Change

[RedskinsDave]

This is a thread dedicated to all the things Obama is changing, like the culture in D.C., no lobbyists in the admin and people who pay their taxes. Oh wait, those are things he ISN'T changing. My bad.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0309/FBI_raids_office_of_DC_CTO_Obama_appointee.html

Federal agents this morning are searching the office Washington, D.C.'s Chief Technology Officer.
The search is part of "an ongoing investigation," said a spokeswoman for the FBI's D.C. Field Office, Lindsay Gotwin, said. She declined to comment further on the raid of office, at 1 Judiciary Square.


Nice to see the FBI is giving the IRS a break on chasing Obama's people around.

[RedskinsDave]

The Economists take on the spending:

http://media.economist.com/images/20090228/D0909WW0.jpg

[CNYSkinFan]

I am having a hard time following who is being investigate...the outgoing or incoming officer?

And the fact that the FBI is actually doing it's job and investigating government officials is good news IMO. Rather then under Bush where they turned a b lind eye for fear of retaliation.

[BurgundyNGold]

This is a thread dedicated to all the things Obama is changing, like the culture in D.C., no lobbyists in the admin and people who pay their taxes. Oh wait, those are things he ISN'T changing. My bad.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0309/FBI_raids_office_of_DC_CTO_Obama_appointee.html



Nice to see the FBI is giving the IRS a break on chasing Obama's people around.
Ha! I'm pretty sure that bastard "cheated" me out of a contract I germinated, wrote the specs for and justified the funding for back in 1998. I worked a year and a half to make that contract happen. It would have been a mutliyear deal for more than $1.2M. If this is who I think it is, after I did the work and got the funding, he then came in and, behind the scenes, lobbied it over to another firm who had no experience in the field.

I refused to work with the DC Government after that. I knew the deal was crooked. Now, I know why, lol. I hope he burns in hell.

BTW, he is not to be confused with this Yusuf Acar (http://www.facebook.com/people/Yusuf-Acar/1297878015).

[akhhorus]

More detail on this story:

She said two men, Yusuf Acar and Sushil Bansal, had been arrested.

Acar is an information security officer who was also, according to online requests for proposals, responsible for contracting. Bansal is listed on the city's procurement website as the CEO of the Advanced Integrated Technologies Corporation, which was awarded two technology contracts last year worth a total of $350,000.

The Washington Post and WTOP Radio report that the men are being held on bribery charges.

[RedskinsDave]

If you want any more proof of Obama's virtual free pass from the press, here's another example:

http://hillbuzz.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/obama-thanks-himself-for-inviting-everyone-to-a-party-at-the-white-house-last-night/

During his remarks, Obama’s teleprompter veered off course, mixing up his and Cowen’s speeches, so both looked equally foolish delivering the other’s speech.

Just imagine if this had happened while George W. Bush was President. The media would have been all over the fact that during this teleprompter glitch, Obama thanked himself for inviting everyone to the party at the White House. Bush would have been excoriated for something like that.

Cicero he is not.

[skinguy]

[QUOTE=RedskinsDave;1204316]This is a thread dedicated to all the things Obama is changing, like the culture in D.C., no lobbyists in the admin and people who pay their taxes. Oh wait, those are things he ISN'T changing. My bad.

I do believe you were warned.

[RedskinsDave]

First Barry Hussein is peddling his wares on Leno and then next week he is having his second prime time news conference that will air the same time as American Idol. The irony is not missed to me.

He should just hire Billy Mays to yell about how great all his ideas are. "HAVE YOU EVER HAD A STIMULUS THAT JUST DIDN'T WORK?!!! TRY THE ALL-NEW 2009 BARRY BILLIONS STIMULUS!! YOU CAN THANK YOUR FRIENDS ON WALL STREET AND FINANCE WORTHLESS SOCIAL PROGRAMS IN THE GUISE OF JUMP STARTING THE ECONOMY!! BUY THIS PILE OF CRAP IN THE NEXT 15 MINUTES AND WE'LL THROW IN SOME EXTRA TAX CHEATS IN THE CABINET!!

http://www.billymays.org/img/billymays1%5B1%5D.png

[BurgundyNGold]

First Barry Hussein is peddling his wares on Leno and then next week he is having his second prime time news conference that will air the same time as American Idol. The irony is not missed to me.
Honestly, we saw a lot of the same alarms being set off when Bush did his thing post-9/11. Obama is taking a hard run at his agenda. If he succeeds, it will be spectacular. If he fails -- and pandering to the Dem Congress like he is makes those odds a whole lot better -- it will be spectacular just the same, albeit a spectacular disaster. If the latter, the GOP will have a shot at the WH a whole lot sooner.

[RedskinsDave]

Fulfilling their scheduling civic duty is starting to seem increasingly cumbersome to broadcasters, however. Between a struggling economy and ratings sagging in midseason, every interruption costs networks advertising dollars and momentum.



"At a time when we're struggling not only financially but to build audiences, this doesn't help on either front," one network executive said. "These repeated interruptions -- and the rumor of even more to come -- really make it difficult to build audience flow and loyalty. We will all lose one or two million dollars for this."


http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/03/obama-speech-networks.html

Honestly, I didn't think Obama would come out of the gates scoring points like many lemmings did but I certainly didn't think he would be nearly a failure. Maybe the GOP can do what the Dems did and sit back and wait for the other side to eff up. Oh nevermind, that would require the media to treat him remotely like they did Bush.

[BurgundyNGold]

http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/03/obama-speech-networks.html

Honestly, I didn't think Obama would come out of the gates scoring points like many lemmings did but I certainly didn't think he would be nearly a failure. Maybe the GOP can do what the Dems did and sit back and wait for the other side to eff up. Oh nevermind, that would require the media to treat him remotely like they did Bush.
In all fairness, Bush got some pretty favorable media coverage through 2003. Only when Bush's approval ratings started to flip flop did the media see the writing on the wall and begin to dog pile the guy. Obama is popular now, plus he's still on his 100 day honeymoon. If his approval rating dips to around or below 50%, I expect the media to follow suit.

[akhhorus]

In all fairness, Bush got some pretty favorable media coverage through 2003. Only when Bush's approval ratings started to flip flop did the media see the writing on the wall and begin to dog pile the guy. Obama is popular now, plus he's still on his 100 day honeymoon. If his approval rating dips to around or below 50%, I expect the media to follow suit.

538 had a good post last month on when Obama's honeymoon would be over. They basically posited that it's all about the economy. If there's no tangible improvement in the economy that the electorate can see, he's got another 9-13 months before he starts getting blamed for the problems. If there is tangible improvement in the economy, he'll stay popular until late 2012.

[RedskinsDave]

538 had a good post last month on when Obama's honeymoon would be over. They basically posited that it's all about the economy. If there's no tangible improvement in the economy that the electorate can see, he's got another 9-13 months before he starts getting blamed for the problems. If there is tangible improvement in the economy, he'll stay popular until late 2012.

And there are plenty of smart people who think the economy will improve a little within the next 6 months regardless of what anyone does. Of course it's all Bush's fault, including all of Europe, Asia and every other place on the planet having similar issues.

[akhhorus]

And there are plenty of smart people who think the economy will improve a little within the next 6 months regardless of what anyone does. Of course it's all Bush's fault, including all of Europe, Asia and every other place on the planet having similar issues.

Of course the economy will improve a little bit. Its kind of hard to decline from crashing unemployment figures, sinking market, etc etc. I think they meant(and I totally agree with this) is that the improvement is more than just a little bounce(and how quick). If there's a significant improvement in the employment figures(and frankly, the non-farm unemployment figures aren't that bad-they're recessionary, but not as bad as the headlines) and/or conservative economic pundits talk less about the economy and start talking about how maybe Obama is just creating another bubble(whether thats true or not) would be a good sign that there's been the "tangible" economic improvement 538 is talking about.

[RedskinsDave]

Americans are stupid. We know this. Obama is banking on it:

President Barack Obama has told Jay Leno he was stunned when he learned of the bonuses that bailed-out insurance giant AIG was paying its employees. Obama told "The Tonight Show" host the payments raise moral end ethical problems — and the administration's going to do everything it can to get them back.


I guess he was too stupid to miss that his own people okayed the bonuses. Ridiculous.

[RedskinsDave]

I'm not gonna fake any extra outrage over Obama's stupid Special Olympics gaffe but I sure hope he does more late night shows. He sucks without his teleprompter.

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y139/bigkmart/aba56.jpg

[Keino]

I'm not gonna fake any extra outrage over Obama's stupid Special Olympics gaffe but I sure hope he does more late night shows. He sucks without his teleprompter.

I cringed when I heard him say that.

I thought the previous session of congress okayed the bonuses though, am I mistaken?

[RedskinsDave]

These bonuses are being paid using the AIG stimulus money.

[fent]

I cringed when I heard him say that.

I thought the previous session of congress okayed the bonuses though, am I mistaken?

it's money from TARP, which was approved last October, but the stimulus or omnibus (don't remember which) originally had language in it limiting their ability to pay them out. Geithner told Dodd he had to pull it because of the legal problems that would come from the gov't ruling after the fact that a legally binding contract wouldn't be honored. that happened in the last 2-4 weeks depending on which bill it was in.

[akhhorus]

Oh, here we go lol (http://www.tmz.com/2009/03/20/special-olympics-champ-to-barack-bring-it-on/)

[AliBabba]

Oh, here we go lol (http://www.tmz.com/2009/03/20/special-olympics-champ-to-barack-bring-it-on/)
http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_documents/0320_so_statement.pdf

Finally, we invite the President to take the lead and consider hiring a Special Olympics athlete to
work in the White House. In so doing, he could help end misperceptions about the talents and
abilities of people with intellectual disabilities, and demonstrate their dignity and value to the world.

[AliBabba]

http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_documents/0320_so_statement.pdf
Finally, we invite the President to take the lead and consider hiring a Special Olympics athlete to
work in the White House. In so doing, he could help end misperceptions about the talents and
abilities of people with intellectual disabilities, and demonstrate their dignity and value to the world.
I think he tried but Judd Gregg pulled out ... ba dum dum

[akhhorus]

I think he tried but Judd Gregg pulled out ... ba dum dum

You deserve it lol (http://www.naturesongs.com/cricket1.wav)

[BurgundyNGold]

I think he tried but Judd Gregg pulled out ... ba dum dum
Are these people actually advocating that people with mental disabilities have the same mental capacity as people without said disabilities? If they won't let someone drive a car because they don't have it upstairs, they probably shouldn't let them have any real measure of responsibility at a government agency. Except for HUD maybe.

[RedskinsDave]

I think he tried but Judd Gregg pulled out ... ba dum dum

Geither still has his job.

[Keino]

These bonuses are being paid using the AIG stimulus money.

Which was approved by congress last year.


Thanks Fent for answering the question. I wasn't looking for an argument, just that facts.

[AliBabba]

You deserve it lol (http://www.naturesongs.com/cricket1.wav)

The ba dum dum was to underline the quality of the joke, or lackthereof. It was well deserving though all the same

Are these people actually advocating that people with mental disabilities have the same mental capacity as people without said disabilities? If they won't let someone drive a car because they don't have it upstairs, they probably shouldn't let them have any real measure of responsibility at a government agency. Except for HUD maybe.

He effed up and now they are trying to stick it to 'em and are gonna ask for the world. Pretty big PR mistake for the ubercool celebrident.

Geither still has his job.

Touche. So does Geithner. At some point Obama needs to consider replacing him if for no other reason then to have somebody to blame for another failed round of bailouts.

[BurgundyNGold]

He effed up and now they are trying to stick it to 'em and are gonna ask for the world. Pretty big PR mistake for the ubercool celebrident.

I'm not sure what job you can give a mentally challenged person at the WH and I doubt working in the cafeteria or sorting recyclables is the kind of "dignity" that these advocacy groups tend to accept.

