INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Tesla on September 26, 2008, 05:26:09 AM
-
Does anyone else think this sounds like a dictatorship just waiting to happen?
The bill Paulson has written contains this little gem: "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."
Are you fucking kidding me? He's wiping his ass with the constitution.
I honestly have a grave outlook for the United States. Lucifer, Amy and I are gonna move in with you if that's alright. :)
-
I've looked at Canada my wife and I both have degrees it shouldn't be that hard. Or to disappear here under the radar
-
What bill is this?
-
I think he's talking about the financial bail out
-
All I know is that, a lot of Americans are absolutely pissed about it, to a point it could spark civil unrest if the bill pass. Who could blame them? The bailout is a 'reverse robin hood' basically bailing out the very ultra-rich people who caused this economic disaster in sheer greed with average joe's money via taxes. basically this bailout is the equivalent of giving compensation to greedy gamblers who lost all their money in their own idiocy by stealing it from the hard working, and it also effectively nationalizes a part of the economy. Worse of all, without reviews or restrictions, the real question that should be asked is that, where else could this 'bailout' money end up funding or buying?
-
Does anyone else think this sounds like a dictatorship just waiting to happen?
The bill Paulson has written contains this little gem: "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."
Are you fucking kidding me? He's wiping his ass with the constitution.
I honestly have a grave outlook for the United States. Lucifer, Amy and I are gonna move in with you if that's alright. :)
Actually, I agree with that line in there. It is needed for the economic bailout to work.
And frankly, its the American peoples fault in the first place that we are here. They voted for this mess in the first place, and if McCain wins, they will be voting for it again.
-
You get what you pay for and you pay for what you get?
-
You get what you pay for and you pay for what you get?
Something like that.
-
Yes the shit is really hitting the fan this time
BTW what happens if they don't do it the regular people are already losing everything
-
Does anyone else think this sounds like a dictatorship just waiting to happen?
The bill Paulson has written contains this little gem: "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."
Are you fucking kidding me? He's wiping his ass with the constitution.
I honestly have a grave outlook for the United States. Lucifer, Amy and I are gonna move in with you if that's alright. :)
Actually, I agree with that line in there. It is needed for the economic bailout to work.
And frankly, its the American peoples fault in the first place that we are here. They voted for this mess in the first place, and if McCain wins, they will be voting for it again.
I most certainly did not and assuredly will not. I am innocent and should not be blamed for this problem.
An observation: Remember the Economic Stimulus checks we all got? Isn't it kind of funny that they are effectively taking that back and then some? Republicans are immoral, selfish, greedy fucktards. :finger: 'em!
-
I honestly have a grave outlook for the United States. Lucifer, Amy and I are gonna move in with you if that's alright. :)
:laugh:
i'll need a bigger house, but sure - fancy building an eco house with me? :hug:
-
I have friends in Canada, but three kids. So I am stuck here.
-
I have friends in Canada, but three kids. So I am stuck here.
are they surgically attached to something in the states? take them with you, man!
-
I have friends in Canada, but three kids. So I am stuck here.
are they surgically attached to something in the states? take them with you, man!
That just complicates things. I'd like to think we could fix things here, but maybe that is a pipe dream.
-
I have friends in Canada, but three kids. So I am stuck here.
are they surgically attached to something in the states? take them with you, man!
The Nova Scotia is particularly nice
-
http://www.anncoulter.org/
-
I have friends in Canada, but three kids. So I am stuck here.
are they surgically attached to something in the states? take them with you, man!
The Nova Scotia is particularly nice
:agreed:
My best friend from high school attended St. Mary's University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Since I was at the University of Miami in sunny Coral Gables, FL, I would spend my spring breaks with him in the cold of Canada. He married a Newfie and the wedding was in Cornerbrook, Newfoundland. Another beautiful place. He now lives an hour outside of Toronto.
Damn...I can't take my kids away from their grandparents and aunts and uncles. Like I said, I am stuck here. I wish I could at least move back to New England so I can be out of this podunk redneck hick town of Civil War hold-outs who are waiting for the chance for the South to rise again.
-
I have friends in Canada, but three kids. So I am stuck here.
are they surgically attached to something in the states? take them with you, man!
The Nova Scotia is particularly nice
:agreed:
My best friend from high school attended St. Mary's University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Since I was at the University of Miami in sunny Coral Gables, FL, I would spend my spring breaks with him in the cold of Canada. He married a Newfie and the wedding was in Cornerbrook, Newfoundland. Another beautiful place. He now lives an hour outside of Toronto.
Damn...I can't take my kids away from their grandparents and aunts and uncles. Like I said, I am stuck here. I wish I could at least move back to New England so I can be out of this podunk redneck hick town of Civil War hold-outs who are waiting for the chance for the South to rise again.
New England is just becoming a wasteland as the high achiever kids flee looking for better oppertunities and what remains is the kids with not much going for them. It's mostly just people working the system or in other words screwing everyone else. For people with somebody connected that can pull strings for them and hook them up it's ok, but shit if somebody is out of the inner circle and don't have the connections, they are just dog meat to be exploited.
old blue blood familes living off old money
modern day mafia called the government and people need a connection to get in on the action
welfare type people who enable the government mafia by selling their votes for a real small cut of the action
and suckers all of the above mooch off of.
-
I have friends in Canada, but three kids. So I am stuck here.
are they surgically attached to something in the states? take them with you, man!
The Nova Scotia is particularly nice
:agreed:
My best friend from high school attended St. Mary's University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Since I was at the University of Miami in sunny Coral Gables, FL, I would spend my spring breaks with him in the cold of Canada. He married a Newfie and the wedding was in Cornerbrook, Newfoundland. Another beautiful place. He now lives an hour outside of Toronto.
Damn...I can't take my kids away from their grandparents and aunts and uncles. Like I said, I am stuck here. I wish I could at least move back to New England so I can be out of this podunk redneck hick town of Civil War hold-outs who are waiting for the chance for the South to rise again.
New England is just becoming a wasteland as the high achiever kids flee looking for better oppertunities and what remains is the kids with not much going for them. It's mostly just people working the system or in other words screwing everyone else. For people with somebody connected that can pull strings for them and hook them up it's ok, but shit if somebody is out of the inner circle and don't have the connections, they are just dog meat to be exploited.
old blue blood familes living off old money
modern day mafia called the government and people need a connection to get in on the action
welfare type people who enable the government mafia by selling their votes for a real small cut of the action
and suckers all of the above mooch off of.
Well...it still sounds better than living in the Confederacy. Plus, I get to go to more Red Sox games! :headbang2: Go Sox!!!!!!
-
I want to find a European guy to marry. EU citizenship would own.
-
I want to find a European guy to marry. EU citizenship would own.
/cracking up!
well, that's easy - there must be a few aspies even on here who haven't had a shag, and would marry you, carla. i can think of a few, off the top of my head, but i'm far too polite to metion them, naturally.
:LMAO:
-
I want to find a European guy to marry. EU citizenship would own.
Hate to say this, but the EU is slowly going to pot.
*thinks of where to run to...*
-
I am going to start saving up to either Australia or NZ. I'll work 3 jobs if I have to.
-
... and you would prefer NZ.
-
... and you would prefer NZ.
lol of course. We all wonder why...
-
I hear Iceland's nice.
-
I hear Iceland's nice.
My mum went there recently. She said it's expensive and depressing, with very little in the shops and everyone keeping to themselves.
-
walking's free. 8)
-
I hear Iceland's nice.
My mum went there recently. She said it's expensive and depressing, with very little in the shops and everyone keeping to themselves.
i think dunc meant the country, rather than the shop.
-
I hear Iceland's nice.
My mum went there recently. She said it's expensive and depressing, with very little in the shops and everyone keeping to themselves.
i think dunc meant the country, rather than the shop.
I was talking about the country. Her brother took her on a trip there a couple of months ago.
-
I hear Iceland's nice.
My mum went there recently. She said it's expensive and depressing, with very little in the shops and everyone keeping to themselves.
i think dunc meant the country, rather than the shop.
I was talking about the country. Her brother took her on a trip there a couple of months ago.
and i was joking. :P
-
Is there anyplace in the world that isn't going to shit?
-
... and you would prefer NZ.
lol of course. We all wonder why...
On the contrary, first of all I don't want to move to NZ for the reason you all think. I want to move to NZ because it's a peaceful country and it's very country like. I've always wanted to live in the country. However it seems though that I'd be better off moving to Australia since there is more prosperity there.
-
Is there anyplace in the world that isn't going to shit?
China has a growing economy and increasing personal freedoms.
-
Yeah you are all welcome here, c'mon down.
-
I hear Iceland's nice.
Its in economic meltdown. Their base rate is currently over 15%
-
With Greenland melting I say we take it over and start our own country :laugh:
-
(http://www.switzerland.travelphotoguide.com/uploaded_images/switzerland-magnificent-landscape-786714.jpg)
(http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r52/cchelms/caren%20crane%20blog%20pics/switzerland_the_alps.jpg)
(http://cache.virtualtourist.com/985705-Beautiful_Switzerland-Switzerland.jpg)
(http://battellemedia.com/images/SwitzerlandFlag.jpg)
-
You listing Switzerland as a positive or negative, Tess? Or, are you neutral on the topic?
-
Is there anyplace in the world that isn't going to shit?
brigadoon, narnia and my back garden.
-
Other places I've been considering are either Finland or Norway.
-
Other places I've been considering are either Finland or Norway.
i like the idea of finland, too. :thumbup:
i can even tell you some useful introductory phrases.
-
You listing Switzerland as a positive or negative, Tess? Or, are you neutral on the topic?
:laugh:
(http://www.wrongtees.com/images/designs/mockups/bee_positive.png)
-
Is there anyplace in the world that isn't going to shit?
Somalia and Afghanistan. They are already there.
-
I want to find a European guy to marry. EU citizenship would own.
/cracking up!
well, that's easy - there must be a few aspies even on here who haven't had a shag, and would marry you, carla. i can think of a few, off the top of my head, but i'm far too polite to metion them, naturally.
:LMAO:
GOOMH! :LMAO:
-
I want to find a European guy to marry. EU citizenship would own.
Hate to say this, but the EU is slowly going to pot.
*thinks of where to run to...*
Zimbabwe's supposed to be nice. :P
-
Other places I've been considering are either Finland or Norway.
i like the idea of finland, too. :thumbup:
i can even tell you some useful introductory phrases.
Finland was nice before the current shooting sprees. If you want to stay in Norway you have to accept that the welfare system is financed with oil money.
-
I don't think that there is really a perfect country. Finland has only had this one recent shooting thing, it isn't like this type of thing is happening on a monthly basis. Every nation has its problems, just some are really fucked right now.
-
There was another shooting like that about a year ago.
-
There was another shooting like that about a year ago.
I can think of several other American exports that might have been more beneficial to Finland.
-
I want to find a European guy to marry. EU citizenship would own.
Hate to say this, but the EU is slowly going to pot.
*thinks of where to run to...*
Zimbabwe's supposed to be nice. :P
Just need to wait a little longer for the rest of them to starve to death. Then we can take over /evil
-
You listing Switzerland as a positive or negative, Tess? Or, are you neutral on the topic?
:laugh:
(http://www.wrongtees.com/images/designs/mockups/bee_positive.png)
fly battery?
wtf?
-
Be positive.
-
... and you would prefer NZ.
Funny thing is, NZ IS in a recession right now. So if that is what people are trying to run away from in the US, then there are better choices.
-
Be positive.
you misspelled bee
-
Be positive.
you misspelled bee
:laugh:
-
Is there anyplace in the world that isn't going to shit?
brigadoon, narnia and my back garden.
oh yeah, and Llandor.*
;) > pyraxis. :lol:
*wherever that is.
-
Aw, it doesn't count if you don't know.
-
Be positive.
you misspelled bee
Don't feel bad. It took me a while, too.
The insect looks more like a wasp, to me. "W.A.S.P. Plus" was about the best I could get at first. Of course, I thought he had posted it in the wrong thread.
:D
-
I'm just impressed that he intends to do a whole week of pictures before posting another word. :P
-
"in a hornet's arse"?
do i get a lolly?
-
Be positive.
you misspelled bee
Don't feel bad. It took me a while, too.
The insect looks more like a wasp, to me. "W.A.S.P. Plus" was about the best I could get at first. Of course, I thought he had posted it in the wrong thread.
:D
I knew it was bee positive, I was just screwing around
-
Be positive.
you misspelled bee
Don't feel bad. It took me a while, too.
The insect looks more like a wasp, to me. "W.A.S.P. Plus" was about the best I could get at first. Of course, I thought he had posted it in the wrong thread.
:D
I knew it was bee positive, I was just screwing around
It's NOT a fucking bee. It's a wasp!
(sorry, can't do pop-graphic to pop-speech as well as some)
-
The bailout failed to pass (Thank God)
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/news/economy/bailout/index.htm?postversion=2008092918
This is really going to hurt, but in the long run America is going to be much better off. It's time for the free market to truly be free. Let capitalism reign and the economy clean self out of bad money.
-
The bailout failed to pass (Thank God)
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/news/economy/bailout/index.htm?postversion=2008092918
This is really going to hurt, but in the long run America is going to be much better off. It's time for the free market to truly be free. Let capitalism reign and the economy clean self out of bad money.
No, the US should be paying the rest of the world an awful lot of compensation for crashing the stocks.
-
No, the US should be paying the rest of the world an awful lot of compensation for crashing the stocks.
Compensated? for what? With what money? The stock market has always gone up and down. It's the nature of the beast. Yes you can sit there and harp about "stupid Americans" and the "Big bad US"but did you honestly think this bailout was a good idea? Creating more money out of thin air?
It's time for the market to correct itself.Yes the US fucked up but what's done is done. Going through with this bailout would have lead to even worse crash further down the line. This is going to hurt in the short term, but US and the world for that matter will be much better off in the long run.
-
The bailout failed to pass (Thank God)
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/news/economy/bailout/index.htm?postversion=2008092918
This is really going to hurt, but in the long run America is going to be much better off. It's time for the free market to truly be free. Let capitalism reign and the economy clean self out of bad money.
No, the US should be paying the rest of the world an awful lot of compensation for crashing the stocks.
Check your own banking industry first, asswipe.
They fell into the same hole that American moustache twisters fell into. Ours are not the only funds invested in golden geese, dude! Look how many eurowanks are losing their arses here, hence your comment. How could they lose, if they had stayed on the side of common sense and personal responsibility.
Wake the fuck up!
-
Really the only people who would really benefit from all this are the people who made all the bad loans in the first place. How about they give back all their bonuses and such to help out the people losing their houses. My neighbor who bought her house from here parents then took out all sorts of equity loans even I could tell she would never be able to payback is in foreclosure now. Now the house sits empty for the second winter in a row I can only imagine the damage inside by the time some one buys it it will be worth a quarter of what it was
-
Wake me up when it's time to break out the bondage gear and dune buggies.
-
Wake me up when it's time to break out the bondage gear and dune buggies.
Wake up, Peter. It's time.
Post pics!
-
The bailout failed to pass (Thank God)
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/news/economy/bailout/index.htm?postversion=2008092918
This is really going to hurt, but in the long run America is going to be much better off. It's time for the free market to truly be free. Let capitalism reign and the economy clean self out of bad money.
No, the US should be paying the rest of the world an awful lot of compensation for crashing the stocks.
Check your own banking industry first, asswipe.
They fell into the same hole that American moustache twisters fell into. Ours are not the only funds invested in golden geese, dude! Look how many eurowanks are losing their arses here, hence your comment. How could they lose, if they had stayed on the side of common sense and personal responsibility.
Wake the fuck up!
Sorry, which country (a) legalised all this stuff (look up Phil Gramm and his act if you don't believe me) then (b) sold on all this sub prime stuff around the world. Its like saying its the consumers fault if they get food poisoning from the local restaurant.
-
The bailout failed to pass (Thank God)
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/news/economy/bailout/index.htm?postversion=2008092918
This is really going to hurt, but in the long run America is going to be much better off. It's time for the free market to truly be free. Let capitalism reign and the economy clean self out of bad money.
No, the US should be paying the rest of the world an awful lot of compensation for crashing the stocks.
Check your own banking industry first, asswipe.
They fell into the same hole that American moustache twisters fell into. Ours are not the only funds invested in golden geese, dude! Look how many eurowanks are losing their arses here, hence your comment. How could they lose, if they had stayed on the side of common sense and personal responsibility.
Wake the fuck up!
Sorry, which country (a) legalised all this stuff (look up Phil Gramm and his act if you don't believe me) then (b) sold on all this sub prime stuff around the world. Its like saying its the consumers fault if they get food poisoning from the local restaurant.
And 1 Look at what greedy bastard countries embraced it instead of using their own common scene to avoid it
-
The bailout failed to pass (Thank God)
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/news/economy/bailout/index.htm?postversion=2008092918
This is really going to hurt, but in the long run America is going to be much better off. It's time for the free market to truly be free. Let capitalism reign and the economy clean self out of bad money.
No, the US should be paying the rest of the world an awful lot of compensation for crashing the stocks.
Check your own banking industry first, asswipe.
They fell into the same hole that American moustache twisters fell into. Ours are not the only funds invested in golden geese, dude! Look how many eurowanks are losing their arses here, hence your comment. How could they lose, if they had stayed on the side of common sense and personal responsibility.
Wake the fuck up!
Sorry, which country (a) legalised all this stuff (look up Phil Gramm and his act if you don't believe me) then (b) sold on all this sub prime stuff around the world. Its like saying its the consumers fault if they get food poisoning from the local restaurant.
