Metro Jacksonville

After the inauguration, when rush and the rest of the usual gang of idiots start playing the "Obama recession" game, think of this.

QuoteWASHINGTON - The Bush administration backed off proposed crackdowns on no-money-down, interest-only mortgages years before the economy collapsed, buckling to pressure from some of the same banks that have now failed. It ignored remarkably prescient warnings that foretold the financial meltdown, according to an Associated Press review of regulatory documents.

“Expect fallout, expect foreclosures, expect horror stories,” California mortgage lender Paris Welch wrote to U.S. regulators in January 2006, about one year before the housing implosion cost her a job.

Bowing to aggressive lobbying â€" along with assurances from banks that the troubled mortgages were OK â€" regulators delayed action for nearly one year. By the time new rules were released late in 2006, the toughest of the proposed provisions were gone and the meltdown was under way.

For complete article:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28001417/

No matter how you slice and dice it, no matter how many charts and graphs are posted, it still comes down to  this: all of this trouble came to pass as a result of George W. Bush being the president for eight long years.

I agree, he had the opportunity to do something, and he didn't!

Well, you make it sound like he was a passive observer, while in fact he was a major causative factor. It was not simply benign neglect, it was criminal negligence at best.

I wonder how many mortgages he wrote?  Did he veto something??

Perhaps you should read the article, and maybe gain some insight?

I did... sounds to me like you should be blaming congress... and those who wrote mortgages, and those that took them.

Please dont attempt to speak truth to midway.   ;)

QuoteDon't Blame Bush For Subprime Mess
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, December 01, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Housing Crisis: A new report from the Associated Press claims that the mortgage meltdown is due largely to President Bush's failure to act in 2005. Sounds plausible â€" until you actually look at the facts.


"Under pressure, U.S. eased lending rules," reads the AP special report's headline. But "U.S." is really a misnomer. The news service really means "Bush."

"The Bush administration backed off proposed crackdowns on no-money-down, interest-only mortgages years before the economy collapsed, buckling to pressure from some of the same banks that have now failed," the report asserts.

The report goes on to catalog what it says are Bush's crimes. Namely, that his administration bowed to "aggressive lobbying" by banks and delayed doing anything for a year. This, says the AP, is "emblematic of a philosophy that trusted market forces and discounted the need for government intervention in the economy."

All utterly wrong.

Here at IBD, we've done more than a dozen pieces â€" most recently, in yesterday's paper â€" detailing how rewrites of the Community Reinvestment Act in 1995 under President Clinton, along with major regulatory changes pushed by the White House in the late 1990s, created the boom in subprime lending, the surge in exotic and highly risky mortgage-backed securities, and the housing boom whose government-fed excesses led to inevitable collapse.

Despite this clear record, we're now besieged by enterprising journalists blaming Republican "deregulation" or the president's failure to recognize the seriousness of the problem or act. But these claims fall apart, as a partial history of the last decade shows.

Bush's first budget, written in 2001 â€" seven years ago â€" called runaway subprime lending by the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "a potential problem" and warned of "strong repercussions in financial markets."

In 2003, Bush's Treasury secretary, John Snow, proposed what the New York Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago." Did Democrats in Congress welcome it? Hardly.

"I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis," declared Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., in a response typical of those who viewed Fannie and Freddie as a party patronage machine that the GOP was trying to dismantle. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," added Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Del.

Unfortunately, it was broke.

In November 2003, just two months after Frank's remarks, Bush's top economist, Gregory Mankiw, warned: "The enormous size of the mortgage-backed securities market means that any problems at the GSEs matter for the financial system as a whole." He too proposed reforms, and they too went nowhere.

In the next two years, a parade of White House officials traipsed to Capitol Hill, calling repeatedly for GSE reform. They were ignored. Even after several multibillion-dollar accounting errors by Fannie and Freddie, Congress put off reforms.

In 2005, Fed chief Alan Greenspan sounded the most serious warning of all: "We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk" by doing nothing, he said. When a bill later that year emerged from the Senate Banking Committee, it looked like something might finally be done.

Unfortunately, as economist Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute has noted, "the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter."

Had they done so, it's likely the mortgage meltdown wouldn't have occurred, or would have been of far less intensity. President Bush and the Republican Congress might be blamed for many things, but this isn't one of them. It was a Democratic debacle, from start to finish.

Thats all great, but the republicans controlled congress and the senate in 2003. If they wanted to do something, they could have. But they were too busy making sure that the ten commandments could be posted outside of every city hall instead.

The IBD has a vested interest in doing a historical rewrite. their constituency and that of the bush syndicate are the same.

Since MSNBC is well known and documented at framing everything under sun as President Bush's fault, it's good to hear another side of the story which is probably closer to the truth from IBD.

Since Dems were a minority for a while, it does beg the question why didn't the GOP majority "just force through" the changes that were needed. Of course, if they had, MSNBC and co would have been the first to cry foul. Darned if you do, darned if you don't.

