Echoes
Tweet
Bush on Monday

President Bush sought to assure anxious world leaders on Monday that the United States is taking ‘bold, aggressive, decisive action’ to rescue the crisis-ridden economy with a $700 billion bailout package. ‘The whole world is watching to see if we can act quickly,’ Bush said, prodding lawmakers in Washington to approve his plan.
Bush, January 29, 2003
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.
Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.
The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving.
What reason do we have to trust this man? Why should we act quickly to bail out his and John McCain’s friends on Wall Street? Passing this mammoth laws without consideration led us into Iraq, passed the PATRIOT Act and more. George Bush saying hurry up is kind of like the bank robber wanting to empty the till before the cops get here.
5 Responses to “Echoes”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America

OW,
I’m not certain any amount of bailout will be enough now or anytime soon. Our financial system is now in a liquidity trap until some foreign currency lends stability to our own paper assets (seriously this will take a while). Follow the dollar spiral down at warp speed soon after this coming bailout. China will have abandon the dollar or take a major deval for no good national reason… they aren’t beholden to Wall Street financial.
Sincerely,
Dick Fuld, esq.
Not only has our Leader proved to be a hustler and a liar, OW, but he wants to give Paulson greater power than anyone since Caesar. Consider this from Seeking Alpha:
Okay. Let’s leave no room for ambiguity here. The Treasury’s draft plan for saving the world is breathtakingly awful. It would give the Secretary of the Treasury entirely unchecked discretion over up to 700B dollars. Even that “limit” has a loophole big enough that you could drive a truck through it, so the Secretary could in effect spend up to 1.8T dollars, right up to the newly raised Federal debt ceiling, without further Congressional action. This act would be such a wholesale delegation of the power of the purse that I wonder whether it is even constitutional. Of course, the act explicitly puts the Secretary’s actions beyond any judicial review, so perhaps questions of legality or constitutionality are merely academic.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/96583-treasury-s-plan-is-breathtakingly-awful?source=wildcard
One would think your usual cabal of trolls would be commenting on this post, Oliver. Are they hiding because what you are saying here cannot be denied?
Of course, the act explicitly puts the Secretary’s actions beyond any judicial review, so perhaps questions of legality or constitutionality are merely academic.
How do they have the stones to even suggest such a thing? Seriously. In any other country, I think this would be considered a coup d’etat.
Why do cons hate America and freedom?
Of course, the act explicitly puts the Secretary’s actions beyond any judicial review, so perhaps questions of legality or constitutionality are merely academic.
That alone, despite everything else, should set alarm bells buzzing and get any right-thinking (or anyone who just thinks at all) to oppose this. Why does it need to specifically outlaw judicial review? Is there any possible reason for that other than the folks behind it want to knowingly break the law??