Comments on: Bush, Lawmakers Rush Forward Bailout Plan
Agreement On Some New Terms Signals Movement In Talks Between White House And Congress
Add a Comment See all 787 Comments
- For the benefit of those just joining us and who are too lazy to scroll down a few screen before they start blasting away:
BILL CLINTON signed the 1999 banking deregulation bill. He could have vetoed it. But he didn''t.
CLINTON IS TO BLAME
BUSH IS TO BLAME
CLINTON IS TO BLAME
BUSH IS TO BLAME
You can''t blame one without the other. - Reply to this comment
- For the benefit of those just joining us and who are too lazy to scroll down a few screen before they start blasting away:
BILL CLINTON signed the 1999 banking deregulation bill. He could have vetoed it. But he didn''t.
CLINTON IS TO BLAME
BUSH IS TO BLAME
CLINTON IS TO BLAME
BUSH IS TO BLAME
You can''t blame one without the other. - Reply to this comment
- For the benefit of those just joining us and who are too lazy to scroll down a few screen before they start blasting away:
BILL CLINTON signed the 1999 banking deregulation bill. He could have vetoed it. But he didn''t.
CLINTON IS TO BLAME
BUSH IS TO BLAME
CLINTON IS TO BLAME
BUSH IS TO BLAME
You can''t blame one without the other. - Reply to this comment
- For the benefit of those just joining us and who are too lazy to scroll down a few screen before they start blasting away:
BILL CLINTON signed the 1999 banking deregulation bill. He could have vetoed it. But he didn''t.
CLINTON IS TO BLAME
BUSH IS TO BLAME
CLINTON IS TO BLAME
BUSH IS TO BLAME
You can''t blame one without the other. - Reply to this comment
- Perhaps your complaint about Clinton is only because his wasn''''t big enough, you like it much bigger...
Posted by brianbwb at 10:21 PM : Sep 22, 2008
I''m sorry, I''m afraid I didn''t make myself clear.
What I said was
BUSH IS TO BLAME
CLINTON IS TO BLAME
BUSH IS TO BLAME
CLINTON IS TO BLAME
You can''''t blame one without the other.
There, if I put Bush first, does THAT make you feel better????? - Reply to this comment
- jgg: You are looking at employee contributions not the executive contributions. Glad you checked.
Posted by BajaJohn1
I''m looking at grand total fannie mae and freddie mac contributions - Reply to this comment
- Lawmakers in both parties appeared to be coalescing around the idea that executive compensation limits should be part of the bailout, although Paulson is said to be concerned that such curbs would discourage companies from participating.
Ah, my heart bleeds for the greedy execs that got their companies in to a bad spot. Now they have to share in the discomfort and don''t like it?
No problem, they don''t have to participate and they can take the bank and its bad loans somewhere else.
NEXT! - Reply to this comment
- One starts to think the Republican fascination with Clinton is that they dream they could have been Lewinsky.
Posted by BajaJohn1
oh yea, it''s my dream to be a fat, ugly girl with low self esteem - Reply to this comment
- Posted by txgrouch2006
Posted by StormyTexan
So you complain because you think Clinton slipped his little weewee into yours, and harp so mush about it that you ignore the fact that Bush is doing the same, except with a baseball bat.
Perhaps your complaint about Clinton is only because his wasn''t big enough, you like it much bigger... - Reply to this comment
- Fannie/Freddie execs gave McCain $169,000 this year.
Obama got $ 16,000 from the execs; received $ 126,000 from the employees of those firms. Source, FactCheck/Cnn. Stop lying, you are becoming a boring joke.
Posted by BajaJohn1
I get $126,000 for Obama; $21,550 for McCain; and $165,000 for Chris Dodd; $56,250 for Pelosi; $77,000 for Harry Reid - Reply to this comment
- The republicans have tried to reform is two or three times and been blocked by the democraps...they wanted that housing money to go to low income housing...and didn''''t care if the financial institutions went bust because they knew they could bail themselves out.
