Bush's "bailout" package is telling

[JerrySeinfeld]

Has anyone noticed what's happening to the Bush administration's proposed "bailout" package for the economy? Let me give you a hint: nobody likes it "as is", and even house members from his own party are refusing to give it a pass without 1. watering it down or 2. making some major changes to it - which will obviously be to their liking, not Bush's.

What's my point? SImply what I;ve been saying to people in Canada for years about a President's domestic power. As commander in chief, the President of the United States has much more influence and power over foreign affairs than s/he does over directing, for exmaple, domestic economic policy.

Domestically, the President isn't like our Prime Minister here in Canada. He doesn't just get elected and start running the show. The blockage of Bush's economic rescue plan is just one of umpteen examples of this in the real world.

Why am I telling you this? Because this fact should be relevent to those considering who to support for president.

Barack Obama has grand plans of universal health care and increasing taxes to feed the poor, part the oceans and save the universe. When in reality, it's mostly bullshit and he knows it. He'll never be able to pass anything he's promised without seriously watering it down. You don't think Bil Clinton didn't make the same promises about universal health care etc. etc. etc.

Due to the (ingenius) structure of the US government, as long as there are two houses in congress, one of which (the senate) needs 2/3 majority to pas a bill, Universal Health care and many of the other socialist dreams of democrat presidents will not become a reality. They are empty platitudes used to buy votes they'll never have to pay for (thank god).

The United States government structure was intentionally built by the framers to protect the people from too much government!!!

Unlike in Canada, where we constantly ask "what's the government going to do?" and welcome government into our lives - many Americans would rather say "stay the f*ck out of my life!!" as we are currently seeing with the massive resistance to the Bush bailout plan.

My point is - this is why Republicans have for so long had the inside track to the white house - because they understand this is in the fabric of America. Every so often an empty suit democrat with a grand plan weasels his way in - as Barack may do.

I just thought I'd be the first to break it to all you lefty Obamamites out there: if and when Barry gets elected, don't be too dissappointed when utopia doesn't arrive shortly thereafter.

In a warped way, Barack getting elected may in fact lead to years more of republican rule, as the masses become shocked to find that things not only didn't get better, they actually got worse under the "chosen one".

[Liam]

I'd rather have as President an even-keeled and temperate person who cannot deliver all his domestic policy campaign promises than a schizophrenic drama queen who very well may deliver all his foreign policy campaign promises.

[Pliny]

Has anyone noticed what's happening to the Bush administration's proposed "bailout" package for the economy? Let me give you a hint: nobody likes it "as is", and even house members from his own party are refusing to give it a pass without 1. watering it down or 2. making some major changes to it - which will obviously be to their liking, not Bush's.

What's my point? SImply what I;ve been saying to people in Canada for years about a President's domestic power. As commander in chief, the President of the United States has much more influence and power over foreign affairs than s/he does over directing, for exmaple, domestic economic policy.

Domestically, the President isn't like our Prime Minister here in Canada. He doesn't just get elected and start running the show. The blockage of Bush's economic rescue plan is just one of umpteen examples of this in the real world.

Why am I telling you this? Because this fact should be relevent to those considering who to support for president.

Barack Obama has grand plans of universal health care and increasing taxes to feed the poor, part the oceans and save the universe. When in reality, it's mostly bullshit and he knows it. He'll never be able to pass anything he's promised without seriously watering it down. You don't think Bil Clinton didn't make the same promises about universal health care etc. etc. etc.

Due to the (ingenius) structure of the US government, as long as there are two houses in congress, one of which (the senate) needs 2/3 majority to pas a bill, Universal Health care and many of the other socialist dreams of democrat presidents will not become a reality. They are empty platitudes used to buy votes they'll never have to pay for (thank god).

The United States government structure was intentionally built by the framers to protect the people from too much government!!!

Unlike in Canada, where we constantly ask "what's the government going to do?" and welcome government into our lives - many Americans would rather say "stay the f*ck out of my life!!" as we are currently seeing with the massive resistance to the Bush bailout plan.

My point is - this is why Republicans have for so long had the inside track to the white house - because they understand this is in the fabric of America. Every so often an empty suit democrat with a grand plan weasels his way in - as Barack may do.

I just thought I'd be the first to break it to all you lefty Obamamites out there: if and when Barry gets elected, don't be too dissappointed when utopia doesn't arrive shortly thereafter.

