| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Bush Bailout
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 14:41:18 -0600, F.George wrote:
In less than 3 months, over 5 trillion dollars has been "injected" into the market. The exact amount cannot be determined. This is only the amount the US has committed to so far. Europe, Russia, Germany, Japan and China just about sum that much by themselves. -- Regards, Curly ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RIP -- Robert Lee Burnside 11/23/26 - 9/1/05 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ .................................................. ............... Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access at http://www.TitanNews.com -=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=- |
Bush Bailout
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 12:28:50 -0800, Calif Bill wrote:
"Curly Surmudgeon" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 22:42:41 -0800, Calif Bill wrote: "Cliff" wrote in message ... On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 04:06:58 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Nov 13, 6:07 am, Cliff wrote: Another three trillion down the drain. Does the phrase "Miserable Failure" ring a bell? OTOH AIG had another nice party and someone is getting a lot of taxpayer money .... well, debt to the taxpayer, anyway. THEY got the money. No accountability either AFAIK. Just free money ... How did this get started again? -- Cliff The dems are pilfering the money. Nothing new there. They are not running things yet. Bushco is. So you lied. Again. HTH -- Cliff You are definately confused as to how the Federal Government runs. Then explain the $2 trillion dollars that the Fed has already given out wihtout oversight and refuses to reveal recipients. The Congress is the only group who can pass a spending bill, the only ones who can say we spend this money. The Executive Branch can approve or veto the bill with their Check and Balance part of government. But it is only Congress who can first say lets spend money and tell the rest of government to spend money and how much they can spend. And the Democrats have been in control of the checkbook for nearly 2 years. Bush and the Republicans sux. But so does the Democrats and Pelosi, expecially Pelosi, and Reid. You cannot gloss over the 6 years of a Republican congress so easily and blame the next class for their bending over and dropping their trousers for Bush/Cheney. -- Regards, Curly ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RIP -- Robert Lee Burnside 11/23/26 - 9/1/05 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Did not say the Republicans were angels. I stated the facts of life re our government and who actually gets to vote to spend money. And yes, if the spending bill passes, the money HAS TO BE SPENT. A Democrat Congress got that ruling years ago. Used to be the Executive branch controlled a lot of the pork overspending, by just not spending the money. But Congress did not like fiscal responsibility. http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/impoundment is a decent explanation. We need an Executive Branch to take the ruling to the Supremes. The problem for at least the last 8 years, is a President who did not veto overspending. And the $5 trillion, not $2 trillion is not money spent, so no appropriation bill was required. It is what we committed to cover and keeps growing. We are screwed. Absolutely screwed, the only solution is massive inflation. Got your bug-out bags packed? -- Regards, Curly ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RIP -- Robert Lee Burnside 11/23/26 - 9/1/05 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ .................................................. ............... Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access at http://www.TitanNews.com -=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=- |
Bush Bailout
On Nov 13, 7:17*am, rand mair fheal wrote:
In article , wrote: On Nov 13, 6:07*am, Cliff wrote: * Another three trillion down the drain. * Does the phrase "Miserable Failure" ring a bell? * OTOH AIG had another nice party and someone is getting a lot of taxpayer money .... *well, debt to the taxpayer, anyway. THEY got the money. * No accountability either AFAIK. Just free money ... *How did this get started again? -- Cliff The dems are pilfering the money. *Nothing new there. its all obamas fault bin Laden had nothing to do with it. |
Bush Bailout
On Nov 13, 5:43*pm, Cliff wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 04:06:58 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Nov 13, 6:07*am, Cliff wrote: * Another three trillion down the drain. * Does the phrase "Miserable Failure" ring a bell? * OTOH AIG had another nice party and someone is getting a lot of taxpayer money .... *well, debt to the taxpayer, anyway. THEY got the money. * No accountability either AFAIK. Just free money ... *How did this get started again? -- Cliff The dems are pilfering the money. *Nothing new there. *They are not running things yet. * Bushco is. * So you lied. Again. HTH -- Cliff Regardless of what you say, the Dems are pilfering the money. |
Bush Bailout
