ECONOMY:

Reid and company propose a new deal

Public works project reminiscent of FDR’s would boost construction, jobs

Friday, Sept. 19, 2008 | 2 a.m.

Washington — In his autobiography, and often in speeches, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid talks about how growing up, the closest he ever got to religion was the portrait of President Franklin D. Roosevelt hanging on the wall of his parents’ small house.

As Wall Street recoils this week from the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression and Congress looks for ways to respond, Reid is turning to a Roosevelt-like step to help get the country back on track.

Reid and congressional Democrats are reviving calls for a vast government construction program that could provide an antidote to the rising unemployment and shrinking private-sector investment in the national economy.

In Nevada, where joblessness is greater than it was following the 9/11 attacks and the mortgage mess and its ensuing credit crunch are flat-lining homebuilding as well as some construction on the Las Vegas Strip, an influx of cash could prime the pump, as economists say, for growth.

“People are asking: What should we do?” Reid said Thursday. “We should have an economic recovery program. Let’s do something about infrastructure — highways, roads, bridges, dams, waterways, sewer systems.”

Economists say this is not quite the Great Depression, despite the stomach-churning gymnastics on the stock market this week and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s breathtaking decision to shore up one industry giant with an $85 billion infusion of taxpayer cash, only to let another fade into bankruptcy.

Reid and his counterpart in the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have not had the same ability to persuade Congress, and the White House, to approve such grand aid for Main Street.

The centerpiece of their first economic stimulus package, this spring, was taxpayer rebate checks; only later did Congress pass increased unemployment benefits and mortgage relief. But broader plans for an estimated $50 billion to the states for construction projects and other aid were left on the table.

Opposition comes from Republicans, as well as some conservative Democrats, who are reluctant to see the government meddle in the market. Republicans, in particular, see infrastructure spending as a handout to the trade unions, which tend to politically support Democrats. Republicans also say they worry about adding to the deficit, which has soared to unprecedented heights under the Bush administration, which inherited a balanced budget.

Still, economists believe the problems unfolding this week on Wall Street are likely to cause further heartache on Main Street. A boost from the feds could help, many say.

“The worse the financial problems are, the more of a drag they will impose, and the stronger the case for economic stimulus,” said Doug Elmendorf, an economist at the Brookings Institution.

Stephen Miller, chairman of the Economics Department at UNLV, could see no apparent downside to rolling out a stimulus plan — unless it comes too late, after the economy has rebounded.

With just one week left before lawmakers adjourn to campaign for the fall elections, Congress is not likely to have time to craft and pass a spending package. However, both Reid and Pelosi suggested Thursday they would be willing to call lawmakers back to Washington to move a bill.

Pelosi has tapped three House committee chairmen to begin investigating what went wrong on Wall Street as the next Congress turns its attention to beefing up regulation of the mortgage and finance industries.

“Let’s face it,” Pelosi said shortly before sending President Bush a letter Thursday outlining elements of a new stimulus package. “We can only have a stimulus package if the president is willing to sign one.

“Up until now, the president has not been persuaded,” she said. “Maybe the events of the last week, and especially the last few days, will be more eloquent to him than anything we have been able to say.”

Lisa Mascaro can be reached at (202) 662-7436 or at lisa.mascaro@lasvegassun.com.

Discussion: 38 comments so far…

By neiman1

9/19/08 at 6:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Two faced harry. Do you think FDR would send $700 billion a year to Russia and to Saudi while leaving our oil untapped. He wasn't stupid harry. Think for a minute, think about the American people, think about the residents of Nevada you are sworn to represent, think about doing what is right for the County, ahead of your Party. Be a real Senator harry. Get us out of this, and don't make it worse trying to get Obama elected.

email link
http://reid.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm...

Las Vegas
Lloyd D. George Building
333 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Suite 8016
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Phone: 702-388-5020 / Fax: 702-388-5030
By pmmart

9/19/08 at 6:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

There is a lot of talk about the looming water shortages in the American southwest and the pipe line from central Nevada to the Vegas valley.

The biggest question of this idea is cost and how long will the aquafier last?

