|
Post by dupacrash on Nov 2, 2008 21:32:56 GMT -5
have you seen the videos of the people standing in line for 2 - 8 hours to vote? and people are putting up with it because it's that important.
|
|
|
Post by Volk on Nov 2, 2008 22:56:57 GMT -5
totally with you on the bailout Chris....and when you think about it...WHERE will the banks get the money to pay us back? From us of course, from higher fees and interest rates. I figure only a small percentage will come from overseas investment returns. We're double-fucked on that one.
|
|
|
Post by hotroots on Nov 3, 2008 14:42:33 GMT -5
have you seen the videos of the people standing in line for 2 - 8 hours to vote? and people are putting up with it because it's that important. this reminds me of a conversation i had the other day. kinda non-pc and certainly directed towards no one on this board. but i was talking to an acquaintance of mine (he's really too stupid to call a friend) about election muck, and he's talking about how he's voting for the white guy. how a white man can't and shouldn't be president of the naacp and a black man shouldn't be president of the u.s.a (bright, right?) and as for other offices and issues, he's having another man we know right down his choices on an index card for my acquaintance to take with him to the polls. the race issue and the fact that there's a casino issue on the ohio ballot (not just for casinos in general, but an issue for ONE SPECIFIC casino owned by a shady character, and it's to be written into our state constitution! seriously, this is a constitutional issue? for this one casino? it's odd and asinine), and he just wants to be able to go gamble in the state. he has absolutely no intention of educating himself any further on anything. i told him: you know how it's most people's privelage and RESPONSIBILITY to vote? well, there's a also a bit of the population whose RESPONSIBILITY it is to NOT vote.
|
|
|
Post by hotroots on Nov 3, 2008 15:03:06 GMT -5
and for the record, i'm delightfully voting for obama, though i respect all who are voting for other candidates. i've grown accustomed to not having political discussions anymore, as (esp around rural nw ohio), it's next to impossible to talk to someone with differing points of view without them getting upset. and the only people who disagree with me who i see are at the bar (haha, bad idea), or where i work (i do hair and wait tables), and i don't care to make my paying customers disgruntled. plus, around here, there's such ignorance, it's hard not to insult someone when i'm talking to them. at the salon, there's this annoying, smelly woman who works beside me, and she rambles on and on about issues and church to her clients. it drives me crazy; i just wanna tell her to shut the hell up. it's one thing if she knows her client agrees with her and she can talk in a hushed voice, but she just spouts off in her 50 year old two-pack-a-day-smoker voice for the whole salon to hear. and it's embarrassing. though, one day, i did cut a very intelligent man's hair who i talked to for 30 minutes about politics, and when he left, neither of us knew who or what the other was voting for. just a talk on the society, process, etc. t'was quite refreshing.
|
|
|
Post by tetherednchained on Jan 23, 2009 21:25:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tetherednchained on Jan 23, 2009 21:49:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tetherednchained on Jan 23, 2009 21:53:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by pdn on Jan 26, 2009 14:37:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tetherednchained on Jan 26, 2009 20:09:21 GMT -5
Thats funny Cherrybomb!
