Presidential Candidate Thread: Is Ron Paul good for the country?
- Thread starter Adam_IHB
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
EvaLSeraphim_IHB
New member
Believe it or not, on the whole, I don't have a problem with that - and I don't think most people do, until their own ox is being gored. Are you at all familiar with The K Street Project?
awgee_IHB
New member
<p>No, sorry, I am unfamiliar with the K Street Project.</p>
<p>But, if it helps, I am an Enrolled Agent and derive some of my income from audit representation and tax return preparation. I am fine with eliminating the IRS, which would also eliminate my EA license and probably eliminate my tax business.</p>
<p>But, if it helps, I am an Enrolled Agent and derive some of my income from audit representation and tax return preparation. I am fine with eliminating the IRS, which would also eliminate my EA license and probably eliminate my tax business.</p>
EvaLSeraphim - Ronald Reagan used to advocate doing away with all withholding taxes and make all taxes due annually. The idea behind the proposal was that if people saw what they were paying in Federal income taxes as a lump sum, they would demand that government reduce it's scope.
As for what ShizuMaru said about a government bailout of Citibank, Morgan Stanley, and ETrade, I must have missed the news about the government doing this. Perhaps a link is in order.
As for the war, if ShizuMaru is upset about taxes being spent for a war he(?) didn't vote for, perhaps he should run for Congress so he can vote...
As for what ShizuMaru said about a government bailout of Citibank, Morgan Stanley, and ETrade, I must have missed the news about the government doing this. Perhaps a link is in order.
As for the war, if ShizuMaru is upset about taxes being spent for a war he(?) didn't vote for, perhaps he should run for Congress so he can vote...
No_Such_Reality_IHB
New member
Exactly Winex. If people had to write the check monthly, they would scream.
Nude_IHB
New member
<p>awgee, and others-</p>
<p>I'm all for less government spending, a smaller government in general, and a return to the Federal Republic from the near Socialist Democracy in which we now live. However, I also want to know what the plan is before I support a change. I want to know what the next step is and what is the intended effect. What I read and hear from RP is broad calls for a return to the Constitution, but little of what happens when we get there. He's previously introduced legislation to repeal various Constitutional amendments, arguing that they aren't "constitutional". Umm...what? On healthcare he argues for an adjustment of the tax code to allow individuals to claim the same tax breaks for health care spending that companies currently get. Ok... but how does that work when you are trying to repeal the 16th Amendment?</p>
<p>There are other examples but that's enough to make my point: He's got no plan other than to turn back the clock. As screwed up as it is, our society has come to depend on a functional national government, and we will have riots in the streets if someone doesn't have a suitable plan to wean us off the tit of Mother Government. You worry about mob rule now? Think about an entire sector of our country suddenly unemployed, another cut off from all current subsidies, and all the people that will be cut off from other forms of welfare, healthcare, and employment. Not to mention the current state of the national governement's balance sheet; how are we going to fund payments on all the debt we have to service? If we default, what does that do to the world's economy and our own in the face of open hostility from our former trade partners?</p>
<p>The "Founding Fathers" created the constitution with the intent of forming a government that would not just protect their generation but be able to meet the changes that the future holds, and Article V of that document proves it. And yet RP acts as if our govenment has been hijacked by communists and he is coming to save the day. This idealistic view of our country is enticing, I'll admit, but it isn't responsible, practical, or achievable without the kind of societal upheaval that causes civil war. And as long as there is a large enough portion of our population that owes it's existence to the Federal Government, as long as businesses rely on the very financial framework in which the current tax laws create, as long as we have debts that we are legally bound to pay, and assuming he manages to get anything through an opposing congress, a civil war would be the most likely result of Ron Paul's stated (to-date) plans if he becomes President.</p>
<p>Show me a plan that accounts for the results of change, and maybe I'll jump on the bandwagon. Ask for my blind support based on rhetoric and idealism and all you're getting from me is the finger. I voted for Bush twice because the other side was worse, but now my standards are higher. I want a plan, one with details and contingencies; save the bullshit for your rallies. And for those who think candidates with a plan are a problem, I'd invite you to peruse the debates of our past Presidents during their campaigns; I think you'll be surprised at how many of the great ones had "plans" to go along with their idealism.</p>
<p>I'm all for less government spending, a smaller government in general, and a return to the Federal Republic from the near Socialist Democracy in which we now live. However, I also want to know what the plan is before I support a change. I want to know what the next step is and what is the intended effect. What I read and hear from RP is broad calls for a return to the Constitution, but little of what happens when we get there. He's previously introduced legislation to repeal various Constitutional amendments, arguing that they aren't "constitutional". Umm...what? On healthcare he argues for an adjustment of the tax code to allow individuals to claim the same tax breaks for health care spending that companies currently get. Ok... but how does that work when you are trying to repeal the 16th Amendment?</p>
<p>There are other examples but that's enough to make my point: He's got no plan other than to turn back the clock. As screwed up as it is, our society has come to depend on a functional national government, and we will have riots in the streets if someone doesn't have a suitable plan to wean us off the tit of Mother Government. You worry about mob rule now? Think about an entire sector of our country suddenly unemployed, another cut off from all current subsidies, and all the people that will be cut off from other forms of welfare, healthcare, and employment. Not to mention the current state of the national governement's balance sheet; how are we going to fund payments on all the debt we have to service? If we default, what does that do to the world's economy and our own in the face of open hostility from our former trade partners?</p>
<p>The "Founding Fathers" created the constitution with the intent of forming a government that would not just protect their generation but be able to meet the changes that the future holds, and Article V of that document proves it. And yet RP acts as if our govenment has been hijacked by communists and he is coming to save the day. This idealistic view of our country is enticing, I'll admit, but it isn't responsible, practical, or achievable without the kind of societal upheaval that causes civil war. And as long as there is a large enough portion of our population that owes it's existence to the Federal Government, as long as businesses rely on the very financial framework in which the current tax laws create, as long as we have debts that we are legally bound to pay, and assuming he manages to get anything through an opposing congress, a civil war would be the most likely result of Ron Paul's stated (to-date) plans if he becomes President.</p>
<p>Show me a plan that accounts for the results of change, and maybe I'll jump on the bandwagon. Ask for my blind support based on rhetoric and idealism and all you're getting from me is the finger. I voted for Bush twice because the other side was worse, but now my standards are higher. I want a plan, one with details and contingencies; save the bullshit for your rallies. And for those who think candidates with a plan are a problem, I'd invite you to peruse the debates of our past Presidents during their campaigns; I think you'll be surprised at how many of the great ones had "plans" to go along with their idealism.</p>
IrvineCommuter_IHB
New member
<p>Paul lost me when Bernake was in front of him the other day. Instead of asking any serious questions or seek solutions, he basically stood on a soap box and complained. That is not what I want as a leader. </p>
<p>I think Paul, like Perot in 1992, has a lot of interesting ideas and believes that all well be good if he pulls a few levers and turn off some switches. Unfortunately, I believe that the world is much more complicated then that. Instead of a puzzle to be put together, I see the situation to be like a a Jenga block thingy. You can pull some blocks out with little or no consequences while removal of other blocks can lead to disaster. The problem is no one is quite sure which block one can or cannot pull. </p>
<p>One example is Paul's stated intention to pull back troops from other parts of the world. The U.S. does have vested interests in maintaining stability in various parts of the world and to pull back from those interests would be extremely harmful. </p>
<p>I think Paul, like Perot in 1992, has a lot of interesting ideas and believes that all well be good if he pulls a few levers and turn off some switches. Unfortunately, I believe that the world is much more complicated then that. Instead of a puzzle to be put together, I see the situation to be like a a Jenga block thingy. You can pull some blocks out with little or no consequences while removal of other blocks can lead to disaster. The problem is no one is quite sure which block one can or cannot pull. </p>
<p>One example is Paul's stated intention to pull back troops from other parts of the world. The U.S. does have vested interests in maintaining stability in various parts of the world and to pull back from those interests would be extremely harmful. </p>
lendingmaestro_IHB
New member
