blah blah blah

We tried to tell them, but they were like, "Everything we know will disappear unless we bail our wall street. The administration isn't lying to us THIS time."

Ho hum.

Because the executive branch writes bills and the legislative branch signs 'em into law?

The govt farks up every thing it ever touches. Why the hell would this be any different?

I intend to vote for people who voted against this debacle, and I'll vote for the opponent of anyone who voted for it.

/mad as hell
//not going to take it anymore

Yeah, I wrote my congresscritter. He didn't give a flying rat's ass. And I can't even have the satisfaction of voting him out, as he's done anyway.

/feeling politically impotent sucks.

Patriot Act - Administration: "Pass this blank law, we'll fill it in later."
Congress: "ZOMG TERRORISTS PASS THE LAW!"

Bailout - Administration: "Pass this blank law, we'll fill it in later."
Congress: "ZOMG MELTDOWN (and pork) PASS THE LAW!"

I predict the trifecta will end,
Congress: "ZOMG ASTEROIDS PASS THE LAW!"

Sliding Carp: Patriot Act - Administration: "Pass this blank law, we'll fill it in later."
Congress: "ZOMG TERRORISTS PASS THE LAW!"

Bailout - Administration: "Pass this blank law, we'll fill it in later."
Congress: "ZOMG MELTDOWN (and pork) PASS THE LAW!"

I predict the trifecta will end,
Congress: "ZOMG ASTEROIDS PASS THE LAW!"

Don't forget the telcom immunity

My congresscritter who voted against, twice? Voted for.
My congresscritter who voted against, then for? Voted against.

Take notes, people.

I'm voting against all incumbents this election.

I ask that each of you do the same. Let those farking coonts know that their bullshiat won't be tolerated.

i would have posted sooner, but i was too busy picking my jaw up off the floor.

And both major-party candidates have been totally complicit in all of this. That's Country First We Can Believe In!

No. The problem is Henry Paulson and the Bush administration. They keep trying to hold true to their philosophy while doing this bailout.

1. Stock options were where the world was heading to begin with, and we knew this. Paulson didn't want to do it because he thought socialism was evil.

2. Paulson doesn't want to put restrictions on the capital infusion because he feels it will be too much government interference.

Bush/Cheney, and everyone involved in this administration should be executed for treason.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. questioned allowing banks that accept bailout bucks to continue paying dividends on their common stock.

As a taxpayer who also owns a nice chunk of bank stock, I have mixed feelings about this.

Just kidding: vote all incumbents out, and keep doing so.

/Said that last three or four elections, and nobody listened.

Maybe if any of them farking READ THE BILL before they voted on it. Is it too much too ask for them to rise above malfeasance?

nashBridges: sloppy shoes: No. The problem is Henry Paulson and the Bush administration. They keep trying to hold true to their philosophy while doing this bailout.

1. Stock options were where the world was heading to begin with, and we knew this. Paulson didn't want to do it because he thought socialism was evil.

2. Paulson doesn't want to put restrictions on the capital infusion because he feels it will be too much government interference.

Bush/Cheney, and everyone involved in this administration should be executed for treason.

Mr. Madison sloppy shoes, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Well the treason thing was over the top sure, but the other two points are correct. The 2nd point is validated in the article, though for a different reason, because Kashkari thinks the banks won't participate if we put restrictions on the stock infusion.

Honestly, on a scale of 1-10, how close have we come here to the complete and utter death of the American experiment?

Occam's Chainsaw: Honestly, on a scale of 1-10, how close have we come here to the complete and utter death of the American experiment?

Do you mean during Bush's presidency and his attempt to corrupt the government, or this economic recession?

It's 5/10 for the first, 1/10 for the second.

What a surprise. It was a fake number(p) based on nothing to begin with.

came for the orly pics, and life is good.

Obdicut: Do you mean during Bush's presidency and his attempt to corrupt the government, or this economic recession?

It's 5/10 for the first, 1/10 for the second.

Yeah, I kinda meant the last decade as an aggregate.

nashBridges: You're still posting, aren't you?

Your ego, my ego, and everyone else's will continue the American experiment. That you question it just means you don't realize how it benefits you.

It's OK. Stupid people can claim a benefit. That's the beauty of it all.

I only question the death of the embodiment, not the death of the ideal. I realize that it'll be damn hard to completely eradicate the concept of the right of self-governance from the minds of the populace. On a long enough timeline, the dissolution of the republic is a given. I'm asking others just how close we came to that moment, as it's hard to gain perspective on such things when you're still neck-deep in them.

