Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Fri 23 Apr, 2010 10:06 am
@ican711nm,
Quote:


Second, as former Bush administration economist Larry Lindsey points out, the Dodd bill gives the Treasury and the FDIC authority to grant an unlimited number of loan guarantees to "too big to fail" firms. CEOs might want to have receipts for their contributions to Sen. Charles Schumer and the Obama campaign in hand when they apply.


Which section of the bill does this? Specifically.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Fri 23 Apr, 2010 10:14 am
Obama caught in another lie.

Portions of Blacked-Out Subpoena Suggest ...
Obama Advised Blagojevich on Senate Replacement
ican711nm
 
  -2  
Fri 23 Apr, 2010 11:14 am
Quote:
From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:
Beware Obama Financial “Reform”

Here’s one early lesson we’ve learned from the Obama administration: Beware the word “reform.” First there was Obamacare, which was nothing more than a government takeover of our nation’s health care system masquerading as “reform.” And now the Obama administration has set its sights on “reforming” Wall Street. In fact, on Thursday, the President took to the pulpit in New York, just blocks from Wall Street, to pitch his vision for so-called reform in a high profile speech.

No matter what Obama says, this much we know " his ultimate goal is to increase government control of the private sector. And he’s trying to do it quickly, before the elections this fall, just in case Democrats lose control of Congress and the mood in Washington further sours for the President and his statist agenda.

Throughout the debate over financial reform legislation, Republicans and Democrats have been in a heated contest to see which party can claim the mantle “tough on Wall Street.” According to The Associated Press:
If there's any election-year support in the Senate for future bailouts of the big banks on Wall Street, it isn't immediately apparent.

Instead, President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies compete daily with Republicans for the title of opponent in chief, and six months before midterm elections the fate of legislation to regulate the financial industry remains clouded.

Democratic legislation "not only allows for taxpayer-funded bailouts of Wall Street banks; it institutionalizes them," Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said recently.

Obama responded a few days later in his weekly radio and Internet address, accusing McConnell and another top Republican of meeting with Wall Street executives to discuss ways to block the legislation…

Now, however, with members of both parties eager to redirect populist angst somewhere else " anywhere else " it appears some Republicans will join Democrats to get a bill passed through the Senate. I doubt any Republican filibuster will hold and will result, at best, in making any final bill only slightly less monstrous. And this is the worst possible news for American taxpayers. The financial reform package is a complicated piece of legislation, so I cannot go into all of the details in this space, but here are just two items that have been discussed: A $50 billion “bailout fund” for big Wall Street firms that would be denied to small and mid-size firms and a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency that could exert control over vast new areas of the private economy.

Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Fri 23 Apr, 2010 11:24 am
@ican711nm,
Quote:
here are just two items that have been discussed: A $50 billion “bailout fund” for big Wall Street firms that would be denied to small and mid-size firms and a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency that could exert control over vast new areas of the private economy.


Your correspondent misunderstands what the bill includes.

1st, the '50 billion dollar fund' was never intended as a 'bailout fund,' but for use to resolve these companies; that is to say, money to purchase their assets while they are wound down.

Second, there is no 'vast new area' of the private economy which is going to be under control. Unless you can point out what it is?

Cycloptichorn
ican711nm
 
  0  
Fri 23 Apr, 2010 12:01 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn, your claims appear baseless. You provided zero evidence to support these claims:
Quote:
Your correspondent misunderstands what the bill includes.

1st, the '50 billion dollar fund' was never intended [never intended? never will be?] as a 'bailout fund,' but for use to resolve these companies; that is to say, money to purchase their assets while they are wound down.

Second, there is no 'vast new area' of the private economy which is going to be under control.

Based on your record of making false claims, I currently have zero reason to believe that these unsupported claims of yours should be taken seriously.
parados
 
  4  
Fri 23 Apr, 2010 12:11 pm
@H2O MAN,
Quote:
Portions of Blacked-Out Subpoena Suggest ...
Obama Advised Blagojevich on Senate Replacement

There is something funny about that statement.

