Under Bush's Watch

[Joseph Burkeson, CMI]

US debt clock runs out of digits



Until last month, the clock had enough digits to measure US debt levels


The US government's debts have ballooned so badly the National Debt Clock in New York has run out of digits to record the spiralling figure.

The digital counter marks the national debt level, but when that passed the $10 trillion point last month, the sign could not display the full amount.

The board was erected to highlight the $2.7 trillion level of debt in 1989.
The clock's owners say two more zeros will be added, allowing the clock to record a quadrillion dollars of debt.

Douglas Durst, son of the late Seymour Durst - the clock's inventor - hopes to replace the Manhattan clock with its lengthier replacement early next year.

For the time being, the Times Square counter's electronic dollar sign has been replaced with the extra digit required. For its part, the digital dollar symbol has been supplanted by a cheaper version - perhaps a sign of the times for the American economy. Some economists believe the $700bn bail-out plan for ailing US financial institutions could send the national debt level to $11 trillion.

[Joseph Burkeson, CMI]

It appears that the worst is yet to come from the administration y'all love to hate! I got to believe that Karl Marx is spinning in his glass aquarium tonight laughing at this century's New Communist... GW Bush.

==================================================

White House considers ownership stakes in banks
Wednesday October 8, 11:56 pm ET
By Martin Crutsinger, AP Economics Writer

White House considers taking ownership stakes in private banks to deal with credit crisis

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration is considering taking ownership stakes in a number of U.S. banks as one option it might use to deal with a serious credit crisis, an administration official said Wednesday.

This official, who spoke late Wednesday on condition of anonymity because no decision has been made, said the $700 billion rescue package passed by Congress last week allows the Treasury Department to inject fresh capital into financial institutions and get ownership shares in return.

This official said that all the new powers granted in the legislation were being considered as the administration seeks to deal with a serious credit crisis that has already caused the biggest upheavals on Wall Street in seven decades.

A decision to inject capital directly into financial institutions in return for ownership stakes would be similar to a plan announced earlier Wednesday by Britain.

Read all about the government takeover of your bank here: http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081008/meltdown_paulson.html

[Nick Gromicko]

And not a single terrorist attack in 2600 days.

[Stephen W. Stanczyk]

Originally Posted by gromicko

And not a single terrorist attack in 2600 days.

So other than attacks carried out by our own citizens (whether they were militias, mormons, indians or radicals), that makes 2 attacks on the World Trade Center on US proper soil since when..... the mid 1800's and the Mexican-American War? Of course you can count other US properties...... Pearl Harbor, the embassies that were attacked, USS Cole. All on foreign soil that does not have the security that we have on the mainland.

Of course in 2005 alone, there were almost 14,000 gun related homicides. Hmmm. That's more than double both World Trade Center bombings, Pearl Harbor, USS Cole and all embassy attacks combined.

You will find wackos all over the world. We have them, other countries have them.

But the "Be Afraid" campaign that the Republican party has continually run over the last 20 years has worn thin and the public is tired of being told the Republican Party is their only salvation.

[kpierce]

Originally Posted by jburkeson1

It appears that the worst is yet to come from the administration y'all love to hate! I got to believe that Karl Marx is spinning in his glass aquarium tonight laughing at this century's New Communist... GW Bush.

==================================================

White House considers ownership stakes in banks
Wednesday October 8, 11:56 pm ET
By Martin Crutsinger, AP Economics Writer

White House considers taking ownership stakes in private banks to deal with credit crisis

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration is considering taking ownership stakes in a number of U.S. banks as one option it might use to deal with a serious credit crisis, an administration official said Wednesday.

This official, who spoke late Wednesday on condition of anonymity because no decision has been made, said the $700 billion rescue package passed by Congress last week allows the Treasury Department to inject fresh capital into financial institutions and get ownership shares in return.

This official said that all the new powers granted in the legislation were being considered as the administration seeks to deal with a serious credit crisis that has already caused the biggest upheavals on Wall Street in seven decades.

A decision to inject capital directly into financial institutions in return for ownership stakes would be similar to a plan announced earlier Wednesday by Britain.

Read all about the government takeover of your bank here: http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081008/meltdown_paulson.html

And the McSame supporters keep saying Obama is the socialist. Yes, I know, Bush isn't running.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by sstanczyk

Of course in 2005 alone, there were almost 14,000 gun related homicides. Hmmm. That's more than double both World Trade Center bombings, Pearl Harbor, USS Cole and all embassy attacks combined.

For you to equate the lawful personal ownership of guns in this country with the attack of terrorists with the stated purpose of destroying us makes me questions your reasoning skills.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by kpierce

And the McSame supporters keep saying Obama is the socialist. Yes, I know, Bush isn't running.

It's because he is.

Is it that hard for you too see that.

[Greg Bell]

Originally Posted by gromicko

And not a single terrorist attack in 2600 days.

Why should they attack anymore? We are destroying ourselves without any help from them.

[nwagner]

Originally Posted by gromicko

And not a single terrorist attack in 2600 days.

There hasn't been a single terrorist attack since my son was born. I guess we can credit him for stopping the terrorists too.

[nwagner]

Originally Posted by kpierce

And the McSame supporters keep saying Obama is the socialist. Yes, I know, Bush isn't running.

McSame ain't too far right of Obama and fully supports this socialist scam, so you have made a valid point in my book.

[Joseph Burkeson, CMI]

Originally Posted by gromicko

And not a single terrorist attack in 2600 days.

And what a price we have paid for that security. By the time we finally usher Bush out of office we will have suffered losses that we as a nation will never regain in our lifetime. Obama - 08

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security - Benjamin Franklin

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jburkeson1

And what a price we have paid for that security. By the time we finally usher Bush out of office we will have suffered losses that we as a nation will never regain in our lifetime. Obama - 08

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security - Benjamin Franklin

What flavor is the koolaide today?

[Joseph Burkeson, CMI]

Originally Posted by mlarson

What flavor is the koolaide today?

Obama: I can take attacks, America can't take McCain-Bush

"I can take four more weeks of John McCain’s attacks, but the American people can’t take four more years of John McCain’s Bush policies," Obama said.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jburkeson1

Obama: I can take attacks, America can't take McCain-Bush

Maybe not.

Whiner in Chief with Charlie Gibson.

[James H. Bushart]

There have been periods in our history when the leadership...bipartisan...has stepped in to take care of American citizens.

Knowing that a government can only govern with the consent of those who are governed, sometimes a government has to stop feeding itself and share some of the buffet with the people who are paying for it.

Mike would have us to believe that this is called "Socialism".

He would have had a fit in the '30s when Roosevelt used tax dollars to create government jobs to put unemployed men on the government payroll to get them out of breadlines. Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty" in the late sixties would have him shivering in his britches, as well.

FDRs most famous socialistic program bearing the name of Socialism...called Social Security....still exists, today. At the time it was instituted, the average life span was 60 years and those who made it to 65 would have money to keep a roof over thier heads for their remaining few years. Today...with the life span shooting towards 80...it's vacation money for Florida, for some. But there are still those who depend upon it to keep from a diet of cat food.

It's very easy for people who "have" to argue that a government has no duty to those who "have not"...but the French Revolution and American Revolution has taught those who govern differently.

A government requires the consent of its citizens to stay in power and it does not acquire that for very long if it does not ensure their well being.