And 1 Look at what greedy bastard countries embraced it instead of using their own common scene to avoid it
Most other nations have little choice but to use it, the Dollar is the main reserve currency around the world (thanks to irresponsible tax cuts and massive US deficit spending)
-
The bailout failed to pass (Thank God)
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/news/economy/bailout/index.htm?postversion=2008092918
This is really going to hurt, but in the long run America is going to be much better off. It's time for the free market to truly be free. Let capitalism reign and the economy clean self out of bad money.
No, the US should be paying the rest of the world an awful lot of compensation for crashing the stocks.
Check your own banking industry first, asswipe.
They fell into the same hole that American moustache twisters fell into. Ours are not the only funds invested in golden geese, dude! Look how many eurowanks are losing their arses here, hence your comment. How could they lose, if they had stayed on the side of common sense and personal responsibility.
Wake the fuck up!
Sorry, which country (a) legalised all this stuff (look up Phil Gramm and his act if you don't believe me) then (b) sold on all this sub prime stuff around the world. Its like saying its the consumers fault if they get food poisoning from the local restaurant.
And 1 Look at what greedy bastard countries embraced it instead of using their own common scene to avoid it
Most other nations have little choice but to use it, the Dollar is the main reserve currency around the world (thanks to irresponsible tax cuts and massive US deficit spending)
So your country has no back bone to stand up to the US? People have been moving away from the dollar for awhile why do you think it's worth so little. May by it's time to move on to the Euro. It was the same as here politics and bankers getting greedy it's not an exclusively US problem
-
Interestingly enough the USD has been rising over the past few months despite what is happening.
http://www.x-rates.com/d/EUR/USD/graph120.html
It will rise even higher against the euro once the market starts correcting itself.
-
The bailout failed to pass (Thank God)
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/news/economy/bailout/index.htm?postversion=2008092918
This is really going to hurt, but in the long run America is going to be much better off. It's time for the free market to truly be free. Let capitalism reign and the economy clean self out of bad money.
No, the US should be paying the rest of the world an awful lot of compensation for crashing the stocks.
Check your own banking industry first, asswipe.
They fell into the same hole that American moustache twisters fell into. Ours are not the only funds invested in golden geese, dude! Look how many eurowanks are losing their arses here, hence your comment. How could they lose, if they had stayed on the side of common sense and personal responsibility.
Wake the fuck up!
Sorry, which country (a) legalised all this stuff (look up Phil Gramm and his act if you don't believe me) then (b) sold on all this sub prime stuff around the world. Its like saying its the consumers fault if they get food poisoning from the local restaurant.
And 1 Look at what greedy bastard countries embraced it instead of using their own common scene to avoid it
Most other nations have little choice but to use it, the Dollar is the main reserve currency around the world (thanks to irresponsible tax cuts and massive US deficit spending)
So your country has no back bone to stand up to the US? People have been moving away from the dollar for awhile why do you think it's worth so little. May by it's time to move on to the Euro. It was the same as here politics and bankers getting greedy it's not an exclusively US problem
Its a global effect that another individual country can do little about, sadly the US is the only world superpower. But put it this way, the deflicit spending that has accrued by your successive governments is so bad, either China or Saudi Arabia could destroy your economy by deliberately devaluing the dollar (i.e. giving away their reserves of dollars).
As for bankers getting greedy, at least in Europe we have a decent amount of regulation. The US government on the other hand has spent the past 8-10 years destroying as much regulation as they can. Result: The sub-prime crisis.
-
The bailout failed to pass (Thank God)
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/news/economy/bailout/index.htm?postversion=2008092918
This is really going to hurt, but in the long run America is going to be much better off. It's time for the free market to truly be free. Let capitalism reign and the economy clean self out of bad money.
No, the US should be paying the rest of the world an awful lot of compensation for crashing the stocks.
Check your own banking industry first, asswipe.
They fell into the same hole that American moustache twisters fell into. Ours are not the only funds invested in golden geese, dude! Look how many eurowanks are losing their arses here, hence your comment. How could they lose, if they had stayed on the side of common sense and personal responsibility.
Wake the fuck up!
Sorry, which country (a) legalised all this stuff (look up Phil Gramm and his act if you don't believe me) then (b) sold on all this sub prime stuff around the world. Its like saying its the consumers fault if they get food poisoning from the local restaurant.
And 1 Look at what greedy bastard countries embraced it instead of using their own common scene to avoid it
Most other nations have little choice but to use it, the Dollar is the main reserve currency around the world (thanks to irresponsible tax cuts and massive US deficit spending)
So your country has no back bone to stand up to the US? People have been moving away from the dollar for awhile why do you think it's worth so little. May by it's time to move on to the Euro. It was the same as here politics and bankers getting greedy it's not an exclusively US problem
Most countries have very little backbone when it comes to standing up against the US. It's a simple reality caused by the US dominance across the world.
However, I completely agree with you and Dawg in that the financial institutions here are just as greedy as their US counterparts. They should have said no.
-
Wake me up when it's time to break out the bondage gear and dune buggies.
Wake up, Peter. It's time.
Post pics!
:laugh:
-
I just hope the U.S. Dollar doesn't get too strong yet, I have more shit to buy from Play Asia.
-
The bailout failed to pass (Thank God)
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/news/economy/bailout/index.htm?postversion=2008092918
This is really going to hurt, but in the long run America is going to be much better off. It's time for the free market to truly be free. Let capitalism reign and the economy clean self out of bad money.
No, the US should be paying the rest of the world an awful lot of compensation for crashing the stocks.
Check your own banking industry first, asswipe.
They fell into the same hole that American moustache twisters fell into. Ours are not the only funds invested in golden geese, dude! Look how many eurowanks are losing their arses here, hence your comment. How could they lose, if they had stayed on the side of common sense and personal responsibility.
Wake the fuck up!
Sorry, which country (a) legalised all this stuff (look up Phil Gramm and his act if you don't believe me) then (b) sold on all this sub prime stuff around the world. Its like saying its the consumers fault if they get food poisoning from the local restaurant.
And 1 Look at what greedy bastard countries embraced it instead of using their own common scene to avoid it
Most other nations have little choice but to use it, the Dollar is the main reserve currency around the world (thanks to irresponsible tax cuts and massive US deficit spending)
So your country has no back bone to stand up to the US? People have been moving away from the dollar for awhile why do you think it's worth so little. May by it's time to move on to the Euro. It was the same as here politics and bankers getting greedy it's not an exclusively US problem
Most countries have very little backbone when it comes to standing up against the US. It's a simple reality caused by the US dominance across the world.
However, I completely agree with you and Dawg in that the financial institutions here are just as greedy as their US counterparts. They should have said no.
Say no how exactly? It is a global market.
-
The bailout failed to pass (Thank God)
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/news/economy/bailout/index.htm?postversion=2008092918
This is really going to hurt, but in the long run America is going to be much better off. It's time for the free market to truly be free. Let capitalism reign and the economy clean self out of bad money.
No, the US should be paying the rest of the world an awful lot of compensation for crashing the stocks.
Check your own banking industry first, asswipe.
They fell into the same hole that American moustache twisters fell into. Ours are not the only funds invested in golden geese, dude! Look how many eurowanks are losing their arses here, hence your comment. How could they lose, if they had stayed on the side of common sense and personal responsibility.
Wake the fuck up!
Sorry, which country (a) legalised all this stuff (look up Phil Gramm and his act if you don't believe me) then (b) sold on all this sub prime stuff around the world. Its like saying its the consumers fault if they get food poisoning from the local restaurant.
And 1 Look at what greedy bastard countries embraced it instead of using their own common scene to avoid it
Most other nations have little choice but to use it, the Dollar is the main reserve currency around the world (thanks to irresponsible tax cuts and massive US deficit spending)
So your country has no back bone to stand up to the US? People have been moving away from the dollar for awhile why do you think it's worth so little. May by it's time to move on to the Euro. It was the same as here politics and bankers getting greedy it's not an exclusively US problem
Most countries have very little backbone when it comes to standing up against the US. It's a simple reality caused by the US dominance across the world.
However, I completely agree with you and Dawg in that the financial institutions here are just as greedy as their US counterparts. They should have said no.
Say no how exactly? It is a global market.
It doesn't take a genius to realise that there's no way to finance some of the healthier bonuses offered to certain "financial officers", to pick but one example. This is true here in Sweden, and most likely true in the UK.
-
The bailout failed to pass (Thank God)
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/news/economy/bailout/index.htm?postversion=2008092918
This is really going to hurt, but in the long run America is going to be much better off. It's time for the free market to truly be free. Let capitalism reign and the economy clean self out of bad money.
No, the US should be paying the rest of the world an awful lot of compensation for crashing the stocks.
Check your own banking industry first, asswipe.
They fell into the same hole that American moustache twisters fell into. Ours are not the only funds invested in golden geese, dude! Look how many eurowanks are losing their arses here, hence your comment. How could they lose, if they had stayed on the side of common sense and personal responsibility.
Wake the fuck up!
Sorry, which country (a) legalised all this stuff (look up Phil Gramm and his act if you don't believe me) then (b) sold on all this sub prime stuff around the world. Its like saying its the consumers fault if they get food poisoning from the local restaurant.
And 1 Look at what greedy bastard countries embraced it instead of using their own common scene to avoid it
Most other nations have little choice but to use it, the Dollar is the main reserve currency around the world (thanks to irresponsible tax cuts and massive US deficit spending)
So your country has no back bone to stand up to the US? People have been moving away from the dollar for awhile why do you think it's worth so little. May by it's time to move on to the Euro. It was the same as here politics and bankers getting greedy it's not an exclusively US problem
Most countries have very little backbone when it comes to standing up against the US. It's a simple reality caused by the US dominance across the world.
However, I completely agree with you and Dawg in that the financial institutions here are just as greedy as their US counterparts. They should have said no.
Say no how exactly? It is a global market.
It doesn't take a genius to realise that there's no way to finance some of the healthier bonuses offered to certain "financial officers", to pick but one example. This is true here in Sweden, and most likely true in the UK.
The only way to stop it happening would be for the government to effectively go communist, and destroy the free market. Doing so guarantees an economic mess.
-
I'm not asking for communism, only common sense. FFS, it's not rocket science to balance expenses and income. :grrr:
-
I'm not asking for communism, only common sense. FFS, it's not rocket science to balance expenses and income. :grrr:
On the balance sheet they were, until all the unexpected write downs occurred. To stop these corporations being ran in such a fashion, you would have to do away with the free market, or massively increase regulation.
-
I'm not asking for communism, only common sense. FFS, it's not rocket science to balance expenses and income. :grrr:
People have short memories, act upon imperfect information and emotion, and are quick to forget past crises. Given the freedom to make mistakes, people will make those mistakes again and again, so there will always be bubbles, corporations and individuals will always overextend themselves in search of greater profits and there will always be periodic crashes when reality steps in and smacks everyone around. At least this time around, Americans are unlikely to suffer from starvation as many did during the Great Depression, and I suspect this current financial snafu will seem inconsequential in comparison to the future oil and dollar crises.
-
I'm not asking for communism, only common sense. FFS, it's not rocket science to balance expenses and income. :grrr:
On the balance sheet they were, until all the unexpected write downs occurred. To stop these corporations being ran in such a fashion, you would have to do away with the free market, or massively increase regulation.
All you have to do is stop being overly greedy. There's no need to do away with the free market.
-
I'm not asking for communism, only common sense. FFS, it's not rocket science to balance expenses and income. :grrr:
People have short memories, act upon imperfect information and emotion, and are quick to forget past crises. Given the freedom to make mistakes, people will make those mistakes again and again, so there will always be bubbles, corporations and individuals will always overextend themselves in search of greater profits and there will always be periodic crashes when reality steps in and smacks everyone around. At least this time around, Americans are unlikely to suffer from starvation as many did during the Great Depression, and I suspect this current financial snafu will seem inconsequential in comparison to the future oil and dollar crises.
In other words, people never learn.
-
I'm not asking for communism, only common sense. FFS, it's not rocket science to balance expenses and income. :grrr:
On the balance sheet they were, until all the unexpected write downs occurred. To stop these corporations being ran in such a fashion, you would have to do away with the free market, or massively increase regulation.
All you have to do is stop being overly greedy. There's no need to do away with the free market.
Wage caps or other anti-greed measures by definition remove the free market.
-
I'm not asking for communism, only common sense. FFS, it's not rocket science to balance expenses and income. :grrr:
On the balance sheet they were, until all the unexpected write downs occurred. To stop these corporations being ran in such a fashion, you would have to do away with the free market, or massively increase regulation.
All you have to do is stop being overly greedy. There's no need to do away with the free market.
Wage caps or other anti-greed measures by definition remove the free market.
I'm not talking about anti-greed measures, ffs. I'm appealing to whatever little there is left of responsibility and common sense in the people using the system.
-
I'm not asking for communism, only common sense. FFS, it's not rocket science to balance expenses and income. :grrr:
On the balance sheet they were, until all the unexpected write downs occurred. To stop these corporations being ran in such a fashion, you would have to do away with the free market, or massively increase regulation.
All you have to do is stop being overly greedy. There's no need to do away with the free market.
Wage caps or other anti-greed measures by definition remove the free market.
I'm not talking about anti-greed measures, ffs. I'm appealing to whatever little there is left of responsibility and common sense in the people using the system.
99% of people do abide by it. But the nature of the financial system is that a tiny percentage can scheme so bad that they bring down entire banks. Look at Barings bank for example.
-
That remaining 1%, yes. Most people don't get the chance to abuse the system.
-
That remaining 1%, yes. Most people don't get the chance to abuse the system.
It doesn't matter. 1 person is enough to really screw things up.
-
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
Too bad for the doom & gloom bunch, the world isn't going to end in spite of the democraps best efforts. The super rich will never be affected because some line on their massive balance sheet went down some. It's like having cases of twinkies, who cares it the dog gets into them, there is still more than anyone could ever want or need. The wealthy have more money than they can spend so it don't even matter if their balance sheet goes down millions or billions, they are never going to get wiped out.
all this comes down to for the super rich is yeehaa the peasants are panic selling their stock at huge discounts and the super rich are feasting on cheap stocks and will end up even richer in a few years.
-
Unfortunately for the Democrats, what Johnny posted is the truth. Obama's economic advisor Franklin Raines (who is a former CEO of Fannie Mae lol) and Barney Frank headed up the resistance against Republicans that wanted to investigate the books of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That really is bad news and it is the truth. I like it how Democrats are trying to blame this on Bush and the Republicans, when they were the party that wanted to reform this situation years before the crisis we are facing now. I actually read about that stuff a few days ago, and Hannity was bitching about it on the radio today. I actually remember hearing about this in 2004 and it didn't even seem to be important back then. I find it odd that two of Obama's economic advisors are both former CEOs of Fannie Mae.
http://overthehilloracles.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/the-obama-fannie-freddie-connection/
http://people.boston.com/forums/news/politics/general/?p=discussiondetails&activityid=8731153219468243318
-
Unfortunately for the Democrats, what Johnny posted is the truth. Obama's economic advisor Franklin Raines (who is a former CEO of Fannie Mae lol) and Barney Frank headed up the resistance against Republicans that wanted to investigate the books of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That really is bad news and it is the truth. I like it how Democrats are trying to blame this on Bush and the Republicans, when they were the party that wanted to reform this situation years before the crisis we are facing now. I actually read about that stuff a few days ago, and Hannity was bitching about it on the radio today. I actually remember hearing about this in 2004 and it didn't even seem to be important back then. I find it odd that two of Obama's economic advisors are both former CEOs of Fannie Mae.
http://overthehilloracles.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/the-obama-fannie-freddie-connection/
http://people.boston.com/forums/news/politics/general/?p=discussiondetails&activityid=8731153219468243318
Sorry, which party in large numbers voted against all this? Not the Democrats. If Clinton was still in charge as opposed Bush, the US would have built up a budget surplus of $5.7tn.
As for economic advisors, take a look at McCain. Not only does he not know at all what he is talking about when it comes to the ecomony (by his own confession, no less), he has hired the people responsible for this mess. Up until recently, his chief ecomonic advisor was a man named Phil Gramm. Look him up and see for yourself.
Looking through the books of Fannnie Mae and Freddie Mac would have made no difference, the mess would have happened anyway, just sooner.
-
Unfortunately for the Democrats, what Johnny posted is the truth. Obama's economic advisor Franklin Raines (who is a former CEO of Fannie Mae lol) and Barney Frank headed up the resistance against Republicans that wanted to investigate the books of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That really is bad news and it is the truth. I like it how Democrats are trying to blame this on Bush and the Republicans, when they were the party that wanted to reform this situation years before the crisis we are facing now. I actually read about that stuff a few days ago, and Hannity was bitching about it on the radio today. I actually remember hearing about this in 2004 and it didn't even seem to be important back then. I find it odd that two of Obama's economic advisors are both former CEOs of Fannie Mae.
http://overthehilloracles.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/the-obama-fannie-freddie-connection/
http://people.boston.com/forums/news/politics/general/?p=discussiondetails&activityid=8731153219468243318
Sorry, which party in large numbers voted against all this? Not the Democrats. If Clinton was still in charge as opposed Bush, the US would have built up a budget surplus of $5.7tn.
As for economic advisors, take a look at McCain. Not only does he not know at all what he is talking about when it comes to the ecomony (by his own confession, no less), he has hired the people responsible for this mess. Up until recently, his chief ecomonic advisor was a man named Phil Gramm. Look him up and see for yourself.
Looking through the books of Fannnie Mae and Freddie Mac would have made no difference, the mess would have happened anyway, just sooner.