On Nov 14, 1:42*am, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"Cliff" wrote in message ... On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 04:06:58 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Nov 13, 6:07 am, Cliff wrote: Another three trillion down the drain. Does the phrase "Miserable Failure" ring a bell? OTOH AIG had another nice party and someone is getting a lot of taxpayer money .... well, debt to the taxpayer, anyway. THEY got the money. No accountability either AFAIK. Just free money ... How did this get started again? -- Cliff The dems are pilfering the money. *Nothing new there. They are not running things yet. *Bushco is. *So you lied. Again. HTH -- Cliff You are definately confused as to how the Federal Government runs. * Cliff is not confused. Curly is not confused. They know how it works... and choose to lie about it. They are part of the disinformation assault on America. The Congress is the only group who can pass a spending bill, the only ones who can say we spend this money. *The Executive Branch can approve or veto the bill with their Check and Balance part of government. *But it is only Congress who can first say lets spend money and tell the rest of government to spend money and how much they can spend. *And the Democrats have been in control of the checkbook for nearly 2 years. * Bush and the Republicans sux. But so does the Democrats and Pelosi, expecially Pelosi, and Reid. The Dems cannot even follow their own legislation, written only hours previously. Hmmmm? |
Bush Bailout
On Nov 13, 1:04*pm, F. George McDuffee gmcduf...@mcduffee-
associates.us wrote: On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:27:16 -0800, "John R. Carroll" wrote: Nice fairy tale but that's what it is. JC --------- When do we get to the part where "they lived happily ever after?" Unka' George [George McDuffee] We don't. Dems are never happy. |
Bush Bailout
|
Bush Bailout
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:51:00 -0800, Curly Surmudgeon
wrote: On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 14:41:18 -0600, F.George wrote: In less than 3 months, over 5 trillion dollars has been "injected" into the market. The exact amount cannot be determined. This is only the amount the US has committed to so far. Europe, Russia, Germany, Japan and China just about sum that much by themselves. -------------- Indeed, which again indicates this is not a *LIQUIDITY* problem, as it would have been solved [several times over] by now if this was the case. I again ask: "where did/does all this money go" and "where did all the money go [and come from] that was involved in the oil, metal and commodities (food) bubbles?" There is something far more rotten and systemic that a simple cash flow problem at work here. Unka' George [George McDuffee] ------------------------------------------- He that will not apply new remedies, must expect new evils: for Time is the greatest innovator: and if Time, of course, alter things to the worse, and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better, what shall be the end? Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman. Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625). |
Bush Bailout
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 08:17:42 -0600, F.George wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:51:00 -0800, Curly Surmudgeon wrote: On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 14:41:18 -0600, F.George wrote: In less than 3 months, over 5 trillion dollars has been "injected" into the market. The exact amount cannot be determined. This is only the amount the US has committed to so far. Europe, Russia, Germany, Japan and China just about sum that much by themselves. -------------- Indeed, which again indicates this is not a *LIQUIDITY* problem, as it would have been solved [several times over] by now if this was the case. I again ask: "where did/does all this money go" That's a secret: Bloomberg Sues Fed to Force Disclosure of Collateral (Update1) By Mark Pittman Nov. 7 (Bloomberg) -- Bloomberg News asked a U.S. court today to force the Federal Reserve to disclose securities the central bank is accepting on behalf of American taxpayers as collateral for $1.5 trillion of loans to banks. The lawsuit is based on the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, which requires federal agencies to make government documents available to the press and the public, according to the complaint. The suit, filed in New York, doesn't seek money damages. ``The American taxpayer is entitled to know the risks, costs and methodology associated with the unprecedented government bailout of the U.S. financial industry,'' said Matthew Winkler, the editor-in-chief of Bloomberg News, a unit of New York-based Bloomberg LP, in an e-mail. The Fed has lent $1.5 trillion to banks, including Citigroup Inc. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., through programs such as its discount window, the Primary Dealer Credit Facility and the Term Securities Lending Facility. Collateral is an asset pledged to a lender in the event that a loan payment isn't made. The Fed made the loans under 11 programs in response to the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression. The total doesn't include an additional $700 billion approved by Congress in a bailout package. Fed's Position Bloomberg News on May 21 asked the Fed to provide data on the collateral posted between April 4 and May 20. The central bank said on June 19 that it needed until July 3 to search out the documents and determine whether it would make them public. Bloomberg never received a formal response that would enable it to file an appeal. On Oct. 25, Bloomberg filed another request and has yet to receive a reply. The Fed staff planned to recommend that Bloomberg's request be denied under an exemption protecting ``confidential commercial information,'' according to Alison Thro, the Fed's FOIA Service Center senior counsel. The Fed in Washington has about 30 pages pertaining to the