More Socialism from Republicans

[Beavah]

Yah, so I sit here and am readin' the press reports of the meetin' with the NY Fed and the major financial institutions attemptin' to arrange a bailout of Lehman Bros.

 

After a bailout of Bear Stearns. After a massive taxpayer takeover of all of the risk (but none of the profits) of Frannie and Freddie.

 

Of course, AIG and Merryl Lynch and the American auto makers are waitin' in the wings with their hands out.

 

Then President Bush announces that, naturally, he's keepin' all of the bailout dollars off of the books and not part of the federal budget. Easier to steal taxpayer dollars to bail out execs with big salaries if it's not recorded anywhere, eh? Especially when you're already runnin' a 408 billion deficit this year on the books.

 

A Republican president has managed to socialize all of the risk from financial speculation while privatizing all of the profits.

 

And nobody's battin' an eye.

 

Beavah

 

[Stosh]

Hmmmm, the stock market crashed in 1929 because the American public was so stupid so as to over extend their credit. Deja vu! Maybe this is just a pre-emptive strike designed to keep the stupdidity of the American public from shooting themselves in the other foot. After all Roosevelt did spend a lot of tax money to solve the problem that the 1929 debauchel created. Maybe this is an attempt to avoid the obvious course we are currently on. It may not look pretty, but what's the alternative? Soup lines? CCC camps? TVA projects? If everyone's on the dole, who's going to pay for it?

 

Stosh

[packsaddle]

Mrs. Beavah needs to run for the disinfectant. I am in complete agreement. I am amazed that people who call themselves 'conservative' are quietly approving these incredibly costly and destructive policies. Sadly, the real burden is going to fall on future generations...that is, assuming we ever DO pay it back. If anyone was skeptical about this administration expanding government more than any previous one, this should settle that matter.

So...I'm batting an eye - for what little good it does with these guys.

Edited part: I have to add that the lies associated with this are in some ways even more profound than any of the other lies from these guys. This is not incompetence. As you say, it is theft.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Bob White]

Excuse me, but wasn't it a Democrat controlled congress that voted to bail out Freddie and Fannie on the recommondation of a democrat controlled Senate Banking Committee?

 

An action that by the way was supported by the presidential candidates of BOTH parties.

 

Bush, said he would veto the bail-out, but the democratic congress added it to a housing bill that was originally designed to help homeowners help keep their homes. Bush could note veto just part of the bill, could he?

 

We return you now to the history revisionism probable still in progress.

[packsaddle]

Bob White, accepting for the sake of argument that every claim you make is correct, are you SURPRISED by Democratic support for these decisions? The POINT is that the people who actually call themselves 'conservative' are supporting these measures: the Republicans, the President, his administration.

 

Beavah wrote, "Then President Bush announces that, naturally, he's keepin' all of the bailout dollars off of the books and not part of the federal budget."

If I did this in my personal finances I would be guilty of fraud.

 

Beavah continued, "Easier to steal taxpayer dollars to bail out execs with big salaries if it's not recorded anywhere, eh? Especially when you're already runnin' a 408 billion deficit this year on the books."

This alone should cause true conservatives to become apoplectic. But the Republicans are just shrugging this off.

 

And then finally,

"A Republican president has managed to socialize all of the risk from financial speculation while privatizing all of the profits.

 

And nobody's battin' an eye."

 

I note that you did not disagree with any of the above statements. Bush COULD and SHOULD HAVE vetoed the entire bill, even without the bailout language. The assertion that Bush decided to bail out his cronies because he had to save poor people from their financial contractual agreements is just incredible. Do you really believe that?

YOU are not battin' an eye.

[Beavah]

Yah, packsaddle's got the right of it, BobWhite. I'm an old-time conservative. Doesn't bother me that the Democrats are behavin' honestly like Democrats. Frustrates the heck out of me that the Republicans are behavin' like nitwits.

 

It takes no moral fiber or honor to stand up to your opponents. It takes honor and character to stand up to your own party. To tell your friends "No!" and stand on principle, eh?

 

The Republicans in general and this administration in particular have no honor. The Democratic Congress is keepin' the bailout dollars on the CBO budget, at least for the moment. Hard to imagine the Democrats being the party of fiscal responsibility, but there it is.

 

B

 

[scoutldr]

Ron Paul for President!

[Eagledad]

Do you really think that average American understands it Beav? It is really a very complex issue to comprehend. Like most things that happen with our government, the people watch the machine in ignorance. Until we can get a media that wants to educate instead of manipulate, it won't change.

