Obama offers remedy for economic turmoil
Senator gives 6-point plan, including more oversight on banking
By Ed Sealover, Rocky Mountain News
Published September 16, 2008 at 12:55 p.m.
Matt McClain / The Rocky
Sen. Barack Obama greets a large crowd Tuesday in the student recreation center at the Colorado School of Mines in Golden. The shaky economy dominated much of his speech, in which he offered a six-point plan to turn things around.
Matt McClain / The Rocky
Bee Harris holds an Obama sign as the presidential candidate addresses the crowd in Golden on Tuesday.
Please download the latest version of Adobe Flash Player, or enable JavaScript for your browser to view the video player.
Emily Larson Smith and Sara Hund showed up at the Obama event only to discover one of their tickets was counterfeit.
Video powered by Flickr
A Sarah Palin inpersonator with the name, of all things, McCain. It's Lauren McCain of Denver. (By Lynn Bartels)
Video powered by Flickr
Themia Sandven was thrilled to get her front page of the Rocky autographed by Sarah Palin. (By Lynn Bartels)
Video powered by Flickr
Barack Obama spent two days in Colorado under the cloud of a collapsing Wall Street but departed by offering a plan to cleanup a mess he accused his opponent of failing to comprehend.
"We are in the most serious financial crisis in generations. Yet, Sen. (John) McCain stood up yesterday and said that the fundamentals of the economy are strong," Obama said here Tuesday.
The Democratic presidential nominee described a six-point plan that would subject all financial institutions that can borrow from the government to more oversight and crack down on trading practices he said border on market manipulation. Such action is needed to repair America's faltering confidence in housing and financial institutions, Obama said.
On a half-dozen talk shows and in an campaign appearance Tuesday, McCain also called for reforms, saying there must be more effective regulation of investments and a commission to examine causes of the current troubles. But his campaign also criticized Obama for what it said was the Illinois senator's pessimism about the American economy.
The dueling messages were the culmination of a week in which Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy, Merrill Lynch was sold and the government agreed to provide an $85 billion emergency loan to rescue the insurance giant AIG.
The economy suddenly is back at the forefront of the presidential campaign, as Obama showed by spending the bulk of his 41-minute speech at the Colorado School of Mines on the topic.
"America is a place where you can make it if you try. . . . But the American economy has worked in large part because we have guided that market with an invisible hand of principle that America prospers when all Americans prosper," Obama told the receptive crowd of 2,000 at the Lockridge Arena. "Too often over the last quarter century we have lost this sense of shared prosperity. . . . The American economy does not stand still, and neither should the rules of government."
Obama said he would push a $50 billion emergency economic plan, offer a 10 percent tax credit on mortgage costs to middle-class homeowners and change bankruptcy law to make it easier for people in financial trouble to stay in their homes.
New regulations must ensure that all financial institutions strengthen their amount of capital and that government investigates potential conflicts between ratings agencies and the institutions that they oversee, he added.
Obama attempted to draw sharp contrasts between himself and McCain, who has described himself as "fundamentally a deregulator." The Illinois senator argued that a reduction in regulation and oversight led to the savings-and-loan crisis of the 1980s and the recent problems that saw the collapse of three of the country's five largest investment banks.
"John McCain cannot be trusted to reestablish proper oversight of our financial markets for one simple reason: he has shown time and time again that he does not believe in it," Obama said.
McCain backed away somewhat Tuesday from his remarks that the economy is fundamentally strong, elaborating that he believes that the American workers who drive the economy continue to be strong. But his discussion of the economy took a different tone than Obama's.
The Arizona senator spoke of cutting taxes to fuel the economy and warned that government should not bail out flailing private companies like AIG for fear that this could encourage additional risk-taking. He promised to end the "reckless conduct, corruption and unbridled greed" that had caused both the financial crisis and the recent foreclosure crisis.
Both men agreed that regulatory agencies must be streamlined.
As the financial crisis has worsened, McCain has cut into Obama's significant lead in polls on which candidate would do a better job handling the economy.
William Galston, co-editor of the public-opinion journal The Democratic Strategist, sent an open letter Tuesday criticizing Obama for not offering a clear message on what has gone wrong with the economy or how to fix it.
Vicki Snider, an Obama precinct captain from Brighton, recalled a recent conversation with a Republican she said complained that Obama hasn't offered specifics to back up his campaign promises. Tuesday's speech included the kind of details that will capture voters' attention, Snider said.
Peter Lohaus, a retired business professor from Arvada, agreed that it was the specifics of the six-point plan that set the address apart from many of Obama's other speeches.
"I'm really glad that he basically addresses Mr. McCain's ideas and doesn't fall into a personality battle," Lohaus said.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Notes from the campaign trail
Scenes from outside Lockridge Arena at the Colorado School of Mines during Barack Obama's visit Tuesday:
* Imagine getting up early, driving to Golden, standing in line for more than an hour, getting up to the door and then finding out your ticket is fake.
That's what happened to Sara Hund and Emily Larson Smith, who discovered one of their two tickets was counterfeit. They were at a loss to explain what happened: An Obama volunteer provided both of the tickets.
* For those of you who shelled out $25 for official DNC Obama T-shirts at Invesco Field, the price now is $18 online and $10 at events.
Shannon Clark with the Democratic National Committee said she sold more shirts in Pueblo on Monday than she did Tuesday in Golden.
One woman in sandals who was shivering asked Clark if she had any official Obama socks.
* A small crowd of protesters stood near the line of people snaking their way to get into the speech. They carried a variety of signs, including "NObama, I like money in my pocket" and "Choose life, choose Palin."
The two groups sometimes hurled insults at each other, but their exchanges were mostly peaceful.
School of Mines student Robert Carney of Arvada looked over at the protesters and laughed. Many were his classmates.
"Hey, who made those signs for you? You can't write," he good-naturedly hollered.
* "Are you in Ed Perlmutter's congressional district?" a guy in line was asked. "No," he answered, "I have the crazy guy from Littleton." Apparently he was referring to U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo.
