Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Did YOU know:
Five U.S. senators were named in the scandal: Sen. Alan Cranston (D.-Calif.), Sen. Dennis DeConcini (D.-Ariz.), Sen. John Glenn (D.-Ohio), Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.) and Sen. Donald Reigle (D-Minn.).
Keating Five Member is Obama Surrogate
http://townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/10/06/keating_five_member_is_obama_surrogate
Enjoy
"Those people have been inbreeding for three centuries." (edit)
Well...that would explain the first part of the article:
The isolated towns of Virginia's Appalachian coal region are home to strong labor unions and Democratic political machines that date back generations. Yet voters here who eagerly pushed Democrats into the Senate and the governor's office...
I do take heart in knowing that these "inbred's" will eat/feed their family if we do hit another depression...
concrete "bigoted" liberals will be f**ked.
"Woods Fund of Chicago"
Your reference (per article).
Chicago Annenberg Challenge
Per my reference/article.
two separate entities...yet there is an/the obama/ayers connection.
Again...go blow smoke....
59% Would Vote to Replace Entire Congress
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/59_would_vote_to_replace_entire_congress
"not a single thing that Obama has ever done shows that has aspoused any of their views"
Jeremiah:
17+ years sitting in a pew...
Ayers:
In the first year, 1995, Obama headed the board, which made fiscal decisions, and Ayers co-chaired the Collaborative, which set education policy. During that first year, Obama’s formal responsibilities mandated close cooperation and coordination with the Collaborative. As board chair and president of the CAC corporation, Obama was authorized to “delegate to the Collaborative the development of collaborative projects and programs . . . to obtain assistance of the Collaborative in the development of requests for proposals . . . and to seek advice from the Collaborative regarding the programmatic aspects of grant proposals.” All this clearly involves significant consultation between the board, headed by Obama, and the Collaborative, co-chaired by Ayers.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTViMGRmMmYxZTgwZTFjYmFjODU5YzM4Y2MwM2ViMjY=
Go blow smoke up someone else's @ss.
The latimes article...
to which you reference mentions not one word of "appalachia's inbred".
A liberal bigot...imagine that.
Speaking of Independence...
A move to secede on California-Oregon border
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/05/MNNP138DLP.DTL
While you are harping
the "try it again" theme:
What ethinic background are you?
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/replies.aspx?msg=32351192
Easy question...no?
"Bennett is of the same group as Palin"
Your reasoning would therefore mean that barack is in the "same group" as terrorist bill ayers...as well as "religious fundamentalist hypocrites" such as jeremiah wright.
Now...have you denounced these @ssholes? Link please.
MATTERA: Academia on Palin
Liberal bastions lack diversity
Jason Mattera
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Is Sarah Palin really a woman? That's the type of asinine question that could originate only in academia. And, right on cue, here's Wendy Doniger, a divinity professor at the University of Chicago, declaring an all-out assault on biology. Mrs. Palin's "greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman," the professor carped in a Washington Post blog entry. But she didn't stop there: "The Republican party's cynical calculation that because [Palin] has a womb and makes lots and lots of babies (and drives them to school! Wow!) she speaks for the women of America and will capture their hearts and their votes, has driven thousands of real women to take to their computers in outrage." The pernicious swipes at parenting aside, what to think about a professor who suggests that womanhood is defined by one's devotion to leftist orthodoxy, as if doctors stamp "liberal Democrat" on every female birth certificate? For me, it's another reminder that colleges are a reliable, if unintentional, source of comic relief. And maybe for you, there's a new benchmark to measure insanity: the University of Chicago's Divinity Department.
Not to be outdone by Ms. Doniger, History Department chairman Catherine McNicol Stock from Connecticut College implied that Mrs. Palin is a white supremacist. "It is hard to know where [Palin] stands on issues of race, equality and diversity," she writes in the Philadelphia Inquirer, noting that the "Pacific Northwest - called by many the 'Great White Northwest' - [is] the very region that Sarah Palin and her family call home." Ah, the logic: There are racists in the Pacific Northwest. Mrs. Palin lives in the Pacific Northwest. Therefore Mrs. Palin is a racist.
If that weren't enough, Ms. Stock asserts that the Alaska governor's convictions on traditional marriage, gun rights and abortion are "radical." Just how radical? Well, let's just say she names Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, and Terry Nichols, Timothy McVeigh's accomplice, while saying that Mrs. Palin's ideas "bear a comparison with some of the most notorious 'rural radicals' of our time." Someone please remind Ms. Stock that if she's concerned with domestic extremism, she may want to keep an eye out on Barack Obama's associates - to wit, William Ayers, the unrepentant bomb-thrower, and Jeremiah Wright, the racist reverend.
