Free money everywhere...from republicans??

Post Reply New Topic

Hey tech, there was just a piece on the news about how Obama has recieved about 15K-20K from Freddie and Fannie and associated people. But it also showed McCain has received 100+K from the same companies.

Nice try at smearing though.

Do any of you think that the bitterness about my treatment in CS,CO is showing though now?

Link please?

I doubt you grasp the seriousness of the situation that's caused your government to act like that, skafather84. They are trying to avert something that could possibly be as bad as the depression of the 30s -- not that they'll necessarily succeed, and even if they do it still ain't going to be a picnic.

Anyway, the bitterness that you, Orwell and other leftists obviously feel over shareholders not losing the shirts from their backs, can quickly be assuaged by viewing the shareprice of the companies in question, and comparing them with the price one year ago.

Slightly off, but point still stands. McCain has gotten more from Freddie and Fannie.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... d-freddie/

Now go back to your cave.

I'm not sure the fiat could be blamed directly for the recession so much as it is the abuse of the fiat system. Essentially using it as a means to create free money at will that isn't really free....which is something that distresses me about this whole thing. This is money that we don't have to spend but we're making it up. Other countries won't necessarily go along with that forever.

Yeah, I know that but someone has to be the one to say "No! Enough is enough!" I know I shouldn't be surprised since the Republicans in charge are corporatists first and conservatives second (or maybe third) but for a party that prides itself on financial conservatism, they're giving up a lot of free money to companies that have failed and can't be saved. Because think about it: these companies are a large portion of our GDP but, we're bailing them out with our money that's priced with our GDP; how does this not completely nuke the value of our money within the fiat system?

How do we have the money for these bail outs? When are they going to be paid back? Does the tax payer get any kind of credit on this since this isn't something that we've done wrong and yet we're the ones paying for it?

Sarbanes-Oxley came mostly as a result of Enron - it was an attempt to improve transparency and accountability, so that people knew what they were buying when it came to companies listed on the stock market. But it didn't cover all the new forms of securities. Here are the 11 titles of Sarbanes-Oxley:


1) Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB)
2) Auditor Independence
3) Corporate Responsibility
4) Enhanced Financial Disclosures
5) Analyst Conflicts of Interest
6) Commission Resources and Authority
7) Studies and Reports
Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability
9) White Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement
10) Corporate Tax Returns
11) Corporate Fraud Accountability

When it comes to an ordinary person who needs an operation to stay alive, the Republican response is:

"f**k you. Go to Hell. We can't afford to provide you with free medical care. I pray that you do not become Gay. Support our troops."

But, when it comes to filthy rich investment bankers who made some mistakes, then, of course, we can give them a trillion dollars on the spot, so that they don't have to give up their private jets.

President Bush always jumps into things without thinking things through all the way. Just like Iraq. He is rather vague on how he is going to pay for all of this. Are the Chinese ready to loan our government another trillion dollars right now? Of course he isn't going to raise taxes to pay for anything. That would be ungodly, unchristian, and unrepublican.

Of course, we're just bailing out Big Business because republicans have cronies on Wall Street.

Because if the American financial system crashes and burns, it, like, wouldn't do a damn thing to the world's economy.

Nope, just playing favorites.

[/sarcasm]

I don't think you understand that the government is only prolonging the inevitable. Not only that, but it's going to be worse and last longer than if the government had just let everything topple. Prepare for a worse depression than the 1930s...because thanks to the idiot government, we'll have inflation at the same time!!

This is again where I watch CNN, watch Ben Stein, Donald trump, a hand full of other well renowned economists - all disagree. The only thing I did catch that rung different is the fact that they're really starting to question the safety of short-selling; Britain put at least a temporary ban on it recently (think it was temporary) and short-sale markets seem to be where people can sink a financial institution by just the perception of losing confidence (ie. Lehman Brothers).

Some of these same economists say we'll get this back with interest - don't know how, don't know if they're really saying its a loan that the government has put high interest rates on, or if they mean something else entirely. Regardless I really hope they're able to sort this one out.

That's certainly an opinion, but nobody knows for sure if that's really the case. We can extrapolate and speculate, but without a crystal ball we don't know the future until we get there. With that in mind, consider the following. If a guy points a gun at you and gives you a choice of a bullet in the guts now, or coming back in a year's time to do the same, then which option would you take? I think that's the type of choice your government had.


This is the type of emotive twaddle we keep getting, over here, from leftists jealous of anyone who's got money. It's really irrelevant to the choices being made. Moreover, lots of this propaganda is inaccurate, as these people have made huge personal losses even if the companies they work for have been propped-up by government. It's very easy to blame those you're envious of. However, equally culpable are the millions of trailerpark Yanks who bought property they couldn't afford.

Apparently, Republicans have no problem trying to bail out large, financially, socially, and environmentally irrepsonsible corporations. It's the man who doesn't want to work three jobs and pay half his salary for health insurance that the Republicans seem to have a problem with. Personally I wouldn't be surprised if Bush tried to push an oil-company bailout after Hurricane Ike.

Oh, of course. Everyone is running to the defense of those poor, rich bankers who just didn't know any better. Of course, let them have a trillion dollars. Who cares?

The fact of the matter is that their businesses failed, and should be allowed to fail. That is what capitalism is (or should) be all about. It should not be about trillion dollar government handouts. If we need to rely on the generosity of Chinese communists to keep our banking system afloat, then something is seriously wrong. I say, just let these businesses collapse and get out of the way. Let new entrepreneurs who know what they are doing take over.

Keeping these failed businesses afloat is just too expensive. "Equally culpable are the millions of trailerpark Yanks who bought property they couldn't afford?" How are they "equally culpable?" They are losing their trailers, and no-one cares.

I'm a leftist because I don't believe the government should be nationalizing banks? At the very least, there needs to be more accountability from the executives for this massive screw-up.

This is screwed up. A right-winder calls people who are skeptical of Nationalizing banks a leftist. Doesn't the nationalization of business occur in Socialist Countries?

The Republicans just jumped the Shark.

Edit: Fast typing+Two Keys=Wrong order of letters.

Last edited by Hurricane_Delta on 21 Sep 2008, 4:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.