Who’s Watching the Money?

NEWSWEEK

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: John Dough @ 11/25/2008 12:13:50 AM

    FBI RESTRICTS WHITE HOUSE USE OF FILES.(NEWS)
    Article from: Daily News (Los Angeles, CA) Article date: June 15, 1996 | Copyright informationCOPYRIGHT 1996 Daily News. This material is published under license from the publisher through the Gale Group, Farmington Hills, Michigan. All inquiries regarding rights should be directed to the Gale Group. (Hide copyright information)

    Byline: Angie Cannon and Robert A. Rankin Knight-Ridder Tribune News Wire

    FBI Director Louis Freeh ordered tough measures Friday to protect sensitive FBI background files from White House misuse, and disclosed that the White House wrongly obtained 408 files, more than previously was known.

    Citing ``egregious violations of privacy,'' Freeh said the FBI's intensive internal inquiry ``shows the FBI gave inadequate protection to the privacy interests of persons in the FBI files.''

    ``The prior system of providing files to the White House relied on good faith and honor,'' Freeh said in a statement. ``Unfortunately, the FBI and I were victimized. I promise the American ...

    • Posted By: jarcher1 @ 11/25/2008 7:07:09 AM

      All I see here is the claim from Freeh that there were privacy violations - nothing that would suggest any laws regarding the use of classified material were violated. If Clinton had taken Freeh to court on the issue, I imagine Freeh would have found himself without a leg to stand on. As far as why Clinton did fire him outright - your guess is as good as mine. But notice, Freeh wasn't claiming Clinton did anything illegal, and the Director FBI has all kind of legal advice to fill him in before he runs his head. Now I believe you claimed Clinton's actions were illegal, which they clearly were not. So your smoking gun isn't much, doesn't prove the point you were defending, typical RepubliCON nattering away on something indefensible all night and then claiming victory on the basis of evidence that doesn't uphold his point. God I sure hope you're no kind of detective, the crooks will all get away.

      • Posted By: jarcher1 @ 11/25/2008 7:22:23 AM

        Errata: "did not fire him outright"

  • Posted By: John Dough @ 11/25/2008 12:35:25 AM

    Jarhcer1

    Well smart a- - I'm wating for an apology oh I forgot your a democrat your always right even when you are wrong.

    • Posted By: jarcher1 @ 11/25/2008 7:08:25 AM

      You won't be getting an apology, see below.

  • Posted By: John Dough @ 11/25/2008 6:59:38 AM

    HarleyisHere:

    That is laughable all we heard from Obama for months was that he was going to get out of Iraq right away. That shifted to 16 months. Now that is for his entire first term that is okay because he is acting responsbily? His entire campaign has been nothing but shifting sand. Bush has maintained all along that more time was needed but he was a moron Obama would fix it now he is content for four more years and this is intelligent, correct and safe.(Thank you president Bush for you signed agreement with Iraq) . Give me a break. So far nearly every campaign theme he presented from taxing the rich to Iraq have been "adjusted" If Bush left such a mess why is Obama and his advisors now following the same tax and war policy. I guess he is just blindly stupid and stubborn too. He must be Bush Three which means he was wrong about Mc Cain too.

  • Posted By: wessexmom @ 11/25/2008 2:04:52 AM

    I'm still waiting for you to answer the question posed by your headline: Who exactly is watching this money to see exactly where it's going? All your article does is offer a very generalized overview of the financial transition. I hope, as this crisis and the accompanyting bailouts deepen, that your reporters and editiors will focus more effort on following the money and keeping us informed as to whose handling it along the way and where it's going to end up. I am extremely angry about the arrogance of these Wall Street gansters and I know the rest of the public feels the same way..

  • Posted By: John Dough @ 11/25/2008 12:32:03 AM

    Jarcher1

    I forgot in the end it was actually 408 files see the terms used misuse, wrongly obtained, egregious violations of privacy FBI victimized by White House Sounds to me like he got them legitimately if your a demoncrat.

