And you think Palin was bad

[captain.crazy]

That's what I was saying. I may not agree to everything Obama has done to "fix" said problem, but at least he understood there was one, where McCain didn't. I think doing something, even not so great things in this situation is better than doing nothing and having all the banks fail. Yes, the way that we have to bail them out sucks, but how else is there to solve this problem? What would happen if we just ignored it, really? (Not being an economics major, I don't know the answer to this question)

And as for Obama himself, no he's not the great leader who came to pull us out of our misery like he said he was. Maybe he'll try. But I don't think he's horrible.
I don't agree with him in everything, but I would rather have him for 4 years (we'll see after that) than someone I know will go against nearly all my values. All, or some. Better of two evils. And you won't know how things are going to trun out until they do, so... I'm just hanging tight with my complete judgement of him until the end of term.

Sorry to so blatantly differ with you, but the idea in American business is that if you fail, you fail. Only 7% of the banking corporations were at risk. The better thing to have done would have been to let those banks suffer for their criminal activity, not push the cost of it onto the American people, in an effort to prop up failure companies. We should not have propped up failures.

Obama is a fraud. If you want to talk about someone that had ZERO details about his policy proposals durring his campaign, there is your guy, right there.

[thegreekdog]

The problem comes when one looks at what banks and other companies and unions were "propped up" and compare to the campaign contribution list. This comparison makes me wonder whether the best interest of the American people was really what drove the bailouts.

[lilacfrostyness]

That's what I was saying. I may not agree to everything Obama has done to "fix" said problem, but at least he understood there was one, where McCain didn't. I think doing something, even not so great things in this situation is better than doing nothing and having all the banks fail. Yes, the way that we have to bail them out sucks, but how else is there to solve this problem? What would happen if we just ignored it, really? (Not being an economics major, I don't know the answer to this question)

And as for Obama himself, no he's not the great leader who came to pull us out of our misery like he said he was. Maybe he'll try. But I don't think he's horrible.
I don't agree with him in everything, but I would rather have him for 4 years (we'll see after that) than someone I know will go against nearly all my values. All, or some. Better of two evils. And you won't know how things are going to trun out until they do, so... I'm just hanging tight with my complete judgement of him until the end of term.

Sorry to so blatantly differ with you, but the idea in American business is that if you fail, you fail. Only 7% of the banking corporations were at risk. The better thing to have done would have been to let those banks suffer for their criminal activity, not push the cost of it onto the American people, in an effort to prop up failure companies. We should not have propped up failures.

Obama is a fraud. If you want to talk about someone that had ZERO details about his policy proposals durring his campaign, there is your guy, right there.

Like I said, I didn't know what would happen if the banks went under.
But what would happen to the people who had money in the bank then? Loans and all those things too. I don't really like big banks, but I understand their importance in a capitalist country.
I agree that we should not have done exactly what we did. I'm sure there was a better way that wouldn't be rewarding them for their wrong-doing, and giving CEO's billions.

[lilacfrostyness]

The problem comes when one looks at what banks and other companies and unions were "propped up" and compare to the campaign contribution list. This comparison makes me wonder whether the best interest of the American people was really what drove the bailouts.

Do you have numbers for that?
it would interest me....

[thegreekdog]

Here's one with AIG - http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7110145&page=1

ABC News is reputable (presumably). The following links are from organizations I know nothing about:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contr ... =N00009638

http://www.campaignmoney.com/biography/ ... p?cycle=08

[captain.crazy]

Like I said, I didn't know what would happen if the banks went under.
But what would happen to the people who had money in the bank then? Loans and all those things too. I don't really like big banks, but I understand their importance in a capitalist country.
I agree that we should not have done exactly what we did. I'm sure there was a better way that wouldn't be rewarding them for their wrong-doing, and giving CEO's billions.

yeah, the better thing would have been to let those banks go bankrupt. Bad debt would have been sold for pennies on the dollar, to collection or resellers, while the good debt could have been sold at a premium. The criminal / failures could have been washed out of the system and made examples of (like Bernie Madoff) and the economy could have been put back on track much sooner than by propping up corporate cronieism, jacking the national debt to the offshore bankers (federal reserve) and placing government bureaucracy into the workings of every business nation wide.

[Night Strike]

The problem comes when one looks at what banks and other companies and unions were "propped up" and compare to the campaign contribution list. This comparison makes me wonder whether the best interest of the American people was really what drove the bailouts.

Yep, like the Hawaiian bank that had been denied bailout funds but suddenly got $135 million (I think that was the number) after one of their senators made a phone call. Of course, that senator reportedly has 2/3 of his assets with the bank.