They both did actually for the most part. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lobby on both sides and have contributed to both parties. Too bad their former CEOs back Obama. I wouldn't say that he has hired the people totally responsible for this mess. The blame can be attributed to both parties and not just Gramm. He was on the committee, but Clinton also signed the bill in question and put it into effect. Gramm does not work for McCain any more, but the two former CEOs of Fannie Mae do work for Obama still.
-
Well the bill goes into Senate on Wednesday to be voted on, and sequentially to the House of Representatives again on Thursday.
Although pressure from the public alone might see the bill being rejected again, especially since it's an election year, and a lot of Congressmen and Senator are on the vote on November. In fact, the failure of the bill passing on Monday can be partly attributed to people calling their representative and basically telling them, "NO Bailout". So this is proof that until the right circumstances, people can exert a lot of power over the system, and should seize the opportunity.
-
Unfortunately for the Democrats, what Johnny posted is the truth. Obama's economic advisor Franklin Raines (who is a former CEO of Fannie Mae lol) and Barney Frank headed up the resistance against Republicans that wanted to investigate the books of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That really is bad news and it is the truth. I like it how Democrats are trying to blame this on Bush and the Republicans, when they were the party that wanted to reform this situation years before the crisis we are facing now. I actually read about that stuff a few days ago, and Hannity was bitching about it on the radio today. I actually remember hearing about this in 2004 and it didn't even seem to be important back then. I find it odd that two of Obama's economic advisors are both former CEOs of Fannie Mae.
http://overthehilloracles.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/the-obama-fannie-freddie-connection/
http://people.boston.com/forums/news/politics/general/?p=discussiondetails&activityid=8731153219468243318
Sorry, which party in large numbers voted against all this? Not the Democrats. If Clinton was still in charge as opposed Bush, the US would have built up a budget surplus of $5.7tn.
As for economic advisors, take a look at McCain. Not only does he not know at all what he is talking about when it comes to the ecomony (by his own confession, no less), he has hired the people responsible for this mess. Up until recently, his chief ecomonic advisor was a man named Phil Gramm. Look him up and see for yourself.
Looking through the books of Fannnie Mae and Freddie Mac would have made no difference, the mess would have happened anyway, just sooner.
They both did actually for the most part. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lobby on both sides and have contributed to both parties. Too bad their former CEOs back Obama. I wouldn't say that he has hired the people totally responsible for this mess. The blame can be attributed to both parties and not just Gramm. He was on the committee, but Clinton also signed the bill in question and put it into effect. Gramm does not work for McCain any more, but the two former CEOs of Fannie Mae do work for Obama still.
Most companies under your ridiculous system donate to both parties, it just underscores how corrupt American politics is. Yes Clinton may have signed it into law, but at that point the Republicans had both houses, he had little choice but to sign it in. Gramm is still advising McCain, just because he has resigned does not negate the point. How naive are you?
-
Well the bill goes into Senate on Wednesday to be voted on, and sequentially to the House of Representatives again on Thursday.
Although pressure from the public alone might see the bill being rejected again, especially since it's an election year, and a lot of Congressmen and Senator are on the vote on November. In fact, the failure of the bill passing on Monday can be partly attributed to people calling their representative and basically telling them, "NO Bailout". So this is proof that until the right circumstances, people can exert a lot of power over the system, and should seize the opportunity.
If the US actually used some sense when choosing who got to vote in the first place, then we would not have gotten here. All those people who are phoning up their representatives should be garrotted with their telephone cords.
-
Another fucking wankfest to sling mud at the USA. No doubt we have problems, but your house of cards is no better.
Different, but no better.
Say something new or STFU!
:wanker: :wanker: :wanker: :wanker: :wanker:
EDIT:
Sorry, that was way too many wankers to post.
-
Unfortunately for the Democrats, what Johnny posted is the truth. Obama's economic advisor Franklin Raines (who is a former CEO of Fannie Mae lol) and Barney Frank headed up the resistance against Republicans that wanted to investigate the books of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That really is bad news and it is the truth. I like it how Democrats are trying to blame this on Bush and the Republicans, when they were the party that wanted to reform this situation years before the crisis we are facing now. I actually read about that stuff a few days ago, and Hannity was bitching about it on the radio today. I actually remember hearing about this in 2004 and it didn't even seem to be important back then. I find it odd that two of Obama's economic advisors are both former CEOs of Fannie Mae.
http://overthehilloracles.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/the-obama-fannie-freddie-connection/
http://people.boston.com/forums/news/politics/general/?p=discussiondetails&activityid=8731153219468243318
Sorry, which party in large numbers voted against all this? Not the Democrats. If Clinton was still in charge as opposed Bush, the US would have built up a budget surplus of $5.7tn.
As for economic advisors, take a look at McCain. Not only does he not know at all what he is talking about when it comes to the ecomony (by his own confession, no less), he has hired the people responsible for this mess. Up until recently, his chief ecomonic advisor was a man named Phil Gramm. Look him up and see for yourself.
Looking through the books of Fannnie Mae and Freddie Mac would have made no difference, the mess would have happened anyway, just sooner.
it's hysterical to see post like yours, is it good drugs or just plain blindness to the truth or are you just a total sucker or just completely unable to understand what is happening on planet earth ?
-
Unfortunately for the Democrats, what Johnny posted is the truth. Obama's economic advisor Franklin Raines (who is a former CEO of Fannie Mae lol) and Barney Frank headed up the resistance against Republicans that wanted to investigate the books of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That really is bad news and it is the truth. I like it how Democrats are trying to blame this on Bush and the Republicans, when they were the party that wanted to reform this situation years before the crisis we are facing now. I actually read about that stuff a few days ago, and Hannity was bitching about it on the radio today. I actually remember hearing about this in 2004 and it didn't even seem to be important back then. I find it odd that two of Obama's economic advisors are both former CEOs of Fannie Mae.
http://overthehilloracles.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/the-obama-fannie-freddie-connection/
http://people.boston.com/forums/news/politics/general/?p=discussiondetails&activityid=8731153219468243318
A house in the burbs is the new ENTITLEMENT.
I know they will destroy them the same as they destroyed the apartments the government/taxpayers built for them
-
I'm not asking for communism, only common sense. FFS, it's not rocket science to balance expenses and income. :grrr:
On the balance sheet they were, until all the unexpected write downs occurred. To stop these corporations being ran in such a fashion, you would have to do away with the free market, or massively increase regulation.
All you have to do is stop being overly greedy. There's no need to do away with the free market.
The Government is paid by the people to make sure this crap doesn't happen. If that means more regulation, then that is what needs to happen. As sad as it is, the greed will never stop as long as we have a class system. And it probably still wouldn't stop. Humans are inherently selfish. Most of this selfishness involves survival, but some of it leads to the greed and wanton disrespect for the Environment and fellow members of the species.
Also, Clinton didn't have to work with the Republicans. He could have been like Bush and tried to veto everything. But he was smart enough to know that stepping across the aisle and working with the Republicans on "compromised" legislation was in everyone's best interest. History will show just how good of a president he was and how bad of one "W" is.
-
Unfortunately for the Democrats, what Johnny posted is the truth. Obama's economic advisor Franklin Raines (who is a former CEO of Fannie Mae lol) and Barney Frank headed up the resistance against Republicans that wanted to investigate the books of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That really is bad news and it is the truth. I like it how Democrats are trying to blame this on Bush and the Republicans, when they were the party that wanted to reform this situation years before the crisis we are facing now. I actually read about that stuff a few days ago, and Hannity was bitching about it on the radio today. I actually remember hearing about this in 2004 and it didn't even seem to be important back then. I find it odd that two of Obama's economic advisors are both former CEOs of Fannie Mae.
http://overthehilloracles.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/the-obama-fannie-freddie-connection/
http://people.boston.com/forums/news/politics/general/?p=discussiondetails&activityid=8731153219468243318
Sorry, which party in large numbers voted against all this? Not the Democrats. If Clinton was still in charge as opposed Bush, the US would have built up a budget surplus of $5.7tn.
As for economic advisors, take a look at McCain. Not only does he not know at all what he is talking about when it comes to the ecomony (by his own confession, no less), he has hired the people responsible for this mess. Up until recently, his chief ecomonic advisor was a man named Phil Gramm. Look him up and see for yourself.
Looking through the books of Fannnie Mae and Freddie Mac would have made no difference, the mess would have happened anyway, just sooner.
it's hysterical to see post like yours, is it good drugs or just plain blindness to the truth or are you just a total sucker or just completely unable to understand what is happening on planet earth ?
No, its just you watch way too much Fox News and swallow all its bullshit.
-
Unfortunately for the Democrats, what Johnny posted is the truth. Obama's economic advisor Franklin Raines (who is a former CEO of Fannie Mae lol) and Barney Frank headed up the resistance against Republicans that wanted to investigate the books of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That really is bad news and it is the truth. I like it how Democrats are trying to blame this on Bush and the Republicans, when they were the party that wanted to reform this situation years before the crisis we are facing now. I actually read about that stuff a few days ago, and Hannity was bitching about it on the radio today. I actually remember hearing about this in 2004 and it didn't even seem to be important back then. I find it odd that two of Obama's economic advisors are both former CEOs of Fannie Mae.
http://overthehilloracles.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/the-obama-fannie-freddie-connection/
http://people.boston.com/forums/news/politics/general/?p=discussiondetails&activityid=8731153219468243318
Sorry, which party in large numbers voted against all this? Not the Democrats. If Clinton was still in charge as opposed Bush, the US would have built up a budget surplus of $5.7tn.
As for economic advisors, take a look at McCain. Not only does he not know at all what he is talking about when it comes to the ecomony (by his own confession, no less), he has hired the people responsible for this mess. Up until recently, his chief ecomonic advisor was a man named Phil Gramm. Look him up and see for yourself.
Looking through the books of Fannnie Mae and Freddie Mac would have made no difference, the mess would have happened anyway, just sooner.
it's hysterical to see post like yours, is it good drugs or just plain blindness to the truth or are you just a total sucker or just completely unable to understand what is happening on planet earth ?
No, its just you watch way too much Fox News and swallow all its bullshit.
I don't watch it, so much for your simpleton answer.
-
Unfortunately for the Democrats, what Johnny posted is the truth. Obama's economic advisor Franklin Raines (who is a former CEO of Fannie Mae lol) and Barney Frank headed up the resistance against Republicans that wanted to investigate the books of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That really is bad news and it is the truth. I like it how Democrats are trying to blame this on Bush and the Republicans, when they were the party that wanted to reform this situation years before the crisis we are facing now. I actually read about that stuff a few days ago, and Hannity was bitching about it on the radio today. I actually remember hearing about this in 2004 and it didn't even seem to be important back then. I find it odd that two of Obama's economic advisors are both former CEOs of Fannie Mae.
http://overthehilloracles.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/the-obama-fannie-freddie-connection/
http://people.boston.com/forums/news/politics/general/?p=discussiondetails&activityid=8731153219468243318
Sorry, which party in large numbers voted against all this? Not the Democrats. If Clinton was still in charge as opposed Bush, the US would have built up a budget surplus of $5.7tn.
As for economic advisors, take a look at McCain. Not only does he not know at all what he is talking about when it comes to the ecomony (by his own confession, no less), he has hired the people responsible for this mess. Up until recently, his chief ecomonic advisor was a man named Phil Gramm. Look him up and see for yourself.
Looking through the books of Fannnie Mae and Freddie Mac would have made no difference, the mess would have happened anyway, just sooner.
it's hysterical to see post like yours, is it good drugs or just plain blindness to the truth or are you just a total sucker or just completely unable to understand what is happening on planet earth ?
No, its just you watch way too much Fox News and swallow all its bullshit.
I don't watch it, so much for your simpleton answer.
Not convinced.
-
Well the bill goes into Senate on Wednesday to be voted on, and sequentially to the House of Representatives again on Thursday.
Although pressure from the public alone might see the bill being rejected again, especially since it's an election year, and a lot of Congressmen and Senator are on the vote on November. In fact, the failure of the bill passing on Monday can be partly attributed to people calling their representative and basically telling them, "NO Bailout". So this is proof that until the right circumstances, people can exert a lot of power over the system, and should seize the opportunity.
If the US actually used some sense when choosing who got to vote in the first place, then we would not have gotten here. All those people who are phoning up their representatives should be garrotted with their telephone cords.
What sort of ignorant elitist nonsense is this?
Whom specifically would you suggest we disenfranchise? Women? Poor people? Maybe you think that we should have a poll tax or a poll test?
People elect their representatives here and they have every right to contact them concerning issues they feel strongly about. Our representatives are accountable to their constituents.
-
Well the bill goes into Senate on Wednesday to be voted on, and sequentially to the House of Representatives again on Thursday.
Although pressure from the public alone might see the bill being rejected again, especially since it's an election year, and a lot of Congressmen and Senator are on the vote on November. In fact, the failure of the bill passing on Monday can be partly attributed to people calling their representative and basically telling them, "NO Bailout". So this is proof that until the right circumstances, people can exert a lot of power over the system, and should seize the opportunity.
If the US actually used some sense when choosing who got to vote in the first place, then we would not have gotten here. All those people who are phoning up their representatives should be garrotted with their telephone cords.
They use mobiles. Not that easy. :P
-
Well the bill goes into Senate on Wednesday to be voted on, and sequentially to the House of Representatives again on Thursday.
Although pressure from the public alone might see the bill being rejected again, especially since it's an election year, and a lot of Congressmen and Senator are on the vote on November. In fact, the failure of the bill passing on Monday can be partly attributed to people calling their representative and basically telling them, "NO Bailout". So this is proof that until the right circumstances, people can exert a lot of power over the system, and should seize the opportunity.
If the US actually used some sense when choosing who got to vote in the first place, then we would not have gotten here. All those people who are phoning up their representatives should be garrotted with their telephone cords.
What sort of ignorant elitist nonsense is this?
Whom specifically would you suggest we disenfranchise? Women? Poor people? Maybe you think that we should have a poll tax or a poll test?
People elect their representatives here and they have every right to contact them concerning issues they feel strongly about. Our representatives are accountable to their constituents.
Only allowing God one vote would solve most of your electoral issues. If the Republicans were not given any kind office, let along the presidency, then this whole mess would not have happened.
An intelligence test would be a good idea for allowing people access to the ballot box though, how can people vote on what they know nothing about. Morons voting is what gets the Republican party in, especially the religious ones.
The people who are against this package have no idea what they are talking about. They are prepared to take a massive economic hit to stop "greedy bankers" getting money. Now thats really cutting ones nose off to spite their face.
-
Unfortunately for the Democrats, what Johnny posted is the truth. Obama's economic advisor Franklin Raines (who is a former CEO of Fannie Mae lol) and Barney Frank headed up the resistance against Republicans that wanted to investigate the books of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That really is bad news and it is the truth. I like it how Democrats are trying to blame this on Bush and the Republicans, when they were the party that wanted to reform this situation years before the crisis we are facing now. I actually read about that stuff a few days ago, and Hannity was bitching about it on the radio today. I actually remember hearing about this in 2004 and it didn't even seem to be important back then. I find it odd that two of Obama's economic advisors are both former CEOs of Fannie Mae.
http://overthehilloracles.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/the-obama-fannie-freddie-connection/
http://people.boston.com/forums/news/politics/general/?p=discussiondetails&activityid=8731153219468243318
Sorry, which party in large numbers voted against all this? Not the Democrats. If Clinton was still in charge as opposed Bush, the US would have built up a budget surplus of $5.7tn.
As for economic advisors, take a look at McCain. Not only does he not know at all what he is talking about when it comes to the ecomony (by his own confession, no less), he has hired the people responsible for this mess. Up until recently, his chief ecomonic advisor was a man named Phil Gramm. Look him up and see for yourself.
Looking through the books of Fannnie Mae and Freddie Mac would have made no difference, the mess would have happened anyway, just sooner.
They both did actually for the most part. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lobby on both sides and have contributed to both parties. Too bad their former CEOs back Obama. I wouldn't say that he has hired the people totally responsible for this mess. The blame can be attributed to both parties and not just Gramm. He was on the committee, but Clinton also signed the bill in question and put it into effect. Gramm does not work for McCain any more, but the two former CEOs of Fannie Mae do work for Obama still.
Most companies under your ridiculous system donate to both parties, it just underscores how corrupt American politics is. Yes Clinton may have signed it into law, but at that point the Republicans had both houses, he had little choice but to sign it in. Gramm is still advising McCain, just because he has resigned does not negate the point. How naive are you?
Do you fault the people who allowed guns to be legal or the person who shot people with said gun? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may have been not regulated closely, but they chose to take advantage and cook their own books. They are the guilty parties and Obama's advisor was the one who was CEO when said corruption within Fannie Mae occurred. Just because someone allowed a free market, does not mean they committed the acts themselves. The greedy acts were done by the 2 companies that were trusted to not take things that far in the first place. The government gave Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac too much rope to hang themselves with, and the 2 companies obviously were greedy enough to oblige.
-
Unfortunately for the Democrats, what Johnny posted is the truth. Obama's economic advisor Franklin Raines (who is a former CEO of Fannie Mae lol) and Barney Frank headed up the resistance against Republicans that wanted to investigate the books of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That really is bad news and it is the truth. I like it how Democrats are trying to blame this on Bush and the Republicans, when they were the party that wanted to reform this situation years before the crisis we are facing now. I actually read about that stuff a few days ago, and Hannity was bitching about it on the radio today. I actually remember hearing about this in 2004 and it didn't even seem to be important back then. I find it odd that two of Obama's economic advisors are both former CEOs of Fannie Mae.
http://overthehilloracles.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/the-obama-fannie-freddie-connection/
http://people.boston.com/forums/news/politics/general/?p=discussiondetails&activityid=8731153219468243318
Sorry, which party in large numbers voted against all this? Not the Democrats. If Clinton was still in charge as opposed Bush, the US would have built up a budget surplus of $5.7tn.