 

Barry

[Lisabob]

Call me cynical (and at the moment I am feeling that way) but I don't think this is as much the fault of the media failing to educate, as of the ordinary person, failing to exhibit an interest in learning. It is not rocket science, and the resources to understand this matter are out there, readily available to any of us for free. Yet we're at a point, it seems, where not only are we anti-intellectual in this country, we're even anti-information. Much easier to just shout about Sarah Palin and Barack Obama, than to actually spend a little effort trying to come to grips with the real issues. We're on our way back to the "know nothing" era, I fear.

 

ETA: Incidentally, Barry, I find it kind of funny that a lot of Republicans who preach personal responsibility as their mantra when it comes to a discussion of social problems, go and blame the media for the public's general lack of understanding of (or interest in) the issues. Shouldn't it also be our personal responsibility to educate ourselves so that we can make informed electoral choices?(This message has been edited by lisabob)

[TheScout]

Congress makes policy. The President only executes it.

[skeptic]

"Congress makes policy. The President only executes it."

 

Perhaps someone should "try" to explain that to the current Executive team! Not that they actually understand or care.

 

Ooops; my disfavor is showing. Sorry.

 

Frankly, I am not sure there is a politician of any ilk that really cares about the actual issues or what his or her constituents actually think, or how things effect them. But maybe I am just being cynical again.

[TheScout]

"Perhaps someone should "try" to explain that to the current Executive team! Not that they actually understand or care."

 

I don't know what that means.

[GaHillBilly]

B4 I start, I should say I respect Beavuh's advice on this Forum probably more than anyone else's here

 

But . . .

 

Beavuh wrote "It takes honor and character to stand up to your own party. To tell your friends "No!" and stand on principle, eh?"

 

Frankly, I'm not sure Scouter's have a leg to stand on, when it comes to talking about OTHER groups who aren't honest and who don't stand up to their friends! Almost from the beginning of my son's and my entry into Scouting, we've been dismayed by the bogus ranks and bogus MBs. I've mentioned before the Star Scout w/ Canoeing MB who held a paddle like a broom, and who was afraid to go down a Class II river with the rest of the troop, and the Life Scout and Eagle candidate who could not tie either a square knot or two half hitches.

 

My own son has a blue card for First Aid, with accompanying completion sheet showing everything except CPR checked off . . . even though the idea of making a FA kit for your family was never even mentioned.

 

If I seem like I'm angry and frustrated, well it's because I am! And I think I have good reason.

 

This weekend, I was in the safety boat that presided over a potentially fatal accident, caused by Scouts who would rather argue among one another than follow safety instructions. One of the Scouts imperiled by this accident was put into harms way precisely because neither his personal fitness (checked off in Tfoot not long ago) nor his swimming ability (checked off this summer at camp, I was assured!) were what I was assured they were.

 

Beavuh, if you want to talk about people speaking the truth to their friends, I think you've got some real opportunity, RIGHT HERE!

 

Bogus ranks and bogus MBs are a festering pus-filled ulcer on Scouting's integrity and trustworthiness. How can a Scout, or Scouter, say the Scout law, pledging to be trustworthy and then play these dishonest games with skills and ranks?

 

If BSA and Scouters want to re-write the ranks and badges to remove the requirement that a Scout be able to tie a square knot, and replace it with a "Scout must be able to recognize a labeled picture of a square knot" or "a Scout must be able to hold two pieces of rope while his instructor joins them with something like a square knot (or else a granny knot)" or "a Scout must be able to swim 75 + 25 yds, unless it scares him or he finds it hard, in which case dog paddling a few feet in the shallow end will suffice", well then that's BSA's organizational right.

 

But, let's be "trustworthy" and call a spade a spade!

 

For myself, it means I will never again trust a critical Scouting skill certification I have not personally verified, unless I have watched and have absolute trust in the training and certification work of the Scouter confirming those skills to me.

 

GaHillBilly

[packsaddle]

GaHillBilly, if you will do a search, you will find that many of us share your frustrations with the way that some ranks and merit badges are NOT earned, but awarded anyway. We've had quite a few such discussions in these forums. There are ways to address the problem. But it is off topic.

[skeptic]

"Perhaps someone should "try" to explain that to the current Executive team! Not that they actually understand or care."

 

I don't know what that means.

 

Redefining the intent and meaning of "Executive Privilege"; e.g. refusing to respond to Congressional orders and so on. Fabricating special rules which fly in the face of our constitution and claiming it as their right, due to National Security. You cannot have forgotten that?!!?