In a warped way, Barack getting elected may in fact lead to years more of republican rule, as the masses become shocked to find that things not only didn't get better, they actually got worse under the "chosen one".

Good post except Barack doesn't have a chance.

When John Kerry lost the election in '04 I realized how Canadian I was. I was convinced that Kerry had it in a landslide. I really didn't have too much of a clue about how strongly Americans felt about government. Canadians see it as a benevolent social benefactor and Americans see it for what it is - a necessary evil - that way they keep it at bay and doing their bidding. That being said, however, America is still subject to creeping socialist ideology and people who believe government should be a benevolent social benefactor - like the friendly and obliging Canadians believe.

[bush_cheney2004]

The Bush/Fed Chair bailout plan was DOA...dead on arrival. There is a huge backlash right now from individuals who want to see the fat cats get more of a haircut. The House Republicans are standing firm.....

Make it hurt!

Edited September 26, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[JerrySeinfeld]

I'd rather have as President an even-keeled and temperate person who cannot deliver all his domestic policy campaign promises than a schizophrenic drama queen who very well may deliver all his foreign policy campaign promises.

Even-keeled?

A summary of Barack's various policy stands wrt the Surge:

1. Vote against surge - it will never work we are going to lose the war let's pull out now.

2. Plan for withdrawal of all troops within 18 months

3. Admit that "some aspects" of the surge are working

4. Admit the surge is a success

5. But not really, if you factor in Iraqi politics (I love this one)

6. Admit that troops should possibly stay longer, depending upon circumstances and given we are winning

A summary of McCain's:

1. Vote and fight for an unpopular troop surge

2. See that he was right all along

3. Win the war in Iraq

I'd rather have a level-headed dealmaker on domestic policy than a dreamer.

I'd rather have an experienced leader on foreign policy than a finger-in-the-wind academic.

[stevoh]

Even-keeled?

A summary of Barack's various policy stands wrt the Surge:

1. Vote against surge - it will never work we are going to lose the war let's pull out now.

2. Plan for withdrawal of all troops within 18 months

3. Admit that "some aspects" of the surge are working

4. Admit the surge is a success

5. But not really, if you factor in Iraqi politics (I love this one)

6. Admit that troops should possibly stay longer, depending upon circumstances and given we are winning

A summary of McCain's:

1. Vote and fight for an unpopular troop surge

2. See that he was right all along

3. Win the war in Iraq

I'd rather have a level-headed dealmaker on domestic policy than a dreamer.

I'd rather have an experienced leader on foreign policy than a finger-in-the-wind academic.

I hardly think that a senator who chooses eye candy and ideology over substance for a VP, says one day he will postpone his participation in the debates, changes his mind the next day, cancels letterman saying he has to go to washington immediatly then doesn't actually leave until the next day in favour of other TV appearances, says he is temporarily stopping his campaign, but by all other indicators doesn't...

This isn't even close to level headed.

[stevoh]

Deleted for double post.

Edited September 26, 2008 by stevoh

[JerrySeinfeld]

I hardly think that a senator who chooses eye candy and ideology over substance for a VP, says one day he will postpone his participation in the debates, changes his mind the next day, cancels letterman saying he has to go to washington immediatly then doesn't actually leave until the next day in favour of other TV appearances, says he is temporarily stopping his campaign, but by all other indicators doesn't...

This isn't even close to level headed.

letterman? bwaaaaahahahahaa.

That shows the seriousness of the left right there.

[stevoh]

letterman? bwaaaaahahahahaa.

That shows the seriousness of the left right there.

The man lied. What can I say? It wasn't an important lie? Sure. But was it a lie? Yes. I have been disapointed with McCain this week, he seems disorganized and fuddled.

Sure, I am biased, and support Obama. I know that. But I at least respected McCain until this week, now I am just starting to feel sorry for him.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Sure, I am biased, and support Obama. I know that. But I at least respected McCain until this week, now I am just starting to feel sorry for him.

How do you "support" Obama? Gonna vote for him?

[stevoh]

How do you "support" Obama? Gonna vote for him?

The same way I support all those I agree with. By agreeing with them.

[bush_cheney2004]

The same way I support all those I agree with. By agreeing with them.

