Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Tuesday, March 24, 2009

The Obama administration may ask Congress to give the Treasury secretary unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy, according to an administration document.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

johnny_hotsauce

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

So if George Bush had this power six months ago, he could have shut down GM. In fact, all any president need do is determine there is a "need" for the feds to take over the company "for the good of the economy", and that's that.

If it were the Bushies asking for this, this thread would already be 100 long.

But no.

#1 | Posted by rightisright

Very True

Seize? I think Marxists call it confiscation. Chavez would be proud.

Hope and change you can believe in

SUCKERS.......................
......

He might as well add "Health Care Providers as well. He'll have that Industry fucked up before years end.

We gotta start breaking up companies that are "too big to fail."

That loophole needed to be closed.

Way to easy for these firms to work the system and they did. Look where it got them.

More oversight is needed. This is some of that.

Glad to see something being done to close this loophole.

"Seize? I think Marxists call it confiscation. Chavez would be proud."

The Marxists are at least smart enough to take over entities that are making money.

He might as well add "Health Care Providers as well. He'll have that Industry fucked up before years end.

#5 | Posted by wisgod

It's about as fucked up as a Kentucky family reunion now. Not sure how much more he can fuck it up. I have a good friend that's an aviation lawyer. Poor fucker can't afford decent insurance... Not say.... Just saying...

Hell, if we invest more than the company is worth how is there even a question???
Of course the feds should take over a company in trouble that will jeopardize the entire economy and then break it up and sell off the parts.

So if George Bush had this power six months ago, he could have shut down GM. In fact, all any president need do is determine there is a "need" for the feds to take over the company "for the good of the economy", and that's that.

If it were the Bushies asking for this, this thread would already be 100 long.

But no.

#1 | Posted by rightisright at 2009-03

I dont know that anyone can put it better than this so the only thing I will add is what a shame it is that the party in power is the one who STILL calls on a trial for bush and cheney as they are in the process of virtually doing away with visions of the founders of this country.
I can only imagine what john adams and others would be saying at this moment in our time.
and the quote about this country is a country of laws and not the whims of man.
tsk tsk tsk tsk....

change we can believe in..

Obama = Omistake

and to think that the father of the democrat party is thomas jefferson
I think he would have given up his democrat card just as I did when the party of my youth changed forever.

tsk tsk tsk tsk tsk

How is this any different than what the FDIC has always been able to do with banks?

You guys can piss all over yourselves but your fauxrage just makes me laugh.

You're just idiots.

"The Treasury secretary could act only after consulting with the president and getting a recommendation from two-thirds of the Federal Reserve Board, according to the plan."

The Federal Reserve should have no say in the matter. They are a private organization - not gov't.

And, they are part of the mess.

I may be wrong but I dont believe that the fdic ever had the power to limit pay for any company.
as I said I may be wrong but when they came in the bank was pretty much done for anyway right??

The Federal Reserve should have no say in the matter. They are a private organization - not gov't.

And, they are part of the mess.

#15 | Posted by Petrous at 2009-03-24 12

yes pet

you raise maybe the most important point here.

and didnt they just recently print up the trillion
did that come from the white house or what elected official or committee or did they chairman just do it.

"I will add is what a shame it is that the party in power is the one who STILL calls on a trial for bush and cheney as they are in the process of virtually doing away with visions of the founders of this country."

Any resemblance to the country envisioned by Jefferson and Washington left after the Bush Presidency was just an oversight on Bush/Cheney's part. Had they realized there was still some remnants of America they would have destroyed it.

and I believe that bernanke is reported to be saying in his hearing today that he tried to keep the aig bonuses out but was told to keep them in

so is he going to sell out obama here or what??

interesting to listen to him

"I may be wrong but I dont believe that the fdic ever had the power to limit pay for any company."

When they take over a failing bank of course they have the right to limit pay and even fire CEOs, board members, etc.

I disagree of course danni
look at all of the obama attempts at changing or circumventing the constitution.

so lets put it in your lap....the left attacks bush to this day for abusing the constitution and thats a fair argument with habeus corpus and all BUT NOT without a precedent

so why then is it okay just because its YOUR guy to do the same if not worse and more abusing of the constitution

and this BUSH DID IT defense is really getting old
.
so when will obama OFFICIALLY Be the president because I heard him JUST the other day tell me that HE was responsible and the buck stopped with him/./

he didnt say anything about bush.,.>>THAT TIME anyway

again...danni

when fdic kicks in...the bank has failed...correct..

so there wouldnt be any bonuses or salary...is that correct?