[AliBabba]

I'm not sure what job you can give a mentally challenged person at the WH and I doubt working in the cafeteria or sorting recyclables is the kind of "dignity" that these advocacy groups tend to accept.
I bet if he offered a job of that level they'd hit him way more bad press than this gaffe and paint him as prejudiced against the disabled. Nobody in the WH can really question the request either without catching flack as well. When you are in as visible a position as he is you can't afford to make even the smallest of mistakes... maybe they'll think twice about marching him out on late night TV next time

Maybe he shoudl have to take sensitivity training like I would if I said that while on the client site (Fed gov't)

[BurgundyNGold]

I bet if he offered a job of that level they'd hit him way more bad press than this gaffe and paint him as prejudiced against the disabled. Nobody in the WH can really question the request either without catching flack as well. When you are in as visible a position as he is you can't afford to make even the smallest of mistakes... maybe they'll think twice about marching him out on late night TV next time
Actually, I like the POTUS going out in prime time or on late night and engaging his constituents. I would like to see him do something like this once or twice a month, although in different forums.

Maybe he shoudl have to take sensitivity training like I would if I said that while on the client site (Fed gov't)
That's what he should do. I can make Melwood jokes or refer to someone's special athletic prowess with a sardonic grin, but I'm not POTUS so it's funny (to me, mostly) when I do.

[RedskinsDave]

Actually, I like the POTUS going out in prime time or on late night and engaging his constituents. I would like to see him do something like this once or twice a month, although in different forums.

He's the President, not a celebrity. He should act like it.

[BurgundyNGold]

He's the President, not a celebrity. He should act like it.
I agree that he shouldn't regularly go on the Tonight Show or any other movie star forum. But, in the modern medium, what exactly does "acting like a President" entail? Does it mean that he should avoid the TV cameras like the plague? Or that he should only get in front of the TV for photo ops like rolling over alfalfa in a tractor to show support for farmers?

Personally, I would like the POTUS to address the country from the oval office every month or two. I would like the POTUS answer questions about his plans and policies. Put him on 60 minutes, Dateline, CNN, Meet the Press. The more we see and hear our President, the more we know about what's going on. This isn't the Eisenhower administration. The Internet is ubiquitous. Everyone has a TV and a lot of folks can watch it on their mobile phone, with which they can call, email or text at the speed of light. It's time for the POTUS to get with the fact that people want to be engaged by their leaders -- especially in the midst of the worst economic crisis in at least 30 and as many as 65 years -- and there is no excuse not to do it.

Even you should like such a plan, albeit for different reasons. As a Rep, you should want him on as many shows as possible. The more he talks, the more likely he'll say something that the GOP can use politically. Not that it will matter much for a few years, but eventually it probably will.

[hogskins]

He's the President, not a celebrity. He should act like it.

Agreed. A REAL president should only speak to carefully-vetted media sources and in front of audiences full of supporters who have signed loyalty oaths. Can't trust those unwashed masses to draw the right conclusions, after all...

[RedskinsDave]

Agreed. A REAL president should only speak to carefully-vetted media sources and in front of audiences full of supporters who have signed loyalty oaths. Can't trust those unwashed masses to draw the right conclusions, after all...

You just described his Tonight Show appearance......

[RedskinsDave]

I agree that he shouldn't regularly go on the Tonight Show or any other movie star forum. But, in the modern medium, what exactly does "acting like a President" entail? Does it mean that he should avoid the TV cameras like the plague? Or that he should only get in front of the TV for photo ops like rolling over alfalfa in a tractor to show support for farmers?

Personally, I would like the POTUS to address the country from the oval office every month or two. I would like the POTUS answer questions about his plans and policies. Put him on 60 minutes, Dateline, CNN, Meet the Press. The more we see and hear our President, the more we know about what's going on. This isn't the Eisenhower administration. The Internet is ubiquitous. Everyone has a TV and a lot of folks can watch it on their mobile phone, with which they can call, email or text at the speed of light. It's time for the POTUS to get with the fact that people want to be engaged by their leaders -- especially in the midst of the worst economic crisis in at least 30 and as many as 65 years -- and there is no excuse not to do it.

Even you should like such a plan, albeit for different reasons. As a Rep, you should want him on as many shows as possible. The more he talks, the more likely he'll say something that the GOP can use politically. Not that it will matter much for a few years, but eventually it probably will.

I am all for him going on shows that are news or politics based. I don't think he should make it a habit of yucking it up on late night. Like I said before, I hope he does more casual appearance because he has a great propensity for saying something stupid.

[Sweepea436]

I am all for him going on shows that are news or politics based. I don't think he should make it a habit of yucking it up on late night. Like I said before, I hope he does more casual appearance because he has a great propensity for saying something stupid.

Yeah... cant say I was a fan of the Hollywood trip. I watched it and the whole time I'm thinking "This guy is representing our nation". I love laughing, and appreciate a sense of humor. But the whole world is watching this guy. What does he do for the whole world to see? Picks basketball games, jokes it up while drug wars are heating up the south, Russia posturing against us again...... we're not being taken seriously by some very serious customers.

I'd rather see him rebut accusations from his own people that his budget will bankrupt us, tell us why he's letting earmarks go through "line by line" that he said he wouldn't, ect......... When people are back to work, and people stop testing our resolve....... then hit me with some funny. JMO

[BurgundyNGold]

please go away and take Boortz with you ...
I don't care if she stays or if she goes. I just think that if someone is going to go to all the trouble of reading Boortz or anyone else and then to post in a political forum that they might have bothered to develop opinions of their own. Merely reposting other people's thoughts is robotic and unflattering. Ironically, it's the precisely the non-thinking, herd mentality that Boortz accuses people of perpetuating.

I submit that if Kelly is going to bother to visit here, she might as well submit her thoughts on issues and advance why she feels that way. In fact, I'm not sure why anyone would bother to come here so often and not do just that.

[RedskinsDave]

I think it would be insanely appropriate if Obama comes out in his next presser and says, "Timmy, you're doing a heckuva job."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iZKNwRyOoCx_vnwxKUC0bfIxE1EAD97368H80

The Obama administration is using a multi-pronged attack to get at the heart of the nation's financial crisis — a mountain of toxic assets weighing on banks' balance sheets.The plan developed by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner aims to purchase as much as $1 trillion in troubled assets, utilizing the resources of the $700 billion bank bailout fund, the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.


Socialism don't come cheap these days......

[AliBabba]

I think it would be insanely appropriate if Obama comes out in his next presser and says, "Timmy, you're doing a heckuva job."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iZKNwRyOoCx_vnwxKUC0bfIxE1EAD97368H80



Socialism don't come cheap these days......
In the interim the Dow and S&P have jumped up 4% today ... call it socialism or what you will but some confidence needs to be restored to stop the bleeding

[RedskinsDave]

In the interim the Dow and S&P have jumped up 4% today ... call it socialism or what you will but some confidence needs to be restored to stop the bleeding

Yeah, screw it. Let's just keep throwing money at everything. Hell, some people don't even care if it works. Where are all the nannies who were crying when Bush was spending? Hypocrites.

[AliBabba]

Yeah, screw it. Let's just keep throwing money at everything.
This approach is not sustainable but we're losing jobs and homes at a pretty alarming rate. Everyone agrees that until some measure of confidence is restored in the financial and real estate markets this will continue. However, they can't just keep printing money to buy up the toxic assets and prove bank bailouts, so let's see what some of the regulatory changes, etc are.

Hell, some people don't even care if it works.
I'd like those people to be deported.

Where are all the nannies who were crying when Bush was spending? Hypocrites.
What is this day 60 of his term? He's doing damage to his own celebrity status with the public gaffes of recent days, plus he keeps pissing off more and more of the far left b/c they're disappointed he's not a complete radical. More of the above as well as time itself will erode more and more of the Obamamania. The haters will be louder and prouder for sure in time...

[akhhorus]

I think it would be insanely appropriate if Obama comes out in his next presser and says, "Timmy, you're doing a heckuva job."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iZKNwRyOoCx_vnwxKUC0bfIxE1EAD97368H80

Socialism don't come cheap these days......

Nationalizing the banks would be socialism. This isn't.

[RedskinsDave]

Unfortunately if they really wanted to help people and not just take over an industry, they would force the banks to lower their rates on current mortgages or rework the loans at a lower principle. Yes, it would bail people out who made bad decisions but there would be far fewer foreclosures and home prices would flatten out. Just buying up the crappy loans isn't helping anyone but the banks who screwed up and making it easier for Obama and Company to increase their control.

[akhhorus]

Yeah, screw it. Let's just keep throwing money at everything. Hell, some people don't even care if it works.

So, whats the solution? Let every bank fail and hope we have an economy in the next 8-10 years? Thats just not possible. If you let Citi, BOA and AIG fail, they'll take down everyone in the US and around the world. Yes, the problem is that big.

Where are all the nannies who were crying when Bush was spending? Hypocrites.

Agreed, but the people who didn't say boo to Bush's spending and are criticizing Obama's spending are equally hypocritical.

[akhhorus]

Unfortunately if they really wanted to help people and not just take over an industry, they would force the banks to lower their rates on current mortgages or rework the loans at a lower principle. Yes, it would bail people out who made bad decisions but there would be far fewer foreclosures and home prices would flatten out. Just buying up the crappy loans isn't helping anyone but the banks who screwed up and making it easier for Obama and Company to increase their control.

The cramdowns: they are doing that as part of the plan to make the mortgages more attractive to buy for private equity. That doesn't really solve the problems though since the banks would be forced to mark down their books dramatically(which would effect their credit ratings, etc etc).

[AliBabba]

Unfortunately if they really wanted to help people and not just take over an industry, they would force the banks to lower their rates on current mortgages or rework the loans at a lower principle. Yes, it would bail people out who made bad decisions but there would be far fewer foreclosures and home prices would flatten out. Just buying up the crappy loans isn't helping anyone but the banks who screwed up and making it easier for Obama and Company to increase their control.

If the name of the game really was control the plan would be to nationalize the banks as many economists believe they should. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/.... that would be socialism

Getting the assets off the books of the banks helps more than just the banks. It helps the private investors a great deal if there really is any value at all there. Furthermore, this is what's necessary to get them in a place to lend again. Eventually refinances will lead to increased sales as well which will eventually drive back up the real estate values.

[RedskinsDave]

So, whats the solution? Let every bank fail and hope we have an economy in the next 8-10 years? Thats just not possible. If you let Citi, BOA and AIG fail, they'll take down everyone in the US and around the world. Yes, the problem is that big.

ALL they are doing is throwing money at the problem. There's almost nothing strategic about it. They are fire bombing for all intents and purposes.

Agreed, but the people who didn't say boo to Bush's spending and are criticizing Obama's spending are equally hypocritical.

I'm not one of them but there are far more people who screamed bloody murder then and who are now amazingly silent, or worse are acquiescent.

[RedskinsDave]

If the name of the game really was control the plan would be to nationalize the banks as many economists believe they should. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/.... that would be socialism

Many is a great exaggeration.

Getting the assets off the books of the banks helps more than just the banks. It helps the private investors a great deal if there really is any value at all there. Furthermore, this is what's necessary to get them in a place to lend again. Eventually refinances will lead to increased sales as well which will eventually drive back up the real estate values.

There isn't any refinancing when no one qualifies. Keeping people in their homes now is more stabilizing than letting them foreclose and just paying the banks off for their bad loans. Since that former home owner is a taxpayer, he gets hit twice since it's his tax money bailing out the bank while his credit is shot for years.

[akhhorus]

ALL they are doing is throwing money at the problem. There's almost nothing strategic about it. They are fire bombing for all intents and purposes.

Thats what it looks like, but what they're doing is giving the banks cash(in exchange for equity) so that they can pay off the counter parties in their credit default swaps. Thats what's killing everyone right now. Thats why you can't let someone like AIG fail. They'll take down most of the US financial industry along with the Chinese and Indian central banks. Thats why you make this move with buying up their bad paper: so that they can take out loans to pay off the rest their CDS obligations and keep the system from potentially collapsing together.

I'm not one of them but there are far more people who screamed bloody murder then and who are now amazingly silent, or worse are acquiescent.