* There's nothing like a Republican begging for extra tickets to get into an Obama event. Joby Weeks of Adams County, an alternate to the Republican National Convention, said he wanted to ask Obama questions. But the event was a rally, not one of John McCain's town hall meetings.
* Among those standing in the VIP line was former Lt. Gov. Gail Schoettler. This time she was wearing blue. She wore Republican red to the Sarah Palin event Monday to provide counter-commentary.
Other VIPs included former state Sen. Penfield Tate, Denver City Councilman Michael Hancock and state Sen. Moe Keller.
* The sign that got the biggest laugh from Democrats was on the ground outside the arena. No one knew where it came from.
It read "You can put tap shoes on Republicans but they're still Republicans."
Lynn Bartels
September 16, 2008
1:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
danirobi writes:
yeah, and then jets off to a $31,000 fundraiser...what a joke!
September 16, 2008
1:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Oh_Wise_One writes:
Let's elect this Panderer-in-Chief. The Bush Administration tried to reel in the financial industry 5 years ago but the Democrats blocked it. Who to blame, oh, who to blame?
September 16, 2008
1:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
fastnloose writes:
Obama can sound impressive,but his short record, does not back up what he says on the stump!
September 16, 2008
1:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cawren writes:
I was thinking of voting for McCain because he showed a little backbone. But his appointment of Sarah Palin has demonstrated that the good ole boy NEOCONs are once again in the republican drivers seat.
Quit frankly the thought of Ms. Palin sitting across the table from the likes of a Mahmoud Ahmadinejad chills me to the bone. Given McCains health issues and age Ms. Palin could in deed become the President Of The United States. SCARY VERY SCARY
Palins credentials.
Palin attended 5 different small colleges before graduating. She was a beauty queen, local weather girl, 4 years on a small town city council and 6 years as the mayor of a small town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people.
Obamas credentials
inexperienced? You be the judge.
President of the Harvard Law Review, 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, 4 years in the United States Senate representing state of 3 million people and has served on the Foreign Affairs, Environment, Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees.
Allan Greenspan has stated the McCain economic policy would be disastrous.
September 16, 2008
1:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
danirobi writes:
Obama-
*Voted "present" 180 times while in the State Senate
*143 days worked while as a U.S. Senate and has not sponsored any major legislation during that time.
*Supported the group ACORN, which is now under federal investigation for voter fraud
*Voted against sending money to re-build New Orleans
*Voted against sending money to re-build the I-35W bridge in MN, but favored that "Bridge to Nowhere"
*While in the State Senate, Obama voted against medical care to babies that survived abortions, even though the IL bill was the same bill that the Feds passed (Boxer, Clinton, Kennedy all supported it)
*A year after his wife received a $200,000 raise from the University of IL-Chicago, Obama sent them a $1 million earmark
*William Ayers?
*Tony Rezco?
September 16, 2008
1:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Shaggy writes:
The economy is so bad that Obama has raised nearly 400 Million and then headed to Hollywood to hold a $28,500 dollar dinner.
But then he tells everyone he is out to help the little man...yea right..Obama is out for himself and no one else, it just depends on what crowd he is telling his lies to.
Remember when he was with the rich elites in San Francisco and called the small town folk bitter who cling to religion and guns.
This guy is an idiot.
I don't think I have ever seen a more conceited jerk in my life.
September 16, 2008
1:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
Boy you two missed the point that at least he came up with specifics on what to do. McCain & Barbie just mumble empty words. Blah Blah Blah. And oh_Wise_One how could the Democrats block anything with the republicans having control of congress 5 years ago. Republicans out there could you please send someone to this board that can talk above a third grade level. People like this idiot is making you all look like more of a bunch idiots that we know you already are.
September 16, 2008
1:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
T1anda writes:
McCain/Palin 08!!
September 16, 2008
1:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Dick_Tater writes:
Cawren writes:
I was thinking of voting for McCain because he showed a little backbone. But his appointment of Sarah Palin has demonstrated that the good ole boy NEOCONs are once again in the republican drivers seat.
You can drop the "I am a Democrat/Republican who is going to vote differently because...", that BS is getting pretty old. And keep in mind you are comparing the Presidential candidate of one party against the Vice Presidential candidate of the other.
September 16, 2008
1:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
Right or wrong the republicans hate it when someone comes up with a plan. I have heard no plan from McSame & Barbie on anything. Just attacks.
September 16, 2008
1:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
Republican deregulation did this. And the greed of large unregulated companies.
If the Dems voted against regulation, show us the proof. What bill, who voted yes or no. Put up or shut up time.
September 16, 2008
1:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ahab337 writes:
It's a terrifying thought to think of Sarah Palin as President. Or John McCain, for that matter.
Obama/Biden '08
September 16, 2008
1:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
DenverDan writes:
McCain has no blueprint to salvage U.S. economy nor did he know the old one.
Obama 08
September 16, 2008
1:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
fastnloose writes:
If McCain had not picked Palin, the extreme leftist Obama would have had a chance.How can anyone say she was a poor choice? The left wishes she was at home in Alaska,she is tearing up the lower states.
September 16, 2008
1:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
McCain, most Republicans, and yes, many Dems helped write the old blueprint for deregulation.
And that included defanging the SEC, the EPA, the FCC, and a host of other agencies that we pay for to represent us, not the financial markets, the pharmaecutical companies, the airlines, and so on.
We really need to make those true regulating agencies again. Yes, take away the redundancy and the countless little rules that don't do much, but start enforcing the fundamentals again.
September 16, 2008
1:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
johnDEPENDSmccain writes:
for four more years of terrible policies (just masked by lipstick this time) vote mcpain 08. if you hate your country, vote mcpain.
September 16, 2008
1:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
YIOTA_LIVES writes: "Apparently Mr Obama has never heard of SOX (Sarbane Oxley). This was put in place to rectify the finance and reporting issues that we saw with Enron. SOX has put a huge burden on companies to manage their finances in a much stricter manner."
Maybe it should be thrown out, and maybe it will be. I believe Obama is really going to look at what is working and what isn't.