Bacon, Lettuce and Tomato: Are you having fun?

Words like "seizing" when it comes to the government give me a scary chill. Can't imagine why....

Words like "seizing" when it comes to the government give me a scary chill. Can't imagine why....

#24 | Posted by HATEBIGGOV at 2009

no shit...we sort of got that with your screenname...LOL

I guess all you right wingers forgot about the government buying up all those failed savings and loans back in the 80's when they lost billions due to bad mortgages---sound familiar? We nationalized the fuck out of them, and I don't recall any whining from you little weasels then.

Same thing needs to be done now. Nationalize the banks, fix them up, and sell them back to the public.

"If it were the Bushies asking for this, this thread would already be 100 long."

The coulda shoulda woulda game is pretty old and lame, particularly since many of you righties are being just as petty and pessimistic about Obama as others were of Bush.

In the new issue of the Washington Monthly, however, Phillip Longman, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, has a great piece drawing a key parallel policymakers would be wise to consider.

"[A]ny honest reading of history suggests that the federal government has quite an impressive record of rescuing institutions considered too big to fail. In addition to almost routine workouts of failed banks conducted in good and bad times by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and other regulators, the list includes many large industrial companies as well. In 1971, for example, Congress extended emergency loans to failing aircraft builder Lockheed and wound up not only saving a company vital to America's national defense and export manufacturing base, but earning a net income for the Treasury of $5.4 million in loan fees.

In 1980 it did the same for Chrysler, this time extending loan guarantees in exchange for stock warrants that, after the company returned to health and paid back its loans, yielded the government a cool $311 million in capital gains. More recently, in the aftermath of 9/11, Congress granted airlines $5 billion in direct compensation for lost business and up to $10 billion in loan guarantees, again in exchange for stock warrants. That wasn't enough to save many individual airlines from having to undergo restructuring plans imposed by bankruptcy judges, but when Americans took to the air again they found the industry intact and offering plenty of flights. Moreover, by February 2007, airline stocks had recovered enough that the Treasury was able to sell its warrants for a net profit of $119 million, with no loans left outstanding.

Now, however, comes the prospect of something much larger. Government has already thrown billions at the gigantic mess that is the American auto industry. With Detroit continuing to hemorrhage jobs and cash in a deeply troubled economy, it looks as if government will have to take a much more hands-on approach to reengineering the industry, if not through the bankruptcy courts then through direct executive supervision. Should we be worried that government will make a hash of it? Of course. But there is a bright shining example from not so long ago of government bureaucrats engineering the revival of an industry easily as troubled as today's automakers and, if anything, more central to the economy. And it all turned out better than anyone dared hope, with a dazzling return to profitability."

That bright shining example is the railroad industry. Longman's piece explains the similarities, and explores why the success can be repeated.

www.washingtonmonthly.com

It would be nice if sometimes people actually knew what spews from their blowholes stands opposed by historical fact....But if that were the case, the right would cease to exist....

So when Obama follows historical precedence he's a Marxist, but when Nixon and Reagan do it, their visionaries. We're not laughing with you wingnuts, we're laughing AT you!

"So if George Bush had this power six months ago, he could have shut down GM."

If he thought it jeopardized the overall economy and more importantly he should have taken over AIG.....perfect example of why they need these powers.

Same thing needs to be done now. Nationalize the banks, fix them up, and sell them back to the public.

#26 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-03-24

that sounds good bob

but can we trust the government to really sell them back and what of the strings attatched as there always are..........hurt them later or would they be the reason they were in that trouble in the first place??

Companies should not be able to become "too big to fail". It is a huge negative of capitalism. I agree that the government should do what it can, when it can, to break up such companies, when they cause problems.

There is an obvious concern that the government won't recognize limitations, will go beyond what should be done. That it will confuse reaction (to problems caused by such companies) with action (making it SOP). A chance inherent in the concept of "government". But sometimes that chance must be taken.

If it were the Bushies asking for this, this thread would already be 100 long."

The coulda shoulda woulda game is pretty old and lame, particularly since many of you righties are being just as petty and pessimistic about Obama as others were of Bush.

