Comments on: Okay, now send me your grandchildren

By: MoneyedPoliticians

MoneyedPoliticians — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 22:36:24 +0000

I'm hearing conflicting reports. Some say "no more massive salaries for CEOs," but others say "they can only write off the first $500K." There's a big difference between the two. In the latter case the massive salary can still exist, they can only write off their corporate taxes the first $500K. (And of course this would only apply to companies taking the bailout.)

By: MoneyedPoliticians

MoneyedPoliticians — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 20:34:34 +0000

Yeah, I believe that, Henry, but if we are to point fingers they must be at both political parties who took cash bribes from the credit industry. Barrons has an interesting timeline of the things that led up to it. There is but ONE cause of this, and that's the bribes our congressmen took to lift the regulations of the industry. Very specifically in 1999, the Glass-Steagall Act that was repealed by the Republican congress and signed by Bill Clinton. Both Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden voted yes on repealing Glass-Stegall on November 4, 1999 (McCain also voted to repeal, and Obama wasn't in office yet). And I'm sure that Sensenbrenner was right in there with his vote. Bernie Sanders has it right.

By: Henry Dubb

Henry Dubb — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 20:08:01 +0000

Lets not forget it was those Democrats that were most enthusiastic by the bail out, and that Paulson is on “friendly terms” with Obama. Obama knew about the plan prior to McCain or Bush.

By: Les Nakamoto

Les Nakamoto — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 13:47:21 +0000

From Les Nakamoto at Watchdog Milwaukee .... snip .... Senator Bernie Sanders I – Vermont was on the floor of the Senate today saying that he did NOT support the bailout, and specifically cited the fact that the 400 richest people in America increased their wealth by $670 BILLION during the Bush Administration’s terms in office. He repeated that so that no one would miss the point he was making. I’ll repeat it so that no one misses it by reading it here either. The top 400 richest PEOPLE in America increased their wealth by $670 BILLION during George W. Bush’s terms in office. 400 people - $670 BILLION richer. Remember, these are the people he calls his “base”. No poor people need apply. Note that Bush’s bailout is for $700 BILLION. Hmmmmm. there wouldn’t be any connection between these two numbers now would there? Somebody has to pay the final price tag in order for the Ponzi Scheme to work, remember? So, in order for someone to collect on the “value” of the investments, someone has to either purchase those investments at full value (which no one is willing to do these days), or the government has to force the taxpayers to “bail” them out. So, if we the taxpayers pay this $700 BILLION, just where is this money going? I can guarantee that none of the money is going to go to the TAXPAYERS who are bailing these guys out. But it will cost every man, woman and child about $2,200, or the average family of four almost $9,000. Boy, this trickle down economics of supporting the wealthy with their multi-TRILLION dollar tax cuts really worked out well for the working stiff, didn’t it?

By: MoneyedPoliticians

MoneyedPoliticians — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 23:18:59 +0000

And let me ask just one more time: Can you imagine the consequences had Bush and the conservatives gotten their way on privatizing Social Security and we all had our retirements invested in the market? Nice thought, eh?

By: MoneyedPoliticians

MoneyedPoliticians — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 15:01:16 +0000

I agree that this may indeed be a calculated move on the part of Paulson and his cronies. I don’t think Bush is smart enough to be a part of it, but instead just got suckered into supporting it.

I disagree that it is a Liberal Socialism problem alone. Both the R’s and D’s have been corrupted by campaign cash from both sides of the spectrum. Get the bribery out of the system and these jerks will start voting for their people rather than their pocketbook. Until they act on this there should be a complete turnover in the system.

What IS troubling is that the Fed knew the problem was brewing nine months ago and did nothing to avert it. Thank you again, George.

By: Emery

Emery — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 14:31:18 +0000

It’s true we are shackling future generations with our debt. Seems like the dependency created by the nanny state mentality has infected Wall St. Because now they say they are dependent on us to bail them out of the problem they created. TBH I think that the Fed and the big banks planned this. Look who is gobbling up everyone else. Chase, Citi and BOA. Goldman Sachs stands ready to move these tax payer dollars as well. You think Paulson had nothing to do with that deal? They are circling like sharks. But America is bombarded with the mass propaganda of the CFR. We have to have this bail out blah blah blah. Two weeks ago they said we were in pretty good shape? Now the sky is falling. I don’t buy it. Either they lied then or they are lying now. Why should we give more money to the same people that created this mess? I say fire the FED first. They are using a crises that they created to impose financial fascism on the marketplace and America. “We nothing to fear but the FED itself.” Liberal socialism is the reason we have spent so much money and are in debt to the tune of 10.6 soon to 11.3 trillion dollars.