[thegreekdog]

Here are two other CNN sites that are interesting:

http://money.cnn.com/news/storysuppleme ... uttracker/

http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/stor ... nkbailout/

Lest you think I'm partisan, if you compare the two lists above with campaign contributions, you'll notice that Republicans and Democrats tended to get somewhat equal campaign contributions from each of these entities.

I don't know if having no bailout would have been beneficial for the economy. What I do know is that the bailout has been beneficial for the boards of directors, employees, and stockholders of the companies that have been bailed out. I also know that I am not a member of those three groups of people.

[lilacfrostyness]

Here are two other CNN sites that are interesting:

http://money.cnn.com/news/storysuppleme ... uttracker/

http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/stor ... nkbailout/

Lest you think I'm partisan, if you compare the two lists above with campaign contributions, you'll notice that Republicans and Democrats tended to get somewhat equal campaign contributions from each of these entities.

I don't know if having no bailout would have been beneficial for the economy. What I do know is that the bailout has been beneficial for the boards of directors, employees, and stockholders of the companies that have been bailed out. I also know that I am not a member of those three groups of people.

I'm sure there are many people that have thought of other options, besides no/all bailout money. My dad had an idea (of couse I can't remember it now). I just don't get why no one seemed to explore any options. It seemed like bailing was the only thing we could do, and I want to know "why"/if that's true.

[captain.crazy]

Here are two other CNN sites that are interesting:

http://money.cnn.com/news/storysuppleme ... uttracker/

http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/stor ... nkbailout/

Lest you think I'm partisan, if you compare the two lists above with campaign contributions, you'll notice that Republicans and Democrats tended to get somewhat equal campaign contributions from each of these entities.

I don't know if having no bailout would have been beneficial for the economy. What I do know is that the bailout has been beneficial for the boards of directors, employees, and stockholders of the companies that have been bailed out. I also know that I am not a member of those three groups of people.

I'm sure there are many people that have thought of other options, besides no/all bailout money. My dad had an idea (of couse I can't remember it now). I just don't get why no one seemed to explore any options. It seemed like bailing was the only thing we could do, and I want to know "why"/if that's true.

It was nothing more than a scam and a power grab by the federal reserve. the edict was "don't read it, sign it into law ... there is no time to think, just act... "

You see, we are looking now at a global government. once all of the economies are in the toilet (and the little ralley we have had in the last few months is what they call a "fool's ralley" and it is about to bottom out) A global government will take shape to "help" everyone out. But it is only tyranny that we will be given.

[lilacfrostyness]

Here are two other CNN sites that are interesting:

http://money.cnn.com/news/storysuppleme ... uttracker/

http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/stor ... nkbailout/

Lest you think I'm partisan, if you compare the two lists above with campaign contributions, you'll notice that Republicans and Democrats tended to get somewhat equal campaign contributions from each of these entities.

I don't know if having no bailout would have been beneficial for the economy. What I do know is that the bailout has been beneficial for the boards of directors, employees, and stockholders of the companies that have been bailed out. I also know that I am not a member of those three groups of people.

I'm sure there are many people that have thought of other options, besides no/all bailout money. My dad had an idea (of couse I can't remember it now). I just don't get why no one seemed to explore any options. It seemed like bailing was the only thing we could do, and I want to know "why"/if that's true.

It was nothing more than a scam and a power grab by the federal reserve. the edict was "don't read it, sign it into law ... there is no time to think, just act... "

You see, we are looking now at a global government. once all of the economies are in the toilet (and the little ralley we have had in the last few months is what they call a "fool's ralley" and it is about to bottom out) A global government will take shape to "help" everyone out. But it is only tyranny that we will be given.

That may be, but I still don't thin Obama's this horrible monster some people are making him out to be. He's not the messiah he spoke like, but oh well. Who is. I don't think he's the new Mussolini, and I don't think he's doing much wrong on purpose. I don't agree with all he's doing, I'm not saying he can't do wrong, but I don't think he'll turn into an evil dictator.

Someone else could take advantage of our situation, and the world's, and try, sure. People are doing that all over the world. I just don't think it's happening right here right now.

[captain.crazy]

The fact that, though he was a constitutional lawyer, and he still is making such a massive and unconstitutional power grab is a startling clue into what it is that he really thinks about the constitution.

[Dancing Mustard]

what it is that he really thinks about the constitution.

To be fair though, it really is an outdated old load of tosh.

It'd be far more credible if you just replaced it with a new, clearer and better thought out version. Running your country on such an creaking pile of anachronistic rhetoric is a lot like competing in a Nascar race with a Model T Ford. It's just ridiculous.

I mean come on, it's got more amendments than original clauses! It used to protect slavery as a fundamental right! The whole thing is bananas and you'd be far better served by ripping it up and just starting again with a new and improved model.

[Woodruff]

The funny part about that statement is that it was Joe Biden who came out today and said the Obama administration "misread how bad the economy was" and didn't foresee unemployment levels nearing double digits. So, with the Obama administration being clueless by their own admission, you think McCain would have done "quite a bit worse." Interesting.

I found the story on FoxNews, but for the sake of you partisans who won't believe anything reported on Fox, here's a CNN link - CNN News Story

I'm not partisan, but I don't believe anything reported on Fox.

How about the wall street journal?

I don't believe I've ever actually read the Wall Street Journal (unless I was linked to it and didn't realize it).

Where I disagree: I think McCain/Palin could have done quite a bit worse. I don't agree with many of their ideas, and I don't think they understood that we were really going through something that was a problem.

The funny part about that statement is that it was Joe Biden who came out today and said the Obama administration "misread how bad the economy was" and didn't foresee unemployment levels nearing double digits. So, with the Obama administration being clueless by their own admission, you think McCain would have done "quite a bit worse." Interesting.

I found the story on FoxNews, but for the sake of you partisans who won't believe anything reported on Fox, here's a CNN link - CNN News Story

I'm not partisan, but I don't believe anything reported on Fox.

thats why the link to the CNN story. even though cnn has a copy of the story, is it false because fox has one too? How can you blindly believe an entire corporation is lying about everything when it can all be confirmed by outside sources you probably don't doubt for a second?

Uh...what? Are you capable of reading? Here...it's quoted up there...give it another try! Just for practice!

[Woodruff]

Sorry to so blatantly differ with you, but the idea in American business is that if you fail, you fail. Only 7% of the banking corporations were at risk. The better thing to have done would have been to let those banks suffer for their criminal activity, not push the cost of it onto the American people, in an effort to prop up failure companies. We should not have propped up failures.

I don't agree with this policy in regards to small businesses necessarily, but I definitely do agree with it as regards large businesses (and these banks certainly were).

[PLAYER57832]

So are we better off?
State unemployment, November 2008

Unemployment through May 09

Without copying the whole chart, the most interesting part is that some did not go down very much at all.

Overall... yep, Obamah has been in office just over 6 months, got a horrendous situation to deal with and has just barely managed to keep us from sinking into a complete hole. Bush, on the other hand, started with things going pretty darned well, but put us in 2 wars, oversaw an increase in income disparity (the difference between rich and poor) not seen since the turn of the century, and just generally sheparded us into a giant hole.

hmm... let's see... who do we blame? According to you OBAMA!

[PLAYER57832]

Sorry to so blatantly differ with you, but the idea in American business is that if you fail, you fail. Only 7% of the banking corporations were at risk. The better thing to have done would have been to let those banks suffer for their criminal activity, not push the cost of it onto the American people, in an effort to prop up failure companies. We should not have propped up failures.

I don't agree with this policy in regards to small businesses necessarily, but I definitely do agree with it as regards large businesses (and these banks certainly were).

I actually agree with you here, but the interesting part is that this plan was largely in place before Obama came into office.

[captain.crazy]

Sorry to so blatantly differ with you, but the idea in American business is that if you fail, you fail. Only 7% of the banking corporations were at risk. The better thing to have done would have been to let those banks suffer for their criminal activity, not push the cost of it onto the American people, in an effort to prop up failure companies. We should not have propped up failures.

I don't agree with this policy in regards to small businesses necessarily, but I definitely do agree with it as regards large businesses (and these banks certainly were).

I actually agree with you here, but the interesting part is that this plan was largely in place before Obama came into office.

If you look more closely, you will see that the bankers decide who the president will be. It was obvious that the banks, and the media wanted Obama. MSM never touched the issues of who Obama associated with. Its obvious that he is out to break this country down.

[PLAYER57832]

Sorry to so blatantly differ with you, but the idea in American business is that if you fail, you fail. Only 7% of the banking corporations were at risk. The better thing to have done would have been to let those banks suffer for their criminal activity, not push the cost of it onto the American people, in an effort to prop up failure companies. We should not have propped up failures.

I don't agree with this policy in regards to small businesses necessarily, but I definitely do agree with it as regards large businesses (and these banks certainly were).