#27 | Posted by jpw at 2009

I disagree.
we heard and read all of the attacks and assaults on bush and we use this with a pretty good degree of certainity

I would though make an agreement that if we never heard about how obama inherited this and that, then we would lay off the 'if it were bush' thing
I dont worry about that though as the 'we inherited it' attack is long from being over

#1 | Posted by rightisright

If seizure of failing monopolies is what was needed to avoid this economic meltdown and GWB could have prevented it 6 months ago and did not says more about the failure of GWB than any anonymous poster her on the retort.

By your premise GWB failed to act.

AGAIN.

So now the adults have to take even more aggressive action due to the unwillingness to address the issue by the former administration.

The powers being asked for by Geithner to seize NON-BANK entities (ie. AIG, and investment banks) is based on the reality that formal bankruptcy takes numerous years to get through and when it involves credit and financial instruments, it freezes creditors ability to even receive what they've got coming.

Federal takeover would entail a more immediate freeing of capital even at reduced percentages, hence the freeze-ups wouldn't destabilize the entire market the way a "too big to fail" bankruptcy would. This is what the FDIC does everytime it takes over a member bank until a new, solvent buyer can be found.

It hardly smacks of marxism, it makes perfectly good sense for both those in the public and private sectors.

"but can we trust the government to really sell them back and what of the strings attatched as there always are"

This is nothing new, the government has done exactly the same thing in banking for decades.

"I would though make an agreement that if we never heard about how obama inherited this and that, then we would lay off the 'if it were bush' thing
I dont worry about that though as the 'we inherited it' attack is long from being over"

It's not going away because there is a considerable difference between discussing the impact of previous administration's policy on current events and making speculative arguments about how a past president would have been treated in this situation. The former is relevant, the latter is irrelevant.

Interesting that the same folks who whind the loudest about the AIG bonuses which were paid due to contracts signed while Bush was still president now worry that the government should not have to right to nullify those contracts by "nationalizing" these institutions. It would also allow AIG to pay its creditors at a percentage on the dollar and greatly reduce the amount necessary for the bailout.

I dont worry about that though as the 'we inherited it' attack is long from being over

To a righty, Bush never was President.

They blamed the collapse of the economy under Bush on Clinton 6 years after he left office and now it is all Obama's mess.

Just what point in time was the Bush administration responisble for ANYTHING in your mind?

(Cue Navin R Johnson.......)

"Uh, anything in this general area right in here. Anything below the stereo and on this side of the bicentennial glasses. Anything between the ashtrays and the thimble. Anything in this three inches right in here in this area. That includes the Chiclets, but not the erasers."

"White House Seeks Power" is the only headline needed for his agenda.

So now the adults have to take even more aggressive action due to the unwillingness to address the issue by the former administration.

#33 | Posted by Prolix247 at

yes and of course NOW there is this

never waiste a good crisis...yada yada yada...

hey a couple of weeks ago when you gave me some info on mark to markets..that very afternoon there was a hearing on cspan about it..
didnt understand all of it then either but it was interesting ...thanks for the help

how a past president would have been treated in this situation. The former is relevant, the latter is irrelevant.

#36 | Posted by jpw at 2009-03-24 01:23 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

I absloutley disagree because we have seen how the media fawning all over itslef and keeping the public from seeing or vetting one candidate over another is very relevant and thats what my comment is all about
yeah sure..theres a lot of 'gotchas' in our charge about it but its pretty factual on each and every charge.

I find it amazing that, regardless of what party is in power, there is always a crisis that requires them to grab more power inorder to fix it. Convenient, huh?

Interesting that the same folks who whind the loudest about the AIG bonuses which were paid due to contracts signed while Bush was still president now worry that the government should not have to right to nullify those contracts by "nationalizing" these institutions. It would also allow AIG to pay its creditors at a percentage on the dollar and greatly reduce the amount necessary for the bailout.

#37 | Posted by danni at 2009

danni girl..come out of that coma...
senator dodd???
gaithner was in charge of new york stuff like this and HE WAS THERE .....

and those DEMS SIGNED OFF ON This themselves....
please dont leave them out

AND WHAT ABOUT MAE AND MAC...top 4 people at those places are due a bonus soon...will we even HEAR about it????

I find it amazing that, regardless of what party is in power, there is always a crisis that requires them to grab more power inorder to fix it. Convenient, huh?