  • Posted By: John Dough @ 11/24/2008 11:23:50 PM

    I work with 28CFR documents daily they are protected the president can see them but must have a legitimate reason his was to dig up dirt on 300 political enenmies not a legitimate reason.He also cannot simply declassify these intel reports because they contain private personal and sometimes if the intel is bad incorrect inforamtion. Name one FBI intel file a 28CFR that has been released to the public for viewing and public scurtiny I can answer that for you NONE!!!!

    • Posted By: jarcher1 @ 11/24/2008 11:46:06 PM

      I don't intend go over this all night. If you worked for a federal agency at the time, not just local or state, the supreme classification/declassification authority for your agency was none other than the President of the United States, which I believe Clinton was at the time you want to claim he had illegal access to those records. That means the records couldn't have been classified in the first place without a delegation of that authority, couldn't have been shown to anybody without that delegated authority, and can't be declassified without that delegated authority. The POTUS is purely within his legitimate scope of authority to do any of these things without delegation, i.e. doing it himself. Moreover POTUS stands in that relationship to all classified information originated by the executive branch whether it is CIA, NSA, military, or criminal, or even Department of State. As for subpoena's, subpoena's are often ignored, see Obama's recent response to a subpoena from the Attorney General of Pennsylvania where they have no legal standing, and in this case no court has jurisdiction of the executives authority to classify, it is an inherent property of the branch. On the contrary to your rather clueless assertion that he has no right to see those files without a legitimate reason, you are ever so wrong, in anything having to do with classified documents, at least executive branch classified documents, he has all the authority there is whether folks like you like it or not. It is what it is. I also notice you didn't answer the question about who had the supreme classification authority for the Executive Branch. Telling, generally the way RepubliCONs argue, when they see something stops their rant in its tracks, they just ignore it.

      • Posted By: John Dough @ 11/25/2008 12:01:24 AM

        Can you name one - If Clinton could legally have them why did his fall guy Scotty boy sneak them out, then they lied and denied but that failed then they ignored subpoenas to produce them then when thye finally turned them over they claimed to never have looked at them but Hillary's fingerprints said different. If you are right and you are not then why lie stall and then lie some more. Just say I took them to look at them.

  • Posted By: John Dough @ 11/24/2008 10:26:32 PM

    Jarcher1
    You need to read 28CFR on the federal control of intel. You may have to revise your cutsey answer for his illegal possession of those files and he ca nt show them to just anyone they are classified and protected.

    • Posted By: jarcher1 @ 11/24/2008 10:33:07 PM

      Who is the supreme classifying authority, bright eyes? Here's a clue: Its not the Supreme Court and its not Congress. And yes he can show them to anyone he deems there is a need too, or declassify them on the spot, all without recourse to a higher authority, because there is none.

      • Posted By: John Dough @ 11/24/2008 10:43:55 PM

        I work with 28CFR documents almost daily. He had no authority to have those documents lied about it, ignored a subpoena to turn them over and when they finally amgically found them in a box in an area of the white house that was being renovated they said thye had not even looked at them yet Hillary's fingerprints were on numerous pages of the files. He has no right to see those files without a legitimate reason period> that is why he lied about having them and ignored the subpoena. Get a Brain

        • Posted By: jarcher1 @ 11/24/2008 11:16:45 PM

          I don't intend go over this all night. If you worked for a federal agency at the time, not just local or state, the supreme classification/declassification authority for your agency was none other than the President of the United States, which I believe Clinton was at the time you want to claim he had illegal access to those records. That means the records couldn't have been classified in the first place without a delegation of that authority, couldn't have been shown to anybody without that delegated authority, and can't be declassified without that delegated authority. The POTUS is purely within his legitimate scope of authority to do any of these things without delegation, i.e. doing it himself. Moreover POTUS stands in that relationship to all classified information originated by the executive branch whether it is CIA, NSA, military, or criminal, or even Department of State. As for subpoena's, subpoena's are often ignored, see Obama's recent response to a subpoena from the Attorney General of Pennsylvania where they have no legal standing, and in this case no court has jurisdiction of the executives authority to classify, it is an inherent property of the branch. On the contrary to your rather clueless assertion that he has no right to see those files without a legitimate reason, you are ever so wrong, in anything having to do with classified documents, at least executive branch classified documents, he has all the authority there is whether folks like you like it or not. It is what it is. I also notice you didn't answer the question about who had the supreme classification authority for the Executive Branch. Telling, generally the way RepubliCONs argue, when they see something stops their rant in its tracks, they just ignore it.

