It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bobby Jindal refuses Obama’s payout for Louisiana

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Wow, finally a govenor who understands that NOTHING is free. A Govenor that wants no strings attached to the loan shark money (love that comment so I borrowed it). Someone has to convince this man Bobby to run in 2012.
La did not buy the lies Obama dished out and overwhelmingly voted against him so they will trust their Govenor I am sure. I don't like any character who just says....ICE CREAM FOR EVERYONE!!!! Oh... where's the money coming from???? Well if you are going to ask me the touch questions darn it... I'm picking up my marbles and running back inside.

Good for you Mr. Govenor - I'd work for you or Alan Keyes for free. You have my respect. Wish I could vote for you but i'm in TX.




posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Banks do not want to give loans to people that they know won't pay it back. It's against their nature.


No, they make the loans then sell the mortgage to someone else and let them worry about getting the money back. You do realize that, don't you?



If you want to know who is to blame for this economic mess, take a long hard look at Obama,


You really have yourself convinced that this is Obama's fault, even though it started back in the 1990s? Whoa... That's amazing. :shk:






AMAZING is the understatement of this century!!!

We all know BUSH inherited the War from Clinton and the economic crisis from OBAMA!


This thread should be turned into a PSA, warning of the dangers of mixing patriotics, isopropyl alcohol and the internet...




posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by Fremd
 


Demands were made on lenders to supply bad loans under "equal housing" measures. When there was an initial protest by the lenders the system by which bad loans could be packaged and sold off was instated and then insured with psuedo governmental agencies like Freddie and Fannie.


I understand your confusion given that this is the standard propaganda nugget that the far right has spun, but it has little tether to reality. The majority of foreclosures thus far have not been "equal housing" obtained homes...

The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000...

Specifically The companion bill (S.3283)...an 11,000 page addendum introduced by Phil Grahm the afternoon before the Christmas Holiday. A large part of this bill was literally written by Enron Attorneys. Nobody read the 11,000 page bill Grahm intentionally introduced that afternoon right before everyone left for Christmas.

This bill prohibited regulations on the newly created "derivatives" or as we now know them "Toxic Derivatives" for banking institutions.

As Wikipedia states...The act has been cited as a public-policy decision significantly contributing to Enron's bankruptcy in 2001 and the much broader liquidity crisis of September 2008 that led to the bankruptcy filing of Lehman Brothers and emergency Federal Reserve Bank loans to American International Group[1] and to the creation of the U.S. Emergency Economic Stabilization fund.

Phil Grahm for sale..
Mr. Gramm, a Texas Republican, is one of the top recipients of Enron largess in the Senate. And he is a demon for deregulation. In December 2000 Mr. Gramm was one of the ringleaders who engineered the stealthlike approval of a bill that exempted energy commodity trading from government regulation and public disclosure. It was a gift tied with a bright ribbon for Enron.


Grahms wife...
According to a report by Public Citizen, a watchdog group in Washington, ''Enron paid her between $915,000 and $1.85 million in salary, attendance fees, stock options and dividends from 1993 to 2001.''

Here is an article from 2002 that is a good introduction to where we landed today...Deregulation of everything Enron and it opened the doors for banks to create new financial instruments free of any oversight.

query.nytimes.com...



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
they make the loans then sell the mortgage to someone else and let them worry about getting the money back. You do realize that, don't you?

They make the loans to begin with because of intimidation style law suits brought about by Obama and people like him ... and by Obama's ACORN group .. and by Barney Frank and people like him ... You do realize that, don't you??


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You really have yourself convinced that this is Obama's fault, even though it started back in the 1990s? Whoa... That's amazing. :shk:

What's amazing is that you haven't heard a word I said. I NEVER SAID that this was HIS fault. I said he was part of the problem. Just like Barney Frank. Just like ACORN.

This may have started in the 1990s, but plenty of people had their fingers in the stew. Including OBAMA and his law suit forcing Citibank to give out bad loans, and his working with ACORN.

:shk: back atchya



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 12:10 AM
link   
This is hilarious... Jindal is hated on by lots of conservatives, one even calls his message one of nihilism, and now he refuses assistance from the Fed?


This is hilarious.... now that is a voice in the wilderness...



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by nyk537
 


It's not 13 bucks a week. If that's what you think this is about, you're misinformed. It's for expanding and lengthening unemployment. These people's unemployment is going to be cut off instead of continued because Jindal is running for president in 2012.

I'm sure these people want their jobs back, but unemployment benefits would put food on the table until that time.

[edit on 24-2-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]


Yes, the porculus will have the effect of


expanding and lengthening unemployment.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 12:26 AM
link   
Interesting take on things, the whole 'refused to take 3.8 billion offered' and then accepted 3.7 billion.

He even lied about his idealism. Why are you people proud of that?



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Hey, he turning down a few hundred million but he is still taking 3.7 BILLION from the stimulus so lets not hear about some big stand from little Bobby. It is just enough for him to get media attention.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 12:43 AM
link   
Isn't this guy the President of Iran Too?

Why was he invented? What lab did they find a Dark skinned guy to argue with Obama in?

Is this the Company's work...you know the one that is after Sylar?

