Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 221 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
McCain says government ’forced’ to bail out AIG
Published Wednesday, September 17, 2008
WARREN, Ohio (AP) — Republican presidential candidate John McCain, a day after flatly rejecting the idea of a taxpayer bailout for American International Group Inc., said Wednesday that the government had been ‘‘forced’’ into proposing an $85 billion loan to the nation’s largest insurer.
McCain appeared to soften his opposition to the bailout proposed by the Treasury Department, treating the plan as a necessary evil to protect ordinary Americans with finanical ties to AIG — and asserting that such a financial collapse should not be allowed to happen again. He also called for an investigation to uncover any wrongdoing.
‘‘The government was forced to commit $85 billion,’’ McCain said in a statement. ‘‘These actions stem from failed regulation, reckless management and a casino culture on Wall Street that has crippled one of the most important companies in America,’’ McCain said in a statement.
‘‘The focus of any such action should be to protect the millions of Americans who hold insurance policies, retirement plans and other accounts with AIG,’’ he said. ‘‘We must not bail out the management and speculators who created this mess. They had months of warnings following the Bear Stearns debacle, and they failed to act.’’
Although he is stepping up criticism of government regulators as he seeks the presidency, McCain has long favored a reduction in corporate regulation. A similar free-market thinker, former Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas, who led the Senate Banking Committee in Congress, has been an adviser to the campaign.
McCain himself had a hand in economic matters as a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, which he once chaired. His campaign has noted that McCain was heavily involved in telecommunications regulation and deregulation.
McCain said in an interview that he didn’t want the government to bail out AIG. ‘‘But there are literally millions of people whose retirement, whose investment, whose insurance were at risk here,’’ he said in an interview with ‘‘Good Morning America’’ on ABC. ‘‘They were going to have their lives destroyed because of the greed and excess and corruption.’’
Elaborating on the charge of corruption, McCain said that many Wall Street executives had claimed ‘‘everything’s fine, not to worry’’ and that Congress and regulators had paid no attention. ‘‘All of them were asleep at the switch,’’ he said, and went on to blame special interests and lobbyists as well.
Asked for specific examples of corruption regarding AIG, senior McCain campaign adviser Steve Schmidt offered none.
‘‘Well, at this hour, when you look at the situation, it is still muddled and unclear,’’ Schmidt told The Associated Press. ‘‘But it is clear that the system has been corrupted.’’
McCain repeated his call for a high-level commission, on the order of the one that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks, to review the economic troubles on Wall Street. But when asked by ABC for examples of what he would do to deal with the current problems, McCain cited only the proposals he offered well before the crisis emerged — no tax increases, affordable health care and energy alternatives among them.
Barack Obama’s campaign dismissed the idea of a commission. ‘‘The last thing we need is a commission to study a problem that everyone but John McCain knows is the result of the failed economic policies he has championed for the last 26 years,’’ Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor said in a statement.
In the ABC interview, McCain called the financial crisis ‘‘one of the most severe crises in modern times,’’ yet on Monday morning he had maintained his oft-stated position that ‘‘the fundamentals of our economy are strong.’’ For that he drew withering criticism from his Democratic opponent and others. By afternoon, with the markets falling amid other bad financial news, McCain was using a more dire tone.
In two new television ads Wednesday, McCain asserts that he is the right leader to keep Americans’ savings safe.
‘‘Enough is enough,’’ McCain says in one of the commercials. ‘‘I’ll meet this financial crisis head on. Reform Wall Street. New rules for fairness and honesty. I won’t tolerate a system that puts you and your family at risk. Your savings, your jobs — I’ll keep them safe.’’
In a second ad, McCain criticizes Obama as offering only ‘‘talk and taxes’’ as solutions. Obama himself taped a two-minute commercial Tuesday in Colorado in which he speaks directly to American voters about the country’s economic problems.
The early morning release of McCain’s ads and their rapid production — one was taped during a 10-minute stop at a home in Tampa, Fla., on Tuesday — highlight his efforts to claim the high ground on a subject he has acknowledged is a weakness.
Comments
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
FLIP FLOP!!!!
Three days ago he was talking about how Fannie Mae and Freddie were the line. That those other greedy folks who worked all the loans otherwise must not be bailed out. Tuff guy protecting us all, yaknow.
Today it is necessary and he says OK.
The man either has a short attention span or he will say anything to get elected and doesn't expect his supporters to notice.
Posted by jrn59 (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 7:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh well, Barrack Hussein Obama cannot do any better. I am not worried about some of this but AIG is a big one, controlling insurance, etc. It is a loan and will be paid back. Wonder what Barrack Hussein Obama would do about the events going on in Yemen. Serious and dangerous but remember the terrorists are still around waiting for the election to come and go....
Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 9:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What if AIG isn't able to repay the loan? I mean c'mon they weren't capable of managing prior to the loan. How do you get into debt to the tune of $85 Billion? Two notes behind is about all they've ever extended to me, lol, and that would only amount to about $500.
What about Natchez Regional...they could use a little corporate welfare too?
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 10:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Your problem Peace007 is that you're being too logical. He,he!
And jrn59, we can wonder first if Barack would even have to deal with things like the Yemen attack. There is a chance that attacks will be fewer when Bush is out of office. It is actually Bush and Bush policies that they are attacking. You know those guys do tend to notice which presidents bomb their little sisters.
Benladin said his 9/11 attack was retribution for what Bush's Dad did in Desert Storm "using the Muslim Holy Land to kill and denigrate Muslims". And attempts were infrequent during the 8 years Clinton was in there, despite his attempts at surgical strikes, at least Clinton did not wage a full-scale war on a muslim country. Clinton's limited move on Bosnia was in part to quiet the slaughter of Muslims by Serbs -- maybe they noticed the difference between Bush's and Clinton.
If Barack can avoid 80% of the bloodshed Bush sought, perhaps we might only suffer from a portion of reprisal attacks. We can always attack them more if diplomacy fails. But if I were a crazed muslim fanatic and I thought McCain was 4 more years of Bush I would look for a nuclear weapon. McCain might be exactly the prescription for a real disaster.
Paul Volcker has come out for Obama -- the FED chairman during 7 years of Reagan and the man that whipped inflation despite Reagan's deficit spending. He says Obama is the only one he would have faith in because McCain will use tired old tricks that won't work to face our challenges. Oh well I guess he disagrees with a lot of rednecks on economic theory, huh? He,he!
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 10:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Peace...AIG got squeezed between irresponsible loans and a loss of credit rating causing the huge losses and potential bankruptcy...it was criminal of the corporation to be sure, but even more criminal of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd who, being in power for the past two years while the crisis got bigger, refused to let GWB do anything (and he did try to pass reforms) about Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bear Stearns, Lehmann Brothers and now AIG....the regulations we have now are sufficient...the Congressional oversight is not!
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 10:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeahuhuh...There is a greater chance that through weakness under Obama we'll be attacked more often and more importantly here in the US again.
It's Bin Laden, not Benladin or any of the other half dozen different spellings you've used...also "Ben" is a Hebrew surname denoting "son of"...Arabs use "Bin" which has the same meaning, but you'd never catch a Hebrew using Bin or an Arab using Ben...it's enough to get you killed.
I'd say that Bin Laden was pretty prolific during Clinton's tenure...let's see two hotels in Aden, Yemen targeting U.S. troops in 1992...two US embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania in 1998...not to mention the fact that the first attack on the WTC occured in 1993 and planning for 9/11 actually happened mostly during Clinton's watch...and he did nothing!
He did act in Bosnia and should have, but only very timidly and it could have been stopped quicker, cheaper and with less loss of life...the Serbians simply weren't scared of us and considered Clinton to be weak.
When will you Dems realize you can't reason or have diplomacy with "crazed muslim fanatics" who are bent on the destruction of your entire culture...they don't listen to anything but strength..."talk softly and carry a BIG STICK"...Teddy Roosevelt...yeah, he was a Republican too.
One of the reasons for the S&L crisis was that Volcker, Jimmy Carter's appointee, precipitously raised interest rates to "stamp out inflation"...by the time he felt the need to act, Reagan's policies had already virtually ended the inflation of the Carter years. It led many to believe that Volcker did it for political reasons rather than fiduciary ones...he may well have if he is supporting Obama.
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 12:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Your omission of the Reagan/Bush role in enraging the mideast is a wonderful kindness to Reagan and Bush's legacy Sam.
Imagine, you being so kind to these great men as to pretend it wouldn't matter to do what they did -- and cast those who retaliate against them as simply "crazed muslim fanatics". That should read "righteously indignant and immensely, predictably irritated crazed muslim fanatics". Their craziness does not exonerate the folks that spent our taxes to make the crazier.
Tell me Sam. If Iran overthrew our government covertly, and installed a king more to their liking who would rule us with their support for 25 years, then let us vote and made a deal with us to give us a few weapons parts and almost immediately sided with Cuba to attack us, killing a million souls in the process -- then shot down one of our airliners with a military vessel -- tell me honest sage -- if they did that, exactly WHICH town in Iran would you strike with nuclear weapons first???? And how many Iranian women and children would you just have to kill? Ya think it would be less than 3 or 4 thousand?
From a global, moral standpoint, you sound like a creep, Sam. Nobody ever taught you the Golden Rule worked in geopolitics, too?? In case nobody ever told you your party and your ideology has grown fat and corrupt. Even your rendering of history is a self-aggrandised joke.
And I am sorry that both the savings and loan crisis and this present problem happened on your party's watches. Truly amazing that a student of Reagan could watch Reagan overstimulate the economy and when inflation corrective measures raised interest rates and S+L's crashed that George Bush Jr. Would do EXACTLY the same thing 20 years later and you didn't call him and stop him!!!
After 28 or 29 years it doesn't look like Reaganomics is going to work for anything but a moderate stimulation with recurring deficits and buying the votes of the anti-tax turtles. Your party will just have to cobble together some racists and tax rebels, corporations, the NRA, the terrified and a few religious fanatics and see if you can get power again.
But don't expect the rest of us to be as nice as we once were. Off with your heads, He,he!
Posted by bombingeight (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 3:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I know it must be hard to be rational at this hour, but let's get a grip on the raft of facts regarding Volcker, Carter and Reagan. Volcker was indeed appointed by Carter but he was reappointed by Reagan in 1983. Volcker controlled the supply of money with the result of increased interest rates. Now, from Wikipedia
"Although the deregulation of S&Ls gave them many of the capabilities of banks, it did not bring them under the same regulations as banks. First, thrifts could choose to be under either a state or a federal charter. Immediately after deregulation of the federally chartered thrifts, the state-chartered thrifts rushed to become federally chartered, because of the advantages associated with a federal charter. In response, states (notably, California and Texas) changed their regulations so they would be similar to the federal regulations. States changed their regulations because state regulators were paid by the thrifts they regulated, and they didn't want to lose that money.[citation needed]
[edit] Imprudent real estate lending
In an effort to take advantage of the real estate boom (outstanding US mortgage loans: 1976 $700 billion; 1980 $1.2 trillion)[citation needed]and high interest rates of the late 1970s and early 1980s, many S&Ls lent far more money than was prudent, and to risky ventures which many S&Ls were not qualified to assess. L. William Seidman, former chairman of both the FDIC and the Resolution Trust Corporation, stated, "The banking problems of the '80s and '90s came primarily, but not exclusively, from unsound real estate lending." [4]
Posted by bombingeight (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 3:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
One or two additions in response to flights from facts to fancy: Phil Gramm, John Mc's econ advisor soul mate, has had a hand in creating this mess in 2001 with his late night, 235 page rider that further deregulated finanacial instruments.
Finally, Clinton did indeed know of bin Laden's work, did too little to stop it and warned W of the threat that GWB absolutely disregarded as he vacationed in Crawford, TX.
Facts are important, even in Natchez.
Posted by jrn59 (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 6:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeahuhuh, if Bill Clinton had been taking care of our country when he was in office instead of taking care of himself and Monica in the Oval office, perhaps we would not be in the shape we are in today. Look at the mans name: Barrack Hussein Obama, does that not tell you any thing. Sure terrorists would like Hussein as our President, then they could run over us. President George W. Bush is an excellent president. We have not had any terror hits since 9/ll, but look out, cause they are waiting and watching to see who leads the US and they are betting on the weakest. Vote McCain/Palin, be smart!!
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
jrn59, you are not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree either, are you?
If your moral code allows you to discount the hundreds of thousands we have killed, helped kill and manipulated as a cause of terrorist reprisals, then you need to go to church.
If you decide to look into it, look up Eisenhower's aggression against Iran that installed the Shah and established Savak,
the Iran/Iraq War, our support of the terrorist Benladin, the Contras and Saddam. We support terrorists, we just do it so ineptly that the very ones we support eventually attack us, and for obvious reasons. It's the very dumb that act clueless about why that would happen, or point their finger at others constantly as their excuse.
We have had thousands of strikes since 9/11, just not on our soil -- remember, we wanted to take the fight to another country and kill people there. We have caused instability and the deaths of a hundred-thousand plus innocents in our political moves in Iraq, and have lost thousands of soldiers.
It must be awful to be so terribly insecure -- so insecure you don't seem to notice you kill more innocents with your tax dollars than the terrorists do. They have begun to hold us all accountable for your lack of seeing a way to make it through life without killing folks on their own soil. McCain has no vision on how to do it any differently. The eager killers on both sides are the enemy of humanity.
Posted by harjedalen (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Be smart? Seems dumb and bigotted to me. What facts can you offer that Obama would be the "weaker" candidate? If you are just going by his name, seems bigotted to me.
Teddy Roosevelt's grandson, Kermit, is largely to blame for our current woes in Iran. That's why our Government fears them getting the bomb, they have a big beef to settle that WE started!
Nice Flip Flop Mccain!
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 9:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
harjedalen -- I don't know why people are so afraid to discuss our history with Iran as a way of understanding the "menace" of Islam.
Truth is, if Iran did to us what we have done to them we would push the button and flatten the whole country. Also true of Iraq.
You throw away the Golden Rule when you join the Republican Party, and the Golden Rule is the cornerstone of civilized behavior.
The whole foreign policy lie is that they hate our freedom and they want to destroy our culture -- it is US that seeks to start a domino reaction in the Middle East to topple their governments and make them more like us -- and we spend far more money and lives to do it than the terrorists.
You're right -- Bush/Cheny/Palin are terrified Iran would get the bomb and use it with due cause, either on behalf of the Palestinians or themselves next time we destabilize their country.
But the GOP PR line for anyone dumb enough to not look further is that they "hate our freedom".
What I don't know is how these patriots think they can be so stupid about history and their enemy's motivations and ever be good soldiers.
Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Lehman Brothers’ collapse is traced back to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two big mortgage banks that got a federal bailout a few weeks ago. Freddie and Fannie used huge lobbying budgets and political contributions to keep regulators off their backs. A group called the center for responsive politics keeps track of which politicians get Fannie and Freddie political contributions. The top three U.S. Senators getting big Fannie and Freddie political bucks were democrats and number two is Senator Barack Obama.
Which candidate foresaw the credit crisis and tried to do something about it? As it turns out, John McCain did — and partnered with three other Senate Republicans to reform the government’s involvement in lending three years ago, after an attempt by the Bush administration died in Congress two years earlier. McCain spoke forcefully on May 25, 2006, on behalf of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd......
Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 10:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
huhuh...Volker, the man appointed by Carter whose change in policy contributed to the significant recession the U.S. economy experienced in the early 1980s, which included the highest unemployment levels since the Great Depression.
He is Obama's economic advisor. WOW that is an economic replay I'd like to see happen...NOT.
Your support of Volker economics, to use your quote, makes you look dumb!
Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 12:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It’s Election Day 2008. We Democrats are giving America a wake-up call. Wake up, America. In 2001, the oil companies, the war contractors and the neo-con artists seized the economy and have added 4 trillion dollars of unproductive spending to the national debt. We now pay four times more for defense, three times more for gasoline and home heating oil and twice what we paid for health care.
Millions of Americans have lost their jobs, their homes, their health care, their pensions. Trillions of dollars for an unnecessary war paid with borrowed money. Tens of billions of dollars in cash and weapons disappeared into thin air, at the cost of the lives of our troops and innocent Iraqis, while all the president’s oilmen are maneuvering to grab Iraq’s oil.
Borrowed money to bomb bridges in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. No money to rebuild bridges in America. Money to start a hot war with Iran. Now we have another cold war with Russia, while the American economy has become a game of Russian roulette.
If there was an Olympics for misleading, mismanaging and misappropriating, this administration would take the gold. World records for violations of national and international laws. They want another four-year term to continue to alienate our allies, spend our children’s inheritance and hollow out our economy.
We can’t afford another Republican administration. Wake up, America. The insurance companies took over health care. Wake up, America. The pharmaceutical companies took over drug pricing.
Wake up, America. THE SPECULATORS TOOK OVER WALL STREET. Wake up, America. THEY WANT TO TAKE YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY. Wake up, America. Multinational corporations took over our trade policies, factories are closing, good paying jobs lost. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLRYAzBJd...
Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 12:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wake up, America. We went into Iraq for oil. The oil companies want more. War against Iran will mean $10-a-gallon gasoline. The oil administration wants to drill more, into your wallet. Wake up, America. Weapons contractors want more. An Iran war will cost 5 to 10 trillion dollars.
This administration can tap our phones. They can’t tap our creative spirit. They can open our mail. They can’t open economic opportunities. They can track our every move. They lost track of the economy while the cost of food, gasoline and electricity skyrockets. They skillfully played our post-9/11 fears and allowed the few to profit at the expense of the many. Every day we get the color orange, while the oil companies, the insurance companies, the speculators, the war contractors get the color green.
Wake up, America. This is not a call for you to take a new direction from right to left. This is call for you to go from down to up. Up with the rights of workers. Up with wages. Up with fair trade. Up with creating millions of good paying jobs, rebuilding our bridges, ports and water systems. Up with creating millions of sustainable energy jobs to lower the cost of energy, lower carbon emissions and protect the environment.
Up with health care for all. Up with education for all. Up with home ownership. Up with guaranteed retirement benefits. Up with peace. Up with prosperity. Up with the Democratic Party. Up with Obama-Biden.
Wake up, America. Wake up, America. Wake up, America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLRYAzBJd...
Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The woman who knew too much? Benazir Bhutto: Omar Sheik murdered Osama bin Ladin http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1uLdmct8...
Benazir Bhutto murdered by gunshot for announcing Osama bin Ladin murdered? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vq-DwHXx4...
Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 12:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
http://gawker.com/5035885/bush-looking-d...
http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/...
http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=1012
Bush hangs out at the olympics http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgbffE2o3...
Bush drunk as a monkey at the Olympics http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfK98Dg5U...
Posted by Chase (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 12:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What we are seeing with the required Government bail-outs is the big "S-Word"--Socialism.
When Fanny and Freddie were first instituted, they were government run agencies. But greedy fat fingered corporations wanted in on the potential cash. And when the going was good, these corporations, filled to the top floor with Republican supporters, were touting "minimize Government!"
Now that the pockets of the rich are stuffed and the markets are feeling the effects of all that missing cash, which is stored in the vaults of the Crawford ranch-lol, those same people are looking for the Government (us) to bail them out; creating bigger government and looking more like Socialism.
But who will get the blame for Socialization once he takes office-- "Barrack Hussein Obama."
Posted by Chase (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 1:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Peace007, thank you so much for the videos! Please do not hesitate the share more!
This sheeit is funny as hell to see W simply being himself--A Drunken Monkey!
Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 1:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Secret Meetings of the House
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kB-JGqDuk...
Dennis Kucinich talks about secret meetings of the house
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgnbFCbnB...
What is he trying to say?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oG8IrrF1E...
Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 2:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Do you guys remember when Clinton hurt is knee? He hurt his knee when he fell leaving Greg Norman's house. He was drunk when the did that...but no one talks about that. Hmmm....
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 2:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Anyone who wants to check out other battles on the message board, go to the Glass ceiling thread on Opinion.
Yomama and wabbit have been tearing it up, to some extent claiming that Reagan, Bush and Bush were innocent victims of Clinton's and Carter's deficit spending -- an exactly backwards rendering of history. When offered the charts to show, yomama had a fit, and happybunny ignored the entire page of graphs that tell the unvarnished truth.
The wabbit posted exactly the same drivel he did about demonizing Volcker above (he must have frantically Googled something up as he avoided a response to being wrong). He left out in trying to blame Carter that Reagan reappointed Volcker in 83, and then appointed Greenspan who now says that Iraq was all about and only about oil from the start. Both of them (Volcker and Greenspan) now seem to think Republicans are crooks and/or liars.
What do they say -- the more education you have the more likely you are to be supporting Obama?
Yes, but I think we all know that a lot of folks would have to find an entirely new circle of friends if they ever let on that they voted for Obama.
The GOP is counting on those social Republicans cuz a vote is a vote. We should remind everyone that once you're in that booth your vote is private.
Some people who innocently beleive the political sound bites would be very offended at the GOP if they ever slowed down long enough to check out the facts.
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 2:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OK notfromnatchez I'll bite. Is that golfer Greg Norman???
Your point is?????
I think liberal types are OK with getting drunk on occasion and maybe even submitting to sexual temptation when it looks like they can pull it off.
It's the other guys that pretend you are a bad president if you break their moral edicts about personal thrills.
I have always said Democrats lie about their sex lives and Republicans lie about the way they run our government and having sex with boys. he,he!
Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 2:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There was mention of Bush being drunk. Clinton got drunk too...big deal.
Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 3:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
More of Peace's pointless nonsense.
huhuh, it doesn't matter that Reagan reappointed Volcker, what matters is that Volckers economic policies delivered us into a nightmarish recession, and Volcker is Obama's economic advisor! That should scare the daylights out of any individual that is concerned about the economy.
And I notice you failed to comment on the fact that OBAMA took the second largest payout of Fannie and Freddie bucks while McCain tried to get the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 passed to no avail. McCain predicted everything that is happening in our economy right now and tried to stop it while Obama sat back and received his payout. So is that like Senate welfare?
HMMM That speaks volumes about the character differences between the two candidates.
Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
huhuh...did you read about the crack head that didn't get his crack? You made the comment section LMFAO!!!
Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 3:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
((Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 2:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Do you guys remember when Clinton hurt is knee? He hurt his knee when he fell leaving Greg Norman's house. He was drunk when the did that...but no one talks about that. Hmmm....))
Is there a video of Clinton doing that on YouTube? btw, Bush is an alcoholic and supposed to be on the wagon...he musta fell off.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 3:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This crisis did not start with mortgage loans. It started with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. What is happening now is the only possible outcome of using debt as money, of allowing a private banking cartel to control the nation's money supply and charge interest on it. Until people understand this nothing will change; neither political party intends to do anything about it. The last president who tried was JFK and we all know what happened to him. How our money works: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...
You can read G. Edward Griffin's 'Creature From Jekyll Island' for a detailed history of the Federal Reserve and how it works, and you can also read Eustace Mullins 'Secrets of the Federal Reserve' commissioned by Ezra Pound. But here is a video from Griffin on the creation of the Fed: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...
Back around the time the Federal Reserve Act was passed many newspapers published articles about the socialist aspects of the system and some had cartoons showing Wall Street bankers partying with Karl Marx. What makes the Federal Reserve socialist is that the people, as you are now seeing very clearly, share and guarantee the debt of the system while its operators reap the profits generated from interest on non-existent money. Both political parties allow this crime to continue because it benefits them in many ways.
You can't spend more than you have, that is a physical impossibility, but our system creates the illusion that more than is there can be spent. And, more than that, the operators of the system entice you to participate by begging for walking trails, canoe canals, recreation complexes, intermodal centers, and god knows what else- whatever your socialist heart desires.
Posted by Gimmeabreak (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 4:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
First of all Yeahuhuh is my hero of the day!
Did someone actually say that George W. Bush is an excellent president? I hope they were being sarcastic. I'm voting for OBAMA, so what if he hasnt been a Senator for a hundred years, I think that he may offer a fresh perspective because of that. The status quo is not working, why are people so afraid of change? I dont dislike McCain, I think he is a good guy and he proudly served his country but seems like he's doing a little flip-flopping? I, however, do not like Palin and her views, at all. She doesnt speak for this woman. It is very upsetting that many women are going to vote for her for the simple fact that she is a woman.
Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 4:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And many black people will vote for Obama simply because he's 1/2 black.
Posted by Gimmeabreak (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 6:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 6:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Since there are only about 15% black folks in this country,and a slew more white ones, I just bet there will be alot more people voting against Barack because of race than for him because of race. Definitely true in Mississippi.
Enkik is right about what he said about the workings of the fed. And about how the underpinnings of the system are socialist in that way. A point I have tried to make to the free enterprise crowd is that we are a long way from a supply-demand free enterprise system and they are being screwed daily in many ways they do not understand. So those simplistic wisdoms about the rich folks keeping their money and it seamlessly re-entering our system to vitalize it doesn't work for a panacea.
"You can't spend more than you have, that is a physical impossibility, but our system creates the illusion that more than is there can be spent. And, more than that, the operators of the system entice you to participate by begging for walking trails, canoe canals, recreation complexes, intermodal centers, and god knows what else- whatever your socialist heart desires."
I postulate that you can spend more than you have because credit obligates you. What's more, getting walking trails, complexes and the like is the way of our world. If you are austere enough to forego asking for such you -- and your children -- will get no reward except an esoteric buzz -- the Sarah Palin's of the world will scoop up your millions then claim publicly she hates earmarks and is a fighting reformer. Then you can pay your taxes AGAIN and fuel more Sarah Palins to do the same.
If we are going to game the system, let's do it for health care and peace in this world, to get ourselves free of petroleum addiction and to help the lamest among us learn to pay for their upkeep. One day, when we aren't fighting off reprisal strikes from our oil wars maybe someone will have the courage to challenge assumptions we all have about our system -- and lying to perpetuate it's excesses will no longer be so fashionable.
Posted by jrn59 (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 7:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Projected electoral votes on Political Dashboard has both candidates in a virtual tie at 250. Our state continues to maintain support for Senator McCain, as are all other southern states. But, either one can win this tight race. Go McCain/Palin (first VP lady)!
Posted by iameubu (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 8:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Everyone read and study on your own what EnKiKur said. Exactly correct information. I've never met another soul in person who'd heard of Eustace Mullins.
Yeahuhuh. I may be incorrect, but I thought the black population in the US was about 30%. I will NOT be voting for the Obama because he's a ******* Marxist.
Look at this link:
http://www.investors.com/editorial/edito...
Not because he's black. My very favorite American, and person I'd most like to meet, is this man:
http://www.tsowell.com/
Unfortunately he is not running.
Where current problems in economy started, look here
http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_th...
Note the date of the article.
I like Sara Palin because she seems to be the 'everyman' or person. NOT a Rangel, Hillary, Either Bush, Biden, Barney, Barbara Walters, Couric, Swaggart, or even McCain.
Posted by jrn59 (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 8:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
iameubu: thanx for the educational links. Yes, agree with you on Mr. Sowell. I have read his editorials for years, a very knowledgeable man who would make a good President. When I was a director in health care, a group of us would congregate & discuss Mr. Sowell's views, made for interesting coffee break. Senator McCain/Sarah Palin, the best we have...
Posted by iameubu (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 9:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jm59: I can't begin to say how much respect I have for Dr. Sowell. I have met some GIANTS in the past, see previous posts, and was never tongue tied. But would probably devolve into a single cell life form if we ever should meet.
One of his 'end of the year' columns struck me once. A simple sentence led to months of introspection. "Is there anything sadder than an ageing Hippie?" Was that me? I was at one time very radical left wing, ie Monkey Wrench Gang sort of thinking. I visited with Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden (Obama style Marxist) at their ranch above Santa Barbara. I finally grew up, hopefully that makes me a 'reformed hippie'. Sadly many others have not grown up.
Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 11:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
They want to come home...Bring them home now!
http://www.youtube.com/user/journeymanpi...
Posted by Swapmeet (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 11:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think it's sad that it's good news for Democrats when the stock market does badly. BTW, the 5% or so drop in the market on Monday is not as bad as in the 80's when it dropped anywhere from 15-20% (the exact number escapes me). You would think from reading the news that it's the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.
Also: I love how people say Obama is so great on the economy and McCain is out of touch. In 2005, McCain co-sponsored a bill that would have reformed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. He said that continued corruption at these entities would eventually take a hit on the tax payers and the economy as a whole. This whole deal with AIG, Merrill Lynch, Lehman (sp.?) Brothers, and others originates with Freddie and Fannie being able to run uninhibited.
Another BTW: Guess who is one of Obama's top economic advisors? Wright who earned $91 million dollars while running F.M. in the ground and having a part in the whole housing stink.
Guess who was the #2 lawmaker in taking money from Freddie and Fannie? Obama. People say "well, McCain's on that list." Yes he is way, way down the list. Unlike Obama, he didn't take that money straight from the two entities and it took him from 1989-2008 to accumulate that money. 19 years! It took Obama only three years to be the #2 man. Big discrepancies between the two when it comes to the economy.
Oh yeah: And Biden said today that people making over $250,000 should pay more taxes which is their patriotic duty. He wants to take that money and give it to the middle-class. Hello, can anyone say "redistribution of wealth" which is one of the basic tenets of socialism i.e. communism. Talk about scary!
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 11:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeahuhuh, if we are austere enough, (and how do you consider not asking for government gifts austerity?) there is a reward, and that reward is a lessening of perpetual debt. Doing away with that perpetual debt does away with the need for a perpetual income tax which allows people to care for themselves instead of being dependent on the government.
Somehow you and other liberals, I notice, like to equate the desire to care for oneself with finance capitalism, as if a wage earner is somehow the same as a moneybags banker.
Though I don't give a flying flip which establishment hack, Obama or McCain, gets elected since I know both are just figureheads of two ships on the same course to hell, Obama's plan to tax the rich is not workable. The rich are his backers, they will never allow it. The powerless ones, those in the middle class who fought with the aid of parents, second jobs, and steady application to earning professional degrees, or those who put in extra long hours at small businesses that allow them to make 250 to a million a year or so are Obama's primary target. In short, the middle class.
When I see McCain and Obama and Palin and Biden posing on stage spouting platitudes to supporters awake to half the picture I honestly cannot watch. I do not understand how people do not recognize the posturing. These people are not even good actors.
Today the Treasury Dept has announced a plan to create and give to European Central banks 200 billion dollars we, the taxpayers, will have to pay back. Their socialist systems, it seems, are no more efficient than the system you want for our country. All told, that brings us up to about 800 billion in taxpayer guarantees since the credit bubble burst became manifest. That is an increase in the public debt of almost ten percent in less than a year.
I hope you canoe canal and walking trail enthusiasts like soup and cat stew because it is likely in our future.
Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 12:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archive...
blackwater mercenaries make more than generals
Posted by ProgressiveTom (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 12:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I likened McCain's sudden shock at unrestrained greed in the investments markets to the police captain who was profoundly shocked that there was gambling at Rick's in the movie Casablanca. Except that was a movie and this is real life. What a phony! John McCain -he'll say anything to be elected
Posted by ProgressiveTom (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 12:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In the wake of Hoover's Republian Great Depression of 1929 that was caused by rampant deregulation of the stock market and the greed that follows not having any rules, it took the Democrats at least a decade to tighten regulations and undo all the Republican damage. An entire generation knew better than to vote for Republicans again, but time is the great memory eraser, and eventually Republicans got into power yet again.
It all has to do with mortgage loans.
One of the protections that the Democrats put into place in the wake of the Republican great depression was a tight set of regulations on "savings and loan" companies. These small savings banks could not participate in interstate commerce. They could hold people's money in savings accounts, then use that money to lend to homeowners who had good credit, making a modest profit on the regulated interest, and sharing some of that in the form of interest with their customers with savings accounts.
This made for a boring, but safe bank. Since a bank would be responsible for their mortgage holders for the life of the mortgage, the bank had to make sure the customer would be good for the loan. A rule of thumb was that they wouldn't lend to somebody if they wanted to borrow more than 3 times their annual income for a house. It was widely accepted that any higher ratios were risky and could cause defaults.
In comes foreclosure Phil and his deregulation... His simple little law just said that the government could not interfere with new, creative, financial instruments.
So the banks figured out a great trick. why not take mortgages, package them up into "structured investment vehicles" and throw them into equity markets?
That means a bank can give out mortgages, sell them as a package, where all risk is hidden, and those packages can float and bob around the equities market hopping from one speculator to another, far far away from the original lending bank, who has already taken its profit and no longer cares.
Of course the result is that banks would lend to just anybody. they'd lend to people who never ever would be able to pay that mortgage. but once they sold the loan off, it wasn't their problem anymore.
To make it even easier for this practice to explode, the FED kept lowering interest rates, so as to attract all sorts of people into this trap.
So to make a long story short, we are now back where we were in 1929, and the early 80's when Reagan deregulated S&L's resulting in trillions in losses... trillions, by the way that we still are paying for every day and will be paying for for decades to come.
When people wonder where all their tax money goes, they don't have to look far. Billions a day are thrown out in interest on the debt.And John McCain said a few days ago that the "fundamentals are sound." Tom in Seattle
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 12:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ProgressiveTom, it was Democrats who allowed this system to get started in the first place- Woodrow Wilson signed off on it after Democrats in the Senate approved it. It does no good to keep playing sides when both are protecting legalized theft just in order to preserve their political power.
When FDR confiscated the gold belonging to the people further centralizing control of wealth with his banker backers, was that a Republican plot? You folks just don't get it. The banking system itself is fatally flawed and has destruction built into it. The power to issue currency rightly belongs to Congress and neither party supports that Constitutional dictate any longer.
Our financial body is bleeding from a thousand gaping wounds. The Republicans want to put bandaids here and there, and the Democrats there and here. We've got to stop buying this false political polarity and demand that those pompous asses in Washington disentangle themselves from the financial and corporate worlds and just tend to the business of running the government as set up by the Constitution.
Bankers have been allowed since 1913 to run the whole damned system. How can anyone be surprised that they have operated it to their benefit? This is what must be stopped and at the moment both parties are proposing as the "fix" allowing even more banker control.
Lastly, please, for the edification of the locals, explain to us what a progressive is, and where the word progressive originates from. Progressive as opposed to what?
Posted by redusmfan (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 6 a.m. (Suggest removal)
its a beautiful day in the neighborhood, beautiful day in the neighborhood, would you be mine, could you be my neighbor?
Posted by iameubu (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 7:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Congress Lies Low To Avoid Bailout Blame.
The rest is here
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles...
Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
((Oh yeah: And Biden said today that people making over $250,000 should pay more taxes which is their patriotic duty. He wants to take that money and give it to the middle-class. Hello, can anyone say "redistribution of wealth" which is one of the basic tenets of socialism i.e. communism. Talk about scary!))
To swapmeet and those of you who have to worry about paying a few more dollars in taxes because you make over $250,000, I'd just like to say congratulations and I agree with Joe that you should pay your "fair share" of taxes.
On the other hand, the stock market seems to be rising
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/us...
Posted by jrn59 (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 8:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
An arrest has been made of the person who hacked into Gov. Palin's email account....he is a 20 yr. old Democrat from Tn....
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
jrn59 -- I guess if there was anything to get there that Ms Palin wasn't very security minded to be foiled by a 20 year old.
