What is Digg?139 Comments
- kemp34, on 09/22/2008, -2/+108***** this bail out.
Unconstitutional? Check.
Immoral? Check.
Irresponsible? Check.
A threat to our entire dollar system? Check.
You'd have to be a complete dunder head to support this crap. - hugolp, on 09/22/2008, -2/+66The Republicans are going back to being Republicans? mmm, sounds too good to be true.
- embarkadero, on 09/22/2008, -3/+53The middle class has suffered long enough.
- ryan83189, on 09/22/2008, -3/+52No bail outs.
I wish the best for the employees. As for those who invested in their stock, better luck next time. As for the CEOs who drove their company into the ground, you get nothing, your family won't starve and you won't go cold at night, but I am not going to fund your extravagant lifestyle with MY hard earned money. I was smart enough not to put my money in high risk investments or some ponzi scheme. I didn't even bitch when you were raking in millions for doing NOTHING, because I was certain you would fall on you ass, but now you have golden parachutes to rescue you. I want, but do not anticipate a full return of my forced "investment" plus substantial interest. I say let them them fail, if they take the whole economy down with them (which is an empty threat) so be it. The elbow grease economy will do just fine, it's economies that produce money from thin air like yours that are going to suffer. - rearlgrant, on 09/22/2008, -13/+50Greenwald cites a Malkin supporter that claims such Executive power is unprecedented... These people are not interested in reality. FTA: "Such provisions are hardly "unprecedented," but have been appearing in several of the most controversial bills of the last eight years (as but one example, The Military Commissions Act, a right-wing favorite, essentially purported to bar courts from reviewing the President's decisions about who to detain and further barred judicial review of the Congressional scheme, and similar "court-stripping provisions" have long been a right-wing favorite in all sorts of contexts). And more generally, this is how our Government has worked: the President demands unlimited power and Congress gives it to him.
It's only because visions of a Muslim, terrorist-sympathizing, socialist President Obama are haunting them in their feverish nightmares is the Right suddenly deeply fearful once again of vesting vast power in the Federal Government and the Executive."
Republicans == Hoverville Morons.
Waiting for the Republican paid bury brigade to bury this article as inaccurate. - Omadhaun, on 09/22/2008, -1/+35The Paulson Plan goes against everything that Republicans once stood for. Why should companies that don't play by the rules be let off without any punishment while the taxpayers of this country pay for their mistakes? As if our country's debt isn't already bad enough.
The problem with the Government's current stance is that it thinks the stock market should only be allowed to see ups, and none of the downs. This goes against the very nature of the stock market, and because we are trying to make everyone a "winner" we are all suffering. Or at least the middle class is suffering. - XxtraLarGe, on 09/22/2008, -5/+38We voted for Ron Paul and got called a bunch of "Loonies"...
- kenedamick, on 09/22/2008, -1/+30Exactly. What happened to the REAL conservatives out there?
- relaxeder, on 04/17/2009, -0/+22The Bush White House has approved Secretary Paulson's proposal to collect over $700 billion in taxpayer funds to bail out the biggest investment banks in the nation from the collapse they brought upon themselves, and Obama is still the "socialist" here? Get real, this is probably the single greatest socialistic executive action on the behalf of our federal government the country has ever witnessed in its 200+ year history.
Where is the fiscal responsibility? Where is the laissez-faire free market philosophy now? Absolute market deregulation is all good and swell until it brings Wall Street to the brink of death. - sockpuppets, on 09/22/2008, -5/+25That's like asking Michael Jackson to be black again.
- enantiodromia, on 09/22/2008, -0/+19they only want laissez-faire when they are making money. they want Socialism when they are losing money.
- Homerr, on 09/22/2008, -4/+22Let the Upper-Class bail themselves out!
- Pimptastic, on 09/22/2008, -1/+18Lifetime Republican here and all I can say about this is 'WTF'
I am well beyond being against this free money for the rich 'bailout'. This is an unbelievable action that is ignoring the basic fundamentals of our economic system. People think that the Iraq war and this whole war on terror is going to destroy the economy. This has ramifications that will last generations. It isnt going to help people save their homes, stop foreclosures, or fix the cause of the problem.
