what's interesting to me is that these CONSERVATIVES (oxymoron) who are so freakin ANTI REGULATION and ANTI TAXATION and PRO MARKET DRIVEN ECONOMY are screaming that we HAVE to have GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION in the form of a GIGANTIC CASH BAILOUT paid for by TAXPAYERS! HELLO! am i the only one to see the irony is this? why don't we LET THE FORCES OF THE FREE MARKET ECONOMY SORT IT OUT??? isn't that what we're supposed to do?
I have noticed the media have hyped up and continued to follow the markets minute by minute...as soon as there is a dip they pounce. By all standards though we are in some form of crisis. Ignore the media for a second and read what has been posted on these forums. Lots of people are fear-mongering. Including you. This is not the only time there have been "bail-outs". Neither is it just "conservatives" around the world implementing them.
i'm on hipforums, not cnn...not good morning america. i'm not fearmongering. i'm saying there's nothing to fear but fear itself. don't let them panic you. it's all bullshit. it's just an effort to make us act without thinking. paulsen was saying weeks ago that the whole economy was gonna buckle if he didn't get that bailout money within a few days. don't forget who he works for. as secretary of the treasury, he is a political appointee. he works for bush. he should be acting through his organization to stabilize the economy, not going on talk shows to panic everybody. it's obvious this is just bush paying back his cronies. every president does it, albeit many don't go quite this far. he's skimming the economy, and giving some nice big plums to his buddies. and everyone thought it was bad when clinton pardoned some convicted criminals on his way out, lmao.
it's all bullshit. it's just an effort to make us act without thinking. paulsen was saying weeks ago that the whole economy was gonna buckle if he didn't get that bailout money within a few days. don't forget who he works for. as secretary of the treasury, he is a political appointee. he works for bush. he should be acting through his organization to stabilize the economy, not going on talk shows to panic everybody. it's obvious this is just bush paying back his cronies. every president does it, albeit many don't go quite this far. he's skimming the economy, and giving some nice big plums to his buddies. and everyone thought it was bad when clinton pardoned some convicted criminals on his way out
To be more specific: not going on talk shows to panic everybody. it's obvious this is just bush paying back his cronies. every president does it, albeit many don't go quite this far. he's skimming the economy, and giving some nice big plums to his buddies
where's the rumor? that's just logical deduction. everyone knows that running around like chicken little screaming that the sky is falling puts people into a panic. as far as the prez rewarding those he owes favors on the way out, they all do it. it's common knowledge. it's talked about openly in the press. not a big secret. no need for rumors.
OK, not sure about the US, here in the UK I have not seen anybody do that. Maybe you could provide some e.gs (not media reports - I mean actual companies that Bush has paid off due to owing them a favour) I don't quite see how this is him paying off his cronies. I appreciate people think that the "bail-out" is merely paying the debt off that banks have generated themselves. I do understand that. I have read that in our newspapers and seen that articulated on the TV. I don't understand: rewarding those he owes favors. I've not seen that within the mainstream news and on TV. That sounds like rumours to me.
if you don't think it's rewarding to be set up to take over another bank's assets worth $300 billion for just under a couple billion, i don't know what to tellya. if you think you're going to see someone spell out on mainstream TV exactly what these people are up to, you're not paying attention.
Erm, well lets stick to the cronyism and Bush paying "them" off, and the thrust of your previous post. If you want to enter the reality of bailing out banks etc, fine. This it seems is not what you said earlier. Correct me if I am wrong. I'll pay attention to anything you have to substantiate what I refer to as rumour.
you seem to be having trouble following the connections i'm making. perhaps i am a bit of a cynic about how these guys operate, but i have severe doubts that we're seeing a series of coincidences in these news stories about what's happening with the banks. i went and did some searching to see who else sees what i see, and it didn't take long to find someone. so, if you're interested, you can try reading amy goodman's interview of dennis kucinich in order to hear it from someone else.
Banks are failing they are being bought out and bailed out. This is occuring the world over. It has occured many many times over the last 100 years. Why should I believe this time Bush is bailing out his cronies and "rewarding those he owes"? Are all governments doing the same thing, or is it just the reluctance to use taxpayers money that REP. DENNIS KUCINICH et al believes is wrong ? (which is understandable). I looked it up (hope this is what you mean): REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: This is a copy of the bill which will provide for a $700 billion bailout of Wall Street. It has provisions in it where it talks about helping homeowners, but when you read the fine print, you see it has language like “may” instead of “shall” and “encouraging” instead of “mandating” help for the millions of homeowners who are worried right now about whether they’re going to lose their home. There’s no help for them in this. So what we have here is a rescue plan that essentially gives all the speculators a bailout and puts the bad debts in the custody of the government. The president of the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank has said that this plan could create a fiscal chasm, says that the problem isn’t tight monetary policy, it’s the reckless behavior of some of these investors who have now found themselves in a position where a government bailout is going to help reward their bad behavior. Is this Bush rewarding his cronies and those he owes favours to? REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: I said we’re the Congress of the United States; we’re not the board of Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs is struggling to survive. And, you know, their former chief is now the head of the US Treasury. He’s in a position to be able to direct assets in a way that would help enhance his own financial standing. I mean, that’s a clear conflict of interest. And, you know, that’s something that needs to be said. You know, why are we permitting the person who has essentially been in a position where he’s managed assets that—you know, many of which are now in trouble, and he can come back and help clear the books for a lot of his friends? This is wrong. It’s fundamentally wrong. And, you know, it’s one of the things that adds a degree of stench to this. It's an opinion alright, a fair opinion? Perhaps if this was only occuring in the US.
oh, and you feel bush's friends don't extend beyond US borders? his family has been multinational for generations.
