Wow am I glad you are a spokesman for the far left that has taken over control of the Democratic Party - your "points" say it all and validate many of us Republicans' points...

Oh no, a prayer in school, how horrible :crying:, the insanity of it all.

And by the way you may think you are getting a democratically controlled Obama Whitehouse but you'll soon realize (but I'm sure will never admit) that you just bought socialism!

Wait, when did Faux News become a reputable source for any kind of bipartisan information.

so what is the boy in the class that is muslim supposed to do when the whole class is supposed to prey??

Bush's wallstreet bailout plan was as socialized as they come, so it seems that the republicans were the first to buy it.

You guys are like the disfunctional family I never had.



Hmm, would I have voted for Bush again? I think the answer is No. I dont know if Kerry would have been better or worse, but I would be willing to gamble he might be better.

As socialized as they come........

+ he helps secure those multi-million dollar bonuses for the corporate masters of the universe

happy devils night everybody

I struggle with the rationalization of this one,,,,I mean it was supported by both house and senate and by both candidates.
Why does it get labeled the "Bush" bailout?

It's the "Bush" bailout because he sat down and wrote up the entire proposal himself, without any help. He's also responsible for the suspension of game 5 of the World Series and the extinction of the Dodo bird.

I understand Bush being blamed for a lot of what has gone wrong in this country over the last 4 years because he has been a failure as a President and a leader. But to blame him for the economy or the bailout package shows how little people know about what's going on in government.

The economy was largely good while the Republicans controlled Congress (look at consecutive quarters of economic growth) and it has really suffered in the last 1 1/2 years since Congress has been Democrat controlled. Coincidence? Maybe. But, the horrible bills that made it possible for people who in no way could afford home ownership to get mortgages, were Democrat written and approved by Democrat votes in Congress.

Because his Friggin Signature is on it....


I know its probably in Crayon.....but its there

because Wolfson, Bush's treasury secretary, is the architect all of this and he is "doling out the bread" to banks that got so big that when they fail, they bring securities industry with them.

The fed, with Bernanke at the helm, who is sort of stuck between a rock and a hard place but is probably the smartest bureaucrat in washington, does not need congress to act and he is has been pumping billions of capital into AIG, Bear Stearns and others. Hopefully that clears things up for you.

The republicans pushed for the deregulation of it all and democrats wanted to help there constituents. Almost a perfect storm of party interests. After decades of deregulartion debt became an asset and under the new rules of doing things the economy grew like a house of cards. What would you expect when you can forecast profit. But to lay blame on the shoulders of democrats does not do the argument much justice. Both parties are complicit; end of story. And sure lets blame the little people who could not afford this or that because when the octopus pulling the strings tries to escape it pisses ink. Anyway, if anything is clear, surveillance in the interest of protecting investors from surging losses should not be left to the will of financial institutions. Its called a mixed economy for a reason. So lets come full circle: deregulation, deregulation, deregulation...

By the way, Republicans controlled both Controlled both houses of congress from 1995 to 2006. In the 107th session there were 50 (d) senators and 50 (r) senators. Guess who was the tie breaking vote, none other than the great #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney.

Oftentimes kinks in the economy take years to iron out, I see no reason to believe socio-economic ramifacations from republican-controlled congressional legislation are any different. I could be wrong though it could just be a coincidence.

sorry about the grammatical errors, this political stuff really rocks my socks.

But EVERYONE supported it, why isnt it everyone's plan?

Im not trying to be funny here, isnt that the Obama way? Arent we supposed to be about uniting? It should be OUR plan, right? Dems AND Repubs passed it. Or, are you expect Obama to change everything?

If the Ship Sinks its the Captains Fault.....Thats the way it is in the military, and he IS the commander in Chief.

Jim if it makes you feel better we can just call it the Wolfson Bailout. He's crafted it and brought the plane in for a landing. Elected officials are just that, the vast majority senators and congressmen/women probably know as much about the economy as you and I. Wolfson and Bernanke are the guys in charge here. They are shepharding a socialist policy of unprecendented proportion.

You make a great point ES44. The economy was pretty darn good from 95 to 06'. Anyone who wants to do a little digging can find facts to support their argument as to whether it's the Dems or Repubs fault for the economy tanking. The economy got better under Clinton and continued to get better under Bush (with a Republican Congress). Now, it's in the hopper and will be for the foreseeable future. If Obama's elected and the economy isn't out of the crapper while he's in office, is it his fault? Not unless it get's worse due to poor fiscal planning or passing of legislation like some of the recent bills.

The point that I've made previously is that some of the worst damage to this countries economy is a direct result of the mortgage industry being strong-armed into giving mortgages out to people who they knew couldn't afford them. Then, follows the chain reaction as people start defaulting on loans, losing jobs, etc... Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank can be blamed for this. Is this the sole reason for the sucky economy? Not at all, but a lot of people would be in better shape financially if these loans weren't given out in the first place.

My whole point about congressional control from 1995-2006 is that we reeling in the effects of deregulation from the those years now. Actually from the last 25 years. Clinton was the greatest republican president in the last 100 years and Greenspans served as the chairman of the fed under his administration but I dont blame either party, I blame deregulation, it just so happens that this school of thought has been embraced by most in the republican party and some in democratic party. But special emphasis is necessary on those years 2001 thru 2006, oil companies and war profiteers not withstanding, our economy turned to paper. Now its wet and red.