Quote from: Midway on December 03, 2008, 07:09:59 PM
Thats all great, but the republicans controlled congress and the senate in 2003. If they wanted to do something, they could have. But they were too busy making sure that the ten commandments could be posted outside of every city hall instead.

The IBD has a vested interest in doing a historical rewrite. their constituency and that of the bush syndicate are the same.

Have you ever heard of Barney Frank?  Him and his gang which couldnt shoot straight have been covering for Fannie/Freddie, loose lending and the CRA for years.

BTW, what is the "Bush syndicate"?  Must we use such strange, inaccurate and inflammatory terminology?

Quote from: RiversideGator on December 04, 2008, 12:07:19 PM
Have you ever heard of Barney Frank?  Him and his gang which couldnt shoot straight have been covering for Fannie/Freddie, loose lending and the CRA for years.

Barney Frank and his gang were in the minority....they had virtually no say in what got passed in Congress....nice try though!

hahaha.  You dont think he had a few Republican fellow travelers to help him with his games?  The bottom line is some Republicans attempted to reform Freddie/Fannie and the reforms were resisted by some Republicans and all Democrats including Mrs. Frank.

Bush was president for last eight years.   Period. End of story.

Try as you may (and you are just parroting rush, sean and rove) to revise history, thats the fact, Jack.

We'll see how that revisionist history thing works out for bush.

It was not so splendid for Nixon. The internets tends to upset those attempts.

QuoteBush was president for last eight years.   Period. End of story.

Very insightful...  But...

Did Mr Frank and Carper NOT say...

Quote"I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis," declared Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., in a response typical of those who viewed Fannie and Freddie as a party patronage machine that the GOP was trying to dismantle. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," added Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Del.

Did Mr Mankiw NOT say...

Quote"The enormous size of the mortgage-backed securities market means that any problems at the GSEs matter for the financial system as a whole."

Did Mr Greenspan NOT say...

Quote"We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk" by doing nothing

And thats what George W. Bush did.....nothing.

And no matter how many quotes you put up and no matter how many revisionist arguments you may make it still does not change the fact that he was "the (self anointed) decider" for the last eight years".  Thats all.

And your arguments are all things I have heard previously from that bloated, half witted buffoon on the radio. May I respectfully suggest that you not taint yourself by quoting his "thoughts"

Well... he did but...

Quote"the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee,

As I have maintained all along... Both parties share enough blame to go along.  Seems like the Dems have someting to hide with all the finger pointing...

Quote from: Midway on December 06, 2008, 05:06:18 PM
Bush was president for last eight years.   Period. End of story.

Try as you may (and you are just parroting rush, sean and rove) to revise history, thats the fact, Jack.

We'll see how that revisionist history thing works out for bush.

You are aware that our system involves laws originating in the US Congress, arent you?

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 07, 2008, 01:29:04 PM
Well... he did but...

Quote"the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee,

As I have maintained all along... Both parties share enough blame to go along.  Seems like the Dems have someting to hide with all the finger pointing...

Indeed.  Given the hysterics and mental gymnastics lefty partisans like midway are going through to cover for their heroes, the Democrats must be at least 95% to blame for the current financial panic.   :D

Quote from: RiversideGator on December 08, 2008, 12:17:54 AM

Quote from: Midway on December 06, 2008, 05:06:18 PM
Bush was president for last eight years.   Period. End of story.

Try as you may (and you are just parroting rush, sean and rove) to revise history, thats the fact, Jack.

We'll see how that revisionist history thing works out for bush.

You are aware that our system involves laws originating in the US Congress, arent you?

laws that are enacted (and sometimes written) by Congress...and signed and enforced by the PRESIDENT!

So, if the proposed law to reform Fannie/Freddie never makes it to the President's desk, what is he to do?

QuoteWASHINGTON (Reuters) â€" Documents show that top executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were warned years ago that the firms were offering mortgages that could pose a long-term danger to the companies, borrowers and the industry, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday.

In documents obtained by the newspaper, Fannie and Freddie pushed into new, risky markets despite debates within the companies about whether the moves were prudent.

In early September, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two largest U.S. sources of mortgage finance, were seized by regulators as mounting losses and investor anxiety pushed the companies to the verge of collapse.

Former Freddie chief enterprise risk officer David Andrukonis said in a memo to former Freddie chief executive Richard Syron and other executives the firm was buying mortgages that appear "to target borrowers who would have trouble qualifying for a mortgage if their financial position were adequately disclosed."

Top officials at Fannie Mae also were told that the company needed to find ways to buy subprime mortgages because of competitive pressures, despite increasing risks and the failure of consumers to understand the terms of the loans.

The documents show top executives at both companies were told that the new subprime loans and mortgages made without verification of income, assets or employment, were dangerous both to the companies and to the borrowers they were charted by Congress to help.