I think there is a better source of water available for the Southwest... The Mississippi river .. if the major players in our area, both public and private were to combine their efforts and do a study on the feasibility of a pipeline connecting a series of reserviors across the arid regions I believe there would be a consensus on its viability.

Expensive? Of course it would be ,but there is enough water going out to sea every day to support millions of new residents and the towns that would spring up around the reservoirs.

If such a pipeline/s followed Interstate hwys 10 and/or 40 right of ways, the cost and impact of such a project would be significantly reduced.

10% of the average daily flow of Mississippi river flow at New Orleans is 50 billion gallons of water per day,approx 40,000 acre ft.per day!

Could the country that built such projects as the Panama canal turn the desert into an economic bonanza that would rival some of Americas most prosperous growth spurts?
By Kaz

9/19/08 at 7:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Obama will *LOWER* your federal income tax - not increase it. That is unless you earn more than $250,000 a year. Obama will increase the tax of one earning $2M (2 million dollars) a year by $701,855 (11.5% increase). He will decrease the tax of one earning $20,000 a year by $892 (3.6% cut). Yes, he is increasing the tax on the rich by 11.5% and decreasing the tax on the low income by 3.6%.

McCain's tax cut for one earning over $2M (2 million dollars) in one year is $269,364 (4%). His cut for one earning $20,000 in a year is only $113.00 (.5%). Yes, he is giving the rich a bigger tax break than the low income - 8 times bigger!!!!.

FACT: If you earn less than $250,000 a year, Obama will ***LOWER*** your federal income tax - not increase it.

FACT: Your Obama tax cut will be larger than your McCain tax cut.

FACT: McCain gives a multi-millionaire a tax cut that is ***8 times bigger*** than a low income earners tax cut.

See for yourself. Here is proof!!!!!!

Here is a link to a calculator you can use to see how much of a tax break you will get with Obama's plan. (I haven't been able to find one yet for the McCain plan. Why is that????.)
http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/

Here is a link to a very clear tax cut comparison chart. This chart is referenced in many newspapers and magazine articles.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

Here is the link to get the full 56-page comparison of the two tax plans published by the independent Tax Policy Center.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publicati...
By NVMakz

9/19/08 at 7:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

While every other tax imaginable RISES under Barry's "Rip-Off America" Plan, this comparatively small pittance which the middle-class "saves" (note the class warfare again by the liberal) = will be swamped by the increases in taxes on everyday needs of these same middle-class taxpayer.

While Republicans include everyone possible in their tax reductions = Barry excludes and includes classes based on the class warfare Democratics and liberals need to further degrade America.

Barry IS a Socialist with Communist-based roots. Who decides what "fairness" is? YOU do not = Barry does!
By jfnance32

9/19/08 at 7:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

We got pleny of money.

Obama and Reids wants to spend and spend and spend and spend.

Many say that his plans are not paid for.

Obama has a plan it increase taxes on job creation capital investments. That sure will help Las Vegas get more jobs.....LOL.

Gaffe machine Biden says it is our patriotic duty to pay higher taxes.

Opps....Obama is reconsidering those tax hikes for he says that will hurt the economy....DUH!!!!!

Some say Obama will generate the first trillion dollar deficit.
By dave202

9/19/08 at 8:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

Big government. That will solve everything.

Obama won't raise taxes, but he will give away our hard-earned tax dollars to people who don't even pay taxes! $1,000! A chicken in every pot!

Harry and Barry are socialists through and through. Elect them and kiss our great country goodbye.
By KDR81

9/19/08 at 8:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

The government's job is not to try and create jobs, in fact it often ends up destroying jobs the market would have created.

FDR's NEW DEAL ended up making the Great Depression last even longer than it otherwise would have, had the government stayed out.

All Harry Reid will do is shuffle wealth and jobs to his pet projects. If his pet projects do not produce the same amount of wealth as the private sector would have we've made ourselves poorer.

If the government is really inefficient at choosing its projects (building roads, damns, college or government buildings or other things there isn't immediate or pressing needs for) then our economic growth slows even further.
By KDR81

9/19/08 at 8:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

Lisa, I havent met many economists who say the Feds stimulus package will help much, let alone saying a construction program would boost the economy.

I don' think you actually researched this issue you believe Ried's right and assume all the experts agree.
By NVMakz

9/19/08 at 8:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Also (adding on to my 7:46 am post), on the middle link from the Tax Policy Center, it says a person/family making > 2.87 million dollars a year NET will see an 11.5% increase which "changes" the tax load upward by $701,000+.

An 11.5% "change" on after tax of 2.87MM is $330,500 MORE taxes.

Remember, this is a "change" upward from Barry and downward from McCain = IN ADDITION TO the tax %s already upon such high-fliers.

A tax hike/rise which causes such a change in taxes would be supported by someone making roughly $6,100,000.00/annum, BEFORE considering the tax loads these successful and wealthy people already have.

I've gotta be missing something here? I'm certainly open to having made a mistake here, but how does an 11.5% rise in taxes (NET, BTW) on a 2.87MM NET add up to a "change" of that tax of >701,000?? A change of 11.5% equaling an actual 'change" of about 24% MORE taxes.

This chart (the second one) only mentions the "change" in tax responsibilities. Upward from Barry = downward for McCain.

IF this is true, and with the TPC - that's an important question = one can look at it several ways:

Someone making >2.87MM gets a 24%+/- effective tax hike based on AFTER TAX, not gross or AGI which taxes are based upon. This seems in addition to the higher tax loads "the rich" are already paying since the Bush Tax cuts caused much more money velocity and more transactional tax revenue.

Someone who makes 2.87MM gets taxed AS IF they ARE making 6.1MM - NET? THAT's more like it for da liberal, lol!

Of course, higher taxes will mean LESS of the revenue increase Barry wants, in this case. Tax most anything, and one gets LESS of it! Which would mean more tax hikes which means less income to the govt and the downward spiral begins into recession or even depression.

Herbert Hoover signed tax increases going in to weak economic times with many economic structural problems.

This helped drive America into the Great Depression. Barry Hussein Hoover in this time, I guess = IF he creates his vision for a poorer America. .

McCain cuts taxes (and I hope for God's sake, spending) for everybody! To each a cut based on their own circumstances is the correct way, not this class warfare of da lib!

The math on both sides of this TPC chart look screwy! I like MY math though here, being firmly in the third category of the TPC chart....

Punishing wealth and success IS THE bedrock of liberal thought for many decades. An "Atlas Shrugged" existence where the producers are shrinking and the consumers are growing leads to the kind of destruction the corrosive Socialist efforts for America.

Once again, I am open to what I may be missing in parsing the math of the TPC here.
By Gordon

9/19/08 at 8:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

What a joke to call Democrats socialists. What do you call the republican administration that nationalizes America's financial industry. Taxpayers have now bought Bear Stearns, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and AIG. Now the next round of bailouts to be announced Monday could top 1 TRILLION more. (Sorry nance, Bush has already claimed the dishonor of the first Trillion dollar defecit, and will pass on another trillion defecit to the next president).

Republicans bail out the wealthy when they make mistakes (actually not mistakes, just greed), but does nothing about the Trillions in profits and bonuses the uber-wealthy received that contributed to the financials problems.

Democrats try to help those whom are truly hurting and get labeled socialist. Doesn't make any sense.
By NVMakz

9/19/08 at 8:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

"The government's job is not to try and create jobs, in fact it often ends up destroying jobs the market would have created.

FDR's NEW DEAL ended up making the Great Depression last even longer than it otherwise would have, had the government stayed out.

All Harry Reid will do is shuffle wealth and jobs to his pet projects. If his pet projects do not produce the same amount of wealth as the private sector would have we've made ourselves poorer.

If the government is really inefficient at choosing its projects (building roads, damns, college or government buildings or other things there isn't immediate or pressing needs for) then our economic growth slows even further."
xxxx
Well said, "KDR81".

Obama's standard is that "GOVERNMENT must create the opportunities American need to succeed"(mq).

Said like a good Davis-mentored Communist / Alinsky-educated Socialist, eh?
By NVMakz

9/19/08 at 8:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

"The government's job is not to try and create jobs, in fact it often ends up destroying jobs the market would have created.

FDR's NEW DEAL ended up making the Great Depression last even longer than it otherwise would have, had the government stayed out.

All Harry Reid will do is shuffle wealth and jobs to his pet projects. If his pet projects do not produce the same amount of wealth as the private sector would have we've made ourselves poorer.

If the government is really inefficient at choosing its projects (building roads, damns, college or government buildings or other things there isn't immediate or pressing needs for) then our economic growth slows even further."
xxxx
Well said, "KDR81".

Obama's standard is that "GOVERNMENT must create the opportunities American need to succeed"(mq).

Said like a good Davis-mentored Communist / Alinsky-educated Socialist, eh?
By NVMakz

9/19/08 at 9:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

"What a joke to call Democrats socialists. What do you call the republican administration that nationalizes America's financial industry. Taxpayers have now bought Bear Stearns, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and AIG. Now the next round of bailouts to be announced Monday could top 1 TRILLION more. "

Bailing out the internal destruction CAUSED BY LIBERALS in the Bear / Freddie / Fannie trio-of-liberal led-incompetence to help save many millions of citizens avoid the destruction caused like the 90s, when Enron and all the other book-cookers lied = causing trillions of dollars of damage and millions of retirees who are probably still working because of it.

Frank Raines (Freddie), who was drummed out in disgrace after making 90 million in 6 years for cooking the books and CAUSING the beginnings of the instability of the Mac/Mae businesses).
AND, Jim Johnson - who helped run both Bear Stearns AND Fannie into the ditch...

ARE OBAMA'S PRIMARY ECONOMIC ADVISORS, LOL!! EXACTLY as if Bush HAD hired Jeff Skilling and Ken Lay OF ENRON as his personal econ-advisors- isn't it?
XXX

"Republicans bail out the wealthy when they make mistakes (actually not mistakes, just greed), but does nothing about the Trillions in profits and bonuses the uber-wealthy received that contributed to the financial problems. "

The liberals who ran America in the 90s created the climate for the late-90s / early 2000s downturn due to cooked books and bad, criminal business practices. This, along with the weak-liberal run-up to 9/11 = cost trillions and trillions.

The liberals who stopped, as of 2003 and 2005, Administration / Republican calls for reform (Dodd in the Senate, Frank in the House), created a climate where Wall St can buy them off (Obama - only in Senate THREE years of a 20-year study on political contributions of Freddie/Fannie, is #TWO of 354 legislators who took contributions. Dodd #1 in the Senate, BTW. Frank = top 5 in the House, ims.

Most of those contributions came to Obama while Raines "ran" Freddie into the ground.
xxxxx
Democrats try to help those whom are truly hurting and get labeled socialist. Doesn't make any sense."

You're confusing Democrats with the Socialists the party has become today. Socialists want EVERYONE poor, dependent and impotent to do anything about it.

Raising taxes HUGE in econ-hard times (see: Herbert Hoover) == choking and gagging America's OWN energy possibilities == class, race and economic warfare for the balkanization of American political discourse == the fascist attacks on the political enemy......

Da Socialist has contributed about 328% of the political hate-speech and fascist tactics the Liberal Socialist Democrat (LSD) Party of America developed to cover for an "Atlas Shrugged" scenario they have efforted since the 60s at least. Shared MISERY with an immediate elimination of the "American Way" = that's the legacy YOU must argue out of, "Gordon".
By Gordon

9/19/08 at 10:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Senator Reid: "It was Phil Gramm who pushed legislation through a Republican Senate that allowed firms such as Enron to avoid regulation and destroy the life savings of its employees, and it was Phil Gramm's legislation that now has (allowed) Wall Street traders to bid up the price of oil, leaving us to pay the bill," quote taken from here: http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/i...

The legislation that deregulated banking was the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. This is the legislation that included the 'Enron Loophole' and banned regulation of credit default swaps. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_F...

Phil Gramm, McCain's economic advisor is responsible for this legislation. "It was an especially tense time in Washington. Only two days earlier, the Supreme Court had issued its decision on Bush v. Gore. President Bill Clinton and the Republican-controlled Congress were locked in a budget showdown. It was the perfect moment for a wily senator to game the system. As Congress and the White House were hurriedly hammering out a $384-billion omnibus spending bill, Gramm slipped in a 262-page measure called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. Written with the help of financial industry lobbyists and cosponsored by Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the chairman of the agriculture committee, the measure had been considered dead--even by Gramm. Few lawmakers had either the opportunity or inclination to read the version of the bill Gramm inserted. "Nobody in either chamber had any knowledge of what was going on or what was in it," says a congressional aide familiar with the bill's history.
It's not exactly like Gramm hid his handiwork--far from it. The balding and bespectacled Texan strode onto the Senate floor to hail the act's inclusion into the must-pass budget package. But only an expert, or a lobbyist, could have followed what Gramm was saying. The act, he declared, would ensure that neither the SEC nor the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) got into the business of regulating newfangled financial products called swaps--and would thus "protect financial institutions from overregulation" and "position our financial services industries to be world leaders into the new century."
Read entire article here : http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/...
By jfnance32

9/19/08 at 10:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Uhhhh.....Clinton signed the law and many Democrats, including Reid voted for it.

The last 2 years, the Democrats could have brought any legislation to the floor to deal with this problem and they have done nothing.

It was Bill Clinton that pushed for the sub-prime market so that minorities could get homes.
By Gordon

9/19/08 at 11:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

"An attempt to repeal the policy (unregulated energy trading) was vetoed by President Bush in 2008. Several Democratic Legislators introduced legislation to close the loophole from 2000-2006, but were unsuccessful due to Republican control of the House and Senate." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_F...

The way Phil Gramm inserted the amendment into a must pass 384 billion omnibus spending bill, even though the amendment had been previously killed, was underhanded and wrong. Like many massive spending bills, the president has a choice of killing the entire bill with a veto or signing it into law. This is an instance of why a line-item veto is very important. The majority of senators, on both sides, had no idea the amendment had been slipped in when voting.

This is how Republicans operate, with trickery, underhanded moves, lies, and bending the rules to satisfy their greed and corrupt lobbyists. End the corruption and lobbyist control of government by voting for Obama and other democrats in your districts.
By Future2012

9/19/08 at 11:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

The U.S. economy is $13 trillion

The U.S. fed budget is $3 trillion

We buy $ 700 billion of foreign oil

Reid's $50 billion plan is 0.004 of the economy. Which is no impact.

After Reid take the $50 billion of monies from the oil companies to pay for it then there is a net ZERO impact on the economy. Smart Harry, really smart.

Harry don't to hang those Union label requirements on each job.
By NVMakz

9/19/08 at 11:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

Face facts, "Gordon"!

With the libs "conTROLLing"(mq) Congress for 6 of the 8 years Bush has been POTUS = and NOTHING about these great legislative crimes and misdemeanors has been addressed by Reid, Pelosi, Obama, Frank, Dodd and so forth in this time?? NOT EVEN FROM THE MINORITY?

It is only bad law when da lib needs scapegoats. EIGHT years and we hear from libs how bad it is in the last month or so??

The Liberal-Led(lol)-Do-Nothing Congress had eight years to voice up as reformers, but apparently were soaking up the massive % of bribes/contributions and largesse of people like Raines and Johnson.....
By PatriciaLV

9/19/08 at 11:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

That's funny; I could swear the Republicans were in control of Congress for six years, with the Democrats taking the majority as of January 2006.

But if I read you correctly, they (the Democrats) should have been able to control Congress even though they were in the minority.

Interesting perspective. Even more interesting re-write of history.
By letsciencedecide

9/19/08 at 11:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

Political hacks, all of you. To suggest that the current market situation is all Bush's fault, or all the democrates fault is just stupidity - all the idiots have contributed. The single underlying cause for the recent financial problems - a desire to allow lower income people an opportunity to take out high risk mortgage loans. Certainly the banks got gready, but those that took out the loans and then defaulted are also to blame. Should they have been "protected by the government"? Had we not had an entitlement mentality that they "deserved" the chance this would not have happened. Congress wrote the law changes, the Senate agreed, and Bush signed. They are all at fault and the taxpayers (those that truely pay taxes) are having to fund the recovery.

Quit stewing in your partisan political bull****, it was all the bums, not just the other party's bums.
By Future2012

9/19/08 at 11:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

As both the DEMs and the GOP knows unless you have 60 votes you can not pass legislation.

Harry Reid plays the game in "power" and out better and defintely more viciously then anyone else.
By uddeboda

9/19/08 at 11:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

Where will all these Trillions of $s going to come from. The rich will certainly not be asked to pay any of it, NOPE, it will be Joe Muggings on the street who will have to foot the bill, and Bush said he would never ever ever ever do this.
By NVMakz

9/19/08 at 12:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

"hat's funny; I could swear the Republicans were in control of Congress for six years, with the Democrats taking the majority as of January 2006.

But if I read you correctly, they (the Democrats) should have been able to control Congress even though they were in the minority.

Interesting perspective. Even more interesting re-write of history."
xxxxxx
AH, the "Ms. Magoo" of our forum returns. "You've done it again....."

When Jim Jeffords (early stage Alzheimers at the time, BTW) jumped to (I) in 2001, he gave "control of Congress" to Tom Daschle and the corrosive liberals of the Senate. That's the two years liberals omit from their list, imo.

Split control is little to no control.

My correction; 4 of eight years, not 6 of 8.

The filibuster "controls Congress" from the minority of the Senate, in most cases.

"control of Congress" doesn't mean having to have both houses of Congress. The explanation would seem too deep to explain to you.
By carol

9/19/08 at 12:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statement...

watch and draft
By PatriciaLV

9/19/08 at 12:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

OK, NV. Point me to a Democratic filibuster during Bush's administration.
By PatriciaLV

9/19/08 at 12:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Oh and if you can't keep your snarky, meaningless, two-year-old name-calling nonsense to yourself, I would suggest you go over to FreeRepublic.com where they ALL think alike and there's no need for you to prove your "superiority" to anyone.
By thebs

9/19/08 at 12:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Hahahahahahahahaha!

The largest nationalization in U.S. history, and now government-funded purchases of bad debt and foreclosed homes, brought to us by the Bush administration and their Republican appointee.

I don't want to hear Makz EVER refer to the Dems as socialist, ever again.

And little Johnny McCain, doublespeaking his way on Mon/Tues. Mon: No bailout! Tues: Okay, it was necessary.

And now the Socialist Republicans want us to believe that John McCain, whose financial savior is "Foreclosure Phil Gramm," who self-described himself as "fundamentally a deregulator," who admitted he "doesn't understand the economy that well" can handle this?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

And Bush was a compassionate conservative, right?

Man, this is the best ever. The Republicans run us into the ground and then nationalize the industry to prevent a collapse of our economy.

Socialism is alive and well, and brought to us by the Bush Administration!
By thebs

9/19/08 at 1:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

"AND, Jim Johnson - who helped run both Bear Stearns AND Fannie into the ditch...

ARE OBAMA'S PRIMARY ECONOMIC ADVISORS, LOL!! EXACTLY as if Bush HAD hired Jeff Skilling and Ken Lay OF ENRON as his personal econ-advisors- isn't it?"

Johnson was (for a week) a part of Obama's Veep vetting process. He is NOT and NEVER WAS an economic advisor to Obama. The characterization of Johnson as a "primary economic advisor" is just an utter FALSEHOOD.

Not a surprise, coming from Makz.

Got any more FLUFF to debunk?

LOL!
By NVMakz

9/19/08 at 2:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

"Hahahahahahahahaha!"

Ah, the bogus, debunked and corrosive "the bs"; slinging "the bs" for my amusement.
xxxx
"The largest nationalization in U.S. history....