As for economic advisors, take a look at McCain. Not only does he not know at all what he is talking about when it comes to the ecomony (by his own confession, no less), he has hired the people responsible for this mess. Up until recently, his chief ecomonic advisor was a man named Phil Gramm. Look him up and see for yourself.
Looking through the books of Fannnie Mae and Freddie Mac would have made no difference, the mess would have happened anyway, just sooner.
They both did actually for the most part. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lobby on both sides and have contributed to both parties. Too bad their former CEOs back Obama. I wouldn't say that he has hired the people totally responsible for this mess. The blame can be attributed to both parties and not just Gramm. He was on the committee, but Clinton also signed the bill in question and put it into effect. Gramm does not work for McCain any more, but the two former CEOs of Fannie Mae do work for Obama still.
Most companies under your ridiculous system donate to both parties, it just underscores how corrupt American politics is. Yes Clinton may have signed it into law, but at that point the Republicans had both houses, he had little choice but to sign it in. Gramm is still advising McCain, just because he has resigned does not negate the point. How naive are you?
Do you fault the people who allowed guns to be legal or the person who shot people with said gun? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may have been not regulated closely, but they chose to take advantage and cook their own books. They are the guilty parties and Obama's advisor was the one who was CEO when said corruption within Fannie Mae occurred. Just because someone allowed a free market, does not mean they committed the acts themselves. The greedy acts were done by the 2 companies that were trusted to not take things that far in the first place. The government gave Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac too much rope to hang themselves with, and the 2 companies obviously were greedy enough to oblige.
I fault both of them. However the Republicans knew what they were doing when mismanaging the economy so badly, in fact they made a healthy profit out of doing so. What they did would be the equivalent of myself walking into Peckham and handing out knives, and naively assuming that it wont make a difference on the number of stabbings. The Democrats would never do anything like that!
-
They did not hand out knives and the Democrats were supporting the bill too, you moron. Look at how the vote went. Too bad the Republicans tried to investigate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 4 years ago, which would have hopefully forced the 2 institutions to fix their problems instead of the Democrats allowing them 4 more years of cooked books and mismanagement. The CEOs of Fannie Mae during that time are both Democrats and one man in particular made 90+ million in bonuses as CEO of Fannie Mae...... he is Obama's economic advisor Franklin Raines. Nobody profited more from Fannie Mae's mismanagement than him.
-
They did not hand out knives and the Democrats were supporting the bill too, you moron. Look at how the vote went. Too bad the Republicans tried to investigate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 4 years ago, which would have hopefully forced the 2 institutions to fix their problems instead of the Democrats allowing them 4 more years of cooked books and mismanagement. The CEOs of Fannie Mae during that time are both Democrats and one man in particular made 90+ million in bonuses as CEO of Fannie Mae...... he is Obama's economic advisor Franklin Raines. Nobody profited more from Fannie Mae's mismanagement than him.
You are looking at individual events. Its the general management of the economy that is the problem, if they were following Clinton's spending plans then this mess could have been so easily resolved. Instead the US economy is now held ransom to both Saudi Arabia (which now owns 1/8 of the nation) and China, which has an awful lot of dollars sitting in its reserves.
-
Unfortunately for the Democrats, what Johnny posted is the truth. Obama's economic advisor Franklin Raines (who is a former CEO of Fannie Mae lol) and Barney Frank headed up the resistance against Republicans that wanted to investigate the books of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That really is bad news and it is the truth. I like it how Democrats are trying to blame this on Bush and the Republicans, when they were the party that wanted to reform this situation years before the crisis we are facing now. I actually read about that stuff a few days ago, and Hannity was bitching about it on the radio today. I actually remember hearing about this in 2004 and it didn't even seem to be important back then. I find it odd that two of Obama's economic advisors are both former CEOs of Fannie Mae.
http://overthehilloracles.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/the-obama-fannie-freddie-connection/
http://people.boston.com/forums/news/politics/general/?p=discussiondetails&activityid=8731153219468243318
Sorry, which party in large numbers voted against all this? Not the Democrats. If Clinton was still in charge as opposed Bush, the US would have built up a budget surplus of $5.7tn.
As for economic advisors, take a look at McCain. Not only does he not know at all what he is talking about when it comes to the ecomony (by his own confession, no less), he has hired the people responsible for this mess. Up until recently, his chief ecomonic advisor was a man named Phil Gramm. Look him up and see for yourself.
Looking through the books of Fannnie Mae and Freddie Mac would have made no difference, the mess would have happened anyway, just sooner.
it's hysterical to see post like yours, is it good drugs or just plain blindness to the truth or are you just a total sucker or just completely unable to understand what is happening on planet earth ?
No, its just you watch way too much Fox News and swallow all its bullshit.
I don't watch it, so much for your simpleton answer.
Not convinced.
considering your profile says you are 19 in my opinion you have a lot to learn and if Obama gets in will get one hell of a lesson, not knowing much isn't as bad as tuning out anything you don't want to hear
you can stomp your feet and throw a temper tantrum all you want, it won't change the fact the idiot baby boomers destroyed the country for you, you can blame it on some Bush guy but it won't change the outcome and you can ignore the real reasons for the mess and believe some messiah is going to make it go away
-
Evil and greed transcend all political boundaries
-
Unfortunately for the Democrats, what Johnny posted is the truth. Obama's economic advisor Franklin Raines (who is a former CEO of Fannie Mae lol) and Barney Frank headed up the resistance against Republicans that wanted to investigate the books of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That really is bad news and it is the truth. I like it how Democrats are trying to blame this on Bush and the Republicans, when they were the party that wanted to reform this situation years before the crisis we are facing now. I actually read about that stuff a few days ago, and Hannity was bitching about it on the radio today. I actually remember hearing about this in 2004 and it didn't even seem to be important back then. I find it odd that two of Obama's economic advisors are both former CEOs of Fannie Mae.
http://overthehilloracles.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/the-obama-fannie-freddie-connection/
http://people.boston.com/forums/news/politics/general/?p=discussiondetails&activityid=8731153219468243318
Sorry, which party in large numbers voted against all this? Not the Democrats. If Clinton was still in charge as opposed Bush, the US would have built up a budget surplus of $5.7tn.
As for economic advisors, take a look at McCain. Not only does he not know at all what he is talking about when it comes to the ecomony (by his own confession, no less), he has hired the people responsible for this mess. Up until recently, his chief ecomonic advisor was a man named Phil Gramm. Look him up and see for yourself.
Looking through the books of Fannnie Mae and Freddie Mac would have made no difference, the mess would have happened anyway, just sooner.
it's hysterical to see post like yours, is it good drugs or just plain blindness to the truth or are you just a total sucker or just completely unable to understand what is happening on planet earth ?
No, its just you watch way too much Fox News and swallow all its bullshit.
I don't watch it, so much for your simpleton answer.
Not convinced.
considering your profile says you are 19 in my opinion you have a lot to learn and if Obama gets in will get one hell of a lesson, not knowing much isn't as bad as tuning out anything you don't want to hear
you can stomp your feet and throw a temper tantrum all you want, it won't change the fact the idiot baby boomers destroyed the country for you, you can blame it on some Bush guy but it won't change the outcome and you can ignore the real reasons for the mess and believe some messiah is going to make it go away
Firstly, the experience argument has been done to death. Reagan was the only one any good at using it.
Secondly, go and read Obama's book. He makes some very compelling arguments. The fact he has to slightly mislead the masses is meaningless, if the masses had brains he would not have to mislead them.
-
Well considering that the toxic debt is actually trillions of dollars in value some even saying it's up to 8 trillion, 700 billion will have minimal impact of only delaying the inevitable, in fact potentially worsening it long-term.
If the American people were buy off ALL the toxic debt (if the maximum is 8 trillion for example), it would cost at least up to $21,000 max per taxpayer over the time period it's paid. This bailout is setting a dangerous moral precedent to banks that they can get away with it at taxpayers expense and real question is that, how much of the toxic debt will the government need to buy out before the system stabilizes (if at all)? If anything the bailout would allow more debt to accumulate leading to an even larger collapse in the future.
-
Money is just an arbitrary means of adding to value to services and goods. The whole economic system is a bunch of hocus pocus.
-
(http://www.bmezine.com/tattoo/A40615/high/tattoo80.jpg)
-
The Senate just approved the bailout. I'm torn on this. this mess was not of our making but we (taxpayers) wil pay for it. I hope the dividend system can be worked out. And I hope all those poor wittle Wall Street types will be able to go to work tomorrow and not have to take their Xanax.
-
Well considering that the toxic debt is actually trillions of dollars in value some even saying it's up to 8 trillion, 700 billion will have minimal impact of only delaying the inevitable, in fact potentially worsening it long-term.
If the American people were buy off ALL the toxic debt (if the maximum is 8 trillion for example), it would cost at least up to $21,000 max per taxpayer over the time period it's paid. This bailout is setting a dangerous moral precedent to banks that they can get away with it at taxpayers expense and real question is that, how much of the toxic debt will the government need to buy out before the system stabilizes (if at all)? If anything the bailout would allow more debt to accumulate leading to an even larger collapse in the future.
I think that these all are very good points. My father-in-law is an economist and he says the same thing, that a 700 biillion dollar bailout now will not be enough and will only delay the inevitable recession / depression and make it even worse in the long run.
The Senate approved the bailout tonight, so now I guess we can see what Congress does with it tomorrow.
-
The Senate approved the bailout tonight
............................................______ __
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,
.........................,/...............................................”:,
.....................,?........................... ...........................,
.................../.................................................. .........,}
................./.................................................. ....,:`^`..}
.............../.................................................. .,:”........./
..............?.....__............................ .............:`.........../
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`..... ..._/
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../
...,,,___.`~,......“~.,....................`..... }............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”
............/.`~,......`-...................................../
.............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__
,,_..........}.>-._...................................|........... ...`=~-,
.....`=~-,__......`,.................................
...................`=~-,,.,...............................
................................`:,,.............. .............`..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_........ ..._,-%.......`
...................................,
-
Evil and greed transcend all political boundaries
QFT
-
The Senate approved the bailout tonight
............................................______ __
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,
.........................,/...............................................”:,
.....................,?........................... ...........................,
.................../.................................................. .........,}
................./.................................................. ....,:`^`..}
.............../.................................................. .,:”........./
..............?.....__............................ .............:`.........../
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`..... ..._/
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../
...,,,___.`~,......“~.,....................`..... }............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”
............/.`~,......`-...................................../
.............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__
,,_..........}.>-._...................................|........... ...`=~-,
.....`=~-,__......`,.................................
...................`=~-,,.,...............................
................................`:,,.............. .............`..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_........ ..._,-%.......`
...................................,
:agreed:
-
The Senate approved the bailout tonight
............................................______ __
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,
.........................,/...............................................”:,
.....................,?........................... ...........................,
.................../.................................................. .........,}
................./.................................................. ....,:`^`..}
.............../.................................................. .,:”........./
..............?.....__............................ .............:`.........../
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`..... ..._/
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../
...,,,___.`~,......“~.,....................`..... }............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”
............/.`~,......`-...................................../
.............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__
,,_..........}.>-._...................................|........... ...`=~-,
.....`=~-,__......`,.................................
...................`=~-,,.,...............................
................................`:,,.............. .............`..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_........ ..._,-%.......`
...................................,
Time for the idiots in the lower house to get a wriggle on.
-
Unfortunately for the Democrats, what Johnny posted is the truth. Obama's economic advisor Franklin Raines (who is a former CEO of Fannie Mae lol) and Barney Frank headed up the resistance against Republicans that wanted to investigate the books of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That really is bad news and it is the truth. I like it how Democrats are trying to blame this on Bush and the Republicans, when they were the party that wanted to reform this situation years before the crisis we are facing now. I actually read about that stuff a few days ago, and Hannity was bitching about it on the radio today. I actually remember hearing about this in 2004 and it didn't even seem to be important back then. I find it odd that two of Obama's economic advisors are both former CEOs of Fannie Mae.
http://overthehilloracles.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/the-obama-fannie-freddie-connection/
http://people.boston.com/forums/news/politics/general/?p=discussiondetails&activityid=8731153219468243318
Sorry, which party in large numbers voted against all this? Not the Democrats. If Clinton was still in charge as opposed Bush, the US would have built up a budget surplus of $5.7tn.
As for economic advisors, take a look at McCain. Not only does he not know at all what he is talking about when it comes to the ecomony (by his own confession, no less), he has hired the people responsible for this mess. Up until recently, his chief ecomonic advisor was a man named Phil Gramm. Look him up and see for yourself.
Looking through the books of Fannnie Mae and Freddie Mac would have made no difference, the mess would have happened anyway, just sooner.
it's hysterical to see post like yours, is it good drugs or just plain blindness to the truth or are you just a total sucker or just completely unable to understand what is happening on planet earth ?
No, its just you watch way too much Fox News and swallow all its bullshit.
I don't watch it, so much for your simpleton answer.
Not convinced.
considering your profile says you are 19 in my opinion you have a lot to learn and if Obama gets in will get one hell of a lesson, not knowing much isn't as bad as tuning out anything you don't want to hear
you can stomp your feet and throw a temper tantrum all you want, it won't change the fact the idiot baby boomers destroyed the country for you, you can blame it on some Bush guy but it won't change the outcome and you can ignore the real reasons for the mess and believe some messiah is going to make it go away
Firstly, the experience argument has been done to death. Reagan was the only one any good at using it.
Secondly, go and read Obama's book. He makes some very compelling arguments. The fact he has to slightly mislead the masses is meaningless, if the masses had brains he would not have to mislead them.
The guy wrote a book to sell by telling people what they want to hear, I'm sure AnnCoulter makes compelling arguements also for somebody willing to lap up her drivil.
If you believe at 19 you have the knowledge to really know if his arguements will pass the sniff test you are really full of yourself.
-
Unfortunately for the Democrats, what Johnny posted is the truth. Obama's economic advisor Franklin Raines (who is a former CEO of Fannie Mae lol) and Barney Frank headed up the resistance against Republicans that wanted to investigate the books of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That really is bad news and it is the truth. I like it how Democrats are trying to blame this on Bush and the Republicans, when they were the party that wanted to reform this situation years before the crisis we are facing now. I actually read about that stuff a few days ago, and Hannity was bitching about it on the radio today. I actually remember hearing about this in 2004 and it didn't even seem to be important back then. I find it odd that two of Obama's economic advisors are both former CEOs of Fannie Mae.
http://overthehilloracles.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/the-obama-fannie-freddie-connection/
http://people.boston.com/forums/news/politics/general/?p=discussiondetails&activityid=8731153219468243318
Sorry, which party in large numbers voted against all this? Not the Democrats. If Clinton was still in charge as opposed Bush, the US would have built up a budget surplus of $5.7tn.
As for economic advisors, take a look at McCain. Not only does he not know at all what he is talking about when it comes to the ecomony (by his own confession, no less), he has hired the people responsible for this mess. Up until recently, his chief ecomonic advisor was a man named Phil Gramm. Look him up and see for yourself.
Looking through the books of Fannnie Mae and Freddie Mac would have made no difference, the mess would have happened anyway, just sooner.
it's hysterical to see post like yours, is it good drugs or just plain blindness to the truth or are you just a total sucker or just completely unable to understand what is happening on planet earth ?
No, its just you watch way too much Fox News and swallow all its bullshit.
I don't watch it, so much for your simpleton answer.
Not convinced.
considering your profile says you are 19 in my opinion you have a lot to learn and if Obama gets in will get one hell of a lesson, not knowing much isn't as bad as tuning out anything you don't want to hear
you can stomp your feet and throw a temper tantrum all you want, it won't change the fact the idiot baby boomers destroyed the country for you, you can blame it on some Bush guy but it won't change the outcome and you can ignore the real reasons for the mess and believe some messiah is going to make it go away
Firstly, the experience argument has been done to death. Reagan was the only one any good at using it.
Secondly, go and read Obama's book. He makes some very compelling arguments. The fact he has to slightly mislead the masses is meaningless, if the masses had brains he would not have to mislead them.
The guy wrote a book to sell by telling people what they want to hear, I'm sure AnnCoulter makes compelling arguements also for somebody willing to lap up her drivil.
If you believe at 19 you have the knowledge to really know if his arguements will pass the sniff test you are really full of yourself.
Have you read his book? Lets guess, the answer to that one is no.
His arguments make perfectly good sense, in fact to an outsider he is often pointing out the bleeding obvious. You are just jealous because McCain is not bright enough to write a book that actually is an enjoyable read that connects with people.
-
/shrugs
I'd never buy one of those before-the-election books. There's no telling what their spin doctors can do.
-
/shrugs
I'd never buy one of those before-the-election books. There's no telling what their spin doctors can do.
Obama actually wrote his first book back in the early 90's. The second was written when he was a rank political outsider. Certainly they are a lot less spun than McCain's Vietnam tripe.
-
/shrugs
I'd never buy one of those before-the-election books. There's no telling what their spin doctors can do.
Obama actually wrote his first book back in the early 90's. The second was written when he was a rank political outsider. Certainly they are a lot less spun than McCain's Vietnam tripe.
Fair enough--I had no idea when he wrote his books.
-
Have you read his book? Lets guess, the answer to that one is no.
His arguments make perfectly good sense, in fact to an outsider he is often pointing out the bleeding obvious. You are just jealous because McCain is not bright enough to write a book that actually is an enjoyable read that connects with people.
Hitler also made perfect sense to people.
