Pres. Bush s finanical crisis

Republicans, Yea, whoo! right on. Let's not keep feeding the greed on Wall St. its financial system is dominated by the merchant banking, money puppeter! the right answer: Bankruptcy is better than bailout, governments MUST let firms go bankrupt & Talk of economic apocalypse is scare-mongering.

Let's not keep feeding the greed on Wall St.
 
XBGMER said:
Republicans, Yea, whoo! right on. Let's not keep feeding the greed on Wall St. its financial system is dominated by the merchant banking, money puppeter! the right answer: Bankruptcy is better than bailout, governments MUST let firms go bankrupt & Talk of economic apocalypse is scare-mongering.

Let's not keep feeding the greed on Wall St.
Click to expand...

lol, Don't forgot to right on to democrat whoever voted no, 40% of democrat voted no and 2/3 of republican voted no too.

Yup, I rather to be into recession than send $700 billion bailout to stupid greedy bank, credit or mortgage companies.
 
Additional, I had figured it out, 67% of republican had voted against it, that based on many angry taxpayers are called congress to vote "no" on it, if they vote "yes" then they would lose the election and massive increase of democrat in seat, they went voted no to prevent loss of their election and listen to angry taxpayers.

I think it's depends on location that where you live, there's districts that where house of rep are served, congresses have listen to Americans about what happen with everything.

2/3 is 67%.
 
Many economists wrote and signed one letter:

To the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate:

As economists, we want to express to Congress our great concern for the plan proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson to deal with the financial crisis. We are well aware of the difficulty of the current financial situation and we agree with the need for bold action to ensure that the financial system continues to function. We see three fatal pitfalls in the currently proposed plan:

1) Its fairness. The plan is a subsidy to investors at taxpayers’ expense. Investors who took risks to earn profits must also bear the losses. Not every business failure carries systemic risk. The government can ensure a well-functioning financial industry, able to make new loans to creditworthy borrowers, without bailing out particular investors and institutions whose choices proved unwise.

2) Its ambiguity. Neither the mission of the new agency nor its oversight are clear. If taxpayers are to buy illiquid and opaque assets from troubled sellers, the terms, occasions, and methods of such purchases must be crystal clear ahead of time and carefully monitored afterwards.

3) Its long-term effects. If the plan is enacted, its effects will be with us for a generation. For all their recent troubles, America's dynamic and innovative private capital markets have brought the nation unparalleled prosperity. Fundamentally weakening those markets in order to calm short-run disruptions is desperately short-sighted.

For these reasons we ask Congress not to rush, to hold appropriate hearings, and to carefully consider the right course of action, and to wisely determine the future of the financial industry and the U.S. economy for years to come.
Click to expand...
http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/john.cochrane/research/Papers/mortgage_protest.htm
 
web730 said:
Hard to say, I guess. But maybe it's too risk if no action like Bush mentioned.

Today we had a record drop at Wall Street.

Should we wait it out and see if we get lucky this time before spending anything too much for the rescue?
Click to expand...

:hmm: I am startin' to wonder what the outcome is goin' to be for the year of 2009 ?
 
Maria said:
:hmm: I am startin' to wonder what the outcome is goin' to be for the year of 2009 ?
Click to expand...

Hard to predict, we are possibly into recession, also large bank companies are buying other companies that's filed for bankruptcy or serious financial situation, market could fix itself sometime to light or prevent the recession.
 
Foxrac said:
Hard to predict, we are possibly into recession, also large bank companies are buying other companies that's filed for bankruptcy or serious financial situation, market could fix itself sometime to light or prevent the recession.
Click to expand...


And, that will make EVERYTHING more downsizin'. :cool:
 
Maria said:
And, that will make EVERYTHING more downsizin'. :cool:
Click to expand...

Not everything, any companies who are solvent like wal mart are unaffected.

Most affected is bank, credit and mortgage, even some companies that use alot of loan or share with them.

Recession will be last less than 10 years, could be much less, depends on president or congress could find other idea to recover it over bailout, bank, credit and mortgage companies are learn their mistake, I"m not let to throw my taxes on their mistake, let them goes away.
 
Foxrac said:
Not everything, any companies who are solvent like wal mart are unaffected.

Most affected is bank, credit and mortgage, even some companies that use alot of loan or share with them.

Recession will be last less than 10 years, could be much less, depends on president or congress could find other idea to recover it over bailout, bank, credit and mortgage companies are learn their mistake, I"m not let to throw my taxes on their mistake, let them goes away.
Click to expand...

We will see, if anythin' changes for the better or worse.
 
Let's make some money today . . .

CNNMoney.com Market Report - Sep. 30, 2008
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Stocks rallied Tuesday, with the Dow jumping 485 points on bets that Congress will pass a version of the government's $700 billion package, following Monday's crushing defeat.

But credit markets remained frozen. Several closely watched measures of bank lending fear hit all-time highs, as firms continued to hoard funds.
Click to expand...

Still out of more than 200 points for my retirement fund. We, all, pay.
 
jillio said:
Here is a link to the thread:

http://www.alldeaf.com/current-events/56830-aig-gets-85-billion-dollar-bailout-govt-2.html

It is post #56. There is also a link in that thread that can be used to support my correction on the campaign contributions, their nature, and the amounts.
Click to expand...

