Paulsen Secretary of Treasury
- Thread starter hedgehog
- Start date
Been worried about Obama for about 6 months, I guess.
Rush the Lush today blamed our collapsing economy on Obama.
When I heard that snippet, I felt like I was right here at mj's forum.
Dont kid yourself....Paulson and Obama talk every day. He isnt doing anything Obama isnt Ok with...heck there is still talk Obama lets him keep his job.
Instead the feds will buy stocks int eh financial institutions....and today Barney Frank has proposed $25 billion to the Big 3 in exchange for a fed stake in the companies....
But "socialism" was just a campaign slogan....
Instead the feds will buy stocks int eh financial institutions....and today Barney Frank has proposed $25 billion to the Big 3 in exchange for a fed stake in the companies....
But "socialism" was just a campaign slogan....
That's been on the table for most of the year. Pretty much a foregone conclusion.
Chrysler has just enough cash to get through Monday
How is this any different from what is already being done under Bushy?
We bought stock in the banks...that is no different, in fact its even more in tune w/ socialism.
Looks more and more like this 700 billion dollar bailout was a huge fucking bait and switch. I remember hearing we had to have this bailout so these distressed mortgages could be purchased, else our financial system would collapse. They haven't purchased the first distressed mortgage and we haven't collapsed YET.
Is it any wonder that Paulsen is doing many of the things he is doing for the past couple of years - and especially in the past few months? Funny how some are trying to link Obama to him and continue blame forward, when Paulsen is - and always has been - a die-hard Republican steeped in some of the darkest areas and days of our country.
He worked for Nixon and convicted felon Erlichman during the Watergate days. He led Goldman Sachs before taking over his position controlling the real money in government, where he took full benefit of $37 million one year as one of the fat cats he just made sure were bailed out with our money. He was raised a Christian Scientist as a child - deep right conservative roots there. Want more to worry about? He's developed close ties to the Chinese elite, and who do you think spent a great deal of time buying up our debt during the time Paulsen has been in charge of the treasury? Coincidences all? Sure, and Obama is to blame for the Bush appointment of Paulsen, and what and who he has spent his two years working for?
You can connect the dots from Bush to most any monetary policy, person, and plan - and understand who is being helped and hurt in all of this. Paulsen is one of the people and reasons to continue to blame George Bush for our current, past and future economic problems. These guys got what they wanted, needed, and will continue to want and need - at our expense.
He worked for Nixon and convicted felon Erlichman during the Watergate days. He led Goldman Sachs before taking over his position controlling the real money in government, where he took full benefit of $37 million one year as one of the fat cats he just made sure were bailed out with our money. He was raised a Christian Scientist as a child - deep right conservative roots there. Want more to worry about? He's developed close ties to the Chinese elite, and who do you think spent a great deal of time buying up our debt during the time Paulsen has been in charge of the treasury? Coincidences all? Sure, and Obama is to blame for the Bush appointment of Paulsen, and what and who he has spent his two years working for?
You can connect the dots from Bush to most any monetary policy, person, and plan - and understand who is being helped and hurt in all of this. Paulsen is one of the people and reasons to continue to blame George Bush for our current, past and future economic problems. These guys got what they wanted, needed, and will continue to want and need - at our expense.
Your Dem friends - you know the ones running Congress the last two years and refused to try and regulate any of this stuff - approved the bill giving Paulsen 100% authority to do whatever the hell he wants.
While your partisanship wont let you do it ,there is plenty of blame to goaround on both sides of the aisle.
My partisanship does not forgive anything, on either side. I know there are plenty of democrats that share in the current responsibilities and problems. So, I guess if that is what's important to you - my partisanship or admitting the dems are at least partly to blame - there you go.
However, I don't think it's fair to make a blanket statement that the dems were against regulating "any of this stuff", especially when you are coming at this from a solidly partisan angle yourself. I think it's fairly well known that dems are far more for regulation in a governmental sense than republicans - so that's a really weak accusation and argument. In fact it's laughable, in my view, to lambaste democrats for a lack of supporting oversight and regulation - but you guys have to blame somebody, I guess, other than any of your guys.
Paulsen was one of two Bush appointees to the biggest posts in the economic world, and he was the one who helped craft much of what we are going through. He asked for support for his ideas and policies and got it. My rip was on Paulsen, and ultimately of Bush or whoever was telling Bush who to nominate from his administration. Paulsen is exactly the kind of person who IS extremely partisan and self-serving, and he's grabbing our money to give to his old friends. Whether you will admit that or not, I'd like to see how you can explain that that is not the case here. And considering where he came from, and who he worked for, and who his friends are here and abroad, you have your work cut out for you.
I'll expect more blame on "the democrats" and not hold my breath waiting for something different.
However, I don't think it's fair to make a blanket statement that the dems were against regulating "any of this stuff", especially when you are coming at this from a solidly partisan angle yourself. I think it's fairly well known that dems are far more for regulation in a governmental sense than republicans - so that's a really weak accusation and argument. In fact it's laughable, in my view, to lambaste democrats for a lack of supporting oversight and regulation - but you guys have to blame somebody, I guess, other than any of your guys.
Paulsen was one of two Bush appointees to the biggest posts in the economic world, and he was the one who helped craft much of what we are going through. He asked for support for his ideas and policies and got it. My rip was on Paulsen, and ultimately of Bush or whoever was telling Bush who to nominate from his administration. Paulsen is exactly the kind of person who IS extremely partisan and self-serving, and he's grabbing our money to give to his old friends. Whether you will admit that or not, I'd like to see how you can explain that that is not the case here. And considering where he came from, and who he worked for, and who his friends are here and abroad, you have your work cut out for you.