          • Posted By: John Dough @ 11/24/2008 11:43:51 PM

            Comment: I work with 28CFR documents daily they are protected the president can see them but must have a legitimate reason his was to dig up dirt on 300 political enenmies not a legitimate reason.He also cannot simply declassify these intel reports because they contain private personal and sometimes if the intel is bad incorrect information. Name one FBI intel file a 28CFR that has been released to the public for viewing and public scurtiny I can answer that for you NONE NOT ONE NOT EVER!!!

  • Posted By: John Dough @ 11/24/2008 11:28:06 PM

    Bush and congress rightly applied this money to the financial sector if they would not have done so there would have been a potential run on banks due to bad debt and that would have led to a depression just like 1929. The money should not go to prople or other private businesses they should file bankruptcy to get our of their troubles (unfortunantly) No more money should be spent on bailouts period. It will not work and make the problem worse.

  • Posted By: KathrynVD @ 11/24/2008 11:23:34 PM

    Bush & Co. Spent the cash in the wrong place. They gave it to the institutions who had lent it before, only to realize that they used it to pay off their own debts, pay their shareholders or sit on it, rather than lending to the typical American consumer. By sending a stimulus package to main street instead of Wall Street, people will start buying again.

  • Posted By: John Dough @ 11/24/2008 10:13:35 PM

    Marley07 You are absolutley right. The mre money we borrow to stuff into artificial stimulus packages the longer and deeper this recession will go. Obama wants to spend nearly two trillion in economic stimulus he will increase the national debt more in one year if he does that than Bush did in eight years absolutely frightening!!! His 2.5 million jobs will be like FDR's make work govt programs that stalled recovery and kept the recession going for a decade. Let the marker correct itself and the economy will come back. Tinker with artificial stimulus and more bailouts look for more dire news and economic disaster.

    • Posted By: jarcher1 @ 11/24/2008 10:29:17 PM

      Still not too bright I see. Bush contribution to the national debt = 5 trillion dollars. Obama's plans (according to you, which probably came straight from Limbaugh) 2 trillion. How is that increasing the national debt more than during the entire Bush administration? Boy, I hope you're not in High School, or its remedial math for you.

      • Posted By: marley07 @ 11/24/2008 10:40:53 PM

        Regardless of numbers, how big the deficit is, how much who ran it up, the point is all this money is temporary and articficial. Taxes are the last thing people should be worrying about right now. They should be worrying about their job. Creating government jobs is not going to promote growth within the economy. Even if another stimilus check went out to the people no matter how big, it would not even dent the problem at hand. What we are doing with all this money is putting a temporary floor under the economy. Without the banking/financial system working properly again and housing stablaizing we will go nowhere. As much as people don't like to here it, you can't have a thriving mainstreet without a thriving wall street. When i say wallstreet I mean businesses in general, private or public companies. There would not be a mainstreet without business. Governemnt jobs are not creating jobs within business. We have to stop this idea that throwing money at everything is going to put this boom back in the economy.

        • Posted By: jarcher1 @ 11/24/2008 11:23:17 PM

          You really need to read what the Obama economic team is saying instead of just ploughing in. The 2.5 million jobs, according to his economic team aren't necessarily 2.5 million new jobs. They are some new jobs, added to the number they think will be saved by intervention. Nobody, as far is I know is looking to make the economy boom at the moment, maybe later, right now it would be really nice if it just stayed functional.

  • Posted By: John Dough @ 11/24/2008 10:37:34 PM

    Bush averaged 360 billion a year in federal debt or 2.8 trilliion in 8 years see GAO. Obama wants to spend over a trillion more whne he takes office a two trillion dollar debt increase in 2009.

    • Posted By: marley07 @ 11/24/2008 11:21:44 PM

      jacheri,
      Please explain. What Bush policies are you referring to? How will Obama's spending stop the economy from going belly up? what is the difference between obama spending and any other president's spending?