I'm not defending them, but I can see a distinction(I don't totally agree with it) that Bush was spending cash in places just to spend it(iraq, prescription drug subsidies, domestic spending, etc), Obama is spending a lot of his money in emergency places(his budget, outside of money to end Iraq and helping the economy, obviously wouldn't apply in this distinction).

[AliBabba]

Many is a great exaggeration.
Krugan (Nobel), Greenspan(Nobel),Franklin Allen (http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2166) (Wharton finance professor), Joseph Stiglitz (Nobel), Nouriel Roubini to name a few

There isn't any refinancing when no one qualifies. Keeping people in their homes now is more stabilizing than letting them foreclose and just paying the banks off for their bad loans. Since that former home owner is a taxpayer, he gets hit twice since it's his tax money bailing out the bank while his credit is shot for years.
I can't speak for completed applications but I know that refinance apps are up 20-30% recently ... how many of those actually close I guess we won't know for a few more weeks

[BurgundyNGold]

In the interim the Dow and S&P have jumped up 4% today ... call it socialism or what you will but some confidence needs to be restored to stop the bleeding
The markets like this because the financial institutions get to get drunk and party but don't have to pay the piper with the hangover. Any such jump might be short lived.

Wall Street confidence won't fix the economy if Main Street's lack of consumer confidence keep folks from spending money. Watch the CCI. That's the best indicator for any consumer-driven economy. Hell, it's the only indicator that means anything.

[akhhorus]

The markets like this because the financial institutions get to get drunk and party but don't have to pay the piper with the hangover. Any such jump might be short lived.

Wall Street confidence won't fix the economy if Main Street's lack of consumer confidence keep folks from spending money. Watch the CCI. That's the best indicator for any consumer-driven economy. Hell, it's the only indicator that means anything.

Well, ironically, spending has stabilized before this market rally(not just today).

[BurgundyNGold]

Well, ironically, spending has stabilized before this market rally(not just today).
Let's see it in writing before we shart ourselves in excitement, lol.

The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index™ Plummets Further in February
February 24, 2009

The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index™, which had decreased moderately in January, declined in February, reaching yet another all-time low. The Index now stands at 25.0 (1985=100), down from 37.4 in January. The Present Situation Index declined to 21.2 from 29.7 last month. The Expectations Index decreased to 27.5 from 42.5 in January.

...


Source (http://www.conference-board.org/economics/ConsumerConfidence.cfm)

[akhhorus]

Let's see it in writing before we shart ourselves in excitement, lol.

Source (http://www.conference-board.org/economics/ConsumerConfidence.cfm)

Throwing out auto sales, spending increased .7% in Feb(which is fairly stunning). How exactly do you define the impact of the "feelings" of the consumer lol?

[BurgundyNGold]

Throwing out auto sales, spending increased .7% in Feb(which is fairly stunning). How exactly do you define the impact of the "feelings" of the consumer lol?
How exactly do you account for increased consumer spending without accounting for fuel cost increases over the first 2 months of the year? How exactly do you account for increased purchasing power when the CPI replaces hamburger for steak and doesn't account for product "downsizing" that has occurred en masse of the past 12 months? Anything can be manipulated, if you want to go down that road.

Personally, I've talked to several employment recruiters, real estate agents and restaurant owner friends of mine just in the last month. They haven't seen a bump this year. Things are flat and people aren't spending more of that supposed increase in "disposable income".

[akhhorus]

How exactly do you account for increased consumer spending without accounting for fuel cost increases over the first 2 months of the year? How exactly do you account for increased purchasing power when the CPI replaces hamburger for steak and doesn't account for product "downsizing" that has occurred en masse of the past 12 months? Anything can be manipulated, if you want to go down that road.


I was just ball busting a bit. Relax lol.

Personally, I've talked to several employment recruiters, real estate agents and restaurant owner friends of mine just in the last month. They haven't seen a bump this year. Things are flat and people aren't spending more of that supposed increase in "disposable income".

*shrug* I'm sure you can find hundreds of examples of people who aren't seeing any bump and people who are. My business has seen both lol. We had one of our busiest weeks ever in February, and our slowest ever in March lol.

[BurgundyNGold]

*shrug* I'm sure you can find hundreds of examples of people who aren't seeing any bump and peopel who are. My business has seen both lol. We had one of our busiest weeks ever in February, and our slowest ever in March lol.
I expect this area to have more of a bump before most. As increased federal spending starts to trickle through, we'll feel it first.

That said, it's too soon for increased lending to be having much of an impact. Manufacturers shut down production because of increased costs and decreased demand. If manufacturers just start building, that doesn't mean that buyers will come. This isn't "Field of Dreams", lol.

Personally, if and when I have some extra cash, I think it's a great time to get in on stocks. In fact, once it dropped to 6,700 I would have started buying. I'm not buying a car, though. Or a house. Or anything that's unnecessary right now. Everyone I talk to my age feels the same way. We're going to take a couple of years to take advantage of the low interest rates (when they trickle down to us) and put ourselves in a better financial position. In my case, I have business debt to consolidate, so my rationale is all about the math. But my friends with kids are following a similar plan. The party's over. For a while at least, lol.

[AliBabba]

I expect this area to have more of a bump before most. As increased federal spending starts to trickle through, we'll feel it first.

That said, it's too soon for increased lending to be having much of an impact. Manufacturers shut down production because of increased costs and decreased demand. If manufacturers just start building, that doesn't mean that buyers will come. This isn't "Field of Dreams", lol.

Personally, if and when I have some extra cash, I think it's a great time to get in on stocks. In fact, once it dropped to 6,700 I would have started buying. I'm not buying a car, though. Or a house. Or anything that's unnecessary right now. Everyone I talk to my age feels the same way. We're going to take a couple of years to take advantage of the low interest rates (when they trickle down to us) and put ourselves in a better financial position. In my case, I have business debt to consolidate, so my rationale is all about the math. But my friends with kids are following a similar plan. The party's over. For a while at least, lol.
I contemplated dabbling in day trading and buying a few bank stocks before the market opened today .... If I had I'd have made 20% or more on each ... but when I say "contemplated" I really mean dreamed I would with somebody else's money

[akhhorus]

I expect this area to have more of a bump before most. As increased federal spending starts to trickle through, we'll feel it first.

That said, it's too soon for increased lending to be having much of an impact. Manufacturers shut down production because of increased costs and decreased demand. If manufacturers just start building, that doesn't mean that buyers will come. This isn't "Field of Dreams", lol.

Personally, if and when I have some extra cash, I think it's a great time to get in on stocks. In fact, once it dropped to 6,700 I would have started buying. I'm not buying a car, though. Or a house. Or anything that's unnecessary right now. Everyone I talk to my age feels the same way. We're going to take a couple of years to take advantage of the low interest rates (when they trickle down to us) and put ourselves in a better financial position. In my case, I have business debt to consolidate, so my rationale is all about the math. But my friends with kids are following a similar plan. The party's over. For a while at least, lol.

Agreed. But that being said, fixing the banking sector of this toxic paper(and CDSs by result) and getting them to lend cash out should lead to a traditional U shaped recovery-where the market jumps ahead of the GDP/employment recovery by a fiscal quarter. That's the ideal track for economic recovery frankly.

[AliBabba]

incidentally FWIW Dow's up almost 500 now ... up 1,200 from the 6,500 low a few weeks ago

[BurgundyNGold]

I contemplated dabbling in day trading and buying a few bank stocks before the market opened today .... If I had I'd have made 20% or more on each ... but when I say "contemplated" I really mean dreamed I would with somebody else's money
I am a corporate raider in the body of a block of government cheese, lol.

[akhhorus]

incidentally FWIW Dow's up almost 500 now ... up 1,200 from the 6,500 low a few weeks ago

The S&P up 50 is more impressive. But its just one day.

[BurgundyNGold]

Agreed. But that being said, fixing the banking sector of this toxic paper(and CDSs by result) and getting them to lend cash out should lead to a traditional U shaped recovery-where the market jumps ahead of the GDP/employment recovery by a fiscal quarter. That's the ideal track for economic recovery frankly.
It's the ideal *conditions* for recovery, but no necessarily a track. The best that can happen are for the conditions to be ripe for growth. The other side of that equation are the consumers. There's still a lot of debt out there and almost 4M lost jobs. There has to be some movement on debt service in addition to job creation before there is any kind of broad based recovery. And we still haven't seen the exotic commercial mortgages come due yet.

[AliBabba]

The S&P up 50 is more impressive. But its just one day.
no doubt it's only one day but little victories like today for the market will help if for no other reason than to provide a cushion for the next real estate bubble burst thats coming and the day that everyone realizes that giving Eric Gordon from Billy Madison all this control may not be the best idea

http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/9759/29987038rs8.png

[AliBabba]

It's the ideal *conditions* for recovery, but no necessarily a track. The best that can happen are for the conditions to be ripe for growth. The other side of that equation are the consumers. There's still a lot of debt out there and almost 4M lost jobs. There has to be some movement on debt service in addition to job creation before there is any kind of broad based recovery. And we still haven't seen the exotic commercial mortgages come due yet.

If this "crisis" has taught us nothing else we see how interrelated the strength of the banks and market is with jobs and consumer bottom lines ... as Dave stated earlier I believe some direct assistance for homeowners - in terms of restructured loans - is necessary but ultimately we have to hope getting the bad assets of the books jump starts these guys and that trickles down to everything else its left in ruins

[BurgundyNGold]

If this "crisis" has taught us nothing else we see how interrelated the strength of the banks and market is with jobs and consumer bottom lines ... as Dave stated earlier I believe some direct assistance for homeowners - in terms of restructured loans - is necessary but ultimately we have to hope getting the bad assets of the books jump starts these guys and that trickles down to everything else its left in ruins
Yeah, but that's the point. Bad home mortgages that have been commoditized are not the only bad assets out there. There are commercial mortgages, business credit, consumer credit, credit card debt, auto loans -- you name it -- all given out in the same ninja fashion. A good percentage of those are going to hit, as well at some point. Credit cards, for example, can't keep slamming people with 28% interest on top of penalties on top of fees. Without a plan for cleaning up the small business and consumer credit markets, they've barely made a dent in the bad debt pile.

[AliBabba]

Yeah, but that's the point. Bad home mortgages that have been commoditized are not the only bad assets out there. There are commercial mortgages, business credit, consumer credit, credit card debt, auto loans -- you name it -- all given out in the same ninja fashion. A good percentage of those are going to hit, as well at some point. Credit cards, for example, can't keep slamming people with 28% interest on top of penalties on top of fees. Without a plan for cleaning up the small business and consumer credit markets, they've barely made a dent in the bad debt pile.
Well I assume there's going to be some new regulation that comes down soon as well. I doubt Timmy's naive enough to believe that simply selling bad (some) assets from banks to private investors will turn this thing around and ensure it doesn't happen again.

I do think that without Wall St's buy-in Main St will never see any benefits from these plans. While I am not foolish enough to think that the Dow and S&P jumping 7% in one day means we're good or even on the right path, I do think its an incremental victory. We are going to need a lot of those in coming months. Some investor confidence and some stability for the banks in time should loosen up the credit and maybe start to make an impact on everyday people's bottom lines .... it's gonna take a long time though and it's gonna take much more than what Geithner has proposed thus far. The issues you mentioned must be addressed as well as regulation

[RedskinsDave]

Yeah, but that's the point. Bad home mortgages that have been commoditized are not the only bad assets out there. There are commercial mortgages, business credit, consumer credit, credit card debt, auto loans -- you name it -- all given out in the same ninja fashion. A good percentage of those are going to hit, as well at some point. Credit cards, for example, can't keep slamming people with 28% interest on top of penalties on top of fees. Without a plan for cleaning up the small business and consumer credit markets, they've barely made a dent in the bad debt pile.

I have a friend in finance who is convinced that, at some point, along with bailing out the banks the governments going to have to do some sort of "reset" on people's credit. He just doesn't think the banks can give out enough qualifying loans unless the people whose credit is shot now get a reprieve.

