SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : THE WHITE HOUSE -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: pompsander who wrote (23021)10/1/2008 2:47:27 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Respond to of 25737
 
Re: Ron Paul was right. Warren Buffett was right. No matter who is in charge next year we have to control discretionary spending, raise taxes, invest in infrastructure which will create local jobs and build payrolls. While we buy time to develop alternative energy and get our financial house in order the next few years will be rugged. All in all, it will be painful for a while. Can't be anything else. No matter who is President. Priority here or priority there....the "poisoned chalice" will be in the hands of the next government. They are stuck. We all are. As Steve would, say: "I rest my case".

True, true, true.

(And --- as I've already posted --- the House's defeat this week of the '$700 Billion Bush Bailout Bill illustrated a few interesting things in that regard as well....)

Among the ranks of the "No" votes were found some of the MOST LIBERAL House members, as well as some of the MOST CONSERVATIVE members (that was mostly the FISCALLY conservative kind of 'conservatives', not necessarily the other kind... the social conservatives, which are an altogether different kettle of fish).

The opposition to the Bush Bailout Plan was drawn from the far left and the far right extremes of the ideological spectrum... with nearly all of the remaining "No" votes simply drawn from the politicians who were at greatest risk of defeat in the upcoming election --- mostly the Freshmen (from both Parties) who were but narrowly and recently elected to their jobs, and who stand at greatest risk of loosing close reelection fights.

Thus: the 'craven' or the 'fearful' (perhaps the 'realists' if you will).... <GGG>