The old read the book thing to try and weasel out of being able to support your veiws is a lame cop out
Why would i be jealous ? I could really give a shit which asshole gets elected because it won't have any affect on my life at my age because I'm all set and will do just fine either way.
When i was your age the country elected a jackass named Carter and I paid for it for decades, you are the one who will pay for decades if the bigger asshole of the two gets elected. You are already on the hook for trillions in liberal nonsense now an I'll gladly help put you deeper in debt if Obama gets into office by working the system to stuff my own pockets.
If you want to pay for my health insurance, hey have at it. If you want to go vote for somebody who talks about creating more government jobs, have at it I'll take one and milk it for all it's worth.
remember only the little people pay taxes, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Money makes money and if you want to shrink the pie, have at it you will be the ones who ends up with less.
-
Have you read his book? Lets guess, the answer to that one is no.
His arguments make perfectly good sense, in fact to an outsider he is often pointing out the bleeding obvious. You are just jealous because McCain is not bright enough to write a book that actually is an enjoyable read that connects with people.
Hitler also made perfect sense to people.
Hitler made sense to gullible morons. In the same way that the religious right does.
The old read the book thing to try and weasel out of being able to support your veiws is a lame cop out
I will take that for a no. In which case, how can you comment on a book without it being something you have read first hand? Instead you have consumed the usual bullshit.
Why would i be jealous ? I could really give a shit which asshole gets elected because it won't have any affect on my life at my age because I'm all set and will do just fine either way.
When i was your age the country elected a jackass named Carter and I paid for it for decades, you are the one who will pay for decades if the bigger asshole of the two gets elected. You are already on the hook for trillions in liberal nonsense now an I'll gladly help put you deeper in debt if Obama gets into office by working the system to stuff my own pockets.
Unless you are a hermit, geopolitics will always effect you, directly or indirectly.
As for debt, look how much Bush has put the US in over his 8 years. Its ironic that the conservatives over there are the ones who overspend, not the Democrats. As I said earlier, America would be $5.7tn better off if they had stuck to Clinton's plans.
If you want to pay for my health insurance, hey have at it. If you want to go vote for somebody who talks about creating more government jobs, have at it I'll take one and milk it for all it's worth.
Thankfully I live in a country where those people were in office. Its a shame that we might end up electing Thatcher Mk II because someone gave morons the right to vote. People never realise that the average citizens always get stung by tax cuts, but some people cannot resist the shiny ££££
remember only the little people pay taxes, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Money makes money and if you want to shrink the pie, have at it you will be the ones who ends up with less.
In Europe the average citizen is better off. Guess which model we follow.
-
where did i comment on the contents of the book ? I've never saw it so couldn't comment on it besides saying he can tell people what they want to hear same as ann coulter can.
polictics isn't likely to affect me because either way I'll have food, clothing & shelter same as today.
clinton $5.7 trillion it's just an unproven theory, reality was the economy was crashing before he left office and it's just theory 9-11 might not have happened. reality is Bush had nothing to do with the DOT.CON crash or world oil prices taking off. Back in the 90's I was fueling my truck below .80 cents a gallon and thought it ain't going to last long, the import crises america is suffering from has been in the making for decades.
in europe they protect their economies threw a VAT tax, stupid americans including comrade clinton give away the country in free trade deals and the USA has a giant dysfunctional population ,we aren't a united tribe of like minded people living in little mini economies. What happens in Michigan ripples threw the nation. The USA should shut down it's international police force and watch europe get over run or go to war with each other again.
another unproven theory is the nation would have been been off if Gore & Kerry had won, you can think it would have been better but it's nothing more than a wild guess nobody could ever prove.
-
where did i comment on the contents of the book ? I've never saw it so couldn't comment on it besides saying he can tell people what they want to hear same as ann coulter can.
Comparing it to Ann Coulter is not commenting on it?
polictics isn't likely to affect me because either way I'll have food, clothing & shelter same as today.
I would hope you would want more from life. What a shame that you dont.
clinton $5.7 trillion it's just an unproven theory, reality was the economy was crashing before he left office and it's just theory 9-11 might not have happened. reality is Bush had nothing to do with the DOT.CON crash or world oil prices taking off. Back in the 90's I was fueling my truck below .80 cents a gallon and thought it ain't going to last long, the import crises america is suffering from has been in the making for decades.
Bush giving irresponsible tax breaks, mismanaging a war, and not controlling spending properly happens to be economic fact. Clinton on the other hand....
[/quote]
in europe they protect their economies threw a VAT tax, stupid americans including comrade clinton give away the country in free trade deals and the USA has a giant dysfunctional population ,we aren't a united tribe of like minded people living in little mini economies. What happens in Michigan ripples threw the nation. The USA should shut down it's international police force and watch europe get over run or go to war with each other again.
[/quote]
VAT is not there to protect the economy, its to pay for national services. The only majorly protectionist economy is France, where the state owns way too much stuff. Look where that got them.
The US problem is that they have abused the fact they have the worlds main reserve currency, and ran up massive deficits using it (which got spent on tax breaks).
another unproven theory is the nation would have been been off if Gore & Kerry had won, you can think it would have been better but it's nothing more than a wild guess nobody could ever prove.
Prove, no. But very few could mismanage any worse than Bush, so in all probability they would be better choices. Gore by the way is proven.
-
You've overdosed on the CNN fear mongering, reality is most of the population is going about their business as always.
-
You've overdosed on the CNN fear mongering, reality is most of the population is going about their business as always.
CNN is basically the liberal equivalent of Fox. They both suck. That is why I can't be bothered with the news most of the time. It is depressing no matter which way either side spins the story.
-
You've overdosed on the CNN fear mongering, reality is most of the population is going about their business as always.
Not at all, I have heard first hand from people the problems the current economic climate - and I live across the pond. I imagine its worse over there, and if Congress does nothing, its only going to have a more and more noticeable impact.
Btw, I am watching the veep debate. Anyone voting for Palin needs a retrospective abortion performing on them, preferably before they get to a ballot box.
-
I'm hearing a lot of economists now saying the bailout is not really going to do anything, but are only hoping that it might.
Besides even if they do free up the credit lending with the bailout, consumer confidence is falling as a lot of people already have uncontrollable debts and are barely struggling with buying essentials, so retailers will still be reluctant to get loans if they feel profits are not sufficient to pay it back OR in worse case, they do get more credit, only to find themselves unable to pay it back without downgrading their profits, laying off employees, or even go bankrupt in the long run, thus still leading to a economic slowdown and possible recession/depression anyway (pretty much a similar result to without a bailout, but worse long-term). But then you have the issue that once lending is going again, people desperate for cash will start accumulating new debts with new credit cards, taking out loans, thus leading to a bunch of more people who cannot pay back their debts, leading to further debts to accumulate and eventual re-freeze on credit lending until another 'bailout' is done (so even if consumer confidence improves, it'll likely be most if not nearly all credit based, still causing a problem). Then you have to factor the potential increases in taxes to American taxpayers along with all this and the picture gets real ugly. The vicious cycle continues with this growing monster of debt until everything collapses into oblivion, while the rich rape everyone of their money during it. The whole system is a economic time-bomb, and a bailout will basically increase it's yield damage on the economy when it explodes.
The system needs to collapse for a overhaul, those bankers responsible for the mess need to be prosecuted to set a principle of saying "No more!", and new regulations need to decease the amount of bad loans, risk and bad credit lending allowed to take place. Once the bad apples are gone, new apples will grow in their place, combined with incentive to not mess it up again and regulations to ensure that they don't go over themselves.
Don't keep fixing a broken engine, get it replaced I say.
-
I'm hearing a lot of economists now saying the bailout is not really going to do anything, but are only hoping that it might.
Besides even if they do free up the credit lending with the bailout, consumer confidence is falling as a lot of people already have uncontrollable debts and are barely struggling with buying essentials, so retailers will still be reluctant to get loans if they feel profits are not sufficient to pay it back OR in worse case, they do get more credit, only to find themselves unable to pay it back without downgrading their profits, laying off employees, or even go bankrupt in the long run, thus still leading to a economic slowdown and possible recession/depression anyway (pretty much a similar result to without a bailout, but worse long-term). But then you have the issue that once lending is going again, people desperate for cash will start accumulating new debts with new credit cards, taking out loans, thus leading to a bunch of more people who cannot pay back their debts, leading to further debts to accumulate and eventual re-freeze on credit lending until another 'bailout' is done (so even if consumer confidence improves, it'll likely be most if not nearly all credit based, still causing a problem). Then you have to factor the potential increases in taxes to American taxpayers along with all this and the picture gets real ugly. The vicious cycle continues with this growing monster of debt until everything collapses into oblivion, while the rich rape everyone of their money during it. The whole system is a economic time-bomb, and a bailout will basically increase it's yield damage on the economy when it explodes.
The system needs to collapse for a overhaul, those bankers responsible for the mess need to be prosecuted to set a principle of saying "No more!", and new regulations need to decease the amount of bad loans, risk and bad credit lending allowed to take place. Once the bad apples are gone, new apples will grow in their place, combined with incentive to not mess it up again and regulations to ensure that they don't go over themselves.
Don't keep fixing a broken engine, get it replaced I say.
Exactly. Bailng them out by throwing money at the problem without overhauling the situation that allowed them to get into trouble in the first place only encourages them to make even more risky loans to people who should not be getting them, having them default on these loans, and then expecting to be bailed out by Uncle Sam again, since a precedent will have been set.
-
I'm hearing a lot of economists now saying the bailout is not really going to do anything, but are only hoping that it might.
Besides even if they do free up the credit lending with the bailout, consumer confidence is falling as a lot of people already have uncontrollable debts and are barely struggling with buying essentials, so retailers will still be reluctant to get loans if they feel profits are not sufficient to pay it back OR in worse case, they do get more credit, only to find themselves unable to pay it back without downgrading their profits, laying off employees, or even go bankrupt in the long run, thus still leading to a economic slowdown and possible recession/depression anyway (pretty much a similar result to without a bailout, but worse long-term). But then you have the issue that once lending is going again, people desperate for cash will start accumulating new debts with new credit cards, taking out loans, thus leading to a bunch of more people who cannot pay back their debts, leading to further debts to accumulate and eventual re-freeze on credit lending until another 'bailout' is done (so even if consumer confidence improves, it'll likely be most if not nearly all credit based, still causing a problem). Then you have to factor the potential increases in taxes to American taxpayers along with all this and the picture gets real ugly. The vicious cycle continues with this growing monster of debt until everything collapses into oblivion, while the rich rape everyone of their money during it. The whole system is a economic time-bomb, and a bailout will basically increase it's yield damage on the economy when it explodes.
The system needs to collapse for a overhaul, those bankers responsible for the mess need to be prosecuted to set a principle of saying "No more!", and new regulations need to decease the amount of bad loans, risk and bad credit lending allowed to take place. Once the bad apples are gone, new apples will grow in their place, combined with incentive to not mess it up again and regulations to ensure that they don't go over themselves.
Don't keep fixing a broken engine, get it replaced I say.
Exactly. Bailng them out by throwing money at the problem without overhauling the situation that allowed them to get into trouble in the first place only encourages them to make even more risky loans to people who should not be getting them, having them default on these loans, and then expecting to be bailed out by Uncle Sam again, since a precedent will have been set.
Nope. If Obama and Biden get elected then they will actually regulate the economy properly, reducing the chances of this happening again.
-
Nope. If Obama and Biden get elected then they will actually regulate the economy properly, reducing the chances of this happening again.
Oh please god, let quixotic optimism like this actually come to fruition.
-
Nope. If Obama and Biden get elected then they will actually regulate the economy properly, reducing the chances of this happening again.
Oh please god, let quixotic optimism like this actually come to fruition.
Its realism. Clinton did a far better job economically than either Bush I or II, and I am sure the next democratic president is going to do a lot better job than the alternative: Bush III
-
Nope. If Obama and Biden get elected then they will actually regulate the economy properly, reducing the chances of this happening again.
Oh please god, let quixotic optimism like this actually come to fruition.
Its realism. Clinton did a far better job economically than either Bush I or II, and I am sure the next democratic president is going to do a lot better job than the alternative: Bush III
Greenspan is not in charge any longer, we can try to put blame on Ben Barnanke. Greenspan is placed with blame for the majority of the crisis this nation is in as he was the chairman of the Federal Reserve.
How much blame do you place on Greenspan?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Greenspan
-
I'm hearing a lot of economists now saying the bailout is not really going to do anything, but are only hoping that it might.
Besides even if they do free up the credit lending with the bailout, consumer confidence is falling as a lot of people already have uncontrollable debts and are barely struggling with buying essentials, so retailers will still be reluctant to get loans if they feel profits are not sufficient to pay it back OR in worse case, they do get more credit, only to find themselves unable to pay it back without downgrading their profits, laying off employees, or even go bankrupt in the long run, thus still leading to a economic slowdown and possible recession/depression anyway (pretty much a similar result to without a bailout, but worse long-term). But then you have the issue that once lending is going again, people desperate for cash will start accumulating new debts with new credit cards, taking out loans, thus leading to a bunch of more people who cannot pay back their debts, leading to further debts to accumulate and eventual re-freeze on credit lending until another 'bailout' is done (so even if consumer confidence improves, it'll likely be most if not nearly all credit based, still causing a problem). Then you have to factor the potential increases in taxes to American taxpayers along with all this and the picture gets real ugly. The vicious cycle continues with this growing monster of debt until everything collapses into oblivion, while the rich rape everyone of their money during it. The whole system is a economic time-bomb, and a bailout will basically increase it's yield damage on the economy when it explodes.
The system needs to collapse for a overhaul, those bankers responsible for the mess need to be prosecuted to set a principle of saying "No more!", and new regulations need to decease the amount of bad loans, risk and bad credit lending allowed to take place. Once the bad apples are gone, new apples will grow in their place, combined with incentive to not mess it up again and regulations to ensure that they don't go over themselves.
Don't keep fixing a broken engine, get it replaced I say.
Exactly. Bailng them out by throwing money at the problem without overhauling the situation that allowed them to get into trouble in the first place only encourages them to make even more risky loans to people who should not be getting them, having them default on these loans, and then expecting to be bailed out by Uncle Sam again, since a precedent will have been set.
Nope. If Obama and Biden get elected then they will actually regulate the economy properly, reducing the chances of this happening again.
You need to check your facts, Hadron. Biden voted for the deregulation that allowed the crisis to happen in the first place, and Clinton supported the legislation.
BIDEN: Complained about "economic policies of the last eight years" that led to "excessive deregulation."
THE FACTS: Biden voted for 1999 deregulation that liberal groups are blaming for part of the financial crisis today. The law allowed Wall Street investment banks to create the kind of mortgage-related securities at the core of the problem now. The law was widely backed by Republicans as well as by Democratic President Clinton, who argues it has stopped the crisis today from being worse.
-
Exactly what I have heard Callaway. They are all to blame. That is my problem with politicians and their posing and posturing.
-
Nope. If Obama and Biden get elected then they will actually regulate the economy properly, reducing the chances of this happening again.
Oh please god, let quixotic optimism like this actually come to fruition.
Its realism. Clinton did a far better job economically than either Bush I or II, and I am sure the next democratic president is going to do a lot better job than the alternative: Bush III
Greenspan is not in charge any longer, we can try to put blame on Ben Barnanke. Greenspan is placed with blame for the majority of the crisis this nation is in as he was the chairman of the Federal Reserve.
How much blame do you place on Greenspan?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Greenspan
In practise, he had very little power compared to either the executive branch or congress.
-
I'm hearing a lot of economists now saying the bailout is not really going to do anything, but are only hoping that it might.
Besides even if they do free up the credit lending with the bailout, consumer confidence is falling as a lot of people already have uncontrollable debts and are barely struggling with buying essentials, so retailers will still be reluctant to get loans if they feel profits are not sufficient to pay it back OR in worse case, they do get more credit, only to find themselves unable to pay it back without downgrading their profits, laying off employees, or even go bankrupt in the long run, thus still leading to a economic slowdown and possible recession/depression anyway (pretty much a similar result to without a bailout, but worse long-term). But then you have the issue that once lending is going again, people desperate for cash will start accumulating new debts with new credit cards, taking out loans, thus leading to a bunch of more people who cannot pay back their debts, leading to further debts to accumulate and eventual re-freeze on credit lending until another 'bailout' is done (so even if consumer confidence improves, it'll likely be most if not nearly all credit based, still causing a problem). Then you have to factor the potential increases in taxes to American taxpayers along with all this and the picture gets real ugly. The vicious cycle continues with this growing monster of debt until everything collapses into oblivion, while the rich rape everyone of their money during it. The whole system is a economic time-bomb, and a bailout will basically increase it's yield damage on the economy when it explodes.
The system needs to collapse for a overhaul, those bankers responsible for the mess need to be prosecuted to set a principle of saying "No more!", and new regulations need to decease the amount of bad loans, risk and bad credit lending allowed to take place. Once the bad apples are gone, new apples will grow in their place, combined with incentive to not mess it up again and regulations to ensure that they don't go over themselves.
Don't keep fixing a broken engine, get it replaced I say.
Exactly. Bailng them out by throwing money at the problem without overhauling the situation that allowed them to get into trouble in the first place only encourages them to make even more risky loans to people who should not be getting them, having them default on these loans, and then expecting to be bailed out by Uncle Sam again, since a precedent will have been set.
Nope. If Obama and Biden get elected then they will actually regulate the economy properly, reducing the chances of this happening again.
You need to check your facts, Hadron. Biden voted for the deregulation that allowed the crisis to happen in the first place, and Clinton supported the legislation.
BIDEN: Complained about "economic policies of the last eight years" that led to "excessive deregulation."
