively giving companies some kind of tax break for training U.S. workers.
Anyway, I am sick of reading my tax dollars going to help people or corporations. I need the help myself, damn it!
-
March 27, 2008 at 6:10 PM #177654
jpinpb
ParticipantThat burns me. This is a good reason why it’s hard for me to vote Rep. Always bailing out those poor corporations.
At the same time, I don’t want to help losers who are not working looking for government bailouts (or scam investors for that matter).
I was thinking a happy medium is allow people to write off their education. Helps people help themselves. Get training, get a job, get off your a$$ and work. As an incentive, you pay for your education and you can write it off, or maybe part of it. Seems like a win-win. Get the dregs off the government’s charity. Helps society generally. Less tax dollars, though. Or maybe alternatively giving companies some kind of tax break for training U.S. workers.
Anyway, I am sick of reading my tax dollars going to help people or corporations. I need the help myself, damn it!
-
March 27, 2008 at 6:10 PM #177660
jpinpb
ParticipantThat burns me. This is a good reason why it’s hard for me to vote Rep. Always bailing out those poor corporations.
At the same time, I don’t want to help losers who are not working looking for government bailouts (or scam investors for that matter).
I was thinking a happy medium is allow people to write off their education. Helps people help themselves. Get training, get a job, get off your a$$ and work. As an incentive, you pay for your education and you can write it off, or maybe part of it. Seems like a win-win. Get the dregs off the government’s charity. Helps society generally. Less tax dollars, though. Or maybe alternatively giving companies some kind of tax break for training U.S. workers.
Anyway, I am sick of reading my tax dollars going to help people or corporations. I need the help myself, damn it!
-
March 27, 2008 at 6:10 PM #177747
jpinpb
ParticipantThat burns me. This is a good reason why it’s hard for me to vote Rep. Always bailing out those poor corporations.
At the same time, I don’t want to help losers who are not working looking for government bailouts (or scam investors for that matter).
I was thinking a happy medium is allow people to write off their education. Helps people help themselves. Get training, get a job, get off your a$$ and work. As an incentive, you pay for your education and you can write it off, or maybe part of it. Seems like a win-win. Get the dregs off the government’s charity. Helps society generally. Less tax dollars, though. Or maybe alternatively giving companies some kind of tax break for training U.S. workers.
Anyway, I am sick of reading my tax dollars going to help people or corporations. I need the help myself, damn it!
-
-
March 27, 2008 at 5:32 PM #177631
ltokuda
ParticipantThe CEO of BSC just sold all of his stock for $61 million. He can thank the US tax payer for bailing him out … otherwise, his stock would have been worth zero. Its good to see that our hard earned money is going to help the needy.
-
March 27, 2008 at 5:32 PM #177639
ltokuda
ParticipantThe CEO of BSC just sold all of his stock for $61 million. He can thank the US tax payer for bailing him out … otherwise, his stock would have been worth zero. Its good to see that our hard earned money is going to help the needy.
-
March 27, 2008 at 5:32 PM #177645
ltokuda
ParticipantThe CEO of BSC just sold all of his stock for $61 million. He can thank the US tax payer for bailing him out … otherwise, his stock would have been worth zero. Its good to see that our hard earned money is going to help the needy.
-
March 27, 2008 at 5:32 PM #177732
ltokuda
ParticipantThe CEO of BSC just sold all of his stock for $61 million. He can thank the US tax payer for bailing him out … otherwise, his stock would have been worth zero. Its good to see that our hard earned money is going to help the needy.
-
-
March 26, 2008 at 11:48 PM #177171
patientrenter
ParticipantI couldn’t give a rat’s ass about the political tripe that gets debated on various blogs, but hearing McCain sound a note of caution, limits, and personal responsibility on the housing bubble problems was so refreshing and unusual that I have decided who would get my vote this year.
Patient renter in OC
-
March 26, 2008 at 11:48 PM #177180
patientrenter
ParticipantI couldn’t give a rat’s ass about the political tripe that gets debated on various blogs, but hearing McCain sound a note of caution, limits, and personal responsibility on the housing bubble problems was so refreshing and unusual that I have decided who would get my vote this year.
Patient renter in OC
-
March 26, 2008 at 11:48 PM #177183
patientrenter
ParticipantI couldn’t give a rat’s ass about the political tripe that gets debated on various blogs, but hearing McCain sound a note of caution, limits, and personal responsibility on the housing bubble problems was so refreshing and unusual that I have decided who would get my vote this year.
