Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's a matter of safety. She's broken her wrist TWICE shaking hands with supporters. Really, I'm not kidding. So she is careful now, as are Obama and Tom with her.
Thank you for clarifying, I do remember the pink cast. She must have very brittle bones, her dr should put her on calcium and I'm not being mean, I am being truthful. Broken bones by a handshake seems very likely she has weak bones....
I don't think we have seen the end of this and evidently - the rest of the world feels that way, too. After all - those securities were bundled and sold internationally as well as here in the good ole US of A.
Yep - we're going to pay for a global bailout because Fannie and Freddie spun HUGELY out of control.
More from Peter Schiff...
"Together both firms have less than 90 billion dollars in capital reserves to ensure losses on more than five trillion dollars in mortgage debt.
Could anyone reasonably believe that a two percent reserve fund can cover all the losses that are likely to be seen? ... Clearly, Fannie and Freddie would have no ability to survive without a government bailout. This means that taxpayers will be on the hook for hundreds of billions of losses, perhaps even more than one trillion."
And the Dems refused to support legislation to regulate Fannie and Freddie in 2003 and then again in 2005.
No, not okay. The bill DID make it out of committee. It didn't make it to the Senate floor for a vote because the Dems refused to support it so it wouldn't pass cloture. The bill died in the Senate because of the Dems. It did not die in committee.
I didn't say it "died in committee." I said "it never made it out of committee." And yes, it would have died because it let the big guns off the hook.
I disagree. But I've been in these "debates" with you before. It wouldn't make any difference what other information I offered in response. So let's just agree to disagree.
Obama by far took the debate.........and here I am in a strong republican state..but I am in the minority. Moved from Utah...very republican took. I feel alone!!! ha ha
You feel alone? I don't think either party has provided the solutions we need. Neither of the two.
Both candidates insist upon nuclear power. Do the math it is simple. nuke cost $10B. No nuke hasn't experienced 100% cost overrun ( that makes sense because it takes 10 years to build one) They have a life span of 40 years, they serve 100,000 households.
The cost to the home owner goes up 100 -400%. Power companies still control and dole out power and the consumer is still captive.
Wind generator - present cost = $16,000 / home it can reduce energy demand from 50-100%. Monthly cost - $0, cost to convert 100,000 homes = $16,000,000 fro $32,000,000 you can place 2 on each home for 100- 150% of power. At $32M / 100,000 homes you can convert 312,500 homes to a renewable energy for the same cost of 1 nuke, faster than the 10 yrs and make home owners independent of the power companies. no pollution, no monthly costs, no hazzards, no waste.
Why do these 2 candidates insist on this power source? Could they be receiving money from GE and Westinghouse?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
