Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Toad on September 27, 2008, 01:41:53 PM
-
OK, we all like to wench.
That's not enough. There isn't a whole lot you can do but you can do something. Write your Congressional Representatives, both Senators and Congressmen and tell them what you want done. They work for YOU. It's a small thing, but hey.. ya do what you can until the Revolution becomes inevitable. You want to be able to say you gave them a chance to avoid it. ;)
This is what I wrote. Feel free to use any or all of it. Thanks for making the effort, no matter what your political persuasion happens to be!
Find your reps E-mail addys here:
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
----------------------------------------------
Congressman:
I am sick an tired of my government taking money from the common man to bail out the insanely rich people that continually screw up our economy.
The current Treasury/Fed/Administration plan screws the taxpayers and rewards the weasels that caused the problem.
This is an opportunity for you to distance yourself from the Wall Street Elite Thieves and stand up for the average American taxpayer.
Let's make sure the taxpayer doesn't get screwed. Let's make sure that the taxpayer actually gets something out of this. Ritchie Rich guy and the Wall Street Thieves should be happy to get out of it with their skin still on. They deserve punishment, not reward.
There should be no rush to pass something here. This is the time for a careful, well thought out solution to this problem. There have been several plans put forward that solve this crisis from the bottom up instead of the top down.
Professor Allan Meltzer has a better plan; please pay attention to his comments in this PBS roundtable:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec08/bailouttalk_09-23.html
Meltzer:
"Well, I've listened to governments tell me for 40 years that there was a crisis and the world was going to fall apart if we didn't do this or that. But there have been a few cases where they weren't able to do that.
One was the commercial paper crisis in 1970. There have been several others. The world did not fall apart. Last week, we had Lehman Brothers went into bankruptcy. Within three days, most of the assets were sold.
We had AIG turn down three offers to buy the company because they thought they would get a better deal from the government. It turned out they didn't get the better deal from the government. Now the stockholders suddenly woke up and said -- the major stockholders said, "We'd like to buy the company."
Well, that's what I think we need to do. We need to get the government's hand out of this, and let's see whether we can't get a market solution.
The market people caused this problem. They ought to be the ones that pay the cost of having it cleaned up.
...
Yes. I don't want to join a debate about different ways of picking the public's pocket. I think, if they're going to do something -- and I don't think that we really need to do anything. I've heard these stories over and over for 40 years. You know, maybe there will be a crisis.
But despite all the talk, Main Street is not doing so badly. And the fact is that they've been predicting disaster since January. It hasn't happened.
And if they're going to do something, then what they ought to do is make loans, which the financial institutions have to repay with interest. And if you think -- that's an idea which the Chileans have used in a bigger crisis than this for them in 1982, and it worked for them.
People paid back the loans. They weren't allowed to pay dividends until they repaid the loans. They weren't allowed to take bonuses until they repaid the loans. I think that's the way -- if we're going to do this, then that's the way we should do it."
Ian Welsh has a good plan too, one that would revitalize the housing market:
http://firedoglake.com/2008/09/19/how-to-bail-out-ordinary-mortgage-holders-and-not-just-banks/
Welsh
"The government is talking about setting up a Trust to buy distressed debt then sell it again. The problem is that the Trust company will simply bail out banks at taxpayer expense without helping mortgage holders much. The mortgages it sells will still be underwater, or too expensive for many people to service, especially as their houses lose value.
The other proposal, just giving money to people to pay for their mortgages, is bad also. Housing prices are actually dropping, most mortgages issues were bad mortgages with horrible penalty clauses, based on assumptions about housing values which are just wrong. House prices are going to keep dropping.
What the government should do instead is set up a Trust to buy mortgages at a discount, then reset them to 20, 30 or 50 year fixed mortgages with a reduced face amount. If the house is later sold, half of the increase goes to the government, so that taxpayers make a profit. The mortgage cannot be paid off before the end of its term so that financial scavengers cannot come around and, as they did over the last ten years, say "get rid of that mortgage, and take ours. It's better. Honest!", because we know that when they say better, they don't mean better for the mortgage holder. The mortgage is attached to the property and is transferred to any new buyer. And the mortgage cannot be removed from the property, and any new mortgages attached to the property are junior to the government mortgage.