    • Posted By: jarcher1 @ 11/24/2008 10:45:09 PM

      So what? Letme break it down for you. Bush spent money getting us into our current predicament, while Obama is forced to spend in order to keep the economy from going belly up. An economic crisis BTW that was largely precipitated by the economic policies of George W. Bush. Geez man, engage your brain prior to typing.

  • Posted By: John Dough @ 11/24/2008 11:08:21 PM

    Jarcher1 If Bush spending money got us into this mess how is Obama spending more going to get us out? That makes zero sense.

  • Posted By: wefarrand @ 11/24/2008 11:20:14 AM

    An infrstructure stimulus program based on roads and bridges will perpetuate our dependence on oil. A mass transit and railroad infrastructure program would help move this country away from its addiction. The National Park System, not to mention other public land agencies, has an infrastructure and repair backlog of over a billion dollars. Why not expand the scope of the stimulus beyond the transportaion sector. All of the states have projects outside transportation that are ready to hire people and spend money. The remaining authorized bailout funds should go to people, not banks and corporations. People will pay thier debts and buy products and the money will flow into banks and corporations - a "tickle up" economic plan. If this causes inflation, we can afford it at this point.

    • Posted By: marley07 @ 11/24/2008 11:29:44 AM

      You think all of a sudden Americans are going to change their habits they have been creating for years now? American people are the main reason we are in this mess because all we did was borrow borrow borrow. American people are going all of a sudden actually be responsible for once and pay their debt when Obama is saying he will do it for you? I am starting to wonder why I held myself accountable and acted responsibly by paying my mortage and bills and didn't buy something i could not afford. I guess I shoudl have just bought a few cars with nothing down and a house way more expensive than i could afford and just waited for this election.

      • Posted By: jarcher1 @ 11/24/2008 12:29:18 PM

        Now there you go again, putting words in Obama's mouth. I don't recall him saying at any point his administration was going to assume mortgages for anybody, that was John McCain. The most likely plan on the table is the FDIC plan in regard to mortgages, which calls for lenders and mortgage holders to readjust the mortgage without much government intervention at all. Why Bush has dilly-dallied with this one is beyond my kin, although I suspect its his devotion to his families own business - investment banking and stocks has a little to do with it.

        I see you're going right on with your right wing talking point trash talk. The financial services sector is as responsible, if not more so, for the current mess. They had the experience necessary to know they were making loans that were not just risky, they simply wouldn't be repaid, couldn't be repaid. They didn't worry about that, they just bundled them into derivatives and sold them to some other sucker. When people really come to understand the depth of weasley double dealing banks and other mortgage lenders not only participated in, but actively developed and pressed them on ignorant borrowers, they might not find anyplace in the US too hospitable. I really prefer we quicken this process by holding a reverse auction of the debt securities being held, that will add a layer of transparency the financial sector doesn't want, but it will add transparency and clear the air of the kind of crap you want to pass along, that its all the public's fault. The people most at fault are sitting in Chairman's and CEO's offices, and my guess is that their heads will roll from the shareholders wraith as soon as their practices are unmasked. Every generation has its share of greedy, dishonest, unscrupulous, unfortunately for the rest of us, they've all settled in banks and Wall Street during this generation.

        • Posted By: marley07 @ 11/24/2008 10:59:09 PM

          no question the financial sector is responsible, i will not argue that. People are to blame just as much though. You have to admit that. Is it that hard for someone who is trying to purchase a home to know what they are signing and what they will have to pay? if they didn't understand something, can't they ask for clarity? Look companies were definatley mismanaged, I see it all the time, but when they are they get cleaned out or go away. That is what should have happened in this case as well, but don't you think it would help if people held themselves accountable as well?

  • Posted By: John Dough @ 11/24/2008 10:53:16 PM

    Jarcher1 Just so you know I absolutely disagreed with the spending Bush was doing he became a democrat in spending trying i think t improve his poll numbers big mistake!!!! He should have continued to cut spending and tried to reduce thesize of our out of control government.

  • Posted By: John Dough @ 11/24/2008 10:50:49 PM

    So Bush's policies were wrong why then is Obama planning on not increasing taxes on the rich like planned due to the economy? I absolutely disagree with Bush and Congress on any more bailout money it is pouring water into a leaking boot. The market must correct itself if it doesn't and we keep bailing it out we'll stay right here we are at.