Patient renter in OC
-
March 26, 2008 at 11:48 PM #177272
patientrenter
ParticipantI couldn’t give a rat’s ass about the political tripe that gets debated on various blogs, but hearing McCain sound a note of caution, limits, and personal responsibility on the housing bubble problems was so refreshing and unusual that I have decided who would get my vote this year.
Patient renter in OC
-
March 28, 2008 at 3:04 PM #177743
Anonymous
GuestI think that I’m probably a cross between a Dem and a Republican. I do NOT support bailouts in any form or fashion. However, I want a democratic president in the white house becuause unlike Republicans, they care for the common, working-class man. The Republicans only care for big businesses, high-earners and those that are wealthy. Screw the people who need help like those who are mentally ill. As long as they are keeping money in the pockets of those who are enjoying wealth, the lady who is dillusional and can’t help herself can rot on the street. Morally, I have a problem with that and so do a lot of people like me.
We need a national healthcare system. Other countries have them, obviously it can be done. Repubs would rather spend billions fighting wars we have no business fighting than to take care of American citizens. That’s where our responsibility lies.
What bugs me is Bush signed off on bailouts which is something I understand a Repub president should never do. But, we all know what an idiot he is, so that’s not surprising.
Thank God I didn’t vote for him.
-
March 29, 2008 at 12:26 AM #177993
CA renter
ParticipantGuess which presidential candidate wrote the following in August of 2007?:
Bailing out investors and their risky investments would just induce them to take on bigger risks next time, expecting another bailout, he believes.
More and more, corporate capitalists in side and beyond the financial markets do not want to behave as capitalists-willing to take the losses along with the profits. They want Washington, D.C., meaning you the taxpayers, to pay for their facilities (as with big time sports stadiums) or take on their losses because they believe that they are too big to be allowed to fail (as with large banks or industrial companies).
.
.
.
.
.
.Ralph Nader. And at least we know where he stands WRT consumers and taxpayers. I’m not in favor of all of his stances, but he does seem to be against the corporate bailouts (iffy on the FB bailout), and is against the war, FWIW.
-
March 29, 2008 at 12:26 AM #178349
CA renter
ParticipantGuess which presidential candidate wrote the following in August of 2007?:
Bailing out investors and their risky investments would just induce them to take on bigger risks next time, expecting another bailout, he believes.
More and more, corporate capitalists in side and beyond the financial markets do not want to behave as capitalists-willing to take the losses along with the profits. They want Washington, D.C., meaning you the taxpayers, to pay for their facilities (as with big time sports stadiums) or take on their losses because they believe that they are too big to be allowed to fail (as with large banks or industrial companies).
.
.
.
.
.
.Ralph Nader. And at least we know where he stands WRT consumers and taxpayers. I’m not in favor of all of his stances, but he does seem to be against the corporate bailouts (iffy on the FB bailout), and is against the war, FWIW.
-
March 29, 2008 at 12:26 AM #178352
CA renter
ParticipantGuess which presidential candidate wrote the following in August of 2007?:
Bailing out investors and their risky investments would just induce them to take on bigger risks next time, expecting another bailout, he believes.
More and more, corporate capitalists in side and beyond the financial markets do not want to behave as capitalists-willing to take the losses along with the profits. They want Washington, D.C., meaning you the taxpayers, to pay for their facilities (as with big time sports stadiums) or take on their losses because they believe that they are too big to be allowed to fail (as with large banks or industrial companies).
.
.
.
.
.
.Ralph Nader. And at least we know where he stands WRT consumers and taxpayers. I’m not in favor of all of his stances, but he does seem to be against the corporate bailouts (iffy on the FB bailout), and is against the war, FWIW.
-
March 29, 2008 at 12:26 AM #178360
CA renter
ParticipantGuess which presidential candidate wrote the following in August of 2007?:
Bailing out investors and their risky investments would just induce them to take on bigger risks next time, expecting another bailout, he believes.
More and more, corporate capitalists in side and beyond the financial markets do not want to behave as capitalists-willing to take the losses along with the profits. They want Washington, D.C., meaning you the taxpayers, to pay for their facilities (as with big time sports stadiums) or take on their losses because they believe that they are too big to be allowed to fail (as with large banks or industrial companies).
.
.
.
.
.
.Ralph Nader. And at least we know where he stands WRT consumers and taxpayers. I’m not in favor of all of his stances, but he does seem to be against the corporate bailouts (iffy on the FB bailout), and is against the war, FWIW.