"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."

They have altered the deal, pray they don't alter it further.

OMFG they "tricked" you guys again?

Yeah right.

This is just another instance of neo-liberalism and the makeshift solutions that fall incident to its systemic failure creating subsequent failures. Apparently it's not enough for people that any sort of empirical survey worth a damn could tell you neo-liberalism (e.g. free market fundamentalism) obliterates economies from within but I guess we have to make nice and pretend it's good times while we leverage future generations to give the socio-economic elite a chance to cut and run.

I don't even want to read these articles. The headlines alone give me headaches. The whole cockup physically sickens me.

It's just this gigantic shiat cake of greed and malfeasance, frosted with 57 varieties of utter and complete lies about who's at fault.

/minority frosting, anyone?
//how about Pelosi-flavor?

torch: Maybe if any of them farking READ THE BILL before they voted on it. Is it too much too ask for them to rise above malfeasance?

400 pages of legalese? I read really fast. I knocked off a 400-page novel today. That bill would take me a loooong time.

Look: Bush and his coterie of free-market fundamentalists WANT TO BANKRUPT THE GOVERNMENT. They WANT huge unpayable debts. It doesn't matter what happens to the American people. Socialized risk, privatized profits, is just not a strong enough phrase.

Occam's Chainsaw: I'm asking others just how close we came to that moment, as it's hard to gain perspective on such things when you're still neck-deep in them.

You just have to look at the state of accountablility.

Are some people above the law?
If no go to A, if yes go to B.
A. Everything is fine tune back in to American Idle.
B. Revolution!

sloppy shoes: Bush/Cheney, and everyone involved in this administration should be executed for treason.

Someone in a local race put that in a commercial, as a reason not to vote for a candidate (because they "supported" the idea).

As days go by, quite honestly, I would rather vote FOR someone who felt that way.

i has an internet: neo-liberalism (e.g. free market fundamentalism)

Wasn't it the conservatives who think liberals "suck" the ones pushing for a free market? Are you saying the conservatives were actually liberals? I'm confused.

They lied? Really? No way!

What Bush "SOLD" to Congress? I don't remember Bush selling $110 BILLION in pork spending. Bush sent them a 7 page law, and the one they finally signed was over 400 pages. fark those guys.

If we didn't vote for this we would have to eat our first born, left nut and right eye
/sarcasm

IndyGemini: What Bush "SOLD" to Congress? I don't remember Bush selling $110 BILLION in pork spending. Bush sent them a 7 page law, and the one they finally signed was over 400 pages. fark those guys.

They shoulda known. Bush says "A", the truth = "not A".

Occam's Chainsaw: My congresscritter who voted against, twice? Voted for.
My congresscritter who voted against, then for? Voted against.

Take notes, people.

I carefully voted against my incumbents.
/cuz fark 'em

puffy999: sloppy shoes: Bush/Cheney, and everyone involved in this administration should be executed for treason.

Someone in a local race put that in a commercial, as a reason not to vote for a candidate (because they "supported" the idea).

As days go by, quite honestly, I would rather vote FOR someone who felt that way.

I don't know about Bush, but there may actually be crimes Cheney committed. (Don't know about treason though).

The biggest thing I have, (and this is coming from NPR), is that insiders and Economists keep saying that they want to stick to their philosophy. Paulson, I guess, seems to be afraid that his economic world view was incorrect. Quite possibly, they see this as the end of their economic policies if they don't fix it in a psuedo-way with their own strategies. I think that is why he is so hesitant to do policies that seem like "socialism."

I guess Paulson's original plan was to create a new type of complex security that would have re-bundled the frozen assets according to one guy on NPR. (This was before he went to the government).

Oh gee, Congress is supposed to act as a Check and Balance on the Executive?

That's just crazy talk.

If Congress hasn't learned by now not to trust a goddamn thing coming from the White House, well, there isn't much hope for them. If a press release came from the Oval Office stating that the Sun will rise in the East tomorrow morning, I would double and triple check just to be sure.

i has an internet: OMFG they "tricked" you guys again?

Yeah right.

This is just another instance of neo-liberalism and the makeshift solutions that fall incident to its systemic failure creating subsequent failures. Apparently it's not enough for people that any sort of empirical survey worth a damn could tell you neo-liberalism (e.g. free market fundamentalism) obliterates economies from within but I guess we have to make nice and pretend it's good times while we leverage future generations to give the socio-economic elite a chance to cut and run.

