Ed Huntress wrote:
"Keith nuttle" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Keith nuttle" wrote in message
...
John R. Carroll wrote:
"Bay Area Holdout" wrote in message
...
"Cliff" wrote in message
...
Another three trillion down the drain.
Does the phrase "Miserable Failure" ring a bell?

OTOH AIG had another nice party and someone
is getting a lot of taxpayer money .... well, debt to
the taxpayer, anyway. THEY got the money.

No accountability either AFAIK. Just
free money ... How did this get started
again?
--
Cliff
Well CONGRESS and Bush decided something had to be done. Paulson
proposed the bailout, they wrote it up and sent it to CONGRESS.

The HOUSE votes and rejects it. Let the games begin!
Pelosi in her brillant leadership role blames the
Republicans(surprize!) but 96 Dems vote NO the first time as well. If
as LEADER of the HOUSE Dems she got 20 or so of those 96 to vote YES,
it would have PASSED first time!
But no she blames the Republicans......great leader that she is.

A few days later, what was sent to CONGRESS as a THREE PAGE Bill
becomes a FOUR HUNDRED PAGE Bill loaded with PORK. And now it PASSES!

Sent to Bush and he signs it as he said he would.

And that is how this got started!

Nice fairy tale but that's what it is.

JC
Now that the facts have been given and the only response is its a fairy
tale despite the fact that the information has been published in the
media for the last two month and can not be disproved, assassination of
the poster will commence.
No, no "facts" have been given, only misleading factiods that
misrepresent the truth. What's been "given" is an accusation that the
Democrats voted against the bill, when in fact they voted in favor of it
by a margin of 45 votes. The ones who sandbagged it were the Republicans,
who voted against it by a margin of 68 votes:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml

And that was on a proposal from a Republican administration! What was
that you were saying about "leadership"?

The bill, which House Republicans said was inadequate, was picked up by
the Senate as a medium for enfolding four distinct bills, which shifted
much of the bailout from banking institutions to individuals and small
businesses (that's what's being called "pork"). This, as you may have
noticed, is what the Administration itself has been shifting to in later
versions of their plan. _The Economist_, which came out today,
illustrates this with a picture of Paulson pulling multiple rabbits out
of his hat. g

The Senate took that approach to expand the bill because they're
constrained by the origination clause of the Constitution from
originating revenue bills in this area. So the bill eventually passed by
Congress bears little relationship to the original. They just used it as
a subterfuge, an opportunity to skirt around Article I, Section 7 of the
Constitution. Senate Republicans passed this version; House Republicans
still voted against it, but lost the vote; and the President signed this
combined bill.

If you are a liberal and confronted with facts that are contrary to what
you believe the messenger will be killed.
John was too generous with "Bay Area Holdout." I'd say the "facts" the
Holdout presented are the product of either an inadequate mind or of an
intentionally misleading one.

--
Ed Huntress
What ever the spin you put on the facts...


"SPIN"? Those ARE the facts. If you weren't too lazy to check it out for
yourself, rather than sitting on your heels and blowing smoke, you'd know
the facts before making accusations.

...in the time when this country need leadership in the house of
representatives, polosi complete failed the test.

So, you're saying that you *expect* the Republicans to do something
irresponsible, like voting the bill down by 68 votes, that runs counter to
the interests of the country, and that the Democrats should correct the
Republicans' irresponsibility and selfish interest by voting a party line to
support a bill proposed by a REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION?

House and Senate leaders don't whip their parties for a debatable bill. In
fact, even the administration now says that the original bill was not the
right answer to the question.

Leadership is the act of leading based on the facts at hand not pursuing
personal goals.

If you believe that voting for the bill was the right thing to do, even
though Paulson now says it wasn't the right way to deal with the problem,
then tell that to the Republican leadership. They're the ones who voted
against it, not the Democrats.

The ones that voted against are the one who listened to their
constituents, who elected them to represent their interests.
80% of whom said "Hell no!"

"RB" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Keith nuttle" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Keith nuttle" wrote in message
...
John R. Carroll wrote:
"Bay Area Holdout" wrote in message
...
"Cliff" wrote in message
...
Another three trillion down the drain.
Does the phrase "Miserable Failure" ring a bell?

OTOH AIG had another nice party and someone
is getting a lot of taxpayer money .... well, debt to
the taxpayer, anyway. THEY got the money.

No accountability either AFAIK. Just
free money ... How did this get started
again?
--
Cliff
Well CONGRESS and Bush decided something had to be done. Paulson
proposed the bailout, they wrote it up and sent it to CONGRESS.