#42 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-

kanrie

be carefull...you will be in LOADS Of trouble
you are talking about a major point in the latest book of mark levin.
he said the VERY SAME THING...well HE might have limited it to dems NOW in power but its the same thing

and what I mean is that its important for them to keep the masses all worked up and pissed about the rich and corporate ceos....

but can we trust the government to really sell them back and what of the strings attatched as there always are

Why would the government hold onto them? The government sold back the savings and loans. What strings are you talking about? Regulations that would prevent the same thing from happening again? Those strings? The strings the republicans removed with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act? Those strings?

#30 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-03-24 01:11 PM | Reply | Flag

AFK,
Are you sitting down? I listened to Hannity's interview with Mark Levin last night and agreed with most of his points. I really found it funny how many times Levin was insulting Hannity to his face and Hannity didn't catch it. Never heard the guy before and I don't agree with 100% or even 75%, but he got over 50% with me.

Post #28 Tonyroma

Since the government has been so successful at rescuing those companies in the past, why soes Obama need more "unprecedented" powers? What abilities is it that he is seeking above and beyond the ones used by past presidents? It appears that in the past it was loans that the government used to "rescue" these businesses. Is it a greater control factor that he is looking for?

BTW,
You made me lose a bet with myself. I said that you would be calling Liberals "Stateists" today and, from what I have seen, you haven't. Damnit!

Why would the government hold onto them? The government sold back the savings and loans. What strings are you talking about? Regulations that would prevent the same thing from happening again? Those strings? The strings the republicans removed with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act? Those strings?

#30 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-03-24 01:11 PM | Reply | Flag

#45 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at

WHY??? hell man thats easy....power over us.

"I can only imagine what john adams and others would be saying at this moment in our time.

#11 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-03-24 12:26 PM"

That's because you have no clue about him, just a vague recollection of his name in some 6th grade history book. Have a margarita, and let the adults talk.

I wont use statists..

the s and the t are too close together and it slows my typing down.

First half of the interview, I thought he was saying "sadists." Did you catch all those digs he threw at Hannity and then Hannity would agree with him. It was a thing of beauty. I got to learn more about Levin.

I say give it to him.

I got a feeling the next corp to purchase new jets or gives bonuses will get a just reward for being so cavilier with taxpayer money.

My favorite was when he attacked the current "leaders of the new revolution" and Hannity has been doing his "Conservatism in Exile" for so long and called himself the leader of the exiled movement. I cracked up!

That's because you have no clue about him, just a vague recollection of his name in some 6th grade history book. Have a margarita, and let the adults talk.

#50 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2009

for on to two hours now I have been having not always agreeable conversations with people of both sides and even in the middle and they have all been pleasant
and now you enter.........so now lets hear the REAL story of john adams mister mensa man.

I prefer to remember the quote I paraphrased as obama and the dems are on full attack mode to bring us to the 'whims of man' part of that quote.

NOW would you like to differ or just be a jerk?

First half of the interview, I thought he was saying "sadists." Did you catch all those digs he threw at Hannity and then Hannity would agree with him. It was a thing of beauty. I got to learn more about Levin.

#52 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-03

he takes no shit from anyone including hannity and he goes way off the deep end sometime...nowhere near as much as 'savage' but he isnt polite most of the time to anyone.
he is supposed to be a pretty learned constitutional lawyer.

Are you sitting down? I listened to Hannity's interview with Mark Levin last night and agreed with most of his points. I really found it funny how many times Levin was insulting Hannity to his face and Hannity didn't catch it. Never heard the guy before and I don't agree with 100% or even 75%, but he got over 50% with me.

#46 | Posted by kanrei

I saw that interview and I was thinking: Where the fuck were you the last 8 years? All of a sudden you found religion now that Bush isn't in office? Theese people only bring up the Constitution when they are not in power and the same goes for Liberals.

"danni girl..come out of that coma...
senator dodd???
gaithner was in charge of new york stuff like this and HE WAS THERE .....

and those DEMS SIGNED OFF ON This themselves....
please dont leave them out

AND WHAT ABOUT MAE AND MAC...top 4 people at those places are due a bonus soon...will we even HEAR about it????"

Poor English but I don't mind, great job combining talking points and almost making a coherent thought.

I think your post translates to: blah, blah, Dodd, Barnie Frank is gay, and its all the fault of the people who weren't in power at the time.

At least they are out there. It is up to people like you and me to keep finding them because those with a side will only listen to pre-approved sources.