|
|
|
Post by Madame Shimmy on Jan 28, 2009 16:41:56 GMT -5
;D
|
|
|
Post by tetherednchained on Jan 29, 2009 0:09:17 GMT -5
Change. ;D news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090128/pl_politico/18128Obama finds room for lobbyistsPresident Obama promised during his campaign that lobbyists "won't find a job in my White House." So far, though, at least a dozen former lobbyists have found top jobs in his administration, according to an analysis done by Republican sources and corroborated by Politico. Obama aides did not challenge the the list of lobbyists appointed to administration jobs, but they stressed that former lobbyists comprise a fraction of the more than 8,000 employees who will be hired by the new administration. And they pointed out that before Obama made his campaign-trail promise, he issued a more complete - and more nuanced - policy on former lobbyists. Formalized in a recent presidential executive order, it forbids executive branch employees from working in an agency, or on a program, for which they have lobbied in the last two years. Yet in the past few days, a number of exceptions have been granted, with the administration conceding at least two waivers and that a handful of other appointees will recuse themselves from dealing with matters on which they lobbied within the two-year window. “It would be more honest if they admitted they made a mistake and came up with a narrower rule,” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “Obviously, they can’t live with the rule, which is why they keep waving the magic wand and making exceptions. They’re saying one thing and doing another. It’s why the public is skeptical about politicians.” But another watchdog, Meredith McGehee of the Campaign Legal Center, praised Obama’s rules as “a good starting place” and urged patience in judging their efficacy. “Any good set of ethics rules has the opportunity for waivers, but if the waivers become the rule, rather than the exception, then you have to look at whether the waivers are being sought too frequently or whether there’s a problem with the rule,” McGehee said. “I don’t think we’re at that point yet.” At the White House, spokesman Tommy Vietor insisted the president has been consistent. “During the campaign, then-Sen. Obama put forth the toughest ethics and lobbying reform policy in history,” Vietor said, “and now he’s acting on it to reduce the influence of lobbyists in Washington.” Here are former lobbyists Obama has tapped for top jobs: Eric Holder, attorney general nominee, was registered to lobby until 2004 on behalf of clients including Global Crossing, a bankrupt telecommunications firm. Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association. William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractor Raytheon, where he was a top executive. William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit that pushes to limit tobacco use. David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric. Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs. Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone. Mona Sutphen, deputy White House chief of staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003. Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights. Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group. Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union. Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the president’s assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005.
|
|
|
Post by Madame Shimmy on Jan 30, 2009 21:31:24 GMT -5
Hi Mike,
I hope you and your wife are doing well.
On to your post above; just b/c someone is registered to lobby doesn't mean they are actively lobbying, now. I see several of the listed are not lobbying NOW. One of them hasn't lobbied since 2005. I was a waitress for Ponderose steak house in 1990-1991 but that doesn't mean I'm still a waitress.
Obama is doing a fabulous job by, coming in and taking the bull by the horn and tackeling issues some thought he'd be to afraid to do.
|
|
|
Post by tetherednchained on Jan 31, 2009 23:21:23 GMT -5
Hi Michelle, good to hear from you as always. Michele and I are doing fine. March is the next try! ;D We'll see what happens! On topic. The government is really messed up. I say that about both sides. I said way back before the bailout went through that it was a bad idea. You can't fight a greed problem by throwing more of our tax money at it. Who the hell thought that was a good idea?......... Ill tell you who..... Senator McCain and President Obama! Now he wants more money for a stimu-less package that is loaded with pork! Acorn to get 4 to 5 billion? Really? I can't believe that!!! www.nypost.com/seven/01272009/news/nationalnews/gop_leaders_oppose_stimulus_money_for_ac_152276.htmCan you say payback for helping Obama get elected? There are a few things he has done that I have a strong opposition to. I wont get into those right now because I don't feel like typing. lol Anyway, I want President Obama to get things done correctly as much as the next guy, I just have no optimism on this issue. I hope I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by pdn on Feb 2, 2009 16:40:13 GMT -5
ACORN is not the only group eligible to receive funds, thus they won't be receiving 4 to 5 billion dollars. Further, if one reads the legislation (specifically pages 249-252), the Neighborhood Stabilization Program deals specifically with redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes. Specifically, the section calls out that funding from the program, "shall be available only for the redevelopment of demolished or vacant properties as housing." Media Matters also reported that ACORN will not be receiving billions of dollars: mediamatters.org/items/200901270010?f=h_latestIf anything, they will compete in a bidding process to provide assistance to individuals with foreclosed homes.
|
|
|
Post by tetherednchained on Feb 3, 2009 19:36:05 GMT -5
We will see what they end up getting eventually. It will come out.
|
|
|
Post by Dance Away on Mar 11, 2009 20:46:31 GMT -5
Eventually, everything comes out ...which brings me to the thought ..."WTF was Bernie Madoff thinking?!!"