Posted by StormyTexan at 10:14 PM : Sep 22, 2008
I see! I think I''m starting to understand now.
So, what you''re saying is
CLINTON IS TO BLAME
BUSH IS TO BLAME
CLINTON IS TO BLAME
BUSH IS TO BLAME
You can''t blame one without the other. - Reply to this comment
- Follow the money, Sweetie...56 United States Congressmen own these financial institutions...the top two being Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry...
Read it and weep, they just bailed themselves out with the help of Chris Dodd, and Barky!
Posted by StormyTexan at 10:06 PM : Sep 22, 2008
Sorry for seeming so confused, but - aren''t those all DEMOCRATS?????
Or did you make another typo, and you really meant HappySneezyDopeyDoc, GrumpySleepyBashful?
I think those are all Republicans. I''m not sure about Senator SnowWhite. - Reply to this comment
- Sorry Grouchie, I meant President BUSH...mistype!
Posted by StormyTexan at 10:04 PM : Sep 22, 2008
Well, now I''m REALLY confused. The banking deregulation bill was passed in 1999. I remember seeing it on the news.
There was nobody named Bush in the White House in 1999. That was ON CLINTON''S WATCH.
And McCain was involved in that one. Clinton signed it. Are you saying Clinton DIDN''T KNOW what he was signing????? - Reply to this comment
- Look up DCI sometime. Enough said.
- Reply to this comment
- Posted by brianbwb
brianbwb, yeah I know. Sometimes Rowdy just becomes an entertaining distraction. - Reply to this comment
- Why do you vote by party? Today lets all resolve to vote for only people without a incumbent by their name.
- Reply to this comment
- Posted by omega40
Posted by lasercat
You have fallen into the weak trap set by neocon-derthals "jaxsterling5" and "StormyTexan", speculating about irrelevant matters in the past, and hysterical fear mongering about the future.
Bush is trying to use this to steal even more money than he did with his Iraq crimes, the matter at hand is will we allow him to further burden the US economy with debt that will have to be recovered via tax increases, no matter who the next president might be.
The only people benefiting from Bush''s proposals are the very same people who created the mess, the unregulated lenders whose greed outweighed any concern for their country. What we are seeing right now is the looting of the US treasury by elite-class gangbangers, who are taking advantage of the lawlessness created by the politicians they bribed on both sides.
To omega40, and lasercat, don''t waste your time debating the moot with Neanderthals, who are simply disguising their fear of a "Black" president behind all manner of irrelevant, weak, and outright false excuses.
Try directing your energies to helping keep the focus on the real criminals, the CEOs of these institutions who signed off on the codified-yet-still-criminal acts of their firms, it may be time to organize our efforts and energy to take this to the streets, and those who are still the suckers of the neocon agenda will have to be kicked to the curb. - Reply to this comment
- Hey Rowdy, more on that bill:
Proposed Jan 26, 2005 (six days into a new Congress)
Sponsor:
Sen. Charles Hagel [R-NE]
Jul 28, 2005: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Status:
This bill never became law. This bill was proposed in a previous session of Congress. Sessions of Congress last two years, and at the end of each session all proposed bills and resolutions that haven''t passed are cleared from the books. - Reply to this comment
- Sarah Palins honesty makes George Bushes honesty look like a breath of fresh air.
- Reply to this comment
- Nope, as a matter of fact, McCain''''s the one that introduced it on the floor in an address to President Clinton...
Posted by StormyTexan at 09:51 PM : Sep 22, 2008
SAY WHAT?????????? ZOWIE WOW POWIE!!!!!!!!
Did you say BILL CLINTON knew about this????
WHY DIDN''T HE STOP IT, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD?!?!?
When EXACTLY did this happen? I DEMAND to know the TRUTH!!!!!!!
What did Clinton know, and when did he know it???? - Reply to this comment
How gold pays for 