[firehawk157]

I have a friend in finance who is convinced that, at some point, along with bailing out the banks the governments going to have to do some sort of "reset" on people's credit. He just doesn't think the banks can give out enough qualifying loans unless the people whose credit is shot now get a reprieve.
I would have to agree because I think that credit reporting is broke in this country. Furthermore, you are delaying recovery by up to 7 years by effectively marginalizing a sizeable portion of the population from spending. I would nationalize credit reporting and change the internal mechanisms. For example, your credit actually drops if you pay off a collection account or a judgment. I would temporarily suspend deliquent account reporting to give everyone a temporary reprieve (but not debt reporting since you don't want people to further increase their debt to income ratio) so they can refinance or consolidate as necessary. In 2 or 3 years, do an automatic reinvestigation of all the old deliquent accounts and remove them if they are paid. This will give everybody the incentive to actually pay off the debt, as opposed to thinking it will just go away, while increasing lending (in particular, home loans and refinancing). Just my thoughts on the matter.

[dj_stouty]

I have a friend in finance who is convinced that, at some point, along with bailing out the banks the governments going to have to do some sort of "reset" on people's credit. He just doesn't think the banks can give out enough qualifying loans unless the people whose credit is shot now get a reprieve.

And of course; by resetting everyone's credit it will reward those who have not paid their bills on time or those who run up ridiculous credit card numbers. It punishes those of us who pay on time and carry little to zero debt to be safe in case times like these occur. Plus, why reset someone's bad credit when they are only going to shoot it right back into the toilet after a few months?

I definitely agree that Government and the Banking Institutions are partially at fault for where we are; but I think a bigger portion of the blame goes to the American public who lived above their means, bought houses they couldn't afford, maxed out credit card debt on 6 or more cards, refinanced their homes for no other reason than to borrow against the equity to blow on items they couldn't originally afford because their credit cards were ALREADY maxed out...etc. Rinse and repeat.

It just seems as if the general population tends to have very little to no personal reponsibility when it comes to managing their money. Maybe Junior Highs and High Schools should start requiring basic Home Finance courses that teaches kids to balance a checkbook, save money for education/retirement, plan a home budget for families...etc. They may already do; but they sure didn't have those classes when I was in HS through '93.

In the end, it will be the responsible bunch of us who end up paying for everyone else's *censored by DJ* financial mistakes. That is not a change I'm looking forward to.

[BurgundyNGold]

Well I assume there's going to be some new regulation that comes down soon as well. I doubt Timmy's naive enough to believe that simply selling bad (some) assets from banks to private investors will turn this thing around and ensure it doesn't happen again.

I do think that without Wall St's buy-in Main St will never see any benefits from these plans. While I am not foolish enough to think that the Dow and S&P jumping 7% in one day means we're good or even on the right path, I do think its an incremental victory. We are going to need a lot of those in coming months. Some investor confidence and some stability for the banks in time should loosen up the credit and maybe start to make an impact on everyday people's bottom lines .... it's gonna take a long time though and it's gonna take much more than what Geithner has proposed thus far. The issues you mentioned must be addressed as well as regulation
If this crisis has illustrated anything it's that Main Street and Wall Street are inexorably tied at the wallet. However, it has equally shown that there is an ever growing chasm between the people, culture and prevailing mindsets between the two, as well. Helping one without accounting for the concerns and ills of the other is not going to work out well in the end. Better regulation is the long term solution but there has to be some financial attention given to Main Street for the short and medium term. The question is the form that should take.

[BurgundyNGold]

I have a friend in finance who is convinced that, at some point, along with bailing out the banks the governments going to have to do some sort of "reset" on people's credit. He just doesn't think the banks can give out enough qualifying loans unless the people whose credit is shot now get a reprieve.
I don't know that they will ever do a "reset" of people's credit records. That would effectively throw out 30+ years of credit reporting.

I would suggest a solution that is already somewhat within the confines of business as usual. What the banks should do is, perhaps with Federal prodding, to actively seek out and extend debt consolidation loans to consumers and small businesses at low, fixed rates. This would have the effect of turning bad or soon-to-default credit accounts -- the next round of toxics -- into satisfactorily settled accounts. That would leave the banks that are already getting Federal assistance holding a single debt at a lower interest rate that is much more likely to get paid back. You could extend the reach of such a program by providing some measure of Federal guarantee as supplemental collateral on these loans, similar to what SBA already does for businesses.

I would have to agree because I think that credit reporting is broke in this country. Furthermore, you are delaying recovery by up to 7 years by effectively marginalizing a sizeable portion of the population from spending. I would nationalize credit reporting and change the internal mechanisms. For example, your credit actually drops if you pay off a collection account or a judgment. I would temporarily suspend deliquent account reporting to give everyone a temporary reprieve (but not debt reporting since you don't want people to further increase their debt to income ratio) so they can refinance or consolidate as necessary. In 2 or 3 years, do an automatic reinvestigation of all the old deliquent accounts and remove them if they are paid. This will give everybody the incentive to actually pay off the debt, as opposed to thinking it will just go away, while increasing lending (in particular, home loans and refinancing). Just my thoughts on the matter.
The current reporting system is broken on the other side, as well. After 7 years, any debt considered uncollectible is pushed off of your credit report due to statue of limitation restrictions. So, it is actually advantageous at some point in time for someone to not pay a debt and to let it expire.

Nationalizing credit reporting is a novel idea. I would be concerned about the monumental effort required of correcting an erroneous entry in your record if you had to go through Federal channels. Then I recall the tedious, bass ackwards, damn near hopeless process that you currently have to go through with not one but THREE credit reporting agencies and the plan starts to make a little more sense. My guess is that reporting vendors might make more of an effort to get their reporting right if they knew the Federal government was watching but the penalties (I think it's like $1,000 per negligent reporting or untimely removal infraction) is hardly enough to make the reporting vendor get off their ass and truly verify a disputed reporting claim.

And of course; by resetting everyone's credit it will reward those who have not paid their bills on time or those who run up ridiculous credit card numbers. It punishes those of us who pay on time and carry little to zero debt to be safe in case times like these occur. Plus, why reset someone's bad credit when they are only going to shoot it right back into the toilet after a few months?
Agreed. That's why I think that cheap, easy to acquire refinancing of existing debt should be the solution -- and maybe even part of the bank's product offering moving forward indefinitely. You might even be able to benefit from this yourself, should you so choose.

Nobody loses in this plan. The original creditor is paid, the banks gain additional recurring revenue, the toxic assets never happen, the Fed decreases the likelihood of having to pick up the bill, the consumer stays out of bankruptcy court and household disposable income is bumped by virtue of lower interest payments (which should immediately help with the sluggish spending trends).

I definitely agree that Government and the Banking Institutions are partially at fault for where we are; but I think a bigger portion of the blame goes to the American public who lived above their means, bought houses they couldn't afford, maxed out credit card debt on 6 or more cards, refinanced their homes for no other reason than to borrow against the equity to blow on items they couldn't originally afford because their credit cards were ALREADY maxed out...etc. Rinse and repeat.
I don't disagree with most of this. There were plenty of people who bought more house than they could afford. There were plenty of people who thought they could flip houses and make coin doing it.

But there are also plenty of sole proprietorships and small businesses who routinely use revolving credit to finance their business. Those folks, along with regular credit card consumers, have gotten slammed by interest rate hikes because of these other people who lived irresponsibly. Now, as a result, many small businesses have closed or are closing. People who lived within their means are being pushed over the edge because of lesser revenue (most folks aren't getting raises this year or next) increased product costs and higher than expected (or deserved) loan and credit card payments.

To me, those folks didn't do anything wrong, yet they have been getting slammed because of a broken system. Letting them just twist in the wind is bad for consumer confidence, bad for American business and bad for America.

It just seems as if the general population tends to have very little to no personal reponsibility when it comes to managing their money. Maybe Junior Highs and High Schools should start requiring basic Home Finance courses that teaches kids to balance a checkbook, save money for education/retirement, plan a home budget for families...etc. They may already do; but they sure didn't have those classes when I was in HS through '93.
I absolutely agree about the personal responsibility aspects. But, to be fair, a recession or a depression that effects everyone isn't about personal responsibility. There are plenty of people who have played by the rules but are still filing for bankruptcy.

In the end, it will be the responsible bunch of us who end up paying for everyone else's *censored by DJ* financial mistakes. That is not a change I'm looking forward to.
If you pay your taxes then you have been subsidizing a whole lot of these types of things for years, including billions for wars and international aid annually which doesn't help us at home one bit. Responsible money management needs a top top bottom revival, IMO.

[akhhorus]

If this crisis has illustrated anything it's that Main Street and Wall Street are inexorably tied at the wallet. However, it has equally shown that there is an ever growing chasm between the people, culture and prevailing mindsets between the two, as well. Helping one without accounting for the concerns and ills of the other is not going to work out well in the end. Better regulation is the long term solution but there has to be some financial attention given to Main Street for the short and medium term. The question is the form that should take.

In this crisis: yes. Main and Wall Street were tied together WAY too much. Main street was over-invested in Wall Street, and Wall Street was over-invested in Main street with everyone getting into funding/insuring bad mortgages. So, when Wall Street faltered, it hurt main street directly with a market selloff, which then started to feed the problem(mortgages backed by securities defaulted, which led to greater selloffs, and on and on and on). The solution is to probably repeal Gramm-Lugar, and get the banks out of the investment business.

[BurgundyNGold]

Speaking of debt relief, the Senate is considering one measure for credit card debt. It's a step in the right direction but, in and of itself, not the entire solution. Or even a significant part of a solution. Not a bad start, though...

Senate to Consider Relief for Credit Card Holders

Expanding a debate on whether the government should to do more to help embattled consumers, a Senate Judiciary subcommittee this morning will hear pros and cons of a bill that would provide relief to holders of credit cards with exorbitant interest rates.

New regulations issued by the Federal Reserve targeting predatory lending practices by credit card companies are scheduled to go into effect next year. The bill, introduced in January by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), is aimed at giving more immediate relief to consumers struggling with mounting debt and tightened access as the credit crisis helps fuel the economic downturn.

Sponsors say the bill gives consumers with high interest rates and on the verge of financial collapse a powerful tool to negotiate a lower rate with their credit card companies. Under the bill, lenders with high interest rates would get nothing if their customers file for bankruptcy.

The bill would apply to rates higher than 15 percent plus the current yield on the 30-year treasury bond. That rate currently is 18.5 percent.

...


Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/24/AR2009032400808.html?hpid=topnews)

[BurgundyNGold]

In this crisis: yes. Main and Wall Street were tied together WAY too much. Main street was over-invested in Wall Street, and Wall Street was over-invested in Main street with everyone getting into funding/insuring bad mortgages. So, when Wall Street faltered, it hurt main street directly with a market selloff, which then started to feed the problem(mortgages backed by securities defaulted, which led to greater selloffs, and on and on and on). The solution is to probably repeal Gramm-Lugar, and get the banks out of the investment business.
That doesn't speak to the gulf between Main Street and Wall Street mindsets. Nobody on Main Street gets bailed out. Nobody on Main Street gets *huge* bonuses for failing. There is some well placed rage there on Main Street. Wall Street not only doesn't know that the rules have changed, they're wondering blankly what they did that was so wrong. Let them eat cake, eh? All of this just gives Obama that many more arrows in his quiver should he choose to tax the upper 5% that much more.

[dj_stouty]

Speaking of debt relief, the Senate is considering one measure for credit card debt. It's a step in the right direction but, in and of itself, not the entire solution. Or even a significant part of a solution. Not a bad start, though...



Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/24/AR2009032400808.html?hpid=topnews)

Is is predatory lending if you get a cheap Redskins towel in exchange for signign up for the credit card? lol

I always shake my head at those people lined up at the tents at FedEx signing up for their 8th credit card. They don't bother looking at the pamphlet that clearly shows just how bad they are going to get raped once the introductory % expires 90 days later.

[BurgundyNGold]

Is is predatory lending if you get a cheap Redskins towel in exchange for signign up for the credit card? lol

I always shake my head at those people lined up at the tents at FedEx signing up for their 8th credit card. They don't bother looking at the pamphlet that clearly shows just how bad they are going to get raped once the introductory % expires 90 days later.
Me too. I have 4 credit card, only about 1 or 2 that I actively use, based on who is giving me the better rate, rewards, etc.