Wow, all those big words must mean you're right!

I miss the days when we argued the difference between athiest and agnostic and not this depressing shiat that actually affects our lives.

rka: If a press release came from the Oval Office stating that the Sun will rise in the East tomorrow morning, I would double and triple check just to be sure.

If that happend i would wonder how they found a competent scientific adviser for a change.

Wait. I was told rates were coont in the bush years.

I remember hearing proposals before that the bailout money be used instead to directly buy out the individual mortages that were not paid off. As much as I was and still somewhat am against that idea for bailing out people who bought houses they couldn't afford, at least that money would actually make sure the cogs of the economy kept moving.

The mortages would get paid, people would keep their homes.

The banks would have money to lend out because the MBS and Credit Default Swaps they held would no longer be considered toxic paper.

Throw in a transparency that is currently lacking in that market, bring back old regulations that were stripped by that douchebag Phil Gramm back in '99 and you have yourself an economic fix. Yah it rewards the lack of responsibility, but we are doing that anyway and the credit crunch will still exist because these banks that got the money have gone ridiculously corrupt.

I have a degree in economics (not that its helped or helping me right now lol), but it really sounds like we, as a nation, are in serious serious trouble. Its basically a downward economic spiral that'll get worse if people are aware of it (like a self fulfilling prophecy). The major difference this time is that we're basically bankrupt from the top (the companies that are the backbone of our economy) and from the bottom (the consumers). People can debate whos to blame and who fled with other people's money, but it doesnt change the problem. Bottom line, theres a big hole of wealth that will not be returning to the system anytime soon.

Everything that I was taught tells me that in this environment keynesian economics should take over. Its kind of like what we've had for the last 8 years but in reverse. NOW our country's wealth needs to grow from the bottom up, not the top bottom. This requires goverment investment in infrastructure with what wealth we have left. That creates job, stimulates production and spending. Its effect keeps getting multiplied more and more up the chain. Its called the "multiplier effect". This infrastructure investment has the added benefit of possibly creating new booms in previously under-funded sectors/industries.

The candidate that most resembles this ideology is the democratic one. Not to sound like a cheerleader, but I think he understands this since he mentions immediate investment in infrastructure (needed for this to work), and he talks about a new green energy sector (a potential source of wealth if theres a boom in it). The republican candidate also talks about energy, but does not focus on the actual new immediate investments needed for the multiplier to thrive. It may sound crazy but we need to spend alot of money WISELY in the short term in order to make grand amounts of money in the long run. I dont believe senator John Mccain's spending freeze is a good idea in this environment. It could however help reign in government by stopping some far reaching agencies. This is something that the republican party desires but is not really helpful in our current economic situation.

For some republicans to call the democratic presidential candidate (Obama) socialist isnt really accurate. He sounds more like a keynesian to me.

I think people need to put political party aside and really focus on what these candidates' plans are. Only after that should one make a selection. Its that important. This 2008 election is really make or break for us as a nation. We could lose our standing in the world as a hegemon. Once we lose that, it all comes crashing down regardless of how much money we have. It comes crashing down because we would have lost that psychological thing that we have on other nation's people (not their leaders). They look up to us, admire us, fear us, respect us etc. It is what prevents alot of leaders from attacking our interests. They fear the backlash in their own country. They would also fear our ability to retaliate of course. Its what helps us (aside from our wealth)to have our standing in the world and dictate policy.

Just something to keep in mind when somebody says theyre not voting for a "black muslim socialist", a "gaffe machine", an "alaskan mouth breather" or a "wannabe maverick". You dont have to be the same way too!!! but you SHOULD VOTE INTELLIGENTLY. This is Fark where anything goes, but just dont forget whats going on lol.

Oh and anyone who is suprised that something Bush sold to congress is not what it seems needs to read 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf' minus the ending.

InferiousX: Oh and anyone who is suprised that something Bush sold to congress is not what it seems needs to read 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf' minus the ending.

How would you know when to stop before you got to the end?

Magruda: InferiousX: Oh and anyone who is suprised that something Bush sold to congress is not what it seems needs to read 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf' minus the ending.

How would you know when to stop before you got to the end?


You don't, Executive privilege. Make up your own ending.

CynicalLA: You don't, Executive privilege. Make up your own ending.

But if you don't know when it's going to end, how do you know when to stop? This could be a mind fark if you tried to apply it to the movie "Return of the King".