leonid,

Thanks for letting us all know that there is a political litmus test for being a Stones fan.
If we don't think along your political lines, we should fork over all our music?
Maybe your intolerance should disqualify you as a Stones fan!

As for Obama and Dodd being the two biggest recipients of money from AIG, there are some very serious questions to be answered.  First, when did they receive the money, and were they in any position to self-deal.

As reported yesterday, Dodd was the Senator that included the language in the bailout bill to AIG that permitted bonues to be paid pursuant to certain contracts with executives at AIG.  Did that language also allow for payments of "bonuses" to people outside the company?  If his adding that language was with the knowledge that he would be receiving any of the "bonuses" paid out by AIG, that would be criminal self-dealing.  (Recent scorecard on Dodd:  Got a sweetheart deal on a mortgage from Countrywide that was the #1 institution that went under becase of the collapse in the mortgage inductry, and he paid it back once he got caught; now got a "bonus" from AIG). Dodd was quick yesterday to demand -- after he got caught again -- that the bonuses not be paid.  Wonder if he knew this story was about to break.      

Obama was also quick to note yesterday that he just found out about the AIG bonuses.
Assuming that Obama did not know that there were provisions in bailout bill that would have benefitted him directly through these "bonuses", I don't think he could be accused of anything more than a conflict of interest and he would just return any money.    

Seems to me that the more important question here is the nature of the payments from AIG.
If they are political contributions to Dodd or Obama that occurred before the AIG bailout, that is one thing.
If they are part of an ongoing and recognized pattern of payments, such as a yearly contribution, and either Dodd or Obama knew that the bailout bill would permit those payments to continue, that is quite another thing.

And did Brainy really accuse Karl Rove of "planting" the documents that Rather relied on for his crack investigavtive journalism?  Really?  Or did he simply note that he wouldn't put it past Rove?  Do you see Rove dressed as Darth Vader coming to get you dude?  It'll be okay, Obama has an answer...

nankerphelge wrote on Mar 18^th, 2009 at 8:24am:



I read it as not putting it past Rove, and I am in total agreement. I doubt anyone on this list fears Rove coming after them personally.

Hypocrisy

fuman wrote on Mar 18^th, 2009 at 9:49am:




{{{{{{{{{{BLANK FRIGGIN STARE}}}}}}}}}}


Do you know anything about the history of who the hell Barack Obama is? I mean do you even have the slightest clue? I have never read anything so completely naive in my life! Obama is not pushing the nation towards socialism?!?! You're kidding right? Please tell me you are not that naive?! If he were left to his own devices he would push straight past socialism right into full blown Marxism! Damn funman at least know your subject.


I can not believe that you honestly don't see the MASSIVE socialist push from YOUR shitty president!



Riffy

fuman wrote on Mar 18^th, 2009 at 11:47am:



The economy was way way way worse in 1980 when Reagan was elected. He did the exact opposite of what Barry Co. has done and guess what? We experienced the largest and fastest economic expansion in the history of the nation! Not just the history of the nation, but the histroy of the world. Regardless of what liberal revisionist historians may tell you, it was the massive tax cuts that led us out of the "malaise" of the Jimmy Carter era. And another thing funman. You try and claim that FDR had to spend money to get the economy rolling. That's pure 100% unadulterated crap! WWII got us out of the Great Depression. If anything FDR extended the depression by at least six to seven years with his spending! Don't believe me? Then read a completely non-partisan article that covers this very topic.


Here funman--------->http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081027150030.aspx
and here----->http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.as...

To have different opinions is one thing. I get that. However, when you just spew the Obama talking points with zero historical evidence to support your argument you look like an,....dare I say it.....Obamadrone.


Riffy

fuman wrote on Mar 18^th, 2009 at 11:47am:


fuman, if federal spending is the way out, the govt is spending money in the wrong places. if the govt has to do anything to create jobs, it should create real jobs, not fake government jobs that go away when the job is done and only add to bureacracy.

public works programs are not the answer. tax cuts for small businesses? that's a start....

fuman wrote on Mar 18^th, 2009 at 12:16pm:

You try and claim that FDR had to spend money to get the economy rolling. That's pure 100% unadulterated crap! WWII got us out of the Great Depression. If anything FDR extended the depression by at least six to seven years with his spending! Don't believe me?
Riffy [/quote]

Please explain to me how WWII got us out. What exactly was the benefit of WWII?

Wasn't it massive government spending? What did we get for that massive spending, we got thousands of jobs.
I'm all for letting industry create jobs, but that's not happening now.


By the way, top tax bracket was 90% at that time . . . [/quote]

You are under 25 and in school aren't you?
I'm getting the feeling you are very young.
Not judging. Just making an observation.

LJ.

You didn't answer my question, so I'll answer it.

FDR's massive government spending put people to work. Those earnings provided tax dollars.
Also, those earners spent money in their communities, and business flourished.

With Iraq, we spent billions but got nothing in return. With public works programs, we will benefit directly.

nankerphelge wrote on Mar 18^th, 2009 at 12:43pm:




So this tells me that FDR's spending wasn't enough. Adding more spending finally did the trick . . .

And yes, I agree that many social programs need to be reviewed, and if ineffective, fixed or shut down.

nankerphelge wrote on Mar 18^th, 2009 at 1:00pm:



Well of course I differentiate those. The corporate bailout is a pretty tangled mess. Never intended to imply that I blindly support spending. If I become wealthy, I would refuse my own share of social security when the time comes.
I can see the argument for letting them fail, but remain unconvinced that our economy could withstand those failures.
Personally, I don't carry any insurance (other than auto) because I don't trust the industry, so bailing them out is a pretty bitter pill for me to swallow. I'm for what's good for the country, that means you and me.

Ahhhh. Bipartisanship!

March 18 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama may try to push through Congress a health-care overhaul, energy proposals and tax increases by using a partisan tactic that would thwart Republican efforts to block the measures.

The administration and congressional Democrats are debating whether to use a parliamentary procedure called reconciliation to advance some of the biggest items on the president’s agenda. The move would allow Democrats to approve plans to raise taxes by $1 trillion, create a cap-and-trade system to rein in greenhouse-gas emissions, and overhaul health care without a single Republican vote.

“You’re talking about running over the minority, putting them in cement and throwing them into the Chicago River,” said Senator Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican who stepped down last month as Obama’s pick for Commerce secretary. “It takes the minority completely out of the process.”

Reconciliation reduces the number of votes needed to pass legislation in the 100-seat Senate to a simple majority rather than the 60 required to overcome resistance to major bills. The tactic also limits debate to no more than 20 hours and imposes restrictions on amendments.

fuman wrote on Mar 18^th, 2009 at 1:39pm:

lackluster fuman...