I don't think Sarbanes-Oxley reigned in all the ethics problems it was supposed to, but it sure did create a cottage industry of consultants who make a comfortable living off teaching companies how to implement it! Just an objective observation.
September 16, 2008
2:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
fastnloose
Here let me help.
IT WAS A BAD CHOICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
September 16, 2008
2:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
My God...well, here's the GOP plan to deal with the foreclosure crisis...scrub voters whose houses have been foreclosed!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics...
What in the hell is wrong with you people???
September 16, 2008
2:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
Oh and can somebody let me know when McCain spells out his blueprint on what to do? It will take awhile because I know he will have to get with George and get back to us.
September 16, 2008
2:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
BigSky182 writes:
The New York Times reported 9/11/03 that the Bush administration “recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago” and guess who blocked it…. the Democrats
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage...
“These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
“I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.
And lets also take a look at who got campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 89-08
Dodd, Christopher $165,400
Obama, Barack $126,349
Kerry, John $111,000
Bennett, Robert $107,999
Bachus, Spencer $103,300
Blunt, Roy $96,950
Kanjorski, Paul $96,000
Bond, Chris $95,400
Shelby, Richard $80,000
Reed, Jack $78,250
Reid, Harry $77,000
Clinton, Hillary $76,050
(McCain is not on the list!)
So while I agree that Bush needs to shoulder some of the blame for the current state of the economy, I cannot fathom how the Democrats who wrote most of these policies into affect under the Clinton administration are getting away with this without so much as a ounce of wrong doing. For Obama to put this squarely on the shoulders of the Republicans is ridiculous and he needs to be called on this immediately.
Posted 5 hours ago
September 16, 2008
2:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
wyhammertime writes:
Yea right goverment is going to help in this matter heck they can't even secure the border for us or shall we say the" PEOPLE" sorry not even voting on that one !!!
September 16, 2008
2:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
RainbowWarrior writes:
As the Palin dog and pony show fades into the sunset... and the real world demands attention once more, all Mr MacSame can do is claim the economy is strong. While the conservatives get their panties all twisted over pigs with lipstick, their pals on Wall Street are checking out overpasses and cardboard boxes to live in. When a whole economic philosphy craters because it was based on ecomonic anarchy, only an idoit would hold on tight and go along for the ride to the bottom! The article about the Colorado RNC delegate that got a $30,000.00 watch ripped off kind of says it all, your all just easy pickens for a pretty face and don't know how to protect your own assets, let alone anyone elses.
Heck of a job Bushie!
It's like when a gun slinger shots himself in the foot, you feel his pain but can't keep from laughing.
September 16, 2008
2:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Michael writes:
"...And oh_Wise_One how could the Democrats block anything with the republicans having control of congress 5 years ago." - diligaf
Obviously our liberal friend is totally unaware of the 60 vote cloture rule. Unless the party with the majority can muster 60 votes in the Senate to stop any further deliberation on legislation, it has the same affect as a filibuster - which is what it is now referred to as when this happens.. The liberal Dems have shut down a lot of legislation (as has the GOP) even while being the minority party. Your assumption about having "control" of Congress is absurd - and stupid.
"...please send someone to this board that can talk above a third grade level." - diligaf (again)
Maybe this moron should take a civics class in the workings of the US Congress before spouting off on the educational level and ability of anyone to "talk" about any subject.
September 16, 2008
2:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
KCharles writes:
I dont understand. Can any of you on this blog honestly tell yourself your better off under this administration? Do you honestly want our kids to struggle under 8 more years?
Who is McCain going to reform if he has been in lock step with this administration? Please, think about this. If you like the direction of this country vote McCain, then you can thank those of us that will vote to move our country in the right direction.
September 16, 2008
2:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
does this mean that w was wrong to veto the bipartisan, widely popular bill to increase regulatory oversight in 2005?
republican chairman oxley sure thinks so...in fact he thinks it might have saved some of the failure we're seeing now.
but hey, regardless of whose policies failed...what we can't afford now is to continue down the same path that we...wait a minute...nevermind...i forgot we had mccain supporters here...
September 16, 2008
2:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
richardboyd writes:
Save us, Obama! Save us! Help us regulate our way out of this mess! Oh please, save us from ourselves! You are THE ONE!!
This guy's so full of himself it's not even funny. "The economy" is so big, and so dynamic, there is no way the government can control or regulate it. The Soviet Union already tried it, and that's exactly where we're headed with the Obaminator; straight into socialism. Hell, we're halfway there already and it's getting worse. We need to pull out this nosedive, and he is not the guy we need at the stick. I think we need the mavericks . . . . ! Go Palin/McCain!
September 16, 2008
2:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
BigSky182
You are also showing your stupidity.
1. No one blocks a recommendation. If so how is it done? "I senator Dilligaf vote no on his recommendation" It has to be introduced in a bill bozo!!!!!!
2. If it was introduced it had to be rejected by congress. " Guess who had control of congress in 2003?" Hey give Johnny his prize it was the Republicans.
When will we start hearing from some Republicans that have made it through the 3rd grade.
September 16, 2008
2:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
BigSky182 writes:
My kids aren't struggling. As a matter of fact, my 18 year old daughter just closed on her first property, is attending college at night, works a full time career in Real Esate, and is planning a trip to Ireland later this year.
If she can succeed on $14 per hour at 18 years old....
I have said it before and I'll say it again:
It is never about what you make... it's about what you spend.
September 16, 2008
2:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
tromiano writes:
Yes, Mr. Obama. Just what we need: MORE regulation!! Are you hearing that from the two former CEO's of Freddie and Fannie that you have on your economic advisory committee? CEO's who walked away with tens of millions of dollars lining their own pockets? What about the government imposed rules in the 90's requiring that lenders slacken their criteria for mortgage loans, all in the name of "affordable housing"?
Four years of Obama, and the last couple of weeks will look like a cakewalk compared to his quasi-socialist ideals. One thing both parties can agree on: most politicians are a bunch of incompetent boobs. So, why not give them MORE power over our banks, our health care, our retirement, our incomes, etc. What a joke.