I got a feeling the next corp to purchase new jets or gives bonuses will get a just reward for being so cavilier with taxpayer money.

#53 | Posted by fresno500 at 2009-03-

so let me pose a question for you
remember the inaugaration...the airport had to close because of the record amount of private plans owned by dems..

and those planes you talk of are built by people and are run and serviced by people and the airports are run by people and the fuel and all of that

so just to look good to average people...obama should remove or limit the livelihood of all those...

and remember that it takes something like 75,000 dollars an hour for him to fly in his plane with that "COOL" jacket with the inignia on it

I think your post translates to: blah, blah, Dodd, Barnie Frank is gay, and its all the fault of the people who weren't in power at the time.

#58 | Posted by danni at 2009-03

what a disappointment to leave with you lowering into a homophobe attack like this..
disappointing.

"NOW would you like to differ or just be a jerk?

#55 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-03-24 02:01 PM"

Fuck, you ARE slow, aren't you BLT? Here's a newsflash for you: I would like to be a jerk. If that is news to you, you are Eddie-level retarded.

If you need public money then you abide by the terms.

It's that simple. Else, sink or swim on you own (pull yourself up by your boot straps) and stop putting your hands out.

"what a disappointment to leave with you lowering into a homophobe attack like this..
disappointing."

It wasn't intended to accuse you of homophobia but talkingpointaphobia instead.

You aren't homophobic, but you do tend to repeat talking points. Sorry I put that in about Barnie.

jwil72 re: post #28...

See post #34. If that doesn't answer any question, please ask again.

If that is news to you, you are Eddie-level retarded.

you can compare me to eddie anytime you want
and you will have to compare more and more of us as the "REVOLUTION" gains strength

you can compare me to eddie anytime you want

#66 | Posted by afkabl2

You REALLY don't want that BL. Seriously.

You aren't homophobic, but you do tend to repeat talking points. Sorry I put that in about Barnie.

#64 | Posted by danni at 2009-

okay....then turn around and pour yourself another cup of coffee and even put a little something 'extra' in it if you want

SA

UNLIKE some posters here I will remain loyal to members of my side of the argument
but thanks for your tip.

Bring on the lawyers. Break up these mega companies. Enforce the Sherman anti-trust laws.

Regulate and enforce regulations on Wall street.

One third of the money in these banks belong to organized crime. Why should the taxpayer send them money?

Why should the taxpaper bail out businesses who made bad bets on the stock market?

Why aren't the crooks at AIG, the banks, and mortgage lenders in jail?

The banks and mortgage lenders sold mortgages to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and private investors which were fraudulent, un-document, and non-compliant. The State's and Federal Government need to go after the banks and mortgage lenders and send these people to jail for life.

Barack Obama = Hugo Chavez. Both are company seizing tyrants.

A company should never be allowed to get so big that it is to big to fail. That is why we have anti-trust laws. Break them up.

With that same tone--we should break up the gov't--as it is too big to fail.

This proposal is against the constitution. The Federal Reserve isn't in the Constitution either.

Congress and the States already have multiple agencies to oversee any and every company.

They had one for AIG too--but the guy--the ONE guy who was supposed to be in charge took AIG's word for it that they were ok.

This is power grab bs.

The Constitution does mention Anti-Trust, though - if something is too big to fail then it's the governments fault it got too big. It's all of them - not just one party - they all need to be fired for not doing their job.

Capitalism leads to Tyranny by businesses - the government is supposed to keep businesses in check to encourage competition, ingenuity and reduce risk.

It's both parties fault - we got the leaders we deserve.

Of course the feds should take over a company in trouble that will jeopardize the entire economy and then break it up and sell off the parts.

Ummm, but doesn't this just make those "to big to fail" companies even bigger?

Removing the competition isn't by any means smart for the economy or the consumer or the labor but it is great for the BIG business.

Crooked Corporate Cronies!

Headline should read:
Wall St.Seeks Power to Make the US Govt "Bail Out" (with the last of any taxpayer money) the Rest of its Crooked Corporate Cronies!

Once our government gets it's foot in the door the door will only open wider. Do we really want to go down this road?

IF they take public money; yes i want to go down that road!!!!

is this where we become amerizuela?

can we start calling him "obamez"?

"Removing the competition isn't by any means smart for the economy or the consumer or the labor but it is great for the BIG business."