-
March 29, 2008 at 12:26 AM #178448
CA renter
ParticipantGuess which presidential candidate wrote the following in August of 2007?:
Bailing out investors and their risky investments would just induce them to take on bigger risks next time, expecting another bailout, he believes.
More and more, corporate capitalists in side and beyond the financial markets do not want to behave as capitalists-willing to take the losses along with the profits. They want Washington, D.C., meaning you the taxpayers, to pay for their facilities (as with big time sports stadiums) or take on their losses because they believe that they are too big to be allowed to fail (as with large banks or industrial companies).
.
.
.
.
.
.Ralph Nader. And at least we know where he stands WRT consumers and taxpayers. I’m not in favor of all of his stances, but he does seem to be against the corporate bailouts (iffy on the FB bailout), and is against the war, FWIW.
-
-
March 28, 2008 at 3:04 PM #178098
Anonymous
GuestI think that I’m probably a cross between a Dem and a Republican. I do NOT support bailouts in any form or fashion. However, I want a democratic president in the white house becuause unlike Republicans, they care for the common, working-class man. The Republicans only care for big businesses, high-earners and those that are wealthy. Screw the people who need help like those who are mentally ill. As long as they are keeping money in the pockets of those who are enjoying wealth, the lady who is dillusional and can’t help herself can rot on the street. Morally, I have a problem with that and so do a lot of people like me.
We need a national healthcare system. Other countries have them, obviously it can be done. Repubs would rather spend billions fighting wars we have no business fighting than to take care of American citizens. That’s where our responsibility lies.
What bugs me is Bush signed off on bailouts which is something I understand a Repub president should never do. But, we all know what an idiot he is, so that’s not surprising.
Thank God I didn’t vote for him.
-
March 28, 2008 at 3:04 PM #178101
Anonymous
GuestI think that I’m probably a cross between a Dem and a Republican. I do NOT support bailouts in any form or fashion. However, I want a democratic president in the white house becuause unlike Republicans, they care for the common, working-class man. The Republicans only care for big businesses, high-earners and those that are wealthy. Screw the people who need help like those who are mentally ill. As long as they are keeping money in the pockets of those who are enjoying wealth, the lady who is dillusional and can’t help herself can rot on the street. Morally, I have a problem with that and so do a lot of people like me.
We need a national healthcare system. Other countries have them, obviously it can be done. Repubs would rather spend billions fighting wars we have no business fighting than to take care of American citizens. That’s where our responsibility lies.
What bugs me is Bush signed off on bailouts which is something I understand a Repub president should never do. But, we all know what an idiot he is, so that’s not surprising.
Thank God I didn’t vote for him.
-
March 28, 2008 at 3:04 PM #178110
Anonymous
GuestI think that I’m probably a cross between a Dem and a Republican. I do NOT support bailouts in any form or fashion. However, I want a democratic president in the white house becuause unlike Republicans, they care for the common, working-class man. The Republicans only care for big businesses, high-earners and those that are wealthy. Screw the people who need help like those who are mentally ill. As long as they are keeping money in the pockets of those who are enjoying wealth, the lady who is dillusional and can’t help herself can rot on the street. Morally, I have a problem with that and so do a lot of people like me.
We need a national healthcare system. Other countries have them, obviously it can be done. Repubs would rather spend billions fighting wars we have no business fighting than to take care of American citizens. That’s where our responsibility lies.
What bugs me is Bush signed off on bailouts which is something I understand a Repub president should never do. But, we all know what an idiot he is, so that’s not surprising.
Thank God I didn’t vote for him.
-
March 28, 2008 at 3:04 PM #178198
Anonymous
GuestI think that I’m probably a cross between a Dem and a Republican. I do NOT support bailouts in any form or fashion. However, I want a democratic president in the white house becuause unlike Republicans, they care for the common, working-class man. The Republicans only care for big businesses, high-earners and those that are wealthy. Screw the people who need help like those who are mentally ill. As long as they are keeping money in the pockets of those who are enjoying wealth, the lady who is dillusional and can’t help herself can rot on the street. Morally, I have a problem with that and so do a lot of people like me.
We need a national healthcare system. Other countries have them, obviously it can be done. Repubs would rather spend billions fighting wars we have no business fighting than to take care of American citizens. That’s where our responsibility lies.
What bugs me is Bush signed off on bailouts which is something I understand a Repub president should never do. But, we all know what an idiot he is, so that’s not surprising.
Thank God I didn’t vote for him.
-
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.