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.
george bush was a big government republican president. we now have a congress that is a big government congress, and we have a president who is going to be a big government president. the bailouts are saddling us with debt that we cannot repay. while everybody is playing along party lines, what we have is a government that is going to take the freedoms away from americans, not by choice but because americans will have no choice. do you see this new bailout plan? why do you think that they changed it when the democrats got control? if this president does not veto this legislation and go back to the drawing board then he is proving that he is in bed with wall street and the toxic debt. people need to stand up to their government now!
george bush was a big government republican president. we now have a congress that is a big government congress, and we have a president who is going to be a big government president. the bailouts are saddling us with debt that we cannot repay. while everybody is playing along party lines, what we have is a government that is going to take the freedoms away from americans, not by choice but because americans will have no choice. do you see this new bailout plan? why do you think that they changed it when the democrats got control? if this president does not veto this legislation and go back to the drawing board then he is proving that he is in bed with wall street and the toxic debt. people need to stand up to their government now!
The Dems did not do the changes - it was the current administration. Barak has no control yet.
Our government and our president will always be in bed with Wall Street, because that is the fundamental principle of our free-market capitalist economic theory. Change the operating principle of the US economy, and the elected government will administer the affairs of state accordingly. You can't elect a president who has a commitment to the prevailing economic theory, and then criticize him for doing what you elected him to do.
george bush was a big government republican president. we now have a congress that is a big government congress, and we have a president who is going to be a big government president. the bailouts are saddling us with debt that we cannot repay. while everybody is playing along party lines, what we have is a government that is going to take the freedoms away from americans, not by choice but because americans will have no choice. do you see this new bailout plan? why do you think that they changed it when the democrats got control? if this president does not veto this legislation and go back to the drawing board then he is proving that he is in bed with wall street and the toxic debt. people need to stand up to their government now!
Their change in the middle of the game just further proves they have absolutely no idea what to do to fix it.
There has always been tension between those prefering asset purchases and those prefering direct capital infusions. The change, while noteworthy, does not necessarily have much bearing in the longer run. If people want to be upset with something, be upset that the first oversight official for this program has yet to be hired. Apparently, the administration will simply persist in its distaste for any oversight at all, even that so loudly and clearly mandated as in the TARP bill and votes, and will just spend its final days doing whatever it likes with the $700 billion and leaving it to the next guy to figure out what was done and how and why...
if this president does not veto this legislation and go back to the drawing board then he is proving that he is in bed with wall street and the toxic debt. people need to stand up to their government now!
I can only assume you're talking about Bush since BO isn't able to veto until Jan. If you are talking about GW, well then I could have told you he's in bed with wall street (and oil).
I can only assume you're talking about Bush since BO isn't able to veto until Jan. If you are talking about GW, well then I could have told you he's in bed with wall street (and oil).
Obama isn't going to veto anything that Pelosi, the Congress and the Senate send his way. Bush betrayed his party by not doing so, but Obama is simply not going to stand in the way of any kind of spending bill.
There has always been tension between those prefering asset purchases and those prefering direct capital infusions. The change, while noteworthy, does not necessarily have much bearing in the longer run. If people want to be upset with something, be upset that the first oversight official for this program has yet to be hired. Apparently, the administration will simply persist in its distaste for any oversight at all, even that so loudly and clearly mandated as in the TARP bill and votes, and will just spend its final days doing whatever it likes with the $700 billion and leaving it to the next guy to figure out what was done and how and why...
It's hard to believe, given the huge amounts of money involved that they haven't yet put together their oversight staff. Why? They're simply trusting Paulson to make decisions about how to dispense our money, based on the chosen financial flavor of the day. Makes one wonder if these financial gurus even care about the future? They're handing Obama this nightmarish financial situtation and he (and the Dems) will likely be blamed if he can't unravel the mess they've created.
Wonder what Obama would do differently (besides bail out the auto industry) if he could step in now?
There is absolutely nothing good about these bail outs, or our "leaders" who are driving this.
The American people have zero control over the situation, and yet will suffer the most from the results. Think again next time you vote for your elected officials who went against all of your phone calls, emails, faxes, and other communications that so vocally expressed their position against the bail outs. How do we still consider one a "representative" when they intentionally go against the will of those who elect them because they think that they know better?
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.