THE FACTS: Biden voted for 1999 deregulation that liberal groups are blaming for part of the financial crisis today. The law allowed Wall Street investment banks to create the kind of mortgage-related securities at the core of the problem now. The law was widely backed by Republicans as well as by Democratic President Clinton, who argues it has stopped the crisis today from being worse.
One act out of about 400 which have contributed to this mess (McCain voted for over 95% of them). The fact is, if the US had not wasted £5.7tn in the last 8 years, they would have been able to comfortably take the fall.
-
Nope. If Obama and Biden get elected then they will actually regulate the economy properly, reducing the chances of this happening again.
Oh please god, let quixotic optimism like this actually come to fruition.
Its realism. Clinton did a far better job economically than either Bush I or II, and I am sure the next democratic president is going to do a lot better job than the alternative: Bush III
Greenspan is not in charge any longer, we can try to put blame on Ben Barnanke. Greenspan is placed with blame for the majority of the crisis this nation is in as he was the chairman of the Federal Reserve.
How much blame do you place on Greenspan?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Greenspan
In practise, he had very little power compared to either the executive branch or congress.
Historically they have done what he has advised 95% of the time. :P
-
Nope. If Obama and Biden get elected then they will actually regulate the economy properly, reducing the chances of this happening again.
Oh please god, let quixotic optimism like this actually come to fruition.
Its realism. Clinton did a far better job economically than either Bush I or II, and I am sure the next democratic president is going to do a lot better job than the alternative: Bush III
Greenspan is not in charge any longer, we can try to put blame on Ben Barnanke. Greenspan is placed with blame for the majority of the crisis this nation is in as he was the chairman of the Federal Reserve.
How much blame do you place on Greenspan?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Greenspan
In practise, he had very little power compared to either the executive branch or congress.
Historically they have done what he has advised 95% of the time. :P
He is not going to advise anything that goes against the current political ideology though, simply because he knows it wont be passed.
-
Exactly what I have heard Callaway. They are all to blame. That is my problem with politicians and their posing and posturing.
:agreed:
-
Well, it has passed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7651060.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7651060.stm)
263 for to 171 against. There's honestly nothing more I can say on this, I just can't believe it...
-
Well, it has passed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7651060.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7651060.stm)
263 for to 171 against. There's honestly nothing more I can say on this, I just can't believe it...
:'(
A sad day indeed.
-
Well, it has passed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7651060.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7651060.stm)
263 for to 171 against. There's honestly nothing more I can say on this, I just can't believe it...
*Cracks open champagne*
This is a brilliant day in British politics too, with the return of Mandelson.
-
Nope. If Obama and Biden get elected then they will actually regulate the economy properly, reducing the chances of this happening again.
Oh please god, let quixotic optimism like this actually come to fruition.
QFT cos it affects us all.
-
Nope. If Obama and Biden get elected then they will actually regulate the economy properly, reducing the chances of this happening again.
Oh please god, let quixotic optimism like this actually come to fruition.
Its realism. Clinton did a far better job economically than either Bush I or II, and I am sure the next democratic president is going to do a lot better job than the alternative: Bush III
Greenspan is not in charge any longer, we can try to put blame on Ben Barnanke. Greenspan is placed with blame for the majority of the crisis this nation is in as he was the chairman of the Federal Reserve.
How much blame do you place on Greenspan?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Greenspan
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=27QOTZy_VQM
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=quaD6RLuAio&feature=related
http://www.economyincrisis.org/articles/show/1873
http://www.economyincrisis.org/articles/show/1874
US is becoming a nation of hamburger flippers
The US is swapping good manufacturing jobs for lower paying service jobs.
Source: Save Your Job, Save Our Country, by Ross Perot, p. 35 Jan 1, 1993
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Ross_Perot_Jobs.htm
-
Greenspan sure did his part and than some.
Many people in the country knew the day was coming for decades where the bullshit would catch up to the USA.It's probably hard for diaperboy who has a crush on clinton to understand seeing as how it would fry his programming to hear otherwise.
-
The long term ramifications of this bill are going to be worse than just letting it crash. Don't be disillusioned that this will fix anything, as the US is still entering a recession regardless and uncertainty still remains on the bailout's effectiveness. The only thing this will guarantee is that super rich investors can further increase their portfolios and flee when it really collapses, or when a another bailout is needed and fuel a vicious cycle until oblivion, and everyone will be in debt due to new loan, credit and tax debts. American taxpayers are now basically enslaved by Wall Street, setting a dangerous precedent that could destroy what's left of democracy, and reign in the finalized aspects of a pseudo-democratic totalitarianism; a illusionary system of two parties serving a single party interest of financial elites. Technically it's all being heading down this road for a long time, but now they're targeting the taxpayers' money, a final barrier to such transition of ideology. Unless Americans start getting out and protest like the days of Vietnam, the politicians will continue to screw them and slowly shred the constitution and bill of rights until nothing is left. What you're seeing is how dictatorships are born, generating 'disasters' to scare people into waiving their rights and money into measures that slowly convert democracy into dictatorship. How long will it be before elections no longer exist because of another 'crisis' like a world war? Because I don't see people protesting like they used to, they are either apathetic, scared of being branded a 'terrorist', ignorant or are benefiting from this transition. I hope I'm wrong, but Americans should be very worried about this recent development as it certain looks like those NWO nuts might be on to something here.
-
I wish I thought you were wrong, Nexus, but it's hard to deny. :(
-
I wish I thought you were wrong, Nexus, but it's hard to deny. :(
Well it's technically not too late to do something about it, it would require sacrifice but Americans can put a stop to this destruction of rights. If Americans sit around with apathy, arrogance (thinking it can't happen to them, wake the fuck up it's already happening), ignorance and hopelessness, even after this significant moment, then that future I mention is inevitable and sorry, but you deserve that future. If Americans actually fight against the laws that were made under false pretenses of fear that in reality rob their rights and money away, and demand restorations of the principles that their forefathers wrote at any means necessary, then it can be stopped. What happens to being land of the free? What happened to that protesting spirit? Come on, it's apathy, ignorance and fear that brought you all this mess, be proactive and brave, willing to sacrifice anything to reverse it. Unfortunately voting this election is not enough, as both parties serve the same third party interest, a revolution is the only thing that will get Americans out of this downward spiral. If you don't do it soon, then it'll be too late, and bloodshed will be inevitably needed in order to restore your freedoms. Just remember that there's more of you as citizens than the government can control, and they know that. If everyone were to learn that, people were to tell others, spread the idea that they can all unite and demand restoration of the constitution and bill of rights in full; aim to rid of the lobbyists, rid of the false representatives, rid of the totalitarian laws disguised as anti-terrorism legislation, then a revolutionary change can happen.
-
I still go to protests. Living just South of DC helps. I also advertise on my car with dozens of bumper stickers. Of course, that just usually gets my car vandalized in this redneck town, but still...it's something.
-
I still go to protests. Living just South of DC helps. I also advertise on my car with dozens of bumper stickers. Of course, that just usually gets my car vandalized in this redneck town, but still...it's something.
That's good to hear that you still speak out without fear. However what I'm talking about is millions of people marching down to the White House and demand their constitution and bill of rights be restored in full, repealing the laws that are slowly shredding it away, demand action against those who betrayed your trust in representation. Show the government who truly makes America, and that is 'we the people'. Demanding the media to tell you the truth, demand everything that you're truly entitled to in rights and demand those accountable for the destruction of rights to be punished. It's all about the numbers who have united as one voice, the more the merrier and let people know everywhere that they have the true power to do this. Now is the best time to unite because everyone is now aware of what's going on and who the representatives truly serve, and people will be more likely to listen to this idea.
-
Initially one of the reasons why US citizens were allowed to bear arms was to be capable of rising up against the government if it became corrupt and oppressive. Militias would have a hard time taking over, but it is possible. I don't see changes without bloodshed sadly. There are very few politicians and CEOs that I would not kill if I could get away with it. They are all greedy pieces of shit that deserve death. Then again, I think most humans deserve to die.
-
I doubt armed rebellion could be successful in the US. Too many Americans view the president the way Catholics view the pope; that although they may privately disagree with some of their policies, it's their religious/patriotic duty to support the pope/president at all costs. The US military and police forces are overwhelmingly pro-establishment, and the US propaganda industry is too effective at keeping the population in line for a mass uprising.
-
I doubt armed rebellion could be successful in the US. Too many Americans view the president the way Catholics view the pope; that although they may privately disagree with some of their policies, it's their religious/patriotic duty to support the pope/president at all costs. The US military and police forces are overwhelmingly pro-establishment, and the US propaganda industry is too effective at keeping the population in line for a mass uprising.
It doesn't have to be as massive as you think. I do agree that most Americans are brainwashed. People in the UK should have killed off the "royal family" a loooong time ago.
-
I doubt armed rebellion could be successful in the US. Too many Americans view the president the way Catholics view the pope; that although they may privately disagree with some of their policies, it's their religious/patriotic duty to support the pope/president at all costs. The US military and police forces are overwhelmingly pro-establishment, and the US propaganda industry is too effective at keeping the population in line for a mass uprising.
It doesn't have to be as massive as you think. I do agree that most Americans are brainwashed. People in the UK should have killed off the "royal family" a loooong time ago.
What would be the point to killing the royal family? If we'd killed them centuries ago, the UK would have become a political pariah and/or the royal family would have been replaced with something worse. If we killed them now, we'd lose some tourism and a bit of cultural heritage for no appreciable gain.
Could you outline how a successful not-so-massive US uprising would work?
-
I doubt armed rebellion could be successful in the US. Too many Americans view the president the way Catholics view the pope; that although they may privately disagree with some of their policies, it's their religious/patriotic duty to support the pope/president at all costs. The US military and police forces are overwhelmingly pro-establishment, and the US propaganda industry is too effective at keeping the population in line for a mass uprising.
It doesn't have to be as massive as you think. I do agree that most Americans are brainwashed. People in the UK should have killed off the "royal family" a loooong time ago.
What would be the point to killing the royal family? If we'd killed them centuries ago, the UK would have become a political pariah and/or the royal family would have been replaced with something worse. If we killed them now, we'd lose some tourism and a bit of cultural heritage for no appreciable gain.
Could you outline how a successful not-so-massive US uprising would work?
Key political and corporate figures would have to be taken out. Basically the richest 1% (most of them) and some politicians. That would cause a chain reaction of sorts.
The royal family is worthless and the UK is not really as democratic as you think. The royals still have the final say ultimately.
-
I doubt armed rebellion could be successful in the US. Too many Americans view the president the way Catholics view the pope; that although they may privately disagree with some of their policies, it's their religious/patriotic duty to support the pope/president at all costs. The US military and police forces are overwhelmingly pro-establishment, and the US propaganda industry is too effective at keeping the population in line for a mass uprising.
But that's how dictatorships eventually form and that should worry people, that blind patriotism and exposure to controlled media manipulating their prospective on everything, instilling irrational and excessive fear and arrogance into their culture; distracting people with tabloid junk journalism, away from the issues that really matter to people's interests as a whole. Once people are conditioned to follow a certain ideal to be self-absorbed with their own lives and are apathetic of the big picture, that's usually when they're led into a path of blindly endorsing totalitarian policies without question driven by fear or ignorance, and are weakened to protest any policy they're against, because as witnessed their opinion doesn't seem to matter. This inaction to mass protest against it is primarily likely due to fear of persecution or lack of confidence, that feeling hopelessness that nothing can be done brainwashed into them (when in reality, things can be done, but at a necessary sacrifice or risk though). Eventually when the people realize their lives are manipulated and restricted by their government to a point that makes them too uncomfortable, it's usually too late to do something about it without a violent war or uprising.
But now is a key moment, because people have just witness a blatant disregard of Democracy with their so-called 'representatives' selling them out to special interests and lobbyist groups of the financial elite. Now ask, if they do that, how do you Americans know the President regardless of political affiliation will be the same as those representatives? Both presidential candidates already showed betrayal to favor financial elite interests in the Senate. I can also assure you that this election in November will be a Pyrrhic victory no matter who wins unless America speaks or acts out.
-
I doubt armed rebellion could be successful in the US. Too many Americans view the president the way Catholics view the pope; that although they may privately disagree with some of their policies, it's their religious/patriotic duty to support the pope/president at all costs. The US military and police forces are overwhelmingly pro-establishment, and the US propaganda industry is too effective at keeping the population in line for a mass uprising.
But that's how dictatorships eventually form and that should worry people, that blind patriotism and exposure to controlled media manipulating their prospective on everything, instilling irrational and excessive fear and arrogance into their culture; distracting people with tabloid junk journalism, away from the issues that really matter to people's interests as a whole. Once people are conditioned to follow a certain ideal to be self-absorbed with their own lives and are apathetic of the big picture, that's usually when they're led into a path of blindly endorsing totalitarian policies without question driven by fear or ignorance, and are weakened to protest any policy they're against, because as witnessed their opinion doesn't seem to matter. This inaction to mass protest against it is primarily likely due to fear of persecution or lack of confidence, that feeling hopelessness that nothing can be done brainwashed into them (when in reality, things can be done, but at a necessary sacrifice or risk though). Eventually when the people realize their lives are manipulated and restricted by their government to a point that makes them too uncomfortable, it's usually too late to do something about it without a violent war or uprising.
But now is a key moment, because people have just witness a blatant disregard of Democracy with their so-called 'representative' selling them out to special interests and lobbyist groups of the financial elite. Now ask, if they do that, how do you Americans know the President regardless of political affiliation will be the same as those representatives? Both presidential candidates already showed betrayal to favor financial elite interests in the Senate. I can also assure you that this election in November will be a Pyrrhic victory no matter who wins unless America speaks or acts out.
A nasty situation, I agree, but as a UK national living in Scotland, I'll confine my contribution to posting online and leave the armed insurrection to those who're more directly affected.
-
I doubt armed rebellion could be successful in the US. Too many Americans view the president the way Catholics view the pope; that although they may privately disagree with some of their policies, it's their religious/patriotic duty to support the pope/president at all costs. The US military and police forces are overwhelmingly pro-establishment, and the US propaganda industry is too effective at keeping the population in line for a mass uprising.
It doesn't have to be as massive as you think. I do agree that most Americans are brainwashed. People in the UK should have killed off the "royal family" a loooong time ago.
What would be the point to killing the royal family? If we'd killed them centuries ago, the UK would have become a political pariah and/or the royal family would have been replaced with something worse. If we killed them now, we'd lose some tourism and a bit of cultural heritage for no appreciable gain.
Could you outline how a successful not-so-massive US uprising would work?
Key political and corporate figures would have to be taken out. Basically the richest 1% (most of them) and some politicians. That would cause a chain reaction of sorts.
The royal family is worthless and the UK is not really as democratic as you think. The royals still have the final say ultimately.
I don't think the UK is particularly democratic; it's got a surveillance apparatus that would make China blush, and the government from a national down to a local level (especially at a local level) has a distinct authoritarian tendency. Compared with the US though, I view UK politics as being more pragmatic, sober and less influenced by corporate and religious interests.
-
A nasty situation, I agree, but as a UK national living in Scotland, I'll confine my contribution to posting online and leave the armed insurrection to those who're more directly affected.
I live in Australia and can't exactly do much hands-on either... However I can speak my mind online and try and inspire people to think at least, all it takes is an idea to inspire others and for them to spread the words. I know it's extremely likely in vain, but at least I demonstrate that despite vain efforts at least I'm trying to say something, and anyone else who can, should too. Ultimately it's up to the American people to either wake up, stand up and defend their democracy or keep sleeping and fall down into eventual totalitarianism. People around the world should be worried about this too, because the implications of America becoming a potential totalitarian state will definitely affect the world negatively too.
-
keeping the population drunk, stomed and entertained and playing the american lottery seems to be working for the ruling class.
-
I know it's extremely likely in vain
I disagree, just speaking for myself. I've been politically apathetic most of my life but am finally starting to pay attention and see how much sense I can make of the onslaught of noise. Your opinion seems reasonable thus far.
-
I doubt armed rebellion could be successful in the US. Too many Americans view the president the way Catholics view the pope; that although they may privately disagree with some of their policies, it's their religious/patriotic duty to support the pope/president at all costs. The US military and police forces are overwhelmingly pro-establishment, and the US propaganda industry is too effective at keeping the population in line for a mass uprising.
But that's how dictatorships eventually form and that should worry people, that blind patriotism and exposure to controlled media manipulating their prospective on everything, instilling irrational and excessive fear and arrogance into their culture; distracting people with tabloid junk journalism, away from the issues that really matter to people's interests as a whole. Once people are conditioned to follow a certain ideal to be self-absorbed with their own lives and are apathetic of the big picture, that's usually when they're led into a path of blindly endorsing totalitarian policies without question driven by fear or ignorance, and are weakened to protest any policy they're against, because as witnessed their opinion doesn't seem to matter. This inaction to mass protest against it is primarily likely due to fear of persecution or lack of confidence, that feeling hopelessness that nothing can be done brainwashed into them (when in reality, things can be done, but at a necessary sacrifice or risk though). Eventually when the people realize their lives are manipulated and restricted by their government to a point that makes them too uncomfortable, it's usually too late to do something about it without a violent war or uprising.
But now is a key moment, because people have just witness a blatant disregard of Democracy with their so-called 'representatives' selling them out to special interests and lobbyist groups of the financial elite. Now ask, if they do that, how do you Americans know the President regardless of political affiliation will be the same as those representatives? Both presidential candidates already showed betrayal to favor financial elite interests in the Senate. I can also assure you that this election in November will be a Pyrrhic victory no matter who wins unless America speaks or acts out.
The totalitarianism has already happened in the past to some extent.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was such a popular president that he was re-elected three times, so we changed the Constitution so that nobody could ever be president for more than ten years again.
Even so, since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the government has in the name of "safety" and "fighting terrorism" seriously curtailed the freedom of its citizens.
-
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Franklin's Contributions to the Conference on February 17 (III) Fri, Feb 17, 1775
-
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Franklin's Contributions to the Conference on February 17 (III) Fri, Feb 17, 1775
A little-respected scholar in this day, Franklin is another of my personal heroes. Had this country been made more in his vision, our history may not have been as spoiled. I have collected his entire written works, as far as I know.
Although, some of Poor Richard's Almanac issues are digital copies :'(
-
I doubt armed rebellion could be successful in the US. Too many Americans view the president the way Catholics view the pope; that although they may privately disagree with some of their policies, it's their religious/patriotic duty to support the pope/president at all costs. The US military and police forces are overwhelmingly pro-establishment, and the US propaganda industry is too effective at keeping the population in line for a mass uprising.
But that's how dictatorships eventually form and that should worry people, that blind patriotism and exposure to controlled media manipulating their prospective on everything, instilling irrational and excessive fear and arrogance into their culture; distracting people with tabloid junk journalism, away from the issues that really matter to people's interests as a whole. Once people are conditioned to follow a certain ideal to be self-absorbed with their own lives and are apathetic of the big picture, that's usually when they're led into a path of blindly endorsing totalitarian policies without question driven by fear or ignorance, and are weakened to protest any policy they're against, because as witnessed their opinion doesn't seem to matter. This inaction to mass protest against it is primarily likely due to fear of persecution or lack of confidence, that feeling hopelessness that nothing can be done brainwashed into them (when in reality, things can be done, but at a necessary sacrifice or risk though). Eventually when the people realize their lives are manipulated and restricted by their government to a point that makes them too uncomfortable, it's usually too late to do something about it without a violent war or uprising.
But now is a key moment, because people have just witness a blatant disregard of Democracy with their so-called 'representatives' selling them out to special interests and lobbyist groups of the financial elite. Now ask, if they do that, how do you Americans know the President regardless of political affiliation will be the same as those representatives? Both presidential candidates already showed betrayal to favor financial elite interests in the Senate. I can also assure you that this election in November will be a Pyrrhic victory no matter who wins unless America speaks or acts out.
The totalitarianism has already happened in the past to some extent.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was such a popular president that he was re-elected three times, so we changed the Constitution so that nobody could ever be president for more than ten years again.
Even so, since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the government has in the name of "safety" and "fighting terrorism" seriously curtailed the freedom of its citizens.
Just think, if they had not made that restriction, then neither of the Bush's would have gotten elected. It would have been Reagan followed by Clinton.
-
:LMAO:
-
FDR was a hack who prolonged the depression for a decade and stuck us with the nanny state, only reason he got re-elected over and over was because the 1929 crash was blamed on the republicans and morons blindly voted for democrats since the 30's and gave us the current mess.
-
LBJ was a piece of shit too. Blaming Nixon for Vietnam when LBJ really escalated it more than anyone was retarded. Kennedy basically started Vietnam by putting forces there first. LBJ just furthered the welfare state of FDR.
-
Ten years?
-
Correct.
-
keeping the population drunk, stomed and entertained and playing the american lottery seems to be working for the ruling class.
There are variations of this everywhere. Works quite well here.
-
LBJ was a piece of shit too. Blaming Nixon for Vietnam when LBJ really escalated it more than anyone was retarded. Kennedy basically started Vietnam by putting forces there first. LBJ just furthered the welfare state of FDR.
LBJ was probably worse, at least FDR expected people to work to get something.
-
Ten years?
Yes, a president could be a vice-president first (for a president who dies in office), then serve as president.
This person, if s/he serves as president for less than two years of the deceased president's term could then run for two more four year terms as president, which is a total of no more than ten years.
-
The totalitarianism has already happened in the past to some extent.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was such a popular president that he was re-elected three times, so we changed the Constitution so that nobody could ever be president for more than ten years again.
Even so, since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the government has in the name of "safety" and "fighting terrorism" seriously curtailed the freedom of its citizens.
I would state Benjamin Franklin's quote but Tesla already did that, however I should add this gem of a quote I found on the Wikipedia article about apathy here, because it holds a lot of truth:
US educational philosopher Robert Maynard Hutchins summarized the concerns about political indifference when he claimed that the "death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment."
This quote alone should be sufficient for anyone to understand the implications of apathy towards a system slowly eroding democracy, freedoms and privacy away. In this case all these totalitarian laws are under false pretenses of 'security' and 'anti-terrorism', are actually targeting critics of the government more than anyone else when you analyze them closely; so the government can continue to get away with their increasing restrictions with minimal resistance, easily branding those defying them as 'terrorists' or declare them 'crazy' if they overstep a certain threshold. For instance, they can just brand me a paranoid retard to smear my reputation, and worse of all, most people would be ignorant enough to let natural prejudice of judging the messenger overwhelm their common sense to judge the message being said.
To address another thing, those who ignorantly say during these times, "If you got nothing to hide, why worry?" fail to see the ramifications of what power this grants to the government, this phase is the equivalent of saying, "We submit ourselves to our masters and as long as we do what they say, we're fine", apathetic slave mentality basically. But then the questions begged to be asked is that, "How far will they go with these so-called security measures? To a point where you own nothing privately? To a point where even saying one wrong word or expressing a thought crime is grounds for arrest, or worse execution? How far before people wake up and realize that they've lost too many of their rights?"
You see, apathy towards governments, politics and policies is extremely dangerous, the people should always keep a leash on their representatives and leaders, never the other way around.
-
To address another thing, those who ignorantly say during these times, "If you got nothing to hide, why worry?" fail to see the ramifications of what power this grants to the government, this phase is the equivalent of saying, "We submit ourselves to our masters and as long as we do what they say, we're fine", apathetic slave mentality basically. But then the questions begged to be asked is that, "How far will they go with these so-called security measures? To a point where you own nothing privately? To a point where even saying one wrong word or expressing a thought crime is grounds for arrest, or worse execution? How far before people wake up and realize that they've lost too many of their rights?"
Here's an article that shows just how bad things had gotten in the UK by 2005, when it was written:
'We are trying to fight 21st-century crime - antisocial behaviour, drug dealing, binge drinking, organised crime - with 19th-century methods, as if we still lived in the time of Dickens." Tony Blair, September 27 2005.
"Down poured the wine like oil on blazing fire. And still the riot went on - the debauchery gained its height - glasses were dashed upon the floor by hands that could not carry them to lips, oaths were shouted out by lips which could scarcely form the words to vent them in; drunken losers cursed and roared; some mounted on the tables, waving bottles above their heads and bidding defiance to the rest; some danced, some sang, some tore the cards and raved. Tumult and frenzy reigned supreme ..." Nicholas Nickleby, by Charles Dickens, 1839.
All politicians who seek to justify repressive legislation claim that they are responding to an unprecedented threat to public order. And all politicians who cite such a threat draft measures in response which can just as easily be used against democratic protest. No act has been passed over the past 20 years with the aim of preventing antisocial behaviour, disorderly conduct, trespass, harassment and terrorism that has not also been deployed to criminalise a peaceful public engagement in politics. When Walter Wolfgang was briefly detained by the police after heckling the foreign secretary last week, the public caught a glimpse of something that a few of us have been vainly banging on about for years.
On Friday, six students and graduates of Lancaster University were convicted of aggravated trespass. Their crime was to have entered a lecture theatre and handed out leaflets to the audience. Staff at the university were meeting people from BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce, Shell, the Carlyle Group, GlaxoSmithKline, DuPont, Unilever and Diageo, to learn how to "commercialise university research". The students were hoping to persuade the researchers not to sell their work. They were in the theatre for three minutes. As the judge conceded, they tried neither to intimidate anyone nor to stop the conference from proceeding.
They were prosecuted under the 1994 Criminal Justice Act, passed when Michael Howard was the Conservative home secretary. But the university was able to use it only because Labour amended the act in 2003 to ensure that it could be applied anywhere, rather than just "in the open air".
Had Mr Wolfgang said "nonsense" twice during the foreign secretary's speech, the police could have charged him under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Harassment, the act says, "must involve conduct on at least two occasions ... conduct includes speech". Parliament was told that its purpose was to protect women from stalkers, but the first people to be arrested were three peaceful protesters. Since then it has been used by the arms manufacturer EDO to keep demonstrators away from its factory gates, and by Kent police to arrest a woman who sent an executive at a drugs company two polite emails, begging him not to test his products on animals. In 2001 the peace campaigners Lindis Percy and Anni Rainbow were prosecuted for causing "harassment, alarm or distress" to American servicemen at the Menwith Hill military intelligence base in Yorkshire, by standing at the gate holding the Stars and Stripes and a placard reading "George W Bush? Oh dear!" In Hull a protester was arrested under the act for "staring at a building".
Had Mr Wolfgang said "nonsense" to one of the goons who dragged him out of the conference, he could have been charged under section 125 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, which came into force in August. Section 125 added a new definition of harassment to the 1997 act, "a course of conduct ... which involves harassment of two or more persons". What this means is that you need only address someone once to be considered to be harassing them, as long as you have also addressed someone else in the same manner. This provision, in other words, can be used to criminalise any protest anywhere. But when the bill passed through the Commons and the Lords, no member contested or even noticed it.
Section 125 hasn't yet been exercised, but section 132 of the act is already becoming an effective weapon against democracy. This bans people from demonstrating in an area "designated" by the government. One of these areas is the square kilometre around parliament. Since the act came into force, democracy campaigners have been holding a picnic in Parliament Square every Sunday afternoon (see www1.atwiki.com/picnic/). Seventeen people have been arrested so far.
But the law that has proved most useful to the police is the one under which Mr Wolfgang was held: section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. This allows them to stop and search people without the need to show that they have "reasonable suspicion" that a criminal offence is being committed. They have used it to put peaceful protesters through hell. At the beginning of 2003, demonstrators against the impending war with Iraq set up a peace camp outside the military base at Fairford in Gloucestershire, from which US B52s would launch their bombing raids. Every day - sometimes several times a day - the protesters were stopped and searched under section 44. The police, according to a parliamentary answer, used the act 995 times, though they knew that no one at the camp was a terrorist. The constant harassment and detention pretty well broke the protesters' resolve. Since then the police have used the same section to pin down demonstrators outside the bomb depot at Welford in Berkshire, at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston, at Menwith Hill and at the annual arms fair in London's Docklands.
The police are also rediscovering the benefits of some of our more venerable instruments. On September 10, Keith Richardson, one of the six students convicted of aggravated trespass on Friday, had his stall in Lancaster city centre confiscated under the 1824 Vagrancy Act. "Every Person wandering abroad and endeavouring by the Exposure of Wounds and Deformities to obtain or gather Alms ... shall be deemed a Rogue and Vagabond... " The act was intended to prevent the veterans of the Napoleonic wars from begging, but the police decided that pictures of the wounds on this man's anti-vivisection leaflets put him on the wrong side of the law. In two recent cases, protesters have been arrested under the 1361 Justices of the Peace Act. So much for Mr Blair's 21st century methods.
What is most remarkable is that until Mr Wolfgang was held, neither parliamentarians nor the press were interested. The pressure group Liberty, the Green party, a couple of alternative comedians, the Indymedia network and the alternative magazine Schnews have been left to defend our civil liberties almost unassisted. Even after "Wolfie" was thrown out of the conference, public criticism concentrated on the suppression of dissent within the Labour party, rather than the suppression of dissent throughout the country. As the parliamentary opposition falls apart, the extra-parliamentary one is being closed down with hardly a rumble of protest from the huffers and puffers who insist that civil liberties are Britain's gift to the world. Perhaps they're afraid they'll be arrested.
-
The totalitarianism has already happened in the past to some extent.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was such a popular president that he was re-elected three times, so we changed the Constitution so that nobody could ever be president for more than ten years again.
Even so, since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the government has in the name of "safety" and "fighting terrorism" seriously curtailed the freedom of its citizens.
I would state Benjamin Franklin's quote but Tesla already did that, however I should add this gem of a quote I found on the Wikipedia article about apathy here, because it holds a lot of truth:
US educational philosopher Robert Maynard Hutchins summarized the concerns about political indifference when he claimed that the "death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment."
This quote alone should be sufficient for anyone to understand the implications of apathy towards a system slowly eroding democracy, freedoms and privacy away. In this case all these totalitarian laws are under false pretenses of 'security' and 'anti-terrorism', are actually targeting critics of the government more than anyone else when you analyze them closely; so the government can continue to get away with their increasing restrictions with minimal resistance, easily branding those defying them as 'terrorists' or declare them 'crazy' if they overstep a certain threshold. For instance, they can just brand me a paranoid retard to smear my reputation, and worse of all, most people would be ignorant enough to let natural prejudice of judging the messenger overwhelm their common sense to judge the message being said.
To address another thing, those who ignorantly say during these times, "If you got nothing to hide, why worry?" fail to see the ramifications of what power this grants to the government, this phase is the equivalent of saying, "We submit ourselves to our masters and as long as we do what they say, we're fine", apathetic slave mentality basically. But then the questions begged to be asked is that, "How far will they go with these so-called security measures? To a point where you own nothing privately? To a point where even saying one wrong word or expressing a thought crime is grounds for arrest, or worse execution? How far before people wake up and realize that they've lost too many of their rights?"
You see, apathy towards governments, politics and policies is extremely dangerous, the people should always keep a leash on their representatives and leaders, never the other way around.
The bigger threat is at the town halls & state capitols where people are falling for the free federal money empowering the clowns in DC.
The founding fathers tried to limit the powers of the federal government and the fools in the states empowered the federal government by cheering on the federal programs, ooh free money which started the feeding frenzy of bring home the bacon and waste it anyway possible to bring money into the state.
try and convince somebody in this country free money from DC is bad for them and they will call you a wack job nut case exspecially if it's money for education.
-
All of you non-Americans, can we borrow some money please? Thanks in advance.
-
All of you non-Americans, can we borrow some money please? Thanks in advance.
"Certainly, just give us Alaska in interest"
(I'm being a sarcastic American, BTW)
-
All of you non-Americans, can we borrow some money please? Thanks in advance.
:lol:
-
And Stocks still keep falling. :zombiefuck:
Even around the World too. :evillaugh:
-
And Stocks still keep falling. :zombiefuck:
Even around the World too. :evillaugh:
I won't even open the letters from my IRA anymore
-
And Stocks still keep falling. :zombiefuck:
Even around the World too. :evillaugh:
They're still falling Asia, and here in Australia today too. I foresaw that the bailout would have little if not no immediate confidence effect. I still have a feeling the global economy collapsing is inevitable as the momentum seems to favor it. The market could still rally a bit when the bailout has impact, but once the full extent of failures and insecurity is realized, it will collapse, and the super rich will sell off shares first, profiteering once more from a failing system with everyone else in debt, not just privately (because if everything collapses, not even the FDIC will save you) but publicly with taxes too. What happened with markets today is likely a early warning system for things to come that I predicted here in this thread. I guess it's wait and see time, but if I was an American right now, I'd be running to the bank and withdrawing savings out of it (at least enough to survive on), buying a safe and keep the money safe inside, because I wouldn't trust the FDIC insuring your savings. However if you're a investor yourself, I suggest investing in or even buying gold right now, don't wait or you'll loose potential profits to be made once it peaks.
-
The super rich are having a feeding frenzy on wall street as chickens give away their stocks.
around the end of every decade they do it like clockwork
-
The super rich are having a feeding frenzy on wall street as chickens give away their stocks.
around the end of every decade they do it like clockwork
Well that's going to happen on during the immediate panic, but once it rallies again and signs point to a complete collapse, they will sell all their shares and probably wait until the absolute bottom emerges to buy again (basically making a killing on both money and shareholdings once it rallies again).
Anyway the Dow Jones fell another 508 points today, that's over 800 points in the last two days. Asia markets and even Australian (despite a 1% cut in interest rates) markets are also still falling today too.
-
Iceland is going Bankrupt.
http://www.midco.net/news/read.php?ps=1012&rip_id=%3CD93LRO8O1%40news.ap.org%3E&_LT=HOME_LARSDCCLM_UNEWS
-
Pakistan might be going bankrupt too:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/3147266/Pakistan-facing-bankruptcy.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/3147266/Pakistan-facing-bankruptcy.html)
Bear in mind also that if Pakistan goes bankrupt, it will likely destabilize security in the entire region.
-
It is the start of the Fall of Capitalism.
-
It is the start of the Fall of Capitalism.
What do you think will replace it?
-
It is the start of the Fall of Capitalism.
And the age of Enterprise Totalitarianism begins as Capitalism dies...
-
It is the start of the Fall of Capitalism.
What do you think will replace it?
Might have to go back to the barter system. Get something for equal trade.
-
It is the start of the Fall of Capitalism.
What do you think will replace it?
Might have to go back to the barter system. Get something for equal trade.
That really would be awful. I think Currency is here to stay, just that world economic policies are hopefully going to be a lot more socialist and involve less risk.
-
Pakistan might be going bankrupt too:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/3147266/Pakistan-facing-bankruptcy.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/3147266/Pakistan-facing-bankruptcy.html)
Bear in mind also that if Pakistan goes bankrupt, it will likely destabilize security in the entire region.
Yeah, they might turn into a military dictatorship that's plagued by Muslim extremists, and threaten India with nuclear weapons.
-
It is the start of the Fall of Capitalism.
What do you think will replace it?
Might have to go back to the barter system. Get something for equal trade.
That really would be awful. I think Currency is here to stay, just that world economic policies are hopefully going to be a lot more socialist and involve less risk.
