I just want to take a quick poll...

[tpunx99GSX]

Originally Posted by Matt D.

Tom, watch this and explain how you even sleep at night with supporting your precious Obama and democratic party.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

These criminals who ran these banks into the ground have triggered this bailout plan that you now support. The plan that will be funded by tax payers like us, only to give money to people who don't deserve it.

Sure they dont deserve it, But if we do nothing we run the risk of having a stock market crash (you seen what happened. after the bailout failed). Granted the stock market droping 777 points was mostly in part of fear. But without this bailout it will be near impossible for small businesses to get loans, students to get loans, Possibility of peoples credit card limits to be lowered, etc. This affects everyone, and if you choose to believe the youtube propaganda that the economy isnt going to be affected if we do nothing then you have some reading to do. This really is something i would like to be wrong on, I would love to think everything is peachy keen and everything will be fine if we do nothing, but that just will not be the case.
Obama pushed for more regulation, making the bill not help pay CEO salaries, and taxpayer protections. McCain is for Deregulation and offered no additional input on this bailout. And then tried to take credit for Obama's additions.
You are letting your emotions affect your judgement on this one by saying "Well they got us into this so lets shoot down anything that has dem backing" instead of thinking logically on what is best for this country.

[1QUICK4]

Saw this on another forum
Taken from Bloomberg.com

Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The financial crisis of the past year has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story.

Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems so complex.

But really, it isn't. Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.

Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.

In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn't make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.

The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.

Turning Point

Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it's hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.

It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.

Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.

Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.

Greenspan's Warning

The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''

What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.

Different World

If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.

But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''

Mounds of Materials

Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.

But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.

Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.

Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.

There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.

Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have helped avert this mess.

[Matt D.]

Originally Posted by tpunx99GSX

Sure they dont deserve it, But if we do nothing we run the risk of having a stock market crash (you seen what happened. after the bailout failed). Granted the stock market droping 777 points was mostly in part of fear. But without this bailout it will be near impossible for small businesses to get loans, students to get loans, Possibility of peoples credit card limits to be lowered, etc. This affects everyone, and if you choose to believe the youtube propaganda that the economy isnt going to be affected if we do nothing then you have some reading to do. This really is something i would like to be wrong on, I would love to think everything is peachy keen and everything will be fine if we do nothing, but that just will not be the case.
Obama pushed for more regulation, making the bill not help pay CEO salaries, and taxpayer protections. McCain is for Deregulation and offered no additional input on this bailout. And then tried to take credit for Obama's additions.
You are letting your emotions affect your judgement on this one by saying "Well they got us into this so lets shoot down anything that has dem backing" instead of thinking logically on what is best for this country.

Youtube propaganda? Yeah, okay. How about some more Youtube videos of Ron Paul? http://www.connietalk.com/ron_paul_o...my_092908.html

President George W. Bush gave another address to the nation today, and hopped it up with stark warnings about Congress' failure to pass a bank bailout package. Bush said that the nation is "facing a choice between action and the real prospect of economic hardship for millions of Americans." What is he, behind?

Pres. Bush warned that "this is not the end of the legislative process," and that he still expects a measure to be reached.

And since the legislation lost by only 12 votes, we highly encourage you to pick up the phone just once and have your voice heard!

GWB threatened that "the consequences will grow worse each day if we do not act," and that the "economic damage will be painful and lasting."

Even more ominous, Bush stated that "It matters little what path a bill takes to become law. What matters is that we get a law. We're at a critical moment for our economy."

It matters little how a bill becomes a law? What do they waste all that time on the legislative process in history classes for then? Keep your eyes peeled, though, because this could very well be the case.

As Congressman Ron Paul mentioned after Congress voted: the Fed just pumped over $600 billion of credit into the market this week without any Congressional approval. So they have the vehicle and the administration will attempt to get this bailout passed without the people's - and likely even Congress' - approval.

Government got us in this mess, it's their job to get us out of it. Throwing more money at the problem is not the solution. Since when do you pay off debt with more debt? Do you take out a loan to pay off a loan? Tom, I know you aren't the brightest bulb on the tree but even you aren't that dumb.

[BLaCk_1cE]

^I gotta get that shirt haha. wait why am i laughing, that shirt pisses me off.

[john]

The reason the dam bill didn't pass is because nobody wanted to get their name behind voting for it. They know when they are up for election, they will see their name on TV saying: .... supported the $700 billion bailout of corporate america and he will raise your taxes.

Hard to pass a bill when 66% of all republicans voted against it.

It was clear when they were working on the bill that they didn't want Obama and McCain their. I can't believe that McCain tried pulling the: "I am going to put my campaign on hold" way out of the debate. It is like he thinks everyone is stupid. McCain wouldn't add any value. He tried all he could to get his name on this and it failed because of his republican party.

[tpunx99GSX]

Originally Posted by john

The reason the dam bill didn't pass is because nobody wanted to get their name behind voting for it. They know when they are up for election, they will see their name on TV saying: .... supported the $700 billion bailout of corporate america and he will raise your taxes.

Hard to pass a bill when 66% of all republicans voted against it.

