Posted on 10/28/2008 10:58:16 AM PDT by Ramrod
Joe Biden made headlines by talking about a "generated crisis" for a President Obama. But is the current financial meltdown another "generated crisis?" Considering the problems in the economy, including too much federal debt, too much spending and easy credit, which have been with us for years, why did this crisis suddenly occur only six weeks before the election?
And is it just a coincidence that it occurred at a time when John McCain was leading in the national public opinion polls and appeared to be on his way to a November 4 election victory?
The crisis was man-made. It is a fact that President Bush's Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who worked for a Democratic firm, Goldman Sachs, and has very close ties to Communist China, is the one who convinced Bush to demand hundreds of billions of bailout dollars from Congress.
(Excerpt) Read more at gopusa.com ...
George Soros
but didn't Hussein WARN McCain,,,,
"THAT YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE UP AGAINST"?
Any other time the Democrats are falling all over themselves to hold investigations.
crickets...
“George Soros”
Soros warned against derivatives, not support them.
The force on Bush’s actions was foreign, and shaped by Paulson’s predilection to bail out the types of paper he pushed when he was at Goldman Sachs.
As sure as God made little green apples, the cover of Time or Newsweek will soon trumpet, “HAS CAPITALISM FAILED?”.
Mark my words....
I don’t know that I see it as a conspiracy. Could it be? I don’t know if it’s possible or not. The amount of money involved here is unfathomable to me.
But I do wonder if George W. Bush had wanted to if he could have buried this for a few more weeks until after the election. Wouldn’t Bill Clinton have done everything he could to hide the truth until after November? But President Bush trusted his advisers that this was indeed a huge crisis and acted in the most responsible way possible, given what he was told by Henry Paulson and others.
The answer is Democrats of the past, Democrats of the present, and Democrats of the future.
You mean I am not the only person in the universe who suspects this?
Yup! From start to current it was Democrats. Socialist/Democrats.
Yes.
"A visiting professor was the speaker. He gave a rousing talk on overthrowing the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" in America. How would this be accomplished? By taking over the Democratic Party through its left wing. The speaker said it was possible to elect a stealth socialist president, who would effect a peaceful transition to socialism during the next great economic down-turn. Capitalism would be unmasked as a bankrupt system. The people would then support a new socialist system. All businesses would be nationalized by the government and run like the Post Office. This socialist president, said the speaker, could be elected in either 1988 or 1992. The only problem was that of timing. When would the next major economic downturn hit? "
The entire article can be found at this link:
http://wnd.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=6360
Let’s see. We got into this mess lending money to irresponsible people. And now we’re gonna get out of it by lending money to irresponsible people. Makes sense to me.
The Dems have been feeding the finance crisis from day one.
They let it lose when they thought it would help him.
Funny how the Dems aren’t talking about gas prices any more.
My younger sister, who doesn’t even follow politics all that closely, said this last month, just after the crisis broke. She just thought it was just TOO coincidental.
Same question - what would the current situation be had President Bush forcefully refused to entertain any such bailout package? Imagine if he had not only refused, but use the bully pulpit to make absolutely clear to the American people that he would not use taxpayer money for this socialist bailout of big money Wall Street firms?
My guess is that had McCain stayed on the sidelines with his mouth shut, refused to sign the the bailout package, while Obama sided with his his cronies, that:
1) The financial markets would have suddenly “found” another path to liquidity, with the President refusing the misuse TAXPAYER money.
2). The underlying manipulation would have had a higher probability of surfacing.
2) The stock market indices would have been no worse than they are today.
3) McCain would have gained much more support from “middle America” for not siding with big banks, Wall Street, and the Democrats (who wrecked Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae) on this bailout package.
4). McCain would be ahead in the polls.
The only downside would be that Obomber would have tried to link McCain as “once again” siding with the President, however, McCain could easily have deflected this by associating Obomber with big money and his Goldman Sachs connection.
At present, McCain has little standing to stick Obomber to Goldman Sachs since the both of them signed off on this thing.
Funny, isn’t it, how we bailed out Wall Street and the market still crashed.
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.