|
|
|
Post by tetherednchained on Mar 20, 2009 18:31:51 GMT -5
Analysis: Who knew what about AIG, and when?By Steve Turnham and Kathleen Johnston CNN(CNN) -- President Obama said he was "stunned" to learn that $165 million in so-called retention payments were going to AIG executives blamed for the company's collapse. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner told CNN's Ali Velshi that he was "informed by my staff of the full scale of these specific things on Tuesday, March 10th." Geithner added, "as soon as I heard about the full scale of these things, we moved very actively and explored every possible avenue, legal avenue, to address this problem." That makes it sound as if the retention payments were a big nasty surprise. In fact, the payments were hardly a big secret. AIG's own corporate filings spelled them out clearly. The company's March 2 10K form, a public document that updates investors on the firm's financial health, details $492 million in retention payments for "key employees," and it clearly admits that some of the money was going to AIG's Financial Products division and that the payments had been on the books for at least nine months. Here's the excerpt for AIG's 10K: "This amount also includes awards to AIGFP's employees under its retention program, which was established in the first quarter of 2008 due to the declining market environment, to manage and unwind its complex business." As the company's single largest stockholder, you might think the government would know exactly what AIG was obligated to pay its executives. After all, all Treasury officials had to do was turn on the TV. Here's CNN's Joe Johns' report from December 11, filed four months before Geithner says he became aware of the magnitude of the problem: "A Wall Street riddle: When is a bonus not a bonus at all? Answer: When it's something called a retention payment. Insurance giant AIG, which just helped itself to a $150 billion bailout from the government, promised not to pay bonuses to its top 60 executives because taxpayer money is on the line. But then the company turned around and offered 168 of its top people huge payouts if they promise to stick around for a year." And here's CNN's Mary Snow, in a report filed at the end of January: advertisement "American International Group is paying bonuses to its Financial Products Unit. That same unit racked up huge losses. A source familiar with the matter puts the figure at $450 million. The company isn't saying exactly how the money will be paid out, but if evenly distributed, it would average roughly $1 million per employee." Numerous print publications, including in New York and Washington, also reported on the retention payments long before Geithner says he became aware of the scale of the problem. www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/20/aig.bonuses/index.html
|
|
|
Post by tetherednchained on Mar 20, 2009 18:47:09 GMT -5
Paul: Stimulus uproar is Congress' fault
(CNN) -- U.S. Rep. Ron Paul was interviewed on CNN's "American Morning" on Friday. Paul, R-Texas, offered his thoughts on the AIG outrage, the stimulus bill and Congress' actions to boost the economy. KIRAN CHETRY: So why did no one else see this coming? Congressman Ron Paul says it's because no one's reading these bills. And he joins us live with more on this right now. Thanks for being with us this morning. So this whole ... REP RON PAUL: Thank you. CHETRY: ... AIG debacle, congressman, what do you think? What do you think about why it happened? PAUL: Well, it happened because we did something that was outrageous. These bonuses are outrageous -- $165 million is a lot of money -- but so is $700 billion of unconstitutional appropriations. That's where the problem came from. So yes, people are concentrating on these bonuses right now, but they're missing the point. The point is that we shouldn't be in the business of bailing out all these companies. And we don't even know where the rest of the money went. We just discovered -- probably inadvertently -- that there were bonuses. Now everybody is outraged -- which they should be -- so what do they do? They passed $700 billion worth of unconstitutional appropriations; then they come in and they discover this. The public gets notice of it, so the Congress has to act and feel outraged. So they pass a bill which is an ex post facto bill as well as a bill of attainder, which is unconstitutional, so they're using the tax code to punish people. So they do one harm -- one thing wrong -- they create a problem an unintended consequence; then they go back, and they will solve the problem by more of the same. CHETRY: Right. Well, you ... PAUL: That's essentially what we're doing with our economy. CHETRY: Right. Well, you voted no on this bonus tax legislation. You agree that the bonuses were outrageous, but you also called this bill that was quickly put together because of all the outrage, a disgrace. What were