End results:
a) a floor is set for mortgage prices. (Whatever discount the government is buying at. Probably 60% to 70%, but it should be based on what the long run price was in the area before the housing bubble.) This ends the confidence crisis in these securities, because there is now a market price—what the Trust will pay.
b) It helps homeowners stay in their homes.
c) It gets rid of overly complex mortgages and puts in their place a dead simple mortgage that anyone can understand.
d) It punishes lenders, which they deserve, for making loans they should never have made.
e) While it does keep homeowners in their homes, it doesn't let them off scot-free either. In exchange for a good mortgage they can service, they give up some of the future profits on sales in their houses.
f) The government will almost certainly make a long term profit on this. This is important, because it's not fair for people who aren't underwater on mortgages to spend hundreds of billions or trillions bailing out those who are without some expectation that in the end it won't be more than just a transfer of wealth to them and to investors and banks."
Congressman, the ball isn't in your court, it's not a tennis ball. It's a 99mph fastball headed right over the plate with two strikes on Congress, 2 outs, bottom of the 9th.
Congress either hits this one out of the park or goes home a loser.
Please do something for the American Taxpayer instead of for the fools that got us into this mess and will bail out of it with $40 million golden parachutes.
-
I did my part, I emailed my Representative and both US Senators. :rock
-
I hope you proof read that a few more times before you send it.
-
I also emailed both Senators and the Representative.
To my shock, one of the Senators actually responded.
-
Thank you for your e-mail. It is very important to me to know the issues
that are of concern to you. A growing number of my constituents are now
choosing to communicate with me via e-mail. I hope you will understand
that, because of the volume and range of e-mails I receive, it can take
some time to send a response that specifically addresses the subject
raised in your message. I do, however, want to let you know immediately
that your message has been received. Hearing from you and others through
e-mail helps me to quickly learn the views and interests of New Yorkers
and others, which is very helpful to me in my work in the United States
Senate. I hope you will continue to monitor my work through my website
at http://clinton.senate.gov, and I welcome hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
*sigh*
We're screwed. ;)
-
Or they're screwed. ;)
(http://www.hangtimes.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/rocktheboat2.jpg)
-
Yup. I changed the second to last line to:
"You either hit this one out of the park or face an anti-incumbent election I will participate enthusiastically in."
The image I'll send 'em from an anonymous machine down at the library. ;)
-
Pitchforks.
Pitchforks and torches, in front of the courthouse, at midnight.
-
Pitchforks.
Pitchforks and torches, in front of the courthouse, at midnight.
If we don't have a pitchfork is it ok to bring a rake or a shovel? :devil
-
lol
just no weed-whackers
-
Yup. I changed the second to last line to:
"You either hit this one out of the park or face an anti-incumbent election I will participate enthusiastically in."
The image I'll send 'em from an anonymous machine down at the library. ;)
"You either hit this one out of the park or face an anti-incumbent election in which I will participate enthusiastically."
(http://morningglory2.files.wordpress.com/2006/04/grammarpolice.jpg)
-
I got a form letter back from Senator Salazar.
Dear Friend:
Thank you for your e-mail message. Hearing from Coloradans is important to me. I will respond to your concerns in the near future. If you need assistance from my office or if you need help dealing with a federal agency, please use the link below to access our casework form. If you are not a Colorado resident, I encourage you to contact the U.S. Senators from your state directly.
Once again, thank you for contacting me.
http://salazar.senate.gov/contact/case.cfm
Ghey.....
-
"You either hit this one out of the park or face an anti-incumbent election in which I will participate enthusiastically."
(http://morningglory2.files.wordpress.com/2006/04/grammarpolice.jpg)
Gawdammit, that's two of those this month, orificer! Crap! How come you guys are never around when a liberal dangles a participial?
-
Well, I am nearly positive that this was written by an aide, but it was written by someone. I say that because of the use of the bold phrase, which I used in my email.
"Thank you for writing to me about the Bush Administration's proposal to bail out the financial industry. It's good to hear from you.
There's no question that we are in a credit crisis. People who have saved for their retirement, been faithful in paying their mortgage, and worked hard to pay for college are wondering, 'What is going on?'