Still, if I made a personal practice of lending people money at 25 or 30%, I would go to jail as a shylock, lol. Something to think about.

[akhhorus]

That doesn't speak to the gulf between Main Street and Wall Street mindsets. Nobody on Main Street gets bailed out. Nobody on Main Street gets *huge* bonuses for failing. There is some well placed rage there on Main Street. Wall Street not only doesn't know that the rules have changed, they're wondering blankly what they did that was so wrong. Let them eat cake, eh? All of this just gives Obama that many more arrows in his quiver should he choose to tax the upper 5% that much more.

Thats a different issue. I have a feeling that Obama/Geithner are going to channel TR and "trust bust" the investment banks into smaller entities. Not a great idea, but there won't be much opposition.

[BurgundyNGold]

Thats a different issue. I have a feeling that Obama/Geithner are going to channel TR and "trust bust" the investment banks into smaller entities. Not a great idea, but there won't be much opposition.
Well, that's one way to solve the "too big to fail" paradox. A new round of breakups are probably in order anyway. We haven't had any real antitrust breakups since the 80s. Breakups are usually a good thing long term. The Ma Bell breakup led to a whole lot of innovation... Internet, mobile, video, call services, etc.

[akhhorus]

Well, that's one way to solve the "too big to fail" paradox. A new round of breakups are probably in order anyway. We haven't had any real antitrust breakups since the 80s. Breakups are usually a good thing long term. The Ma Bell breakup led to a whole lot of innovation... Internet, mobile, video, call services, etc.

If they're going to separate financial services divisions from Banks, thats okay. I don't think, and this would be coming along with it, that limiting how big they can be is a good idea.

[BurgundyNGold]

If they're going to separate financial services divisions from Banks, thats okay. I don't think, and this would be coming along with it, that limiting how big they can be is a good idea.
I think that when looking at entities to break up, in addition to the existing antitrust laws, the Fed should take the position that when any institution of vital economic interest to the US becomes "too big to fail" then its size has become too big to allow in its present form.

[akhhorus]

I think that when looking at entities to break up, in addition to the existing antitrust laws, the Fed should take the position that when any institution of vital economic interest to the US becomes "too big to fail" then its size has become too big to allow in its present form.

I agree, but there's ways to do that without hard limits on how big a new company can become. Separate the companies by types of financial instruments(and regulate them so that they can't buy up each other or buy into the other instruments).

[firehawk157]

That doesn't speak to the gulf between Main Street and Wall Street mindsets. Nobody on Main Street gets bailed out. Nobody on Main Street gets *huge* bonuses for failing. There is some well placed rage there on Main Street. Wall Street not only doesn't know that the rules have changed, they're wondering blankly what they did that was so wrong. Let them eat cake, eh? All of this just gives Obama that many more arrows in his quiver should he choose to tax the upper 5% that much more.
+1

For the original TARP fund, the Government essentially took $2000 from every person in the US and handed it over to Wall St bankers. This angered some people but generally speaking, most people understood that it was needed (even if they weren't sure why) and just took it in stride. I think we all were looking for a change in mindset for Wall St and some freaking accountability. Then the bonuses went out and we all realized that nothing has changed. Lending still hasn't thawed and the extravagant lifestyle that Wall St bankers live is now being paid by us. I know the average American doesn't care two bits less what language was in the contract, we could have stopped them and we should have. And to top it all off, not a single person was charged with criminal negligence or anything. They took $2000 from every pocket in the US and nobody is in jail.

Then we see how little the government does for the little guy (even if he was stupid in signing that contract) and we wonder, where's our bailout? When Wall St started to have it's collective cardiac arrest, you heard every senator and economic expert rush to the microphone to explain why we needed $700B and we need it right now but Main St is ailing and a couple of small measures are just kicking around the house, doing nothing.

[akhhorus]

+1


Then we see how little the government does for the little guy (even if he was stupid in signing that contract) and we wonder, where's our bailout? When Wall St started to have it's collective cardiac arrest, you heard every senator and economic expert rush to the microphone to explain why we needed $700B and we need it right now but Main St is ailing and a couple of small measures are just kicking around the house, doing nothing.

The housing and credit card measures should pass. Whats absurd is guys like Santelli, who was openly begging for TARP(and more), doing this faux populism about the housing bailout for mortgage holders(its even more absurd when you find out it was staged by Santelli).

[RedskinsDave]

Is is predatory lending if you get a cheap Redskins towel in exchange for signign up for the credit card? lol

I always shake my head at those people lined up at the tents at FedEx signing up for their 8th credit card. They don't bother looking at the pamphlet that clearly shows just how bad they are going to get raped once the introductory % expires 90 days later.

Funny story. My wife and I got an Amex credit card to get rewards points for all the money we were spending on the wedding. We were just paying it off and getting the points. Recently we charged something that we didn't pay off the first month and my wife said, "first they charged me $50 for an annual fee and then they charged me $15 for some finance charge." I asked again and she repeated it and then it sank in. She has never used credit cards and didn't get that they charge you if you don't pay it off. I got a good laugh out of it. It sure beats having someone who pays off one card with another.

[BostonSkins]

If they're going to separate financial services divisions from Banks, thats okay. I don't think, and this would be coming along with it, that limiting how big they can be is a good idea.


We had it, Glass-Steagall, put in place after the depression and repealed so that Citi could aquire a brokerage back in '98 or '99. What's good for Citi is usually bad for the country.

[akhhorus]

We had it, Glass-Steagall, put in place after the depression and repealed so that Citi could aquire a brokerage back in '98 or '99. What's good for Citi is usually bad for the country.

Thats right. Gramm was behind that also. But Gramm-lugar formalized the process and led to stuff like the 02 scandals and this.

[BurgundyNGold]

I agree, but there's ways to do that without hard limits on how big a new company can become. Separate the companies by types of financial instruments(and regulate them so that they can't buy up each other or buy into the other instruments).
You actually put some teeth on the antitrust reviews instead of rubber stamping every acquisition. The government has been lax in its responsibilities in that area and not just for banks. The results in the financial sector has been 10 or 12 megabanks that have grown to the point of accountability to anyone but are guaranteed not to fail because of the impact on the global economy. They should never have been allowed to get so big and they now need to be broken up.

[BurgundyNGold]

We had it, Glass-Steagall, put in place after the depression and repealed so that Citi could aquire a brokerage back in '98 or '99. What's good for Citi is usually bad for the country.
Great pull. We have to repeal that repeal, lol.

[RedskinsDave]

I didn't bother watching. How big a pile did the Celebrident shovel tonight? Is there a point where he's going to stop campaigning?

[fpickering]

Americans are stupid. We know this. Obama is banking on it:



I guess he was too stupid to miss that his own people okayed the bonuses. Ridiculous.

and I suppose that Obama himself forgot that he signed the bill!

[hogskins]

Speaking of debt relief, the Senate is considering one measure for credit card debt. It's a step in the right direction but, in and of itself, not the entire solution. Or even a significant part of a solution. Not a bad start, though...



Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/24/AR2009032400808.html?hpid=topnews)

Agreed. What I don't understand, though, is why there are apparently no usury laws enforced currently ... With all of the games that card issuers play with delayed crediting of accounts on even electronic payments, it's not hard to end up with a 28% Walmart card before you know it. (Just ask my money-stupid wife.)

[skinguy]

Agreed. What I don't understand, though, is why there are apparently no usury laws enforced currently ... With all of the games that card issuers play with delayed crediting of accounts on even electronic payments, it's not hard to end up with a 28% Walmart card before you know it. (Just ask my money-stupid wife.)
" . . . Just ask my money-stupid wife. "

HEY ! !
watch it there ! ! !
YOUR wife is a SAINT ! ! !
HOW DO I KNOW ; SHE MARRIED YOU ! !



j/k :sun:

[RedskinsDave]

More change, or not:

Civil liberties advocates are accusing the Obama administration of forsaking campaign rhetoric and adopting the same expansive arguments that his predecessor used to cloak some of the most sensitive intelligence-gathering programs of the Bush White House.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/24/AR2009032403501.html?hpid=topnews

WHAT????!!!

I guess now the screaming mimis will agree that sometimes we don't need to know. Of course that would make them hypocrites once more. Keep up the good work Barry.

[Ibleedburgundy]

I guess now the screaming mimis will agree that sometimes we don't need to know. Of course that would make them hypocrites once more. Keep up the good work Barry.

Do you agree with the legal argument or not? Just curious.

[RedskinsDave]

Do you agree with the legal argument or not? Just curious.

Did you agree when Bush's people made it? Just hypocurious.

[skinguy]

I didn't bother watching. How big a pile did the Celebrident shovel tonight? Is there a point where he's going to stop campaigning?
" . . . Is there a point where he's going to stop campaigning? "

~ ~ really !

& start working/doing HIS job ! !

[Sweepea436]

" . . . Is there a point where he's going to stop campaigning? "

~ ~ really !

& start working/doing HIS job ! !

I read that viewership was down on this last broadcast. He might want to schedule an emergency "press invited" basketball game to remind us that he's a down to Earth guy and is the hippest CINC ever.

[firehawk157]

I read that viewership was down on this last broadcast. He might want to schedule an emergency "press invited" basketball game to remind us that he's a down to Earth guy and is the hippest CINC ever.
He'll just twitter it from his Blackberry curve while LOLing at the latest email his BFF sent him. Who needs a dignified president?

[Ibleedburgundy]

Did you agree when Bush's people made it? Just hypocurious.

Got it. You're more concerned with the partisan sideshow. I never expected you to state a principled stance on the issue at hand.

You're accusing a straw man of opposing the state secrets defense under Bush and advocating it under Obama (despite the fact that your own article says liberals are still opposed to it). I guess you missed the flap on the campaign trail about liberals being upset over Obama voting for immunity for the telecom companies. Could it be that liberals are more principled than you give them credit for?

There is a very clear distinction between executing a wiretap outside of the FISA or regular courts (which I disagree with) and refusing to reveal top secret programs that probably were conducted improperly under the previous administration (which I still disagree with, albeit conditionally). Reason why I bring that up is becase I had not heard of this particular case during the Bush administration, but I generally thought they should have used the courts for all wiretaps, and that there was no practical excuse to subvert them. If there is, I have yet to hear it. Going after the agencies that followed directives from the Bush administration is of questionable value. Revealing their methods of surveillance would obviously be detrimental. OTOH, exposing abuses is inherently valuable. So really the factors ought to be weighed by the courts.

Anyway, this whole bitchfest of a thread is a joke. You're claiming that Obama is no different than Bush (which is totally absurd) so why did you start this thread complaining about Obama's policies when you basically never did during Bush? You are the mirror image of your strawman.

[Sweepea436]

He'll just twitter it from his Blackberry curve while LOLing at the latest email his BFF sent him. Who needs a dignified president?

:lol3:

[RedskinsDave]

Got it. You're more concerned with the partisan sideshow. I never expected you to state a principled stance on the issue at hand.

Right, I never take a stance.

You're accusing a straw man of opposing the state secrets defense under Bush and advocating it under Obama (despite the fact that your own article says liberals are still opposed to it). I guess you missed the flap on the campaign trail about liberals being upset over Obama voting for immunity for the telecom companies. Could it be that liberals are more principled than you give them credit for?

Do you even know what a straw man is? I say no based on this paragraph. There may be some liberals still upset about the wire taps. I am waiting for the Obamatons to chime in. I expect continued silence.

There is a very clear distinction between executing a wiretap outside of the FISA or regular courts (which I disagree with) and refusing to reveal top secret programs that probably were conducted improperly under the previous administration (which I still disagree with, albeit conditionally). Reason why I bring that up is becase I had not heard of this particular case during the Bush administration, but I generally thought they should have used the courts for all wiretaps, and that there was no practical excuse to subvert them. If there is, I have yet to hear it. Going after the agencies that followed directives from the Bush administration is of questionable value. Revealing their methods of surveillance would obviously be detrimental. OTOH, exposing abuses is inherently valuable. So really the factors ought to be weighed by the courts.

