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.
Duration : 0:1:37
You are here : World Pace Web Portal » Financial » A Wall Street Bailout Bill
-
Related Articles From This Category
Subprime US Banking Financial Crisis Explained Part 3
Published On 10 May 2012http://www.informedtrades.com/ The 3rd and final lesson in a series on the subprime mortgage US Banking ...
Practical Money Skills for Life – Financial Literacy & Education Summit (audio only)
Published On 09 May 2012Practical Money Skills for Life - Financial Literacy & Education Summit (audio only) from Financial Literacy ...
‘Financial terrorists behind EU crisis’ Max Keiser on PressTV
Published On 27 Apr 2012Powerful banks such as Wall St. banks, Germany's Deutsche Bank and the Bank of England ...
Hale Dwoskin – The Past and the Future- Financial Liberation Retreat
Published On 24 Apr 2012Hale Dwoskin - The Past and the Future- Financial Liberation Retreat from The Sedona Method Compilation ...
Approving for Loans from an Online Lender
Published On 18 Apr 2012Given that the arrival of the large pace Internet, much more and a lot more ...
Categories
Pages
Links
-
Recent Articles
Archives
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
@arubberball
…
@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?
michelle obama?
michelle obama?
@vcdaniels so, your …
@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 …
@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 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 …
@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
…
@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.. …
@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 …
@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, …
@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, …
@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 …
@vcdaniels you can’t be that thick?
@shalcall : trained …
@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 …
@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 …
@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 …
@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 …
@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.
@shalcall : thx to …
@shalcall : thx to liberals – their “evolving constitution” and warfarism – the war declaration has become more or less obsolete and, starting with the Korean war, the US now was in a permanent state of wars with 500+ military bases in 100+ countries. (Also note that the founders had no problem using letter of marque for privateers to fight pirates or enemies -).
Now, LBJ’s war on poverty on the other hand was a explicit socialistic policy in that it served to achieve certain economic goals -
@shalcall : south. …
@shalcall : south. You see, the whole point the “declaration of war” was for congress to authorize raising money and army for your prez (aka, commander-in-chief). Again, up until the ww2, most Americans didn’t pay much taxes to begin with, partly b/c there was no permanent standing military (hence, no socialization at least by my definition). The exorbitant that we now pay didn’t even start until the ww2 when the payroll tax was first implemented (to reduce the money supply).
@shalcall : …
@shalcall : socialism vs. capitalism – we are talking about different types of economic systems. The judicial (small claims courts, judges), national defense (military), political (your representatives, senators) functions are not economic functions of your gov’t. In another word, the purpose of these gov’t functions isn’t to achieve some economic goals.
Historically speaking, the US didn’t really have much of a permanent standing army until the ww2 had ended – that’s also when everything went
@shalcall : ok. …
@shalcall : ok. your silly liberal definition is a bit messed up.
Under your rather very broad loose definition, even the Nazi’s were socialists, so were Saddam Hussein, Kim Il Sung, Pinochet, etc. In fact, any state with standing army (or any gov’t agencies like DMVs, Small Claims Court) is a socialistic gov’t – all feudal princes were, according to your definition, “socialistic”. We are all, umm, “socialists” using your logic.
Now, seriously – as I pointed out earlier, when we discuss
Obama is actually …
Obama is actually of the Stoic doctrine of philosophy, specifically Hegel’s version. This doctrine is the basis for ALL Socialism, Communism, Progressivism, Fascism, and Liberation Theology. This is why they all appear similar and folks keep using the various labels interchangeably ie he’s a communist, he’s a socialist, he’s a fascist. he’s a progressive, he’s a liberation theologist. The fact is he is a believer in the base doctrine for all these various sects.
@ …
@AngryStudioEngineer
When I was talking about Social-Fascist Crony Corporatists, I was speaking of Obama who IS the definition of a Fascist. Bush was one too.
Only Fascists speak of Public-Private Partnerships, Gov’t “investment” in private companies, bailouts and regulations that only their giant corporate friends can afford to comply with thus killing their smaller competition. Healthcare, wall street regulation, bailouts are ALL corporatist, all fascism.
@yakyakyak69 … …
@yakyakyak69 …you’re no better than Obama, putting down your fellow Americans, the innocent people who work hard daily while this lying leech Obama parades around the world blaming them for his and other government officials actions. Never in the history of this nation has there been even one president who slandered, defamed and attacked other Americans, simply because they were smarter than he was. ONLY OBAMA IS THAT CHILDISH & INEXPERIENCED! An experienced person would know its wrong!
America, we really …
America, we really need to have a law passed stating, If someone who is running for government office does not adhere to the promises they made or if they lie, like Obama did, telling the American people whatever it was they needed to hear, just to get into the door, then goes directly against those promises in an attempt at destroying this nation, we should be able to have them removed. As of right now over 80% of the nation would like to see Obama removed, 80% should be that mark.
this video is a …
this video is a outright lie??/ how can they do this?
yang wall si sukarsa. RT class=” ” Wahib?? Bapaknya siapa tu? LOLRT class=” ” besok akreditasinya tin class=” ” .
the one Bush thinks is temporary, but is really a Berlin Wall for our time
I agree with much of what you say usually, but the difference between this wall and the Berlin wall is that this wall is intended to keep foreigners *out*, while the Berlin wall was intended to keep East Germans *in*. It's the difference between a prison and a border policy.
]]>
the one Bush thinks is temporary, but is really a Berlin Wall for our time
I agree with much of what you say usually, but the difference between this wall and the Berlin wall is that this wall is intended to keep foreigners *out*, while the Berlin wall was intended to keep East Germans *in*. It's the difference between a prison and a border policy.
]]>