  • Posted By: John Dough @ 11/24/2008 10:21:20 PM

    Gee I wonder what you would say if Bush had 300 FBI files on his polictical enemies with no reason to possess them. They are intel files. If you remember they lied about having them couldn't find them then hillary's finserprints showed up on them. Sandy Berger stealing and shredding classified documents must be okay by you too. So was Clinton's lying, perjury and sexual deviance in the oval office. Oh that's right rules and proper behavior only belong to the GOP since they are the party of values and since the dems have none anything goes.

  • Posted By: brydges @ 11/24/2008 1:08:09 PM

    Bush or Obama it doesn't make a difference. The same idiots still run congress, and It looks like the same idiots from the Clinton era are back at Cabinet posts. Where's the change?

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 11/24/2008 2:26:26 PM

      Less Nazis sleazing around your executive branch, perhaps?

      • Posted By: John Dough @ 11/24/2008 9:28:59 PM

        Oh really 300 FBI files illegally possesed by Clinton on his political enemies, Berger stealing top secret classified documents down his pants and shredding them, cigars in private places, lying and perjury under oath no Nazi tactics there more like Stalin and Hussien

        • Posted By: jarcher1 @ 11/24/2008 10:14:49 PM

          Sigh. Not too bright are you? I remember doing this one back a long time ago on USENET. In a nut shell: It was impossible for Clinton to have done anything illegal with 300 FBI files. By dent of being President he was the chief executive of the FBI at the time. The Director is just his little helper. By the dent of being President he has all classification/declassification authority that exists. He could give them out to Christian Science reading rooms, make paper airplanes, or use them to wipe his backside when he goes potty. All of that is within the legitimate scope of his authority as President. Moreover he can allow anyone he judges suitable to read, possess, or distribute said records. All of that is within the scope of his legitimate authority as President no other branch of the government has anything to do with classification policy and implementation other than the executive period.

  • Posted By: marley07 @ 11/22/2008 6:53:40 PM

    I love how they assume that the markets like Obama and then go on with a stroy about it. Business and the markets are scared out of their minds of Obama and what his agenda might be. The media as absolutely sickening. First they say the markets ran up late Friday because of the treasury announcement which is false and now they say the markets are looking to Obama for leadership? Please.

    • Posted By: jarcher1 @ 11/22/2008 7:37:11 PM

      Enter Your CommentOn what basis is this fear, uncertainty, and doubt justified. Your personal opinion? What justifies that as being significant? You work on Wall Street? So what? 60,000 other people work there, and you're going to claim you have sampled all their opinions I suppose. During the campaign most of what we heard from the right was fear mongering, after the campaign its still fear mongering. Ever hear of the boy who cried "Wolf."

      • Posted By: marley07 @ 11/23/2008 10:33:39 AM

        Do you workon Wall Street? If so, please comment. If not, your part of the problem along with the media. if you did work on wall street and have been watching the markets day in and day out with the volume trading and what times of day the markets move for what reasons and you listen to all the company conference calls after their quarterly performance, talk with the top bond managers, equity managers, currency managers, etc, then you would understand how wall street works. until you do this, don't question someone who has a large role on wall street.

        • Posted By: jarcher1 @ 11/23/2008 7:43:08 PM

          You didn't answer the question. And no I don't think anyone on Wall Streets personal sampling is indicative of anything other than their personal experience, that's why polling was invented. But your artless dodging makes me believe you probably slap sandwiches together in a deli in Encino. I've seen nothing in your attempts at FUD in these forums to make me believe your opinion on economics is worth as much as a pinch of sh*t.

          • Posted By: marley07 @ 11/24/2008 11:46:55 AM

            I would love to hear from you or Doc howl or whatever explain in detail how Obama's plan will help this country. Also, please explain how wall street works and what drives stock prices, daily market moves, growth,etc.

            • Posted By: jarcher1 @ 11/24/2008 1:11:14 PM

              Frankly, if you were from Wall Street as you claim, you would know what drives prices and movement - investor perceptions. Its that simple and that complex at the same time. That's why trading on technicals presents a mixed success rate, sometimes the market does what the technicals predict and sometimes it doesn't, then again sometimes its blindsided. That's why nobody, including the most brilliant people that have ever populated Wall St. can come up with a system and win all the marbles.

