The Democrats ran in 2006 on a platform to stop the war in Iraq. Since they acquired the majority in Congress, they have taken impeachment off the table and have voted to fully fund the war in Iraq.
Why?
Is it possible that the Democratic strategy was to let the Bush regime continue to hang itself so they could win a filibuster proof majority in Congress and win the Presidency?
It has been said that Nixon decided to keep troops in Vietnam because it would help in his re-election bid in 1972. Did the Democrats use the same strategy? It seems they kept funding the war because of Bush's rhetoric about not supporting the troops. This would have been a banner tactic in the current election to say the Democrats didn't support our troops because they cut funding.
If Pelosi, Reid, et al decided to keep funding the war for political purposes they are just as guilty as the rogue administration that sold us this tragedy. Is gaining political advantage a higher priority than stopping the deaths and maiming of innocent Iraqis and U.S. forces?
The Democratic majority in Congress should be ashamed of failing to do their Constitutional duty to impeach this President who violated the Constitution and the rule of international law. The Democratic majority in Congress should be ashamed of continuing to fund this illegal, immoral war.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
AIG scoundrels
Where is the anger over AIG executives?
Taxpayers bailout a mismanaged company with their hard earned dollars and what do these scoundrels do? They go on a $440,000 resort junket. The majority of this company is owned by the U.S. taxpayer due to the 85 billion dollar bailout. As a part owner of AIG, I want those executives who got rich due to their economic scams to get $6.55 an hour until they pay back the funds to the Fed. I want them to share in the lifestyle of the people who were scammed into buying mortgages that they could never hope to payback. I want them to live the lives of the people whose pension funds have been destroyed by these fraudulent financial practices. These people trying to make ends meet on $6.55 an hour are the ones who will be hurt the most as their jobs disappear and the value of their earnings shrinks.
Who does our government bailout? The rich. So they can continue to have their $1000 dollar hotel rooms and their manicures and pedicures. Try paying for rent, food, health insurance, education, gasoline, and utilities on $6.55 an hour. Our government should have solved this by helping the poor to refinance. Bottom-up instead of rich-trickle-down.
I cannot understand why the electorate does not stage a tax revolt.
Some fat cat from Wall St. playing Secretary of the Treasury comes to the Hill with a 3 page request for 700 billion dollars with no oversight? Paulson walked away from his doomed company with 500 million. Why shouldn't his fortune go to the bailout? He made his golden parachute from dirty paper and he should be held accountable. Instead, the government gives him a blank check for 700 billion.
This is a government whose President vetoed a bill for an increase of 7 billion a year in health care for poor children while we spend 3 trillion on a war against a country that was of no threat and a who knows how many trillion to come bailout of the rich on Wall Street.
Why isn't there a taxpayer revolt on Washington?
Where is the outrage?
Taxpayers bailout a mismanaged company with their hard earned dollars and what do these scoundrels do? They go on a $440,000 resort junket. The majority of this company is owned by the U.S. taxpayer due to the 85 billion dollar bailout. As a part owner of AIG, I want those executives who got rich due to their economic scams to get $6.55 an hour until they pay back the funds to the Fed. I want them to share in the lifestyle of the people who were scammed into buying mortgages that they could never hope to payback. I want them to live the lives of the people whose pension funds have been destroyed by these fraudulent financial practices. These people trying to make ends meet on $6.55 an hour are the ones who will be hurt the most as their jobs disappear and the value of their earnings shrinks.
Who does our government bailout? The rich. So they can continue to have their $1000 dollar hotel rooms and their manicures and pedicures. Try paying for rent, food, health insurance, education, gasoline, and utilities on $6.55 an hour. Our government should have solved this by helping the poor to refinance. Bottom-up instead of rich-trickle-down.
I cannot understand why the electorate does not stage a tax revolt.
Some fat cat from Wall St. playing Secretary of the Treasury comes to the Hill with a 3 page request for 700 billion dollars with no oversight? Paulson walked away from his doomed company with 500 million. Why shouldn't his fortune go to the bailout? He made his golden parachute from dirty paper and he should be held accountable. Instead, the government gives him a blank check for 700 billion.
This is a government whose President vetoed a bill for an increase of 7 billion a year in health care for poor children while we spend 3 trillion on a war against a country that was of no threat and a who knows how many trillion to come bailout of the rich on Wall Street.
Why isn't there a taxpayer revolt on Washington?
Where is the outrage?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)