:iagree: that sex and violence sell, and unfortunately many of us are "tuned in" to the wrong things. Again, this is what I am saying. The focus should be on how to not let this financial crisis happen again. Most everyone is suffering now with the stock market tanking. However, there is also a lot of anger about the Bailout. Perhaps people will pay more attention to what Congress does as a result of this anger.

If that were true, there would be an investigation into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by now. There is a lot of anger and interest in that. Most of the time, the media tries to make the candidates it wants elected look good, and the ones it doesn't want elected look bad.

I agree with you. My husband and I lost a lot of money already on this "financial crisis", and I know many others on this board have as well. I am hopeful that whoever is elected President will either regulate/reform or eliminate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac so at the very least this doesn't happen again. Why doesn't the media focus at least some sort of investigation into this!

It also said that Palin acted within her authority by removing Monegan from his job as public safety commissioner. What I am saying is I don't think the media is focusing on the bigger issues, and yes I still see the timing of this as politically motivated.

Would you like to know what caused the crisis we are in? "It was the meltdown of the subprime mortgage market with cascading defaults that triggered the start of the credit crisis in the United States in August 2007." http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081011/D93OB7SG0.html "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are two government agencies who created, and remain highly involved in, the secondary market for mortgage-backed securities. They now own or guarantee about $1.4 trillion, or 40%, of all U.S. mortgages, with $168 billion in subprime mortgages. The two agencies support the secondary market, which is supposed to help low-income families realize the dream of homeownership, and that has turned into the nightmare of the subprime mortgage crisis." Read all about it if you would like. http://useconomy.about.com/od/grossdomesticproduct/tp/Subprime_Mortgages_FNMA.htm

Well said.

I doubt John McCain would have picked her, then, if she were guilty of a serious crime, because his team would have analyzed her pretty closely before choosing her as a VP pick.

The taxpayers did not have to bail out the banks. By bailing them out we are rewarding irresponsible behavior. I, and many other Americans, disagreed with Congress on that. Congress did it anyway. In fact, the $700 bailout was supposed to not cause the stock market to drop. It hasn't worked. I agree with you about the CEO's that walked away from those bankrupt companies with huge bonuses. I don't know how they live with themselves. This whole "investigation" with Sarah Palin just strikes me as a distraction from all the corruption in Congress and on Wall Street.

:iagree: This seems like a politically motivated investigation. I am skeptical. Why is the media not focused on the criminals in Congress who blew all the taxpayers money in the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac scandal? We are talking about billions of dollars of OUR money? Where is the outrage and criminal investigation in that?

My understanding was that the $700 billion bailout was supposed to stop all this from happening. Now they want to take equity in the banks and we are supposed to believe this is in our best interests?? It would be better to take our chances on the market falling and then eventually recovering on its own. The government should stay out of this.

I'm so sorry for your loss. :grouphug: My father just found out that his colon cancer has returned and is now in both lungs. Perhaps we can say a prayer for both of them.

I don't know about the "Amero" idea he has. I found the same information on Wikipedia as above posters have. I am a bit skeptical. However, I do think he has some good points - especially about the Congress of the United States destroying this country by it's out of control spending. If the government continues this behavior, it really is no big secret nor a conspiratorial theory that the American economy will self-destruct.

Public schools should be places to go to learn reading, mathematics, writing, etc, not avenues for political indoctrination by a former (and proud, unrepentent) terrorist. Also, how many of Ayers philosophies does Obama share? This is a legitimate question to be asking of someone who wants to lead this country and who will hold enormous power.

http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0423ss.html This article is disturbing if it is accurate.

I am hopeful for the best as well. Bush claimed this had to be done now, not even taking the time to think through the bill nor explain it better to the public. Now Bush is saying it will take time. :confused:

Exactly. Despite that the platforms of both parties may be worlds apart, the behavior of both parties seems to be to grow the government with little care or discernment on what the effects of this may be.

I will not vote for anyone who voted for the bailout. The market is tanking today. The bailout had no positive effect. We were lied to, and they stole money from our children and grandchildren. Anymore there seems to be the Democrat/Republican ruling class, and then there are the rest of us stuck with voting for one or the other. They are the same party it seems to me. They differ on abortion, which I agree is a very important difference. Just about everything else they seem identical or very close. I am going to see if I can find out why third party candidates are not allowed to participate in the debates. Let me guess, the Democrat/Republican ruling class is scared of the competition. :scared:

"The Federal Reserve has already injected hundreds of billions of dollars into US and world credit markets. The adjusted monetary base is up sharply, bank reserves have exploded, and the national debt is up almost half a trillion dollars over the past two weeks. Yet, we are still told that after all this intervention, all this inflation, that we still need an additional $700 billion bailout, otherwise the credit markets will seize and the economy will collapse. This is the same excuse that preceded previous bailouts, and undoubtedly we will hear it again in the future after this bailout fails. One of the most dangerous effects of this bailout is the incredibly elevated risk of moral hazard in the future. The worst performing financial services firms, even those who have been taken over by the government or have filed for bankruptcy, will find all of their poor decision-making rewarded. What incentive do Wall Street firms or any other large concerns have to make sound financial decisions, now that they see the federal government bailing out private companies to the tune of trillions of dollars? As Congress did with the legislation authorizing the Fannie and Freddie bailout, it proposes a solution that exacerbates and encourages the problematic behavior that led to this crisis in the first place. With deposit insurance increasing to $250,000 and banks able to set their reserves to zero, we will undoubtedly see future increases in unsound lending. No one in our society seems to understand that wealth is not created by government fiat, is not created by banks, and is not created through the manipulation of interest rates and provision of easy credit. A debt-based society cannot prosper and is doomed to fail, as debts must either be defaulted on or repaid, neither resolution of which presents this country with a pleasant view of the future. True wealth can only come about through savings, the deferral of present consumption in order to provide for a higher level of future consumption. Instead, our government through its own behavior and through its policies encourages us to live beyond our means, reducing existing capital and mortgaging our future to pay for present consumption. The money for this bailout does not just materialize out of thin air. The entire burden will be borne by the taxpayers, not now, because that is politically unacceptable, but in the future. This bailout will be paid for through the issuance of debt which we can only hope will be purchased by foreign creditors. The interest payments on that debt, which already take up a sizeable portion of federal expenditures, will rise, and our children and grandchildren will be burdened with increased taxes in order to pay that increased debt. As usual, Congress has show itself to be reactive rather than proactive. For years, many people have been warning about the housing bubble and the inevitable bust. Congress ignored the impending storm, and responded to this crisis with a poorly thought-out piece of legislation that will only further harm the economy. We ought to be ashamed." I agree with the above. It was written by Ron Paul. Unfortunately, Congress has hurt our children and grandchildren with this bill. It is not somehow or even remotely better for us than not passing it would have been. :sad:

Congress has just nationalized the housing market. :angry: Bush, McCain, Barack, these people all supported/voted in favor of this. Yet 85% of Americans were against or have been suckered into thinking this will help us. This is a sad day.

I am a conservative in that I am against spending more than you have, and I am for living below your means. If the government would have this attitude we would all be in a better place. ;) :smash: Bailout after bailout really frustrates me.

The flaw here is thinking that it is good for the Fed. Govt. to have this much power and control. The government is not our benevolent uncle. The government is about growing government, not about helping us. If the government were to actually profit from these sales in the long run, we will not see this money. The govt. will come up will more problems to solve to spend it on. It is similar to an alcoholic. All this spending and no way to pay for it. If the US Congress continues down this path it will self destruct. If all these bailouts pass and taxes keep going up and up, then incentive to work is going to go down. If over 50-75% of your income is going automatically to the government in taxes, why bother getting a job?

:iagree: I would like to see a third party candidate in the debates.

I disagree. I think if Congress wants $700 Billion dollars of my children and grandchildren's money and will be resorting to socialism to get it, I am going to need more than one man's opinion. In addition: " Buffett is one of the top economic advisers to Barack Obama, a senator whose influence over whether this bailout passes is, ahem, not small. - Buffett took a sizable stake in Goldman Sachs today, investing $5 billion in the company. This came after Goldman reorganized itself in a way that will make it better able to capitalize on the bailout windfall. - Sure enough, Bloomberg News reports that if this bailout passes, it will mean a potentially huge windfall for Goldman Sachs - ie. now for Buffett." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/questioning-warren-buffet_b_129112.html

:iagree: Both Barack Obama and John McCain supported this. I think they should let third party candidates into the debates on both sides. I am thinking more and more that third party candidates are the only way we will actually see CHANGE in Washington. Congress ignores the very people they are supposed to represent. If we keep voting these same people in we will keep getting this same result.

Yes, right now they are worthless - probably most of them. If we are to believe that over time we will get a return from the government on them, then why not the same scenario but without the government. Part of the reason the money is "frozen up" is because people are afraid to act because they think the government bailout is on the way so they want to wait and see what will happen.