              Now as for you, your gambit is transparent, telling me I'm unqualified to hold opinions on Wall St.'s functioning, and Wall St.s mood, and your pitiful attempts to disperse FUD because I can't supply the answer to a question nobody has ever answered in anything more than bland generalities, is BS bud. I don't buy it, and another thing I don't buy is your self proclaimed "expertise." You have consistently declined to demonstrate any real expertise on your own part, you want me to supply mine. You show me no expertise beyond what could be gotten from Billy Bob Beercan. So now we clearly understand each other: You have no expertise to demonstrate, and since I have made no claims regarding my own expertise, I don't feel inclined to dance your jig.

              • Posted By: marley07 @ 11/24/2008 2:58:24 PM

                Investor perception comes from retail investors. Retail investors and specualtion drive prices minute to mintue and maybe day to day. Instiutional investing along with actual earnings ultimatley create the fair value. Emotion is the one constant unpredicible driver, but those typically are short term as well like the retail investor. Obviously we are in a market where even Warren Buffet or Bill Gross can't pinpoint everything to make the correct decision and obviously nobody is going to get everything right everytime, but there is a reason people consitantly return 20%+ returns year over year no matter what the market does. This has been the toughest year for fund managers in our recent history besides maybe the tech bubble busrting. Multiples are being compressed along with P/E's across the board from emerging market stocks all the way to typical recession proof stocks like consumer staples and healthcare. Redemptions are larger than ever and hedge fund liquidations have added enormous extra pressure on prices. Any compnay that is seen with leverage is getting hammered and will continue until the painful deleveraging process is over and taht could take years.

                I never said i was a wall st. executive at a big firm there pal, I am private and manage money for institutions. This is an extremely slow week being a holdiay week where volume is extremely light and mainly moved by retail volume and position adjustments from insitutions.

                For what I do and the decsions we make here, Obama wll have a negative influence on the companies and the investment decsions we make if he continues with the plan he outlined in his campaign. NOBODY can come in and fix the issues at hand with politics and changing a few policies. The overall vision he has could not be done in even 2 terms. My point is, I hope for the best and that he does not stick to his agenda that has no explanation, but i wish people would stop thinking he is some magician or god.

                • Posted By: jarcher1 @ 11/24/2008 6:48:21 PM

                  "For what I do and the decisions we make" here is much, much more reasonable than the global claims you were making earlier. Retail investors don't seem to have figured much in the last two day's runup or do they. Certainly I really doubt there was much of a shift in consumer confidence preceding the runup, nor do I think retail saw a great deal of change in positive volume. So why did the market go up approximately 8 percent on two pieces of news very loosely related to the retail part of the market? Could it be you're overselling retail as a trendsetter, and thus just a tad more confident of your abilities as a prognosticator than reality warrants? Could this have implications for the accuracy of the FUD you are trumpeting about the market as a whole? And beyond the piece of the economy that is Wall St., the economy as a whole? Retail, I would think, would be one of the first things to tank and one of the last things to recover. Its been that way in most other recessions, why should it be different in this one. So in my opinion, your reliance on your own position to provide you with the heart beat of the entire economy is somewhat myopic. Its, actually shorthand for consumer perception, consumers buy when they are comfortable with their debts and their job security and that depends on bigger pieces of the economy than are dreamt of in your view. At the same time, consumer perception is NOT helped by somebody constantly repeating gloom and despair in all things financial. So if you really want to help your clients, who after all ultimately depend on the consumer coming out and saying "charge it" maybe you'll temper your remarks and restrict them to things you really know about, i.e., the retail sector is dark and gloomy. OTOH, Obama's economic policies have not been fleshed out yet, that's what he is busy doing now, with some very capable assistance, or so, to judge from investor reaction Friday, Wall St. believes. For example he recently said there will be no new taxes in 2009, a change from his campaign, although he still intends the middle class tax breaks. Is that fiscally irresponsible? Yes it is, but its definitely needed. There will be time for fiscal responsibility after the economy gets out of the woods.