The HOUSE votes and rejects it. Let the games begin!
Pelosi in her brillant leadership role blames the
Republicans(surprize!) but 96 Dems vote NO the first time as well.
If as LEADER of the HOUSE Dems she got 20 or so of those 96 to vote
YES, it would have PASSED first time!
But no she blames the Republicans......great leader that she is.

A few days later, what was sent to CONGRESS as a THREE PAGE Bill
becomes a FOUR HUNDRED PAGE Bill loaded with PORK. And now it
PASSES!

Sent to Bush and he signs it as he said he would.

And that is how this got started!

Nice fairy tale but that's what it is.

JC
Now that the facts have been given and the only response is its a
fairy tale despite the fact that the information has been published in
the media for the last two month and can not be disproved,
assassination of the poster will commence.
No, no "facts" have been given, only misleading factiods that
misrepresent the truth. What's been "given" is an accusation that the
Democrats voted against the bill, when in fact they voted in favor of
it by a margin of 45 votes. The ones who sandbagged it were the
Republicans, who voted against it by a margin of 68 votes:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml

And that was on a proposal from a Republican administration! What was
that you were saying about "leadership"?

The bill, which House Republicans said was inadequate, was picked up by
the Senate as a medium for enfolding four distinct bills, which shifted
much of the bailout from banking institutions to individuals and small
businesses (that's what's being called "pork"). This, as you may have
noticed, is what the Administration itself has been shifting to in
later versions of their plan. _The Economist_, which came out today,
illustrates this with a picture of Paulson pulling multiple rabbits out
of his hat. g

The Senate took that approach to expand the bill because they're
constrained by the origination clause of the Constitution from
originating revenue bills in this area. So the bill eventually passed
by Congress bears little relationship to the original. They just used
it as a subterfuge, an opportunity to skirt around Article I, Section 7
of the Constitution. Senate Republicans passed this version; House
Republicans still voted against it, but lost the vote; and the
President signed this combined bill.

If you are a liberal and confronted with facts that are contrary to
what you believe the messenger will be killed.
John was too generous with "Bay Area Holdout." I'd say the "facts" the
Holdout presented are the product of either an inadequate mind or of an
intentionally misleading one.

--
Ed Huntress
What ever the spin you put on the facts...


"SPIN"? Those ARE the facts. If you weren't too lazy to check it out for
yourself, rather than sitting on your heels and blowing smoke, you'd know
the facts before making accusations.

...in the time when this country need leadership in the house of
representatives, polosi complete failed the test.

So, you're saying that you *expect* the Republicans to do something
irresponsible, like voting the bill down by 68 votes, that runs counter
to the interests of the country, and that the Democrats should correct
the Republicans' irresponsibility and selfish interest by voting a party
line to support a bill proposed by a REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION?

House and Senate leaders don't whip their parties for a debatable bill.
In fact, even the administration now says that the original bill was not
the right answer to the question.

Leadership is the act of leading based on the facts at hand not pursuing
personal goals.

If you believe that voting for the bill was the right thing to do, even
though Paulson now says it wasn't the right way to deal with the problem,
then tell that to the Republican leadership. They're the ones who voted
against it, not the Democrats.

The ones that voted against are the one who listened to their
constituents, who elected them to represent their interests.
80% of whom said "Hell no!"

Another way of describing those who voted against it is "cowards and
panderers without a mind of their own."

In a representative democracy that aspires to be a republic, representatives
don't jerk their knees when constituents, most of whom who are as ignorant
as fenceposts about economics, tell them what they want them to do. The job
of those representatives is to act in the *best interest* of those
constituents. That may or may not be what they *think* they want after
watching the nightly news.

If the Founding Fathers thought those constituents had the education, the
judgment, and the intelligence to make those decisions, they would have
created a direct democracy.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"RB" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Keith nuttle" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Keith nuttle" wrote in message
...
John R. Carroll wrote:
"Bay Area Holdout" wrote in message
...
"Cliff" wrote in message
...
Another three trillion down the drain.
Does the phrase "Miserable Failure" ring a bell?

OTOH AIG had another nice party and someone
is getting a lot of taxpayer money .... well, debt to
the taxpayer, anyway. THEY got the money.

No accountability either AFAIK. Just
free money ... How did this get started
again?
--
Cliff
Well CONGRESS and Bush decided something had to be done. Paulson
proposed the bailout, they wrote it up and sent it to CONGRESS.

The HOUSE votes and rejects it. Let the games begin!
Pelosi in her brillant leadership role blames the
Republicans(surprize!) but 96 Dems vote NO the first time as well.
If as LEADER of the HOUSE Dems she got 20 or so of those 96 to vote
YES, it would have PASSED first time!
But no she blames the Republicans......great leader that she is.

