Options
Anyone Watching W. Bobble His Head On The Tube?
DriftingByTheStorm
Posts: 8,684
Oh yeah.
Go George Go.
Sell that bailout.
Use your great intellect to enlighten us all on the 'root cause' of this crisis.
You da man.
Go George Go.
Sell that bailout.
Use your great intellect to enlighten us all on the 'root cause' of this crisis.
You da man.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Yeah I'm getting a spectacular history lesson. Scare tactics working at it's best.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
My jaw is dropped.
I think this is THE MOST HONEST SPEECH i have ever seen from this fucker.
I think he just blamed the Federal Government's creation of Fannie and Freddie for the "housing crisis" that began this mess.
And the consequences he enumerates for NOT going through with this "plan"?
Well. Lets just say its as bad as i've been saying.
Folks pay attention,
this is how bailouts happen.
This is how the people are forced to accept them.
This is why i've been screaming about this enough to make most of you mute me.
:(
If I opened it now would you not understand?
* Naomi Klein: "Now Is the Time to Resist Wall Street's Shock Doctrine" *
While the collapse of this country's financial system continues to send shock
waves around the world, we speak to the bestselling author of The Shock
Doctrine. Naomi Klein says the public should be wary of the Bush administration
trying to use the crisis to push through more of the radical pro-corporate
policies that helped cause it in the first place.
Listen/Watch/Read
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/24/naomi_klein_now_is_the_time
AMY GOODMAN: And then, of course, this week it’s not only about passing this legislation, but it is passing it by Friday.
NAOMI KLEIN: Absolutely. You know, and a lot of people have even described this Paulson plan as an economic PATRIOT Act. You know, one of the mistakes that I think they made, honestly, Amy, is how short it is. It’s just three pages, which means—you know, usually these pieces of legislation are much longer, so people don’t even bother reading them in that moment of extortion—you know, “Pass it now, or else…or else the sky falls in.” So, you know, in this case, I think they made a miscalculation. You know, there was an interesting article in Time that just came out, where they actually say that they have been working—you know, this is a quote—it says, “[Paulson] and his team [have] been working on [this] proposal for more than six months.” So, it’s quite surprising that it is as pared down as it is. It’s three pages. And the craziest thing has happened: people have read it. Regular people have read it. It doesn’t take that much time. And, you know, you read Section 8, which is just so stunning, just so bold in its demand for total and complete impunity. And that’s really what’s getting in their way, is people are reading this text, and they’re frankly shocked by it.
You know, we heard Henry Paulson say that he thought it would have been presumptuous to put in clauses calling for regulation. This is absolute nonsense. Section 2 of the same document talks about how they have the right to hire contractors to administer this huge operation, and we know that that means contracting with some of the very firms who are going to be bailed out. And then it says that it would be—they would be contracting them without regard to any other provision of law regarding public contracts. Amy, that is just as—that’s Iraq levels of impunity, or even more. I mean, basically what they are saying is that we want to be able to contract with companies but exempt those companies from the existing laws that bar conflict of interest, that have whistleblowing laws. I mean, the laws exist on the books, and they are actively excluding these contracts from those laws. So the idea that they didn’t want to be presumptuous is complete nonsense. They are being extremely presumptuous, because they are actively excluding these contractors, these would-be contractors, from existing oversight. We have to be very clear about this.
AMY GOODMAN: It’s interesting who Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is, served as an assistant to Richard Nixon’s assistant, John Ehrlichman, and moved right from there to Goldman Sachs, then became head of it when, well, the now-Senator and then-Governor Corzine left Goldman Sachs.
]NAOMI KLEIN: You know, Amy, I don’t think we can stress this enough. Henry Paulson is one of the key people, the top people, responsible for creating the crisis that he is now claiming he will solve, you know, and this is—if we think about the 9/11 analogy and, you know, the state of shock that Americans were in after 9/11 and the emergence of Rudy Giuliani as the savior—and, you know, people have so much regret about that. And in the book, I write about this as the state of regression that we go into when we’re frightened. And I think Henry Paulson has really been cast in this role as an economic Rudy Giuliani, saving the day, impartial, bipartisan, a strong leader.
I found this article in BusinessWeek that ran when Paulson was appointed to the Treasury, and I just want to read you one sentence, because I think it’s all we need to know about Henry Paulson. This is from BusinessWeek, when he got the appointment as Treasury Secretary in 2006. The headline of the article is “Mr. Risk Goes to Washington.” It says, “Think of Paulson as Mr. Risk. He’s one of the key architects of a more daring Wall Street, where securities firms are taking greater and greater chances in [their] pursuit of profits. By some key measures, the securities industry is more leveraged now than it was at the height of the 1990s boom.”
Then it goes on to say that when Paulson took over Goldman Sachs in 1999, they had $20 billion in debts. When he—in these high-risk gambles. When he left, they had $100 billion, which means he took their risk level from $20 billion to $100 billion. So it is absolutely no exaggeration to say that Henry Paulson, far from speaking for Main Street, is actually bailing out his colleagues for some of the very debts that he himself accumulated. This is an extraordinary conflict of interest.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
Did you ever even mention a bailout until the mainstream media started talking about it? Maybe you did, because I'm one of those that has you on mute. You sure do love to toot your own horn, regardless. Not that there's anything wrong with that....