I will freely admit that I am not a Bill Clinton fan. But he said something on "the View" (I saw the clip on Fox News im not turning liberal, I swear im not.) About refinancing the loans that are the root cause of this problem. Maybe I'm crazy for thinking this but could a former President actually have a better idea than some guy who was appointed and is asking for a blank check? - barstegry, on 09/22/2008, -3/+18Pay them in Shrute-bucks
- GalacticCmdr, on 09/22/2008, -0/+14Fiscal Conservative got pushed to the sideline by the social and military conservatives since the 80s. Most stuck with the GOP since they found little anywhere else to go (it is an unfortunate side-effect of our winner-take-all system). However, things are now turning and I hope that the fiscal conservatives can finally take more of the stage over the social and military conservatives.
- an0nymous, on 09/22/2008, -1/+15Greenwald is absolutely correct about one thing that no one else acknowledges: the Democrats are utterly ineffectual. The Bush administration has not had to exert even the smallest amount of pressure in order to get them to roll over.
It's ironic that in a few months it will be the Republicans who attempt to roll back the imbalance of Executive power in an attempt to mitigate the influence of President Obama. They'll successfully challenge signing statements, and fix a lot of the issues that they themselves created,, though they will never acknowledge their hypocrisy.
It's one of the best reasons to vote Obama.
Seriously. - AdeleMor, on 09/22/2008, -1/+14For once it seems like Republicans are turning on themselves instead of Democrats turning on themselves.
- sockpuppets, on 09/22/2008, -1/+13We need to quickly enact it before GWB's term is over. Because he says so.
- Wargalas, on 09/22/2008, -1/+12I'm still here. :)
- enantiodromia, on 09/22/2008, -0/+11mostly by the fake Conservatives out there
- ironhide, on 09/22/2008, -0/+9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Ac ...
The bills were introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-TX) and in the House of Representatives by James Leach (R-IA). The bills were passed by a 54-44 vote along party lines with Republican support in the Senate[1] and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives[2] - CedarPark, on 09/22/2008, -1/+10Did you mean hooverville? Cause Hoverville would be awesome. Two words: hovering toilets.
- athiel, on 09/22/2008, -1/+10Extra Extra!
Banking Crisis Caused by Lack of Oversight!
Solution: a non reviewable check for 700,000,000,000$ - enantiodromia, on 09/22/2008, -1/+10well, this is what you get when you shift your party's core values away from what it originally stood for. not very Conservative when you think about it.
- sockpuppets, on 09/22/2008, -3/+12That might mean cutting back on lattes. Have you no humanity?
- licnyc, on 09/22/2008, -0/+9I don't think this whole mess is the result of fannie/freddie only. It started with bear sterns and went down the line and it wasn't only because poor people were getting easy loans, it was also because brokerages started selling them as overvalued commodities with little regulation. There is plenty of blame to go around all the way back to Reagan.
- inactive, on 09/22/2008, -5/+13His name was Robert Paulson..
- Dumbledorito, on 09/22/2008, -0/+8"Miss Higgins? Take a memo. Find out who was supposed to notice we were working for Lucifer, lord of the pit. I want their name on my desk by close of business Wednesday. And get legal looking through the files for anything signed in what looks like reddish-brown ink."
- mvader, on 09/22/2008, -5/+13No bail-outs for anyone...
Not for businesses, not for people.
No welfare, no social security, no buy-outs, no public healthcare.
I see no reason to reward anyone (from private individuals to huge corporations) for doing nothing, or to save them from themselves.
Why do people keep expecting the government to bail them out?
The government should not be your mother. - sentime, on 09/22/2008, -2/+10Hell yea!
Ron Paul 2009! - mlLk, on 09/22/2008, -1/+8ZOMG! Finally, a talking point the Left and Right can agree upon, our hatred for the 2% that own 1/2 of the world's wealth. This could be seriously epic.
- klco, on 09/22/2008, -2/+9The Crash may not have been Hoover's fault, but the fact that he did nothing caused the Depression that followed. As for FDR, well the Japanese basically had their own New Deal following their crash in the '90's and it worked out pretty well for them... somehow I suspect you are one of the revisionists who want to claim that unregulated capitalism is the best thing ever, seriously we are in this problem because of your ideology.
- ironhide, on 09/22/2008, -0/+7and about S. 190 (credit to the original poster)
1) Republicans held the majority in Congress when this bill was introduced.
