GarfieldJL Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 McCain had said in the debate basically that out of two evils an earmark isn't as big of an evil as the entire economy collapsing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yar-El Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 House, in second effort, passes bailout bill This is why you don't bail out companies: Oil prices rebound on hopes of bailout package Its all psychological. We should have just cutback on spending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 Its all psychological. We should have just cutback on spending. Or maybe NOT given tax breaks in the first place. Or not started expensive wars. Cutting education, roads, and social services isn't going to save us anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yar-El Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 Do you know why the oil demands are high? Shhh... Its a big secret. Every time we have a oil shortage, we are in the throws of fighting a war. It allways happens. Once the wars are done and over, the demand and price of oil will fall drastically. Shhh... I knew the bail out would be negative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 Or maybe NOT given tax breaks in the first place. Or not started expensive wars. 1. Why'd revenues increase when we cut taxes then? 2. Don't start on the expensive war crud, you also saying we shouldn't have gone to Afghanistan too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litofsky Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 2. Don't start on the expensive war crud, you also saying we shouldn't have gone to Afghanistan too? I wonder what we could do with $12,000,000,000 a month... And that's just Iraq. I don't support either wars, but I understand why we went into Afghanistan: a group of radicals had just killed 3,000 of our citizens, and the group responsible was hiding in Afghanistan (as far as I know). However, Iraq was completely unnecessary. We (being the US) went into there due to suspected weapons of mass destruction (none have been found to date). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 I've done some digging and found information on Senate Bill S-190, posted this in another thread but it applies to both. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-190 This will give co-sponsors http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190 Sen. Elizabeth Dole [R-NC] Sen. John McCain [R-AZ] Sen. John Sununu [R-NH] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 Do you know why the oil demands are high? Shhh... Its a big secret. Every time we have a oil shortage, we are in the throws of fighting a war. It allways happens. Once the wars are done and over, the demand and price of oil will fall drastically. Shhh... I knew the bail out would be negative. I don't recall saying anything about oil. I was responding to the suggestion that we should cut spending. I gave examples of two examples of where we have excessive spending. Generally when you make cut you cut excessive spending, not things that are already just skin and bones. 1. Why'd revenues increase when we cut taxes then? Considering we're still cutting spending, cutting jobs, and prices are going up, I'd be curious to know what revenues you're talking about. 2. Don't start on the expensive war crud, you also saying we shouldn't have gone to Afghanistan too? The $100 billion+ a year stuff didn't start till the war in Iraq. EVERY major power that's launched a war in the last half of a millennium knows that a war with 2 fronts FAILS. Specifically, our massive military force isn't what's effective against people hiding in caves. What's effective against them is small covert-ops missions. And that's a whole heck of a lot cheaper than "shock and awe". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 Specifically, our massive military force isn't what's effective against people hiding in caves. What's effective against them is small covert-ops missions. And that's a whole heck of a lot cheaper than "shock and awe". Yeah but "Shock and Awe" looks cooler:D We could cut spending in a lot of areas. CAGW has a pretty good list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 Yeah but "Shock and Awe" looks cooler:D We could cut spending in a lot of areas. CAGW has a pretty good list. Watching Fox News investigation on TV, and it seems to me that the Democrats are primarily responsible for this entire mess. It even mentioned McCain's attempts to fix this thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrtoken Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 Watching Fox News investigation on TV, and it seems to me that the Democrats are primarily responsible for this entire mess. It even mentioned McCain's attempts to fix this thing.Of course, that's coming from Fox News, and they can say that Obama is actually a radical Muslim and everyone who watches them would believe it. Best to actually look for the truth rather than hear it out of a pundit's mouth. Fox has gone to great pains regularly to point out that Obama is NOT a radical Muslim. --Jae Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 Watching Fox News investigation on TV, and it seems to me that the Democrats are primarily responsible for this entire mess. It even mentioned McCain's attempts to fix this thing. Negative. Look I'm a Republican, but pinning this all on the Dems or even primarily on the dems is pretty unfair. Both parties are to blame. Two presidents are to blame(Clinton and Bush). Lets face it we the people are partly to blame. Banks are to blame. Deregulation, believe it or not, actually softened the blow(according to economists and of course Clinton who signed it into law after a Republican majority congress passed it). Greenspan is to blame for continuing to lower interest rates. Realtors are to blame. and I'm sure I missed a few other people that share some blame for the economic situation we're in right now. McCain signed on to the bill when the crisis was about to hit. The housing market was about to collapse. It had nearly reached it's peak when he signed on to the bill. Which never came to the floor for a vote. It wasn't even fillibustered. It never even got to that point. In fairness though, at least his name is on there... with two other Republicans... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 Both parties share some of the blame, but the current President's is not as much at fault as one would think. Also, there were several votes to fix this and each time it went along party lines. This was decades in the making, and I'm not saying there weren't Republicans involved in this mess but the biggest beneficiaries were Democrats and they were the ones that were trying to block all increases in regulation. The Democrats were also saying there wasn't even a problem. Again: 2003, President Bush tried to get this fixed and it was shot down in the senate. 2005-2006 John McCain and other Republicans tried to get this problem fixed and again the Democrats blocked it. 2007 another bill by the Republicans including you guessed it Senator John McCain as a cosponsor was made to try to fix this problem, and the vote went along partisan lines again. So the Republicans were actually trying to fix this issue, and one can look at Senate voting records. Bleh it's reairing right now at 11:08 AM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 U.S. National Debt What is another Trillion dollars or two? Not much when we're talking quadrillions, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 I'll be debating about this in politics club today... What ammo should I bring along? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 This might be a good starting point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 I was just wondering what to say since the leaders of the club are pretty intelligent conservatives (they understand economics better than I do), and because they have a resident economy expert coming in... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Degrees of Hank Paulson If it sometimes seems that Wall Street is a small world, well, it is. For all its global reach, and for all the bitter conflict in recent months, where, for example, Lehman Brothers was left to tumble into bankruptcy while American International Group was bailed out, these are people who know each other, often well. Nowhere are the ties more evident than with U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. Many of the CEOs of companies touched by the financial crisis have links to him. Some, such as Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, have direct connections via that company, which Paulson used to head. Others connect through a network of fellow CEOs. This graphic shows where those CEOs fit into Paulson's network starting as recently as in 2003. Connections include employment at the same company or a position on the same board of directors, but not necessarily at the same time. We did not include every company at which these CEOs have worked – just those within this network. We also omitted ties to community and social organizations as well as instances in which CEOs simultaneously held other positions at a company such as board chairman. Enjoy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jawathehutt Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Anyone else hear about AIG's little party after they got their money? Good to see that the reason why my school cant even afford to do its one main purpose is so that some millionaires/billionaires can have a free party. But hey, who cares if the next generation of workers are under-educated yokels, there'll be more workers for luxury resorts then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SW01 Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Yeah that was a laugh! Their rationalisations were even better. I seem to recall them saying it was only some of their executives - which makes it alright, of course... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 The number I heard bandied about was $400 million. Could someone confirm or deny this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SW01 Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 The number I heard bandied about was $400 million. Could someone confirm or deny this? Not quite as bad as that! Seems it was about $440 thousand. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/livecoverage/2008/10/after_bailout_aig_executives_h.html?hpid=topnews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 That sounds much more reasonable (relatively speaking). Thanks for the link! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.