Nod to Fascism in Dem's bailout bill

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by ashton

I was more interested in how a person could rationally and seriously get all of that from one sentence in an article.

As to the sunset provision, perhaps you should read the entire article.

I think that one sentence said a lot with very little.
The problem with that particular end date is that assumes that this problem will be over by then, which I have serious doubts that it will. I mean, habeus corpus was suspended supposedly until the end of the war on terror and that's been 7 years now. All that particular end date does is give congress opportunity to renew, which they would have to. I just don't see it ending. As Ronaldus Magnus said back in '64, the closest thing to eternal life we see on this planet is a government program.

[ashton]

[QUOTE=ajmccarrell;775522]I think that one sentence said a lot with very little.
The problem with that particular end date is that assumes that this problem will be over by then, which I have serious doubts that it will. QUOTE]

Ok, so it is the sentence that says little, but a lot. Then we go from there being no end date to there being a problem with the end date, which you previously claimed it lacked.

Gotcha.

[vermicious knid]

The area you highlighted in bold does not represent a change made by Democrats. It was the president and his secretary of the treasury who proposed bailing out these reckless financial institutions for $700,000,000,000 of our money. You really stuck your foot in the mud with this one, ajmmcarrell, because you are basically calling George W. Bush a fascist. This was his idea. He wanted it done immediately, but some Democrats are resisting rushing. The changes that this article mentions include revoking the huge bonuses given to irresposible executives.

I am not saying that I disagree that this is a bad thing. In the other thread on this topic, I linked to an article saying this bailout should " send people into the streets in mass outrage". It's just that your attempt to blame this on the Democrats is a big blubbery flop.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by vermicious knid

The area you highlighted in bold does not represent a change made by Democrats. It was the president and his secretary of the treasury who proposed bailing out these reckless financial institutions for $700,000,000,000 of our money. You really stuck your foot in the mud with this one, ajmmcarrell, because you are basically calling George W. Bush a fascist. This was his idea. He wanted it done immediately, but some Democrats are resisting rushing. The changes that this article mentions include revoking the huge bonuses given to irresposible executives.

I am not saying that I disagree that this is a bad thing. In the other thread on this topic, I linked to an article saying this bailout should " send people into the streets in mass outrage". It's just that your attempt to blame this on the Democrats is a big blubbery flop.

You didn't read what I said, I do have a problem with the bailout, but it was Dodd's amendment that I had called fascist. Read my post again, I highlighted it bold, italic and underlined just so this confusion wouldn't happen. Apparently, it did anyway. I don't think the bailout in and of itself is fascist, but Dodd's idea of giving power to the government to assume any loan they deem a bad loan, whether credit card, car loan, etc. Please read all of what I said before commenting, it prevents a lot of embarrassment. You apparently didn't read my post under the "more Palin lies" thread where I explained the crisis in detail and it had nothing to do with party, but was caused entirely by irresponsible people.

[vermicious knid]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

I do have a problem with the bailout, but it was Dodd's amendment that I had called fascist.

You are confused about what his amendment calls for. You weren't criticizing any of his amendments. You were criticizing the very bill itself.

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

I don't think the bailout in and of itself is fascist, but Dodd's idea of giving power to the government to assume any loan they deem a bad loan, whether credit card, car loan, etc.

Classic. What do you think this "bailout" is that people are talking about if it isn't the government assuming bad loans? What you call "Dodd's idea" was proposed by George W. Bush's treasury secretary.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by vermicious knid

You are confused about what his amendment calls for. You weren't criticizing any of his amendments. You were criticizing the very bill itself.


Classic. What do you think this "bailout" is that people are talking about if it isn't the government assuming bad loans? What you call "Dodd's idea" was proposed by George W. Bush's treasury secretary.

The article itself says that Dodd wanted the government to assume private loans such as credit cards and auto loans too. Paulson called for a bailout, but not for ALL loans in the US to be under congressional perview. Again, I highlighted it in every way imaginable so that you would know what I was criticising specifically as fascist. Both Paulsen and congress have both presented alternative plans and are negotiating. It's called the legislative process. Everyone else here gets it but you. I guess if it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker, you don't understand it.

I have a basic problem with the tax payers paying for the bailout itself, but I wouldn't call it fascist, since most of these are already overseen by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae. I would call expanding governmental oversight over credit cards and auto loans without the consumer's consent fascist by any measure. Go reread the article and there is another one that was just posted on Yahoo's front page that also calls the provision "Dodd's addition", so take up your argument with the people that wrote the article if you don't believe them, but that is what they are reporting that Dodd wants to do that is different from Paulsen's proposal.

[KarmaContestant]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

The article itself says that Dodd wanted the government to assume private loans such as credit cards and auto loans too. Paulson called for a bailout, but not for ALL loans in the US to be under congressional perview. Again, I highlighted it in every way imaginable so that you would know what I was criticising specifically as fascist. Both Paulsen and congress have both presented alternative plans and are negotiating. It's called the legislative process. Everyone else here gets it but you. I guess if it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker, you don't understand it.

I have to correct you on this. It's the U.S. treasury that is asking for two years. It's the Treasury that amended the proposal to allow buyout of any and all 'troubled assets'. Not the Democrats. The Dems are asking for a one year limit.

You have your facts a little backwards.

Source: http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/22/news...rss_topstories

The Treasury has amended its original request to give it authority to buy up not just troubled mortgage assets, but troubled assets period.

"Removing troubled assets will begin to restore the strength of our financial system so it can again finance economic growth," according to a statement on the Treasury Web site.

Lastly, the Dodd proposal would terminate Treasury's special authority to buy up troubled assets by Dec. 31, 2009. By contrast, the Treasury's proposal calls for termination two years from the date of enactment.

[vermicious knid]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Everyone else here gets it but you. I guess if it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker, you don't understand it.

Everyone here gets it but me? What imaginary group of people do you see here misinterpreting things the same way you are?

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

I have a basic problem with the tax payers paying for the bailout itself, but I wouldn't call it fascist, since most of these are already overseen by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae. I would call expanding governmental oversight over credit cards and auto loans without the consumer's consent fascist by any measure.

Once again, and it probably won't penetrate your skull, but what you call fascist came from George W. Bush's treasury secretary. I don't see how this $700 billion giveaway is more egregious to you for including car loans and credit cards, but it was not because of a Democrat's amendment that they were included. Take a look at this article.
Bailout plan could include bad credit card or car loans

[ajmccarrell]

[QUOTE=ashton;775528]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

I think that one sentence said a lot with very little.
The problem with that particular end date is that assumes that this problem will be over by then, which I have serious doubts that it will. QUOTE]

Ok, so it is the sentence that says little, but a lot. Then we go from there being no end date to there being a problem with the end date, which you previously claimed it lacked.

Gotcha.

You're right. I should have elaborated. I just don't believe congress when they say that something will expire, unless it is a tax cut. My understanding is that the sunset is not built into the bill, which is what I heard on the radio this morning.