Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
TheBreeze
Participant[quote=meadandale]
It’s interesting that MORE Democrats than Republicans voted for the bailout. You keep conveniently forgetting that little tidbit as well as the fact that The One was also for the bailout.Expect to see more bailouts after January 20th with BO and the Democratically controlled congress firmly in control. I’ll be back to gloat and affirm how much of a partisan hack you are then…
[/quote]Yes, I agree that there will be more bailouts. However, I’m hopeful that Democratic bailouts will be more geared to helping out The People as opposed to the Republican strategy of helping 29-year old investment bankers afford their Maseratti payments. In a world ruled by Democrats, I suspect that most bailout money will go directly to help the middle class and poor.
Yes, I realize that many Democrats voted for the bailout. However, my guess is they felt they had to for political reasons. I doubt that Obama will propose any bailouts that involve giving free money to banks. But we’ll just have to wait and see to know for sure.
By the way, I did vote against incumbent U.S. Representative Democrat Susan A. Davis. So I’m not a complete partisan hack.
Participant[quote=meadandale]
It’s interesting that MORE Democrats than Republicans voted for the bailout. You keep conveniently forgetting that little tidbit as well as the fact that The One was also for the bailout.Expect to see more bailouts after January 20th with BO and the Democratically controlled congress firmly in control. I’ll be back to gloat and affirm how much of a partisan hack you are then…
[/quote]Yes, I agree that there will be more bailouts. However, I’m hopeful that Democratic bailouts will be more geared to helping out The People as opposed to the Republican strategy of helping 29-year old investment bankers afford their Maseratti payments. In a world ruled by Democrats, I suspect that most bailout money will go directly to help the middle class and poor.
Yes, I realize that many Democrats voted for the bailout. However, my guess is they felt they had to for political reasons. I doubt that Obama will propose any bailouts that involve giving free money to banks. But we’ll just have to wait and see to know for sure.
By the way, I did vote against incumbent U.S. Representative Democrat Susan A. Davis. So I’m not a complete partisan hack.
Participant[quote=meadandale]
It’s interesting that MORE Democrats than Republicans voted for the bailout. You keep conveniently forgetting that little tidbit as well as the fact that The One was also for the bailout.Expect to see more bailouts after January 20th with BO and the Democratically controlled congress firmly in control. I’ll be back to gloat and affirm how much of a partisan hack you are then…
[/quote]Yes, I agree that there will be more bailouts. However, I’m hopeful that Democratic bailouts will be more geared to helping out The People as opposed to the Republican strategy of helping 29-year old investment bankers afford their Maseratti payments. In a world ruled by Democrats, I suspect that most bailout money will go directly to help the middle class and poor.
Yes, I realize that many Democrats voted for the bailout. However, my guess is they felt they had to for political reasons. I doubt that Obama will propose any bailouts that involve giving free money to banks. But we’ll just have to wait and see to know for sure.
By the way, I did vote against incumbent U.S. Representative Democrat Susan A. Davis. So I’m not a complete partisan hack.
Participant[quote=meadandale]
It’s interesting that MORE Democrats than Republicans voted for the bailout. You keep conveniently forgetting that little tidbit as well as the fact that The One was also for the bailout.Expect to see more bailouts after January 20th with BO and the Democratically controlled congress firmly in control. I’ll be back to gloat and affirm how much of a partisan hack you are then…
[/quote]Yes, I agree that there will be more bailouts. However, I’m hopeful that Democratic bailouts will be more geared to helping out The People as opposed to the Republican strategy of helping 29-year old investment bankers afford their Maseratti payments. In a world ruled by Democrats, I suspect that most bailout money will go directly to help the middle class and poor.
Yes, I realize that many Democrats voted for the bailout. However, my guess is they felt they had to for political reasons. I doubt that Obama will propose any bailouts that involve giving free money to banks. But we’ll just have to wait and see to know for sure.
By the way, I did vote against incumbent U.S. Representative Democrat Susan A. Davis. So I’m not a complete partisan hack.
Participant[quote=partypup]
TB: do you have any idea what the Summit today is regarding? It is not some ridiculous conference. This is a meeting of the leaders of most of the developed world that is being dubbed Bretton Woods II.
[/quote]Anyone thinking this meeting is going to turn into Bretton Woods II is in for a disappoint.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/11/06/whos-the-boss-bush-obama-and-the-g-20/
[quote=partypup]
Nothing less than the future of the global financial landscape is on the table. Sarkozy has made it plainly clear that he intends to advocate to remove the dollar as the world’s sole reserve currency.
[/quote]Yeah, and a homeless man told me yesterday that he was preparing to take over the world. What’s your point? The dollar didn’t become the sole reserve currency because it was regulated to be that way. No, it became the sole reserve currency because it was the strongest, most trusted currency in the world. The market made that decision. A meeting of twenty or so Giant Douches/Turd Sandwiches isn’t going to change that.
[img_assist|nid=9611|title=GDvTS|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=332|height=248]
[quote=partypup]
No one has even suggested that Bush wants Obama to appear at the summit.
[/quote]O Rly?
So to recap: Bush almost offhandedly agreed volunteered to host a summit to discuss the state of the financial world, a very out-of-character gesture.
…
Since the time Bush picked (November 15) was after the elections, it was a bizarre gesture. Was this to pressure a new Administration into formulating views before they were ready (Bush had made it clear that the President elect would participate).
[quote=partypup]
In fact, quite the opposite, I’m sure. Moreover, Dubya is not in the position to demand or force any economic policies on the rest of the world. To the contrary, Dubya has stalled and attempted to avoid this meeting for months because the other members of the G20 are going to TELL him what the new world order should and will look like.
[/quote]OK.
That sounds like the MOST they get to do is agree on the agenda for future meetings.
If the other members of the G20 could force a new world order on the U.S., then why were they so anxious to have the U.S. host the summit? Why didn’t they just cut the U.S. out and have a G19 meeting? Answer: Because the U.S. is still the man — even in our weakened state.
[quote=partypup]
Dubya will just be taking notes. You get it now?
[/quote]Is it possible for an illiterate monkey to take notes? What a scientific breakthrough that would be. Quick! We need to get all the great scientific minds to this conference immediately!
[quote=partypup]A lot can and will happen before Jan 20. The financial world can change dramatically before then. And a proactive leader should want to address that.
[/quote]Maybe. But it doesn’t sound like much change is going to come out of this GD/TS conference:
[quote=partypup]
And if Obama has indeed made the economy his #1 focus, then why wasn’t a Treasury Secretary his first appointment? He needs to get someone up to speed and focusing on this crisis full time, 24/7, ASAP. And I heard on CNBC yesterday that there is only a 50% chance that he will appoint a Treasury secretary next week.
[/quote]How many Treasury Secretaries does it take to destroy an economy? We’ve already got one bald douchenstein fouling everything up. If there was another one running amok, the economy would probably go down the toilet even faster. There’s only one President at a time my Constitution-ignoring friend.
[quote=partypup]
And I hope the TGO label is in jest. If not, you are really starting to scare me ;-)[/quote]Yeah, it was tough to decide between The Great Obama and Obama: The Magnificent. Do you think I made the right choice?
By the way, you might want to consider getting that metal plate in your head checked. Based on your post, it’s reception seems to be faulty.
Participant[quote=partypup]
TB: do you have any idea what the Summit today is regarding? It is not some ridiculous conference. This is a meeting of the leaders of most of the developed world that is being dubbed Bretton Woods II.
[/quote]Anyone thinking this meeting is going to turn into Bretton Woods II is in for a disappoint.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/11/06/whos-the-boss-bush-obama-and-the-g-20/
[quote=partypup]
Nothing less than the future of the global financial landscape is on the table. Sarkozy has made it plainly clear that he intends to advocate to remove the dollar as the world’s sole reserve currency.
[/quote]Yeah, and a homeless man told me yesterday that he was preparing to take over the world. What’s your point? The dollar didn’t become the sole reserve currency because it was regulated to be that way. No, it became the sole reserve currency because it was the strongest, most trusted currency in the world. The market made that decision. A meeting of twenty or so Giant Douches/Turd Sandwiches isn’t going to change that.
[img_assist|nid=9611|title=GDvTS|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=332|height=248]
[quote=partypup]
No one has even suggested that Bush wants Obama to appear at the summit.
[/quote]O Rly?
So to recap: Bush almost offhandedly agreed volunteered to host a summit to discuss the state of the financial world, a very out-of-character gesture.
…
Since the time Bush picked (November 15) was after the elections, it was a bizarre gesture. Was this to pressure a new Administration into formulating views before they were ready (Bush had made it clear that the President elect would participate).
[quote=partypup]
In fact, quite the opposite, I’m sure. Moreover, Dubya is not in the position to demand or force any economic policies on the rest of the world. To the contrary, Dubya has stalled and attempted to avoid this meeting for months because the other members of the G20 are going to TELL him what the new world order should and will look like.
[/quote]OK.
That sounds like the MOST they get to do is agree on the agenda for future meetings.
If the other members of the G20 could force a new world order on the U.S., then why were they so anxious to have the U.S. host the summit? Why didn’t they just cut the U.S. out and have a G19 meeting? Answer: Because the U.S. is still the man — even in our weakened state.
[quote=partypup]
Dubya will just be taking notes. You get it now?
[/quote]Is it possible for an illiterate monkey to take notes? What a scientific breakthrough that would be. Quick! We need to get all the great scientific minds to this conference immediately!
[quote=partypup]A lot can and will happen before Jan 20. The financial world can change dramatically before then. And a proactive leader should want to address that.
[/quote]Maybe. But it doesn’t sound like much change is going to come out of this GD/TS conference:
[quote=partypup]
And if Obama has indeed made the economy his #1 focus, then why wasn’t a Treasury Secretary his first appointment? He needs to get someone up to speed and focusing on this crisis full time, 24/7, ASAP. And I heard on CNBC yesterday that there is only a 50% chance that he will appoint a Treasury secretary next week.
[/quote]How many Treasury Secretaries does it take to destroy an economy? We’ve already got one bald douchenstein fouling everything up. If there was another one running amok, the economy would probably go down the toilet even faster. There’s only one President at a time my Constitution-ignoring friend.
[quote=partypup]
And I hope the TGO label is in jest. If not, you are really starting to scare me ;-)[/quote]Yeah, it was tough to decide between The Great Obama and Obama: The Magnificent. Do you think I made the right choice?
By the way, you might want to consider getting that metal plate in your head checked. Based on your post, it’s reception seems to be faulty.
Participant[quote=partypup]
TB: do you have any idea what the Summit today is regarding? It is not some ridiculous conference. This is a meeting of the leaders of most of the developed world that is being dubbed Bretton Woods II.
[/quote]Anyone thinking this meeting is going to turn into Bretton Woods II is in for a disappoint.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/11/06/whos-the-boss-bush-obama-and-the-g-20/
[quote=partypup]
Nothing less than the future of the global financial landscape is on the table. Sarkozy has made it plainly clear that he intends to advocate to remove the dollar as the world’s sole reserve currency.
[/quote]Yeah, and a homeless man told me yesterday that he was preparing to take over the world. What’s your point? The dollar didn’t become the sole reserve currency because it was regulated to be that way. No, it became the sole reserve currency because it was the strongest, most trusted currency in the world. The market made that decision. A meeting of twenty or so Giant Douches/Turd Sandwiches isn’t going to change that.
[img_assist|nid=9611|title=GDvTS|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=332|height=248]
[quote=partypup]
No one has even suggested that Bush wants Obama to appear at the summit.
[/quote]O Rly?
So to recap: Bush almost offhandedly agreed volunteered to host a summit to discuss the state of the financial world, a very out-of-character gesture.
…
Since the time Bush picked (November 15) was after the elections, it was a bizarre gesture. Was this to pressure a new Administration into formulating views before they were ready (Bush had made it clear that the President elect would participate).
[quote=partypup]
In fact, quite the opposite, I’m sure. Moreover, Dubya is not in the position to demand or force any economic policies on the rest of the world. To the contrary, Dubya has stalled and attempted to avoid this meeting for months because the other members of the G20 are going to TELL him what the new world order should and will look like.
[/quote]OK.
That sounds like the MOST they get to do is agree on the agenda for future meetings.
If the other members of the G20 could force a new world order on the U.S., then why were they so anxious to have the U.S. host the summit? Why didn’t they just cut the U.S. out and have a G19 meeting? Answer: Because the U.S. is still the man — even in our weakened state.
[quote=partypup]
Dubya will just be taking notes. You get it now?
[/quote]Is it possible for an illiterate monkey to take notes? What a scientific breakthrough that would be. Quick! We need to get all the great scientific minds to this conference immediately!
[quote=partypup]A lot can and will happen before Jan 20. The financial world can change dramatically before then. And a proactive leader should want to address that.
[/quote]Maybe. But it doesn’t sound like much change is going to come out of this GD/TS conference:
[quote=partypup]
And if Obama has indeed made the economy his #1 focus, then why wasn’t a Treasury Secretary his first appointment? He needs to get someone up to speed and focusing on this crisis full time, 24/7, ASAP. And I heard on CNBC yesterday that there is only a 50% chance that he will appoint a Treasury secretary next week.
[/quote]How many Treasury Secretaries does it take to destroy an economy? We’ve already got one bald douchenstein fouling everything up. If there was another one running amok, the economy would probably go down the toilet even faster. There’s only one President at a time my Constitution-ignoring friend.
[quote=partypup]
And I hope the TGO label is in jest. If not, you are really starting to scare me ;-)[/quote]Yeah, it was tough to decide between The Great Obama and Obama: The Magnificent. Do you think I made the right choice?
By the way, you might want to consider getting that metal plate in your head checked. Based on your post, it’s reception seems to be faulty.
Participant[quote=partypup]
TB: do you have any idea what the Summit today is regarding? It is not some ridiculous conference. This is a meeting of the leaders of most of the developed world that is being dubbed Bretton Woods II.
[/quote]Anyone thinking this meeting is going to turn into Bretton Woods II is in for a disappoint.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/11/06/whos-the-boss-bush-obama-and-the-g-20/
[quote=partypup]
Nothing less than the future of the global financial landscape is on the table. Sarkozy has made it plainly clear that he intends to advocate to remove the dollar as the world’s sole reserve currency.
[/quote]Yeah, and a homeless man told me yesterday that he was preparing to take over the world. What’s your point? The dollar didn’t become the sole reserve currency because it was regulated to be that way. No, it became the sole reserve currency because it was the strongest, most trusted currency in the world. The market made that decision. A meeting of twenty or so Giant Douches/Turd Sandwiches isn’t going to change that.
[img_assist|nid=9611|title=GDvTS|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=332|height=248]
[quote=partypup]
No one has even suggested that Bush wants Obama to appear at the summit.
[/quote]O Rly?
So to recap: Bush almost offhandedly agreed volunteered to host a summit to discuss the state of the financial world, a very out-of-character gesture.
…
Since the time Bush picked (November 15) was after the elections, it was a bizarre gesture. Was this to pressure a new Administration into formulating views before they were ready (Bush had made it clear that the President elect would participate).
[quote=partypup]
In fact, quite the opposite, I’m sure. Moreover, Dubya is not in the position to demand or force any economic policies on the rest of the world. To the contrary, Dubya has stalled and attempted to avoid this meeting for months because the other members of the G20 are going to TELL him what the new world order should and will look like.
[/quote]OK.
That sounds like the MOST they get to do is agree on the agenda for future meetings.
If the other members of the G20 could force a new world order on the U.S., then why were they so anxious to have the U.S. host the summit? Why didn’t they just cut the U.S. out and have a G19 meeting? Answer: Because the U.S. is still the man — even in our weakened state.
[quote=partypup]
Dubya will just be taking notes. You get it now?
[/quote]Is it possible for an illiterate monkey to take notes? What a scientific breakthrough that would be. Quick! We need to get all the great scientific minds to this conference immediately!
[quote=partypup]A lot can and will happen before Jan 20. The financial world can change dramatically before then. And a proactive leader should want to address that.
[/quote]Maybe. But it doesn’t sound like much change is going to come out of this GD/TS conference:
[quote=partypup]
And if Obama has indeed made the economy his #1 focus, then why wasn’t a Treasury Secretary his first appointment? He needs to get someone up to speed and focusing on this crisis full time, 24/7, ASAP. And I heard on CNBC yesterday that there is only a 50% chance that he will appoint a Treasury secretary next week.
[/quote]How many Treasury Secretaries does it take to destroy an economy? We’ve already got one bald douchenstein fouling everything up. If there was another one running amok, the economy would probably go down the toilet even faster. There’s only one President at a time my Constitution-ignoring friend.
[quote=partypup]
And I hope the TGO label is in jest. If not, you are really starting to scare me ;-)[/quote]Yeah, it was tough to decide between The Great Obama and Obama: The Magnificent. Do you think I made the right choice?
By the way, you might want to consider getting that metal plate in your head checked. Based on your post, it’s reception seems to be faulty.
Participant[quote=partypup]
TB: do you have any idea what the Summit today is regarding? It is not some ridiculous conference. This is a meeting of the leaders of most of the developed world that is being dubbed Bretton Woods II.