Anyway, this whole bitchfest of a thread is a joke. You're claiming that Obama is no different than Bush (which is totally absurd) so why did you start this thread complaining about Obama's policies when you basically never did during Bush? You are the mirror image of your strawman.

There wasn't any bitch until you posted. I don't expect you to see that the whole change mantra was and is a load of crap. Your head is too far up Barry's rump. You can keep saying I didn't complain about Bush all you want and it still won't make it true. I love how you keep that up when you're probably the biggest partisan hack who posts here.

Again, look up straw man.

[Ibleedburgundy]

There wasn't any bitch until you posted. I don't expect you to see that the whole change mantra was and is a load of crap.


You and Shellykellysherri bitching and moaning about every little thing the new administration does is all the evidence of change I need.

[RedskinsDave]

You and Shellykellysherri bitching and moaning about every little thing the new administration does is all the evidence of change I need.

Now that's close to being straw man. Well done.

[skinguy]

You and Shellykellysherri bitching and moaning about every little thing the new administration does is all the evidence of change I need.
" . . . is all the evidence of change I need. "

~ ~ good, because most of the rest of the " change " YOU/WE get from this admin. is gonna be **** ! !

example : and the change you asked for and got is an executive branch that covets the power to seize private businesses when it sees fit. HTCWICOTTD* Tim Geithner wants Congress to recognize his regulatory powers to seize non-bank financial companies. And what is Barack Obama's response? I hope "it doesn't take too long" to convince Congress to approve this new authority.

This is an unprecedented amount of power being requested by the Obama administration. In fact, I wouldn't even say requested so much as demanded and expected. That government should have this level of power and influence in your lives, your businesses, your money, your property and your freedom. This is what Democrats have been wanting. And with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi by his side, Barack Obama and Tim Geithner may very well succeed.

Thanks for the change!

> http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2009/03/you-asked-for-change-and-you-g.html

[BurgundyNGold]

" . . . is all the evidence of change I need. "

~ ~ good, because most of the rest of the " change " YOU/WE get from this admin. is gonna be **** ! !

example : and the change you asked for and got is an executive branch that covets the power to seize private businesses when it sees fit. HTCWICOTTD* Tim Geithner wants Congress to recognize his regulatory powers to seize non-bank financial companies. And what is Barack Obama's response? I hope "it doesn't take too long" to convince Congress to approve this new authority.

This is an unprecedented amount of power being requested by the Obama administration. In fact, I wouldn't even say requested so much as demanded and expected. That government should have this level of power and influence in your lives, your businesses, your money, your property and your freedom. This is what Democrats have been wanting. And with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi by his side, Barack Obama and Tim Geithner may very well succeed.

Thanks for the change!

> http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2009/03/you-asked-for-change-and-you-g.html
This is actually a well presented point. I cannot argue with the logic of its formulation either. While I think there needs to be some regulation of what Wall Street does (they were out of control... it was like Vegas up there), the Dems control the WH and both Houses. They can do pretty much whatever they want.

[akhhorus]

This is actually a well presented point. I cannot argue with the logic of its formulation either. While I think there needs to be some regulation of what Wall Street does (they were out of control... it was like Vegas up there), the Dems control the WH and both Houses. They can do pretty much whatever they want.

Not only that, but this argument that this is some "power grab" is absurd. The investment world was totally unregulated. And the net result was basically a pipe bomb shoved into everyone's mortgage and stock portfolio.

[BurgundyNGold]

Not only that, but this argument that this is some "power grab" is absurd. The investment world was totally unregulated. And the net result was basically a pipe bomb shoved into everyone's mortgage and stock portfolio.
AIG and others were effectively operating as a casino. You could buy futures and insurance on any possible scenario. How was that *not* regulated? I mean, folks can complain about the wisdom of bundling mortgages into securities that could then be traded against, but at least that was half innovative and somewhat ethical, if just a bad idea. Some of these other things were just insane.

[akhhorus]

AIG and others were effectively operating as a casino. You could buy futures and insurance on any possible scenario. How was that *not* regulated? I mean, folks can complain about the wisdom of bundling mortgages into securities that could then be traded against, but at least that was half innovative and somewhat ethical, if just a bad idea. Some of these other things were just insane.

Yep, and Paulsen/Cox(among others, but they were the primary ones) totally gutted the regulation at OTS(the acting OTS chair was busted for letting banks falsify their bottom lines this week) and at the SEC. I hate regulation, but re-regulation isn't some "power grab."

[skinguy]

if i may , on the subject of mr. Timothy Geithner ;

~ ~ So Obama's pick to head the Treasury - Timothy Geithner - made a little boo boo on some of his tax returns. Doesn't bode well for the guy that, among other things, would have authority over the IRS. A few years ago, the guy failed to pay self-employment taxes while working for the International Monetary Fund. We are talking about $34,000 in taxes. But either way, the word in Washington is that this was an "innocent mistake." Since when does the IRS acknowledge the concept of an "innocent mistake?" If this were John McCain's Treasury designate he would be history.

~ This was the mastermind behind the last bailout plan and TARP .. the "Troubled Asset Relief Program." Yeah, that's working real well, isn't it? Yup, there was Timothy Geithner, tax cheat extraordinaire, being sworn in as the Secretary of the Treasury. This, my friends, is change we can believe in.

Geithner can thank his lucky stars that he's a Democrat. There is just no way in the world that he would ever have been confirmed had he been a Republican. The media and the Democrats would have been on him like a crow on a June bug. We have an economic crisis, so we're told that its just fine if we have a willful tax cheat running the department that includes the Internal Revenue Service.


> http://boortz.com/blogging/cxr-search.cgi?tag=timothy%20geithner&blog_id=65&IncludeBlogs=65

[BurgundyNGold]

if i may , on the subject of mr. Timothy Geithner ;

~ ~ So Obama's pick to head the Treasury - Timothy Geithner - made a little boo boo on some of his tax returns. Doesn't bode well for the guy that, among other things, would have authority over the IRS. A few years ago, the guy failed to pay self-employment taxes while working for the International Monetary Fund. We are talking about $34,000 in taxes. But either way, the word in Washington is that this was an "innocent mistake." Since when does the IRS acknowledge the concept of an "innocent mistake?" If this were John McCain's Treasury designate he would be history.

~ This was the mastermind behind the last bailout plan and TARP .. the "Troubled Asset Relief Program." Yeah, that's working real well, isn't it? Yup, there was Timothy Geithner, tax cheat extraordinaire, being sworn in as the Secretary of the Treasury. This, my friends, is change we can believe in.

Geithner can thank his lucky stars that he's a Democrat. There is just no way in the world that he would ever have been confirmed had he been a Republican. The media and the Democrats would have been on him like a crow on a June bug. We have an economic crisis, so we're told that its just fine if we have a willful tax cheat running the department that includes the Internal Revenue Service.


> http://boortz.com/blogging/cxr-search.cgi?tag=timothy%20geithner&blog_id=65&IncludeBlogs=65
But what you YOU think?

[skinguy]

But what you YOU think?
i agree w/boortz on this one.
i copied & pasted his article because he is a better writer/author than me.
as i understand it ,
t. geithner did NOT pay self-employment taxes while working for the International Monetary Fund. even though the imf gave HIM a separate check , made payable to HIM in the amount of the taxes he owed to the irs.
he was supposed to deposit that check in HIS personal account ( which he did ) & then write one of HIS personal chks made payable to the irs to cover the self-employment taxes HE owed.

he NEVER WROTE THAT CHECK TO THE IRS , UNTIL this job was offered to him.

" innocent mistake ? "

:smash:


if - IF YOU believe that was an " innocent mistake ? " well ,
nevermind ~ ~

[akhhorus]

i agree w/boortz on this one.
i copied & pasted his article because he is a better writer/author than me.
as i understand it ,
t. geithner did NOT pay self-employment taxes while working for the International Monetary Fund. even though the imf gave HIM a separate check , made payable to HIM in the amount of the taxes he owed to the irs.
he was supposed to deposit that check in HIS personal account ( which he did ) & then write one of HIS personal chks made payable to the irs to cover the self-employment taxes HE owed.

he NEVER WROTE THAT CHECK TO THE IRS , UNTIL this job was offered to him.

" innocent mistake ? "

:smash:


if - IF YOU believe that was an " innocent mistake ? " well ,
nevermind ~ ~

The vast majority of what you post is just cut and pasted Boortz articles. If you wanted to discuss Geithner's tax issues, then discuss the issues.

[skinguy]

The vast majority of what you post is just cut and pasted Boortz articles. If you wanted to discuss Geithner's tax issues, then discuss the issues.
ok ,
why didn't time geither pay his taxes ?

imho , he didn't want to.

[akhhorus]

ok ,
why didn't time geither pay his taxes ?

imho , he didn't want to.

Geithner made a mistake not paying them, but why is this suddenly an issue again? This came out during his confirmation hearings and he still won easy confirmation.

[skinguy]

Geithner made a mistake not paying them, but why is this suddenly an issue again? This came out during his confirmation hearings and he still won easy confirmation.
EXACTLY !

IF - if Geithner had been a Republican . . .

( as boortz said ) : ~ ~ Geithner can thank his lucky stars that he's a Democrat. There is just no way in the world that he would ever have been confirmed had he been a Republican. The media and the Democrats would have been on him like a crow on a June bug. We have an economic crisis, so we're told that its just fine if we have a willful tax cheat running the department that includes the Internal Revenue Service.

" . . . willful tax cheat . . . " :thinker:

p.s. & remember ; the IRS waived the interest & penalties on the $ geithner owed . . :smash:

[akhhorus]

EXACTLY !

IF - if Geithner had been a Republican . . .

( as boortz said ) : ~ ~ Geithner can thank his lucky stars that he's a Democrat. There is just no way in the world that he would ever have been confirmed had he been a Republican. The media and the Democrats would have been on him like a crow on a June bug. We have an economic crisis, so we're told that its just fine if we have a willful tax cheat running the department that includes the Internal Revenue Service.

" . . . willful tax cheat . . . " :thinker:

p.s. & remember ; the IRS waived the interest & penalties on the $ geithner owed . . :smash:

They waved the penalties long before he was nominated for anything. And you're clueless.

[skinguy]

They waved the penalties long before he was nominated for anything. And you're clueless.
no they did not. the IRS waived the penalties AND the interest when he finally paid what he owed/did NOT pay.


p.s. & once again , YOU attack the person ( in this case --> me ) personally ,
rather than debate the issue(s).

[akhhorus]

no they did not. the IRS waived the penalties AND the interest when he finally paid what he owed/did NOT pay.

Geithner paid his back taxes long before he was nominated. The Irs usually waves penalties unless you're purposefully evading taxes.

p.s. & once again , YOU attack the person ( in this case --> me ) personally ,
rather than debate the issue(s).

I was calling your opinions clueless. Which they are. Which is why all you have Kelly is to parrot Neil Boortz's opinion on everything.

[skinguy]

Geithner paid his back taxes long before he was nominated. The Irs usually waves penalties unless you're purposefully evading taxes.



I was calling your opinions clueless. Which they are. Which is why all you have Kelly is to parrot Neil Boortz's opinion on everything.

" Geithner paid his back taxes long before he was nominated. . . "
- incorrect/NOT true.
while geithner was going through the " veting process " with the obama adim.'s personnel it was " brought to light " that he (geithner) did NOT pay the taxes HE owed. even though HE was given a check ( made payable to him personally ) to " cover " the taxes HE OWED. GEITHNER made a conscious decision NOT to pay the IRS the taxes HE owed. he was " purposefully evading taxes " / NOT paying the taxes HE owed.


" The Irs usually waves penalties unless you're purposefully evading taxes. "
- geithner DID purposely evade ( not pay ) HIS taxes.

