Clinton ultimately did sign the papers, regardless of who was pushing for it.
His scandal with Lewinsky (among other women) probably weakened him to a point where he had to make some more new powerful friends, especially with folks as close to him as Al Gore distancing themselves from him.
Letting his personal issues affect his duties is not something that should be taken lightly.

As for the bailout money, it's coming from the tax payer. But you know what? It had to come from somewhere and the bailout had to happen. Where else would you be able to get that sort of money?

Originally Posted by Korean Seaboy

he's not a lame duck and sits around his office, thinking about the quality of his meals.

LOl...how do you know this???...I'm sure he does alot of sitting around hehehee...

Originally Posted by A Can of Man

Clinton ultimately did sign the papers, regardless of who was pushing for it.
His scandal with Lewinsky (among other women) probably weakened him to a point where he had to make some more new powerful friends, especially with folks as close to him as Al Gore distancing themselves from him.
Letting his personal issues affect his duties is not something that should be taken lightly.

As for the bailout money, it's coming from the tax payer. But you know what? It had to come from somewhere and the bailout had to happen. Where else would you be able to get that sort of money?

You are absolutely correct that the bailout is being funded by the taxpayer. However, I try to be a responsible consumer. I have always paid my mortgage on time. What I would like to know is how come the government rewards people who make bad decisions. Why not reward those of us who have been responsible. Maybe I should stop paying my mortgage and ask the government for some money.

Not sure that the bailout HAD to happen. No entity should EVER get "too big to fail". They should have done the forclosures. Another bank would have bought the mortgages it thought were safe. The banks buy and sell morgages all the time. I have had three different mortgage companies for my house. Bottom line is that a lot of people made bad financial decisions, they are NOT being held accountable, and YOU and I are the ones paying for it.

If the bailout had not happened, even those of us who were good would be in trouble. Land values would plummet, banks would have folded, our stocks would have taken a huge hit... and none of that would have recovered yet, probably would still be dropping.

Yeah, people like to talk like things would be about the same, just with less money if the bailout had not happened. Actually, I think chaos would have fallen across the country and as a result, throughout the world as well.
No entity should ever get "too big to fail" but you know what? Under free market capitalism there is no limit as to how big a company should get or how rich an individual should get. So it's a judgement call. Do you want some kind of "cap" on size etc? It's not completely without precedence. Major League Soccer introduced the wage cap system to ensure that the teams did not end up bankrupting themselves and the league. Worked like a charm and it made the MLS viable and stable in a country where soccer is very low on the list of sports that people follow. However, I'm sure it'll make any free market purist's stomach turn.

I don't like the arrangement either. These corporations are smart. In many ways they're holding everyone hostage. If they go down, they bring the entire house down with them so at the end of the day, they can only win and cannot lose. But I think we're starting to realize that it's free market capitalism at work. So we can just go ahead and not bail them out and risk a complete breakdown in society or we can bail them out.

The stuff that happened in Indonesia back in 1998 is basically a small sample of what would happen if the economy actually collapsed and bailout for some reason could not happen.

Originally Posted by A Can of Man

...
Major League Soccer introduced the wage cap system to ensure that the teams did not end up bankrupting themselves and the league. Worked like a charm and it made the MLS viable and stable in a country where soccer is very low on the list of sports that people follow. However, I'm sure it'll make any free market purist's stomach turn.
...

Three words. New York Yankees
Three More. Boston Red Sox

Originally Posted by A Can of Man

I don't like the arrangement either. These corporations are smart. In many ways they're holding everyone hostage. If they go down, they bring the entire house down with them so at the end of the day, they can only win and cannot lose. But I think we're starting to realize that it's free market capitalism at work. So we can just go ahead and not bail them out and risk a complete breakdown in society or we can bail them out.

The stuff that happened in Indonesia back in 1998 is basically a small sample of what would happen if the economy actually collapsed and bailout for some reason could not happen.

I think that we need to change the rules. Only funding you get for running for office should be from the government. Level the playing field and stop the corporations from funding election campaigns. Once the politicians take money from anyone other than a private citizen, they pollute the political system. I'm for free markets but... I think that financial regulations are too convoluted. They are that way for a reason, the lawyers/politicians want them that way. Same thing with the tax code.
I say fire them all and start again. I am getting too jaded about Washington. All I can do is email my representatives and sigh. What IS the US coming to?

The point I made about the MLS is how some regulations could make these soccer teams (which are businesses) who run very expensive assets could be stabilized. In some European countries where there is a lot of regulation but surprisingly little regulation for soccer teams, a few high profile names had actually gone out of business. They were just not doing very well and their rivals were spending A LOT of money and they had to match it in order to stay competitive. Eventually they went bankrupt.

The changes you think are a good idea in the second part of the last post is actually very close to some European models. I think a few have limitations on how much air time they can get, where their money comes from, how much they can actually spend etc. I think it is a good idea to avoid our politicians from becoming corporate front men but if you tried to suggest this, people would scream socialism followed by hours of rhetoric about the wonders of the free market, freedom etc etc etc. I don't think politicians should even be allowed to take money from private citizens except through government tax (that is, after all, how they'd get their wages) because what's the difference between Microsoft sponsoring a guy and Bill Gates sponsoring the same guy? Nothing.
And for chrissakes, no negative ads. They make me sick.
I think pay for these politicians should be high or else they'd be too motivated to become corrupt but anything they receive outside of their pay should be scrutinized very closely with heavy penalties.
And bar them from any other employment while active as a politician. It's too easy for a major company to "hire" them as a "consultant" and pay them millions to get their way.

Amen, Can of Man. I would go even a step further. If you want to run for office, you have to give up the seat you are currently sitting in. John Kerry from MA never left his seat when he ran for Pres. So while he is campaigning nothing getting done for the people he is representing. If I was a resident of his district, I would have sued him to get back the money he was paid while he was on the campaign trail. He can afford it look at his wife. Its the principle. You think my boss would pay me to spend time away from work to look for another job? Not in this lifetime partner.

Absolutely.
I agree. You're either on the job or you're not.

He's another ass warming the same chair. The same exact paper tiger that all US presidents have been since Reagan.

The problem with our screwed up political system is that we never know if the president is doing a good job or a bad job, as we never get all the information. Hell, most of the time we just get outright lied to.

I love some of the directions he's taking, and I hate others. I have very few shrugs of the shoulder when it comes to leading the most powerful nation on Earth. I don't think he's the right man for the job, but since I haven't a better alternative, I've no right to suggest that he be replaced. At this point, I'm not sure we HAVE a better man for the job. If we do, he's likely strayed far away from politics.

He'd be getting a higher grade from me if he'd start listening to the majority vote of his peoples' wishes. Even those things I vehemently detest I will agree on if that's the will of the majority of the citizenship.

But there has been no "change." The government is still beyond the rules, still untouchable and unaccountable to all the checks and balances we the citizens are held to. They still do what they want regardless of the majority vote, and they still cater to special interests and line their pockets while pretending to give a crap about what we're going through trying to pay the rent so our kids don't become yet another homeless statistic.

Until we get a president that puts his or her foot down on all of that, I'll never be satisfied with anyone we elect.