I actually agree with you here, but the interesting part is that this plan was largely in place before Obama came into office.

If you look more closely, you will see that the bankers decide who the president will be. It was obvious that the banks, and the media wanted Obama. MSM never touched the issues of who Obama associated with. Its obvious that he is out to break this country down.

No! No! No! It was the illuminati, controlled by aliens.

[lilacfrostyness]

Sorry to so blatantly differ with you, but the idea in American business is that if you fail, you fail. Only 7% of the banking corporations were at risk. The better thing to have done would have been to let those banks suffer for their criminal activity, not push the cost of it onto the American people, in an effort to prop up failure companies. We should not have propped up failures.

I don't agree with this policy in regards to small businesses necessarily, but I definitely do agree with it as regards large businesses (and these banks certainly were).

I actually agree with you here, but the interesting part is that this plan was largely in place before Obama came into office.

If you look more closely, you will see that the bankers decide who the president will be. It was obvious that the banks, and the media wanted Obama. MSM never touched the issues of who Obama associated with. Its obvious that he is out to break this country down.

No! No! No! It was the illuminati, controlled by aliens.

In the primary, I agree, it's the banks. And the media, but I'm sure the banks are behind that somehow too.

In the election though, we're just picking between two. Two of their choices. Our choice, yet not. Some issues are different, some are not.

I still wish Hillary won.

[Woodruff]

If you look more closely, you will see that the bankers decide who the president will be. It was obvious that the banks, and the media wanted Obama. MSM never touched the issues of who Obama associated with. Its obvious that he is out to break this country down.

You're right, I never heard a single thing about, for instance, who Obama's minister at one time was. I also never heard a single thing about a radical who happened to be on a committee (or something, I don't remember the specifics because I never heard a single thing about it) that Obama also served on.

Not a single thing.

[AAFitz]

are you suggesting that obama lost all those people their jobs, and it was not a result of the economy crashing, and being in a state of freefall when he took over?

[captain.crazy]

are you suggesting that obama lost all those people their jobs, and it was not a result of the economy crashing, and being in a state of freefall when he took over?

What I am suggesting is that he and Bush were all on the same page about serving their bankster masters when they bailed them uot and cranked up this massive stimulus. its all been orchestrated to put into place a global dictatorship, where we all eat foods that are genetically modified, live in a constant police state, in a constant cloud of God knows what, as it rains down from the chem trailing air craft. Its pretty sad how blind the masses are.

[PLAYER57832]

are you suggesting that obama lost all those people their jobs, and it was not a result of the economy crashing, and being in a state of freefall when he took over?

What I am suggesting is that he and Bush were all on the same page about serving their bankster masters when they bailed them uot and cranked up this massive stimulus. its all been orchestrated to put into place a global dictatorship, where we all eat foods that are genetically modified, live in a constant police state, in a constant cloud of God knows what, as it rains down from the chem trailing air craft. Its pretty sad how blind the masses are.

The genetically modified foods, yes, though its hardly a secret conspiracy. Monsanto, etc have all been quite open about it. Folks were rather taken aback that there was some objection.

As to the rest ... spend your energy on "plain, ordinary" pollution and you will find the culprit. No conspiracy needed. Just people buying products and not worrying about how they are made or what happens when they are used.

[captain.crazy]

are you suggesting that obama lost all those people their jobs, and it was not a result of the economy crashing, and being in a state of freefall when he took over?

What I am suggesting is that he and Bush were all on the same page about serving their bankster masters when they bailed them uot and cranked up this massive stimulus. its all been orchestrated to put into place a global dictatorship, where we all eat foods that are genetically modified, live in a constant police state, in a constant cloud of God knows what, as it rains down from the chem trailing air craft. Its pretty sad how blind the masses are.

The genetically modified foods, yes, though its hardly a secret conspiracy. Monsanto, etc have all been quite open about it. Folks were rather taken aback that there was some objection.

As to the rest ... spend your energy on "plain, ordinary" pollution and you will find the culprit. No conspiracy needed. Just people buying products and not worrying about how they are made or what happens when they are used.

Sure... and even as I was standing out in front of my house today, I could see three jets in the sky... one had contrails, leaving a trail that lasted about 2 or three miles, maybe, then dissapating, while the other, left a cloud that spanned the entire sky, all the way to the horizon. How hard is it to believe that our government is doing something up there? Just remember that it wasn't very long ago that forced sterilizations were being issued in our country, And when I say not long ago, I mean in the mid 70's...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNsAK7jS0WY

That was G.H. Bush... Son of Prescot Bush, known Nazi fund raiser.