Friday, January 29, 2010

Bernanke reappointed, more reason to dump Dodd & Lieberman

Unsurprisingly, Senator Dodd (Political Class - CT) and Senator Lieberman (Political Class - CT) both voted against the middle class today. As is their custom, they voted in favor of Wall Street.

By a vote of 70 - 30, the Chairman of America's number one crime syndicate central bank, Ben Bernanke, was reappointed.

What does this mean?

It means... Obama needs to go. Dodd needs to go. Lieberman needs to go. The whole gang needs to go.

The ridiculous thing is when supporters argue that Bernanke "saved" America in a time of crisis. This argument reminds me of people who advocate clemency for criminals. Just ask Mike Huckabee how well that works out.

And how many times has the Administration spoken of how "we don't reward failure"?

Absolutely pathetic.

Tim White


Jeff in Cheshire said...

How's that "break from blogging" treating you? :)

Anonymous said...

Well Bush appointed him first and let's see, the vote was 70-30, that means some R folk voted for him...

Anonymous said...

It is so easy to "no".

The problem national Reps have is that "no" is not an alternative. Coming up with solutions is. Newt understands this; why don't the rest? Boehner was a joke today. Was letting the banks fail an acceptable alternative? Not one the Reps wanted to live with either.

No one liked the bailout. The question is, was it necessary? If you say no, you are not avowing Rep ideals either; they supported it too. Tim: stop calling yourself a Rep and call yourself a tea-party representative, if labels are that important to you.

tim white said...

Modern day Tea Parties started on December 16, 2007. It was a money bomb for Presidential candidate Ron Paul. I donated that day.

Call me what you will. But I take an oath to the Constitution... the same Constitution that requires sound money.

Deleverage America by transitioning away from fractional-reserve banking and end fiat money.

That's my solution. And it would work. But if you read my posts of late September 2008, you'd know I acknowledged there'd be pain either way... "pain now or pain later."

I suggested taking the pain then, because I firmly believe that if we had done so the worst would be behind us and the economy would be improving at this point.