Juan Cole, a University of Michigan professor, also threw his tinfoil hat in the ring. To him, Mrs. Palin is a theocrat, mirroring the mullahs of Saudi Arabia. A recent article by Mr. Cole on the left-leaning Salon.com was titled "What's the difference between Palin and Muslim fundamentalists? Lipstick." Not content to make outlandish accusations on his own time, Andrew Hallam, an adjunct professor teaching English composition at Metro State College in Denver, required his class to write an essay blasting the Republican vice presidential nominee. Students were compelled to "undermine" what he described as Mrs. Palin's "fairy-tale" image. A college spokesman defended Mr. Hallam, arguing that it was his job to "provide opportunity for critical thinking and civic engagement." Exactly how does spoon-feeding leftist prejudices in a classroom foster "critical thinking"?
Lastly, an attack on Mrs. Palin wouldn't be complete without good old-fashioned Christian-bashing. Playing the predictable part is Nancy Hardesty, a professor of religion at Clemson University, who claims (wrongfully) that when Mrs. Palin "talks about using up our non-renewable resources, drilling on the North Slope and building the pipeline, it's almost with glee because in a sense it doesn't matter. All her brand of Christians may be gone before those things run out." Don't you just feel the tolerance - academia's cardinal virtue - oozing from these folks? Obviously, all college professors aren't leading malicious discussions about John McCain's running mate, but it's worth noting that the same insufferable vitriol dripping from the left over Mrs. Palin is virtually absent from any analyses of Joe Biden and Mr. Obama by conservative instructors - from the handful that exist.
When was the last time a conservative professor questioned Mr. Obama's blackness or maleness because of his positions on energy, tax cuts or abortion? Such blatant malevolence is notably missing. Sure, these liberal professors have a right to say whatever they want, but do we want people who exhibit those types of narrow-minded perspectives teaching our young minds? Apparently campus administrators do, since they keep hiring them.
It's no secret that academia is in the tank for Mr. Obama. Since the start of the presidential campaign, the Obama camp has received more than $10 million from the education industry, according to a report released last month by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan watchdog group. In fact, between Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain, "Eighty-nine percent of the education industry's contributions have gone to the Democrat." Eighty-nine percent. Such ideological purity is astonishing considering that nearly half of the country supports Mr. McCain.
And that, my friends, is what administrators and faculty mean when they proclaim their institutions to be bastions of diversity: heavy on leftist representation, short on a variety of ideas.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/02/academia-on-palin/
"Blah, Blah, Blah!!"
You do that well...
"the education reform project founded by Bill Ayers and which he led with Barack Obama from 1995 until 2001."
but he is not close to ayers...
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=31893102
Commentary: Bankruptcy, not bailout, is the right answer
By Jeffrey A. Miron
Special to CNN
Editor's note: Jeffrey A. Miron is senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University. A Libertarian, he was one of 166 academic economists who signed a letter to congressional leaders last week opposing the government bailout plan.
Economist Jeffrey Miron says the bailout plan presented to Congress was the wrong solution to the crisis
CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Congress has balked at the Bush administration's proposed $700 billion bailout of Wall Street. Under this plan, the Treasury would have bought the "troubled assets" of financial institutions in an attempt to avoid economic meltdown.
This bailout was a terrible idea. Here's why.
The current mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal policies. The federal government chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970; these two mortgage lending institutions are at the center of the crisis. The government implicitly promised these institutions that it would make good on their debts, so Fannie and Freddie took on huge amounts of excessive risk.
Worse, beginning in 1977 and even more in the 1990s and the early part of this century, Congress pushed mortgage lenders and Fannie/Freddie to expand subprime lending. The industry was happy to oblige, given the implicit promise of federal backing, and subprime lending soared.
This subprime lending was more than a minor relaxation of existing credit guidelines. This lending was a wholesale abandonment of reasonable lending practices in which borrowers with poor credit characteristics got mortgages they were ill-equipped to handle.
Once housing prices declined and economic conditions worsened, defaults and delinquencies soared, leaving the industry holding large amounts of severely depreciated mortgage assets.
Don't Miss
Bailout plan rejected
Financial rescue 101: the bill
Commentary: Financial crisis a disaster
In Depth: Commentaries
The fact that government bears such a huge responsibility for the current mess means any response should eliminate the conditions that created this situation in the first place, not attempt to fix bad government with more government.