you saying to your fellow congressmen and -women about what was going on? PAUL: Because they -- in Congress, they panic. They react minute-to-minute, whether it's passing the Patriot Act or doing all these things. They react in emotional ways. So when the banking crisis hit, instead of dealing with over the last decade, which I've been begging and pleading for them to do, they wait, and oh, there's a financial crisis. Oh, it came from too much spending, too much taxes and too much printing of money. So what do they do? They spend more. They blindly appropriate this money, and I just think the whole process is outrageous. And we're on the verge of a major crisis. We're in the middle of it, and it will get a lot worse. You know, the day we did this -- on Thursday -- was the day after the Federal Reserve announced, Oh, OK, we're going to buy another $1.25 trillion worth of government debt and mortgage debt, and the dollar goes down 3 percent, and the next morning it goes down 1.5 percent, and we're talking about these bonuses, about passing an unconstitutional law in a way to punish people. So they compile their mistakes, and they avoid looking at the real problem. And even in my statement on the floor, I said, what we ought to be talking about is, why don't we find out from the Fed what they're doing with these trillions of dollars? But we're not even allowed to ask them questions. The Fed doesn't have to answer any questions... CHETRY: Right. PAUL: ... about where their money goes. So, we're missing the point. CHETRY: Yes. PAUL: We're missing the target. I'm glad we're talking about the bonuses, but it's so distracting. CHETRY: No, you're right. This is -- Something that we've been talking about here on CNN this morning as well is that, you know, all of this hemming and hawing back and forth over this stimulus, which, I mean, over these bonuses -- which is a lot of money; I mean, $165 million -- but then, on the same day, the Treasury just floods the market with $1 trillion. But this is what you said last time you were on the show. This was from January. You were really looking into your crystal ball here. Let's take a look. PAUL: There were five copies available to the House and I think five to the Senate. And that wasn't available until the House opened at noontime. So no, essentially, it was not available to us. And who could stay up all night and read 1,000 pages? So, obviously, it was done like business as usual. Things have been going on like this for a long time. But this one was a little bit worse, and it was bigger than usual, so it was not a very good day for America. CHETRY: You actually said that on February 16, talking about the stimulus bill. Is what we're experiencing right now in this AIG bonus fiasco just being a small my microcosm of that? What happens when our elected officials aren't able to read this legislation? PAUL: Yes, it is. And that's why we're responsible. You know, there's a lot of blame to go around. Even the American people have some blame for allowing their members of Congress to do what they do. But Congress is supposed to be protecting the purse. And the president did sign these bills -- rather, the last president and this current president. They're very much involved in what's going on. But ultimately, Congress should assume responsibility. This is what's happened over the many, many decades that we have transferred the responsibility of the Congress into the executive branch. The executive branch writes laws, and the courts rule, and Congress has reneged so much on their responsibility. And now, all we know what to do is spend money. We don't say how it should be spent, and then we allow the Federal Reserve to print money. We can't audit the Federal Reserve. And so it's the Congress' fault. If Congress would wake up, we could rein in a lot of this. So to me, it was very annoying to concentrate on doing what we were doing on Thursday and pretending we were going to improve things. This is just a gross distraction from the important issues that we should be dealing with. CHETRY: Congressman Ron Paul, always great to get your point of view. Thanks for being with us this morning. PAUL: Thank you. www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/20/ron.paul.stimulus.transcript/index.html
My God! Is there any way to take our government back?
|
|
|
Post by tetherednchained on Apr 9, 2009 17:15:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tetherednchained on Aug 17, 2009 23:11:17 GMT -5
Not sure why it was taken down on the site I posted above. Here it is again (this is now old news): Obama Moves To Legalize Warrantless Wiretapping -Big Brother is Watching!www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYWHyw3NyBUWhat is the latest story on this? Has it changed? Did he go back to hating the warrantless wiretapping? Or not? I find it starnge that there has been very little NO conversation here about President Obama.
|
|