So the blacked out portions suggest something about Obama? Is it because they are black?

Because they certainly can't suggest anything based on what it says since the reason it is blacked out is so you can't read it at all.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Fri 23 Apr, 2010 12:12 pm
@ican711nm,
Do you even know what 'resolution authority' is?

Neither you nor either of your correspondents on this issue provided any proof, either. They didn't point to any specific aspect of the bill which provides the authority that you say it does. Did you question their claims? Do you take their claims seriously?

I challenge you to specifically point out the parts of the bill that do what you and your correspondent say. I doubt you will be able to do so, because the truth is that you just repeat lies which tell you what you want to hear.

Cycloptichorn
ican711nm
 
  -1  
Fri 23 Apr, 2010 12:21 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I await your evidence!
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Fri 23 Apr, 2010 12:26 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

I await your evidence!


Evidence for what? Please be more specific.

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  0  
Fri 23 Apr, 2010 01:33 pm
@H2O MAN,

No surprise there.
Advocate
 
  3  
Fri 23 Apr, 2010 01:37 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:


No surprise there.


Excuse me, but what is the lie? BTW, the above says "suggest." Are you sure there is a lie there?
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  2  
Fri 23 Apr, 2010 01:38 pm
@okie,
Amusingly, a technical glitch briefly allowed those with quick reflexes to see (and perhaps print?) an unredacted (if that is a word) on-line version. Even early hard copies could be read through the black Sharpie.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Fri 23 Apr, 2010 02:08 pm
@ican711nm,
You mean that Cyclo must prove a negative (that there is no vast new area of commerce, or whatever.)
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Fri 23 Apr, 2010 02:43 pm
@parados,
I agree, it'd ___ impossible to understand ____ the document ____ be saying since _____ of the ______ are ______ out.
maporsche
 
  1  
Fri 23 Apr, 2010 02:44 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

I agree, it'd ___ impossible to understand ____ the document ____ be saying since _____ of the ______ are ______ out.


I agree, it'd BE impossible to understand WHAT the document MAY be saying since SOME of the WORDS are BLACKED out.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Fri 23 Apr, 2010 02:45 pm



Obama is the most misguided president this country has ever had.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Fri 23 Apr, 2010 03:14 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn, I await your evidence that the failure to rectify Fannie & Freddie prior to these organizations being the first cause of America's current depression, is primarily the responsibility of the Republicans in the Senate in 2005 and 2006.
Advocate
 
  0  
Fri 23 Apr, 2010 03:23 pm
Obama, Pelosi, and Reid deserve the undying gratitude of this country for what they accomplished. Obama has been in office less than 1.5 years, and Pelosi 3.5 years, and they enacted health-care reform, something sought for 105 years. They will certainly go down in history for this achievement. The Reps will, of course, be remembered for their usual mindless opposition to anything the Dems propose, regardless of the merits.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Fri 23 Apr, 2010 03:23 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn, I await your evidence that the failure to rectify Fannie & Freddie prior to these organizations being the first cause of America's current depression, is primarily the responsibility of the Republicans in the Senate in 2005 and 2006.


Your question itself betrays a profound ignorance, and I will tell you why in one easy sentence:

Nothing that Congress did with either Fannie or Freddie in 2005-6 would have prevented the financial crisis.

The damage had already been done by that time and the derivative market was spiraling upwards at a gigantic rate. Reigning in F/F wouldn't have stopped this at all. Do you understand why this is true? If not, I'd be more then happy to explain it to you.

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  0  
Fri 23 Apr, 2010 06:20 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Nothing that Congress did with either Fannie or Freddie in 2005-6 would have prevented the financial crisis.
Cycloptichorn

Sure sure cyclops, and 2 + 2 = 3? You may have a point, that after pouring water into a car gas tank, quitting doing it might not avert big trouble, but still it is not a very good excuse not to quit the habit of pouring water into the gas tank. I still think refilling with authentic gasoline would not have hurt anything, and might have saved us from the worst.
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1630
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 06/15/2025 at 08:16:38