To save the US economy - Republicans turn to a tribunus plebis??!

Remove all ads!

US national debt hit 10 trillion this week.

 

Thanks you Martaug, for reminding us that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The Democrats put this in place with the good intention that everyone should have the opportunity to own a home. I doubt that anyone will find fault with that desire.

The problem is that when you increase the demand like that, that also drives up prices. This puts strain on the program. Also the idea of something for nothing might make people who need the program look at a more expensive home than they would have otherwise gone for. The result, Higher property taxes and more strain on the people that this was supposed to help. The third nail in the coffin is an economic slowdown. When some of these people lose their jobs, they can't make the payments. It looks like now the combination of the three is what collapsed the banks, then the market followed suit...

It looks like the bailout is too little, too late...

 

You don't need to speak for "us," Gnarff; we can speak for ourselves, thank you. It's clear that there are abuses by ACORN, but that's hardly what caused a finacial meltdown of the economy. There were huge abuses within Wall Street and the mortgage industry itself that mostly got us to where we are now - that's common knowledge.

Also, this thread is not about voter fraud, and we already have a large ongoing thread for that, which I have chosen to stay out of deliberately, especially after the voting debacle of 2000. What's with all this stuff on this thread? There's no need for a rant about voter fraud on a thread about the economic meltdown. We can all post our favorite "instances" of voter fraud, regardless of which side we are on, IF we care to address that topic.

 

Chandos, my fault i completely forgot about the voter fraud thread
I swear some days if my head wasn't attached . . i'm suprised i can find my way home somedays

 

NP, Martaug.

 

So I can't even compliment someone in a thread without pissing people off? WTF?

The program itself, while noble in its ambition, by its very nature condemned it to fail--and fail spectacularly. What do you expect when you empower people who can't afford to own their own home to buy one? That increased the demand for homes, and that increased the prices, further straining the program. This debt became overwhelming, but as long as they were working, they were making payments and the system continued to trudge forward.

But when the jobs started to dissappear, these same overextended people started to fail financially, and they defaulted on the loans. Lenders lost their capital, and that's why we have the crisis.

The abuses at the top of every corporation and on Wall Street probably received less scrutiny from the public when times seemed good, and are only more evident to the masses now that things are going to Hell in a handbasket. But it is the systemic failure of ACORN, not the abuses that lie at the root of the problem. The abuses just don't help matters...

And I still think that the 700 billion dollars is too little, too late. Unless the people have jobs and money flowing in, then the crisis will continue, regardless of who gets in the White House.

 

Dude, I'm not pissed. Sorry you took it that way. I took your pronoun "us" as meaning that you were speaking for the rest of "us," whether we agree with the post or not. No hard feelings on my part.

 

Well I'm pissed off. Damnit how can we have a decent argument around here if people start empathizing? All this damn we garbage and agree to disagree BS is just annoying. We're supposed to have thick skin here on the boards, not prance around the issues like mamby-pamby girly-men (would that also be boyish-women for PCness?) -- SEE now you ME doing the same wimpy-type stuff!

To be a bit more serious ... Gnarff, a bit of friendly advice (actually for anyone on the boards): Never take anyone's comments too seriously or personally on the boards. A person should also never take themselves too seriously, either.

 

The Economist places "the lion's share of the blame" at Bush's feet.

But they're a bunch of bleeding heart Eurocommie BDSers, so whatever.

 

For those of you who watch Saturday night live they had a brilliant sketch about this entire affair. Although it appears that it has ruffled a couple of feathers as NBC is deleting it from Youtube as fast as people can post it.

Here is a non Youtube link of it so it may be up longer.

Enjoy, while you can.

 

By Using the word "Us", I assumed that I was the only one that needed that reminder. The onus is on the reader to decide whether they were to be included in that "us".

It wasn't an offence, but an annoyed confusion. Every once in a while I read an apparent chastisement and think "What did I do?"

AMaster: So they blame the president because Congress wanted to act like a bunch of petulent five year olds? That's rich. If Congress can't or won't put the well being of the nation ahead of their own petty squabbling, then the people should really take this behaviour into account in November...

the President replresents the Executive branch of the Government. His job is to execute. He had the audacity to try to do the job he was elected to do in 2000 (and yes, I believe he was legitimately elected, the Supreme court should not be that easily fooled), then re-elected in 2004. For that Congress was upset?

If this is the way the Democrats are going to campaign, then get used to Republicans in the Whitehouse for generations to come. If the Democrats want to get elected forget the outgoing president and focus on what they intend to do if they get elected. At least Obama gets it...

 

Actually, that's a very funny sketch. Thanks, TGS.

 

God, that was a funny sketch. SNL is on a roll this year.

 

The link is dead for me, just wont load.

Finally worked but took ages. It got cut off halfway through though.

Snook, what kind of cooky sites do you hang out on? Maybe it was only a site with the video but if not you are more extreme then I thought. Scarily extreme :s

 

Ah, The Economist is much closer, ideologically speaking, to the GOP than the Democratic Party. The paper has already expressed its preference for a McCain victory.

 

Just a link. I've never been there before, but now I have to check it out.

 

Oh, nobody was "fooled;" it was all quite blantant.

Well, Obama will probably be the next prez (unless he screws-up), but he is not a Republican. Unless you are speaking of other generations, sometime in the future.

 

Interestingly enough, NBC has edited the skit and now has posted it on their website. To me the only change is they took away the caption that the people who made the billions should be shot. If that was their only problem with the skit, I'm not sure why they even bothered. I thought the original was funnier. I blame the lawyers, they probably were concerned that someone would shoot the actual people and NBC would get sued.

 

So if nobody was fooled, then the Republicans legitimately won in 2000.

And I don't think that the Rip on the Republicans theme will work. The voters want more than just personal attacks on the candidates. They want to know something about what the candidate is standing for. Perhaps that's why the last two elections have been so close. If the Democratic supporters still defame McCain and Palin, then what does that say for the Democrats. After all, that strategy worked so well in 2004--for Bush...

The bottom line is that the Democrats created a program that is now about to collapse the economy. About 6 years ago, the Republicans tried to say something, but the Democrats wouldn't listen. And now they blame the republican president? I wish Obama luck in finding a better party for a 2012 campaign...

 

I don't think so. It was blatantly political that they disallowed a recount in Florida. The Supreme Court didn't "fool" anyone with that decision.

The "bottom line" is that the Republicans controlled just about the entire government from 2000-2006. Could you explain yourself?