2)The bill was an attempt to privatize regulatory agencies. Hence, Democratic resistance to it. Hence, even Republicans voting against it.
3) The bill did nothing to address fraud and tighten oversight. Hence, Democratic resistance to it. Hence, even Republicans voting against it.
Text from the bill itself:
"Excludes the Federal Home Loan Banks from certain securities reporting requirements." - ironhide, on 09/22/2008, -3/+10I warned you right-wing idiots, right from the start, but you either didn't listen or didn't care. Didn't you actually think that there might be a democrat president again?
- sockpuppets, on 09/22/2008, -0/+6Yeah those online petitions are effective.
/s - inchrnt, on 09/22/2008, -15/+21hey right-wing, go ***** yourself.
- inactive, on 09/22/2008, -2/+8works for me
- TheLoneHoot, on 09/22/2008, -1/+7Barr is not Paul.
HUGE differences. - Wangeye, on 09/22/2008, -0/+6It's supposed to be a free market.
If you're going to climb high, be prepared to fall far. - EasySt, on 09/22/2008, -8/+14Quote from Barney Frank, in opposition to greater oversight of Fanny and Freddy, September 11, 2003:
"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
See this whole mess is simply a welfare program gone wrong!
Related:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive ... - davidlow, on 09/22/2008, -0/+6FTA:
"The blatant hypocrisy here, while extreme, craven and obvious, is also healthy. Hypocrisy of this sort is actually a vital part of how checks and balances are supposed to work. It is expected that political factions, when in charge of the government, will seek to obtain greater power for themselves, and the check against that is that the "opposition party" will battle and resist -- not necessarily out of ideology or principle but due to raw power considerations and self-interest."
Not exactly warm and fuzzy, but somewhat positive and definitely true. - inactive, on 09/22/2008, -0/+6"We certainly understand and are sympathetic to the sentiment regarding the pay of CEOs and senior management of these firms, but we have to focus on the problem, and the problem is that we need these firms to participate in the program and sell us this debt. Having punitive measures would provide a disincentive for firms to participate, and that would make the program much less likely to succeed," Fratto said. (white house spokesman)
so these firms are going to crash and burn without 700 B but without the golden parachutes they won't participate ?
they have the option to not partcipate GREAT then they don't need the 700 B - antipoet, on 09/22/2008, -0/+5The politicians comments stating their opposition based on who will be in charge next irks me to no end. I can't even begin to grasp how condescending and hypocritical that is. And never ever thought I'd agree with something Newt said. There is hope yet, I guess.
- enantiodromia, on 09/22/2008, -2/+7hey man, we need both wings to fly this thing. be nice.
- SwordofKahless, on 09/22/2008, -2/+7Stop the bailouts. Over 10k signatures already.
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_pe...ed.cgi?bail ... - spikepeck, on 09/22/2008, -0/+5Token Emperor Palpatine quote:
"POWERRRRR UNLIMITED POWEEEERRRRRRR!!!!"
Now back to your educated and well thought out comments. - AshScholl, on 09/22/2008, -1/+6Obama stepped up and firmly said that the Paulson bailout program is not something he can support.
http://digg.com/business_finance/Obama_Draws_A_Lin ... - OliveStreet, on 09/22/2008, -0/+5"Greenwald is absolutely correct about one thing that no one else acknowledges: the Democrats are utterly ineffectual." Was that for the twelve years Congress was under Republican control, or the two years the Democrats have had it with an illiterate red-neck Republican president?
- inactive, on 09/22/2008, -0/+4NO. We don't. We only need US. ***** parties. ***** wings. ***** politics.
- an0nymous, on 09/22/2008, -0/+4Both. Now, earlier... I'm not sure how far back it goes. But actually politically organizing behind their principles and resolutely displaying their will?
Please...
They complain when the Republicans are in charge, but they don't filibuster or vote as a bloc, or do any of the legislative tricks designed to protect the legislative minority. The minute they got in charge all they could talk about is bipartisanship. How many times have they forced the president to actually veto something?
Not bloody often. And never about something which they claim to be passionate about... they've never tried to cut off funding for the Iraq war for instance. That would be politically risky. Not really the Democrat's style...
They did force through the omnibus Farm bill though over Bush's veto. They'll stand up for Pork, that much is clear. -
Show 51 - 100 of 141 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is