Unfortunately, the citizenry and their futures needs protection from the democrats who passed the majority of laws they now demonize, stayed silent while soaking up BIG $$$ from Fannie / Freddie as they cooked books and halted any reform efforts, profited by frauds - and then HIRED the men at the top when the financial book-cooking happened! Such lunacy can only come from the socialist DemocraTIC!
xxx
"I don't want to hear Makz EVER refer to the Dems as socialist, ever again."

IgnoRANTZ like yours is in denial as to the LSD Socialists' primary role here - even if you can't face the facts or me smashing your lead-helmet to school you.
xxxxxxxxxxxx
"And little Johnny McCain....."

And LITTLER Barry Obama, for several YEARS now, soaking up the #2 $$$ (behind Chris Dodd) position of contributions from Raines / Jim Johnson etc AS they raped the books to pimp themselves big bonuses == then, socialist, HIRED THEM AS HIS PRIMARY ECONOMIC ADVISORS. Worse than if Bush HAD hired Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling, socialist!
xxxxx
"And now the Socialist Republicans.....

You rather have the same Democrat socialists who aided and abetted this corrosion of financial markets to be in the position of "fixing" it??? Liberal socialists corrupting our financial system in the 90s, again in the OOs and to continue forward with the political puppy, Barry.
xxxxx
"And Bush was a compassionate conservative, right?"

Compared to the socialist LSD? Sure, thanks for noticing!

AS responsible Republicans try to not allow what the LSDs NEED - meltdown of financial markets to weaken and corrode America once again. THE Dem-socialist (D), whose lack of financial ethics was last in evidence throughout the 90s, when ALL of the major financial accounting frauds and crimes were perpretrated on we all to the losses of trillions as Bush assumed office, still hidden then, but not for long.

The socialists now want ANOTHER chance to cost the American society MORE trillions in MORE financial hardship by MORE Liberal SOCIALIST Democrats = to falsely, lyingly blame their financial advisors' frauds of this on the Republicans - "for a few seats more".

Socialists like you, er, "non-partisans: (lol) should be loving this. Suffering, worry, trepidation, sorrow; well, the NEW NORMAL LSDs effort for we all = THEN, add massive new taxes to deliver the knockout on our economy.

Knockouts - you probably don't remember most of yours at my hand. Overwhelming as they have been, socialist!

20 years, 354 legislators got $ from Freddie and Fannie - and Barry Obama is #2 is $$ in only his THREE years in the Senate. Barry must have REALLY paid off for Raines and Johnson etc.

Most accurately, he still is...
By thebs

9/19/08 at 3:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Oh, the Neocon double standard, as evidenced by NVMakz.

Choking on his own party's relentless nationalization of the mortgage and investment banking industry, all he can do is spew falsehood after falsehood, pointing fingers at the Dems when the REPUBLICANS are at the wheel.

Flailing and blaming the Dems, who have been in control for a scant 18 months, when the problems facing us today loomed large for the ENTIRE TENURE of the Republican congress.

The Republican congress who sat back and did nothing, who brought bill after bill to the floor to deregulate the industries that we see FAILING now. Inserting deregulation bills into budget requests because they COWARDLY knew that the deregulation bills couldn't stand on their own.

And then the neocons RICHLY blame the Dems when they controlled the agenda? HA! The cognitive dissonance blurring reality from what they've been told by Hannity and Rush. LOL!

Those that decry socialism now must STOMACH the REPUBLICAN leaders THEY VOTED FOR nationalizing industry after industry. Greenspan saw this coming seven years ago, what did the MAVERICK do back then?

Sold his ideals, that's what! A maverick no more, McCain looked to his economic guru, Foreclosure Phil Gramm, for advice on how to SINK THE TITANIC FASTER!

Gramm's advice? Continue the nightmare! Take Bush's policies and adopt them! Forget that you, McCain, argued against the Bush tax cuts that you now cherish. Forget that you, McCain, voted to deregulate the mortgage lending and futures markets.

And now McCain wants to sell himself as some regulator? LOL, we're not that stupid, John... as evidenced by your tanking poll numbers!