Former executives from both companies are due to testify before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on Tuesday to discuss their downfall.

(Reporting by Christopher Doering; editing by Patricia Zengerle)

www.yahoo.news.com

Quote from: Midway on December 07, 2008, 01:21:06 PM
And thats what George W. Bush did.....nothing.

And no matter how many quotes you put up and no matter how many revisionist arguments you may make it still does not change the fact that he was "the (self anointed) decider" for the last eight years".  Thats all.

And your arguments are all things I have heard previously from that bloated, half witted buffoon on the radio. May I respectfully suggest that you not taint yourself by quoting his "thoughts"

This whole post is BS. The proof is there that Bush and his administration addressed the problems with the sub-prime lending practices specifically with Fannie and Freddie several times during his tenure. These are not revisionist statements...these are facts.

If you are going ignore facts like those, then it is impossible to converse with you and others here on this subject. How about using facts before posting complete nonsense? The title of this thread itself is a lie.

Charleston, how dare you!!! ;D ;D ;D

I'm just curious to see the expected style of response and see how long it stays posted.

 :D Me too.

Quote from: RiversideGator on December 08, 2008, 04:11:14 PM
So, if the proposed law to reform Fannie/Freddie never makes it to the President's desk, what is he to do?

blame Congress...and specifically the party that had the power to push through laws at the time

Quoteand specifically the party that had the power to push through laws at the time

Not if it can't even make it out of committee.  But you are partly right in there being those in Congress, regardless of party, who lacked the backbone to do the right thing and risk being labeled "non-caring", "anti-poor", "racist", or any other cliche from those who had a stake in this particular type of power building scheme.

Quoteblame Congress...and specifically the party that had the power to push through laws at the time

But to be fair... clearly the opposition party had no interest in reform either... bolstering the argument that there is plenty of blame to go around.

River has stated before that the economy during the first 6 years of the Bush administration was good....and that most of the problems now are related to the housing bubble....the article below seems to support my notion that the housing bubble was masking the real problems the economny had been having for years.

"New census data show that throughout the first half of the decade, the slumping economy touched nearly every U.S. community. Incomes dropped while poverty and unemployment rose in the vast majority of the nation's cities and towns."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2008484955_census09.html?syndication=rss (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2008484955_census09.html?syndication=rss)

That is precisely why the bush administration promoted policies to enhance and continue the housing bubble. To continue to mask the underlying weakness of the economy that he was systematically looting and undermining with his wild spending combined with tax cuts for the wealthy.

 :D  For such a stupid guy his is an evil genius... :D

Liberals:  Please get your stories straight.  Was Bush a moronic puppet of Dick Cheney and Karl Rove or was he an evil genius leading a cabal who bilked to country out of trillions of dollars which have now been stashed in bank accounts in Dubai? 

Dont forget he hid is real agenda to the dems in congress and rendered them powerless with his cloaking device... and and and...breathless... pant pant... and and..... :)

um...did I say "bush" or did I say "bush administration"?

Reading comprehension, please.

I think these libs like to constantly say the word "administration". It gives them an intellectual superiority to know a word that is more than 3 syllables, but it is the only word that they use frequently.

Quote from: Midway on December 15, 2008, 04:52:08 PM
um...did I say "bush" or did I say "bush administration"?

Reading comprehension, please.

So it will be answer 1 (the puppet) then.  Thanks for the clarification.   ;)

correct...Bush is not that bad of a guy...he just had no clue what Cheney et. al. were doing!

Yeah, and he has great reflexes and sharp eyesight.

Merry Christmas... :D

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/with-economy-in-shambles-congress-gets-a-raise-2008-12-17.html

With economy in shambles, Congress gets a raise 
By Jordy Yager 
Posted: 12/17/08 05:41 PM [ET] 

A crumbling economy, more than 2 million constituents who have lost their jobs this year, and congressional demands of CEOs to work for free did not convince lawmakers to freeze their own pay.

Instead, they will get a $4,700 pay increase, amounting to an additional $2.5 million that taxpayers will spend on congressional salaries, and watchdog groups are not happy about it.


“As lawmakers make a big show of forcing auto executives to accept just $1 a year in salary, they are quietly raiding the vault for their own personal gain,” said Daniel O’Connell, chairman of The Senior Citizens League (TSCL), a non-partisan group. “This money would be much better spent helping the millions of seniors who are living below the poverty line and struggling to keep their heat on this winter.”

However, at 2.8 percent, the automatic raise that lawmakers receive is only half as large as the 2009 cost of living adjustment of Social Security recipients.

Still, Steve Ellis, vice president of the budget watchdog Taxpayers for Common Sense, said Congress should have taken the rare step of freezing its pay, as lawmakers did in 2000.

“Look at the way the economy is and how most people aren’t counting on a holiday bonus or a pay raise â€" they’re just happy to have gainful employment,” said Ellis. “But you have the lawmakers who are set up and ready to get their next installment of a pay raise and go happily along their way.”