I'll expect more blame on "the democrats" and not hold my breath waiting for something different.
Barney Frank and Chris Dodd killed regulation and oversight of Fannie and Freddie that Bush wanted---...or are you just in denial on that? It isnt partisanship - those are facts.
As much as I cant stand Paulsen and never did, your buddy has backed him 100% thus far. They are all in the tank together.
As much as I cant stand Paulsen and never did, your buddy has backed him 100% thus far. They are all in the tank together.
All blame aside (for the moment of course) doesn't it just piss you off that a few weeks ago bush and congress ok 750 billion to banks and homeowners. now homeowners are out and banks are still getting the dough but they aren't using it to MAKE FUCKING LOANS. Instead they are buying up other banks and improving there capital positions.
My idea was giving all taxpayers a couple of hundred thousand and believe me, you will see spending like crazy, an improvement in the ecomomy, debt being diminshed, and an overall improvement in the economy. Why give the money to the thieves again?
As my economic theories were shoved up my ass a few weeks ago by Terry Ray, I am sheepishly posting about the economy although I still maintain we are on our last legs due to lack of goods production. And further since I have been labeled a socialist marxist pig by some, I will take other viewpoints to heart on this subject.
Eddie
My idea was giving all taxpayers a couple of hundred thousand and believe me, you will see spending like crazy, an improvement in the ecomomy, debt being diminshed, and an overall improvement in the economy. Why give the money to the thieves again?
As my economic theories were shoved up my ass a few weeks ago by Terry Ray, I am sheepishly posting about the economy although I still maintain we are on our last legs due to lack of goods production. And further since I have been labeled a socialist marxist pig by some, I will take other viewpoints to heart on this subject.
Eddie
Sun, I will confess that I am fairly ignorant of the Fannie and Freddie situation...it's one of many things I have not spent a lot of time looking at. And I will not defend Frank or Dodd without knowing the specifics. I am not saying this to dodge the subject, I just have not taken time to look there specifically. From what I have seen in the number of posts about it, I would assume that there is fire in those posts, from the smoke. I do respect a few conservative posters here, including you on some things, Wayne, Wease, and others. I know you guys are more steeped in this than I am - far more so.
I don't know if Obama is "in the tank" with Paulsen or not. I know Obama's position in coming into the current situation is a really bad one. The current situation is one that very few of us (if any) have experienced, and Paulsen is one of the main orchestrators of it. So, he has to be blamed for what we are looking at to a degree. And he was put in place by Bush and company, for reasons that seem pretty obvious to me.
Fannie and Freddie are a big part of this. But I see you won't admit any responsibility at all by Bush, Paulsen, or any of the people you defend. It's always the dems fault, right? And you say I am partisan?
Whatever. Take care.
I don't know if Obama is "in the tank" with Paulsen or not. I know Obama's position in coming into the current situation is a really bad one. The current situation is one that very few of us (if any) have experienced, and Paulsen is one of the main orchestrators of it. So, he has to be blamed for what we are looking at to a degree. And he was put in place by Bush and company, for reasons that seem pretty obvious to me.
Fannie and Freddie are a big part of this. But I see you won't admit any responsibility at all by Bush, Paulsen, or any of the people you defend. It's always the dems fault, right? And you say I am partisan?
Whatever. Take care.
Maybe you haven't defended them, I probably jumped on that. That's what happens when someone jumps on me, calls me partisan and unable to think about anything fairly. You started this line of thought...I guess you are completely objective and only find fault with only one side of things? Whatever, man. You hate Paulsen, don't defend Bush, and my comments were about not liking Paulsen and blaming him and Bush for appointing him. And you accuse me of partisanship? What are we discussing, again?
:shrug:
How about a few questions, since you are having a hard time with my position. Do you think Paulsen was a good appointment? Why do you think he was put in the position he was put in? Who do you think he best represents in his current position? Do you think it's fair to find fault with him? And ultimately Bush for the appointment?
:shrug:
How about a few questions, since you are having a hard time with my position. Do you think Paulsen was a good appointment? Why do you think he was put in the position he was put in? Who do you think he best represents in his current position? Do you think it's fair to find fault with him? And ultimately Bush for the appointment?
The changing use of the $750 billion bailout may go down as one of the biggest shell games ever sold to the American public.
Maybe we will get lucky and things will work out.
We have basically no control over our government. Even those who voted for one of the most liberal candidates for president in decades are going to find that very little changes with the powers behind the scenes in US (global?) economics.
The Paulson?s, the FED, the big movers and shakers are going to own Obama just like they owned Bush.
Aside from outright revolt, or voting in some completely wanky Libertarian or Green, I suspect we can change nothing in this country.
Maybe we will get lucky and things will work out.
We have basically no control over our government. Even those who voted for one of the most liberal candidates for president in decades are going to find that very little changes with the powers behind the scenes in US (global?) economics.
The Paulson?s, the FED, the big movers and shakers are going to own Obama just like they owned Bush.
Aside from outright revolt, or voting in some completely wanky Libertarian or Green, I suspect we can change nothing in this country.
The bailout was never to help the American Public. It was to help the big execs at the Big Banks. Don't forget we had Bush on TV begging for it. We had Barney Frank begging for it. We had McCain canceling his campaign so he could have a say in it and we had Obama blessing the whole thing his blessings. I would say a good rule of thumb would be when have players from every side of the spectrum trying to sell us something we are in for it. And we are now in position of saving the very banks and excec's who will be foreclosing on our homes! Screwed again. Little to no relief for the common man.