I highly doubt that capitalism and globalisation is suddenly going to go away. All you need do is study some economic history. These exact problems that we are seeing now, have occurred before, although of course not on quite the same scale.
I think there will be more pain yet as we reach the bottom, and then things will start to correct. I also agree with the above comment that a more socialistic approach will be seen in future with lowered risk and therefore more subdued growth. Capitalism is the most quality of life increasing model the world has yet had. Sure it creates some unfortunate disparity between the rich and the poor, but overall it has raised quality of life for most in the developed world. Personally I would hate to go back to a barter system, possibly even subsistance farming too in that case. The major problem with it is that it relies on a co-incidence of wants, where as with a fiat money system, this becomes a non-issue. Perhaps you need some more rice just for one night, yet all you have to trade with a few live animals. You can't really pay for the extra rice by chopping the leg off a healthy animal to use as payment. Well you can, but it's not useful and lowers the life and value of a animal as a whole. Hence the other nice thing about fiat money - store of value.
-
By the way I recommend this DVD series, for a quick run down of economic history around the world. It's not perfect and quite simplistic in some places, but it gives you a good idea.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/hi/index.html
-
It is the start of the Fall of Capitalism.
What do you think will replace it?
Might have to go back to the barter system. Get something for equal trade.
That really would be awful. I think Currency is here to stay, just that world economic policies are hopefully going to be a lot more socialist and involve less risk.
I highly doubt that capitalism and globalisation is suddenly going to go away. All you need do is study some economic history. These exact problems that we are seeing now, have occurred before, although of course not on quite the same scale.
I think there will be more pain yet as we reach the bottom, and then things will start to correct. I also agree with the above comment that a more socialistic approach will be seen in future with lowered risk and therefore more subdued growth. Capitalism is the most quality of life increasing model the world has yet had. Sure it creates some unfortunate disparity between the rich and the poor, but overall it has raised quality of life for most in the developed world. Personally I would hate to go back to a barter system, possibly even subsistance farming too in that case. The major problem with it is that it relies on a co-incidence of wants, where as with a fiat money system, this becomes a non-issue. Perhaps you need some more rice just for one night, yet all you have to trade with a few live animals. You can't really pay for the extra rice by chopping the leg off a healthy animal to use as payment. Well you can, but it's not useful and lowers the life and value of a animal as a whole. Hence the other nice thing about fiat money - store of value.
I agree with you here, though Capitalism and Socialism can co-exist together to an extent. The DVD's sound interesting, I might watch them if I get chance.
-
And Stocks still keep falling. :zombiefuck:
Even around the World too. :evillaugh:
I won't even open the letters from my IRA anymore
You're on the Irish Republican Army's mailing list? :o
-
Pakistan might be going bankrupt too:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/3147266/Pakistan-facing-bankruptcy.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/3147266/Pakistan-facing-bankruptcy.html)
Bear in mind also that if Pakistan goes bankrupt, it will likely destabilize security in the entire region.
Yeah, they might turn into a military dictatorship that's plagued by Muslim extremists, and threaten India with nuclear weapons.
Yes I know, more the same lol; but to be serious, it'd be much worse actually. The bankruptcy of Pakistan will lead to a major civil unrest and the probability of the Taliban seizing control, power and influence of the nation is significantly increased (because unlike ordinary governments or organizations, the Taliban relies mostly on the black market trade to economically power it's resources, so this economic crisis will have a lesser impact on them). If you think the current government is bad, the Taliban would be way worse. Also when I said 'region' I meant the ENTIRE middle east would be affected, not just the whole Pakistan v.s India issue either. I think I failed to state the potential severity of the situation with that post.
-
If you had purchased $1,000.00 of Delta Air Lines stock one year ago you would have $49.00 left.
With Enron, you would have had $16.50 left of the original $1,000.00.
With WorldCom, you would have had less than $5.00 left.
But, if you had purchased $1,000.00 worth of beer one year ago, drank all of the beer, then turned in the cans for the aluminum recycling REFUND, you would have $214.00 cash.
Based on the above, the best current investment advice is to drink heavily and recycle.
It's called the 401-Keg
A recent study found the average American walks about 900 miles a year.
Another study found Americans drink, on the average, 22 gallons of alcohol a year. That means, on average, Americans get about 41 miles to the gallon.
Makes You Proud To Be An American!
-
every country or emprie that used paper money that isnt backed by anything will ultimatley go bankrupt i think. the only real value money has is that everyone puts there faith in it, the more governemnt prints money the less its worth. its only a matter of time before our country fails :laugh:
im so happy i dont have kids, im not bringing any humanbeing into this increadibly fucked up world. could you imagine what would happen if money lossed all value? people would be murderd for there shit, people would rape others and loot. im also so happy i am a gun owner, anyone tries to fucking stealing anything from me and i'll put a hole in there chest the size of there sisters worn out pussy
*sighs all dramaically*
-
Either your sister is daisy-fresh or a couple of my guns are bigger than yours.
Think of giving birth to a watermelon without stretchmarks later.
-
first of all learn how to read fucktard. i didnt say my sister, i said "there sister" so the rest of what you said is meaningless. and reguardless i own a .357 revolver
-
It was a joke, Richard, but yeah, I have a few hoglegs, too. I was talking about the hole I did NOT mean to make in the ribcage of a deer once, after hitting it with my .300WMag.
I changed my target to much closer game because of a perfect, clear shot suddenly, instead of trying for the long distance one I had picked up the Magnum for, in the first place. Too much gun!
It was about hunting, but I really wanted to used the phrase, "daisy fresh" in some way. Can't say why.
-
first of all learn how to read fucktard. i didnt say my sister, i said "there sister" so the rest of what you said is meaningless. and reguardless i own a .357 revolver
OH!
... and I thought you were ignoring me and I could say anything I wanted, without you giving a shit.
WTF are you doing getting in my face, anyway?
(watch this)
-
I agree with you here, though Capitalism and Socialism can co-exist together to an extent. The DVD's sound interesting, I might watch them if I get chance.
Well all countries employ some kind of mixture of both economic and political systems. If a country, like the US for example is mostly capitalist yet has a welfare system, then of course that illustrates the mixture of economic policy. I can't think of any countries that have a pure separation of ideoligies.
-
oh i get it, your trying to say my sister will break into your house and steal your stuff and shes as fat as a deer? so your gun will do the trick? wow. you shure do know how to dig a hole, i thought we didnt like each other so you were trying to razz me with your reply. but good job anyways, i guess. welcome back to my ignore list. dumbass :LMAO:
-
oh i get it, your trying to say my sister will break into your house and steal your stuff and shes as fat as a deer? so your gun will do the trick? wow. you shure do know how to dig a hole, i thought we didnt like each other so you were trying to razz me with your reply. but good job anyways, i guess. welcome back to my ignore list. dumbass :LMAO:
Not even close.
Hell, Richard, I always enjoy talking to you, but you don't seem to care for my sense of humor.
Hope you can stick around a while.
-
Looks like things are getting desperate, as the Bank of England, US Federal Reserve and European Central Bank lowered their interest rate by 0.5%, and the UK has made a 'bailout' package too. Despite this the markets still ended in the red in both Europe and the US. The Nikkei last I check is up but volatile (well it did fall nearly a 1,000 point yesterday), ASX is down. Paulson warns that some banks will still fail despite the 700bn dollar bailout and the IMF warns of a severe downturn occurring. US Retailers are also reporting dismal sales, and as I mentioned in previous posts in this thread, is one reason why the economic collapse is inevitable.
-
Markets down day again
http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/08/news/international/world_crisis/index.htm?postversion=2008100814
Though Dollar is strengthening.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/01/markets/thebuzz/index.htm?postversion=2008100115
-
And they're all down again today too. I already said that they can throw every measure at it but it's still going to inevitably collapse.
-
U.S. stock market was down 700 points early the morning.
Last hour was up 360 points before it fell 128 points at the end.
Market was volatile the whole day.
-
'Cause everyone will cash in on quick profits on any day it goes up.
-
U.S. stock market was manly down all day but for a few minutes up here and there.
-
Just my own little bet, for the sake of fun...I think the late rally on Friday is an indicator of a rally on open, on Monday. Remember, it's been 8 straight days of losses. Is anyone here a speculator? Or all fundamentals?
-
Just my own little bet, for the sake of fun...I think the late rally on Friday is an indicator of a rally on open, on Monday. Remember, it's been 8 straight days of losses. Is anyone here a speculator? Or all fundamentals?
My husband and I have a few shares of a handful of stocks, which we bought years ago.
Overall, they are down 20% from when we bought them and down 40% from their high, so I wouldn't say that we are very good speculators, if we are speculators.
-
7 hundred billion.
i think we should stop giving money to the rich. i say let it all burn.
-
7 hundred billion.
i think we should stop giving money to the rich. i say let it all burn.
:laugh:
Are you after anarchy then?
-
I'm waiting for the Asian and Australian markets to open before judging how things will go this week. However I feel my fears might be true and that is nothing can stop the momentum into oblivion.
The US futures by the end of the week was down 228 points, and this G7 emergency summit seems to be all talk about what they should do, but with no specific explanation on how to achieve it. But even if they do something worthwhile, there's still a near 1 quadrillion (or 1,000 trillion) dollars worth of derivatives waiting to explode and once it does, the global economy will collapse into oblivion, as losses may exceed global GDP in amount. Buffett even warned about this problem of derivatives back in 2003:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2817995.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2817995.stm)
So literally nothing can stop the global economic collapse if you factor in this issue too, any measure introduced that doesn't address the derivatives will only slow down the death spiral by stalling it for a bit (at best case), and make long-term consequences more severe. The only option left is to literally suspend all global stock markets for a few weeks and initiate emergency talks to tackle this key problem and implement solutions immediately to deflate the derivatives amount, stop further derivatives being made and basically soften the impact to the people, I just don't see any other option left.
-
7 hundred billion.
i think we should stop giving money to the rich. i say let it all burn.
:laugh:
Are you after anarchy then?
yes. i am beginning to see the light.
-
Temporary anarchy or permanent?
-
If it's temporary it isn't anarchy.
-
I'd like to see the world stock market suspended because it's bullshit but what's going to happen to all the people who'd lose their jobs as a result?
-
Just my own little bet, for the sake of fun...I think the late rally on Friday is an indicator of a rally on open, on Monday. Remember, it's been 8 straight days of losses. Is anyone here a speculator? Or all fundamentals?
My husband and I have a few shares of a handful of stocks, which we bought years ago.
Overall, they are down 20% from when we bought them and down 40% from their high, so I wouldn't say that we are very good speculators, if we are speculators.
Well I was meaning speculators as investors with a short term view, such as day traders or people that trade frequently, such as 20 times a month or more.
I still think you and your husband could in part be referred to as speculators, depending on how the decision was made to purchase the particular stocks. If the decision was made based on analysing the company balance sheet and financial ratios, for the sake of assessing the companies long term risk, then that is what you can call fundamental analysis. Fundamental analysis is about taking the long term view, and is the furthest decision making process from gambling. On the other end you have technical analysis, which is watching the day-to-day movements, and making very short term decisions. Sometimes company financial data is altogether ignored. It should be said that these two strategies exist along a spectrum, depending on the individual investors goals and desires.
I doubt very many, if any, stocks are not at least ~40% down from their most recent highs. Gold might be an exception. So I would not be concerned about making a poor investment decision on that information alone, in your case (If you were). Anyways, I don't want to get into assumptions.
-
You already have.
-
Stocks up today.
-
Fuck the economy! I'm putting all of money into tangible goods!!!!!!
-
You already have.
Ha. Well trying to avoid making too many is what I should have said.
-
You already have.
Ha. Well trying to avoid making too many is what I should have said.
You know what they sat about assumptions - it makes an "Ass" out of "U" and "mption" -- or something like that.
Oh, nevermind. I'm confused. It seems like such a clever thing to say at first.
:D
-
It makes an ass out of "u" and "me".
-
It makes an ass out of "u" and "me".
Assume makes an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me'! :P
-
It makes an ass out of "u" and "me".
Assume makes an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me'! :P
:agreed: :plus:yep, that's it.
-
You already have.
Ha. Well trying to avoid making too many is what I should have said.
You know what they sat about assumptions - it makes an "Ass" out of "U" and "mption" -- or something like that.
Oh, nevermind. I'm confused. It seems like such a clever thing to say at first.
:D
It makes an ass out of "u" and "me".
Assume makes an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me'! :P
It makes an ass out of "u" and "me".
Assume makes an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me'! :P
:agreed: :plus:yep, that's it.
Are you fucking kiddding me!?!??!
Am I so far off my marks that my atttempt at droppping a little humor into the mix to let Klox off the hook is met with pity, splints and bandages.
WTF!?!
-
You already have.
Ha. Well trying to avoid making too many is what I should have said.
You know what they sat about assumptions - it makes an "Ass" out of "U" and "mption" -- or something like that.
Oh, nevermind. I'm confused. It seems like such a clever thing to say at first.
:D
It makes an ass out of "u" and "me".
Assume makes an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me'! :P
It makes an ass out of "u" and "me".
Assume makes an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me'! :P
:agreed: :plus:yep, that's it.
Are you fucking kiddding me!?!??!
Am so far off my marks that my atttempt at droppping a little humor into the mix to let Klox off the hook is met with pity, splints and bandages.
WTF!?!
:LMAO:
-
You already have.
Ha. Well trying to avoid making too many is what I should have said.
You know what they sat about assumptions - it makes an "Ass" out of "U" and "mption" -- or something like that.
Oh, nevermind. I'm confused. It seems like such a clever thing to say at first.
:D
It makes an ass out of "u" and "me".
Assume makes an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me'! :P
It makes an ass out of "u" and "me".
Assume makes an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me'! :P
:agreed: :plus:yep, that's it.
Are you fucking kiddding me!?!??!
Am so far off my marks that my atttempt at droppping a little humor into the mix to let Klox off the hook is met with pity, splints and bandages.
WTF!?!
:LMAO:
:indeed:
-
Freaking nerds. :P :laugh:
-
So what exactly is the problem?
-
The one about the money or something else?
-
He has stated that he is not on the spectrum.
All evidence (not just here) to the contrary, it seems.
-
He has stated that he is not on the spectrum.
All evidence (not just here) to the contrary, it seems.
Who, what. where, when,, why, how? ???
-
*ignore*
-
Looks like most things I predicted and wrote about earlier in this thread are beginning to happen, the bailout failed to work, and to think the worst is likely yet to come...
-
the worst is likely yet to come...
No doubt.
-
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28441
NEW YORK–Excitement swept the financial world Monday, when a blue line jumped more than 11 percent, passing four black horizontal lines as it rose from 367.22 to 408.85.
It was the biggest single-day gain for a blue line since 1994.
-
Another up day.
http://www.midco.net/news/read.php?ps=1018&rip_id=%3CD93UFS180%40news.ap.org%3E&_LT=HOME_LARSDCCLM_UNEWS
-
Official: Mortgage Plan Coming Soon
By Marcy Gordon
AP Business Writer / 23 October 2008
WASHINGTON—A senior Treasury official says the department intends to get a program to help struggling homeowners revise mortgages up and running soon.
Neel Kashkari, who is heading the government's $700 billion financial rescue effort, told Congress the Treasury is working hard on the plan. It could include setting standards for changing mortgages to make them more affordable and giving loan guarantees to banks that meet them.
Kashkari told a Senate hearing that "we are passionate about doing everything we can to avoid preventable foreclosures."
The Treasury also is looking at using some of the $700 billion available under the federal bailout law to buy up mortgages and renegotiate their terms to make them more affordable.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a member of the Senate Banking Committee that heard testimony from Kashkari and other federal regulators, stressed the importance of requiring banks receiving billions from the government in capital infusions under the bailout to meet strong, comprehensive standards for modifying mortgages.
Schumer pressed Kashkari for the requirement as a condition for getting the government money, rather than allowing any voluntary plan.
"We're feeding them (the banks) a little too much dessert and not making them eat their vegetables," Schumer said.
Sheila Bair, the chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., put forward the notion of the government providing loan guarantees to banks and other loan servicers as an incentive for them to modify troubled borrowers' loans.
The FDIC "would be happy to serve as contractor" for a federal program for overhauling mortgages, she said.
While Bair, a Bush appointee and independent regulator, has publicly nudged the administration in recent months to go further on remedies for troubled home borrowers, Democrats have voiced vigorous support for her and have applauded her public pleas on this front.
Kashkari, in his appearance at the hearing, emphasized Treasury's areas of agreement with Bair.
He agreed with Bair that existing government programs to prevent foreclosures -- built on voluntary participation by mortgage lenders and servicers, and revamping an average 2,000 loans a month -- haven't been sufficient in face of the tide of defaults.
-
Maybe this will help the homeowners who got taken in by those predatory adjustable rate mortgages where their rates shot up to the point they couldn't afford their house payments anymore.
Do you know whether British banks are doing something similar?
-
Is there a problem with foreclosures in the UK? The problems I've heard here about are mostly with UK banks that had a lot of exposure to the US housing market, like Northern Rock, and with banks struggling to borrow money as lending dried up. The UK government decided to buy shares in banks that have a liquidity crisis, which I think is rather better than the US approach of buying up the dodgy assets that the banks are desperate to get rid of, since theoretically, the UK government could gain from it just as any investor would, while the US government is very unlikely to see it's money again. Of course, if the government does make a profit on it, taxpayers are unlikely to see a lowering of taxes, but we might get a new millennium dome or a pay raise for politicians.
-
At this point in American history, war against the government is 100% morally justified.
-
At this point in American history, war against the government is 100% morally justified.