September 16, 2008
2:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
denverbulldog writes:
What are the trading rules? How is he going to add transparency? Doesn't sound like details to me. Just because McCain give us nothing, don't be distracted by the smoke and mirrors
September 16, 2008
2:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
BigSky182, that was hardly an overhaul. It was basically just a proposal to transfer oversight to the Treasury Department, and I bet because that would result in even looser regulation! Considering the execs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac approved of this measure, you know it just had to be another instance of Bush in cahoots with Wall Street.
From the article you posted: "The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws."
Wow. What a reform.
September 16, 2008
2:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ron4Obama writes:
Obama and the Dems in both '06 and '07 presented legislation to address the obviously pending general economic downturn as well as the potential collapse of the housing market.
McCain voted NO both times and Bush vetoed!!
McCain voted with Bush 90% in '06, 95% in '07 and so far in '08, 100% of the time, now there's a maverick who is trying to shake up Washington.....SURE!
September 16, 2008
2:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
dilligaf writes: "People like this idiot is making you all look like more of a bunch idiots that we know you already are."
Too funny! Dilligaf my friend, you may want to stop calling other people idiots, or at least proof read a little better when you do.
September 16, 2008
2:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
richardboyd writes:
tromiano; very good points, well said!
September 16, 2008
2:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
MBR693 writes:
mytwosense wrote:
"My God...well, here's the GOP plan to deal with the foreclosure crisis...scrub voters whose houses have been foreclosed!"
Did you actually read the article? Unless you have another source, this one simply mentions allegations made by Democrats that were widely refuted. Also, I don't see how this is a "GOP plan to deal with foreclosures", and frankly, neither probably do you.
September 16, 2008
2:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
windbourne writes:
>>Let's elect this Panderer-in-Chief. The Bush Administration tried to reel in the financial industry 5 years ago but the Democrats blocked it. Who to blame, oh, who to blame?
O_WISE_ONE;
LOL, rofl. You HAVE TO BE KIDDING. the dems tried to block regulating the financial industry. Is this the same dems who were MINORITY party in BOTH HOUSES 5 years ago? The party that had ZERO CONTROL to block ANY MAJORITY based legislation, blocked it? About the ONLY THING that dems could block was appointments of judges which required 2/3 vote.
September 16, 2008
2:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cowboy63 writes:
Did Hickenlooper or Obama mention the fact that the democrats have been in control of the House and Senate for the last two years?
September 16, 2008
2:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
richardboyd writes:
ron4obama; your point looks good at first, but it's never that simple with those freakin' 1000 page bills congress is so fond of. So many riders and attachments. They likely said no for a reason like that. Congress is convoluted and corrupt. We need transparency in the worst way. Palin only one to have actually done that on her record as governor.
September 16, 2008
2:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
richardboyd: "We need transparency in the worst way. Palin only one to have actually done that on her record as governor."
You're talking about the governor who insisted sensitive correspondence be conducted through her personal email account?
September 16, 2008
2:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"The economy" is so big, and so dynamic, there is no way the government can control or regulate it. The Soviet Union already tried it, and that's exactly where we're headed with the Obaminator; straight into socialism. "
we've debunked these socialism boogeyman myths so many times it's absolutely mindblowing that we still have folks sticking to them.
richard...you need to come to terms with The Track Record and understand that continuing the policies that have created the mess we're in isn't a valid solution to the problem.
September 16, 2008
2:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
BigSky182 writes:
"'Obama also said he would push a $50 billion emergency economic plan to repair infrastructure and schools, offer a 10 percent tax credit on mortgage costs to middle-class homeowners and change bankruptcy laws to make it easier for people in financial trouble to stay in their homes."
Who's gonna frickin pay for THAT!!! (hides my wallet)
September 16, 2008
2:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Danchan writes:
Let's see....
A huge number of attacks on Senator Obama... a couple of forlorn cries against the great demon "socialism"... a few shouts that the Democrats are to blame for everything....
Does anyone support Senator McCain? I mean, instead of this constant diatribe about your fears (imagined or otherwise) concerning Senator Obama, is there anyone who really believes that Senator McCain has a policy that will help America? I haven't heard anything except platitudes so far in his speeches. Many people will disagree with them, but at least Senator Obama is verbalizing a plan.
Concerning Governer Palin being a target... if Senator McCain was a younger healthier person then it would be unnecessary to be talking about her. Like the way it's not necessary to talk too much about Senator Biden. But the situation being what it is, it is necessary to discuss her ability to step into the most powerful job in America.
It's obvious she can lie well. That will help her to move seamlessly into the position.
She can destroy the economy of a small city. That's a big job qualification.
She is capable of unquestioning belief in an idea. That's worked out really well for the last 8 years.
Oh well. Either vote for 4 more years of Bush or vote for Senator Obama. Your call.
September 16, 2008
2:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
davies
Same old Republican response. If you can't defend your stupid claims you go after some one's grammar. You all talk out of your a-- then can't come up with a intelligent response. Now I will leave it up to you wise one. Tell me how the Democrats can block a recommendation? You always want to jump and blame the Democrats and then come up with stupid ways of doing it.
September 16, 2008
2:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
Oh and davies while your at it can you fill me in on McSames blueprint to the economic mess we are in?
September 16, 2008
3:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Shaggy writes:
Obama may have a plan but it is a bad plan that will bankrupt this Country.
His tax plan involves the single largest tax increase the United States has ever seen.
He says it will not effect middle America which is an out right lie.
errr well unless you don't buy food, clothes, gas or buy anything from any company, business or store of any kind.
He will kill small business.
He will raise unemployment when small business can't afford to provide health care to all.
He will kill big time investors that invest in Businesses thus raising unemployment higher.
Obama is bad bad bad for America.
He is nothing but a typical Liberal bent on turning America
September 16, 2008
3:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
KCharles writes:
You have got to be kidding me! We are trillions deep in a war. Gas prices through the roof because in the most part reduced oversight on energy profits. We are in the middle of the biggest mortgage crisis since the early eighties. The DOW just fell over 500 points yesterday, leaving the carcasses to the 2% vultures. And we still have people arguing "stay the course"?
Not to mention Katrina, and the billion dollar bailouts. "How many times do you have to be hit over the head until you realize who's hitting you?" Wise words from Truman.
Have you McCain supporters lost your minds? This isnt about who's team you cheer for, its our country! Enough of the blind support, save it for your favorite college team. Tell me one good thing McCain will do. One reason he will turn us around.
September 16, 2008
3:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
Danchan
You are making to much sense. You have to understand you are dealing with third graders here.
September 16, 2008
3:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
KCharles writes:
Shaggy,
Sounds familiar. Just the same retoric we heard from the Bush 1 supporters when Clinton ran. Not all that prophetic.
September 16, 2008
3:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
Shaggy: OK can you give us McCain's plan? I asked a couple of your teammates and they can't give me an answer.
September 16, 2008
3:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
dakar writes:
Obama is looking to have the Government be much more closely tied to the markets, much like they do in Europe. He appears to be following the failed european market system. High unemployment, double and triple what the US has. Poor market growth, not the 1.5% /qtr the US is having right now, but stagnation.
September 16, 2008
3:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
richardboyd writes:
80 to 90% approval rating as governor. She must have done something right, can you back off enough to concede a little bit?
September 16, 2008
3:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
glassguy writes:
Some good words that Obama thinks people want to hear. Maybe, maybe not. After this latest visit by both parties, nothing new except a "six-point plan". What does Palin mean by "overhaul", do we just conclude our own specifics? 50 billion emergency plan, where is that money going to come from? It would seem that we are headed on that "bridge to nowhere". What a shame.
September 16, 2008
3:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
chickenlittle1234 writes:
Shaggy, et. al. -
High time we had a "typical" liberal because the typical neocons have run this country into the dirt. Wall street greed at the expense of everyone else not good enough for you? How about going from a Federal budget surplus to an alltime high record deficit (which would have happened, by the way, even without the Iraq war). Competency? You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie. I mean, come on and face it - your team screwed up royal, and it's going to take the proud Liberal traditions to set it right.
September 16, 2008
3:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
KCharles writes:
He's not following the European markets. He's talking about the same regulation that built this country. And I wouldnt champion our current ecconomy. Unless, maybe you think our economy is "fundamentally strong." (not so wise words from Herbert Hoover and John McCain.)
September 16, 2008
3:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
tromiano writes:
As this was an article touting Obama's view of the current economic crisis, it is only practical to discuss what he has said in this thread. As for what McCain has proposed: the current corporate tax is 35%. This is the second highest in the world. McCain proposes to lower this to give less motivation for companies to move jobs overseas. McCain realizes that small business is the heart and soul of the U.S. economy; they provide more jobs than corporate America and the federal government combined. He proposes to help entrepreneurs with start-up costs, as well as keeping their business taxes low. McCain realizes that investment is a KEY ingredient to a growing economy; as such, he recognizes that raising taxes on the very mechanism that drives investment (capital gains taxes) will discourage such investment, thus stifling any hope of job growth and technological advances. McCain believes that a huge part of our economic crisis is energy costs: he has outlined a plan that would take advantage of ALL technologies currently available to us, including wind, solar, natural gas, oil and nuclear. Reducing energy costs will drive this economy further along than any tax cut, including Obama's proposed cut for 95% of Americans. McCain has promised (and conservatives will hold him to his word) that he will drastically cut pork barrel spending. Federal monies for state infrastructures is fine, but attaching frivolous projects to otherwise sound legislation is the very essence of corruption in government, and only gives fodder for both parties to attack one another during election campaigns.
Both candidates, unfortunately, have failed to recognize the "watering down" effect of quality jobs and wages for Americans by the influx of immigrant workers, most of whom are undocumented. We have enjoyed relatively low inflation on goods and services as a result of this influx - an indulgence that has begun to dramatically affect the American economy.
Regardless, while tax breaks for 95% of Americans sounds great, the bigger issue should be reducing energy costs, and McCain's energy plan is the only one that has a realistic hope of actually working.
September 16, 2008
3:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
chickenlittle1234 writes:
Keep in mind Richardboyd, that Alaskans, including your treasured Ms. Palin back in the day, smoke a lot of the herb. My guess is that your percentage (which is dubious without a link to support it) is skewed by the few residents who actually knew who she was.
September 16, 2008
3:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
chris33 writes:
Rising unemployment, rising gas prices, record foreclosures, record trade deficit, the Big Three on the verge of bankrupcy, $700 billion dollars wasted on Iraq, a $500 billion dollar budget deficit, and a stock market crash.
Now old man McBush wants us to elect him so he can clean up the mess he created. No way. Go Obama!
September 16, 2008
3:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
KCharles writes:
Fundamentally sound? uh ok?
a little blip? hmmmm
stiffling big business? wow
Im like speechless.
September 16, 2008
3:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Conservativeslayer writes:
You righties are the biggest bunch of fools to ever live. The whole reason our financial system is in meltdown is because of DEREGULATION. We let the banking industry police itselves, and this is what always happens. It happened in the 1920's, it happened in the 1980's with the Savings and Loans fiasco, and it's happening now. It was the republicans that called for deregulation. You created this monster, so you own it a$$wipes. As to the biggest moron on this page, Yiota, you say we need rules but not government. Who do you think is going to enforce the rules moron? Yes that's right, GOVERNMENT. Got a clue embecile.
September 16, 2008
3:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
ArvadaMiner writes:
From a historical perspective, government has not proven itself to be a good manager (Republicans, Democrats, Independents or whatever party you want to put in power). The problems with Lehman Brothers and others were due to bad decisions made by management. I have no faith in any government to oversee and manage bad decisions. Unfortunately when bad decisions are made, there are innocent people that end up facing consequences. Life is not fair, so get over it. The last thing we need is more regulation that will only hinder other businesses that do actually hold themselves accountable for their actions.
If Obama wins, I am at least confident that he does not have the ability to actually implement his plans, much like Clinton was unable to get much done in his first 2 years. Obama has proven himself to be big on talk and a non-factor when it comes to action.