<p>Why don't we just pull all of our troops out of every freakin country and station them in the US. Put them on the borders, in airports, allow them to enforce LEGAL immigration. Let the religious fanatics have their deserts and Kim Jung Il his cold palaces. I could give a rat's ass if I saw a marine in full camo holding his M-16. In fact I'd feel safer. And so would he. This seems to be drastic, and it probably is, but I am sick and tired of worrying about other people's problems when we can't even maintain our own country.</p>
<p>We've got thousands of troops in Iraq chasing around people that we can't identify as friend or foe. Meanwhile middle-eastern terrorists are learning english and Spanish, sneaking across our borders through Mexico and setting up shop in our backyards. I believe Ayman al-Zawahri and Bin Laden's brother shared an apartment in Orange for several years.</p>
<p>We've got thousands of troops in Iraq chasing around people that we can't identify as friend or foe. Meanwhile middle-eastern terrorists are learning english and Spanish, sneaking across our borders through Mexico and setting up shop in our backyards. I believe Ayman al-Zawahri and Bin Laden's brother shared an apartment in Orange for several years.</p>
awgee_IHB
New member
<p>I am not trying to argue, but I really want to understand something. Why are we spending lives and money to protect someone else's oil? It is their oil, not ours. The oil will all be sold on the open market, no matter who brings it there. But, even if it does cost more if someone else brings the oil to market, it isn't ours. From a moral standpoint, wouldn't it be better to buy oil, no matter what the cost, instead of killing others to try and get it cheaper? </p>
<p>After all, it is oil we are talking about when we say "protecting our interests", aren't we? The only other interest would be democracy, but isn't it immoral to be imposing our values on other sovereign nations? I know I would not want other nations to be invading the USA and trying to set up their form of government here. What am I missing?</p>
<p>After all, it is oil we are talking about when we say "protecting our interests", aren't we? The only other interest would be democracy, but isn't it immoral to be imposing our values on other sovereign nations? I know I would not want other nations to be invading the USA and trying to set up their form of government here. What am I missing?</p>
IrvineCommuter_IHB
New member
<p>Landmine. . .me stepping on one --> Boom.. . </p>
<p>I guess I will be the defender of the global policy (channeling Teddy R and JFK . . ) The U.S. has a vested interest in keeping stability in certain parts of the world, namely the Middle East and East Asia (note we are doing nothing in Africa although it is basically a giant continent of chaos right now.) </p>
<p>Since the end of WWII, the U.S. has engaged in a systematic effort to contain and counterbalance some opposing element (first it was communism then it was terrorism). The theory developed from a perception that Communism was about to take over the world (esp. after the Communist victory in China in 1949 and the Korean War) and that the U.S. would become isolated if it did not take any action. This is exactly why the U.S. took such an active role in the development of Japan, S. Korea, and Taiwan. It is also that policy which committed us to Vietnam. The fear was that if Vietnam fell, the rest of SE Asia would become communist (biggest fear was Thailand). Thus, we commited ourself to to "contain" communism within Vietnam and was largely successful in doing so. The Soviet Union also engaged in a similar ideology (see Afganistan, its support of Vietnam, and Russia's current support of Iran).</p>
<p>The Middle East is necessary for the obvious reason of oil. It is the sole reason why the U.S. supports Israel and to a certain extent Saudi Arabia. The idea of "contain" and "counterbalance" remains The view is that if we do not hold interests in the Middle East, radical anti-American elements would take over and dominate a region which is vital to both the global and U.S. economy. The big fear is obviously Iran and to a lesser degree Syria. </p>
<p> East Asia is also important in order to "contain" and "counter" big bad China. The view is that the U.S. has to hold on to its interests in Japan, S. Korea, and Taiwan or else China will eventually dominate the region. Japan also has a big sway over the U.S. in the region. In 1996, it was Japan who asked the U.S. to send in the aircraft carrier into the Taiwan Straits to protect Taiwan during its elections. </p>
<p>Obviously, there is always the manfest destiny and "we have the best way" arguments. They are carry-overs from our history (no one asked the Native Americans whether they wanted to adopt the American way.) However, that argument is generally a red herring in that the U.S. has happily supported dictatorships (see Latin America) and monarchy (see Shah of Iran) if it was in its interest to do so. Also note that U.S. does not support Taiwan independence even though there is no ideological reason not to. The U.S. does not want to change the stability in the region and tick off China by supporting Taiwan.</p>