The obvious alternative to a bailout is letting troubled financial institutions declare bankruptcy. Bankruptcy means that shareholders typically get wiped out and the creditors own the company.
Bankruptcy does not mean the company disappears; it is just owned by someone new (as has occurred with several airlines). Bankruptcy punishes those who took excessive risks while preserving those aspects of a businesses that remain profitable.
In contrast, a bailout transfers enormous wealth from taxpayers to those who knowingly engaged in risky subprime lending. Thus, the bailout encourages companies to take large, imprudent risks and count on getting bailed out by government. This "moral hazard" generates enormous distortions in an economy's allocation of its financial resources.
Thoughtful advocates of the bailout might concede this perspective, but they argue that a bailout is necessary to prevent economic collapse. According to this view, lenders are not making loans, even for worthy projects, because they cannot get capital. This view has a grain of truth; if the bailout does not occur, more bankruptcies are possible and credit conditions may worsen for a time.
Talk of Armageddon, however, is ridiculous scare-mongering. If financial institutions cannot make productive loans, a profit opportunity exists for someone else. This might not happen instantly, but it will happen.
Further, the current credit freeze is likely due to Wall Street's hope of a bailout; bankers will not sell their lousy assets for 20 cents on the dollar if the government might pay 30, 50, or 80 cents.
The costs of the bailout, moreover, are almost certainly being understated. The administration's claim is that many mortgage assets are merely illiquid, not truly worthless, implying taxpayers will recoup much of their $700 billion.
If these assets are worth something, however, private parties should want to buy them, and they would do so if the owners would accept fair market value. Far more likely is that current owners have brushed under the rug how little their assets are worth.
The bailout has more problems. The final legislation will probably include numerous side conditions and special dealings that reward Washington lobbyists and their clients.
Anticipation of the bailout will engender strategic behavior by Wall Street institutions as they shuffle their assets and position their balance sheets to maximize their take. The bailout will open the door to further federal meddling in financial markets.
So what should the government do? Eliminate those policies that generated the current mess. This means, at a general level, abandoning the goal of home ownership independent of ability to pay. This means, in particular, getting rid of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with policies like the Community Reinvestment Act that pressure banks into subprime lending.
The right view of the financial mess is that an enormous fraction of subprime lending should never have occurred in the first place. Someone has to pay for that. That someone should not be, and does not need to be, the U.S. taxpayer.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
Ones opinion...
Alaska Attorney General Talis Colberg filed a lawsuit on behalf of the seven state workers Thursday challenging the subpoenas. He claims the committee has no jurisdiction to issue subpoenas in the investigation and questions whether the investigation's overseeing body, the Legislative Council, had the authority to begin a probe.
Colberg said in a news conference Friday that he never directed anybody to ignore subpoenas, but advised the seven that they had two options: Show up and testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee or don't and join the lawsuit.
"If they were a normal subpoena, we do not believe they would be optional," Colberg said.
"You're blaming Dodd for 20 years worth of deregulation?"
I do not see where I, or the article is making such a statement...
Dodd proposes to direct one fifth of all taxpayer profits from the sale of any assets bought by the Treasury into two trust funds: 65% would go to the Housing Trust Fund and 35% to the Capital Magnet Fund. Both funds are designed to “support a variety of affordable housing initiatives.”
ACORN...no?
I will state the countrywide VIP has no d@mn business penning a word to this bill.
Have a Good Nite.
Morning Bell: Did Ken Lay Get to Write Sarbanes-Oxley?
Posted September 23rd, 2008 at 8.52am in Entrepreneurship.
The $700 billion that Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson is requesting from Congress to restore liquidity in the financial markets is a breathtaking sum of money. But it is also important to remember Paulson has already committed $200 billion to recapitalize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The size of their bailout should tip Americans off: Fannie and Freddie were the key enablers of the mortgage crisis.
Fannie and Freddie’s implicit government stamp of approval on these risky investments fueled Wall Street’s appetite for subprime securities. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. In 2004 alone, Fannie and Freddie bought 44% of all subprime securities. Fannie and Freddie were created to pump more money into the real estate market. Without Fannie and Freddie, it is impossible to see the bubble growing as large as it did.