I don't know how you interpreted what I said as removing competition. Breaking up monopolies increases competition.

"is this where we become amerizuela?"

Translation: far too complicated for NANC to have any understanding even when it is explained slowly and patiently.

Wow...only 82 comments.


How is this any different than what the FDIC has always been able to do with banks?

You guys can piss all over yourselves but your fauxrage just makes me laugh.

You're just idiots.

#14 | Posted by Manypaths

It's because they don't know what they are talking about, but nonetheless need to attack Obama for each new development. It's funny shit, mostly. I come hear for the same reason I go to the zoo - the screaming, chest-thunping creatures one finds there are quite rare in the country these days.

How is this any different than what the FDIC has always been able to do with banks?

You guys can piss all over yourselves but your fauxrage just makes me laugh.

You're just idiots.

#14 | Posted by Manypaths
-----------------
It is a whole lot different. The FDIC insures banks so they get a say so. From what I've heard, this bill allows the government to seize ANY company it feels like. Talk about a intellectually dishonest conversation.

Let me get this straight, we're idiots for being outraged over this giant leap towards socialism. Na, I don't think so. I think Barry is going to show us what it really means to tear up the constitution and rip it to shreds. Keep watching, I'm sure he's executing his next move while we're busy trying to digest this.

Lonnie

IF they take public money; yes i want to go down that road!!!!

#79 | Posted by fresno500
----------------
Actually fresno500, according to the bill, the government does not have to give them public funds to take away the business from the owner. All they have to do is show that your business problems will hurt the economy. Most of the brainwashed idiots here think this is a good idea.

Lonnie

How is this any different than what the FDIC has always been able to do with banks?

You guys can piss all over yourselves but your fauxrage just makes me laugh.

You're just idiots.

#14 | Posted by Manypaths

also now it seems that this is going to be used on companies who have NOT recieved bailout money

this whole thing should scare the dogshit out of everyone dem or republican.

It does scare me as much as everything else coming out of this administration. I heard from someone that they are attempting to install a bill that allows congress to impose punishments and legally allows them to bypass the courts. This is scary stuff.

Lonnie

I heartedly agree

and our retort leftists here should be just as scared.

and a really scarey moment from yesterdays hearings

barney asked bernacke is this government takeove would extend to companies not getting bailout money and he said yes...

now AGAIN...that should scare any leftists here unless of course they are more socialists than they have the balls to admit.

Doesn't scare me since I would rather live in a socialist society where I don't have to worry. I'd rather just do my govt job and live in my gov't home and ride on the gov't bus and shop at the gov't store. As far as a I know communism never stopped prostitution so my greatest source of joy won't be affected in the least.

AFKABL_2,

Honestly this get's the tingling moving up their liberal legs. They all feel that companies are evil and should be controlled. This fits into what they believe the government should do. I don't think you'll find one liberal outraged over this. I, on the other hand, am scared to death over things this administration is attempting to do.

Lonnie

well at least you ended the paragraph with an honest statement.
good for you and heres to your success at keeping away from aids and other std's.
so would this also mean that the government would get into the prostitution business and just how would that affect you then?

I mean would they charge by the hour or by the inch.

maybe the gov't will allocate each man a wife. This would even solve more headaches.

OH MY GOD, how pathetic! Rasta, the government ain't going to pick a good wife for you, that's your job and it will always be YOUR JOB. I'd hate to think what kind of woman the government would pick for you, what if she's a b*tch? or even worse, they run out of women and issue you a dude.

Lonnie

well eharmony did just send me an email telling me that its free communication week.

IF they take public money; yes i want to go down that road!!!!

#79 | Posted by fresno500
----------------
Actually fresno500, according to the bill, the government does not have to give them public funds to take away the business from the owner. All they have to do is show that your business problems will hurt the economy. Most of the brainwashed idiots here think this is a good idea.

Lonnie

#86 | Posted by lwalk17 at 2009-03-25 11:10 AM | Reply | Flag

I have not heard of any takeover plans for corps that are not involved with TARP. Link please?

just yesterday I heard frank ask bernake is companies not getting bailout money were in the plan

and he said yes..........

thats my link...

DANNI

DANNI
DANNI

I listened to an interview with the lady chairman of the FDIC this morning and she said that they have the power to
'repudiate employees contracts'

so I guess you were right in that assertion

I bow to you in all humility

(ta ta ta da da...) as the trumpets blare.