September 16, 2008
3:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Danchan writes:
dakar writes: "...He appears to be following the failed european market system."
I'm thinking that he could be following the back of the cereal box market system and it would be an improvement over the current Republican mandated system.
September 16, 2008
3:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
KCharles writes:
tromiano,
I respect the fact that you are actually presenting an argument based on issues. However, I strongly disagree. The driving force in the eccomomy has always been consumer spending, which is connected to employment and wages. Now I know all you trickle-downers believe that you have to give big busniess a free ride to keep them around. But, it was proven that busness and consumers thrive from incentive based taxes and rewards for job growth and investment.
trickle-down didnt work in the Hoover years, it didnt work in the Bush years, and it wont work for McCain.
September 16, 2008
3:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
dilligaf: Some "blueprint". After the federal government has been forced to bail out Fannie May, Freddie Mac, and who knows how many others, it doesn't take a frickin' genius to call for more regulation of the institutions being bailed out. The question is just how much regulation? Big deal.
Then we have a proposed $50 billion for education and infrastructure, to pander to the NEA and construction interests (like unions maybe?). And then let's add a 10% tax CREDIT for mortgagees, to pander to homeowners for their votes. Hmmm, that's gonna add up - and it would probably benefit me, by the way. This isn't an economic plan, it's an election strategy.
Question for you dilligaf: If Obama is elected, and Democrats have a majority in both houses, then do you expect all our economic troubles to go away? Because I gotta tell ya, businesses, corporations, that's what powers the economy. Not government.
And I still say you shouldn't call people idiots if you're going to write like one.
September 16, 2008
3:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
ArvadaMiner writes:
Let's look briefly at Fannie Mae. Started by FDR, a Democrat and mostly managed by Democrats such as Franklin Raines, Clinton's former budget director. Raines (CEO of Fannie Mae from 1999-2004) overstated earnings so he and other executives could get big bonuses. Raines' reign at Fannie Mae also coincides with the timeframe where so many sub-prime mortgages were granted. There's not a lot of risk when you know the government will just bail you out and this was the approach Fannie Mae took, as it was always known that there would be few consequences for the actions of his company.
So be careful about putting all the blame on Republicans about the economy. Democrats have just as much responsibility.
For those wanting references, I am not writing a dissertation here. Just Google "Franklin Raines" to start with and see who was actually managing some of these companies that made bad decisions and now want the government to bail them out.
September 16, 2008
4:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
KCharles writes:
I've got an idea. To those of you that believe government is someone besides YOU, all of you who seem to think "government" is a bad word. (You can probably find some common fotter with the anarchists. Your argyle sweaters might clash with their red bandanas though.)
Anyway, how about all of you government detesters take this election off, since its not really about you anyway. And you know, government shouldnt interupt your first Tuesday in November. It's too intrusive already.
Those of us who really see government as an extention of the people, "by the people, for the people" we will participate and fix this mess.
No need to thank us, after we do. We understand.
September 16, 2008
4:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
tro, you made a good stab at making a case for more of the same, but trickle down economics won't work the third time any better than it did the first two. adding 5 trillion to the nation's debt load in the name of corporate welfare sounds like more of the same...while obama's plan to cut middle class taxes while shifting some of the tax burden back to the upper class sounds like help for real americans.
furthermore, you can spout the myth about illegal immigration being responsible for stagnating real wages and a horrible job records...but let's go ahead and hold the folks truly responsible accountable for the decisions that devalued the dollar, increased the cost of consumer goods and shipped millions of jobs out of the country.
the real question remains...why would you believe that continuing the policies that put us in this mess is the best way to fix said mess?
September 16, 2008
4:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
dakar writes:
You can blame the entire Congress as well as Bush here.
Here's the take from Larry Kudlow talking to Treasury Sec. Paulson (primarily on Lehman):
Paulson’s view — supported by Bernanke and former Clinton Treasury official Timothy Geithner (now the president of the New York Fed) — is that the private sector has to take responsibility, including a consortium of private bank funds to assist the beleaguered AIG insurance company. We are now in for some Schumpeterian gales of creative destruction. But this is how it must be.
“Moral hazard,” said Paulson, “is something I don’t take lightly.” He’s saying bad financial behavior must be penalized, not rewarded. That’s the essence of the issue. The risk of failure is essential to an efficient economic system, and that includes financial risk.
The alternative, of course, is that the U.S. goes down the old European path of government domination of markets and the economy. But the moment the U.S. becomes bailout nation, that is the moment our economy and country heads irrevocably down the road of decline. However, Paulson set down a marker and said, “No we won’t.” As difficult as the next days may be, the primacy of economic freedom has been given a boost while the economic future of the U.S. looks brighter. Paulson’s decision was both momentous and transformative.
Obama is on the campaign trail predictably charging that a lack of regulations during the Bush era is responsible for the current mess. But he’s misreading history. As George Mason economist Tyler Cowen wrote in the New York Times, one of the problems with the U.S. financial system is not a lack of regulation, but a lack of smart and effective regulation.
During the Bush years, financial regulations increased exponentially, beginning with the misbegotten Sarbanes-Oxley act. That put accountants and lawyers in the driver’s seat rather than entrepreneurs. And it turns out that neither the Fed, the FDIC, the Comptroller of the Currency, nor the SEC properly supervised high-risk leveraged borrowings and the capital-adequacy ratios necessary to safeguard against losses. Accounting standards need reform, especially the notion of fair value. Economist David Malpass wants to throw out mark-to-market all together. He has a good point.
Then there’s Congress, led by Democrats in the last two years and Republicans before that, which mandated substandard lending to low-income groups. And as the high-risk loans mounted, this very same Congress — under the gun of political contributions — continued to promote the excesses of lenders, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
September 16, 2008
4:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
KCharles writes:
"Palin, speaking in Jefferson County, said the regulatory system needs 'a complete overhaul.' But aside from saying executive bonuses should be limited and corporate abuses addressed, she offered no specifics.
She screams of socialism!!! Limiting executice bonuses? Corporate abuses addressed?
And you McCain supporters let that communist bile be spewed with no objection?