What the heck is going on, where are these characters coming from?

Seriously this guys existence and talk is more planned and contrived than obamas was...

Who scripted this?



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by sos37
It's true, if no one spends money then even the rich can't profit, but at least they can still afford to keep on some staff while they keep businesses running as long as they can.


So, that's your argument? At lease their staff have jobs???

"Oh, I had to let my butler go last week, but at least I'm providing jobs for my personal trainer, my chef, my housekeeper and my driver. I'm doing my part"!


Are they not all taxpaying citizens, these people you listed in your example? If so, what's the problem with keeping them employed? Does it make more sense to raise the tax on the rich man, causing him to let all of the people you mentioned go, out on the street? Let's examine that a moment - the tax the rich man plays oes to the government which may or may not put it toward stimulating our economy. This latest stimulus package contained over 9,000 earmarks! I'd say there's a good chance that tax money is just ending up in some Senator's pocket or the pockets of a special interest group that helped to get the president elected.

Or does it make more sense to keep these workers employed so they buy from the local grocery stores, pay local utilities, buy local goods and keep the local economy flowing? Apparently you don't think so - you think that because they directly serve a rich man that their contributions to the local economy simply don't matter. Hate to break this to you, BH, but in any job we do, we are all working for some rich man or woman somewhere.

Here's something else. The money states take has to be paid back in two years. So what happens if states don't have that money to pay back? Does the government start to "seize their assets" by nationalizing their infrastructure? The State of California, for example, will be owned and operated by the federal government and any state funds will be distributed throughout the state based on how some committee in Washington sees fit?

[edit on 26-2-2009 by sos37]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
reply to post by redhatty
 


Its a crock and nothing but grandstanding... unemployment has been extended before and the states didn't have to change anything because of it.

I listened to his response last night and it was the most vacaous tripe I've heard since Sarah Palin last opened her mouth...

... he is obviously posturing for a bid in 2012 that's why half of his speech was spent talking about himself...

The rest of his speech could be summed up in 6 words... tax cuts and Americans can do anything... anyone have a count of how many times he said that one.

The Republican party as it stands right now is totally devoid of ideas and their tax cut mantra sounds like a broken record...

... no wonder they are still sinking in the polls.


Maybe you misunderstood what Bobbie Jindal was saying, which is more likely since you are constantly misunderstanding everything that's being said here. You're even still using Sarah Palin as an example - she has come and gone. You're the one still living in the past.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 



You're even still using Sarah Palin as an example - she has come and gone


She definitely has not "gone" unfortunately. I still have to stare at her lousy mug-shot all over the internet wherever political ads can be found.

And since nobody else has said it (that i've seen) anyone notice what the GOP is doing?

They're playing Copy-Cat

The democrats gained HUGE media attention with Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama battling it out. No matter which one won - it was "monumental"

Obama won.
Who does the GOP pick for VP?
A woman. (only happened.....a handfull of times in the past few hundred years)

Okay, so Obama wins the election anyways - suddenly the american people must like black people! (i say that mockingly towards republicans)

so - what does the GOP do?

They hire a black man to run the RNC. Not that there's anything wrong with that - not my point that im after.

But is the GOP

A.) Changing their ways (they are the "conservative" grand ol party who loves to stick to tradition

or

B.) Playing it as usual to try and win over a few of the voters who were borderline last election by appeasing to the same interests with a different flare.


I hope that it's A.

But history is whispering in my ear that i am probably wrong.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   
I thought this was humorous regarding the 'republican rising star':

Jindall on rails



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by lordtyp0
 


He said, "No thanks" to that rail to nowhere... before he said, "Yes, I'll take it"!



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by lordtyp0
 


He said, "No thanks" to that rail to nowhere... before he said, "Yes, I'll take it"!


Yuppers, what do they call that? hrm... 'flip-flopping' per chance? Opportunistic hypocrisy perhaps?

Was the bar raised so far for the Republicans that ol Bobby and Rush are all they have to shelter under? Proud of the Gov...

Anyway, on a less cynical/sarcastic note:

I really like Ron Paul, even though he is a tad whacky. Sometimes I even liked John MCcain (he did have some strong points). All I seem to see and hear when it comes to Republicans are: some plumber who fancies himself a political correspondent, crazy talk show personalities, Jindal, Palin and the likes. All I seem to hear from the party is fear-mongering, hate speeches, cronyism and propaganda.

The Republicans seem to be destroying themselves from the inside out. Possible if they laid low and stuck only to facts on issues they might build their reputation back with the voters. Otherwise, only so many times one can scream wolf before they go find something less annoying.

Where are the steely politicians at? The idealist types who you have to spend more than 5 seconds to find the 'facepalm' moments?

I am a lefty, but I would like to see a balance in things and less pandering to rhetoric and the sponsers/doners. I loved the trouncing in the last election-don't get me wrong. But ultimately if either side has too much power things get awkward at best. Is it even possible anymore to have a politician who isn't in bed with every lobbyist who waggles a dollar bill?

I like to think Obama might be one of those idealists. I could easily be wrong-he IS a politician after all. But, I think it best to give the man a chance to screw up before entertaining all the dangerous propaganda thats swirling about.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join