request, Thro said today before the filing of the suit. The bulk of the documents Bloomberg sought are at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which she said isn't subject to the freedom of information law. ``This type of information is considered highly sensitive, and it would remain so for some time in the future,'' Thro said. The Fed didn't give Bloomberg a formal response because ``it got caught in the vortex of the things going on here,'' said Michael O'Rourke, another member of the Fed's FOIA staff. Thro declined to comment on the lawsuit. The case is Bloomberg LP v. Federal Reserve, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan). http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=ajph7rjBl1ow and "where did all the money go [and come from] that was involved in the oil, metal and commodities (food) bubbles?" There is something far more rotten and systemic that a simple cash flow problem at work here. Agreed, and it's unlikely we'll know in time to take any action. That's been the pattern of Bush/Cheney all along, to commit crimes and atrocities faster than regulators, patriots, or regulators can react moving on to fresh atrocities keeping opposition floundering with yesterday's crimes. Unka' George [George McDuffee] ------------------------------------------- He that will not apply new remedies, must expect new evils: for Time is the greatest innovator: and if Time, of course, alter things to the worse, and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better, what shall be the end? Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman. Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625). -- Regards, Curly ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RIP -- Robert Lee Burnside 11/23/26 - 9/1/05 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ .................................................. ............... Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access at http://www.TitanNews.com -=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=- |
Bush Bailout
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 05:09:39 -0800, rand mair fheal wrote:
In article , wrote: Cliff is not confused. Curly is not confused. They know how it works... and choose to lie about it. They are part of the disinformation assault on America. actually the confusion is all yours He's not confused, he's lying. congress authorizes spending but its the president that actually does the spending so any complaint about spending all goes to shrub until 20 jan 2009 - end of an error arf meow arf - cats and dogs living together - who ya goin call its the end of the world as you know it - filler text goes here this is how the world ends - not with a whimper but with a bang this is how the world ends - not with a whimper but with a bang -- Regards, Curly ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Now it's time for War Crime Trials at the Hague for Bush/Cheney ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ .................................................. ............... Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access at http://www.TitanNews.com -=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=- |
Bush Bailout
Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 12:28:50 -0800, Calif Bill wrote: "Curly Surmudgeon" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 22:42:41 -0800, Calif Bill wrote: "Cliff" wrote in message ... On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 04:06:58 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Nov 13, 6:07 am, Cliff wrote: Another three trillion down the drain. Does the phrase "Miserable Failure" ring a bell? OTOH AIG had another nice party and someone is getting a lot of taxpayer money .... well, debt to the taxpayer, anyway. THEY got the money. No accountability either AFAIK. Just free money ... How did this get started again? -- Cliff The dems are pilfering the money. Nothing new there. They are not running things yet. Bushco is. So you lied. Again. HTH -- Cliff You are definately confused as to how the Federal Government runs. Then explain the $2 trillion dollars that the Fed has already given out wihtout oversight and refuses to reveal recipients. The Congress is the only group who can pass a spending bill, the only ones who can say we spend this money. The Executive Branch can approve or veto the bill with their Check and Balance part of government. But it is only Congress who can first say lets spend money and tell the rest of government to spend money and how much they can spend. And the Democrats have been in control of the checkbook for nearly 2 years. Bush and the Republicans sux. But so does the Democrats and Pelosi, expecially Pelosi, and Reid. You cannot gloss over the 6 years of a Republican congress so easily and blame the next class for their bending over and dropping their trousers for Bush/Cheney. -- Regards, Curly ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RIP -- Robert Lee Burnside 11/23/26 - 9/1/05 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Did not say the Republicans were angels. I stated the facts of life re our government and who actually gets to vote to spend money. And yes, if the spending bill passes, the money HAS TO BE SPENT. A Democrat Congress got that ruling years ago. Used to be the Executive branch controlled a lot of the pork overspending, by just not spending the money. But Congress did not like fiscal responsibility. http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/impoundment is a decent explanation. We need an Executive Branch to take the ruling to the Supremes. The problem for at least the last 8 years, is a President who did not veto overspending. And the $5 trillion, not $2 trillion is not money spent, so no appropriation bill was required. It is what we committed to cover and keeps growing. We are screwed. Absolutely screwed, the only solution is massive inflation. Got your bug-out bags packed? Congress could have stayed the Treasury and let all the weak banks and investment houses fail. There would have been an abrupt downturn with firings, etc. In about a year the derivative and mortgage losses would have surfaced and largely worked their way through the system. Congress could have reinstated the Glass-Spiegal Act and those responsible for the fraud would be prosecuted. In about two years it would have ended with the system intact and the economy rebounding. ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Bush Bailout
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 12:28:50 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote: The problem for at least the last 8 years, is a President who did not veto overspending. Like the stuff in HIS budget or what he demanded, such a ths "bailout" (now 5 trillion at least it looks like). Note that congress only signed off on about 750 billion of that 5 trillion. For an "emergency". Suckers. -- Cliff |
Bush Bailout
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 04:30:28 -0800 (PST), wrote:
Cliff is not confused. Curly is not confused. They know how it works... and choose to lie about it. They are part of the disinformation assault on America. Found those "WMDs" yet? That deficit "free money" you've been warned about so many times? Why did you NOT expect the chickens to come home to roost? Some winger lied to you again? -- Cliff |
Bush Bailout
|
Bush Bailout
"Cliff" wrote in message ... On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 12:28:50 -0800, "Calif Bill" wrote: The problem for at least the last 8 years, is a President who did not veto overspending. Like the stuff in HIS budget or what he demanded, such a ths "bailout" (now 5 trillion at least it looks like). Note that congress only signed off on about 750 billion of that 5 trillion. For an "emergency". Suckers. -- Cliff Thank the Fed for the extra money. The same Fed who's previous head, said they were superior to any Federal agency. No Federal Control! |
Bush Bailout
On Nov 15, 8:09*am, rand mair fheal wrote:
In article , wrote: Cliff is not confused. *Curly is not confused. *They know how it works... and choose to lie about it. They are part of the disinformation assault on America. actually the confusion is all yours congress authorizes spending but its the president that actually does the spending so any complaint about spending all goes to shrub until 20 jan 2009 - end of an error He endorsed the check that the democratic congress just wrote. He could have not signed the bill, but the dems would have found another way to pilfer the country. Thanks for the clarification. |
Bush Bailout
|
Bush Bailout
|
Bush Bailout
In article ,
Cliff wrote: but the dems would have found another way to pilfer the country. It's bushco's program. THEY run it. its simpler than that the treasury is part of the executive they have to get permission to spend money from congress but actually spending the money is done with the presidents authority who decides exactly what to spend and when and who to pay and usually congress leaves many details unspecified which the president makes specific so if there is disgruntlement on how money is being spent until 20 jan 2009 its all up to shrub the only real responsibility that can be laid on congress is if they dont authorize enough spending arf meow arf - cats and dogs living together - who ya goin call its the end of the world as you know it - filler text goes here this is how the world ends - not with a whimper but with a bang this is how the world ends - not with a whimper but with a bang |
Bush Bailout
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 06:40:24 -0800, rand mair fheal wrote:
In article , Cliff wrote: but the dems would have found another way to pilfer the country. It's bushco's program. THEY run it. its simpler than that the treasury is part of the executive they have to get permission to spend money from congress but actually spending the money is done with the presidents authority who decides exactly what to spend and when and who to pay and usually congress leaves many details unspecified which the president makes specific so if there is disgruntlement on how money is being spent until 20 jan 2009 its all up to shrub the only real responsibility that can be laid on congress is if they dont authorize enough spending Treasury spent about 3 TRILLION not authorized by congress IIRC. So far as best I can tell. -- Cliff |
Bush Bailout
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:51:34 -0500, Cliff wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 06:40:24 -0800, rand mair fheal wrote: In article , Cliff wrote: but the dems would have found another way to pilfer the country. It's bushco's program. THEY run it. its simpler than that the treasury is part of the executive they have to get permission to spend money from congress but actually spending the money is done with the presidents authority who decides exactly what to spend and when and who to pay and usually congress leaves many details unspecified which the president makes specific so if there is disgruntlement on how money is being spent until 20 jan 2009 its all up to shrub the only real responsibility that can be laid on congress is if they dont authorize enough spending Treasury spent about 3 TRILLION not authorized by congress IIRC. So far as best I can tell. neoconIt's Clinton's fault.../neocon -- Regards, Curly ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Bible: Slavery Good, Gays Bad, Snakes Talk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ .................................................. ............... Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access at http://www.TitanNews.com -=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=- |