<p>So back to the original question, the reason why we have troops outside of this country is to impose our interests in the area. We have troop in S. Korea to keep China and N. Korea in check and troops in Saudi Arabia (and now Iraq) to keep Syria and Iran in check. We have other bases for logistical and tactical reasons. </p>
<p>There is some validity to that argument in that you cannot really solely on economic checks to counter anti-American sentiments. A prime example of that is pre-WWII Japan. One of the major reasons why it began invading the rest of Asia was to obtain more resources that it was not able to obtain otherwise. When Japan launched its attack on Pear Harbor, it also launch attacks in SE Asia (rubber) and Indonesia (oil). </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I guess I will be the defender of the global policy (channeling Teddy R and JFK . . ) The U.S. has a vested interest in keeping stability in certain parts of the world, namely the Middle East and East Asia (note we are doing nothing in Africa although it is basically a giant continent of chaos right now.) </p>
<p>Since the end of WWII, the U.S. has engaged in a systematic effort to contain and counterbalance some opposing element (first it was communism then it was terrorism). The theory developed from a perception that Communism was about to take over the world (esp. after the Communist victory in China in 1949 and the Korean War) and that the U.S. would become isolated if it did not take any action. This is exactly why the U.S. took such an active role in the development of Japan, S. Korea, and Taiwan. It is also that policy which committed us to Vietnam. The fear was that if Vietnam fell, the rest of SE Asia would become communist (biggest fear was Thailand). Thus, we commited ourself to to "contain" communism within Vietnam and was largely successful in doing so. The Soviet Union also engaged in a similar ideology (see Afganistan, its support of Vietnam, and Russia's current support of Iran).</p>
<p>The Middle East is necessary for the obvious reason of oil. It is the sole reason why the U.S. supports Israel and to a certain extent Saudi Arabia. The idea of "contain" and "counterbalance" remains The view is that if we do not hold interests in the Middle East, radical anti-American elements would take over and dominate a region which is vital to both the global and U.S. economy. The big fear is obviously Iran and to a lesser degree Syria. </p>
<p> East Asia is also important in order to "contain" and "counter" big bad China. The view is that the U.S. has to hold on to its interests in Japan, S. Korea, and Taiwan or else China will eventually dominate the region. Japan also has a big sway over the U.S. in the region. In 1996, it was Japan who asked the U.S. to send in the aircraft carrier into the Taiwan Straits to protect Taiwan during its elections. </p>
<p>Obviously, there is always the manfest destiny and "we have the best way" arguments. They are carry-overs from our history (no one asked the Native Americans whether they wanted to adopt the American way.) However, that argument is generally a red herring in that the U.S. has happily supported dictatorships (see Latin America) and monarchy (see Shah of Iran) if it was in its interest to do so. Also note that U.S. does not support Taiwan independence even though there is no ideological reason not to. The U.S. does not want to change the stability in the region and tick off China by supporting Taiwan.</p>
<p>So back to the original question, the reason why we have troops outside of this country is to impose our interests in the area. We have troop in S. Korea to keep China and N. Korea in check and troops in Saudi Arabia (and now Iraq) to keep Syria and Iran in check. We have other bases for logistical and tactical reasons. </p>
<p>There is some validity to that argument in that you cannot really solely on economic checks to counter anti-American sentiments. A prime example of that is pre-WWII Japan. One of the major reasons why it began invading the rest of Asia was to obtain more resources that it was not able to obtain otherwise. When Japan launched its attack on Pear Harbor, it also launch attacks in SE Asia (rubber) and Indonesia (oil). </p>
<p> </p>
lendingmaestro_IHB
New member
<p>Why do the bleeding heart liberals scream for Bush's impeachment and our withdrawl from Iraq yet they continually refute our need to drill for oil in Alaska and other parts of North America? Instead of spending TRILLIONS on this war (brainwashed Iran is the real problem) why don't we use that money to fund alternative energy research, or find our own oil reserves? Oh I forgot, because oil companies are in bed with Congressman and Congresswomen.</p>
<p>Has anyone seen the documentary "Who killed the electric car?" It is an eye-opener. The US automakers were light years ahead of the asian car companies when it came to electric cars. Unfortunately the oil companies had the US automakers by the balls and our corrupt lobbyist-infected gov't did pursue it. How's that for stepping on your own toes? Forego future prosperity for large corporate profits today!</p>
<p>Here is the link</p>