Actually these companies are not too big to fail; they are too big to save. There will be no one to bail out the federal government when they fail - about $70 Trillion in debt and blasting off for the sky.

Breaking up the companies that present a risk to our national security because they control too much of their market

Could we please start with the Oil companies?

Then The Power Companies?

Then Phone Companies...

There are over several hundred different banks in America... Count the refinaries and wonder why the price of gas goes through the cieling every summer...

Oh... Whats the use.... I wish they had a blog where people from the white house hung out on and we could express our views to them instead of this dead air drudge site..

Is it me or does every yellow dog I have ever seen have puss and glop oozing from it's eyes. Bark!

Yellow dogs indeed.....

ps

Anti-War = Anti-Christian

over thirty thousand bumper stickers sold....

Where are all the old poster who used to hang out here..... Danni.. Kenrey... What ever happened to Oh God I can't believe I'M asking..... Gabe?

he typed like a retard.... Thought I saw him for a second at Obama's last briefing... Teleprompter man I think...

Boy that silly White House... Seizing companies.... I guess Obama read Chaves' Book after all.

I think they should start with General Motors and Ford... At least pass a law that requires the American car companies to design cars that are marketable... I am looking out of the office window at the parking lot below ... It's a four to one ratio of Foreign to American out there. Nobodies fault but the car makers I am afraid... We are the only country on earth still building the type of big engines that suck gas at a huge rate... They can't design a decent car if you ask me... We need Accountability laws enacted... We need a law that will remove an incompetent business executive from his position when he doesn't do his job... The American Car industry has been in trouble since Lee Iacocca bailed out Chrysler with the K Car... Remember that?

They did nothing... They kept designing crap and now I watch as the dealers send the cars back from their lots... All headed west on the trucks... I can see the Car carrier trucks driving all of the unsold cars west on the highway back toward where they came from..... Back to New Jersey....

Give me a law that will throw a CEO and a CFO out on their ass with NO MONEY when they screw up...

Dock their pay..... Make them forfeit their property.... Rent out their wives.... Well maybe not rent out their wives... They may enjoy that... Anybody that approved this year's auto line at GM can't be performing too well in the bedroom.... Impudent.... Just like their product line!


I don't think that such powers will be granted to the Treasury Department by Congress because, you can fool SOME of the people (capitalists) SOME of the time. You can even fool SOME of the people (capitalists) ALL the time. But you cannot fool, ALL the people (capitalists) ALL of the time. It is a confirmed fact that the ghost (spirit) of honest Abe roams the White House. I have this feeling that pretty soon he will be also making sporadic visits to the Capitol building. Trust me on this one: There are a lot of people in the Capitol building that are capitalists first, and democrats or republicans second. And there is nothing, absolutaly nothing, wrong with that, because we are a great Nation due to capitalism.

"And there is nothing, absolutaly nothing, wrong with that, because we are a great Nation due to capitalism."

We were a great nation when Teddy Roosevelt busted up Standard Oil too, we will not be a great nation for long if we don't bust up the monopolies that are destroying the economy.
When these huge monopolies which would jeopardize the overall economy if they go into bankruptcy then what do you propose we do???
Right wing ideology sounds good in simplistic slogans but in reality much of it doesn't hold up to rational examination. MOst Americans will say the believe in capitalism but if they are confronted with the reality of unemployment, poverty, homelessness, etc. they will gladly accept the help provided by the parts of our government right wingers call socialist. Yes, even hungry right wingers will take food stamps and unemployment compensation when they need it.

Interesting that the same folks who whind the loudest about the AIG bonuses which were paid due to contracts signed while Bush was still president

OMFG!!!

Danni - do you and your "party girls" still blame Bush for your unwanted pregnancies in 2002 and 2005?

Obama and his incredible spending and powergrab make Bush's "war" and "spying" and "torture" look like fucking childs play. Bush is a piker compared to Obama and his henchmen nationalizing ANY business they "DEEM" a threat to the economy.

You Obamabots called Bush Hitler every day, well Obama is about ready to take on the roll of Stalin!

hey danni

so did you catch any of obamas internet chat

he told a woman who asked when they were coming back that many or most wont come back and he said it was good that they werent...I wonder if she was happy with that answer
he said it was okay for them not to because they wouldnt provide a good enough wage.

are you buying that and why>??

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable