Posted on 09/27/2008 8:42:05 AM PDT by mathprof
The seeds of the House Republican revolt over the financial industry bailout were sown in an e-mail message circulated Monday night as internal animosity built quickly over the Bush administration’s request for $700 billion to prevent an economic collapse.
In a message to members of the conservative Republican Study Committee, leaders of the bloc of more than 100 lawmakers solicited ideas, calling for a “free-market alternative to the Treasury Department’s proposal so that, regardless of how individual R.S.C. members vote on final passage, House conservatives have something to be for.”
As the week progressed, it became abundantly clear that one thing conservative Republicans were most certainly not for was the Treasury plan, prompting them to begin searching for an alternative to avoid the perception of strictly being naysayers.
By the end of Friday, at least a portion of their alternative seemed likely to be included in the broader proposal as a sweetener for Republicans, although closed-door negotiations continued into the evening on Friday, and the contours of the final package remained in limbo.
After years of acceding to the White House on a variety of initiatives despite deep misgivings, House Republicans found the administration’s latest proposal to be too much to swallow.
[snip]
They also complain that Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. has been too quick to bargain mainly with Democrats, led by the House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi of California, and Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, not only on this plan but on the stimulus proposal earlier this year, a subsequent housing bill and other economic measures.
[snip]
For example, in advance of the president’s speech Wednesday, Representative Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan, a member of the Republican leadership, sent out this statement expressing his pique: “Who’s giving the Republican response?”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
It suddenly hit me that tax receipts are irrelevant. Taxes are just for keeping the proles in line. The real money is in inflating the money supply (printing money), which is essentially the liquidation of the American Trust.
Bush was a damned liberal when we elected him. Just like his Souter nominating father. We continue to choose the “lesser of two evils” and wind up with George Jr., whose only truly good moves were Roberts and Alito. And he had to be forced into that!!! Talk about McCain betraying the conservative base. Bush could give him lessons.
“Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.”
— P.J. O’Rourke
Ninety to 95% of what the federal government does at any moment in time is to work on problems created by previous federal government actions.
I used to think people who thought like this were crazies, but it's coming. It may not be total social breakdown, but we're headed for a tough stretch. Those who haven't learned to take care of themselves are in for a rude awakening, when those of us who have, stop caring about them. I'm no longer going to make enough money enough money for them to take. They can figure out how to pad the pockets of politians and rich bankers and brokers with me.
Seems like this would be like price controls on gasoline. If the government mandates that banks have to make bad loans, the only choices are either the banks won't make any loans at all, or the government has to pay for them.
Without me that is.
Lol!
I will absolutely refuse to pay more than a token income tax if B. Hussein O’Muslim wins.
Contrary to the advice you're being given, you could be stuck with a tax penalty for doing this. It's been awhile, but it used to be $500 of liability before the penalty kicks in. You can protect yourself against the penalty by getting as much paid in as your last years liability before the end of the year. If you usually get a good sized refund, you probably should do this, mostly because it's late in the tax year.
Since there is no “price to pay” for making all these toxic loans (as the Gov’t is going to buy them), who’s to say these greedy banks won’t go out and extend credit to anyone with breath?
Why would the banks want to get in the same fix they're in now, on the brink of bankruptcy? They of course will be be more cautious in their lending.
What we really need is for that lousy red-lining law which forced banks to sell sub-primes to be repealed. I'm sure all are agreed on that front. The banks will be first in line for reform there. But since Congress put the law into effect, Congress will have to be the one to change it.
In addition, stockholders who have lost fortunes in the decreased stock price (both institutional and individual investors) will hold banks more accountable to avoid losing future fortunes.
If that happens a 100 bill will probably be worth less than a subway token.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.