                  You've said you didn't vote for Obama. I believe that. But now tell me and everybody else, does that mean you voted for the McCain-Palin witches brew of economic proposals? You know the one - the plan with no focus whatsoever, that only said "For God's sake throw some more money to the rich, they'll save our bacon." And oh yes and lets buy up 300 million in funky mortgages. That plan, answer carefully here, otherwise you may kill me by causing me to laugh so hard I can't breathe.

                  • Posted By: marley07 @ 11/24/2008 10:06:10 PM

                    when I am talking about "retail" i am talking about individual investors not retail as in stores or selling merchandise. We are in a traders market not an investing market. They are 2 very different things. So once again I guess I can't use everyday market words with you.

                    Obama does not have to do one single thing to taxes and he will raise them on all anyway by letting the tax cuts expire. My point is why raise taxes on anyone? Businesses, middle class, wealthy, anyone?

                    I did not vote for either one actually. I think neither were ready for the job. I don't think the president no matter who it is can do anything to help this situation. We are probably going to hit 10% unemployment, negative GDP growth for many quarters if not years. Most importantly, all this money we are dumping into financials, maybe autos, and soon to be monster sitmulus is artificial and is not atttacking the problem. Now home builders want money from the tarp. This is all artificial. We need the system to clean itself out. Until the banking/financial system gets going again and confidence is back among investors/consumers we are going nowhere. This is a global problem not just here and it is a long process that needs to be worked out by the free markets.

        • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/23/2008 11:09:54 AM

          Typical republican..."Don't question".

          • Posted By: marley07 @ 11/23/2008 5:57:55 PM

            no diferent than celebrities stating their political opinion when they don't know a damn thing about reality to begin with. You don't work day to day with wall street, don't pretened you know what is going on.

            • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 11/24/2008 2:30:35 PM

              So a celebrity stating a political opinion is the same as you trying to shut everyone up with an "appeal to authority" fallacy concerning your fantasies of being a Wall Street bigshot?

              • Posted By: marley07 @ 11/24/2008 3:03:53 PM

                I am not trying to shut anyone up, I am saying that the markets and wall street is a little more complex than politics, Obama, or policy.

            • Posted By: Momma K @ 11/23/2008 11:27:14 PM

              I think the whole damn lot of you should sit back and wait to see what happens. If you were all financial geniuses you would either be in Washington or on Wall St. working on the problem. This Monday morning quarterbacking just cracks me up.

          • Posted By: jarcher1 @ 11/23/2008 8:07:55 PM

            Ain't it the truth? Some mover and shaker from the street eschews spending his 40 million annual bonus on wine, women, and song just to come here and selflessly deliver the message that Obama's going to screw everything up entirely to us noobs and the journalists that bother to read comments. When you boil everything down, that's all he has to say, along with the puffery of believe me I am the authority. Sounds to me like a typical con by a typical RepubliCON.

            • Posted By: marley07 @ 11/24/2008 3:01:32 PM

              Interesting for you to comment on how much i get paid and what i spend it on when you have not clue who i am, where i work in wall street. Nice label you put on every wealthy wall street worker. Those who act like that have something to prove and act like they have more value than others are the problem, but for you to think that all are like that is naive.

    • Posted By: bighappy @ 11/23/2008 6:01:16 PM

      Why then did they give Obama $1 bilion? Now they are scared? They should be, brcause it is not a Scare Factor.

      • Posted By: marley07 @ 11/24/2008 11:38:30 AM

        first who is they? The ones on wall street that gave him money are those who are beyond rich and won't be hurt by anything that changes or happens going forward. Wall street is not 5 people. Most of wall street is not "rich" and are working to fight for a paycheck like everyone else.

  • Posted By: Jensdad @ 11/24/2008 10:01:21 PM

    How many hands do u need in the cookie jar before mamma decides u had enough. In the coming years we will see just what George w. had to do with. To bad honesty is a lost art in this country. Just greedy people getting out what they feel they desirve.

  • Posted By: John Dough @ 11/24/2008 9:59:51 PM

    I dont find anything funny about giving half my salary to pay for deadbeats who have made a career of welfare and socialsecurity explotation at the expense of the truly needy

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse