Socks

With Obama's 100th day almost upon us (yes, even to us Canadians) it's clear that we're going to get a one-sided story about how great it's been.

If you don't mind, can you please give us a long rant about why things are so much worse now?

Totally serious about this. It's just all the republicans have been in hiding, and I'm feeling like maybe they're trying to enrich uranium behind our backs or something.

What do you say?

Paper_Amar

I would love to see this as well. Open up my eyes to this socialist state we are becoming.

__________________
My icq; 4 4 7 5 4 2 1 2 8
Amar @ paper street cash .com

DaddyHalbucks

One month, 100 days, or even 1 year is largely irrelevant, except, you can see the situation worsening. Our decline is directly related to socialism which has been creeping in for many years. Our big spending Congress is the real culprit, and the nitwit voters who elect it.

Obama is only accelerating the decline. Now, both Congress and the President are corrupt. Yes, I said corrupt. Ultimately, socialism=corruption. They are not following the US Constitution which specifies limited government.

__________________
Boner Money

fris

you cant honestly say its worse than bush

__________________
Since 1999: 69 Adult Industry awards for Best Hosting Company and professional excellence.


WP Stuff

Socks

I don't think either party has any interest or intention of making a smaller government?

I also think a large portion of the people who voted democrat would also vote for a smaller government if actually given the option.

StuartD

Could ANYONE have stepped into office and NOT had it 'worsening' in the first 100 days? I mean, exactly what could he or anyone have done to not only stop it from getting worse, but reverse it?

__________________
This is me on facebook
This is me on twitter

After Shock Media

Honest question. Socialism is Government owned/ran. Congress/President had chance to "own" banks, insurance companies, and auto makers - yet they just gave them loans in essence that the companies could eventually pay back. Now if "they" wanted socialism, why did they not just buy them out when they had chance and public support?

__________________

nation-x

Because "socialism" is a bullshit propaganda talking point from the right... DHB doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about. They label it socialism now but didn't say shit when the right gave billions to oil companies and no bid contracts to their buddies.

Bryan G

You think it would have been any different with McCain or whomever?

__________________
Bryan
skype: bryan.glass3 | ICQ 302999591

Agent 488

consume to the mainstream media. endless propaganda on why obama is "failing" ...

pocketkangaroo

DaddyHalbucks

Oh yea?


By Dick Morris

President Obama showed his hand this week when The New York Times wrote that he is considering converting the stock the government owns in our country?s banks from preferred stock, which it now holds, to common stock.

This seemingly insignificant change is momentous. It means that the federal government will control all of the major banks and financial institutions in the nation. It means socialism.

The Times dutifully dressed up the Obama plan as a way to avoid asking Congress for more money for failing banks. But the implications of the proposal are obvious to anyone who cares to look.

When the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) intervention was first outlined by the Bush administration, it did not call for any transfer of stock, of any sort, to the government. The Democrats demanded, as a price for their support, that the taxpayers ?get something back? for the money they were lending to the banks. House Republicans, wise to what was going on, rejected the administration?s proposal and sought, instead, to provide insurance to banks, rather than outright cash. Their plan would, of course, not involve any transfer of stock. But Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) undercut his own party?s conservatives and went along with the Democratic plan, ensuring its passage.

But to avoid the issue of a potential for government control of the banks, everybody agreed that the stock the feds would take back in return for their money would be preferred stock, not common stock. ?Preferred? means that these stockholders get the first crack at dividends, but only common stockholders can actually vote on company management or policy. Now, by changing this fundamental element of the TARP plan, Obama will give Washington a voting majority among the common stockholders of these banks and other financial institutions. The almost 500 companies receiving TARP money will be, in effect, run by Washington.

And whoever controls the banks controls the credit and, therefore, the economy. That?s called socialism.

Obama is dressing up the idea of the switch to common stock by noting that the conversion would provide the banks with capital they could use without a further taxpayer appropriation. While this is true, it flies in the face of the fact that an increasing number of big banks and brokerage houses are clamoring to give back the TARP money. Goldman-Sachs, for example, wants to buy back its freedom, as do many banks. Even AIG is selling off assets to dig its way out from under federal control. The reason, of course, is that company executives do not like the restrictions on executive pay and compensation that come with TARP money. It is for this reason that Chrysler Motors refused TARP funds.

With bank profits up and financial institutions trying to give back their money, there is no need for the conversion of the government stock from preferred to common ? except to advance the political socialist agenda of this administration.

Meanwhile, to keep its leverage over the economy intact, the Obama administration is refusing to let banks and other companies give back the TARP money until they pass a financial ?stress test.? Nominally, the government justifies this procedure by saying that it does not want companies to become fully private prematurely and then need more help later on. But don?t believe it. They want to keep the TARP money in the banks so they can have a reason and rationale to control them.

The Times story did not influence the dialogue of the day. People were much more concerned with the death of 21 horses at a polo match. Much as we will miss these noble animals, we will miss our economic freedom more.



Morris, a former adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of Outrage. To get all of Dick Morris?s and Eileen McGann?s columns for free by e-mail or to order a signed copy of their best-selling book, Fleeced, go to dickmorris.com.


http://thehill.com/dick-morris/obama...009-04-21.html

__________________
Boner Money

After Shock Media

Thank you Dick.
Not a valid answer, but you can pass that along OK.

__________________

pocketkangaroo

Dick Morris is a very smart man who knows how to predict the future in politics.