They've watched Wall Street executives pay themselves lavish salaries. They've watched irresponsible lending practices. They've watched casino economics, gambling on risky investment mechanisms. Now those very same Americans who've worked hard and played by the rules are being asked to pay the bill for those who didn't.
Congress must act promptly to restore confidence and stability in the economy. But I will not be stampeded into voting for the Bush Administration bill. During the last seven years, every time there's a crisis, they generate fear and they generate bad ideas. This three-page bill gives the Secretary of the Treasury unlimited power to intervene in our financial markets without any review by Congress, agencies, or courts. It cannot be rubber stamped by the Congress.
At the minimum, the plan must be limited and temporary - not open-ended. There can't be any golden parachutes that reward executives for their excesses and their recklessness. No blank checks. There also must be a plan for those who have been hit hardest by the mortgage crisis.
Knowing of your views is very helpful to me. I will keep them in mind as the Senate continues to debate the President's economic plan.
Thanks again for getting in touch. Please let me know if I can be of assistance to you in the future.
Sincerely,
Barbara A. Mikulski
United States Senator "
-
I got a form letter back from Senator Salazar.
Ghey.....
Yeah, that's what I'm getting too. I think that's the automated answer sent out to make you feel they got your message.
You will eventually get some boilerplate BS statement designed not to offend anyone that sorta-kinda gives their postion in a deniable way.
That's not important.
The important thing is your letter got marked down on a tally sheet logging input either for or against the bailout. They will lick their finger and hold it up to see which way the wind is blowing. Your input helps form the breeze.
Good on ya.
-
Toad :salute...Sent your comments to my reps Thanks Great Idea
-
yeah, i have sent many e-mails over the years, you usually get a standard reply back, except once a e-mailed my state district rep ( state gov not federal) and he actually sent me back a personal message. He must not get many e-mails or was having a slow day.
-
I wrote something about Socialism not being tolerated.
Haven't heard back yet though, don't know why.
-
I'd send an e-mail to Chris Dodd, but I'd be arrested if it contained what I really feel about that man.
That poor excuse for a leader is the Chairman of the Banking Committee and is one of the key individuals responsible for this mess, not to mention he received funds from CountryWide Mortage in the form of a very low rate mortage through a special 'VIP' program.
-
Well.. I got 'acknowledgments' (as posted above) from my two liberal senators. have heard nothin else.
However, I posted my version of Toads Flamer to my brother out in Oregon, who used it to club his rep and two senators. Here's the reply:
----
Yo, Bro..
Just to show that you are not the ONLY one still up at 2:00am!! Still nothing from my Senators, BUT my Representative is awake. Here's the reply. Anything from your jokers yet? -Stu
-----Original Message-----
From: Congressman Peter DeFazio [mailto:or04ima@mail.house.gov]
Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2008 11:25 AM
To: xxxx@charter.net
Subject: Reply from Congressman Peter DeFazio
Dear Mr. <edited>:
Thank you for contacting me about the Bush Administration bailout. I am vehemently opposed to this bailout.
I was the first Member of Congress to take to the House floor and stand up in opposition to this $700 billion bailout. The financial crisis we face today does not need to be resolved by forking over $700 billion from the taxpayer to the "Masters of the Universe" on Wall Street.
The fundamental premise of the $700 billion Bush Administration bailout is flawed, reckless, and foolish. It is flawed because it is not clear it will achieve its stated objective of injecting commercial banks with liquidity and it ignores the needs of main street America, it is reckless because there are better alternatives, and it is foolish because giving away $700 billion will limit our ability to deal with the myriad of other problems we face such as healthcare, energy independence, and job creation.
To put the sheer audacity of this bailout plan in perspective, a compromise has been talked about that reduces the initial payments to "only $250 billion". $250 billion would more than double our investment in bridges, highways, transit, and rail in the United States for five years. Investing in infrastructure creates jobs and stimulates the economy. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, for every $1.25 billion we invest in infrastructure, we will create over 30,000 jobs and $6 billion in additional economic activity. In President Roosevelt's Works Progress Administration, we invested in building roads, bridges, dams, hydroelectric systems and other public works projects to mend our nation's broken economy. That money trickled up to Wall Street from Main Street and rebuilt our economy. We did not just throw money at Wall Street with the hopes that the taxpayer might some day be paid back.