Or maybe the FBI could link the 20 year old hacker to Alqaida and the Democratic Party. Cool that young people are starting to use Republican political methods....bout time.
Enkik -- you do know of course that "Progressive" is a term used because the Republican Party, using US government and private funds since Nixon, has re-defined "liberal" into a latte-drinking, bisexual, atheist, communist, ni**er-loving, elitist egghead who lives off welfare and taxes and spends.
Republicans have gone to calling anyone who opposes them "liberals" and a few people defiantly ignore the success of the Republican lie machine and identify as liberals.
Other elements choose to call themselves "Progressives" because the policies they use are not limited to the government sponsored view of liberal.
Of course Marty, you would not sit by and watch as Republicans tried to claim God, motherhood, work, goodness, austerity and rightness as their own without comment.
And you certainly would not countenance their lies by insisting that their right to choose terms would stand unchallenged in the war of misinformation.
You know those Republicans -- if you don't stand with them you stand against them -- no matter what you call yourself.
Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 11:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well he found a new race card...unbelievable! The quotes he is referencing are from Rush Limbaugh.
Mr. Obama's campaign is now trafficking in prejudice of its own making. And in doing so, it is playing with political dynamite. What kind of potential president would let his campaign knowingly extract two incomplete, out-of-context lines from two radio parodies and build a framework of hate around them in order to exploit racial tensions? The segregationists of the 1950s and 1960s were famous for such vile fear-mongering.
Here's the relevant part of the Spanish-language television commercial Mr. Obama is running in Hispanic communities:
"They want us to forget the insults we've put up with . . . the intolerance . . . they made us feel marginalized in this country we love so much."
Then the commercial flashes two quotes from me: ". . . stupid and unskilled Mexicans" and "You shut your mouth or you get out!"
And then a voice says, "John McCain and his Republican friends have two faces. One that says lies just to get our vote . . . and another, even worse, that continues the policies of George Bush that put special interests ahead of working families. John McCain . . . more of the same old Republican tricks."
Posted by Swapmeet (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 11:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
((Oh yeah: And Biden said today that people making over $250,000 should pay more taxes which is their patriotic duty. He wants to take that money and give it to the middle-class. Hello, can anyone say "redistribution of wealth" which is one of the basic tenets of socialism i.e. communism. Talk about scary!))
To swapmeet and those of you who have to worry about paying a few more dollars in taxes because you make over $250,000, I'd just like to say congratulations and I agree with Joe that you should pay your "fair share" of taxes."
I don't make over $250,000 Peace007. I make under $20,000. I should pay the same percentage of taxes as a billionaire. Did you know that the top 5% of wage earners shoulder over 75% of the total taxes. The bottom 50% of the wage earners in this country pay less than 5% of the total taxes in this country. Sounds like the "rich" are already paying their fair share.
And you say you agree with Joe's call for the rich to step up. How about the fact that he's made about 3-4 million in the last 9 years or so and he's only given $3,000 to charity. He's a hypocrite who's too greedy to give on his own. I've donated more to charity in the past five years than he has and I am poor. It's a joke.
Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 11:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
They try to keep Biden on a short leash because of all the ridiculous statements he has made in this campaign.
Posted by broonzy (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeahuhuh, you have so much patience...
you can put hard facts on that log, they will still deny them. Calling Obama a marxist, using his name to belittle him... They want Chuck Norris for president, "I kill you first and then we discuss". Terrorists are all around us and Obama want to dismantle the army ! he wants to kill us all cuz he's a stalinist ! you did not notice ?
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you Broonzie. I have raised teenagers to adulthood -- I know all the tactics and I wish other folks' parents would teach them to be critical thinkers.... he,he!
SWAPMEET -- I know it's hard to understand how if corporations and the most wealthy get the real infuence in Congress, use of our banking and financial systems, and the rights to prosper from them in this country, that then they should pay more. The beauty of progressive taxation is that if you want to become one of those people you don't get taxed UNTIL you get wealthy and can afford it.
It's hard to face that when the Supreme Court said that money was speech, and that corporations were citizens that our representative democracy was hopelessly mangled by that.
You just keep up the support of the most wealthy on your $20,000. They appreciate it, but only if there are a few million of you, and you either vote for their candidates or buy their bic lighters.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 12:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I do not understand why people who make 250,000 or more from their labor or from a small business should pay a higher percentage of taxes than someone who makes less.
I can see taxing interest income at a higher rate, a very high rate in fact, since that money comes from the labor of others and from exploitation of common resources. The two are not the same though. A person who works harder should not have to give up his hard labor to someone who has chosen a life with a higher degree of poverty.
If you progressives, or Marxists, want to tax the rich you should avidly work to dismantle the Federal Reserve System because that is where the real money is and where the real social harm comes from. The only reason we have to pay any income taxes at all is to keep up with the interest on the debt to the Federal Reserve. There is simply no need to keep doing this. Putting an end to the Federal Reserve would be an effective 100% tax on the very rich.
Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 12:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Chuck Norris doesn't sleep...he waits.
Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 12:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Chuck Norris doesn't go hunting...he goes killing.
Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 12:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Contrary to popular belief, America is not a Democracy. It is a "Chuck"tatorship
Posted by jrn59 (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 12:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey guys, have some fun go over to Time for Some Campaignin' on YAHOO!Video. JibJab is at it again. Really cool and may soothe some political nerves. McCain/Palin all the way..........
Posted by broonzy (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 12:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Chuck"tatorship with George Walker Texas Ranger Bush and dirty Cheney Callahan... but we're tired of them old vigilante movies. It's time to change the channel.
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 12:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well Marty, who is going to put an end to the Federal Reserve?
Nobody seems to have any faith in thinking as comprehensively as you.
Progressive taxation is just one of many ways to view the values of our system versus it's costs. You use it more and better you pay a higher rate. Life ain't a horse race.
One of the dangers of a hybrid system like we have is that when the numbers of po-ass losers rises, democratic determination -- the proof they are not just used -- skews things to varying value systems.
If movers and shakers want to avoid progressive taxation they could have a larger field of concern when things are moving well. Based on the widening gap that isn't happening.
Posted by jrn59 (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 12:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mississippi throws full support behind McCain/Palin. Sure makes me proud to be a redneck. McCain/Palin winners in November!!
Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 1:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
huhuh...as usual, you did not address my comment. see below
And I notice you failed to comment on the fact that OBAMA took the second largest payout of Fannie and Freddie bucks while McCain tried to get the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 passed to no avail. McCain predicted everything that is happening in our economy right now and tried to stop it while Obama sat back and received his payout. So is that like Senate welfare?
HMMM That speaks volumes about the character differences between the two candidates.
Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you Broonzie. I have raised teenagers to adulthood -- I know all the tactics and I wish other folks' parents would teach them to be critical thinkers.... he,he!
OMG...it reproduced! There are little huhuh's out there!
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 1:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The same people who put it into place, the voters through their representatives, could get rid of it. The only problem is most people have no idea what it is or what it does.
Your reasoning is backwards. If you add more value to the system you should receive more of a reward- at least you should receive what you put in, your labor. I am speaking of productive value here, not the trading of IOU's among fat cats. What progressive taxation does is punish productivity, not just for the elite but for the low wage earner who gets to work a few hours of overtime a week for which he is charged a higher tax rate. You may be unaware of this but many residents in our area work in marine or offshore or oilfield jobs where they normally put in 40 plus hours of overtime a week and are heavily taxed for the extra wear and tear on their bodies and the extra value they add to the system as a whole. These people are far from rich and many don't even qualify as middle class.
So why should these workers, of whom there are millions, be forced to provide social and corporate welfare for people who at both ends of the scale work much shorter hours if they work at all? No one who works at labor or a trade or profession should pay any income tax at all. These people are not "using" the system they are the backbone of it.
Taxes on wages are theft, pure and simple. Your premise that a progressive tax is value added to our monetary system is absurd. It is the very thing you liberals hate so, a windfall to the richest of the rich you go along with because they throw a few bones to your social causes- and that keeps us with a permanent underclass that keeps you with a permanent cause.
Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 3:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 1:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
huhuh...as usual, you did not address my comment. see below
And I notice you failed to comment on the fact that OBAMA took the second largest payout of Fannie and Freddie bucks while McCain tried to get the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 passed to no avail. McCain predicted everything that is happening in our economy right now and tried to stop it while Obama sat back and received his payout. So is that like Senate welfare?"
<<<<< And I noticed that all of you McCain FANS have total AMNESIA about John McCAIN's involvement in the "KEATING FIVE Scandle" during the Savings and Loan Debacle, HMMMMMMMMMM
Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE
Way Past Time for America to Adopt It
A White Paper By
SCC Member - NEActuary
Universal healthcare is coming because our healthcare system is broken and it can’t be fixed.
Our healthcare system is built on a false premise that for over a half century has not worked,
but has been kept alive because so many people are getting rich off it.
Universal Healthcare or Socialized Medicine:
Universal healthcare is frequently called “Socialized medicine” by themedical industry
lobbies. I’m in Medicare – also called socialized medicine by those same lobbies – and I love
it as do most people that are covered by it.
In addition the term Socialized Medicine is wrong. In almost all universal healthcare systems
in the world (and certainly in any system we eventually will adopt), doctors remain in private
practice and most hospitals are owned in the private sector. Socialism means the means of
production is owned by the government. In a socialized system the doctors would work for
the state and the hospitals would be owned by the state. The term is wrong and it was
designed as a propaganda tool by the lobbyists.
The function of the government in a universal healthcare system is to pay the bills. Today
most healthcare decisions are made by insurance companies in VERY PRIVATE conference
rooms that few have access to. Frankly, I prefer the transparency of the government making
such decisions. In such cases the interests of shareholders doesn’t get into the decision.
The term is universal healthcare. The minute you hear socialized medicine you know who the
speaker is representing. So please, let's can the name tags and think for ourselves on this
subject.
Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The Problem– Employers Can’t Continue Providing HC Funding:
Today the poor have healthcare because of Medicaid and the old have it because of Medicare.
The rest of the population is dependant upon their employer for their funding of healthcare
costs.
In the late 1940’s through the 1960’s the labor union movement set the standard for employer
provided benefits, including health insurance. We were in situations where we had no
competition from the rest of the world so as healthcare costs increased we simply increased
prices with little or no concern.
As the rest of the world caught up with us (the WW II damage was repaired a new plants came
on line for them) we began to feel the pains of our healthcare system and the continual
increase in prices. But in the 70’s and 80’s it was oil that dominated the economic front and
healthcare was a minor pain.
That all changed in the late 80’s and 90’s. Now the pain of healthcare cost increases was
causing us to lose whole industries to good strong foreign competition, whose healthcare
systems weren’t paid for by employers and whose prices didn’t carry the burden of the cost of
healthcare.
Frankly, asking employers to fund healthcare is not very efficient, particularly for smaller
employers. This terrible way of providing healthcare simply developed out of our
circumstances in the post war period. It was not thought out, it just developed and now it is
biting us very badly not only on the healthcare perspective, but also our industry is being
decimated.
Now we are in a position where in order to survive employers must get rid of this health
insurance burden. We see this pattern everyday. Most uninsured people in this country go to
work every day and they work hard, but they do it without the kind of healthcare that most of
us had when we were in the workforce. Based upon a report by the Economic Policy Institute
(EPI), only 56% of workers had health insurance in 2004 compared to 59% in 2000.
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/bp167
Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 3:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If the rate of decline continues, by sometime this year we will have less than half of all
workers covered by employer provided health insurance. And by 2024 no worker will have
employer provided health insurance.
This decline in health insurance by employers is totally predictable in the face of double digit
healthcare cost increases. If you pick up virtually any annual report for a public company and
increase their healthcare costs at 12% (rate of increase of healthcare) plus growth and all other
revenue and expenses at 3% (inflation) plus growth you will find that they are bankrupt in
generally less than 10 years. In the old days before we had tough foreign competition (that
doesn’t carry this HC burden in their prices) we could just increase prices. That isn’t possible
today.
In order to survive employers have to get out of providing HC for employees in fairly short
order. This is the phenomenon that will drive us to universal healthcare, not liberals or
socialists or any other villain we can dream up.
The Problem– HC Costs can’t be Controlled:
Over my lifetime I have seen the following (among others) blamed for healthcare cost
increases:
Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 3:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Greedy doctors
Greedy hospitals (that cater to doctors not the public)
Greedy pharmaceutical manufacturers
Greedy medical equipment manufacturers
Greedy insurance companies
And finally the stupid consumers who don’t “buy” HC efficiently (heard this since the 1960’s
– that’s how we got deductibles and co-pays and most other punitive features in health
insurance plans)
But if you look at it, all of these folks are just using the free enterprise system the way they
should (all accept the consumer). They are simply trying to increase their economic gain. But
normally there is a consumer on the other side who compares prices and services and by
shopping holds down the price increases by providers. Unfortunately, the free enterprise
system doesn’t work with the consumer because:
Health and healthcare is the most precious commodity that we have. It is much
more precious than money.
That’s why the free enterprise system doesn’t help to control healthcare costs. With every
sickness or injury of a loved one, we consumers bid up the price in order to get the best
healthcare we can get. We don’t respond to the cost side of the equation, which means we
don’t respond to the controls that normally work in a free enterprise system. “This is my child
(or my spouse or me) that is suffering and I will worry about costs later” – that is the thought
process that always has driven us consumers.
When the free enterprise system fails (such as in the case of monopolies) the government must
step in to fill the vacuum.
Healthcare in the Rest of the World:
The only two industrialized nations in the world w/o universal healthcare are the U.S. and
South Africa. That alone should tell us something. But let’s take a look at some statistics
from some of the more developed nations in regard to healthcare:
Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 3:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
HEALTHCARE SYSTEM INDICATORS & RANKINGS
In Selected High-Income OEDC Countries
Country
Health
Spending
US $
Health
Spending
% GDP
Under 5
Mortality
Rate *
Life
Expect.
WHO
Ranking
Percent
Satisfied
United States 5,711 15.2% 8 78 37 40%
Australia 2,519 9.5% 5 81 32 n/a
Canada 2,669 9.9% 6 80 30 46%
Denmark 3,534 9.0% 5 78 34 91%
Finland 2,307 7.4% 4 79 31 81%
France 2,981 10.1% 5 80 1 65%
Germany 3,204 11.1% 5 79 25 58%
Italy 2,139 8.4% 5 81 2 20%
Japan 2,662 7.9% 4 82 10 n/a
Luxembourg 4,112 6.8% 6 79 16 67%
Norway 4,976 10.3% 4 80 11 n/a
Sweden 3,149 9.4% 4 81 23 58%
Switzerland 5,035 11.5% 5 81 20 n/a
UK 2,428 8.0% 6 79 18 57%
*mortality rate per 1,000 under age 5
The original study is at: http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.p...
Healthcare Spending U.S. dollars at: http:/www.who.int/whr/2006/annex/06_annex3_en.pdf
Healthcare Spending % GDP at: http:/www.who.int/whr/2006/annex/06_annex2_en.pdf
Under 5 Mortality and Life Expectancy at: http:/www.who.int/whr/2006/annex/06_annex1_en.pdf
WHO Rankings: http:/www.who.int/whr/2000/en/annex01_en.pdf
The study was originally compiled by the University of Maine and summarizes data from the
World Health Organization and the Organization for Economic Development. I updated the
first 4 columns of the chart to 2006 as noted above.
The first column is per capita healthcare costs in 2006 all in U.S. dollars. In terms of
per capital cost we are nearly double the average of the rest of the countries.
The second is healthcare spending in 2006 as a percentage of the nation’s GDP. Again
we lead the pack by a lot in spending.
The third is the mortality rate for children under age 5 (replaces the infant mortality
measure which has some controversy associated with it). Here we have 60% more
deaths amongst our most vulnerable citizens than the average of the other nations.
In the next column we get life expectancy at birth. Here the average of the other
countries is 80 or 2 years longer than in the U.S. On average their citizens have 2 more
years of life to enjoy grandchildren and great grandchildren.
Then the ranking of the countries healthcare system by the World Health Organization
and the last column is the percent of the population that is satisfied with their
Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 3:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
healthcare system. Both are pretty shocking on their own, but couples with the other
columns they paint a very poor picture of the healthcare system that we are all
struggling under.
To summarize the chart, we pay twice what other countries do, and we receive poorer health
outcomes, and our public dislikes our healthcare system more than all but one country.
Let’s Burst Some Myths About Universal Healthcare Based Upon Info From the Table:
The U.S. has the best HC system in the world – FALSE – in fact we are ranked at #37 by
the WHO, that’s near the bottom of the industrialized nations. I think we have a fairly good
healthcare system if you are one of the 5 of 6 Americans with insurance. But if you are not,
the system is horrible for you and your family.
You can look at life expectancy and under age 5 mortality rates as good indicators of our level
of healthcare.
A recent report shows the infant death rate in the first 30 days for children born in the U.S. is
next to last of all industrialized nations. Children born here are 3 times more likely to die in
their first month than those born in Japan. This is a sin for one of the richest nations in the
world.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/parenting...
People hate universal healthcare – FALSE – the last column tells me just the kind of thing
that I have head over and over from people that are from countries that have universal
healthcare – they certainly prefer it over what we have. The myth of Canadians streaming into
the U.S. for healthcare is just that a myth.
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/rep...
It is also important to understand that each of these countries is a democracy and if their
healthcare system didn’t satisfy the public it would be changed via the ballot box.
When we are ready to consider universal healthcare we have many models to look at and we
can choose from each what we think will work best for us. We can improve on what other
countries are doing because we are starting so late and have a great opportunity to learn from
their mistakes.
Cost of Universal healthcare is prohibitive – FALSE – in fact it will be much cheaper
because healthcare is managed. We pay just about double what the rest of the world pays for
healthcare.
(1) The most important thing to understand is that even the uninsured get healthcare
(generally only when conditions become acute) and we are currently paying for that
Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
healthcare. In essence we have universal healthcare but our rationing system requires that
those without insurance must first have conditions become acute so they can be treated in
emergency rooms. This is a horribly inefficient way to manage healthcare.
We would really have to work at designing a system as bad and as expensive as we have
now.
(2) It is also important to understand who pays and how much we pay for healthcare:
we pay our co-pays and deductibles to the doctors and hospitals
we pay our share of the premium on our employers plan
we pay the Medicare FICA Part A tax
we pay the Part B and Part D premiums (when covered by Medicare)
we pay taxes that cover local, state and federal share of their employee's premiums
we pay taxes to cover Medicaid cost to cover the poor
we pay taxes to cover the government's share of Medicare A, B, C and D
we pay the private employer's share of their health insurance and Medicare A’s
cost in the price of everything we buy (the cost for raw material producer, the
fabricator, the distribution and sales people)
included in all of the above is the cost to treat the uninsured in emergency rooms
and subsequent treatment
Every dime of healthcare costs comes out of the public's pocket. Employers and
government don't pay one dime - it all comes from the public.
All in all we pay a great deal more than the rest of the world, but much of it is hidden from
us. In total we pay 15.2% of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for healthcare. GDP is
basically the value of all goods and services we produce. In 2005 our GDP was about
$12.8 trillion. 15.2% of that GDP is our TOTAL cost for healthcare or $1.95 trillion each
year.
(3) Based upon what the rest of the world has done there are tremendous savings to be gained.
(a) Healthcare for all - the biggest source of savings will be from introducing normal
healthcare for our entire population (including the uninsured).
The poor working woman who today shows up at an emergency room with a
premature delivery and whose baby subsequently spends 6 weeks in intensive care
and costs a million dollars is now provided pre-natal care and has a normal healthy
delivery.
The poor working man who has a heart attack and stays in intensive care for a
week is now given blood pressure medicine and avoids the heart attack. It is clear
from the numbers above for other countries that preventative care works.
Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 3:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
(b) Paperwork - a single payer system eliminates most of the paperwork blizzard that
providers have to live with now and makes feasible the paperless system that many
have dreamed of over the last decade or so. Estimates of the cost of the current
paperwork load are as high as 25% of the amount billed by providers. Savings might
be as high as $200 billion every year. That’s almost 3 times the annual costs of our
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That savings happens almost immediately.
(c) Preventative Care - we introduce strong preventative healthcare for all citizens. The
kinds of programs that simply are not profitable in a for-profit system can be pushed.
People will get nagged for annual checkups that include many screenings that people
simply don’t do now.
(d)Management - the system will be managed. Every hospital won’t have a CAT scan
device and routine procedures are scheduled and involve waiting. Every doctors office
won’t have its own lab and x-ray staff.
(e) More Management - lastly we don’t have the law suits as our only means of getting
rid of incompetent practitioners. We fire them out of the system and don’t wait for the
professional courtesy they get today from fellow doctors.
(4) The savings to the economy is massive. If we just do the average which means we cut our
cost of healthcare in half, we save almost one trillion dollars a year. That’s enough to fight
14 wars like Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s enough to fix SS’s solvency problem in 4 years.
And that savings gets compounded at something like 12% per year.
The savings in money to our economy is absolutely inconceivable. Can you imagine the
impact on income taxes, on corporate production as prices drop, on corporate earnings
(and stock prices) as we get on an even keel with foreign competitors? Talk about a winwin
situation.
All that we have to do is overcome the power of the medical industry lobbyist.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 3:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
All those countries you mention oldhippie also have much higher income tax rates than the US, along with a value added tax. They may get better health care (though I doubt it) but the rest of their lives generally sucks.
Interestingly enough most of those countries also have a high progressive tax on wages but a flat tax on capital income. Seems like the socialists over there have something backwards don't they? Must be a lot of old hippies doing the voting in the EU.
Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 3:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Seems like the socialists over there have something backwards don't they? Must be a lot of old hippies doing the voting in the EU."
You have obviously not been there and are getting your FACTS from "FIX news", or perhaps "Limp Balls"
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 3:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Take Norway for example, a paradise for people of your mindset. Income tax rates for wage earners range from 36 to 50% with a VAT of 24%, plus a wealth tax of 28% on things you own- like a house or bank account.
As fast as we are headed in that direction oldhippie I don't think it will be fast enough to satisfy you or Obama.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 4:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
oldhippie, the dream Marx promised to you and your friends was that those who have the most would be expected to give up the most to the common good. That isn't happening in those countries you mentioned as is evidenced by the lack of a progressive tax on capital income and the existence of a progressive tax on wages.
Those socialist dreams are just a way to get you latte drinkers to vote for stuff you don't understand like giving away any autonomy you would have if you would get off your whining butts and make something of yourselves. By the way, Marxism didn't work in Russian either and many modern socialists debate whether or not Russia was actually ever a truly socialist country or just another feudal kingdom.
Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by EnKiKur<<<<<<<<<< If you have some documented facts as I have presented to make my case, present them. If on the other hand all you have is a bunch of Rush Limp Balls Propaganda and name calling I'll pass, point being, put up or shut up
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 4:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
http://www.worldtaxpayers.org/statvat.ht...
There you go. See, oldhippie, what you don't get is that the EU has been down this road before us. The road I am talking about is that road where a few truly wealthy people control the economy while the ordinary people live in socialism- and do it gladly because the common, ignorant, public man believes he is getting something for free by takking from his neighbor who works harder and has just a bit more. This is the evil of democracy. And just so you know, I don't listen to Rush or to Fox News, and I think calling Mr. Limbaugh Limp Balls is name calling on your part.
Posted by broonzy (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 4:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
But at least in Norway, there's no shameful places like Ferriday or Lake Providence Louisiana...
Norway, Sweden, Finland have the best schools in the world, for instance. Those people are clever. That's why such things as GOP don't exist in northern Europe.
Posted by broonzy (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
He, Broonzy, if you're not happy here, go to europe. America, love it or leave it.
...don't tell me you don't want to say that, reps...
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 4:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What is shameful about Ferriday or Lake Providence? And they don't have a Democratic Party either, they just come out and say straight up they are Marxist cattle who need to be fed, groomed and managed.
You may be surprised to learn that the poverty rate in Norway is almost twice the poverty rate in the US. Surprise!
http://www.coyoteblog.com/photos/uncateg...
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 4:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You see oldhippie, what happens in socialist countries is that over time the poor and middle class become uniformly poor because democracy destroys the middle class as the poor vote for ever more liberal social programs. And why wouldn't they?
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Pardon me, I meant to say that the poverty rate in Norway is about 24 times what it is in the US. Pardon me. Surprise again!
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 4:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
On the other hand the median income in Norway is higher than in the US. So what that tells me is that the rich are richer and the poor are poorer in Norway. Let's get us some of that brand of socialism! After all, it comes with free health care- the government will even buy you a car over there if you need it for work (and they think you need it).
Posted by Idefinitelymight (Tom Scarborough) on September 19, 2008 at 5:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What you are seeing is the biggest welfare program ever seen-- the givaway of our taxes that we are all on the hook for, to the best and brightest on Wall Street. I just had a Republican friend call me and say that if he ever hears another conservative talk about welfare or SS he'll laugh in their face because of this bailout.
So the poor are no longer the biggest beneficiaries of government largess. It is now the rich who are on the dole.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 5:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
That is the point I am making Tom. It is the same way in the "progressive" countries like Norway, and it will always be the same way as long as we allow fiat money systems to exist. Yesterday the US pledged 200 billion to the European Central Banks. Progressivism is a red herring that primarily serves the super rich who own the resources and own the banks that make loans to whole countries. They influence legislation in their own favor and preserve their positions of power while leaving the productive citizens to suffer the consequences.
The consequences of this round of welfare is going to hit us in just a few months with higher energy prices due to devaluation of the dollar, and higher prices for food and consumer goods for the same reason- the crisis started because there is more money in the system than there is real value and the problem is being addressed by creating even more money. If we escape a world wide depression it will be a miracle.
Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 6:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 4:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
http://www.worldtaxpayers.org/statvat.ht......
There you go. See, oldhippie, what you don't get is that the EU has been down this road before us. <<<<<<<<< Oh contrair, I understand perfectly. I understand that I brought up the subject of "Single payer universal Health Care, provided all of the facts with graphs and charts, as well as links to the location the facts came from. The YOU, being unable to argue with those facts, are trying to change the subject to TAXES in the E.U.. I am not arguing for the E.U.'s tax code or Canada's, for that mater. Those people have elections and in some cases they get together and put a politician's butt in the Street before the election.>>>>>>>>The road I am talking about is that road where a few truly wealthy people control the economy while the ordinary people live in socialism- and do it gladly because the common, ignorant, public man believes he is getting something for free by takking from his neighbor who works harder and has just a bit more. This is the evil of democracy.<<<<<<< Well, for one who says that you don't watch "FIX news" or Rush, you certainly have the Propaganda down to a "T", so you must have gone to the same finishing School.>>>>>>>> And just so you know, I don't listen to Rush or to Fox News, and I think calling Mr. Limbaugh Limp Balls is name calling on your part.<<<<<< You are absolutely correct, I call them as I see them, If an opponent is civil and rational, I will respond in a like manner. However if he is an obnoxious, arogant, Racist, Hypocritical Bigot, then all bets are off.........>>>>>>>>
Posted by Idefinitelymight (Tom Scarborough) on September 19, 2008 at 6:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Enki--For better or worse, fiat currency is a fact of life. As for the Fed, it too is now a necessary evil. It was created to rein in the ceaseless cycle of boom and bust that characterized American capitalism throughout the late 18th and the entire 19th centuries. I don't think a return to wildcat banking and cyclical depressions is what we want.
Whether or not we are tottering on the precipice of a global economic depression is still to be seen. What is certain, however, is that without the intervention of the Fed, we certainly would in the grip of an economic meltdown of a magnitude that can hardly be imagined. I appreciate the theoretical point you make about the perils of fiat currencies and centralized banking and regulatory apparatus--but I don't see them going away. In this instance I am damn glad the Federal Reserve system exists.
Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 6:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 4:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You see oldhippie, what happens in socialist countries <<<<<< Let me tell you something fellow, I am an AMERICAN Viet Nam Veteran and I don't give a damn what happens in "SOCIALIST" Countrys and I resent the hell out of your snide references to my political views as being compairable to Socialist or Commie's.>>>>>>>>is that over time the poor and middle class become uniformly poor because democracy destroys the middle class <<<<<<<< Ronald Reagan and George Bush have just about completed that job here in the United States of America and has given all the Money to the "RICH SOCIALIST". I don't know if you watch the News or not, but the last figures I heard was 747 Billion, THIS WEEK in "BAIL
OUTS" and a promis today of another TRILLION, in an attempt to Bankrupt The Country, Because the REPUGS know their asses are TOAST and they don't want to leave anything for the Democrats. I hope they Prosicute his ass and put his butt to work on a Road Gang chopping weeds.........>>>>>>as the poor vote for ever more liberal social programs. And why wouldn't they?
Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 6:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The consequences of this round of welfare is going to hit us in just a few months with higher energy prices due to devaluation of the dollar, and higher prices for food and consumer goods for the same reason- the crisis started because there is more money in the system than there is real value and the problem is being addressed by creating even more money. If we escape a world wide depression it will be a miracle.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<< If you know all of this as you obviously do, then please tell me why you continue to defend the People to blame for it,( And please don't insult my intelligence further by trying to blame it on the "DEMOCRATS" when the REPUBLICANS in the Senate has blocked every thing the Democrats have tryed to pass for the last two years)
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 10:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Tom, what you are saying about the Fed being created to stop the boom and bust cycle is the same old tired propaoganda the people behind the Fed used to get the Act passed in 1913. Instead of stopping the cycle the Fed systematically creates a cycle of boom and bust because bankers profit from the expansion and contraction of the economy. And cenralized banking has given the Fed to affect the whole nation when in the days before the Fed bank failure tended to be far more localized- due to the other unpleasant fact about banking being that all banks all the time loan out way more money than they have so they are all broke all the time, it is just that most of the time we pretend they are not.
oldhippie I have never defended Bush. You think because I don't defend your side in the national political soap opera I must be for the other side. The difference between you and me is that while I sometimes glimpse reality you never do but are convinced you are always seeing half of it and the half you sees must be right because you see it.
On the one hand, oldhiippie, I am glad you had the courage to fight in VietNam and at the same time I am sorry you were drafted to do whatever the hell it was we were doing over there because it sure wasn't protecting the world from communism.
It is not my fault you used a long list of socialist countries to make your argument for health care. All I have done is point out that they are socialist countries, something you did not seem to be aware of. Same goes for the Democratic Party Leadership, most of whom belong to one socialist organization or another, that's just the way it is.
http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html
There is nothing wrong with being a socialist oldhippie. Afther all, they do get free healthcare.
Posted by Teach4Peace (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 8:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have so thoroughly enjoyed reading these comments and what is a constant joy for me is each rebuttal given AGAINST the McCain/Palin camp. It is what it is. Mississippi, being last on basically everything good, will draw its majority allegiance to the McCain/Palin ticket. In a state where the line of poverty is deep, racial stratification runs deep, we are obese and uneducated. Our salaries are laughable for the most part and yet we want to continue on this path? Happybummy, you're actually miserable and Yeahuhuh shut EVERY ONE of your comments DOWN. If any state in this union should want change from it's current state, it should be Mississippi, but then again, Mississippi is not known for her willingness to change. Republicans are for less government ONLY when it is convenient for them, no other time, otherwise, why is the taxpayer bailing out a privately owned company? Who's fault is it that AIG got into the sub-prime mortgage loan market? You can't take ONLY the good that comes with the stock market, it IS a gamble.
For the LAST TIME. When you state that Blacks will only vote for Barack because he is black, you are INSULTING every Black person who utilizes their right to vote the candiate of their choice. I voted for Bill Clinton each time he was up for election. Should I not have voted faithfully in any election since the age of 18 because most of the time there were NO black candidates on the ballot? You see how silly and inflamatory such a statement like that is? Are voters in Mississippi who will vote AGAINST Barack do so because HE IS Black? I think so. We need a class on Racial Make-up 101. Barack's mother is of European decent and his father is a Kenyan, meaning from the African country of Kenya. Just to show you how uneducated we are in this state, the nation has moved on BEYOND what Barack's visible skin color is and on to the issues at hand and what this ticket can offer this country in it's present state. Mississippi should never have to wonder why the entire US has a rightfully justified negative view of this state. We bring it upon ourselves, why they only need to read some of these comments.
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Marty, you wrote:
"Taxes on wages are theft, pure and simple. Your premise that a progressive tax is value added to our monetary system is absurd. It is the very thing you liberals hate so, a windfall to the richest of the rich you go along with because they throw a few bones to your social causes- and that keeps us with a permanent underclass that keeps you with a permanent cause."
I did not postulate that progressive taxes are a value added to our monetary system -- how stupid would anyone have to be to cough that one up?
I do quite well realize progressive taxation penalizes extra effort, though it does not quite happen the way you say -- those hard-working rig hands are not taxed differently by the rates they are making in their overtime, it is their totals that determine their taxes -- am I not correct? After $250,000 or so -- a figure bandied about as the new supposed boundary of "rich" -- it is pretty much universally accepted that these folks are out of the short-term survival zone, and since so much of our population is survival zone conscious, that becomes the criteria for increased taxation.
If you don't like our demographic determining that democratically you will either have to educate folks to change their votes and values or establish that by edict. That process by the left and the right respectively are the battles we see in our country right now. cont'd...
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 8:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
...I only mentioned progressive taxation as one way to fund a system that is more bent on survival than on attaining maximum systemic efficiency.
I do not think a system that is maximum efficient necessarily lends itself to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness except for Ebenzer Scrooge & Company, and them only if they own the bottom line. In fact nobody in the mainstream really thinks efficiency of the system equates to their happiness. Republicans have their pet projects to kill, maim, incarcerate and serve themselves in "our interest" and Democrats arguably let folks do it to themselves and still care about certain types of misery when they are bumping bottom.
I do not know how you would manage any other form of revenue acquisition that would satisfy the wants of Americans, and we certainly do not have the breadth of concept of self to address even basic needs of others without some institutionalization of the effort -- and taxation to support it.
A tax on consumption right now would rightly cause a revolt among the working classes, unless you also consumption-taxed rail cars, skyscrapers, land and foreign properties, and our corporate structure would ensure you never did that.
For the pussies of today's America (we are what we are), your thrust sounds like dismantling a locomotive in order to make a sewing machine from the parts. At least with a locomotive you can haul sewing machines in from somewhere else, he,he!
I also think you missed Broonzie's point -- that poverty does not manifest itself in European countries the way it does here -- you seemed so gleeful not to be a Marxist that you disregarded the depravity of the poorest in those places as well as the fact that those countries are not quite Marxist.
Maybe one day we can afford to be a logical as you about systemic efficiency -- maybe that is how they finally got rid of greed on Startrek. But once the replicator is invented I don't think there will be a problem. Especially if you can replicate a replicator.
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And to the Mad Wabbit -- Wabbit, your idea of cause and effect is really something.
If Borock got some whopping donations from Fannie and Freddie, because they figured he held power or stood to, but the Bush Administration stands with a veto power against excess so Borock could not actually do anything till he was president, how does them going down under Bush's rule amount to Borock's crookedness????
They can't be just simply be evil -- they hold all of our loans that all the bankers and real estate agents, the shysters and the sharks made all that good money off of that got pumped into the system!!!! All the bad loans of the system showed up at Freedies and Fannies after the crimes had been committed. It's not like Enron where crooked R them top to bottom.
Did you make the same claim against Enron a