" I was calling your opinions clueless. Which they are. Which is why all you have Kelly is to parrot Neil Boortz's opinion on everything. "
- that's YOUR OP re my op(s) . YOU have the right to YOUR op.


cheers ~ ~

[akhhorus]

" Geithner paid his back taxes long before he was nominated. . . "
- incorrect/NOT true.
while geithner was going through the " veting process " with the obama adim.'s personnel it was " brought to light " that he (geithner) did NOT pay the taxes HE owed. even though HE was given a check ( made payable to him personally ) to " cover " the taxes HE OWED. GEITHNER made a conscious decision NOT to pay the IRS the taxes HE owed. he was " purposefully evading taxes " / NOT paying the taxes HE owed.


No, you're right. He paid the last of the back taxes in november 08. But he paid the majority of the back taxes after an audit in 06.

" The Irs usually waves penalties unless you're purposefully evading taxes. "
- geithner DID purposely evade ( not pay ) HIS taxes.


By your definition of evasion, anytime and for any reason you don't pay the full tax, you're evading taxes. The IRS waved the penalties in 2006(after he was audited) after Geithner paid the back taxes from 03 and 04. The payment in 08 was for 01 and 02(which the IRS apparently didn't tell him about).

" I was calling your opinions clueless. Which they are. Which is why all you have Kelly is to parrot Neil Boortz's opinion on everything. "
- that's YOUR OP re my op(s) . YOU have the right to YOUR op.
cheers ~ ~

At least I have my own opinion on topics.

[BurgundyNGold]

EXACTLY !

IF - if Geithner had been a Republican . . .

( as boortz said ) : ~ ~ Geithner can thank his lucky stars that he's a Democrat. There is just no way in the world that he would ever have been confirmed had he been a Republican. The media and the Democrats would have been on him like a crow on a June bug. We have an economic crisis, so we're told that its just fine if we have a willful tax cheat running the department that includes the Internal Revenue Service.

" . . . willful tax cheat . . . " :thinker:

p.s. & remember ; the IRS waived the interest & penalties on the $ geithner owed . . :smash:
I agree. I don't think that Geithner or any other person (politician or otherwise) are eager to pay their taxes. The relationshiop between the IRS and business/taxpayers are inherently adversarial. I doubt that Geithner, Daschle or anyone else would pay those taxes unless and until the IRS called them on it. Maybe they didn't know, maybe they did and didn't care. In any case, it makes for pretty bad, although shockingly regular, American behavior.

What pisses me off is that the IRS abated all penalties and interest for these clowns. I spent 5 years trying to get the IRS to correct on of their mistakes for my business, penalties and interest accruing all the while. When they finally did fix the amounts owed, they still didn't/haven't fix the penalties and interest. I have spent 3 more years trying to get them to fix that, lol. Meanwhile, they haven't been paid a dime because of their own incompetence. Who suffers? The US Treasury and me.

[BurgundyNGold]

No, you're right. He paid the last of the back taxes in november 08. But he paid the majority of the back taxes after an audit in 06.

By your definition of evasion, anytime and for any reason you don't pay the full tax, you're evading taxes. The IRS waved the penalties in 2006(after he was audited) after Geithner paid the back taxes from 03 and 04. The payment in 08 was for 01 and 02(which the IRS apparently didn't tell him about).

At least I have my own opinion on topics.
In all fairness, she certainly has opinions. I'm just glad that she's now joining the discussion in her own words. She seems to know the issues a lot better than folks would ever glean from the copy and past Boortz thing. Personally, I'm glad she's joined the discussion. I've learned a bit about the Geithner thing that I didn't know.

[RedskinsDave]

In all fairness, she certainly has opinions. I'm just glad that she's now joining the discussion in her own words. She seems to know the issues a lot better than folks would ever glean from the copy and past Boortz thing. Personally, I'm glad she's joined the discussion. I've learned a bit about the Geithner thing that I didn't know.

Agreed. It's much nicer to read an opinion than a link.

[akhhorus]

In all fairness, she certainly has opinions. I'm just glad that she's now joining the discussion in her own words. She seems to know the issues a lot better than folks would ever glean from the copy and past Boortz thing. Personally, I'm glad she's joined the discussion. I've learned a bit about the Geithner thing that I didn't know.

The only problem is when I asked for him/her's opinion, she just went ahead and paraphrased Boortz. If she/he actually knew anything about any issues, she/he/it wouldn't constantly be posting links from the same source.

[BurgundyNGold]

The only problem is when I asked for him/her's opinion, she just went ahead and paraphrased Boortz. If she/he actually knew anything about any issues, she/he/it wouldn't constantly be posting links from the same source.
Baby steps. I'm glad that she's expressing her own opinions in her own words. I won't read the Boortz stuff but I will read her opinions. And I actually learned something from one of her posts. All in all, that's a good thing. ;)

[akhhorus]

Baby steps. I'm glad that she's expressing her own opinions in her own words. I won't read the Boortz stuff but I will read her opinions. And I actually learned something from one of her posts. All in all, that's a good thing. ;)

You can thank Boortz lol.

[BurgundyNGold]

You can thank Boortz lol.
We all get our opinions from different places. If kelly participates up here in her own words, she, like the rest of us, will learn more than she would by merely reading/regurgitating the Boortz website. That's what it's all about up here, so I'm all for that.

[RedskinsDave]

President Obama has promised to change the way the government does business, but in at least one respect he is taking a page from the Bush playbook, stocking his town hall Thursday with supporters whose soft -- though far from planted -- questions provided openings to discuss his preferred message of the day.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/03/27/obama_town_hall_questioners_we.html?hpid=topnews

[firehawk157]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/03/27/obama_town_hall_questioners_we.html?hpid=topnews
The honeymoon still continues... He's not going to get seriously called to account for another month or so. I've accepted that, but if some news outlets don't stop the ass-kissing by then, well, that will seriously concern me. Minus NBC, they are the liberal version of Fox News.

[Sweepea436]

The honeymoon still continues... He's not going to get seriously called to account for another month or so. I've accepted that, but if some news outlets don't stop the ass-kissing by then, well, that will seriously concern me. Minus NBC, they are the liberal version of Fox News.

Sounds like it may stop at the G20 from what I'm reading.

[akhhorus]

Sounds like it may stop at the G20 from what I'm reading.

As long as the political narrative is Obama vs a totally disorganized GOP, Obama will always look better no matter how weird or bad his plans sound. Thats not "media bias" or "a never ending honeymoon" or anything, just natural flow. This is the same dynamic we saw in 2003-2005 when the Dems couldn't get their crap together to save their lives and Bush looked much better because of it.

[dj_stouty]

So what is the deal with the proposal from the Government to give money to the released detainees at Gitmo so they can start a new life in America?

If you are going to bailout the banks and car companies, you might as well bail out the previously incarcerated terrorists while you are at it. The rest of us fiscally responsible Americans will continue to flip the bill for it, I guess.

[akhhorus]

So what is the deal with the proposal from the Government to give money to the released detainees at Gitmo so they can start a new life in America?

If you are going to bailout the banks and car companies, you might as well bail out the previously incarcerated terrorists while you are at it. The rest of us fiscally responsible Americans will continue to flip the bill for it, I guess.

Do you have a link for that? I can't find anything for that via google or google news.

[dj_stouty]

Do you have a link for that? I can't find anyone that via google or google news.

I'll look. It was something I heard on TV in passing.

[RedskinsDave]

President Barack Obama's intelligence chief confirmed Thursday that some Guantanamo inmates may be released on US soil and receive assistance to return to society.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.18e9e5692442aa61d7510553b5ffc14 e.e01&show_article=1

[akhhorus]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.18e9e5692442aa61d7510553b5ffc14 e.e01&show_article=1

I suspect he's talking about the Uighers. They've been cleared by everyone, only they have no place to go. China will execute them if they're sent back there. I'd like to see more detail on this from Doj.

[Sweepea436]

My best friend lost his job recently. He's never been on anyones terror list. Where can I point him to get his "new start" with goverment assistance?

[CNYSkinFan]

I'll look. It was something I heard on TV in passing.
***Insert obligatory Fox new joke here***

[RedskinsDave]

My best friend lost his job recently. He's never been on anyones terror list. Where can I point him to get his "new start" with goverment assistance?

This disqualifies him.

[Sweepea436]

This disqualifies him.

I think he stole a road sign in high school - can I at least get him dinner at a shelter? Lol

EDIT: New tactic - I'll tell him to attend a tea party. That will at least get him on the list. Gotta be good for something.......

[akhhorus]

I think he stole a road sign in high school - can I at least get him dinner at a shelter? Lol

EDIT: New tactic - I'll tell him to attend a tea party. That will at least get him on the list. Gotta be good for something.......

You were making more sense when you were accusing everyone who disagreed with the war of being against the troops, and you were making no sense then.

[RedskinsDave]

You were making more sense when you were accusing everyone who disagreed with the war of being against the troops, and you were making no sense then.

Wow man, lighten up.

[Sweepea436]

You were making more sense when you were accusing everyone who disagreed with the war of being against the troops, and you were making no sense then.

Sorry. I'll take my small brain back to my coloring book........If I can stop eating the crayons. As you were. :honor:

[skinguy]

So what is the deal with the proposal from the Government to give money to the released detainees at Gitmo so they can start a new life in America?

If you are going to bailout the banks and car companies, you might as well bail out the previously incarcerated terrorists while you are at it. The rest of us fiscally responsible Americans will continue to flip the bill for it, I guess.
fyi :

GITMO DETAINEES RETURNING TO TERRORISM
By Neal Boortz @ January 26, 2009 9:44 AM

Last week, Barack Obama signed an executive order to shut down Guantanamo Bay within one year. One can only hope that he did this, not to pander to his moonbat base, but with a real plan of how to handle the current detainees. As he signed the executive order, we got word of a former Gitmo detainee who returned to al Qaeda in Yemen. Now we get word of two more terrorists released from Gitmo who have appeared in a video posted on a jihadist website. The Defense Department says that as many as 61 former Gitmo detainees have returned to their life as terrorists after being released.

> http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2009/01/gitmo-detainees-returning-to-t.html

[skinguy]

fyi :

Fannie, Freddie worker bonuses total $210M
By ALAN ZIBEL, AP

WASHINGTON – Mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac plan to pay more than $210 million in bonuses through next year to give workers the incentive to stay in their jobs at the government-controlled companies.The retention awards for more than 7,600 employees were disclosed in a letter from the companies' regulator released Friday by Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee. The companies paid out nearly $51 million last year, are scheduled to make $146 million in payments this year and $13 million in 2010.

"It's hard to see any common sense in management decisions that award hundreds of millions in bonuses when their organizations lost more than $100 billion in a year," Grassley said in a statement. "It's an insult that the bonuses were made with an infusion of cash from taxpayers."Fannie and Freddie declined to comment on Friday. Fannie had disclosed that it plans to pay four top executives at least $1 million each in retention payments that run through February. Freddie has yet to report on which executives are in line for the awards.

rest of article ---> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090403/ap_on_bi_ge/mortgage_giants_bonuses


:thinker: p.s. doesn't barney Frank's partner/boyfriend work for either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac ? ? ?

ya gotta luv it ! ! :)

[BurgundyNGold]

fyi :

Fannie, Freddie worker bonuses total $210M
By ALAN ZIBEL, AP

WASHINGTON – Mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac plan to pay more than $210 million in bonuses through next year to give workers the incentive to stay in their jobs at the government-controlled companies.The retention awards for more than 7,600 employees were disclosed in a letter from the companies' regulator released Friday by Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee. The companies paid out nearly $51 million last year, are scheduled to make $146 million in payments this year and $13 million in 2010.

"It's hard to see any common sense in management decisions that award hundreds of millions in bonuses when their organizations lost more than $100 billion in a year," Grassley said in a statement. "It's an insult that the bonuses were made with an infusion of cash from taxpayers."Fannie and Freddie declined to comment on Friday. Fannie had disclosed that it plans to pay four top executives at least $1 million each in retention payments that run through February. Freddie has yet to report on which executives are in line for the awards.

rest of article ---> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090403/ap_on_bi_ge/mortgage_giants_bonuses


:thinker: p.s. doesn't barney Frank's partner/boyfriend work for either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac ? ? ?

ya gotta luv it ! ! :)
I thought you were going to use your time here to actually convey your own thoughts?