OK..so you "support" Obama but "pity" McCain.....is this true only until the election outcome is decided?

[GostHacked]

letterman? bwaaaaahahahahaa.

That shows the seriousness of the left right there.

The fact he went on someone else's show (regardless of prior commitments to Letterman . if you like we can talk about his commitment to marriage.. the second one that is) on the day he told Letterman he was going to Washington and instead had other televised interviews on that day. Letterman is a big personality and has a very large audience. The exposure you get on Letterman is amazing. But maybe McCain did not want to be caught off guard. Letterman is a smart guy.

So it really is not a left-right thing there. It is just a stupid thing.

He stopped his campaign. He did not go on Letterman

Next day went to Washington to help with the bail out. Now, eventhough the congress/senate/everyone cannot support the proposed plan, McCain now says he will be at the debate. So not after two days of no more campaigning (he never stopped actually) he is going to the debate knowing there is no solution on this bail out package at this time. It may not even be solved tomorrow, but McCain will be at the debates.

Anyone on the left or right should be able to see this as one of the dumbest moves ever.

Sure, Barak may not be the better choice, but Obama went to Washington as well for the talks. But he did not need to suspend his campaign. He is one of those multitaskers. Something you want in a Pres and VP.

[stevoh]

OK..so you "support" Obama but "pity" McCain.....is this true only until the election outcome is decided?

If McCain wins you mean? Would I still pity him? Well, if he wins, I am assuming he becomes instrumental in sorting out this latest mess in washington. If he does that, I can forgive his maverik nature as it was successful. Basically, if I can see purpose and true results in his approach, then I will respect him again.

[bush_cheney2004]

The exposure you get on Letterman is amazing. But maybe McCain did not want to be caught off guard. Letterman is a smart guy.

Letterman's audience share is about 4 million households....not so amazing. But I suppose it is better than whatever is offered in the CBC time slot.

So it really is not a left-right thing there. It is just a stupid thing.

That's what they said about selecting Palin too.

Anyone on the left or right should be able to see this as one of the dumbest moves ever.

Unless he wins the election.....then who will look dumb?

Sure, Barak may not be the better choice, but Obama went to Washington as well for the talks. But he did not need to suspend his campaign. He is one of those multitaskers... Something you want in a Pres and VP.

Yes...the Great Community Organizer couldn't do dick for the original plan....better let the Big Dogs figure it out...not junior Senators.

Edited September 26, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[WIP]

letterman? bwaaaaahahahahaa.

That shows the seriousness of the left right there.

I saw the clip of Letterman showing the live feed of the Katie Couric interview after claiming he had to rush back to Washington. The fact that he went to another studio instead, put in a few appearances elsewhere before staying overnight at a New York hotel makes him a bald faced liar!

[peter_puck]

Has anyone noticed what's happening to the Bush administration's proposed "bailout" package for the economy? Let me give you a hint: nobody likes it "as is", and even house members from his own party are refusing to give it a pass without 1. watering it down or 2. making some major changes to it - which will obviously be to their liking, not Bush's.

I think right now, anyone who voted for the "Bush package" would do so only because they were looking to collect unemployment. Any Republican who voted for the "Bush package" would find their vote featured in an attack ad.

"Senator Johnson voted for the president's massive bailout for Wall street

Even though they see why it is needed, it is suicide to vote for it. The reasons behind the bailout are complex and the voting public does not deal with complex (see the carbon tax). "big tax" or "bailout for fatcats" are much easier concepts

[eyeball]

Has anyone noticed what's happening to the Bush administration's proposed "bailout" package for the economy? Let me give you a hint: nobody likes it "as is", and even house members from his own party are refusing to give it a pass without 1. watering it down or 2. making some major changes to it - which will obviously be to their liking, not Bush's.

What's my point? SImply what I;ve been saying to people in Canada for years about a President's domestic power. As commander in chief, the President of the United States has much more influence and power over foreign affairs than s/he does over directing, for exmaple, domestic economic policy.

There's more than one way to skin a cat. What about the proliferation and distribution of factories in every state of the union that manufacture weapons and other sectors of their economies that service the military? The US military is never far from the intersection of the President's foreign affairs policies and the interests of US corporations abroad, especially those involved in oil. Of course this has been a very busy intersection and much of the meltdown on Wall Street can be traced back to the US reaction to 9/11 which of course was a reaction to US foreign affairs policies. Recall Bush Sr's. "c'mon America, spend" - what that really meant was "c'mon America, borrow". Junior's encouragement to,"buy a car, take a vacation" sent the very same message. The banks of course are laughing all the way to the treasury.