Sorry for the delay in my response. I'm all politic'ed out, and been really tired lately. I did read that post, and the link referred to...... however, the link you mentioned, the only contradictory info was quoted as being from the New York Times...... The New York Times is about as blatantly liberal as the Huffington Post. Is there anything from a neutral, or semi reliable source? (anything from CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, or any other obviously biased source does not count) I tried to stick with a neutral source, and while I'm not familiar with Poligazette, and for some reason right now that link is not coming back up, I did read thru it earlier, even though the whole article was quoted in that post #56 with some bold text (half of which was quote from New York Times article in bold). It's just that while I feel FoxNews is more "fair and balanced" than CNN, I know Fox leans more towards conservative (the only channel I know that leans that way, but because of that I don't take their word either). CNN and MSNBC are blatantly liberal like the most of our media, and while I'm buzzed here, I can't think of a single printed media (ie: newspaper) that is conservative, but we all know how liberal NYT, Chicago Tribune, etc, are far liberal. I will not trust any source that is on either side of neutral. Please if you would come up with a source that isn't a known liberal or conservative bias, as the link I posted was from a supposed neutral source.

If my link wasn't from neutral, I will search again.
 
How quickly you label any kind of media to liberal. Ya'll bought into it. Such a fool.
 
SimpleMan said:
Sorry for the delay in my response. I'm all politic'ed out, and been really tired lately. I did read that post, and the link referred to...... however, the link you mentioned, the only contradictory info was quoted as being from the New York Times...... The New York Times is about as blatantly liberal as the Huffington Post. Is there anything from a neutral, or semi reliable source? (anything from CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, or any other obviously biased source does not count) I tried to stick with a neutral source, and while I'm not familiar with Poligazette, and for some reason right now that link is not coming back up, I did read thru it earlier, even though the whole article was quoted in that post #56 with some bold text (half of which was quote from New York Times article in bold). It's just that while I feel FoxNews is more "fair and balanced" than CNN, I know Fox leans more towards conservative (the only channel I know that leans that way, but because of that I don't take their word either). CNN and MSNBC are blatantly liberal like the most of our media, and while I'm buzzed here, I can't think of a single printed media (ie: newspaper) that is conservative, but we all know how liberal NYT, Chicago Tribune, etc, are far liberal. I will not trust any source that is on either side of neutral. Please if you would come up with a source that isn't a known liberal or conservative bias, as the link I posted was from a supposed neutral source.

If my link wasn't from neutral, I will search again.
Click to expand...


The facts and figures are not biased. That link provides the actual fact and figures regarding campaign contributions, and not the conservative distortion you originally posted. The fact of the matter is, your post failed to provide all of the information, and it typical of the conservative tactic of dishonesty by ommission. Kind of like Sarah Palin claiming to have sold Alaska's plane on E-bay to reduce unneccesary spending when, in fact, she advertised the plane for sale on E-bay, received no bids, and ended up selling it privately at a huge loss to the state. She did not, in the actual matter, save the state money, she cost them money. And that is but one example of the dishonesty by omission that the conservatives are quilty of in this campaign. Perhaps you should look at all the facts instead of buying into their manipulations and misrepresentations. You are falling right into their premise that the American public is not intelligent enough or resourceful enough to locate and analyze the facts, but will simply believe any kind of hog wash they spread.
 
jillio said:
The facts and figures are not biased. That link provides the actual fact and figures regarding campaign contributions, and not the conservative distortion you originally posted. The fact of the matter is, your post failed to provide all of the information, and it typical of the conservative tactic of dishonesty by ommission. Kind of like Sarah Palin claiming to have sold Alaska's plane on E-bay to reduce unneccesary spending when, in fact, she advertised the plane for sale on E-bay, received no bids, and ended up selling it privately at a huge loss to the state. She did not, in the actual matter, save the state money, she cost them money. And that is but one example of the dishonesty by omission that the conservatives are quilty of in this campaign. Perhaps you should look at all the facts instead of buying into their manipulations and misrepresentations. You are falling right into their premise that the American public is not intelligent enough or resourceful enough to locate and analyze the facts, but will simply believe any kind of hog wash they spread.
Click to expand...

Actually, the 'hogwash' is coming from the left. My link was a believed neutral site, and I already stated I would look up another if my link was in fact not from a neutral source. The information was common knowledge however, and still unanswered by Obama campaign. The link you posted, the last paragraph of the article where the only contradictory information was, was quoted as being from the New York Times which is well known to be part of the liberal biased media, hence I would need verification from still another source, one that is neutral. I don't see how I'm 'falling to the trap' when I'm actually trying to find the truth from neutral parties. It seems more to me like if someone is 'falling into the trap' it's those who do not seek out the truth and instead believe what the read from a known biased source. The biggest problem is the spread of the misinformation from those biased sources, because too many people won't look it up for themselves and choose to believe the false information. That is why I will say again, whether you get your news from (using American most popular both sides news channels) Foxnews or from CNN/MSNBC, you should watch both sides, and question what you learn from both sides. To watch either side and take it for fact, without watching both sides and researching actual truth from non-biased sources, is what is ignorant and leaves you as an uninformed voter.
 
jillio said:
I have to respectfully disagree with that one. It is all about politics. Politicians make the decisions and set the policies that lead to the very financial crisis that the U.S. is experiencing.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's right.

Bush can share the blame for financial crisis

Bush can share the blame for financial crisis - International Herald Tribune



Accord German News, Bush Administration and Wall Street shared their irresponsibly to the finanial crisis that's how affected the world economy. Should we trust McCain as a president when we know he support Bush 90%?

I'm baffled that the people support and want McCain win at election and don't bother to see what happens if he wins. I can't believe people think McCain is qualifed to run America when he already admitted that he has no clue about economy and know McCain's 90% support to Bush?
 
Back
Top