I think Congress should respond, but the basic premise of the Bush Administration bailout is flawed. Almost 200 economists wrote to Congress stating "As economists, we want to express to Congress our great concern for the plan proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson"[1]. The letter went on to raise the issues of fairness, ambiguity, and the long-term effects. The former chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp in the Reagan Administration wrote, "I have doubts that the $700 billion bailout, if enacted, would work. Would banks really be willing to part with the loans, and would the government be able to sell them in the marketplace on terms that the taxpayers would find acceptable?"[2] And James Galbraith, an economist at the University of Texas, has asked "Now that all five big investment banks -- Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley -- have disappeared or morphed into regular banks, a question arises. Is this bailout still necessary?"[3] I believe the answer is No. I have called on my colleagues to slow down this debate and seriously debate the alternative proposals.
For example, many economists have argued that directly helping mortgage holders save their houses would be astronomically cheaper and a more effective in resolving this crisis. And helping working Americans restructure their homer mortgage will increase the value of Wall Street's depreciated assets. As the New York Time opinioned recently:
"We could make a strong moral argument that the government has a greater responsibility to help homeowners than it does to bail out Wall Street. But we don't have to. Basic economics argues for a robust plan to stanch foreclosures and thereby protect the taxpayers ."[4]
Another serious consequence is the $700 billion hole in the budget deficit this bailout will create. The next administration, Democratic or Republican, will be unable to initiate new proposals as it charts a new course for our nation. The Bush tax cuts blew the surplus created by the last Democratic Administration and the Bush Administration bailout will prevent the next administration from implementing its mandate.
My biggest concern of this bailout is who pays the $700 billion tab. The $700 billion is to protect Wall Street investors, therefore the same Wall Street investors should pay for this infusion of taxpayer money. I have proposed a minimal securities transfer tax of ? of one percent. A securities transfer tax would have a negligible impact on the average investor and provide a disincentive to high volume, speculative short-term traders. Similar tax proposals have been supported by many esteemed economists such as Larry Summers, John Maynard Keynes and Nobel prize winners Joseph Stiglitz and James Tobin.
There is considerable precedent for this. The United States had a similar tax from 1914 to 1966. The Revenue Act of 1914 levied a 0.2% tax on all sales or transfers of stock. In 1932, Congress more than doubled the tax to help finance economic reconstruction programs during the Great Depression. In 1987, Speaker of the House Jim Wright offered his support for a financial transaction tax. And today the UK has a modest financial transaction tax of 0.5 percent. This is a reasonable approach to protecting taxpayers and ensuring the federal budget doesn't fall further into the fiscal hole.
I will continue to challenge this bailout every step of the way. Again, thanks for reaching out to me. Please keep in touch.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/john.cochrane/research/Papers/mortgage_protest.htm
[2] Washington Post. A Better Way to Aid Banks. William M. Isaac. Sept 27, 2008. A19.
[3] Washington Post. A Bailout We Don't Need. James K. Galbraith. Sept. 25, 2008. A19
[4] New York Times. Editorial. What About the Rest of Us? Sept., 26, 2008. A26.
Sincerely,
Rep. Peter DeFazio
Fourth District, OREGON
Note: Defazio is an 11 term democrat!
-
lost track of all the amounts, but i did get this email
Here is a bailout I like!!!!
> I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG.
> Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in
> a We Deserve It Dividend.
> To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000
> bonafide U.S. Citizens 18+.
> Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman
> and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up..
> So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billon that equals
> $425,000.00.
> My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a
> We Deserve It Dividend.
> Of course, it would NOT be tax free.
> So let's assume a tax rate of 30%.
> Every individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes.
> That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam.
> But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket.
> A husband and wife has $595,000.00.
> What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family?
> Pay off your mortgage - housing crisis solved.
>
> Repay college loans - what a great boost to new grads
> Put away money for college - it'll be there
> Save in a bank - create money to loan to entrepreneurs.