Member raises are often characterized as examples of wasteful spending, especially when many constituents and businesses in members’ districts are in financial despair.

Rep. Harry Mitchell, a first-term Democrat from Arizona, sponsored legislation earlier this year that would have prevented the automatic pay adjustments from kicking in for members next year. But the bill, which attracted 34 cosponsors, failed to make it out of committee.

“They don’t even go through the front door. They have it set up so that it’s wired so that you actually have to undo the pay raise rather than vote for a pay raise,” Ellis said.

Freezing congressional salaries is hardly a new idea on Capitol Hill.

Lawmakers have floated similar proposals in every year dating back to 1995, and long before that. Though the concept of forgoing a raise has attracted some support from more senior members, it is most popular with freshman lawmakers, who are often most vulnerable.

In 2006, after the Republican-led Senate rejected an increase to the minimum wage, Democrats, who had just come to power in the House with a slew of freshmen, vowed to block their own pay raise until the wage increase was passed. The minimum wage was eventually increased and lawmakers received their automatic pay hike.

In the beginning days of 1789, Congress was paid only $6 a day, which would be about $75 daily by modern standards. But by 1965 members were receiving $30,000 a year, which is the modern equivalent of about $195,000.

Currently the average lawmaker makes $169,300 a year, with leadership making slightly more. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) makes $217,400, while the minority and majority leaders in the House and Senate make $188,100.

Ellis said that while freezing the pay increase would be a step in the right direction, it would be better to have it set up so that members would have to take action, and vote, for a pay raise and deal with the consequences, rather than get one automatically.

“It is probably never going to be politically popular to raise Congress’s salary,” he said. “I don’t think you’re going to find taxpayers saying, ‘Yeah I think I should pay my congressman more’.”

History lesson:

QuotePosted 9/4/2003
Lawmakers include themselves in federal pay raise
WASHINGTON (AP) â€" The House on Thursday approved a 2.2% pay raise for Congress â€" slightly less than average wage increases in private business but enough to boost lawmakers' annual salaries to about $158,000 next year.

The House members decided to allow themselves a fifth straight cost-of-living raise after rejecting them for several years during the 1990s. Their annual pay has risen from $136,700 in 1999 to about $158,000 in 2004, if the legislation clears Congress and is signed by the president. Their salary this year is $154,700.

As in past years, the congressional COLA was automatically included as part of pay increases that all federal civilian and military employees will receive. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, wages among all nongovernment workers rose an average 2.7% from July 2002 through June 2003.

Both the House and Senate, ignoring a White House recommendation that civilian pay raises be held down next year, have decided on 4.1% raises for almost all federal workers.

The pay increases are part of an $89.3 billion spending bill for the 2004 budget year for Transportation and Treasury Department programs. A vote on the spending bill was expected late Thursday. The spending bill has yet to reach the Senate floor.

Only one House member â€" Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah â€" voiced objections to the congressional increase during the debate.

"We are fighting terrorism on numerous fronts and our economy is in serious trouble, unemployment is at record high levels and our future budget deficits are predicted to be the highest in the history of this great nation," Matheson said. "Now is not the time for members of Congress to be voting themselves a pay raise."

By a 240-173 vote, the House rejected Matheson's procedural attempt to get a direct vote on the pay raise for lawmakers. In 1989, Congress voted to make cost-of-living pay increases for themselves automatic unless they voted otherwise.

Without counting outside sources of income, the earnings of members of Congress rank within the top 5% of the nation.

Joan Claybrook, president of the consumer group Public Citizen, said lawmakers, as high-income earners, were already benefiting substantially from the administration-backed tax cuts that have been enacted. She said that while she didn't necessarily oppose cost-of-living increases for members of Congress, "I do think that to give tax breaks to the rich while giving themselves a pay raise is unfair."

The 2.2% increase â€" calculated through a formula â€" would also apply to the vice president, congressional leaders and Supreme Court justices. This year, Vice President Cheney, top leaders in the House and Senate and the chief justice receive $198,600. Associate justices of the Supreme Court get $190,100 and the House majority and minority leaders receive $171,900.

President Bush's $400,000 salary is unaffected by the legislation.

Lawmakers' salaries were frozen at $133,600 from 1993 to 1997, stood at $136,700 the next two years and have risen annually since then.

The 4.1% raise for military personnel and more than 1 million civilian workers more than doubles the 2% recommended by President Bush, who cited the costs of the war on terrorism last month in seeking a lower rate. Members of Congress, who have the final say unless Bush vetoes the legislation, have long argued that there should be parity between military and civilian pay raises.

The White House, in a statement, said the proposed 4.1% increase exceeds the president's request by $2.1 billion, exceeds the inflation rate "and even exceeds the average increase in private-sector pay."

It also said the administration was "extremely disappointed" that the bill does not fund Bush's request for a $500 million fund to target pay raises to employees demonstrating high performance.

House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, whose Maryland district includes many federal workers, opposed the president's proposal, saying that "his decision to invoke a national emergency to provide an inadequate pay raise for the very men and women who are confronting that emergency on a daily basis smacks of indifference."

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., who has contested congressional pay raises in the past, intends to oppose it again when it reaches the Senate floor, his office said.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-04-congress-pay-raise_x.htm

Looks like Congress didn't have much say on the rising budgets and deficits over the last 7 years...

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/dec/26/na-study-faults-war-spending/news-metro/ (http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/dec/26/na-study-faults-war-spending/news-metro/)

The CSBA agreed and blamed the ballooning budgets on the Bush administration's unprecedented decision to fund the wars through giant emergency spending measures rather than through appropriations requests.

(http://www.bumperart.com/ProductImages/2004040914_Display-35.gif)

(http://www.bumperart.com/ProductImages/2004091121_Display-35.gif)

News flash:  Your hero is about to be inaugurated.

Imagine that... Bumper stickers!!  I KNEW it! :D

Indeed.  A bumper sticker mentality.

Quote from: RiversideGator on January 07, 2009, 11:40:45 PM
News flash:  Your hero is about to be inaugurated.

The "I like turtles zombie kid"?

Thank you for a wonderful year of amusement.

Is that what your silly avatar means?  I love what passes for humor on the Left.

BTW, get ready for the real jokes to begin once Obama is sworn in.

I will be looking forward to your rush limbaugh rehash.  Well, that's not entirely true..... I probably won't be looking at all. On the morning of November 5, 2008, what little remaining relevance you had just dissipated, and I lost interest.

Sorry :-[

Game Over.

Such maturity and eloquence. Keep telling yourself those lies each night before you go to bed.

Indeed, when Obama finally takes this nation to the path of pure, unadulterated socialism, the game will be over.

CN
Do the socialist countries seem to be suffering any worse than anyone else? Try to remember we are not pure capitalism or democracy and will spend our lives with our government in motion becoming more and less involved in our lives.

Quote from: JeffreyS on January 11, 2009, 10:19:52 PM
CN
Do the socialist countries seem to be suffering any worse than anyone else?

Yes.  People die every day as a result of socialized medicine as just one example.

Quote from: JeffreyS on January 11, 2009, 10:19:52 PMTry to remember we are not pure capitalism or democracy and will spend our lives with our government in motion becoming more and less involved in our lives.

Hopefully more less than more.   ;)

Quote from: Midway on January 11, 2009, 09:31:57 PM
I will be looking forward to your rush limbaugh rehash.  Well, that's not entirely true..... I probably won't be looking at all. On the morning of November 5, 2008, what little remaining relevance you had just dissipated, and I lost interest.

Sorry :-[

Game Over.

You are so graceful in victory, midway.  Cant say I am surprised though. 

It reminds me of how someone once described liberals as unlovely people with unlovely ideas.  :D

Quote from: JeffreyS on January 11, 2009, 10:19:52 PM
CN
Do the socialist countries seem to be suffering any worse than anyone else? Try to remember we are not pure capitalism or democracy and will spend our lives with our government in motion becoming more and less involved in our lives.

Hmmm, you must be forgetting countries like the old Soviet Union and Venezuela. Cuba is an example more closer to home. Those countries ALL have been worse than the US. Why does the US need to reduce its standards to be "equal" with those countries? And please don't mention China. They may manufacture goods that we buy, but that is because their citizens still live in POVERTY with being paid piss-poor wages, harsh working conditions, and a sad standard of living. They are a mere shadow of this country.

CN none of those countries are socialist. I am a capitalist I am just saying if our policies were to become a little more like the French or Germans it wouldn't be game over.

RG your point about socialized medicine is valid.

Communism is just the more extreme version of socialism, Jeffery. As for true socialist countries like France and even Canada, our nation still has a higher standard of living in comparison. RSG did make a great point about socialized medicine.

My main point is that the US should not change to failed policies due to an inept president like Bush.

Quote from: JeffreyS on January 11, 2009, 11:26:54 PM
RG your point about socialized medicine is valid.

true...but people die here every day because they didn't get proper preventive medicine also!

^ Wrong again. Many people in this country die every day because they didn't choose to use preventive medicine.

I suppose those people should have to apologize for choosing to put food on the table before paying $100+ for a 15 minute doctor's appointment!

Now...whether you think preventive medicine should be a right is a separate issue...but we can all agree that the the lack of proper preventive medicine has led to bigger problems and more ER visits....which clog the system...and since many of the people don't have insurance, it also adds to the overall costs of health care.

There is no doubt in my mind that universal health care will be on the agenda the next four years.  I look forward to the debate.  I wonder who will fall on their sword this time...