Are you free-marketers gonna take that from your number 2?
September 16, 2008
4:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
iamwoman writes:
I can't believe that Americans are choosing their political leaders as if they're the home football team - they might not be playing so good, but we 'like' them!
Go to www.factcheck.org and www.votesmart.org for the true 'scoop' on all of the candidates. These are non-partisan websites.
Anyone who votes to continue the current GOP administration (insert McCain/Palin) is asking for even greater fiscal crisis, continued war, worsening educational opportunities and attacks to our environment. We cannot afford another C- President or worse!
Bush/McCain-they're the same! And Palin is now citing "Executive Privilege" to try and escape troopergate when she isn't even the VP! Enough- Enough - Enough!
Obama/Bidden- they have the brains to govern and the ethics to change Washington!
September 16, 2008
4:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
davies: "Then we have a proposed $50 billion for education and infrastructure, to pander to the NEA and construction interests (like unions maybe?). And then let's add a 10% tax CREDIT for mortgagees, to pander to homeowners for their votes. Hmmm, that's gonna add up - and it would probably benefit me, by the way. This isn't an economic plan, it's an election strategy."
The construction industry is hurting right now. People are getting laid off left and right. Rebuilding our own infrastructure will give this industry a shot in the arm, not to mention, is it really such a bad thing to invest in our own country again? Instead of emptying our Treasury to blow up and then rebuild other countries?
As for the NEA, millions of teachers belong to that union. You know, the people tasked with educating and watching over our children all day while we chase after the American dream? In case you haven't noticed, they don't make that much money. You would deny them a raise? You really buy the anti-union propaganda that most teachers are bad?
Anyway, I'd rather vote for a president who panders to 95% of this country instead of corporations. Hell, government SHOULD pander to the people!
September 16, 2008
4:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"The alternative, of course, is that the U.S. goes down the old European path of government domination of markets and the economy"
actually this is what is called a false dilemma, dakar.
we can have the kind of responsible oversight that bush vetoed and not have "gov't domination of markets and the economy".
September 16, 2008
4:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
chickenlittle1234 writes:
KCharles -
It doesn't bother me that Palin offers no specifics becasue she's only on the ticket at the VP, and is otherwise an empty dress. McCain is the one who worries me, in that he isn't the guy for the national stage, and he certainly isn't the guy to run the economy. It's a funny thing I keep hearing from all the neocons - Obama doesn't have the experience. Well, ladies and gentlemen, remember it's a glass house from which you're making that argument. McCain has never had any real business experience, which is why he's got Carly Fiorini running around, trying to both explain the McCain position and dodge questions about why she got booted from HP.
September 16, 2008
4:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
freemarketworks writes:
Jay,
I believe that ‘trickle down’ is an emotional term for 'Supply Side Economics.' It has always been the case that when you decrease capital gains taxes, businesses grow and the actual tax base is increased. Taxes are almost always regressive; see the city of Detroit, MI. as clear evidence of what happens when you tax businesses out of business...
"Current policies that put us into this mess?" I would argue that our current policies are what are holding us above water. Further, I would say that it was under the Clinton watch that sub-prime lending and unregulated banking blossomed into our huge housing bubble.
To the article, Obama's plans are aimed directly at my income, capital gains and will directly decrease the number of jobs that I am able to offer. The message from Obama to me is “don’t strive to be a ‘ten percenter’, because I am going to take your money…” The ironic part of this message is that most ‘ten percenters’ that I know are fully prepared to relocate off-shore or sell their assets to foreign companies in order to survive.
September 16, 2008
4:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
FRN4U writes:
has everyone forgotten Obama's $750 biilion global poverty plan?
maybe I read about it from an unreliable source! McCain and Obama dog and pony shows. $10 trillion in immediate debt,
$70 to $100 trillion in unfunded mandates (socialist security, medicare, medicaid, welfare for everyone including illegal aliens,............Slavery --we are all slaves, paying up to the
private corporation--the FEDERAL RESERVE. Where is the
IRS domiciled?????? Read the "Ten Planks of the Communist
Manifesto--Translated"-----Who is the joke being played upon?
Central Banking, aka The Federal Reserve, is one of the ten planks! Who elected GREENSPAN OR BERNANKE(sp?)?
We only have a handfull or two of true conservatives---the rest
wouldn't make a pimple on any presidential candidates ________..
Salazar(s), Ritters, Hoopers, Tauer are as good as it gets.
September 16, 2008
4:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
KCharles writes:
Good point, chickenlittle.
I cant believe I actually just wrote that. Not that I dont often agree with you, chickenlittle. I often do. Its just that your.... well... your chickenlittle.
September 16, 2008
4:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
areader writes:
kcharles writes: "I dont understand. Can any of you on this blog honestly tell yourself your better off under this administration?"
Actually, yes... my income has almost doubled in the last 8 years because I worked hard and kept moving forward and didn't depend on an administration to tell me what to do or what assistance to wait for. You can do it too, as can everyone else.
September 16, 2008
4:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
tromiano writes:
KCharles writes "The driving force in the eccomomy has always been consumer spending,..."
I agree. However, when so much of consumer resources are tied up in skyrocketing energy prices, consumers are less likely to spend money on other items. I do not know what numbers Obama is talking about in terms of actual tax breaks (i.e. how much per household); however, I do know that if a family of four typically buys 30 gallons of gas a week at $3.75 a gallon, they are spending around $5,850 on gas every year. If real-world energy initiatives are implemented and gas prices drop $0.50 to $1.00 a gallon, that family can save between $750 to $1,500 a year. In a household that earns $50k a year, that represents up to 3% of their annual income - a fairly sizable increase in income without redistributing incomes.
As far as 'trickle down' not working in the Bush years: quite the opposite. In O'Reilly's interview with Obama, Obama himself admitted that the economy grew by nearly 20% over the past 8 years - a remarkable thing considering Sep. 11 happened fairly close to the beginning of Bush's term. The government received close to 20% more revenue in the last 8 years than it did under the Clinton administration. The problem (and one of the biggest criticisms conservatives have of Bush) is that the government spent even more than it was taking in. Bush has only had 12 vetoes as president - significantly fewer than most. His authority as president to veto pork legislation was squandered - something McCain has specifically addressed, and something Barack has not.
