Irony, Anyone?

[Conan71]

Anyone else see the irony in what is happening with the bailout?

According to Democrat leaders, this debacle is all a result of "failed Bush economic policies" and Wall St. greed.

Last time I checked, this is another "Bush economic policy."  The Secretary of The Treasury serves at the pleasure of the President.  Hank Paulson, our SOT, amassed a half-billion dollar fortune as a Wall St. executive.  Many of his former colleagues are counting on Paulson to rescue their companies from certain disaster.

If Bush's economic policies really are to blame for this fiasco, why would we be in such a rush to trust his administation to have the right solution?

[Hometown]

Because they are all we have until the new administration comes into office.

You Republicans have given us another very compelling reason why you deserve to fail.

You put politics ahead of country.  You want some irony?  You've given it to us -- big time.

You people are totally irresponsible.

We delivered our votes.  You can't cut the mustard.

Even lifelong Republicans are telling me it is time for a change and they mean it's time to elect Obama.

Your October Surprise happened in late September and it is your own doing.  

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Anyone else see the irony in what is happening with the bailout?

According to Democrat leaders, this debacle is all a result of "failed Bush economic policies" and Wall St. greed.

Last time I checked, this is another "Bush economic policy."  The Secretary of The Treasury serves at the pleasure of the President.  Hank Paulson, our SOT, amassed a half-billion dollar fortune as a Wall St. executive.  Many of his former colleagues are counting on Paulson to rescue their companies from certain disaster.

If Bush's economic policies really are to blame for this fiasco, why would we be in such a rush to trust his administation to have the right solution?

I agree that we should question this bailout. I'm not sure I agree that their motives are in question though. They are simply looking at the problem from their perspective and thus devising a plan that will utilize that perspective. To put it in local terms, it was the same process that guaranteed the failure of The Channels.

Irony? I don't think so. The expectation of leadership forces the executive branch to mobilize and propose a plan for fixing this mess. Its matters not that Bush is the particular leader at this time, or that his administration may have fomented it. Its simply his responsibility to lead. If Congress had proposed this bailout plan it would have been an affront and received as such. Blame may be helpful for the candidates but not for plan.

It was interesting to see David Sirota make the point that it was the far right and the far left combined to kill this plan and that it should have been expected. I have long made the argument that those two groups have more in common with each other than you would imagine. This failure gives a chance to take a breath, watch financial privateers squirm, and come up with a better plan.

What a boost for America's ego to see the rest of the world quiver at the signs of illness here.

[Wrinkle]

There's good news in all this yet. Even a little bit of time will allow the worst offenders to collapse.

You know, the one's which should.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown


You put politics ahead of country.  You want some irony?  You've given it to us -- big time.

Really?  As I recall, Obama wasn't the right choice for President.  But due to your loyalty to the Democrat party, now he is.  

Does your political house have any mirrors in it, HT?

From your boasts, sounds as if you profitted nicely from this real estate orgy.  Ever wonder if the person who bought your former digs in the bay area defaulted on their loan obligations and is praying for taxpayers to step in and keep them from losing their home they bought at an over-inflated price?  

Unless you ploughed that profit back into the stock market and sold it when it bottomed out, I don't think I'd be biznitching too loud right now.  But that's just me....

[Hometown]

If the credit markets contract further there is a strong possibility we can't drag ourselves back from the brink.

You Republicans gave us the first depression.

And you couldn't do what you had decided was right for the country because Pelosi made a partisan speech that stirred bad feelings in you.  Even the most uneducated among us can see that for what it is.

Country First.  Ha ha ha.  Covering your a** first.

You are irresponsible.  Not fit for office.

[Hometown]

Yes, I saw the writing on the wall and I got out.  So did a lot of other people.

I plowed my profits into lil ole Tulsa.  Silly me.  And plenty of locals got paid.

I see more writing on the wall.  We are in deep sh** and there aren't any states left to move to where I can be safe.  

We are in this together.  Unfortunately.  Because I sure would like to throw you guys overboard.

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

If the credit markets contract further there is a strong possibility we can't drag ourselves back from the brink.

You Republicans gave us the first depression.

And you couldn't do what you had decided was right for the country because Pelosi made a partisan speech that stirred bad feelings in you.  Even the most uneducated among us can see that for what it is.

Country First.  Ha ha ha.  Covering your a** first.

You are irresponsible.  Not fit for office.

BRAVO!

[buckeye]

So surely today's Republican party is just the same as it was 70 years ago.  What?  Trying to establish a legacy of incompetence?  Good job establishing your own legacy of fatuous thinking.

Very nearly every politician in this country is an expert in one thing - getting (re)elected.  Their motivations are selfish and you are hilariously naive if you think the Democratic politicians will come to the rescue, putting the nation first.  I'd refer you to the last ten years of self-serving, uninformed legislation from BOTH parties that directly relates to the current shenanigans, but I doubt it'd make any difference to you in your addled state.

Give me a break.  Blind hatred and intolerance from the a member of the party that claims to stand for just the opposite.

[Hometown]

You've had a break and it's over.

Yes, I've seen newsreels and your party was making the same arguments 78 years ago.  There's only so many ways to package your greed.

Many Democrats took a hit when they gave Clinton the only balanced budgets in my lifetime and were voted out of office.

We can deliver.  You can't.

We left the nation a surplus.  You are leaving us a major financial disaster.  Again.

