16 replies to this topic

[valueconvert1]

I suspect as the economy sours and the markets head south, we''ll see the very Wall street pundits and politicians who were begging for the rescue plan start running away from it. The reasons will be
1. It wasn''t exactly what they would have done
2. It was backed by W
3. It''s not politically correct
Creamer and Kruddy will lead the charge. Watch those slick ones.

[sss355]

this on the 13th amemndment to the U.S. Constitution.

[TheWolf]

Or more "logically" they will ask for three trillion immediately on the next go around and note the consequences of pausing for debate and consensus.

In fact, if they provide the courtesy of "asking", we''ll be lucky.

[valueconvert1]

Faux leading the charge. They were begging last week as the markets collapsed, now they are going on a 24/7 campaign against it. Rats leave the ship.

[harriet]

Sure they will.  I believe Lincoln was a republican.  DUH!

[sss355]

No, that GOOPER party ended in 1948.  The modern day GOOPERs started on their opposiiton to Civil Rights (led by St. Ronald of Reagan).

But then facts were never your strong point.

[harriet]

1948?  Reagan??  Facts???  LOL!

[sss355]

Oh yeah, Reagan was on the forefront of the civil rights movement. it is well document. Rush Limbaugh said so it must true.

Again, let me state that George W. Bush came into office in January 2001 and had a GOP house. But under the U. S. Constitution he was powerless for 7 years to over turn something Bill Clinton did in 1999.

We must all continue to blame LBJ, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton for this mess.

If half the GOP House wasn''t gay, we could also blame this on them.

[Mr. Moto]

Last week, Stiglitz or Krugman (I forget which) said they
will be back in January with another bailout package, which
will be used to buy equity stakes in the banks.  Steny
Hoyer (D-MD) has already said as much.

That is why they (Paulson, et al) had to panic
everyone about the current bailout.  They know it is a
wrong, rigged and rotten deal in which the banks stand to
benefit much more so than were it done the correct way.

They have screwed the U.S. taxpayer with this one.

The same people who incited panic to pass the current
bailout know that the next rescue package will be touted
as "the right way" by most economists, and will therefore
be much easier to push through Congress.

This is also why Paulson had the no-legal-recourse part of
the legislation attached for himself.  He knows there will
be another bailout, and that many will be screaming for his
head on a platter once the nation discovers how badly it
has been screwed.

-----

[JesseL]

Methink the ladies will protest, too much indeed nm

[quillbear]

no, reagan led the transition of the republicans to the party of racist policies only starting in the 50s and 60s, though if there were a civil rights movement to oppose in the 40s, he certainly would have done so.  here is a highly sanitized summary of a few key moments in his opposition:

Ronald Reagan was key to the South''s transition to Republican politics. Goldwater got the ball rolling, but Reagan was at his side from the very beginning. During the 1964 campaign, Reagan gave speeches in support of Goldwater and spoke out for what he called individual rights -- read that also as states'' rights. Reagan also and portrayed any opposition as support for totalitarianism -- read that as communism.

In 1976, Reagan sought the Republican nomination against the incumbent President Gerald Ford. Reagan''s campaign was on the ropes until the primaries hit the Southern states, where he won his first key victory in North Carolina. Throughout the South that spring and summer, Reagan portrayed himself as Goldwater''s heir while criticizing Ford as a captive of Eastern establishment Republicans fixated on forced integration.

Reagan lost the nomination to Ford in 1976. But when the former California governor ran for the presidency again in 1980, he began his campaign with a controversial appearance in Philadelphia, Miss., where three civil rights workers had been brutally killed. It was at that sore spot on the racial map that Reagan revived talk about states'' rights and curbing the power of the federal government.

To many it sounded like code for announcing himself as the candidate for white segregationists. After he defeated President Carter, a native Southerner, Reagan led an administration that seemed to cater to Southerners still angry over the passage of the Civil Rights Act after 16 years. The Reagan team condemned busing for school integration, opposed affirmative action and even threatened to veto a proposed extension of the Voting Rights Act (the sequel to the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed a year later and focused on election participation). President Reagan also tried to allow Bob Jones University, a segregated Southern school, to reclaim federal tax credits that had long been denied to racially discriminatory institutions.

[sss355]

blaming minorities for the CDS market shows the depth these GOOPER traitors will descend.

[tanstaafl]

All those who voted for it have proven themselves UTTERLY unfit to be in elected office. It will make voting a lot easier until all the dead fish get purged.

[mannfm11]

Created Bretton woods.  I wouldn''t get too carried away about Republicans.  The socialists ran the Americans out of the Democratic party into the arms of old time Republicans.  Both parties are elitist.  Look at the intellectual talk coming out of the Democrats. Intellectuals don''t know a damn thing from personal experience, which means they only know what the picture of an elephant looks like, not how one is.  The only thing I like about Republicans is they aren''t Democrats.  I have never seen a national Democrat tell the truth about anything, not even when they tell me their name.

[mannfm11]

This isn''t about racism, it is about elitism.  Go sit in a subsidized housing office and talk race.  Poor working class whites are struggling with their mortgages and rent while institutionalized black women who never marry, but keep their man off in the woods get $1000 to $1500 a month paid for them to live in decent housing.  This is in DFW. I would venture it is a lot more elsewhere.  Go stand in one of these offices and see how few whites and Mexicans come in the doors.  Try to rent a home and deal with one of these women, who seem to think this is theirs by right.  They play the system and this system is playing here right now with a Republican President, Republican Senators and Republican governor in Texas, but all I can hear is how damn racist they are.  These people should be housed in leanto''s, not nice suburban single family housing.  Anyone with a brain knows the system is set up for them to play and it defies all that is good about the USA.  It is one thing to provide for the poor, but another for a group of people to play the institution in this fashion.  White people and Hispanics get married and attempt to raise their families and the attorney generals hunt down the men that don''t pay support.  And I credit a certain number of blacks who do the same as well.  You will know one when you meet them. The rest claim racism while they fleece the system. Get involved in the rental market.  After awhile, you will want to throw up

[TheWolf]

Simply amazing mannfm11. Your response in that single post, in one fail swoop erases any and all credibility you may have garnered and exposes the core of your malnourished cancerous belief system.

I''m going to take a wild guess and assume you were nurtured in a household which relentlessly promoted this absurdity, tribalism, and outright hatred of others and you clearly never moved far from that family, community, and environment to use reason and intellect to eschew those "conservative" (10th century) viewpoints.