Now indulge me for a moment, for the sake of argument, lets just say s**** rolls down hill. Maybe you dont agree, and prefer highlighting irresponsible borrowers as a significant contributing cause to this mess, you'd be right I suppose, but we do lock up drug dealers for years on end, not the users. So what about the irresponsible lenders, they made a lot of money, lots of bonuses off incredible bubbles in home prices. "Speculative" bubbles in homeprices that outstripped the pace of real purchasing power for working people who secured inflated loans.

So what about Greenspan, are his inherent philosophical flaws about corporate self-regulation of derivatives backseated by some green sign in South Atlanta that says WE FINANCE.....BAD CREDIT, NO CEDIT, 0 DOWN. So lets continue to blame the folks waiting in line to get their fix of the china bubbling in the dealers spoon.

Who put the rules in place Bones?

Now I'll give you this, Liberals can think up some brilliant headf****. However, let us not neglect the parisitic self interest and greed that hitchiked its way onto well intentioned policy that often happens as a result of a collision of interests. This is what has turned a good policy proposal bad. Self interest is, to varying extents, an essential part of the human condition and it should be held in check where necessary. Is that not a cornerstone of conservatism, keeping self interest in check and under control. The irony for me here, is that conservatism, dating back to Thomas Hobbes, insists on checking people with prisons, police, illegal wiretaps, etc, etc but they dont want to check corporations which enjoy the same citizenship rights as the people they pursue to control. I don't know dude, I just don't know...

Bones, you should include Phil Gram in that sentence with Barney Frank.

I like your analogy of the drug dealers/users. It does fit this discussion to a point. Would you rather see drug users put behind bars and then the dealers would have noone to sell to? Or do you try to put the dealers away so the users can't get their drugs? Realistically, you can't do either to the point that it's going to end the drug problem in this country.

Same goes for loan companies. Blame the loan companies or blame the borrowers. It doesn't matter because in the long run they both are screwed. People lose their homes and companies go bankrupt. I do blame the big mortgage companies for preying on uneducated or unqualified loan applicants. Now, they are reaping what they sow. But, just like drug dealers, when one goes away, another will pop up to take it's place sooner oor later. Hopefully this crisis has at least made people more aware of their own financial state.

My point earlier was just that as much as everyone would like to blame the Republicans for everything that ails this country, the Democrats are equally to blame.

1 1/2 years is not nearly enough time for the effects of a Democratically controlled congress to come to light. Our current situation has largely been developed through policies enacted 6-8 years ago. Many economists expect any policy changes to take at least 4 years before being able to make an educated judgment on the performance effects of those policies.

Actually, "the horrible bills that made it possible for people who in no way could afford home ownership" were written and approved by the Republican Congress 4 years ago. The Republicans pushed forth massive de-regulation bills that sowed *some* of the seeds of the crisis we face today. On the other hand, the Democrats didn't do anything to rectify the bad policy as was promised.

The issue isn't and should never be forcing kids in public schools to pray, the issue is banning some kids' ability to pray if they want. That is crazy. It should be and is voluntary so why should it be banned altogether. What's next, banning the Pledge of Allegiance because some kids are offended by our Nation (although some moonbats are trying)...

And, as said above, it was not the "Bush Plan" - it was Bush's and the Congress' plan. However I am not happy with it but it was obviously an extreme situation...

That one-time emergency bailout is a far cry from Obama's wideranging socialistic approach to running our democracy. He is Marxist. :heybaby:

Pray for people who are sick and can't buy healthcare with pre-existing conditions and are losing everything they've worked for.
We should all pray, because we're all just a layoff and a sick kid or wife from being one of them.

Prey? Prey on who? The muslim boy? democrats can't even spell pray, or is this supposed to be a joke?

That my friend is what you call a play on words. Something a republican may have trouble finding humor in :hihi:

Joe;

You and I can agree here.
However, it should be the kid praying alone on his time, not in a mandated moment of silence or something where the 'non-believers' :rolleyes: have to stand there awkwardly.... If the allow that, would they allow a Muslim child to kneel and pray to mecca? or a member of the church of Satan (They just had a reverend from there on HJY, so it is fresh in my head) a chance to pray as well?

A kid who wants to say Grace to himself or with his friends at lunch? I could care less and the school shouldn't. But A school should also not mandate a 'prayer time' otherwise, send em to catholic school:wave: (You have boys, nothing to worry about sending them to school in that uniform :D:D:D)

Muslims, if devout, are asked to pray 5 times a day and the process takes 5-10 minutes each time.

Before school, during lunch break, mid-afternoon, evening, night.

So, if requested, let the kid take 5 minutes mid-afternoon for the sake of satisfying his religious beliefs. I see no problem with Muslim prayer being allowed in schools any more than any other sort of prayer, and, personally? I'm agnostic/secular if not atheistic.

As am I JHB.
The problem is schools are not logical.
they tend to be reactionary...

Most of my praying in school was that I would pass a test I didnt study for or that I'd get lucky after school with my girlfriend, or that I could bum a ride to the Judas Priest concert or that my parents wouldnt find the seeds I left on the dashboard of my car, or that the condom wouldnt break......and I went to Catholic school....

Anybody else singing the Zappa song Catholic Girls in their head right now....:hee:

hey she gave me VD!:conf::rotf3::rotf3::rotf3:

I'd send my kids to a catholic school if it was taught by Judas Priest.