Did you hear the brokers on the floor of stock exchange yesterday when the heard the news of your failure?  They shouted "Idiots."

[Ed W]

Traditionally, the Republicans have embraced fiscal responsibility, yet the Bush administration and Secretary Paulson initially proposed a bailout free of any constraints.  It's diametrically opposed to their usual fiscal policies.  

For that reason, it seems this situation has more to do with cashing out after 8 years of lax regulation, knowing that there's a big change just over the horizon.

[USRufnex]

Fiscally responsible Republicans?

That hasn't happened in DECADES.

Since Eisenhower, actually...

http://bunkinthewest.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/republican-democrats-national-debt-and-fiscal-responsibility/

In 2000, when Bill Clinton left office, the national debt was $5.7 trillion. Today, after seven years of George W. Bush, it is $9.6 trillion. Bush has almost doubled our national debt in eight short years.

------------------------------------------------

Since 1945, there have been seven presidential terms held by Democrats and nine held by Republicans. During every term held by a Democratic president since this time, that president has reduced the national debt as a percentage of GDP. The Roosevelt/Truman administration made the greatest dent with a 24.3% reduction. By contrast, only three terms held by a Republican president since 1945 showed a reduction in the national debt as a percentage of GDP. Further, Eisenhower made the most significant reduction for Republicans at a 10.8% decline between 1953 and 1957. This is less than half the decline made by the Democrats Roosevelt/Truman. Even further, every single Republican president since 1973 (beginning with Nixon/Ford) has increased the national debt as a percentage of GDP. Let's summarize: Since 1946, Democratic presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.2% per year. The Republican presidents increased the national debt by an average of 9.7% per year. Republican presidents out-borrowed and out-spent Democratic presidents by a three-to-one ratio. Putting that in very real terms, for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 59 years, Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.99.

Looking further at federal spending, we find that between 1978 and 2005, Democrats increased federal spending by 9.9% while Republicans increased federal spending by 12.1%. Further, in the same period, Democrats increased the national debt by 4.2% whereas the Republicans increased it by 36.4%. It is true that the Republicans held 4 terms during this time while Democrats only held 3. However, looking at each president since 1978, we see that Reagan increased the national debt by a whopping 89.2% during his two terms. You read that right, Reagan nearly doubled the national debt in 8 years.

Now, you might say, "Well, but productivity increased more during that spending." Using GDP as a measure of productivity (which is standard procedure), you'd be dead wrong. During the years 1978 – 2005, the Democrats increased the GDP by 12.6% while the Republicans only increased it by 10.7%. The president responsible for the largest increase in GDP, or the productivity of our country, during this time was Bill Clinton, a Democrat, who increased the GDP by 28.4% during his eight years in office.

Some people argue that GDP is an imperfect measure of productivity. So let's look at job creation. Of all the presidents since 1933, Bill Clinton has created by far the most jobs. During his tenure, he created 22.7 million jobs, a 4.9% increase. The worst president in terms of job creation is George W. Bush. During his first term, he created only 100,000 jobs, a 0.002% increase. On average, between 1933 and the present day, Republican have increased jobs by 0.21% while Democrats have increased jobs by 3.24%.

(A note about Reagan: All of the economic growth experienced during Reagan's presidency was subsidized by the federal debt. Our federal debt almost doubled during his presidency. Talk about a big spender! He mortgaged our future, and it is abundantly clear by the widening gap between rich and poor that the policies he enacted, Reaganomics, if you will, are not sustainable.)

We can also get an idea of how "big" government is by looking at the national debt as a percentage of GDP (or, to put it another way, how much the government is spending relative to everyone else). Republicans advocate for small government. They portray the Democrats as people who want big government. Looking at the facts, we see that government spending is biggest when a Republican president is in office. Republicans historically have bigger governments than Democrats. Five out of the eight presidential terms held by Republicans since 1945 have seen an increase in government spending as a percentage of GDP, an increase in the size of the government. Zero of the seven presidential terms held by Democrats since that time have seen an increase in the size of the government. In fact, every single Democratic president since 1945 has reduced the size of the government by reducing the amount of national debt as a percentage of GDP.

[USRufnex]

Irony, Anyone?

Kucinich: Bailout 'Driven by Fear Not Fact'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAGzLfmV4Ks

Kucinich on Why Bailout is being Rushed & Why It Shouldn't Be 1/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AS6k369DbA4&feature=related

Kucinich on the bailout-2/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWn5UQtvItU&feature=related

[Double A]

As a Democrat, I can't begin to explain how embarrassing it's been to watch our "leadership" push this horses*#t on the public. I am glad the far right and far left shut it down.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

Irony, Anyone?

Kucinich: Bailout 'Driven by Fear Not Fact'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAGzLfmV4Ks

Kucinich on Why Bailout is being Rushed & Why It Shouldn't Be 1/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AS6k369DbA4&feature=related

Kucinich on the bailout-2/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWn5UQtvItU&feature=related

Kucinich, as a rarity, sounds completely rational on this issue.  Where was this Dennis in the POTUS campaign?  Yeah, I agreed with Kucinich.  You might want to date stamp it, print it, and save a few copies on disk, I doubt it happens again.

What Irony is there in Kucinich's statements?  Not poking you personally, just curious what irony you saw in it.

The point of irony referenced in the original post was the haste with which Democrat leaders were wanting to follow the direction of President Bush and Sect'y Paulson, who they fault for failed economic policy.