Speak Out: JO ANN EMERSON VOTES...AGAINST...9/11 WORKERS AT GROUND ZERO... BUT, SHE DOES TAKE CARE OF HER WALL STREET BANKER FRIENDS....

Replies (13)

• How could anyone vote against the people who sacrificed their lives after 9-1-1! Representative Emerson says one thing and does another. Her coldness at that time is a reminder to Missourians. Even the responders from all over the country who gave of their time and health during that national tragedy are disgraced by a lack of moral compass in Washington. Why would anyone put money above national honor. Emerson takes the hard line when she wants to appear congressional and true to her Party, but comes back home to Missouri and pretends to care. I hope our District can see through such manipulation and vote in new blood.

  -- Posted by rollastjames on Tue, Oct 5, 2010, at 2:59 PM

• Inimicus Globalist wrote:

  "Wow, Republican Globalists do not mind spending like crazy to go to war with Iraq and Afghanistan,..."

  Fighting wars is a legitimate business of government, as outlined in the Constitution. Providing health care is not. Bailout out the states is not.

  The Bailouts, as enacted by President Bush, were similar in design to previous bailouts, such as Penn Central Railroad, Chrysler (the first time, under President Carter), Lockeheed, and the United States National Savings Bank. Those bailouts were leveraged and were paid back. There have been others, such as the Savings and Loan bailout, that we did not recoup fully.

  Nearly every penny that was lent under the 'Bush Bailout' has been repaid, with interest. However, rather than reduce the deficit with the returned monies, the Democrats in Congress have opted to reuse it, primarily for 'mortgage bailouts'.

  Now, I have posted, here and elsewhere, that I thought the bailouts were a bad idea. I do believe that President Bush so no other option. You will recall that he called a meeting of the principle presidental contenders, McCain and Obama, for their input on the issue. Mr. Obama, however, decided he was too busy campaigning to be bother attending with such a trivial matter.

  Nonetheless, if the loaned funds were returned (and they were), then they come ultimately at no cost to the government, excepting that the Congress, as this one did, opted to waste the returned capital.

  So the question, to me, is not whether Ms. Emerson voted for the bailout package, which was to be returned to the treasury, but rather whether she voted with Ms. Pelosi, et. al., to 'reinvest' the returned monies in riskier ventures, such as bailout out overvalued mortgages.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 5, 2010, at 3:20 PM

• Much of the monies were 'loaned' in the form of loan guarantees, which is to say the money was not disbursed.

  Current estimates are that the U.S. will lose $30 billion on the Troubled Asset Relief Programme, which is less than 10% of the initial estimates. TARP does not include Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, which were separate issues and whose mortgages were already guaranteed by the government.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 5, 2010, at 3:50 PM

• I G, Allow me to go back to right after the Poplar Bluff tea party and admit that I jumped on your case a bit. I know who Eddie Justice is but do not know him. Another Eddie that I know very well was involved in that and I still stand by what I said back then. The Eddie I know was just as surprised as I was to see the rally turn into an all Emerson on your side event. [I know that is another thread, but sometimes I like to save a few steps by combining tasks]

  I used my dislexic reading abilities to scan down this thread, and I think Shapley's rebuttals overshadow your "toss it in the fan and see what comes back" approach to discredit Emerson for all concerns. Try again?

  -- Posted by Old John on Wed, Oct 6, 2010, at 12:43 AM

• I don't see it that way at all Old John,the previous bailouts shapely hunter mention were much more structured ( and were actually paid back 100%)..............

  -- Posted by rockman54 on Wed, Oct 6, 2010, at 1:53 AM

• Follow the money. Where did they get the money to pay those bailouts?

  -- Posted by Old John on Wed, Oct 6, 2010, at 1:57 AM

• At least her front porch is clean.

  -- Posted by insider63785 on Wed, Oct 6, 2010, at 7:28 AM

• Spaniard wrote:

  "Shapley, where does the govt get its authority to buy stock from private corporations?"

  I didn't say they did. I merely pointed out that the precedent has been in place for a long time. The same was used by President Carter when he bailed out Chrysler before, but even he did not create the concept, since President Nixon had bailed out railroads, Lockheed, etc., using a similar model. Constitutional or not, President Bush did not create the model.

  To be sure, we would up taking control of the Penn Central Railroad, along with several others, which became Conrail. We did, eventually, unload that back into the private sector, but it took many years to do so.

  We also bailed out New York City, if you'll recall, in 1986. I have no idea what collateral was used there.

  It took us seven years to get shed of Continental Illinois Bank and Trust, which was 'bailed out' back in 1984. The government owned about 80% of the bank in that venture.

  Nor do I defend anything with an 'R' beside it. I dont' know how many times I've said I opposed the bailout. I was merely pointing out that the bailouts, as enacted by President Bush, differed from the bailouts as being implemented by Mr. Obama. I don't feel the need to provide a legal disclaimer everytime I post on the subject.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Oct 6, 2010, at 10:51 AM

• You people that keep trashing your representatives are dilusional, believing only what you see on CBS, NBS, CNBC and the liberal media. Did you actually read the bill that was voted on? Did you see all the other unrelated pork projects tacked on the bill to get it put to a vote so it would pass? You obviously are totally unaware of how the legislative, political process really works. Do us a favor, next time you trash a representative for what you read, do your research on what actually occurred, not just what was reported by the press or the White House. There is more to it than meets the eye.

  -- Posted by jadip4me on Wed, Oct 6, 2010, at 12:14 PM

• OMG...here we go again with the Bush bashing. The year is now 2010. Obama is now President. It is now his responsibility just as it was Reagan's to clean up Carter's mess. There it is!

  -- Posted by jadip4me on Wed, Oct 6, 2010, at 12:17 PM

• Maybe Lemmie you can help me out. I dont remember seeing any pictures or news clips of the first responders asking President Bush if the environment was safe. From what I saw they just did their job and responded.

  -- Posted by Mowrangler on Wed, Oct 6, 2010, at 12:54 PM

• Thanks for putting us back on topic, Rick

  -- Posted by Knoblickian on Wed, Oct 6, 2010, at 1:02 PM

• ANOTHER MARXIST HEARD FROM. A LOT OF THESE CREEPS AROUND ANYMORE BUT NOT FOR LONG.

  -- Posted by smartchoice on Wed, Oct 6, 2010, at 2:28 PM