A few days later, what was sent to CONGRESS as a THREE PAGE Bill
becomes a FOUR HUNDRED PAGE Bill loaded with PORK. And now it
PASSES!

Sent to Bush and he signs it as he said he would.

And that is how this got started!

Nice fairy tale but that's what it is.

JC
Now that the facts have been given and the only response is its a
fairy tale despite the fact that the information has been published in
the media for the last two month and can not be disproved,
assassination of the poster will commence.
No, no "facts" have been given, only misleading factiods that
misrepresent the truth. What's been "given" is an accusation that the
Democrats voted against the bill, when in fact they voted in favor of
it by a margin of 45 votes. The ones who sandbagged it were the
Republicans, who voted against it by a margin of 68 votes:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml

And that was on a proposal from a Republican administration! What was
that you were saying about "leadership"?

The bill, which House Republicans said was inadequate, was picked up by
the Senate as a medium for enfolding four distinct bills, which shifted
much of the bailout from banking institutions to individuals and small
businesses (that's what's being called "pork"). This, as you may have
noticed, is what the Administration itself has been shifting to in
later versions of their plan. _The Economist_, which came out today,
illustrates this with a picture of Paulson pulling multiple rabbits out
of his hat. g

The Senate took that approach to expand the bill because they're
constrained by the origination clause of the Constitution from
originating revenue bills in this area. So the bill eventually passed
by Congress bears little relationship to the original. They just used
it as a subterfuge, an opportunity to skirt around Article I, Section 7
of the Constitution. Senate Republicans passed this version; House
Republicans still voted against it, but lost the vote; and the
President signed this combined bill.

If you are a liberal and confronted with facts that are contrary to
what you believe the messenger will be killed.
John was too generous with "Bay Area Holdout." I'd say the "facts" the
Holdout presented are the product of either an inadequate mind or of an
intentionally misleading one.

--
Ed Huntress
What ever the spin you put on the facts...

"SPIN"? Those ARE the facts. If you weren't too lazy to check it out for
yourself, rather than sitting on your heels and blowing smoke, you'd know
the facts before making accusations.

...in the time when this country need leadership in the house of
representatives, polosi complete failed the test.
So, you're saying that you *expect* the Republicans to do something
irresponsible, like voting the bill down by 68 votes, that runs counter
to the interests of the country, and that the Democrats should correct
the Republicans' irresponsibility and selfish interest by voting a party
line to support a bill proposed by a REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION?

House and Senate leaders don't whip their parties for a debatable bill.
In fact, even the administration now says that the original bill was not
the right answer to the question.

Leadership is the act of leading based on the facts at hand not pursuing
personal goals.
If you believe that voting for the bill was the right thing to do, even
though Paulson now says it wasn't the right way to deal with the problem,
then tell that to the Republican leadership. They're the ones who voted
against it, not the Democrats.
The ones that voted against are the one who listened to their
constituents, who elected them to represent their interests.
80% of whom said "Hell no!"

Another way of describing those who voted against it is "cowards and
panderers without a mind of their own."

In a representative democracy that aspires to be a republic, representatives
don't jerk their knees when constituents, most of whom who are as ignorant
as fenceposts about economics, tell them what they want them to do. The job
of those representatives is to act in the *best interest* of those
constituents. That may or may not be what they *think* they want after
watching the nightly news.

If the Founding Fathers thought those constituents had the education, the
judgment, and the intelligence to make those decisions, they would have
created a direct democracy.

ed, if I said "The sky is blue" you'd argue with me.

It should be very obvious to all but the dimmest intellects that the
$700 Blank Check bailout was pure idiocy. The treasury has practically
admitted it.

"RB" wrote in message
...


ed, if I said "The sky is blue" you'd argue with me.

But you never do, RB. Usually, you say the sky is red, which it rarely is.
d8-)


It should be very obvious to all but the dimmest intellects that the $700
Blank Check bailout was pure idiocy. The treasury has practically admitted
it.

It will be years before anyone can analyze what effect it's had, and will
have. There was near universal agreement that *something* had to be done,
and done fast. And that it had to be big, really big. Conservative and
liberal economists nearly all agreed on those points. There is some movement
now in the credit markets, though not nearly enough. And the banks
themselves are making some moves to re-negotiate home loans in an attempt to
slow down the hemorrhaging.

Whether it was handled well is another question. The current consensus is
that it wasn't. But there is no current consensus about what should have
been done otherwise. Everyone has an opinion, and they all seem to
contradict each other.

--
Ed Huntress