Nancy Pelosi should know "a total failure" when she sees one.

[P562045]

So Nancy Pelosi comes right and says the president is a "a total failure."

Now I have a challenge. Let's name an accomplishment for every month that this congress has been in session since very early January of last year.

The number has to come up to at least 19 for my challenge to be met. And since I am feeling in a very generous mood it does not really have to be an accomplishment to get to the number 19 to meet the challenge; but it also must be something that the president has actually signed into law. This last requirement will most likely really reduce the list by a bunch of items.

I will start the list off with a few items that the congress has given the president and he has signed since very early January of last year.

1. Renaming of a ton of post offices.
2. Requiring that compact florescent light bulbs will be mandatory by a certain year.
3. Protection of telecommunications companies when it comes to there role which in many cases involve the war on terror.
4. The America Competes Act that funds programs that deal with science, technology, and research; and it also funds state education grants as well.
5. Did provide funds to rebuild a bridge in Minnesota.
6. The so called "stimulus package" bill.

Well these are six things I can think of right now. And a person may be thinking this democrat congress has been doing way more than that. Which is quite true such as these incessant committee meetings to make the point that republicans are evil; but that is not really an accomplishment now is it because the people have been told this for how long now? And even a majority of the senate has passed many things as well but many of them have not been able to stand up to cloture as well.

One other thing with regards to number four on the list I am assuming that the president signed this into law because it sounds like something that is so obvious that the president has signed it into law. But the president has actually been very rigid when it comes this particular congress and its spending habits so who knows.

This article is quite fascinating because it does not go into a long list of accomplishments that Ms. Pelosi and this congress has. And in fact this particular article points out that the president actually has a higher approval rating than the very place Ms. Pelosi does or does not do the people's business.

Article Here

Can we come up with thirteen more things that the president has signed into law since early January of 2007?

[P562045]

7. Increasing the average mph to be at least 35.

Edit:Yes I meant mpg and not mph.
I must have been thinking of those electric cars that people could actually afford to buy. The maximum top speed on several versions was in the 40-50 mph range.

I think the electric car idea is an excellent one except for two major factors.
How much energy will be lost making the car; and what happens when there is a higher demand for electricity to the price of electricity when we start plugging these things in. I could really care less if it in the "non peak" hours which would be late at night and very early in the morning. I am sure we will just tell the electric company. We are just using this for our cars can we just not pay for that portion of our energy use.

Maybe the feds can subsidize this as well just like they do ethanol.

[rich76]

mph?

[P562045]

8. I am sure there has been at least one supplemental expenditure bill so that they feds can hand out Social Security checks and keep our wonderful national parks open as well.

Now please don't all rush at once to add to the list. We still have 11 more items to go.

I am sure the congress will be giving out some candy like Santa latter on this year but that will only be about five or so items; well actually maybe six we do need another "stimulus package" now don't we?

[ldzppln]

Here's one that will go through in the next day or two. Bush was going to veto, but apparently has decided not to.

[StockTrader]

Originally Posted by ldzppln

Here's one that will go through in the next day or two. Bush was going to veto, but apparently has decided not to.

Three cheers for socialism!

Nick

[P562045]

9. Led's story talks about the feds bailing out people that those evil predatory lenders made people sign mortgages that they had no business signing in the first place.

I always liked this particular one because people should just be able to buy whatever they want and not even have to think of the consequences down the road. This sets a really good example for people.

[rich76]

Peter...you've ....



this is just one of many programs our eventual tax raises will have to pay for if the Dems get in the White House. I'm sooooo looking forward to sending more of MY $$$$ to pay for irresponsible overextending jackazzes and scumbag mortgage brokers that have no conscience.

[hork]

Originally Posted by rich76

Peter...you've ....



this is just one of many programs our eventual tax raises will have to pay for if the Dems get in the White House. I'm sooooo looking forward to sending more of MY $$$$ to pay for irresponsible overextending jackazzes and scumbag mortgage brokers that have no conscience.

what about the guy who was making 65k a year when he bought his house (valued at let's say 125k) and recently was laid off because of budget cutbacks and not because of job performance. screw him and the 100's like him too?

sorry, don't mean to interject, just never been a fan of social darwinism.

[P562045]

I hate to have do the job of the main stream media but someone has to do it.

Why is this being portrayed as a "bailout" in the first place?

I even forgot to mention something. Who will be paying for this crap in the first place I will go out on a limb and say in some cases the people that made the mistake but in other cases it will be the rest of us that were not paying attention once again.

One other thing to mention. Why do we have only two financial institutions that have a little less than half of mortgages for the whole country and who in the heck was watching them to make sure there wasn't going to be the trouble we find ourselves in now?

I don't even understand the relationship between Freddie Mac and the other fricking one [Fannie May] when it comes to the feds but it appears to me that the feds really dropped the ball on this one and now if one party has their way this would be only the starting point of what they want the feds to watch over. Can anyone say health care?

[P562045]

Something else to just mention as well.

Part of the problem was that Freddie/Fannie were getting very large sums of money and this let them make these "bad" loans in the first place.

And what is the solution that Washington has come up with you guessed it give both of them another huge pile of money just in case they need it and this dollar amount will certainly be in the 10s of billions of dollars.

[P562045]

One other thing just to mention here. This has yet to get to the senate yet and it will later on this week or early next week it will be interesting to see what the minority in the senate thinks of this whole thing.

[ldzppln]

Originally Posted by P562045

9. Led's story talks about the feds bailing out people that those evil predatory lenders made people sign mortgages that they had no business signing in the first place.

I always liked this particular one because people should just be able to buy whatever they want and not even have to think of the consequences down the road. This sets a really good example for people.

The cost of this "bail out" (that just last week Bush requested Congress pass) is peanuts compared to the hundreds of billions of dollars we've already spent on the illegal invasion & subsequent occupation of Iraq (with the total cost projected to come in over a trillion dollars). The bill the house passed today should help to stabilize the US housing market, help banks shore up loans, and help US home owners afford to keep their homes. Is that such a bad thing? I'm not any happier about this than the next guy, but at least Congress & the president are actually compromising, and getting something done in quick fashion for a change.

[hork]

Originally Posted by ldzppln

The cost of this "bail out" (that just last week Bush requested Congress pass) is peanuts compared to the hundreds of billions of dollars we've already spent on the illegal invasion & subsequent occupation of Iraq (with the total cost projected to come in over a trillion dollars). The bill the house passed today should help to stabilize the US housing market, help banks shore up loans, and help US home owners afford to keep their homes. Is that such a bad thing? I'm not any happier about this than the next guy, but at least Congress & the president are actually compromising, and getting something done in quick fashion for a change.

and it's something that is actually good for the economy on both levels. it helps the citizen who's at risk of losing his/her home and it saves us a devastating blow to the poor excuse we have for an economy should the holders of over 50% of all mortgages in our nation collapse.

took them almost 8 yrs but i do believe this is the first time this regime has put aside their collective egos and actually done something to benefit the american people. and for that i applaud them

[P562045]

Originally Posted by ldzppln

The cost of this "bail out" (that just last week Bush requested Congress pass) is peanuts compared to the hundreds of billions of dollars we've already spent on the illegal invasion & subsequent occupation of Iraq (with the total cost projected to come in over a trillion dollars).

I will just go with a nice round number of $1,000,000,000,000. Now if democrats had that kind of money to spend on whatever they wanted would something like this not happened in the first place?

Another basic question is what would they spend that kind of money on?

Just another aspect of this is Washington has huge piles of money lying around because there is record revenue in Washington but the congress can't get the president to sign appropriations bills that have so much pork in them it is not even worthy of wasting the president's time. Just as an example I have already discussed the defense appropriations bill already in the past.

And I am sure Freddie and Fanny both have huge lobbies in Washington so they basically get what they want and there is a relationship between the feds and these two financial institutions in the first place. I just love how we just gloss over the fact that the feds were running these two financial institutions but just giving them some more money will fix the problem. But as I said countless times before the money given to these two in the first place started this whole mess in the first place.

Is there any part of this legislation that even makes sure that these sort of lending practices don't happen again in the first place and people can't get a loan that they can't afford and have no business having in the first place.

So sorry for my "tough love" approach but in the long run it will cost us less than this particular bill.

Now if there was a way to differentiate between the people that really need help and the ones that don't that would be just fine with me but I am sure this bill just gives money away to both groups no matter what.

There is another aspect of this that has barely been mentioned. And that is that states are going to be given a billion plus dollars to buy up certain properties and so I guess the states won't have to maintain these properties as well when they want to resell them again.

And guess who is going to be really spending the money to maintain these properties. Where do states get money their money from and in this particular case it yes it comes from the feds but where do the feds get this money from in the first place for many of their very foolish decisions indeed.