There were early warning signs. In 2004, a whistle blower revealed Fannie had engaged in Enron-like accounting practices in order to meet profit targets that meant bonuses for CEOs. When conservatives on Capitol Hill moved to rein in Fannie and Freddie, liberals in Congress pushed back, and won as little oversight as possible for their political allies. Key to Fannie and Freddie’s defense was the development of “Partnership Offices” that funneled money into various housing projects in districts of key members of Congress. These efforts were coordinated with corrupt leftist housing advocacy allies like the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), which has been indicted multiple times across the country for vote fraud.
One would hope now that Freddie and Fannie have exploded that the left learned its lesson about mixing private and public interests. No such luck. Just last week, Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT), who has taken more money from Fannie and Freddie than any other politician, again defended Fannie and Freddie and advocated for their resurrection.
Now the left has let Dodd author its financial bailout proposal. And again, Dodd is alarmingly eager to funnel taxpayer money to corrupt leftist housing allies. Dodd proposes to direct one fifth of all taxpayer profits from the sale of any assets bought by the Treasury into two trust funds: 65% would go to the Housing Trust Fund and 35% to the Capital Magnet Fund. Both funds are designed to “support a variety of affordable housing initiatives.”
Enron’s financial lies destroyed more than $63 billion in assets. Freddie and Fannie’s financial lies are going to cost the entire world much, much more. When the Senate went to write new accounting legislation after Enron’s collapse, it did not invite disgraced Enron chief executive Ken Lay to draft the legislation. Why on earth is the Senate letting Chris Dodd, both Freddie and Fannie’s biggest defender and benefactor, write this legislation? The integrity of the Senate is at stake. Again.
http://blog.heritage.org/2008/09/23/morning-bell-did-ken-lay-get-to-write-sarbanes-oxley/
David Plouffe (pronounced /plʌf/, born circa 1967) is the campaign manager for Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign in the United States. A long-time Democratic Party campaign consultant, he is a partner at the party-aligned campaign consulting firm AKP&D Message and Media, which he joined in 2000.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Plouffe
Your drug comment may still be on the mark
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee, is “a terrific debater” who could give Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden (D-Del.) a run for his money when they meet Thursday.
David Plouffe
What about...
the friend of a bomb maker.
tsk, tsk...
jealously rears its ugly head
"mccain will not even tell the truth about his military war service"
At least he has military experience....
then again, obama has a friend who is a bomb maker...
I am finding...
that the Missouri ethics law...does not pertain to federal elections.
while you are out in the deep end...
fish up some info on this Missouri ethics law.
Intimidate/stifle...
Have you researched this Missouri ethic law?
I disagree...
"Just more right wing hysteria"
I disagree...
Will these law enforcement officials of the State of Missouri be targeting the obama campaign for any "untrue" ads it will run?
Shall be interesting to see the legal ramifications of it all.
In the event of false attacks on John McCain's military service record, the McCain Truth Squad will issue statements to voters and to members of the media that set the record straight. In addition, members of the Truth Squad will be available to respond quickly to inquiries from the media regarding negative attacks.
MCCAIN TRUTH SQUAD LEADERSHIP
Senator John Warner (R-VA)
Col. Bud Day, USAF (Ret.), Medal of Honor
The Honorable Robert "Bud" McFarlane, Former National Security Advisor
Lt. Commander Carl M. Smith, USNR (Ret.)
Admiral Leighton "Snuffy" Smith, Jr., USN (Ret.), Former CINCUSNAVEUR, CINCSOUTH, Commander IFOR
The Honorable Orson Swindle, Lt.Col. USMC (Ret.)
http://www.johnmccain.com/truthsquad/
"The Barack Obama Truth Sqad" will be headed by St. Louis Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce and Bob McCullugh, the prosecuting attorney.
....
The Obama campaign confirms that law enforcement officials from the Kansas City area and rural parts of the state are also part of the so-called "Truth Squad". Jefferson County Sheriff Glen Boyle is also expected to participate.
Missouri Governor Matt Blunt has roundly denouced the so-called "Truth Squad" as "abusive use of Missouri Law Enforcement"
http://utube.smashits.com/video/3GIMhRGFfpI/the-obama-truth-squad.html
See the difference...
"Missouri Ethics Law. It has nothing to do with Obama"
The Obama campaign confirms that law enforcement officials from the Kansas City area and rural parts of the state are also part of the so-called "Truth Squad"
http://utube.smashits.com/video/3GIMhRGFfpI/the-obama-truth-squad.html
It is YOU who needs to "get a freaking clue".
Signs banned at Virginia rally today
Signs of liberty
Why is the University of Mary Washington inhibiting free speech at today's Obama-Biden rally?
