RE: Obama Criticizes ‘Fat-Cat Bankers'

RE: Obama Criticizes ‘Fat-Cat Bankers' (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Obama Criticizes ‘Fat-Cat Bankers' (12/16/2009 2:58:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead That said, if 100 banks had gone down the toilet, it would have discomfitted an awful lot of people. You know, homes seized even if their mortgage payments were up to date, life savings wiped out because they chose the wrong bank to open an account with, like that. Surely you remember all the arguments about imminent financial meltdown and the complete collapse of western capitalism that were being bandied about to get Bush's relief package forced through at the end of last year? Do those suddenly no longer apply because there's a Kenyan marxist in the White House? Too bad thats not what happens when banks are dissolved. And if you recall the events at the end of the Bush administration the House bailout meetings were led by the Dems to the point of excluding the GOP. Defeat was snatched from the jaws of victory via Pelosi's moronic partisan speech that pissed off enough people to vote against it. Failure to pass a bill on 9/29 led to the biggest Dow drop ever. The Senate then sweetened the bill with a ton of pork, and passed with more GOP dissenters than Dems. This was a bipartisan fuck up in the waning months of a lame duck President. To characterize it as something spearheaded by Republicans, and especially something that conservatives supported, is rewriting history.

mnottertail -> RE: Obama Criticizes ‘Fat-Cat Bankers' (12/16/2009 3:08:35 PM)
This was a bipartisan fuck up in the waning months of a lame duck President. To characterize it as something spearheaded by Republicans, and especially something that conservatives supported, is rewriting history. unless there were and are no conservatives on the planet, it was supported enough by enough conservatives that it passed.

rulemylife -> RE: Obama Criticizes ‘Fat-Cat Bankers' (12/17/2009 1:33:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Nobody I know was happy with Bush's deficits, so I can't help but wonder who you're referring to. Still, Obama is making both Bush and McCain look very fiscally Conservative by comparison, and that is enough to keep a lot of responsible adults the world over awake at night due to very reasonable worry. These deficits are horrendous and the end result if things keep going in this direction may well be serious calamity for the entire world. quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead What, like Bush was doing at the end of last year? Never understood why stuff that's fine when your party's scapegoat is doing it suddenly becomes hideous evil as soon as somebody from the other party wins an election. I get the impression that most of the people who are whining about what Obama's been up to since January would be coming in their panties if McCain had been doing it instead. I believe he is referring to your notable silence while Bush was racking up those deficits as opposed to your newly found outrage. Or did you just realize how far in debt this country has become since Reagan starting piling up record deficit budgets? But hey, nothing to worry about: Dick Cheney on Budget & Economy Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was told "deficits don't matter" when he warned of a looming fiscal crisis. O'Neill, fired in a shakeup of Bush's economic team in December 2002, raised objections to a new round of tax cuts and said the president balked at his more aggressive plan to combat corporate crime after a string of accounting scandals because of opposition from "the corporate crowd," a key constituency. O'Neill said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: "We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due." A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired.

Sanity -> RE: Obama Criticizes ‘Fat-Cat Bankers' (12/17/2009 4:11:32 AM)
You don't know what you're talking about, you haven't a clue - because I wasn't silent about Bush's deficits. Reagan's deficits, his Star Wars spending saved us trillions in the end by bankrupting the Soviets. His efforts brought down the Berlin Wall and lead to the peace dividend that Bill Clinton enjoyed. You know whats perverse, the way you Liberals screamed about Bush's spending and you now point to it as an excuse for Obama spending exponentially more, even applaud him spending exponentially more. Didn't YOU complain about Bush's spending? What are you saying NOW about Obama's. quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife I believe he is referring to your notable silence while Bush was racking up those deficits as opposed to your newly found outrage. Or did you just realize how far in debt this country has become since Reagan starting piling up record deficit budgets? But hey, nothing to worry about: Dick Cheney on Budget & Economy Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was told "deficits don't matter" when he warned of a looming fiscal crisis. O'Neill, fired in a shakeup of Bush's economic team in December 2002, raised objections to a new round of tax cuts and said the president balked at his more aggressive plan to combat corporate crime after a string of accounting scandals because of opposition from "the corporate crowd," a key constituency. O'Neill said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: "We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due." A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired.

housesub4you -> RE: Obama Criticizes ‘Fat-Cat Bankers' (12/17/2009 4:24:20 AM)
Reagan........ isn't he the President whose staff has the most felony charges and convictions then any other president in our history?

Sanity -> RE: Obama Criticizes ‘Fat-Cat Bankers' (12/17/2009 4:28:35 AM)
Reagan's the one who was more popular than any other recent president. I think Washington may have been more popular, but thats about it.

housesub4you -> RE: Obama Criticizes ‘Fat-Cat Bankers' (12/17/2009 4:32:50 AM)
That does not mean anything, his staff was corrupt, and who couldn't be popular after Carter

Sanity -> RE: Obama Criticizes ‘Fat-Cat Bankers' (12/17/2009 4:34:58 AM)
Obama's the one you're thinking of. Its as if its a prerequisite to be a tax cheat or some other fat cat thieving lobbyist of some kind to get into Obama's inner circle. quote: ORIGINAL: housesub4you That does not mean anything, his staff was corrupt, and who couldn't be popular after Carter

housesub4you -> RE: Obama Criticizes ‘Fat-Cat Bankers' (12/17/2009 4:41:24 AM)
No the facts are the facts even if you choose to deny them. It's Reagan, with the most felony convictions of his staff than any other President Who has a felony conviction on O'bama's staff????

housesub4you -> RE: Obama Criticizes ‘Fat-Cat Bankers' (12/17/2009 4:45:20 AM)
Actually there is a bill to reinstate the firewall and it is being introduced by McCain http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/16/mccain-gramm-repeal/

DarkSteven -> RE: Obama Criticizes ‘Fat-Cat Bankers' (12/17/2009 6:51:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: housesub4you Actually there is a bill to reinstate the firewall and it is being introduced by McCain http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/16/mccain-gramm-repeal/ YAY!!!!

NorthernGent -> RE: Obama Criticizes ‘Fat-Cat Bankers' (12/18/2009 12:32:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 NG, welcome back. Cheers Popeye. quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 In the U.S. "the govt." doesn't have any money. It's "The People's money." Those banks are owned by their stockholders. Why would the govt. want to give them our money instead of letting them sink or swim like they're supposed to do in "capitalism?" If 100 banks were to fail there'd be 100 new banks right behind them to fill the void.It smacks of favoritism and insiderism and cronyism. It's not so difficult to understand. The banks make money.....lots of it......the government and by extension the 'people' like money.....so they get into bed with the people who make money......and so when the when the whole thing descends into chaos the people who make money and the people who like money help one another out. Never mind the constitution.......all countries I know of have a constitution and a bill of rights.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.100586E-02