September 16, 2008
4:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
freemarket, you still haven't addressed the points i made. you might start by dropping the willful ignorance about trickle down economics being a failure twice now and about how the republicans aren't accountable for the situation we find ourselves in now....bbbbut clinton is no longer answering the call.
finally...if you're just now moving your assets away from the american dollar and stock market...i highly doubt that you are a ten percenter.
nice try.
September 16, 2008
4:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
SlouchingTowardBoulder writes:
"Several people who had seen Obama speak elsewhere said they noted an increased urgency in both his message and in the words of the local Democratic leaders who introduced him."
Translation? Obama is increasingly desperate as he slips further and further in Florida, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina, Montana, North Dakota ... and polls show New Jersey, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and even New York coming into play.
September 16, 2008
4:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
KCharles writes:
areader,
You may make twice as much, but the cost of living has doubled as well. real earnings have fallen. And if you are one of the lucky few, God bless you. But, I hope you're not really trying to pass this wack job called an economy off on hard working families. I know that your argument isnt really that people just arent trying hard enough.
September 16, 2008
4:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
FRN4U writes:
is Obama's $3/4 trillion Global Povery Plan real?
September 16, 2008
4:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
dakar: Thank you. Very informative.
my2sense: Teachers are people. There's good ones and not so good ones. Do they deserve a raise? Not necessarily. They have a bachelor's degree, do they not? If they want a better paying job, who's to stop them?
I'll support higher pay for teachers, en masse, when we get our priorities straight in this country and go to year-round school. There is no need for summer vacation and then spending the first month of every school year reviewing last year, and trying to re-establish habits, policies and discipline.
"Hell, government SHOULD pander to the people!" Obviously, you stand on the economic gain side of that statement.
I didn't know you could say 'hell' on here...
And that's all I have to say about that.
September 16, 2008
5:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
chickenlittle1234 writes:
I am indeed chickenlittle, though to paraphrase Bob Dylan, you don't need me now to know which way the wind is blowing.
September 16, 2008
5:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
KCharles writes:
i digress. And with this I will leave. I have to get out of here and go try harder. And God willing all of those Americans that have lost their jobs due to offshoring tax breaks, and you all in New Orleans, and those poor saps that lost their retirements, and especially those poor souls at AIG and Lehman Bros. Just pull yourselves up by your own boot straps. All of you finacial institutions and wall street drunkards dont wait for your bailout. areader can do it, so can you. So can I. Prosperity awaits, this is just a "blip" no need to fret, chickenlittle. This whole thing has been our imagination. No need to whine any longer. The fundamentals of our economy are sound.
and I will make my fortune building bridges to nowhere... or I will then I wont.
September 16, 2008
5:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
chickenlittle1234 writes:
tromiano -
Sure, the economy grew 20%, based on an unprecedented run up in asset prices - real estate, in particular. Take a look through the Fed's Flow of Funds - household net worth skyrocketed with home values, which were propped up by overly aggressive lending. The 20% was largely a bubble that is now unwinding. And the unwinding - already nasty - will continue and will likely be more painful. We've only seen residential values fall. Next are commercial values. You thought a 20% decline in real home prices was bad, just wait until you see 50-75% writedowns on office buildings, warehouses, etc. etc. The good news - at least for businesses - is that rents will come down, too. And for all of you tax hawks out there, you should know from running your own businesses that the costs of labor and rent are the biggest chunk of a business's expenses.
September 16, 2008
7:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
ghoax writes:
the bubbles and bursts are almost entirely caused by the expansion and retraction of credit and the Mandrake system which rules our banking. Our money is not backed by gold, only debt..which is why we have the hidden tax called inflation, the more congress spends, the more bonds the fed reserve buys with printed money...not silver, not gold....ink, and that's just the start of it. They handed off 145 bn dollars today that don't really exist, 100bn reported last August and since the DEMOCRAT congress made it the law that the Fed Reserve no longer has to disclose how much currency in circulation, who knows what else they've don. I can't find the big o's blueprint anywhere, if he has on there repealing the Federal Reserve Act...then perhaps he might have something.
September 16, 2008
7:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
FRN4U writes:
I guess that I have to update my 4:40 pm post. S2433, Obama
sponser of the UN "Global Poverty Act, $845 billion Federal
Reserve Notes, aka dollars, seems still to be alive and well.
Near as I can tell--still in US Senate Committee. $845 billion
over a few years--five to ten--does not seem like much for we
the people. AIG is now getting an $85 billion bailout. No problem,
eh? see my earlier posts---tell me what is not true please!
September 16, 2008
7:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
FRN4U writes:
Good post ghoax--- M3 --money supply/currency in circulation is not reported anymore. The FRN printing presses are working
overtime--can't get enough ink, paper, grease for the bearings.
AIG bailout and other selective WALL STREET global elites
bailouts kind of proves the story. The FED IS PRIVATE!
No wonder everyone is having a tougher time the past few years.
Simple economics--the more of something (FRN) the cheaper
it becomes and the less it will buy. It is not the greed of commodity producers--it is that the dollar (FRN--notes of debt)
is the trash currency of the planet.
September 16, 2008
7:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
gr8fun4me writes:
I'm tired of seeing the Republican's ruin the economy and then blame it on the Democrats. You guys need to do your research and you'll find out that the three biggest financial scandals have occurred during Republican administrations.
Enron and Mortgage Crisis during the Bush years
Savings and Loan scandal during Reagans administration.
The problem is that the Republican mantra doesn't work. Less regulation leads to greedy SOB's figuring out a way to steal from everyone. The mortgage crisis may sink this country financially but the same group of people are going to blame it on the Democrats. The Republicans had control of Congress for 6 straight years and did nothing. The 2005 congress only worked 181 days of the year and was nicknamed the "Do nothing" congress. That is why they lost congress in 2006 because of their laziness. If you believe that the Democrats did this you need to