<p><a href="http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/223/">http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/223/</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Has anyone seen the documentary "Who killed the electric car?" It is an eye-opener. The US automakers were light years ahead of the asian car companies when it came to electric cars. Unfortunately the oil companies had the US automakers by the balls and our corrupt lobbyist-infected gov't did pursue it. How's that for stepping on your own toes? Forego future prosperity for large corporate profits today!</p>
<p>Here is the link</p>
<p><a href="http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/223/">http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/223/</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
IrvineCommuter_IHB
New member
<p>LM, agree with you on the alternative fuel deal but you cannot blame that on the liberal. Blame it on the conservative corporate types who want the government to stay out of their way (but then bail them out when they get in trouble).</p>
<p>Do not agree with you about Alaska. First of all, imposing U.S. interest in the Middle East is not just about oil for us, it is also to prevent oil from being controlled by unfriendly elements. Therotically, there could radical elements who take over the ME and shut down oil for the rest of the world. Highly unlikely but possible. Also, the drilling in Alaska is not a sure shot. There is no good estimate as to how much oil is in Alaska and how much damage would have to be done in order to get the oil. Actually, oil companies (at the ones in the U.S.) would love to drill in Alaska because it cuts down on costs and security issues. </p>
<p>Do not agree with you about Alaska. First of all, imposing U.S. interest in the Middle East is not just about oil for us, it is also to prevent oil from being controlled by unfriendly elements. Therotically, there could radical elements who take over the ME and shut down oil for the rest of the world. Highly unlikely but possible. Also, the drilling in Alaska is not a sure shot. There is no good estimate as to how much oil is in Alaska and how much damage would have to be done in order to get the oil. Actually, oil companies (at the ones in the U.S.) would love to drill in Alaska because it cuts down on costs and security issues. </p>
Nude_IHB
New member
<p>awgee-</p>
<p>The short answer is: fear of embargo.</p>
<p>As oil had been identified as a war-time resource during WWII, national interests were best served by maintaining a steady supply, and to that end we needed friendly governments in the area to ensure our use of this resource was always available. FDR's oil embargo of Japan showed how helpless a modern military is without oil and made it clear that we HAD to maintain that supply. This also indirectly explains why we are not using our reserves; in case of a total embargo, we can still tap our reserves and our own native fields if needed in time of crisis. Right now the need isn't great enough but I am sure that if push came to shove during wartime every single barrier to domestic drilling would be stricken down and you'd see oil derricks up and down the California coast, the Gulf of Mexico, and they'd add a couple more pipelines from Alaska. From a purely strategic point-of-view, it's better to use theirs up first and use any conflict to hone the technological edge of our weapons.</p>
<p>(Edited to add a salute to a fellow poster: bkshopr, I miss you. It is with great regret that I made my 325th post as it means I caught up to you by default)</p>
<p>The short answer is: fear of embargo.</p>
<p>As oil had been identified as a war-time resource during WWII, national interests were best served by maintaining a steady supply, and to that end we needed friendly governments in the area to ensure our use of this resource was always available. FDR's oil embargo of Japan showed how helpless a modern military is without oil and made it clear that we HAD to maintain that supply. This also indirectly explains why we are not using our reserves; in case of a total embargo, we can still tap our reserves and our own native fields if needed in time of crisis. Right now the need isn't great enough but I am sure that if push came to shove during wartime every single barrier to domestic drilling would be stricken down and you'd see oil derricks up and down the California coast, the Gulf of Mexico, and they'd add a couple more pipelines from Alaska. From a purely strategic point-of-view, it's better to use theirs up first and use any conflict to hone the technological edge of our weapons.</p>
<p>(Edited to add a salute to a fellow poster: bkshopr, I miss you. It is with great regret that I made my 325th post as it means I caught up to you by default)</p>
IrvineRenter_IHB
New member
I like the arguments about foreign oil. It is a classic example how defining the terms defines the argument. Conservatives say we should reduce our dependency on <em>foreign </em>oil by drilling in Alaska and taking over Iraq, etc. Liberals have been advocating reducing our dependency on oil by researching alternative fuels. In reality both should probably be part of our plans. Short term, we need more oil. Long term, we should get off the stuff.