Date published: 9/27/2008
NOT ALL COUNTRIES guarantee their citizens the right to virtually unbridled freedom of speech. The United States does. Would someone please tell the campaign of Sen. Barack Obama? And the dozing guardians of liberty at the University of Mary Washington?
Mr. Obama, the Democratic nominee for president, is scheduled to speak at a rally at the university today. The public is invited to this forum, on property it, the public, owns. However, signs and banners will not be allowed, according to the organizers and compliant campus officials. Suddenly, UMW is a First Amendment-Free, or at least a First Amendment-Crippled, Zone, subject to the self-serving preferences of politicos. Why does an Obama rally--or a McCain rally or a Nader rally--justify taking a little off the top of Americans' most fundamental rights?
A UMW spokeswoman says that the Obama campaign required the sign-and-banner ban. That campaign tells us that the ban is for "security" reasons. But a spokesman for the U.S. Secret Service, responsible for protecting presidential candidates, says that the service has no objection to signs at rallies, provided that no "part of the sign could be used as a weapon"--e.g., a heavy metal pole or a sharpened stick. Finally, the McCain campaign tells us, "We encourage people to make signs at our events."
Regarding today's event, one would expect better from a campaign bearing the name of a former professor of constitutional law. (See Ambrose Bierce's definition of a lawyer: "one skilled in circumventing the law.") And one would expect much better from a university that, in pursuit of a day of celebrity, a boost in prestige, and profits from its book store's planned commemorative Obama T-shirts (now scotched), shaves away an American liberty purchased by men who turned white snow red and dry dirt wet with their sacrificial blood. This is a lot to swap for a mess of pottage. Remarks the Rutherford Institute's John Whitehead, who has turpentined the Bush administration's civil-rights record, "The Secret Service has a better free-speech viewpoint than the college."
The First Amendment guarantees the freedoms of religion, speech, the press, peaceable assembly, petition of the government. Will one who aspires to the title Defender of the Constitution begin inhibiting these First Freedoms even before he is in office--at a public university?
Free speech means you have the right to hold up a sign, to unfurl a banner, to wear a T-shirt or create music, to pass around handbills--or newspapers--expressing your views at any public event. This is doubly true at campaign rallies--quintessential political forums--where such expressions are subject only to narrowly drawn "time, place, and manner" restrictions. Says Kent Willis, chief of the ACLU-Virginia and a Fredericksburg resident: "Mary Washington may be able to impose some restrictions on the size of signs or the materials used in them, but we do not believe the school can legally ban all signs at an outdoor political event to which the public is invited."
Furthermore, the very speech we must be most careful to protect is that which is most onerous to us. Our natural inclination is to shut up the Other Side. The problem is, many days we are the other side.
America's fundamental freedoms--more in danger of being whittled away than stolen in one fell swoop--must be defended everywhere, including in our own backyard. The Obama campaign and Mary Washington need to back off this odious policy. An opinion printed in Magic Marker should never be contraband at an open American political event--and if that emblazoned thought interferes with the atmospherics of some partisan stagecraft specialist, that is a bearable tragedy.
Today's Obama-Biden rally is set for 5:15 p.m. Gates open at 3 p.m. We hope the event, part of a history-making campaign, packs the campus. If you go and wish to take a sign, feel free to cut out the box below, write your own message, paste it to some cardboard, and show off your point of view. Or make your own sign or banner from scratch.
We trust that the tonic of Jefferson and Madison is still the drink of choice at the college up the hill. That libation doesn't mix well with tincture of Tiananmen.
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2008/092008/09272008/413770/index_html?page=2
“Oh yes,” Sen. James Inhofe (D-Okla.) told CNSNews.com when asked if he expected Democrats to attempt to restore the ban. “I would expect them to try to restore the moratoria but that’s why its so important to get the word out to the American people that, yes, this is a great thing, but it makes it so much worse for Democrats if the people of America find out that they are doing this only to get by in the elections then turn around and cut off the supply.”
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=36268
Sec 1602 continues ban on oil shale. The language follows:
SEC. 1602. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 152 of division A of H.R. 2638 (110th Congress), the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, the terms and conditions contained in section 433 of division F of Public Law 110–161 shall remain in effect for the 19 fiscal year ending September 30, 2009.
google it.