The level of Presidential influence on US domestic economy is huge and its only getting bigger.

The United States government structure was intentionally built by the framers to protect the people from too much government!!!

To bad the framers also saw fit to protect the President from the people.

[Oleg Bach]

A knowledgable old investment banker put it this way - "Bush and Cheney are not responsible for the finacial mess" - what is he saying here? - I would assume that Bush is just a surogate and even the tough corporate Cheney is NOT the real boss. As per ususal the real culprits will remain hidden and never see justice served. Personally I don't give a damn about SOME rich people in America that want to take billions from ALL citizens just to stay afloat and maintain a class of entitlement and abuse - this situation is the result of those that think they are better than us and that WE should continue to pay tribute to these second rate dis-honourable gangsters!

[bush_cheney2004]

There's more than one way to skin a cat. What about the proliferation and distribution of factories in every state of the union that manufacture weapons and other sectors of their economies that service the military?

You mean like the same ones in Canadian provinces?

The US military is never far from the intersection of the President's foreign affairs policies and the interests of US corporations abroad, especially those involved in oil. Of course this has been a very busy intersection and much of the meltdown on Wall Street can be traced back to the US reaction to 9/11 which of course was a reaction to US foreign affairs policies.

Nonsense....derivatives were invented before that!

Recall Bush Sr's. "c'mon America, spend" - what that really meant was "c'mon America, borrow". Junior's encouragement to,"buy a car, take a vacation" sent the very same message. The banks of course are laughing all the way to the treasury.

But I like my wide screen TV....are you jealous?

The level of Presidential influence on US domestic economy is huge and its only getting bigger.

To bad the framers also saw fit to protect the President from the people.

Yea...too bad.

[Pliny]

Unfortunately, whether the bailout occurs or not an economic meltdown is imminent. The bailout will only delay the inevitable for maybe a year or two. Hyper-inflation will occur after that and the economic collapse will follow. If there is no bailout, there will be a collapse and a depression. It will take a bit of time to restructure but what government does after is what is key. If they do not abandon the fiat currency model and return to the pre-1933 world monetary unit that existed then they will have to move toward totalitarianism and strict economic controls with heavy penalties for deviations.

[bush_cheney2004]

Unfortunately, whether the bailout occurs or not an economic meltdown is imminent. The bailout will only delay the inevitable for maybe a year or two. Hyper-inflation will occur after that and the economic collapse will follow. If there is no bailout, there will be a collapse and a depression. It will take a bit of time to restructure but what government does after is what is key. If they do not abandon the fiat currency model and return to the pre-1933 world monetary unit that existed then they will have to move toward totalitarianism and strict economic controls with heavy penalties for deviations.

Huh? And how did that work for the now defunct command economies of old? The absence of false wealth through 100 to 1 leveraging is not the end of the world...it is just the beginning of the next cycle.

There was plenty of economic calamity while on the gold standard.

[Topaz]

After listening to some of the night time US radio programs, I don't think the US is going to win the war against its economic problems. They pointed out that just like the Russian economy tanked so will the US and the fault of it belongs to the congress, both parties, and Wall Street. They seem to think that the 700BIL, will turn into 1Trillion and that Wall Street will still need fixing with more money and that will NOT fix the problem only make the debt worse. I guess the US $$$ lies in the hands of other countries and if they don't trust the US to fix the problem the US $$$ will become worthless to the world. So where will that put Canada, since we are its largest trading partner?? Does Harper really understand what is going on??

[White Doors]

I don't agree with the bailout package.

I think they should have let it ride and taken the bitter medicine. This is just going to prolong the illness and delay the recovery.

[eyeball]

The rest of the world will be in the same position as US banks. The world is as addicted to US consumers as US consumers are to oil. The world will continue to offer cheap and easy credit to the US because the alternative is the end of the world as we know it.

As one columnist I read put it, the problem isn't just a sub-prime mortgage its a sub-prime economic system.

Maybe we could just promise oursleves the moon. We merely need to convince ourselves its filled with gold, fire up the printing presses and party on like there's no tomorrow.