> Buy a new car - create jobs
> Invest in the market - capital drives growth
> Pay for your parent's medica l insurance - health care improves
> Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean - or else
> Remember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18+ including the folks
who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company
> that is cutting back. And of course, for those serving in our Armed
> Forces.
> If we're going to re-distribute wealth let's really do it...instead of
trickling out a puny $1000.00 ( "vote buy" ) economic incentive that is being proposed
by one of our candidates for President.
> If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout, let's bail out every adult
> U S Citizen 18+!
> As for AIG - liquidate it.
Sell off its parts.
Let American General go back to being American General.
Sell off the real estate.
Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up.
> Here's my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn't.
Sure it's a crazy idea that can "never work."
But can you imagine the Coast-To-Coast Block Party!
> How do you spell Economic Boom?
> I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion
> We Deserve=2 0It Dividend more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in
> Washington DC.
> And remember, The Birk plan only really costs $59.5 Billion because
> $25.5 Billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam.
> Ahhh...I feel so much better getting that off my chest.
> Birk
> T. J. Birkenmeier, A Creative Guy & Citizen of the Republic
> PS: Feel free to pass this along to your pals as it's either good for a
> laugh or a tear or a very sobering thought on how to best use $85 Billion!!
i guess you could run the numbers and see if this is correct, wouldnt it be cool if it was and they did it, alot of places i could spend that kind of money any way just thought it was interesting when you break down the per person amount, if the numbers are correct!
P.S. i guess that would be alot like the dem tax plan, exept for the giving it back part lol
-
Hooooo-RAH! for DeFazio. I'm sending his remarks to ALL Kansas Senators and Reps!
If we only had 500 like him.
-
lost track of all the amounts, but i did get this email
Here is a bailout I like!!!!
A liberal beat yah to it. ;)
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,248348.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,248348.0.html)
-
well like i said i was worried about the math, just too lazy to check it right now
lol thanks :salute
-
:aok
-
Sent this to Mike Thompson...Great idea Toad, who knows? It might even help.
Dear Congressman Thompson,
I am writing you to express my opposition to a Wall Street bailout plan.
I am a lifelong Democrat, and active in my party in the Ukiah area, and believe my party best represents the working class values of America. I vote Democrat proudly, and will continue to do so.
However, I am surprised at the Democratic Party's cooperation with the Bush administration to rush into a bailout deal that, on the surface, rewards those who were in charge at the time while penalizing those who worked at these institutions and lost jobs, retirement, savings and even their homes. We see who historically represents the intrests of the institutions, but who represents the intrests of the people victimized by these collapses? I hope it is my party, the Democrats.
It is my wish my representatives look more closely at who benefits, who doesn't, and, most of all, who pays for a bailout plan. It is my hope I can continue to vote Democrat secure in the knowledge you have my best intrests at heart.
Thank you,
-
LOL... damn. If I didn't know better.. ;)
ROFL!
-
Good on ya Carrel!
I think you are way too nice with him but hey, you're one of them relaxed Kali dudes.
I personally think a little fire and brimstone is in order but I'm glad you wrote. We all need to remind them just exactly who they are working for while they are in DC.
:salute :rock :salute :rock
-
I tried to call my "congressman" William "Dollar Bill" Jefferson but his mailbox was full. I guess he has problems being all indicted and everything. I am glad that at this hour it seems house Republicans are revolting. This hysterical nonsense has to stop NOW. Has Bush recently had a brain seizure or something? He needs to withdraw his plea for the bailout and fire Paulson immediately.
-
Here's an internet petition against the bailout..
http://www.nowallstreetbailout.com/
-
Here's an internet petition against the bailout..
http://www.nowallstreetbailout.com/
Is that a valid petition?
-
looks like a 'harvest' site.. gathers info for junk mail.
-
looks like a 'harvest' site.. gathers info for junk mail.
Well here's a link to the organization behind it. It doesn't look like a harvest site to me...
http://www.freedomworks.org/
Follow the link to the petition from that site. After visiting the organization's site, Hangtime, do you think its a junk mail site? Think you would take even a cursorary look before blasting the petition a junk mail scam.
-
I signed that and immediately got bombarded with spam E-Mails selling everything from Viagra to knock off watches to plastic Jesuses.
-
The bailout is not a party issue, it's cutting across party lines.
At moon on Monday, here's how the vote is shaping up for the plan released yesterday:
Twenty-eight Democrats come out to speak in support of the bill, 10 against. Eleven Republicans in favor, 26 against. Now, there's no reason to believe that that's in any particular way representative of those who didn't speak -- this is a self-selecting group who came to the floor. But if those numbers hold up across the parties, it's tight.
That represents just under 74% of Dems who have come to the floor speaking in support. 74% of the 235 Dems in the House would be 173 votes. Eleven of 37 Republicans = just under 30% of Republicans. That'd be 59 Republican votes, for a total of 232 votes, enough for passage, with room to spare.
IF YOU ARE AGAINST THE BAILOUT - the time to act is *right now*. You may wish to find out where your rep is on this issue, because party has nothing (or seemingly little) to do with it.
-
Well here's a link to the organization behind it. It doesn't look like a harvest site to me...
http://www.freedomworks.org/
Follow the link to the petition from that site. After visiting the organization's site, Hangtime, do you think its a junk mail site? Think you would take even a cursorary look before blasting the petition a junk mail scam.
I emailed my letters direct to my representatives and congresspeople. (thanks again, Toad) I don't want to be on some freaking nutball list.. I avoid intenet petitions, as a matter of course. I have no idea how the personal information harvested in those things can be held as secure, I reject 'labeling' created by getting into a database like that.. and hate the donation requests and polling calls that usually follow.
What you choose to do is up to you. I chose not to provide that kind of personal info to any website without legal recourse on what happens to the info provided. :salute
-
Actually the fat cats at the top are still getting huge salaries. Even if this does not pass. Of course that will have to dwindle in the future.
The ones who suffer most will be the loan industy and the folks who bought more than they could afford. As it should be......
-
The bailout vote failed! Now we'll see if one of our candidates will man up again' it...whoever does gets my vote in November.
-
sheesh... paying for a war with a credit card and now the crying game when the bills come due.. crack me up... :rofl
-
Who's crying. We'll fix this but there's no way the Wall Streeters get off scot free. That's what the discussion is about.
Much to your dismay, Torque. We'll survive and get along quite well, thanks.
Guess that's good news for you. You'll still have that bitter envy thing going to keep you active. :D
-
"wenching"?
"wenching"?
Like pirates...."Arg...bring on the hefty wenches"?
Arg?
"wenches"?
ROX
-
it's the BBS language 'filter'. It converts the word used to describe a female dog into 'wench'.
Oh, BTW.. thanks for the thoughtful contribution to the subject matter.
-
I signed that and immediately got bombarded with spam E-Mails selling everything from Viagra to knock off watches to plastic Jesuses.
I signed it and got nothing of the sort. Its a credible political organization. Its not a spam site. Care to share any evidence that its a spam site?
http://www.freedomworks.org/
-
OK...my bad. Thank you hang :salute sir for the clarification. I just finally figured out what an attention potato is! Had no idea it was the evil filter at work.
I think if they don't get together in a Bi-Partisan way and stop pointing fingers and instead get something put together to save our economy, we will end up in a bona fide depression within a fortnight.
If the Dems want the economy to fail just so they can point fingers and say "we told ya so" and have that be the overwhelming issue in the election, forsaking all others--especially national security...I hope they have to stand up individually and explain that to MILLIONS of people who will lose their entire retirement money (not to mention jobs)that they have been saving all of their lives that it was worth it.
If the Rep's don't get together and put forth a bill that doesn't reek of socialism--and cross the aisle to work hard and save the economy, then we are all screwed. If you don't have all of your wealth in gold, you just might be selling pencils on the street because you, and 35 other million people will have lost their jobs.
It all seems like partism just might send the entire nation into depression, and that depression will be a world-wide tsunami of other countries into depression. Then, we won't have all that extra cash to send to nations that hate us.
Don't get me wrong, I am a very staunch conservative, but the truckload of excrement has already hit the fan--it's a tad late to waste any time arguing who drove the truck the most.
I was gonna say it was just my own personal opinion, and my own $.02 cents...but as I watch the news...it's looking like that's my $.02 cents is now worth about $.0003 of a cent.
(73 hang)
ROX
-
They really do reply, eh? (Or at least the aides do.)
Dear Mr. <edit>:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the current economic crisis facing our country and the legislation before Congress today. I appreciate you taking the time to share your concerns with me.
We must act carefully and thoughtfully, and learn from the lessons that led us to this situation. In the last eleven days, leaders on both sides of the aisle have worked hard and cooperatively to craft a plan that would gain bipartisan support.
Since the beginning, I've pushed for market reforms and strong taxpayer protections to be incorporated into this legislation. We must use the leverage provided by the current crisis to make much-needed changes to the financial system. While the bill we voted on today was a vast improvement from the plan originally proposed by President Bush, it did not include enough reforms, nor strong enough protections for the taxpayer. Because this bill did not address these two issues, I voted against it. This bill failed by a vote of 205-228. However, Congressional leadership has indicated they will try and draft a new bill that can attract broader support.
I will continue to work with my colleagues in Congress to ensure that any proposed solutions address the fundamental issues that put us into this situation and strong protections for taxpayers.
Thank you again for sharing your concerns with me. Please continue to contact me on all issues of importance to you and to our district.
Sincerely,
MIKE THOMPSON
Member of Congress
-
I wrote to every Kansas Represenative as well as both Senators. I had to fake my address to send e-mail to the Reps out of my district. But I did.
Here's a Democratic Congresswoman I would vote for if I was in her district. In fact, if I this deal doesn't screw up my plans to build next Spring, the new house would be in her district.
Unlike Crockett, she seems determined to take her time and get this as right as possible which I wholeheartedly support.
September 29, 2008
Dear Really Smart Guy That Writes Very Persuasively,
Our country is facing some very difficult decisions. We are certainly in challenging economic times, and we must be extremely careful with our resources. There are no clear paths forward, each has significant risks.
I voted against the bailout. The vote failed 228 no to 205 yes. I know we face turmoil in the markets, and we need to do something to stabilize them. I spoke to many economists this past week. And every time I asked the question, "Do you think this will work?" they look away. They actually break eye contact with me and come back and say they're not sure. I'm not asking for a guarantee, only "Do you think it will work?" And not one would say they think that this will work. What every economist agrees on is there are several other options that have a higher probability of success at less risk to the taxpayer.
This bill tried to solve our economic problems from the top down, instead of the middle up. Four hundred economists, including three Nobel laureates suggested we slow down and get this right. It was widely agreed there are other and better alternatives for dealing with this situation.
The problem is that if we spend $700 billion on this option and it doesn't work, then we don't have that money to spend on doing what really needs to be done to strengthen our economy for the short term and the long term.
As for executive compensation, quite honestly all we got was window dressing. There was no real reform to curb the excesses of Wall Street that got us to this point.
Ultimately, I decided to vote against the bill when it became clear that this bailout plan will make it much more difficult to do the necessary work of stimulating our economy in the short, medium, and long term.
This bill will not help the underlying economy. It does little for distressed homeowners. It is directed mainly at bailing out the speculators and hedge fund managers that got us into this mess.
In addition to this crisis in the financial markets, our economy definitely needs additional stimulus. No economist felt this would stimulate the underlying economy and would have made it much more difficult to do later. I was not willing to take that risk. President Reagan's appointee to the FDIC said, "it's delusional to think we'll make money on this package; it gives too much discretion to the Treasury."
We are in challenging times and there are no easy answers. We need to continue to work together to address these important issues.
Sincerely,
Nancy Boyda
Member of Congress
-
I wrote mine....
Told both Senators and my Rep. they are all out of a job if my vote decides their fate. Regardless of their vote. Simply cause they were there when it was going down hill to begin with.
-
sheesh... paying for a war with a credit card and now the crying game when the bills come due.. crack me up... :rofl
Except this whole crisis has nothing to do with the war or how we are paying for it. :lol
-
Except this whole crisis has nothing to do with the war or how we are paying for it. :lol
:rofl
China will not lend us anymore money because we are already too deep in debt with them and Russia
By "lend" - they are no longer buying the "bad" paper- now it is up to the US to come up with a "plan"- guess what - the Fed has to "print" money, it is very much to do with thew war and how "China" has been paying for it.