CCAGW BLASTS CHAIRMAN OBEY FOR $1 TRILLION BUDGET CIRCUS
September 25, 2008
(Washington, D.C.) - The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) today blasted House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wisconsin) for presiding over a dysfunctional, chaotic federal budget circus. In a flurry of activity yesterday, Chairman Obey forced Congress to vote on a stop-gap continuing resolution worth $1 trillion in spending with less than 24 hours to review its contents. The rush was aimed at getting lawmakers out of Washington, D.C. as quickly as possible to campaign before the November election and to short-circuit any in-depth scrutiny of the billions of dollars in wasteful spending. The bill came to the House floor under a closed rule, which prohibited amendments and passed 370 to 58.
“Chairman Obey’s actions, and the actions of the entire Democratic leadership team in the House represent a stunning abdication of fiscal responsibility,” said CCAGW President Tom Schatz. “A significant number of lawmakers from both sides of the aisle are allowing themselves to be steamrolled and, once again, demonstrating blatant hostility to the rights of taxpayers to know how their money is being spent. The deadline for approving appropriations bills is the same each year, September 30, and if the Democrats had done their job over the past nine months, this legislation could have been deliberately considered, reviewed, and publicized. Democrats took over Congress promising greater transparency; this is completely contrary to that claim.”
The bill, H.R. 2638, will fund nine of the twelve appropriations bills at fiscal year 2008 levels until March 6, 2009. It contains billions in congressional earmarks. H.R. 2638 also contains language which appropriates $7 billion of an authorized $50 billion in loan guarantees to bailout Detroit’s “Big Three” automakers. The bill contains a $600 billion “security omnibus” bill combining the remaining three appropriations bills (Military Con/Veterans Affairs, Defense, and Homeland Security), as well as $22.9 billion in so-called disaster relief. Lawmakers also rammed through a separate $600 billion Defense Authorization bill, which passed by a vote of 392 to 39.
When asked by Bloomberg News about whether the process has been secretive, Obey bluntly replied “You're damn right it has because if it’s done in the public it would never get done.” He wanted to “avoid his colleagues’ ‘pontificating’on the content of the legislation” because “that’s what politicians do when this stuff is done in full view of the press.” He said “we've done this the old fashioned way by brokering agreements in order to get things done and I make no apology for it.”
“It is not surprising that taxpayers hold Congress in such abysmal regard. At this fragile time, when taxpayers are facing unprecedented economic pressures and uncertainty, Congress has made a mockery of the federal budget process and cannot be taken seriously when it preens about accountability and transparency. In my years in Washington, I have rarely seen a bigger sham of the legislative process,” Schatz concluded.
The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste is the lobbying arm of Citizens Against Government Waste, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government.
http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=11608
I stand corrected...
I ignored most/all of your post and must now admit my error.
"8 years now..."
Alias Born On: Sunday, April 03, 2005
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/profile.asp?user=55144&PrevStart=31848488
Do you need me to do the math on this one as well?
"I pity the person"
I do not...
WIC, EIC, other gov programs will put them in a net positive
Tell me this...
at what point do we stop allowing/excusing the spending that we are witnessing.
Both parties are walking the dog...yet you only blame one.
republicans/democrats created this/these problems.
hmmmmmmm...
your a hummer???
"So get a freaking clue."
Obama/arizona have stated 95% will see a tax decrease/cut...I stated at least 29.5% do not pay any taxes...therefore the 95% theory is pure BS.
"this all follows the Enron scandal in which the Bush people were involved up to their eyeballs"
Tell me one thing...what years/who was president when enron made their millions.
Think about this:
In June 1999, in the immediate aftermath of the bombing of Yugoslavia, US forces seized 1,000 acres of farmland in southeast Kosovo at Uresevic, near the Macedonian border, and began the construction of a camp.
"Camp Bondsteel, the biggest “from scratch” foreign US military base since the Vietnam War (...) It is located close to vital oil pipelines and energy corridors presently under construction, such as the US sponsored Trans-Balkan oil pipeline. As a result defence contractors—in particular Halliburton Oil subsidiary Brown & Root Services—are making a fortune.
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:8WvRvSLNq3MJ:www.globalresearch.ca/index.php%3Fcontext%3Dva%26aid%3D7996+bondsteel+haliburton&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
Cheney left politics and joined Halliburton as CEO between 1995 and 2000.
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:rphY1I1f8hIJ:www.byzantinesacredart.com/blog/2006/09/corporate-undertaking.html+cheney+clinton+haliburton+bondsteel&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us
Apparently...those bush folk were involved to the eyeballs during the clinton years as well.
There is a lot of ch*t that people chose not to explore...or simply refuse to ignore.
Both parties are to blame for our situations to date.