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Eh.
To me, he looked like he knew he was on the spot to "not fuck this up", and that someone probably told him, "you need to look serious as shit. I'm sure he does recognize the importance of all this, but i would go as far as to start thinking he had some sort of compassionate concern for the little people of this great land.
Maybe i'm just callous though.
And
Know1
yeah, i argued about it extensively last august\september with Jlew, god rest his messagepit soul.
Here is a bit of a post of mine from October of LAST yearany of it look patheticaly accurate now?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
You know, the truth is...Many Americans didnt care that shit was raining down on them. They just raised their hands up and started to dance in it.
Daddy and his pals bailed George out of everything with a quick influx of cash. Another failed well? Another failed venture? No problem. Now, George proposes another bail out for himself and his failed presidency. Now, it's going to take taxpayers $700 billion on this debacle--let's not forget the other $315 billion on Fannie and Freddie, AIG, etc., already spent...bringing the total of bailing out Bush's presidency to over one trillion dollars.
God bless Bush. And God bless you people who voted him in the second time. I think the $700 billion should come out of YOUR paychecks.
Really. Do you know these people personally, or is this just an assumption?
I think its hard to cast blame on any one person when its systemic risk we're talking about.
I'd blame it all on "the international bankers", though.
Watch that video, and tell me you really thing poor old georgy boy is the root cause of this mess. Its about an abusive system created specificaly for the purpose of bailing out banks.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
No I saw it myself. I saw dems and republicans dance in the shit. I saw the dems silent when the war started, after 9/11 they both had a big shit party. Infact they all fell in one big shitty line. Mouths open and hands out.
They ate whatever was fed to them. In the case of the last 8 years, the main course has been shit.
You saw it yourself, in person, or through the media? I'm not following you on this.
What exactly is your question?..I was pointing out in my first post that Many americans allowed to have shit fall on them. They almost excepted it. In many cases didnt care that all that was happening.
I just feel like you are making a generalization without backup. "Many" Americans ... who are the "many" Americans? Relatives, friends, acquaintances, people you know somehow or a generalization of "many" from the media?
8 years of Bush. The dems pretty much did nothing. Backed the war, backed other push policies.
Yeah it has been 8 years of crap. Though what you share is not a valid answer to my question. I'll leave it that.
You don't really even have a question.....I mean you want me to prove to you how many americans danced in shit and didnt care.
All I can point out is, take a look at the state of the country. Go back and see that during the 8 years, not a large effort was made on part of the avg american to do anything. Infact it's fair to say that many didnt even care.
Now I look at the fact that the dems are in a strong position to win this election. at the same time wondering how that's possible. I mean America is in bad shape, not just because of Bush. Yet the dems are taking almost no blame and they have many millions supportiing them. Not because of good policy, but because they are not republicans.
Bush supporters and Democrats = Everyone
Bush supporters bc they are ignorant and believe everything they hear and dems bc they are passive and agreeable.
It's not that fucking hard to understand what he is getting at.
Go ahead and attack the states ... you have your own political issues in Canada. Are you a Harper supporter?
Haha- let me guess, you are one of those people that screams to everyone who doesnt agree with your midwest conservative view, "it's better than your country so take it or leave it."
Not going to get you to far once you start applying logic...
I'm not attacking anything. But please, if you would like to speak about Canadian politics or Harper. start a thread about it.
You guessed wrong.
The generalizations are just running deep, on all sides. That's all.
There are no easy solutions to the many faceted issues going on. I'm not in love with either, dems or repubs, and all the shit that is happening in this country.
I don't appreciate anyone making "generalizations" about the state of the country or anywhere else for the fact of the matter.
I was just asking you directly about your viewpoint and you never gave me one.
I know very little about Canadian politics. I learn from my Canadian friends.
Again, it's not worth a discussion with you as it seems like you are making vast generalizations.
I apologize for the Harper inquiry and will leave it at that.
Iraq Veterans Against the War
www.ivaw.org
Generalizations may not account for some individual differences, but overall, they are an effective and accurate way to convey information.
Republicans vote based on guns, religion, and/or money.
You are telling me that's an inaccurate and dangerous generalization?
I disagree with this. Though you are entitled to your view. So let's agree to disagree. : )
Anyhow..
Gotta love how Bush goes, "...and housing prices would fall dramatically."
Well, that's what's supposed to happen in a market correction. Middle class homes are not supposed to cost a half million dollars. It's just that simple.
And then he goes on to say that the troubled assets that are being purchased by the government will eventually regain their value and taxpayers will earn their money back.
What he's saying is that the government is actually hoping that middle class homes will again one day cost an arm and a leg to own -putting families into debt for upwards of 40 years.
And throughout that whole speech, he failed to mention even once that artificially low interest rates set by Greenspan and the Fed are the main reason why all this is happening. Countless prominent economists and Ron Paul himself have acknowledged this to be the case.
Just goes to show that he still has not realized the severity of the situation, and so it's no wonder he thinks it can all be fixed by a simple bailout plan.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825