idrankwhat

Then we'll get it from Russia, unless Palin's our CiC. Or maybe Chavez will come to our rescue. (Is there a monkey in my butt?)

Through the deregulation via the Commodity Futures Modernization act and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, for starters. The former allowed banks to divorce themselves of the originating loan and engage in swapping. (I'm not sure if the bundling of loans into commodities was a part of the act but it that's what happened). And the latter allowed the merger of banks, insurers and stock brokers. In short, they let "the market sort it out", until now.

Not ours. The closest gas station to where I work has a sign out front that reads Reg $0.00 Mid $0.00 Super $0.00

That's very much the case in most of the D driven agenda. I wouldn't say that either. I don't see much getting done at all. And oddly, I find that strangely comforting. That's one that's a result of a (boneheaded) public response to the "drill here drill now" war cry. The public seems to think that drilling legislation will somehow help the American people. Voting against it, possibly because of the effect it may have on your state's tourism dollars, will be spun by an opponent as you wanting higher gas prices. Stupid, I know. But it works. So you agree to opening up offshore leases but with the contingency that you also withdraw big oil's welfare package (in theory). Now the R's will spin it as "we won" and the D's can spin it as "we won" right before an election. What ends up in the final draft of the bill will probably be a very weak compromise that is of little benefit to the American public but was sufficient enough to secure future lobbyist donations. Actually I'm not hearing much complaining except from the die-hards like Wexler who are trying to drive impeachment proceedings. In stark contrast to the daily barrage of cries of "thwarting the will of the American people" that I heard repeatedly in the media when the R's had a one vote majority, I only hear about record setting obstructionism here in SC or if I google "filibuster". Not true. The election will be over. The D's will have gained a 1/3 stake by securing the White House. And it's entirely possible that they'll gain enough seats threaten that magic number in the senate. Of course that would open a new can of worms which I think the R's deserve, yet I'm reluctant to celebrate.

Poor guy....where can i send him a check If only I could be that big of a failure....we'd have a new fleet of planes at the DZ tomorrow!

So, you're ok with naked short selling?

Liberaltarian.

Average compensation in the early 80's for a CEO was 40 times that of the average worker. Now it's closer to 400 times that of the average worker. In addition, there's absolutely no accountability or consequence for driving the company into the ground. I find that completely unnecessary.

The president will veto pretty much anything the dems want to accomplish. The R's have openly stated that they intend to obstruct in order to make the D's look bad. You have over 70 filibusters this year as evidence for that effort. On the other hand, the D's have been afraid of derailing what should be a big sweep for them this fall. I think that's why they're not pushing executive accountability as hard as they should. At the very least Rove should be in jail. In short, they can't do anything because they are ruling with a very simple majority. They won't do anything because they're afraid of being attacked during the campaign season as simply being partisan. Either way, it's frustrating.

The numbers for AIG CEO Martin J. Sullivan in 2005: Salary $701,000 Bonus $730,000 Other $249,000 Stock $452,000 Executive Paywatch has him raking in a total of$14,330,736 in 2007. After a couple of quarters resulting in $13 Billion in losses this year he was given a severance package $47 million and replaced by Robert Willumstad. Willumstad's base salary is $1 million. His target annual bonus is $ 8 million. His minimum annual bonus is $4 million (deferred). And there's ten$ of million$ in stocks and options. Of course now he's unemployed. I have no idea what his severance package looks like.

Well, it's certainly vacant. Too bad SS didn't make it in there. I mean after all, "deficits don't matter".

The fact that Cheney is a liar is "pretty well confirmed"

Yea, honest and forthright. What kind of politician does he think he is?

I agree but I do think it's odd that few were upset about sexism when the bombs being dropped by the press were about someone with "cankles" being called "witchy" and a "stereotypical bitch" and "emasculating" while taking over 700 words to discuss her cleavage. Beware of weeping reptiles.

The horror! Boy, I sure hope the spell "new clear" correctly

Yet I continue to hear that Obama's economic plan (which has more specifics than McCain's) comes closer to balancing than his opponent's. McCain's plan cuts revenues over ten years by $4.2 trillion. Obama's cuts revenues by $2.8 trillion. So (very) basically Obama's plan helps more people and costs less. Interesting.

Because there is an R in front of her name. Thats enough of a reason for the left. If I'm not mistaken, this investigation was already under way before she was nominated. The original date by which they were supposed to wrap up the investigation was some time around the last week of October. Not a good time to be dropping a verdict so they moved the date forward. If this is politically motivated with regard to the Presidential election then I'd have to say that I'm impressed that the Obama campaign new months ago that she needed to be targeted. But more to the point, on what grounds is she saying that she doesn't have to cooperate with an investigation that was already in progress? That's got Rove written all over it.

Your government is currently bailing out private and public/private banking entities in order to keep the world economy from completely collapsing. Yea, it's really bad.

Given recent history, no doubt, the VP.

I've been trying to think about how to reply to this thread. All I can say is that the right must be seriously afraid that their candidate sucks. Why are people afraid to talk about the economy, foreign policy, domestic policies, energy policy, education, etc.? I swear, if this crap carries into the debates and I hear "Oh no you dih-int" one damn time I might just....hell....I don't know what I'll do.

I'm not certain how the administration got to this point but it appears that they've (so far) made a good decision.

Ok, I'll admit it. I laughed, a lot. And this is probably a re-post but it's appropriate. Apparently Steve Goodie isn't the only one who's been thinking about it.

Mine was also a direct quote from factcheck.org.

I know this is really for another thread but I thought I'd point out that OPEC is cutting back on production because of higher inventories.

Only certain versions of the rumor were debunked. The underlying incidents that led to the rumor are valid. From the link: The librarian was fired, but was told only that Palin felt she didn’t support her. She was re-hired the next day. The librarian never claimed that Palin threatened outright to fire her for refusing to ban books. It’s true that Palin did raise the issue with Mary Ellen Emmons, Wasilla’s librarian, on at least two occasions, three in some versions. And while she hasn't been a "creationist pusher" with regard to legislation, she did state that she thought it should be taught in schools. So in both cases the rumor is basically an overblown representation of an actual event. See her "thanks but no thanks" talking point for a similar example.