Quote from: tufsu1 on January 12, 2009, 07:50:39 AM

Quote from: JeffreyS on January 11, 2009, 11:26:54 PM
RG your point about socialized medicine is valid.

true...but people die here every day because they didn't get proper preventive medicine also!

Except death rates from cancer (to give one example) are lower in the US than in many European socialist nations due to not as much early detection and health care rationing by government.  Read more here:

QuoteSally C. Pipes is one of the few who has explored the reality of government-controlled medical treatment in Canada and other countries. Among the things she discovered is that new life-saving medications that go immediately into the market in the United States take a much longer time to become available to Canadian patients-- if they ever get approved by the bureaucrats.

No doubt that lowers the cost of medications-- if you count costs solely in money terms, rather than in terms of how many people literally pay with their lives when the bureaucrats are reluctant to buy new pharmaceutical drugs, while they can continue to approve obsolete and cheaper drugs for the same illnesses.

Cancer survival rates are higher in the United States than in Europe. A recent report by the Fraser Institute in Vancouver estimates that annually tens of thousands of Canadians seek medical treatment outside of Canada, even though treatment is free inside Canada and they have to pay themselves for treatment elsewhere.

Other studies show that waiting times for surgery are months longer in Canada, Britain and Australia-- all countries with government-controlled medical care-- than in the United States.

http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/01/07/an_emergency_review?page=full&comments=true

Quote from: tufsu1 on January 12, 2009, 11:40:14 AM
I suppose those people should have to apologize for choosing to put food on the table before paying $100+ for a 15 minute doctor's appointment!

No, but many uninsured people should apologize to the rest of us who have to pick up their healthcare tab for failing to pay for health insurance and instead using the money that could have gone for health care for lattes, cell phones, cable TV and internet service.  The bottom line is many of the uninsured actually could afford to pay for health insurance but choose not to and become free riders on the government's tab. 

Also, silly government rules prohibit in many cases people from choosing the healthcare plans they really want by mandating that plans cover certain items.  This of course raises the cost of health insurance for everyone thereby pricing many people out of the market.

http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2008/11/11/The-End-of-Wall-Streets-Boom

Long article, but worth the time to read.  Don't know if Bush haters can get over their emotions long enough to read a more comprehensive explanation - but here it is some additional info.

Why would anyone hate Bush? he kept us safe for 7 years, except for that one little slip-up in September.

A nearly perfect record!

Bravo and well done!

It's just commonsensical to love him.

Wait till all the Clinton era retreads get back into the White House with Obama and begin to pick apart our intelligence services and military.  I fear foolishness such as yours will lead to a catastrophe one day - the loss of a city even.

You mean like New Orleans?

I forgot.  It is obviously Bush's fault that the incompetent and thieving local levee boards in New Orleans squandered their money which was intended for levee maintenance on various corrupt schemes rather than safeguarding their city.  It is also Bush's fault that the French chose to found a city hundreds of years ago on a slight bluff between a huge river, swampland and a large lake which is subject to flooding and that subsequent generations drained the low lying swampland and built homes there.  Thanks for reminding me of that, lunican.

Don't forget that the Indians in the region where New Orleans was planned to be built warned the builders and planners that the land was prone to constant flooding. Their advice was ignored, and look at what we have now.

Oh yeah, it's also Bush's fault that New Orleans was headed by a foolish, incompetent mayor and governor, both who were complete idiots by not evacuating the city with school buses among other failures to properly initiate a hurricane disaster plan.

no...but completely ignoring or underfunding requests from the Army Corp of Engineers to fix levees nationwide was his fault!

Quote from: RiversideGator on January 19, 2009, 12:58:11 AM
I fear foolishness such as yours will lead to a catastrophe one day - the loss of a city even.

Does the foolishness include denial of global warming?  Because if we do nothing (and you are wrong) than any # of our cities could be under water!

Quote from: tufsu1 on January 19, 2009, 03:51:24 PM
no...but completely ignoring or underfunding requests from the Army Corp of Engineers to fix levees nationwide was his fault!

Clearly, you have been propagandized.

Quoteno...but completely ignoring or underfunding requests from the Army Corp of Engineers to fix levees nationwide was his fault!

As did every president prior...

Quote from: tufsu1 on January 19, 2009, 08:36:07 PM

Quote from: RiversideGator on January 19, 2009, 12:58:11 AM
I fear foolishness such as yours will lead to a catastrophe one day - the loss of a city even.

Does the foolishness include denial of global warming?  Because if we do nothing (and you are wrong) than any # of our cities could be under water!

Once GW starts manifesting itself, I will start to worry.  The only problem is global average temperatures have been dropping:

QuoteRecord Low Temps Validate Growing Consensus Against Man-Made Global Warming

NCPA Expert Says Evidence Continues to Dispel Climate Myths

DALLAS (Jan. 13, 2009) - This winter's record low temperatures and snowfall are one more indicator that recent global warming is likely not a result of man-made activities but of the natural ebb and flow of temperatures, according to NCPA Senior Fellow H. Sterling Burnett.