It was clear when they were working on the bill that they didn't want Obama and McCain their. I can't believe that McCain tried pulling the: "I am going to put my campaign on hold" way out of the debate. It is like he thinks everyone is stupid. McCain wouldn't add any value. He tried all he could to get his name on this and it failed because of his republican party.

talk about a backfire. And then blames obama. Real Smart.
Sad thing it is that this election has more drama then a TV Show. Granted ill be sitting with popcorn watching Sarah Palin show the world just how stupid she really is.

[john]

I can't wait to see the interview. I don't have any idea how people can try to back her. She is just too stupid. Just the thought of her being the second in charge is freightening. What happens if McCain can't serve his term??? We are screwed!

[Halon]

Interesting power point someone sent to me.

[john]

Originally Posted by Halon

Interesting power point someone sent to me.

I didn't look at it because of the title. I tried opening it noe at work and can't. I will have to try later.

[Matt D.]

You all are talking about businesses using their money as if it's the only way anything gets done within a business, or the only way a business will grow. There are many things that can be done within a business to make them operate leaner and more efficiently, making the most of their investments and cutting costs at the same time. You don't necessarily have to spend more money to make more money, it's all a matter making the most of the resources available to you, and those resources aren't always dollar bills.

[tpunx99GSX]

Now that the VP debate is over i can rip on Palin again.
The fact that she lived up to the LOW expectations of most of the commentators is just sad. Mainly because the Expectations are so low that pretty much any "Joe 6 pack" could have. The fact that someone shooting for VP didnt smash the low ass expectations proves that this woman should not be there. She seemed like she had studied for a big test and wanted to get every question right. Nothing seemed on the fly, She kept changing the subjects, not answering the questions, and her hunkeedory attitude was annoying at best.
On the other hand, we have Joe Biden. I know i have a biased opinion towards him because ive already made up my mind on who i am voting for. But i thought he did a REALLY good job. He was ready for any turns sarah tried to pull on him. He brought a lot of facts to the table, made a couple nice soundbites and attacks. It really did seem like he was holding back a ton of comments he wanted and could easily have spewed her way, But im sure America wouldnt have reacted so well to him just making a total mockery of her and tearing her apart because people still believe that you shouldnt pick on a girl. I truely feel that Biden would make a great VP.

[Matt D.]

Originally Posted by tpunx99GSX

Now that the VP debate is over i can rip on Palin again.
The fact that she lived up to the LOW expectations of most of the commentators is just sad. Mainly because the Expectations are so low that pretty much any "Joe 6 pack" could have. The fact that someone shooting for VP didnt smash the low ass expectations proves that this woman should not be there. She seemed like she had studied for a big test and wanted to get every question right. Nothing seemed on the fly, She kept changing the subjects, not answering the questions, and her hunkeedory attitude was annoying at best.
On the other hand, we have Joe Biden. I know i have a biased opinion towards him because ive already made up my mind on who i am voting for. But i thought he did a REALLY good job. He was ready for any turns sarah tried to pull on him. He brought a lot of facts to the table, made a couple nice soundbites and attacks. It really did seem like he was holding back a ton of comments he wanted and could easily have spewed her way, But im sure America wouldnt have reacted so well to him just making a total mockery of her and tearing her apart because people still believe that you shouldnt pick on a girl. I truely feel that Biden would make a great VP.

You are so narrow minded it makes me sick.

[JET]

Originally Posted by tpunx99GSX

She seemed like she had studied for a big test and wanted to get every question right. Nothing seemed on the fly, She kept changing the subjects, not answering the questions, and her hunkeedory attitude was annoying at best.

Change the "she's" to "he's" and is sounds like Obama in the first debate!

Brandon, that is a very interesting power point, I had heard some of the parts before, but never the whole story put together.

[A//// Guy]

She did better than I thought, and so did most of the media and political analysists ive heard from. I still cant stand her, she shouldnt be on McCain team.

I dont think Biden tore her apart or really did that much better than her either, and thats what ive read as well.

Sorry Tom, but you saying she sucked and biden ruled, just shows how left straight liberal you are.

[tpunx99GSX]

I chuckled a little when i saw this. http://www.polls.newsvine.com/_quest...OptionId=25550

[2bar1g]

Palin held her own imo.

Biden seems more qualified than barack

[Matt D.]

Originally Posted by 2bar1g

Biden seems more qualified than barack

I'll agree there, he's been in national politics for 35 years. Obama formed his Presidential exploratory committee after being a senator only 143 days. You can't even manage a McDonald's after 143 days of experience, but he wants to run this country? Fuck that.

[Matt D.]

If Tom can post up crap poll results from the debate then so can I.

Originally Posted by www.drudgereport.com

{{{{DRUDGE POLL}}}} WHO WON THE VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE?...

BIDEN
28% 144,033
PALIN
70% 353,934
NEITHER
2% 9,381

Total Votes: 507,348

http://webcenter.polls.aol.com/modul...&pollId=152822

Who won the debate?
Sarah Palin
47% 246,162
Joe Biden
45% 236,344
It was a draw
8% 44,932

Total Votes: 527,438

[mdost03]

^Owned

[311evo]

Originally Posted by totaleclipse_05

^Owned

+1