The rest of the neocon milieu sucking their thumbs at their heroes descent into socialism. Watching McCain cry out over the bailouts on Monday, then glassy-eyed and docile "It was necessary" Tuesday. LOL!

Obama was talking about preventing this meltdown last year... around the same time McCain was telling us how LITTLE he knew about the economy.

The Republicans and their failed policies costing us our investments, our homes, our dignity, and Makz just wants MORE!

Glutton for punishment, some might say.

The rest of us want to STOP THE INSANITY!
By thebs

9/19/08 at 9:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

"And LITTLER Barry Obama, for several YEARS now, soaking up the #2 $$$ (behind Chris Dodd) position of contributions from Raines / Jim Johnson etc AS they raped the books to pimp themselves big bonuses == then, socialist, HIRED THEM AS HIS PRIMARY ECONOMIC ADVISORS. Worse than if Bush HAD hired Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling, socialist!"

Whoops, you're absolutely debunked, Makz!
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-ch...

In fact, the Washington Post, the so-called "source" for the Raines-Obama connection, gave your allegation TWO PINOCHHIOS.

"The McCain campaign is clearly exaggerating wildly in attempting to depict Franklin Raines as a close adviser to Obama on "housing and mortgage policy." If we are to believe Raines, he did have a couple of telephone conversations with someone in the Obama campaign. But that hardly makes him an adviser to the candidate himself -- and certainly not in the way depicted in the McCain video release."

Raines talked to "someone" in the Obama campaign a couple of times on the phone and Makz claims he's a "PRIMARY ECONOMIC ADVISOR?"

LOL! Debunked, yet again. That's what, beat-down #277 this week? You need an intervention, way too much McCain kool aid in your fridge.
By NVMakz

9/21/08 at 6:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Your rant is DOA with the WP excuse-for-Raines "if we are to BELIEVE him".

It's important for the lib-lying major media like the WP to cover for the puppy, B.O. and his housing-henchmen, Raines and Johnson. You're SO gullible.

277 "beatdowns" in one week? I guess you really ARE that stupid!

LIST EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM??? Liar!!

Thanks for walking into the wrong room!
By jfnance32

9/21/08 at 6:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Washington Post conflicts with the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

Johnson was the VP selection chairmen.

How will they wiggle out that one?
By thebs

9/21/08 at 10:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Johnson held a position in the campaign for a week, hardly a "top economic advisor."

In addition, he was attached to Veep vetting, not economics.

The Washington Post debunked Raines... not a surprise the neocons still cling to a DEBUNKED interview where the characterization was a few phone calls, a characterization from a liar like Raines.

The Obama campaign has called me a few times asking for cash, would you characterize me as a "top economic advisor?"

LOL, keep spreading the lies!

Make that #278!
By NVMakz

9/21/08 at 10:52 p.m.

Comment removed by staff.
By jfnance32

9/21/08 at 11:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

"In addition, he was attached to Veep vetting, not economics."

This is funny.

Obama: Mr. Johnson, we know that you are crook. As CEO we know that you ran Fannie Mae into the ground. We know that you cooked the books to give yourself and your crooked friends millions in bonuses. We know that you are a lousy in economics, but we want you to be in-charge of selecting our VP.

LOL....LOL.....that was a good one.......He is not giving us economic advice...so it is OK.....LOL
By thebs

9/21/08 at 11:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Coming from someone whose candidate employed Phil Gramm, the architect of the current fiscal meltdown on Wall Street, as his MAIN ECONOMIC ADVISOR?

McCain's economic plan was WRITTEN by Gramm, the man most responsible for deregulating the mortgage and securities industries!

McCain said he'd STILL consider Gramm for the Treasury Secretary?

LOL, still clueless!

And Makz, I count 278. To use a rhetorical skill you've employed many, many times here, prove me wrong! LOLOLOLOL!

« Previous Ten Next Ten »

Live chat: Tuesday, noon PST; Chat with Krista Creelman; Problem Gambling Center executive director Krista Creelman will answer questions about gambling addiction from Las Vegas Sun readers from noon to 1 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. ... Submit question