Tristan
Member
- Aug 5, 2008
- 278
- 44
- 16
Because Bush tried to sneak this by us:
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
Dirty Secret Of The Bailout: Thirty-Two Words That None Dare Utter
And you forget that before Bush asked for $700 billion, the Federal Reserve, ON THEIR OWN, bailed out AIG with $85 billion. You forgot about that money, didn't you?
Then Bush gave $350 billion to other banks. What happened to that money?
So I understand your fear. Because Bush ripped us off, you think Obama will too.
When Hank Paulson scared Congress into passing the Troubled Asset Relief Plan (TARP) last fall, he said that it would be used to buy toxic waste from banks. That never happened. All we know is that $350 billion of our taxpayer money is gone and that most of it went to banks and a bit to the auto industry. What are they doing with our money? How is the government measuring the success of TARP? Is it helping? Until we get those answers, we should not allow more good money to be thrown after bad.
Before releasing the next $350 billion, what happened to the first? - BloggingStocks
They didn't do what they said they would do with the money Bern. Now if Obama makes the same mistake, I'll start to wonder about him too. You, however, never wondered about Bush but immediately doubt Prez O?
Quick lesson in basic civics bobo. The LEGISLATIVE branch of government authors and passes bills. The PRESIDENT signs them. And the congress that pass that legislation, both houses of which were controled by..........? Go ahead, you can do it........ everyone knows already.
Well said Bern...
I'd only add that the point to which the idiot is referring was NOT SNUCK BY 'US'... Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Ingraham, Beck and Levin ALL screamed about the fact that the Money had no oversight... it was just ONE of their points contesting Tarp 1... Each one pointed out that that Bill effectively established the Sec'-Tres as the US Economic Czar... and this was a point being made LONG BEFORE THE ELECTION...
It's good to see that the left is finally catching up... not that this will in ANY WAY change their minds, as you've pointed out, they're ignorant of Legislative process; thus are incapable of realizing that the DEMOCRAT CONGRESS WROTE THE BILL AND IN PARTICULAR THAT THE SAME DEMOCRATS PREVENTED THE REPUBLICANS IN THE LEGISLATURE FROM HAVING ANY INPUT.
Now what this little exercise provides is a look at how the next four years will play out. Every single leftist policy failure will be blamed on (you know who...) and the GOP in Congress... They'll run to claim that "...Bush policy had made things 'worse than they realized;' and the GOP prevented them from spending enough..."
And that my friend, you can take to the bank... The ideological left survives despite its chronic failure by misdirecting blame for it's failures. One great place to witness a micro-example of this is Ag-what'shername... the Anarcho-communist. She's the one who has determined that the Soviets weren't Communists, because the 'ruling class' was corrupt... don't you SEE? True Communists are not currupt... nor are they corruptible. So what ya had THERE was 'State Capitalism' and EVERYONE KNOWS that CAPITALISM is just WRrrooong!
"State Capitalism"
![lol :lol: :lol:](/styles/smilies/lol.gif)
You right leaning folks are doing a fine job on the argument so I'll leave it to ya'll with just the following small contribution about Bush's vetoes...
G.W. Bush had 12 vetoes in 8 years. (the fewest in modern history)
Billy Jeff had 37, Reagan had 78 and Roosevelt had 635.
Presidential Vetoes - Modern U.S. Presidential Vetoes - History and Statistics