America Becoming Facist STate

[John Galt?]

The way I see it, Obama has until September to blame everything on Bush.

Afterall, Bush (and his people) basically blamed 9/11 on Clinton nine months into his administration.

We'll call it the "Nine Month Bush Exception".

Bush wasn't in the Senate (where the real blame lies) prior to becoming Prez. I don't think Obama should get that pass. The first (failed) bailout might have been while Bush was in office, but Obama (and McCain) were in on the drafting of it (or at least could/should have been).

President Obama might not deserve all the heat, but Senator Obama (and Sen. Clinton, Sen. Biden, Rep. Emanuel et al) certainly do.

So Obama deserves all the blame for the economy?

at least 1/535th of it.  I'd say longer standing members of Congress hold a much bigger share of the blame. Anyone involved in repealing Glass-Steagall gets a big chunk, anyone involved in the Community Reinvestment Act deserves blame, same with anyone in on the Commodity and Futures Modernization Act.

and of course...Jon Gruden

[SnookAU]

What policies that are negatively effecting the economy now did Obama note "Nay" on while he was in the Senate?

I've asked this to most Obama supporters (which I know you aren't) on here, and have yet to get an answer.

So one vote in the Senate gets him "all" the blame?  He definitely gets some of the blame - but not all of it.

I'm just so sick of the hypocrisy from these political parties.

As for any vote that passes in the Senate and House... the President (then Bush) can veto it.

[SnookAU]

at least 1/535th of it.  I'd say longer standing members of Congress hold a much bigger share of the blame. Anyone involved in repealing Glass-Steagall gets a big chunk, anyone involved in the Community Reinvestment Act deserves blame, same with anyone in on the Commodity and Futures Modernization Act.

and of course...Jon Gruden

I'll agree with that.  And don't get me started on how much we need term limits for these bozos.

[SnookAU]

Isn't the Community Reinvestment Act from 20 years ago (or more?)? 

Further proof this current mess we're in isn't Obama's fault... or Bush's fault... or Clinton's fault.

The blame is on the American people for how we vote.

[Biggs3535]

What policies that are negatively effecting the economy now did Obama note "Nay" on while he was in the Senate?

I've asked this to most Obama supporters (which I know you aren't) on here, and have yet to get an answer.

So one vote in the Senate gets him "all" the blame?  He definitely gets some of the blame - but not all of it.

I'm just so sick of the hypocrisy from these political parties.

As for any vote that passes in the Senate and House... the President (then Bush) can veto it.

I've never said ALL the blame is on Obama.  It's simple-minded to put ALL of the blame on any one man.  Fact is, he did not vote against the policies that are negatively effecting the economy, yet he is getting a free pass on it.

Most of the time I have asked that question, it has been in response to someone putting ALL of the blame on the previous administration.  I have yet to get an answer.

[SnookAU]

I've never said ALL the blame is on Obama.  It's simple-minded to put ALL of the blame on any one man.  Fact is, he did not vote against the policies that are negatively effecting the economy, yet he is getting a free pass on it.

Most of the time I have asked that question, it has been in response to someone putting ALL of the blame on the previous administration.  I have yet to get an answer.

Its simple-minded people who also give him a free pass. 

Problem is, we have A LOT of simple minded people in this country on both sides of the spectrum.  THAT'S where the blame lies.

[mrtks]

The way I see it, Obama has until September to blame everything on Bush.

Afterall, Bush (and his people) basically blamed 9/11 on Clinton nine months into his administration.

We'll call it the "Nine Month Bush Exception".

Because you think that we're stupid enough to believe that no one ever did it before Bush? Or because it's just a convenient slur to fit your agenda?

Or does it just not fit YOUR agenda?

Settle down, there buddy.  If you weren't a newbie here, you'd know I hate Republicans and Democrats equally.

People in this country are so stupid that they have no idea its legal for the government to tap our phones... but don't take my AK-47 away!

How dare you question the Patriot Act?!

[Bayfisher]

Obama Wants to Control the Banks
There's a reason he refuses to accept repayment of TARP money.

I must be naive. I really thought the administration would welcome the return of bank bailout money. Some $340 million in TARP cash flowed back this week from four small banks in Louisiana, New York, Indiana and California. This isn't much when we routinely talk in trillions, but clearly that money has not been wasted or otherwise sunk down Wall Street's black hole. So why no cheering as the cash comes back?

My answer: The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control. And for this intensely political president, mere influence is not enough. The White House wants to tell 'em what to do. Control. Direct. Command.

It is not for nothing that rage has been turned on those wicked financiers. The banks are at the core of the administration's thrust: By managing the money, government can steer the whole economy even more firmly down the left fork in the road.

If the banks are forced to keep TARP cash -- which was often forced on them in the first place -- the Obama team can work its will on the financial system to unprecedented degree. That's what's happening right now.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html

[TheGladiator]

Obama Wants to Control the Banks
There's a reason he refuses to accept repayment of TARP money.

I must be naive. I really thought the administration would welcome the return of bank bailout money. Some $340 million in TARP cash flowed back this week from four small banks in Louisiana, New York, Indiana and California. This isn't much when we routinely talk in trillions, but clearly that money has not been wasted or otherwise sunk down Wall Street's black hole. So why no cheering as the cash comes back?

My answer: The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control. And for this intensely political president, mere influence is not enough. The White House wants to tell 'em what to do. Control. Direct. Command.

It is not for nothing that rage has been turned on those wicked financiers. The banks are at the core of the administration's thrust: By managing the money,

government can steer the whole economy even more firmly down the left fork in the road.

If the banks are forced to keep TARP cash -- which was often forced on them in the first place -- the Obama team can work its will on the financial system to unprecedented degree. That's what's happening right now.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html

Saw that, too...bank chairman will return the money with interest:



Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back.

The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He's been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales.

He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists. That's politics talking, not economics.




This is asinine.  It's the TAXPAYER's money; OUR money.  We deserve to be paid back ASAP.  Here's a bank ready to do it.  Time to write my reps again...and again...and again...

[Bayfisher]

Why aren't they allowed to buy back?

[Biggs3535]

Why aren't they allowed to buy back?

For the same reason they weren't allowed to reject the money, as some did try to do.

It's all about control.

[GhostRider]

Why aren't they allowed to buy back?

For the same reason they weren't allowed to reject the money, as some did try to do.

It's all about control.

You say that like it's a bad thing...

Obviously they are incapable of self governing as evidenced by their massive failure.

[Biggs3535]

Why aren't they allowed to buy back?

For the same reason they weren't allowed to reject the money, as some did try to do.

It's all about control.

You say that like it's a bad thing...

Obviously they are incapable of self governing as evidenced by their massive failure.

Who and what are you talking about?

There were some business entities who did not want or need the Gov't's help, but were made/threatened to take the money.

[GhostRider]

Why aren't they allowed to buy back?

For the same reason they weren't allowed to reject the money, as some did try to do.

It's all about control.

You say that like it's a bad thing...

Obviously they are incapable of self governing as evidenced by their massive failure.

Who and what are you talking about?

There were some business entities who did not want or need the Gov't's help, but were made/threatened to take the money.

For example?

[alldaway]

I have to admit this is the first time I have ever heard of such a claim as well.  I too am intrigued if an example can be cited because it would interesting to read into to be honest.