[/quote]Anyone thinking this meeting is going to turn into Bretton Woods II is in for a disappoint.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/11/06/whos-the-boss-bush-obama-and-the-g-20/
[quote=partypup]
Nothing less than the future of the global financial landscape is on the table. Sarkozy has made it plainly clear that he intends to advocate to remove the dollar as the world’s sole reserve currency.
[/quote]Yeah, and a homeless man told me yesterday that he was preparing to take over the world. What’s your point? The dollar didn’t become the sole reserve currency because it was regulated to be that way. No, it became the sole reserve currency because it was the strongest, most trusted currency in the world. The market made that decision. A meeting of twenty or so Giant Douches/Turd Sandwiches isn’t going to change that.
[img_assist|nid=9611|title=GDvTS|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=332|height=248]
[quote=partypup]
No one has even suggested that Bush wants Obama to appear at the summit.
[/quote]O Rly?
So to recap: Bush almost offhandedly agreed volunteered to host a summit to discuss the state of the financial world, a very out-of-character gesture.
…
Since the time Bush picked (November 15) was after the elections, it was a bizarre gesture. Was this to pressure a new Administration into formulating views before they were ready (Bush had made it clear that the President elect would participate).
[quote=partypup]
In fact, quite the opposite, I’m sure. Moreover, Dubya is not in the position to demand or force any economic policies on the rest of the world. To the contrary, Dubya has stalled and attempted to avoid this meeting for months because the other members of the G20 are going to TELL him what the new world order should and will look like.
[/quote]OK.
That sounds like the MOST they get to do is agree on the agenda for future meetings.
If the other members of the G20 could force a new world order on the U.S., then why were they so anxious to have the U.S. host the summit? Why didn’t they just cut the U.S. out and have a G19 meeting? Answer: Because the U.S. is still the man — even in our weakened state.
[quote=partypup]
Dubya will just be taking notes. You get it now?
[/quote]Is it possible for an illiterate monkey to take notes? What a scientific breakthrough that would be. Quick! We need to get all the great scientific minds to this conference immediately!
[quote=partypup]A lot can and will happen before Jan 20. The financial world can change dramatically before then. And a proactive leader should want to address that.
[/quote]Maybe. But it doesn’t sound like much change is going to come out of this GD/TS conference:
[quote=partypup]
And if Obama has indeed made the economy his #1 focus, then why wasn’t a Treasury Secretary his first appointment? He needs to get someone up to speed and focusing on this crisis full time, 24/7, ASAP. And I heard on CNBC yesterday that there is only a 50% chance that he will appoint a Treasury secretary next week.
[/quote]How many Treasury Secretaries does it take to destroy an economy? We’ve already got one bald douchenstein fouling everything up. If there was another one running amok, the economy would probably go down the toilet even faster. There’s only one President at a time my Constitution-ignoring friend.
[quote=partypup]
And I hope the TGO label is in jest. If not, you are really starting to scare me ;-)[/quote]Yeah, it was tough to decide between The Great Obama and Obama: The Magnificent. Do you think I made the right choice?
By the way, you might want to consider getting that metal plate in your head checked. Based on your post, it’s reception seems to be faulty.
ParticipantIt’s interesting that the Republicans would put $700 billion into bankrupt financiers who were managed just as bad (probably worse) than the automakers, but they won’t even set aside $25 billion to help the automakers which would in turn save some decent blue-collar jobs. For shame. The middle-class will not soon forget this travesty.
ParticipantIt’s interesting that the Republicans would put $700 billion into bankrupt financiers who were managed just as bad (probably worse) than the automakers, but they won’t even set aside $25 billion to help the automakers which would in turn save some decent blue-collar jobs. For shame. The middle-class will not soon forget this travesty.
ParticipantIt’s interesting that the Republicans would put $700 billion into bankrupt financiers who were managed just as bad (probably worse) than the automakers, but they won’t even set aside $25 billion to help the automakers which would in turn save some decent blue-collar jobs. For shame. The middle-class will not soon forget this travesty.
ParticipantIt’s interesting that the Republicans would put $700 billion into bankrupt financiers who were managed just as bad (probably worse) than the automakers, but they won’t even set aside $25 billion to help the automakers which would in turn save some decent blue-collar jobs. For shame. The middle-class will not soon forget this travesty.
ParticipantIt’s interesting that the Republicans would put $700 billion into bankrupt financiers who were managed just as bad (probably worse) than the automakers, but they won’t even set aside $25 billion to help the automakers which would in turn save some decent blue-collar jobs. For shame. The middle-class will not soon forget this travesty.
-
AuthorPosts