"The rhetoric has been that human activities are causing the earth to warm, ice caps to melt, and hurricanes to get more destructive," Burnett said, "but the evidence increasingly shows that is not true."

Burnett noted, for example, that International Falls, Minnesota - the coldest location in the continental United States - just today set a new record low temperature of minus 40 degrees and snowfall records have recently been set in 63 U.S. locations.

"Contrary to what all the climate models have predicted, over the past decade the global average temperature has fallen to its lowest levels in 30 years," Burnett added.  He also noted that after two years of ice-cap melting in the Arctic, an abrupt turnaround occurred in 2008, with ice forming at a record pace. And he said more and more scientists are paying attention to the evidence and rejecting the link between human actions and the recent warming trend.

"The wheels are falling off the global-warming bandwagon," Burnett said. "While climate action boosters continue to call for politicians to ignore reality -- even in the face of mounting contrary evidence against catastrophic warming - scientists, the public and politicians are wising up."

The National Center for Policy Analysis is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization whose goal is to solve problems by developing and promoting innovative, market-driven solutions.

http://eteam.ncpa.org/news/record-low-temps-validate-growing-consensus-against-man-made-global-warming

Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 20, 2009, 10:42:25 AM

Quoteno...but completely ignoring or underfunding requests from the Army Corp of Engineers to fix levees nationwide was his fault!

As did every president prior...

agreed!

Quote from: tufsu1 on January 19, 2009, 03:51:24 PM
no...but completely ignoring or underfunding requests from the Army Corp of Engineers to fix levees nationwide was his fault!

Until Jindal was elected governer, LA has been completely controlled by Democrats in all offices from the Mayor to Congressmen/Senators for at least 40 years.  I guess that's what the money in Jefferson's freezer was for - he was saving up to repair the levees!!

govt. officials at all levels are responsible...

so forget New Orleans for a minute and let's look at Florida....the levees holding Lake Okeechobee are in terrible shape....which is why there is such a concern every time a hurricane is aimed at south Florida....and why they often release water from the lake ahead of a storm.

And how many of you know about the levee in D.C. that holds back the Potomac from flooding the national mall...its also deteriorated and needs to be rebuilt....right now half of the buildings in the Foggy Bottom area are at risk of being designated as being in a FEMA flood zone....imagine the increased costs of insurance, etc. for that!

Quote from: RiversideGator on January 20, 2009, 03:19:23 PM

Quote from: tufsu1 on January 19, 2009, 08:36:07 PM

Quote from: RiversideGator on January 19, 2009, 12:58:11 AM
I fear foolishness such as yours will lead to a catastrophe one day - the loss of a city even.

Does the foolishness include denial of global warming?  Because if we do nothing (and you are wrong) than any # of our cities could be under water!

Once GW starts manifesting itself, I will start to worry.  The only problem is global average temperatures have been dropping:

that same logic has been given as the primary reason we were not prepared for the 9/11 attack....you seem to have no problem with the government spending money to minimize our risk of a potential future attack....so why not minimize our risk of the potential effects of global warming too?

Quotethat same logic has been given as the primary reason we were not prepared for the 9/11 attack....you seem to have no problem with the government spending money to minimize our risk of a potential future attack....so why not minimize our risk of the potential effects of global warming too? 

The difference is ... a clear and present danger.  It is real and tangible.  It happened and will likely happen again.  The people responsible for the first attack have vowed to do so again.  I would rather spend money on clearly repeatable and preventable catastrophes.  How about a couple billion to detect and defend the planet against asteroid or comet strike.  These things absolutely WILL happen again... as they have clearly happened in the recent past.  These two events have in the past wiped out the dominant creatures on earth more than once.  Climate change is infinitely more survivable than these two incidents...  :)

Quote from: RiversideGator on January 22, 2009, 01:24:09 AM
And yet "infrastructure spending as a proportion of GDP is at a higher level today than anytime since 1981."

(http://cafehayek.typepad.com/.a/6a00d834518ccc69e2010536ecc889970c-320wi)
http://cafehayek.typepad.com/

sure...but this is total spending at all levels of government....many local governments have enacted dedicated taxes for infrastructure projects (like Better Jax)...and btw, nationally these referendums usually pass overwhelmingly.

But that doesn't meant that state and/or federal spending has increased....and since the levees are the responsibility of the ACOE, they are federal.

Your chart also doesn't distinguish between types of infrastructure....for example, do prisons and courthouses count?  We sure have built a bunch of those in the U.S. over the last decade.

no...I never said it doesn't count....but Bush doesn't get credit for state and local funding.....and, since it appears I need to repeat myself, the levee system in the U.S. is managed by the ACOE and is federally funded.   

Quote from: Midway on January 18, 2009, 10:15:25 PM
Why would anyone hate Bush? he kept us safe for 7 years, except for that one little slip-up in September.

A nearly perfect record!

Bravo and well done!

It's just commonsensical to love him.

I can see Bush's t-shirt... "I kept American safe for 2,921 days and all I got was this stupid t-shirt"

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=324774830779658

Probe Yourselves
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, April 16, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Finance: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants a broad "probe" of Wall Street, much like the 1932 Pecora Commission that led to sweeping bank reforms. Good idea. Let the probing begin â€" with Pelosi's Congress.

Named for its chief counsel, Ferdinand Pecora, the 1932 congressional commission dragged influential bankers and stockbrokers before its members for rough questioning â€" both of their business practices and private lives.

The Pecora Commission led directly to the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the creation of the Securities Exchange Commission in 1935 to oversee Wall Street.

Now Pelosi's calling for an encore. "People are very unhappy with these bailouts," she noted, especially the bonuses that went to executives. "Seventy five percent of the American people, at least, want an investigation of what happened on Wall Street."

No doubt, that's true. The problem is, what "happened on Wall Street" was a direct result of what happened on Capitol Hill. And we're not the only ones who believe that, by the way.

"Government policies, especially the Community Reinvestment Act, and the affordable housing mission that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were charged with fulfilling, are to blame for the financial crisis," wrote economist Peter Wallison, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, recently.

"Regulators also deserve blame for lowering lending standards that then contributed to riskier homeownership and the housing bubble." Exactly correct.

As such, Pelosi's proposed Pecora-style commission will be little more than a fig leaf to cover Congress' own multitude of sins â€" letting its members, the true creators of this financial mess, bash business leaders as they pose as populist saviors of Main Street from Wall Street predators.

Why do this now? Pelosi and her Democrat colleagues are feeling the heat from Tea Party demonstrations and growing voter anger over the massive waste entailed in the $4 trillion (and rising) stimulus-bailout bonanza. Again, the Democrats created all this spending. Now, as it proves unpopular, they just walk away from it.

On NPR Thursday, a reporter confronted Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, with the fact that his $300 billion "Hope for Homeowners" program, passed with much fanfare last fall, had so far helped just one homeowner. One.

Frank's response: It was the fault of the "right." And Bush.

Truth is, Frank's party has been in charge since 2006. And during that time, Democrats have presided over one of the most disgraceful and least accomplished Congresses in history. This financial mess began on their watch, yet they pretend otherwise.

What better way to take the heat off yourself than by pointing accusing fingers at those most unlikable of people â€" Wall Street bankers? That's what the Pelosi-Pecora Commission will do.

It won't get to the bottom of our financial crisis; it will carefully select scapegoats to be ritually shamed by the liberal media, stripped of their wealth, and exiled. Then new rules will be imposed that will no doubt make things worse. And the cycle will begin again.

We're not saying Wall Street has no blame for the financial meltdown. But Wall Street didn't create the subprime mess. Congress, through repeated interventions in healthy markets, did. And when the whole thing failed, it was Congress' fault.

We'd be happy to support a 9/11-style commission to look into the causes of the financial meltdown. But only if Congress agrees to put itself in the dock. Anything less would be a sham.

Clearly to simply line his own pockets... he is after all... eeeevil....

StephenDare!, do you have access to a simple table of world temps over the last twenty years?

Huh?  I simply asked for information.  If you don't have it, or don't want to provide it, just say so. 

Quote from: NotNow on May 22, 2014, 11:50:52 AM
Huh?  I simply asked for information.  If you don't have it, or don't want to provide it, just say so. 

Here is 77 pages of global warming stuff from Sir Charts a Lot:
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,1342.0/topicseen.html

I'm sure you can find what you are looking for somewhere in there.

How did this thread go from a 5 year old thread on the recession to global warming/climate change?

Quote from: tufsu1 on January 21, 2009, 09:33:24 PM
And how many of you know about the levee in D.C. that holds back the Potomac from flooding the national mall...its also deteriorated and needs to be rebuilt....right now half of the buildings in the Foggy Bottom area are at risk of being designated as being in a FEMA flood zone....imagine the increased costs of insurance, etc. for that!

Holy @#%#$%^$%^*$@

Do you mean that Washington D.C. could be in danger of being wiped out in a flood?

WOW, we should be so lucky.

Quote from: stephendare on May 22, 2014, 11:48:11 AM
are you under the impression that global warming influenced the Bush Era World Trade Center Bombing by Osama Bin Laden?  (you know, the guy that the Obama Administration hunted down and killed?)

The Obama administration had nothing to do with finding Bin Laden.  They made the bottom line Go decision after he was found, but any President would have made the same decision.  So many documentaries explaining the history, I'd recommend you watch a few before claiming this.

You have to give Obama a lot of credit on this one. Bush pulled the funds in the Bin Laden search, Romney famously said he wouldn't move heaven and earth just to find him either but Obama took the opposite approach and dedicated heavy resources into finding Bin Laden.