A Wall Street Bailout Bill
http://www.heritage.org The financial bill sponsored by Senator Dodd (D-CT) does not provide real reform and is riddled with flaws, including sustaining the “too big to fail” culture that led to the financial crisis.
source
Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]
The only specific plan Obama has laid out is his plan to redistribute the wealth
don't slouch, stand straight.
No more bailouts. Search "Bankrupt Is The New Black" and join the movement.
Why does the Heritage foundation treat its viewers like idiots?
Read pages 1039-1040 of Dodd's bill. They're trying to take your personal checking and savings accounts folks. Simultaneously, a lot of discussion on how they can get their hands on your pensions/401Ks. Greece and a few more EU slave countries are simply pilot programs for all this. The U.S. is the big prize though and will not be far behind. My advice: 1) stop direct dep. of your paycheck(assuming you have a job) 2) get a paper check instead and cash it 3) buy silver and pay all bills in cash.
@arubberball
Voiceovers . . . . not the same thing. The video would've been just as effective if it had just a voiceover.
And I don't see how massages have anything to do with this.
But anywho . . . maybe Heritage didn't get her permission to use her likeness in the video. That's usually the only reason someone would go through the expense of showing an actor without actually showing the actor's face. So she can't sue. Otherwise, it's just wasteful. Why not just go with a voiceover?
@vcdaniels so, your saying every video, or commercial has to show the person face to give it creditability? with your thinking, this would eliminate voice-overs entirely. most people will attack the massager, when they can't disprove, or argue the message.
@arubberball
I'm looking for that and I don't see it anywhere. I've scrolled up and down 8 times and YouTube highlights all of your comments so it should be easy to spot. But it does remind me of pornos or other videos where you don't want your identity associated with the content and so they have your face cropped off, digitized, blacked out, blurred or otherwise censored. I mean, if you're proud of what you're saying and you believe in it, don't hide your face – hold your head up & say it.
@vcdaniels "TELL IT, COLORED LADY WITH NO HEAD!! Proudly display your belief in this ad by cropping your identity at the shoulders!" is this your comment? if so you are indeed thick. love people who only see things through the black and white prism. her race has nothing to do with the video.
@arubberball
Whatever do you mean? From what I see on the all comments page for this video, I didn't make a comment.
@shalcall : wow.. let's see. I have provided detailed historical facts and citation (Christina Romer's recent work and PBS's program on neocons) to prove that you have no idea (though I'm skeptical that you have any background in banking/money background to understand it). You got some balls to come back and claim that I don't know much about mainstream economics b/c I presented some additional fact that criticizes your religion (ie, liberalism).
Well, let's not waste time.
@shalcall : of course, that's precisely my point – your claim that the ownership of military as being "socialistic" makes nonsense. Under your broad definition, pretty much every gov't would be "socialistic".
Furthermore, I have demonstrated that US military in the WW2 era didn't possess the characteristics of socialism – in that the US wasn't always the kind of militaristic empire it is now and there wasn't much military to speak of.
@shalcall : ok, here we go again – if you want to learn about the origin of neoconservatives – go watch PBS's "Arguing the World". I have summarized this many times here – they were once trotskyites who became influential intellectual figures under JFK+LBJ – Patrick Moynihan (as JFK's undersec of labor), Nathan Bell, Daniel Glazer, Irving Kristol, etc. They switched their political party in mid-80's from the demo party to the repubs at Reagan's invitation (starting with Jean Kirkpatrick)
@tooltalk Look, thanks for being somewhat civil, but I think you're a bit crazy. To blame any political decision with negative consequences as liberal and to say "modern liberalism is the root of all problems" is just nuts with no support whatsoever in reality. To call neoconservatives under the Bush administration liberals makes me fear what you think actual conservatism is.
We are not going to agree, you are too far out there and you don't know much about mainstream economics.
@vcdaniels you can't be that thick?
@shalcall : trained bureaucrats know how to run your life better than you could?
No, i'ts pointless to blame one political party over another – I'm saying that modern liberalism is at the root of all problems (neoconservatives under Bush for instance are hardcore warfare/welfare liberals who were once influential under JFK/LBJ.) Political parties are mere vehicle for promoting ideas, nothing more.
@shalcall : are you denying that liberals believe in the notion of "as-you-go" constitution? or that libs' support of global gov'ts – be it the UN, NATO – and their roles in so-called peace missions in places like Somalia, Serbia, Sudan etc? Are you saying that this has nothing to do with internationalism pioneered by Wilson, JFK, LBJ? Do u not see that liberals' intervention in all things economics and geo-political matters are based on fallacious belief that a few wise, benevolent Ivy
@tooltalk How you can blame our military expansion during the 20th century on liberals alone is beyond me. I'm not a fan of war, probably because I'm a veteran of the current one. You're not going to find me defending police actions in Korea, Vietnam or Iraq. But I will say that all of those actions had broad bipartisan support. I agree we should spend much less money on defense.
But I think you'd have to be blind to think that one side is responsible for our military industrial complex.
@shalcall : by providing direct monetary (or in-kind) payments & subsidies to single-mothers, elders, students, disabled, farmers, artists, and other special interests groups (like GM or wall street)… And these are what make your gov't socialistic.
@tooltalk First of all, North Korea (Kim Il Sung) is a socialist country. It uses a socialist economic system. Politically it is a dictatorship. Nazi Germany was politically fascist, but clearly had a mixed economy as well. This is not a "liberal" definition, it's simply the definition. I never said we're all socialists. I said the U.S. had a mixed economy with varying degrees of capitalism and socialism depending on the sector. It's mostly capitalism.