awgee_IHB
New member
Does it occur to anyone that it might be best if the government gets it's nose out of oil and protecting our interest in oil? My guess is that we would save so much money, trillions and trillions, that we, the tax payers, would have enough money to buy oil at any price. And so would the government. Doesn't it occur to anybody else that the government does not need to do anything in regards to alternative energy? If it is economically expedient, someone will develop it. The internal combustion engine did not need government subzidation to develop. It was demand. If the trillions that have been spent in Iraq were just left in the taxpayers pockets, I would guess they could pay $10.00 per gal without even blinking. Didn't we learn anything from Vietnam, Korea, and now Iraq? And we will get off oil when it is too expensive. Is oil really all that expensive? Has it stopped anybody from driving or changed their habits greatly? Geez, don't you think our armed forces could buy and keep all the reserves it needs for ten years if it wasn't spending all that money in Iraq? And what about the morality? It isn't our oil. It belongs to someone else. Anything less than buying it on open market is stealing? I wonder why it all seems so simple and clear to me.
graphrix_IHB
New member
Does anyone have the stat on how much oil the military has been using? I remember seeing the stat, during peace time, and it was ridiculous. I can't imagine what, that stat is like during a time of war.
jwbrown77_IHB
New member
ANWR is a farce. It would take 12+ years to implement and even then oil companies say it won't impact the prices we pay at the pump.
Then there's stuff like this:
"While supporters of Arctic drilling claim that oil drilling would only open 2,000 acres of the refuge to development, opponents state that this “2,000-acre footprint” provision is misleading. Opening the Refuge to drilling, they insist, would result in industrial development across the entire 1.5 million acre Coastal Plain of the Refuge. To calculate the “footprint” of an oil pipeline, the numbers only include the area where a support touches the ground. In addition, roads, airports, gravel mines, and the like are excluded from the 2,000 acre calculations."
The money and effort is better invested in finding energy sources other than oil.
Then there's stuff like this:
"While supporters of Arctic drilling claim that oil drilling would only open 2,000 acres of the refuge to development, opponents state that this “2,000-acre footprint” provision is misleading. Opening the Refuge to drilling, they insist, would result in industrial development across the entire 1.5 million acre Coastal Plain of the Refuge. To calculate the “footprint” of an oil pipeline, the numbers only include the area where a support touches the ground. In addition, roads, airports, gravel mines, and the like are excluded from the 2,000 acre calculations."
The money and effort is better invested in finding energy sources other than oil.
waitingtill08_IHB
New member
Speaking of alternative energy ... Did anyone see the show on History International last week where they showed a car being made (and now or soon to be marketed in France) that ran on compressed air? It ran on compressed air, but had a backup fuel tank to run on gasoline only while the air tank was refilling. It was pretty cool. There were two sizes. The smaller one had 3 seats and a pretty big trunk. The driver sits in the middle, which they said would make it universally marketable as it doesn't matter which side of the road you drive on. They said it would be sold for $7K. The larger family model had two rows of seats and a trunk and would sell for $25K.
IrvineCommuter_IHB
New member
<p>Here is the link to the cars waitingtil08 were talking about. The idea is great but they could do a little more with the design. Right it looks a car with its front end smashed it or a larger golf cart. I think designers need to stop trying to make a car look "futuristic" and just make a car look like what people are used to. Also, I am not sure that the car is in the best shape for aeordynamic purposes. </p>
<p><a href="http://theaircar.com/">theaircar.com/</a></p>
<p><a href="http://theaircar.com/">theaircar.com/</a></p>
shizumaru_IHB
New member
>You're too young to be bitter about renting. Did you expect to own while you were in college? Heck, I >didn't buy my place until I was in my early '30s, when I finally felt comfortable committing to a place.
I'm young but not stupid to know when 17% rise in rent YOY is going to squeeze me. I didn't expect to own while I was in college, but being one of the lucky ones who found a job, I expected to at least see the light at the end of the tunnel when qualifying to buy a home.
Link for WINEX:http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2007/10/14/a-bailout-for-citigroup/
I'm young but not stupid to know when 17% rise in rent YOY is going to squeeze me. I didn't expect to own while I was in college, but being one of the lucky ones who found a job, I expected to at least see the light at the end of the tunnel when qualifying to buy a home.
Link for WINEX:http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2007/10/14/a-bailout-for-citigroup/