"Keith nuttle" wrote in message
...
John R. Carroll wrote:
"Bay Area Holdout" wrote in message
...
"Cliff" wrote in message
...
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
Well CONGRESS and Bush decided something had to be done. Paulson
proposed the bailout, they wrote it up and sent it to CONGRESS.

The HOUSE votes and rejects it. Let the games begin!
Pelosi in her brillant leadership role blames the Republicans(surprize!)
but 96 Dems vote NO the first time as well. If as LEADER of the HOUSE
Dems she got 20 or so of those 96 to vote YES, it would have PASSED
first time!
But no she blames the Republicans......great leader that she is.

A few days later, what was sent to CONGRESS as a THREE PAGE Bill
becomes a FOUR HUNDRED PAGE Bill loaded with PORK. And now it PASSES!

Sent to Bush and he signs it as he said he would.

And that is how this got started!


Nice fairy tale but that's what it is.

JC
Now that the facts have been given and the only response is its a fairy
tale despite the fact that the information has been published in the media
for the last two month and can not be disproved, assassination of the
poster will commence.

No, no "facts" have been given, only misleading factiods that misrepresent
the truth. What's been "given" is an accusation that the Democrats voted
against the bill, when in fact they voted in favor of it by a margin of 45
votes. The ones who sandbagged it were the Republicans, who voted against it
by a margin of 68 votes:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml

And that was on a proposal from a Republican administration! What was that
you were saying about "leadership"?

The bill, which House Republicans said was inadequate, was picked up by the
Senate as a medium for enfolding four distinct bills, which shifted much of
the bailout from banking institutions to individuals and small businesses
(that's what's being called "pork"). This, as you may have noticed, is what
the Administration itself has been shifting to in later versions of their
plan. _The Economist_, which came out today, illustrates this with a picture
of Paulson pulling multiple rabbits out of his hat. g

The Senate took that approach to expand the bill because they're constrained
by the origination clause of the Constitution from originating revenue bills
in this area. So the bill eventually passed by Congress bears little
relationship to the original. They just used it as a subterfuge, an
opportunity to skirt around Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution. Senate
Republicans passed this version; House Republicans still voted against it,
but lost the vote; and the President signed this combined bill.

If you are a liberal and confronted with facts that are contrary to what
you believe the messenger will be killed.

John was too generous with "Bay Area Holdout." I'd say the "facts" the
Holdout presented are the product of either an inadequate mind or of an
intentionally misleading one.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Keith nuttle" wrote in message
...
John R. Carroll wrote:
"Bay Area Holdout" wrote in message
...
"Cliff" wrote in message
...
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
Well CONGRESS and Bush decided something had to be done. Paulson
proposed the bailout, they wrote it up and sent it to CONGRESS.

The HOUSE votes and rejects it. Let the games begin!
Pelosi in her brillant leadership role blames the Republicans(surprize!)
but 96 Dems vote NO the first time as well. If as LEADER of the HOUSE
Dems she got 20 or so of those 96 to vote YES, it would have PASSED
first time!
But no she blames the Republicans......great leader that she is.

A few days later, what was sent to CONGRESS as a THREE PAGE Bill
becomes a FOUR HUNDRED PAGE Bill loaded with PORK. And now it PASSES!

Sent to Bush and he signs it as he said he would.

And that is how this got started!

Nice fairy tale but that's what it is.

JC
Now that the facts have been given and the only response is its a fairy
tale despite the fact that the information has been published in the media
for the last two month and can not be disproved, assassination of the
poster will commence.

No, no "facts" have been given, only misleading factiods that misrepresent
the truth. What's been "given" is an accusation that the Democrats voted
against the bill, when in fact they voted in favor of it by a margin of 45
votes. The ones who sandbagged it were the Republicans, who voted against it
by a margin of 68 votes:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml

And that was on a proposal from a Republican administration! What was that
you were saying about "leadership"?

The bill, which House Republicans said was inadequate, was picked up by the
Senate as a medium for enfolding four distinct bills, which shifted much of
the bailout from banking institutions to individuals and small businesses
(that's what's being called "pork"). This, as you may have noticed, is what
the Administration itself has been shifting to in later versions of their
plan. _The Economist_, which came out today, illustrates this with a picture
of Paulson pulling multiple rabbits out of his hat. g

The Senate took that approach to expand the bill because they're constrained
by the origination clause of the Constitution from originating revenue bills
in this area. So the bill eventually passed by Congress bears little
relationship to the original. They just used it as a subterfuge, an
opportunity to skirt around Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution. Senate
Republicans passed this version; House Republicans still voted against it,
but lost the vote; and the President signed this combined bill.

If you are a liberal and confronted with facts that are contrary to what
you believe the messenger will be killed.

John was too generous with "Bay Area Holdout." I'd say the "facts" the
Holdout presented are the product of either an inadequate mind or of an
intentionally misleading one.

--
Ed Huntress


What ever the spin you put on the facts, in the time when this country
need leadership in the house of representatives, polosi complete failed
the test. Leadership is the act of leading based on the facts at hand
not pursuing personal goals.

"Keith nuttle" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Keith nuttle" wrote in message
...
John R. Carroll wrote:
"Bay Area Holdout" wrote in message
...
"Cliff" wrote in message
...
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
Well CONGRESS and Bush decided something had to be done. Paulson
proposed the bailout, they wrote it up and sent it to CONGRESS.

The HOUSE votes and rejects it. Let the games begin!
Pelosi in her brillant leadership role blames the
Republicans(surprize!) but 96 Dems vote NO the first time as well. If
as LEADER of the HOUSE Dems she got 20 or so of those 96 to vote YES,
it would have PASSED first time!
But no she blames the Republicans......great leader that she is.

A few days later, what was sent to CONGRESS as a THREE PAGE Bill
becomes a FOUR HUNDRED PAGE Bill loaded with PORK. And now it PASSES!

Sent to Bush and he signs it as he said he would.

And that is how this got started!

Nice fairy tale but that's what it is.

JC
Now that the facts have been given and the only response is its a fairy
tale despite the fact that the information has been published in the
media for the last two month and can not be disproved, assassination of
the poster will commence.

No, no "facts" have been given, only misleading factiods that
misrepresent the truth. What's been "given" is an accusation that the
Democrats voted against the bill, when in fact they voted in favor of it
by a margin of 45 votes. The ones who sandbagged it were the Republicans,
who voted against it by a margin of 68 votes:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml

And that was on a proposal from a Republican administration! What was
that you were saying about "leadership"?

The bill, which House Republicans said was inadequate, was picked up by
the Senate as a medium for enfolding four distinct bills, which shifted
much of the bailout from banking institutions to individuals and small
businesses (that's what's being called "pork"). This, as you may have
noticed, is what the Administration itself has been shifting to in later
versions of their plan. _The Economist_, which came out today,
illustrates this with a picture of Paulson pulling multiple rabbits out
of his hat. g

The Senate took that approach to expand the bill because they're
constrained by the origination clause of the Constitution from
originating revenue bills in this area. So the bill eventually passed by
Congress bears little relationship to the original. They just used it as
a subterfuge, an opportunity to skirt around Article I, Section 7 of the
Constitution. Senate Republicans passed this version; House Republicans
still voted against it, but lost the vote; and the President signed this
combined bill.

If you are a liberal and confronted with facts that are contrary to what
you believe the messenger will be killed.

John was too generous with "Bay Area Holdout." I'd say the "facts" the
Holdout presented are the product of either an inadequate mind or of an
intentionally misleading one.

--
Ed Huntress
What ever the spin you put on the facts...


"SPIN"? Those ARE the facts. If you weren't too lazy to check it out for
yourself, rather than sitting on your heels and blowing smoke, you'd know
the facts before making accusations.

...in the time when this country need leadership in the house of
representatives, polosi complete failed the test.

So, you're saying that you *expect* the Republicans to do something
irresponsible, like voting the bill down by 68 votes, that runs counter to
the interests of the country, and that the Democrats should correct the
Republicans' irresponsibility and selfish interest by voting a party line to
support a bill proposed by a REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION?

House and Senate leaders don't whip their parties for a debatable bill. In
fact, even the administration now says that the original bill was not the
right answer to the question.

Leadership is the act of leading based on the facts at hand not pursuing
personal goals.

If you believe that voting for the bill was the right thing to do, even
though Paulson now says it wasn't the right way to deal with the problem,
then tell that to the Republican leadership. They're the ones who voted
against it, not the Democrats.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed?

Knock it off.

Arguing with kooks is not a reasonable discussion

If it has alt.kooks in the cross posting list,
how about just leaving it alone.

You are not going to convince them, or educate them.

and it's getting to the point that you just might be
joining them...


For what it's worth.

Respects,

Richard Lamb

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
m...
Ed?

Knock it off.

Arguing with kooks is not a reasonable discussion

If it has alt.kooks in the cross posting list,
how about just leaving it alone.

You are not going to convince them, or educate them.

and it's getting to the point that you just might be
joining them...


For what it's worth.

Respects,

Richard Lamb

You're a hard man, Richard. d8-)

However, you're right, this is getting ridiculous. My lifelong campaign
against bull****, which was manageable in the days of print journalism, is
now an impossible dream. I've had enough of it.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:35:02 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


The bill, which House Republicans said was inadequate,

But it ws fine with them after they added all that pork !!

OTOH Much of the "bailout" thus far (~ 2 trilion dollars)
was not even in that bill.
Follow the money.
--
Cliff

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:49:16 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:35:02 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


The bill, which House Republicans said was inadequate,

But it ws fine with them after they added all that pork !!

OTOH Much of the "bailout" thus far (~ 2 trilion dollars)
was not even in that bill.
Follow the money.

How?

Seriously, how does one do that? Despite promises of transparency the
Bush administration is refusing to reveal the recipients of that
$2,000,000,000,000.00 ++ of public money.

That is intolerable. It's time to dust off Madame Guillotine!

--
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=-