Bush Bailout
Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:51:34 -0500, Cliff wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 06:40:24 -0800, rand mair fheal wrote: In article , Cliff wrote: but the dems would have found another way to pilfer the country. It's bushco's program. THEY run it. its simpler than that the treasury is part of the executive they have to get permission to spend money from congress but actually spending the money is done with the presidents authority who decides exactly what to spend and when and who to pay and usually congress leaves many details unspecified which the president makes specific so if there is disgruntlement on how money is being spent until 20 jan 2009 its all up to shrub the only real responsibility that can be laid on congress is if they dont authorize enough spending Treasury spent about 3 TRILLION not authorized by congress IIRC. So far as best I can tell. neoconIt's Clinton's fault.../neocon Just remember you wrote that when Obama starts tripping all over his dick (and he will) and you're looking for someone else to blame. |
Bush Bailout
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:01:01 -0500, Walter wrote:
Curly Surmudgeon wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:51:34 -0500, Cliff wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 06:40:24 -0800, rand mair fheal wrote: In article , Cliff wrote: but the dems would have found another way to pilfer the country. It's bushco's program. THEY run it. its simpler than that the treasury is part of the executive they have to get permission to spend money from congress but actually spending the money is done with the presidents authority who decides exactly what to spend and when and who to pay and usually congress leaves many details unspecified which the president makes specific so if there is disgruntlement on how money is being spent until 20 jan 2009 its all up to shrub the only real responsibility that can be laid on congress is if they dont authorize enough spending Treasury spent about 3 TRILLION not authorized by congress IIRC. So far as best I can tell. neoconIt's Clinton's fault.../neocon Just remember you wrote that when Obama starts tripping all over his dick (and he will) and you're looking for someone else to blame. When (if) Obama ****s up and violates the clear meaning of the Constitution then I'll blast him appropriately however at this time America and the world are on an economic downslope entirely of Bush's making. "Bush" no longer refers just to the idiot son of Bush43 but to those who pull his strings and constitute his cabinet too. It's entirely too premature to attack Obama, "Bush" currently holds the White House. -- Regards, Curly ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Bible: Slavery Good, Gays Bad, Snakes Talk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ .................................................. ............... Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access at http://www.TitanNews.com -=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=- |
Curly molests a pedo....and squeals like a little Bitch...!!!!!!
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:20:10 -0600, "John \"C\""
wrote: "Curly Surmudgeon" wrote in message ... On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:01:01 -0500, Walter wrote: Curly Surmudgeon wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:51:34 -0500, Cliff wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 06:40:24 -0800, rand mair fheal wrote: In article , Cliff wrote: but the dems would have found another way to pilfer the country. It's bushco's program. THEY run it. its simpler than that the treasury is part of the executive they have to get permission to spend money from congress but actually spending the money is done with the presidents authority who decides exactly what to spend and when and who to pay and usually congress leaves many details unspecified which the president makes specific so if there is disgruntlement on how money is being spent until 20 jan 2009 its all up to shrub the only real responsibility that can be laid on congress is if they dont authorize enough spending Treasury spent about 3 TRILLION not authorized by congress IIRC. So far as best I can tell. neoconIt's Clinton's fault.../neocon Just remember you wrote that when Obama starts tripping all over his dick (and he will) and you're looking for someone else to blame. When (if) Obama ****s up and violates the clear meaning of the Constitution then I'll blast him appropriately however at this time America and the world are on an economic downslope entirely of Bush's making. "Bush" no longer refers just to the idiot son of Bush43 but to those who pull his strings and constitute his cabinet too. It's entirely too premature to attack Obama, "Bush" currently holds the White House. -- Regards, Curly And you're holding Michael Jackson's tiny pecker with your tongue! Your Pal, HJ Does Salty hang with you guys also? -- John H. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:24 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com