[AliBabba]

I thought you were going to use your time here to actually convey your own thoughts?
at least its not Boortz, babysteps

[RedskinsDave]

Barack Obama (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/barack-obama), the World's Greatest Orator (™all news organisations), didn't exactly cover himself in glory when the BBC's political editor Nick Robinson (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/nickrobinson) asked him a question about who was to blame for the financial crisis. Normally word perfect, Obama ummed, ahed and waffled for the best part of two and a half minutes. Here, John Crace decodes what he was really thinking ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/03/g20-barack-obama-nick-robinson-question

Hilarious.

[skinguy]

do they allow teleprompters in europe ? :confused:

[BurgundyNGold]

do they allow teleprompters in europe ? :confused:
Apparently not, lol. His stammering is getting to be annoying. I wonder if he'll get the same treatment that Bush did with his verbal liberties.

[shally]

Apparently not, lol. His stammering is getting to be annoying. I wonder if he'll get the same treatment that Bush did with his verbal liberties.

please... dont get me started on that one...lol

[akhhorus]

Apparently not, lol. His stammering is getting to be annoying. I wonder if he'll get the same treatment that Bush did with his verbal liberties.

There needs to be a comedic hook with it, and just saying "umm" isn't enough. Bush's verbal stumbles almost fed comedy writing, Obama's um is good for one joke(maybe).

[firehawk157]

Well, I've done (and graded) many briefings in my professional life and you can always tell the ones who knew what they were talking about and just stumbled and the ones that are BSing. A good briefer who has no idea what they are talking about can sound fluid and elegant going through their predetermined script. When they get to the Q&A section and are really on the subject matter by an expert, things start to fall apart.

[skinguy]

There needs to be a comedic hook with it, and just saying "umm" isn't enough. Bush's verbal stumbles almost fed comedy writing, Obama's um is good for one joke(maybe).
give obama time . . it's early yet ~ ~ :Partyup:

:Partyon:

[BurgundyNGold]

give obama time . . it's early yet ~ ~ :Partyup:

:Partyon:
Yep. I'm sure he'll have his share of gaffes. Maybe not as classic as Bush who, after all, would make up his own words, lol. But Obama will have a few doozies.

[remaxjon]

lol at Obama expanding warrantless wiretapping.

I just saw this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jSUHVUgJFc

[RedskinsDave]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00524/Chavez_1__524861a.jpg

Seriously? What are you, drinking buddies?

[BurgundyNGold]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00524/Chavez_1__524861a.jpg

Seriously? What are you, drinking buddies?
Not a shock but disappointing. Obama pretty much said he would try to be everybody's friend. It hasn't taken too long for the North Koreans to run roughshod over him. We'll have to see how long it will take Iran, Venezuela, et al.

[shally]

Not a shock but disappointing. Obama pretty much said he would try to be everybody's friend. It hasn't taken too long for the North Koreans to run roughshod over him. We'll have to see how long it will take Iran, Venezuela, et al.

hug with Fidel by next year...

[RedskinsDave]

Not a shock but disappointing. Obama pretty much said he would try to be everybody's friend. It hasn't taken too long for the North Koreans to run roughshod over him. We'll have to see how long it will take Iran, Venezuela, et al.

Shake his hand like a goddam President, not like pals with a smirk. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that America's Apologist in Chief is happy to greet one of America's buggest haters.

[BurgundyNGold]

Shake his hand like a goddam President, not like pals with a smirk. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that America's Apologist in Chief is happy to greet one of America's buggest haters.
I agree, Obama is seemingly more about being cool than being Presidential. We'll have to see how that works out in context. I'm sure that, at some point in the past, some President caught a good bit of hell for not properly representing the office of the President for his counterculture choice of not wearing a wig, choosing instead to go au natural up top, lol.

[skinguy]

hug with Fidel by next year...
obama will probably try & hug fidel as soon as possible because fidel is apparently having some " health issues " .


p.s. not to worry though ; i'm sure obama will find something to like in fidel's beard . . ;)

cheers ~ ~
:beer:

[BurgundyNGold]

obama will probably try & hug fidel as soon as possible because fidel is apparently having some " health issues " .


p.s. not to worry though ; i'm sure obama will find something to like in fidel's beard . . ;)

cheers ~ ~
:beer:
Jesus, if Obama hugs Fidel I will likely shoot myself, lol.

[shally]

Jesus, if Obama hugs Fidel I will likely shoot myself, lol.

our own Neville Chamberlain ????

[Ibleedburgundy]

Not a shock but disappointing. Obama pretty much said he would try to be everybody's friend. It hasn't taken too long for the North Koreans to run roughshod over him. We'll have to see how long it will take Iran, Venezuela, et al.

How exactly are North Korea's actions any different from during the Bush administration? Over the last 8 years N. Korea withdrew from the nonproliferation treaty, kicked UN inspectors out of N. Korea in order to enrich uranium (multiple times) assisted Iran's nuclear program, developed and tested ballistic missiles, and claimed that they tested a bomb.

What exactly did the Bush administration accomplish in terms of concessions from North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Iran by ignoring them and calling them names?

[shally]

How exactly are North Korea's actions any different from during the Bush administration? Over the last 8 years N. Korea withdrew from the nonproliferation treaty, kicked UN inspectors out of N. Korea in order to enrich uranium (multiple times) assisted Iran's nuclear program, developed and tested ballistic missiles, and claimed that they tested a bomb.

What exactly did the Bush administration accomplish in terms of concessions from North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Iran by ignoring them and calling them names?

north korea is a special case.. no one has been able to do anything with them since 1948.. neither will Obama..

the difference is that venezuela has a tradition of democracy, iran was once a great nation- and could still be once again.. cuba will likely again be a good place once the castro's are relegated to the garbage cans of history.. obama will get his chance to see what his diplomacy can accomplish

but, cowboy-diplomacy aside, nobody gets anywhere with appeasement in the long run..it needs to be win-win

[BurgundyNGold]

How exactly are North Korea's actions any different from during the Bush administration? Over the last 8 years N. Korea withdrew from the nonproliferation treaty, kicked UN inspectors out of N. Korea in order to enrich uranium (multiple times) assisted Iran's nuclear program, developed and tested ballistic missiles, and claimed that they tested a bomb.

What exactly did the Bush administration accomplish in terms of concessions from North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Iran by ignoring them and calling them names?
Not that the Bush administration was as effective with North Korea as they could have been, but they did more than Clinton. They formed the 6 party talks strategy, held China's and Russia's feet to the fire on it and got a process going that stepped towards the dismantlement of the North Korean nuclear capability. NK shut down their nuclear facility and blew their (albeit deprecated) cooling tower for the world to see.

Since Obama took office, NK has test fired a ballistic missle, has vowed to restart their nuclear program and has kicked out US and UN inspectors. The Obama administration hasn't done anything about it, nor have they kept pressure on the Chinese to keep their bastard son in check.

So far, when it comes to foreign policy, we've got smiles with Iran, Cuba and Venezuela and renewed nuclear proliferation in NK. Obama's foreign policy grade for the first 100 days?

D+.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Not that the Bush administration was as effective with North Korea as they could have been, but they did more than Clinton. They formed the 6 party talks strategy, held China's and Russia's feet to the fire on it and got a process going that stepped towards the dismantlement of the North Korean nuclear capability. NK shut down their nuclear facility and blew their (albeit deprecated) cooling tower for the world to see.


6 party talks didn't accomplish anything until Bush's 7th year in office-after all the cowboy nonsense failed to yield any results. I'm glad you want to hold up negotiations as a sucessful policy because that is precisely what I would advocate for. It's the ignoring enemies, chest thumping crap that I question.

NK expelled UN and IAEA inspectors at least twice during the Bush administration, including just recently-last October.

Anyway, this is the same old song and dance with NK.

[BurgundyNGold]

6 party talks didn't accomplish anything until Bush's 7th year in office-after all the cowboy nonsense failed to yield any results. I'm glad you want to hold up negotiations as a sucessful policy because that is precisely what I would advocate for. It's the ignoring enemies, chest thumping crap that I question.
Though, I would not advocate the Bush approach, it did yielded measurable progress. And if the Obama administration is not "ignoring" NK by not engaging them then what are they doing? I have not heard a call for a return to the 6 party talks. I have not heard them put pressure on China -- the only friend NK has and an embarrassment for China -- to bring NK back in line.

I understand that Obama wishes to be 70%, 80%, maybe even 90% a domestic President, but he cannot be an ostrich.

NK expelled UN and IAEA inspectors at least twice during the Bush administration, including just recently-last October.
Apparently, this is their way of saying they want to talk, lol.

Anyway, this is the same old song and dance with NK.
Agreed.

[shally]

Though, I would not advocate the Bush approach, it did yielded measurable progress. And if the Obama administration is not "ignoring" NK by not engaging them then what are they doing? I have not heard a call for a return to the 6 party talks. I have not heard them put pressure on China -- the only friend NK has and an embarrassment for China -- to bring NK back in line.

I understand that Obama wishes to be 70%, 80%, maybe even 90% a domestic President, but he cannot be an ostrich.


Apparently, this is their way of saying they want to talk, lol.


Agreed.

i dont think the Chinese have very much leverage with NK any more


that is why clinton is our SecState.. all Obama wants to do is photo ops with
the leaders.. it will fall to State to do the heavy lifting on foreign policy, i think

[BurgundyNGold]

i dont think the Chinese have very much leverage with NK any more

that is why clinton is our SecState.. all Obama wants to do is photo ops with
the leaders.. it will fall to State to do the heavy lifting on foreign policy, i think
China is the single reason that NK still exists as an authoritarian state. Because China continues to provide the vast majority of aid to NK, they wield the most influence over them. All it would take is for China to make a single phone call to Pyongyang that went something like "Dump your nukes and allow the UN inspectors to verify that you have or you don't get any more aid from us. Nary one more barrel of oil, nor one more bale of wheat. Capisce?"

The problem is that China is using NK as a piece on the board for their regional influence, their relationship with the West and their dealings with US in particular. China, like Russia and Iran want so to be recognized as a regional, if not world power but it doesn't want to act like one. The Obama Administration would do well to find a way to convey that to Beijing.

[Ibleedburgundy]

north korea is a special case.. no one has been able to do anything with them since 1948.. neither will Obama..

the difference is that venezuela has a tradition of democracy, iran was once a great nation- and could still be once again.. cuba will likely again be a good place once the castro's are relegated to the garbage cans of history.. obama will get his chance to see what his diplomacy can accomplish

but, cowboy-diplomacy aside, nobody gets anywhere with appeasement in the long run..it needs to be win-win

Talking to someone/shaking someone's hand is not appeasement. Although I would agree that our NK policy under Clinton and Bush could be construed as appeasement because we did offer them goods and energy in exchange for them to stop their programs. In that case you are right, appeasement doesn't work. Unfortunately, nothing else seems to work either.

North Korea might simply be out of America's hands. Nobody seems to make real progress there, and when they do, it proves to be short-lived. But I disagree with the assertion that things are any different as a result of Obama's policies. Krauthammer implied that North Korea only became provocative after Obama's election-an utterly preposterous assertion IMO. Pretty interesting exchange between him and Fahreed Zakaria on that.

Apparently Newt is running around saying Obama is giving some of these leaders legitimacy by speaking to them or shaking their hands. It's an incredible display of arrogance on Gingrich's part (as well as Judd Greg and Boehner) to assert that elections in one's own country do not give a leader legitimacy, as if the American President is the sole gatekeeper to appoint who may represent their people to the world and who may not. The international community doesn't live under those auspices, I don't see why our President should continue to pretend they exist.

[shally]

Talking to someone/shaking someone's hand is not appeasement. Although I would agree that our NK policy under Clinton and Bush could be construed as appeasement because we did offer them goods and energy in exchange for them to stop their programs. In that case you are right, appeasement doesn't work. Unfortunately, nothing else seems to work either.

North Korea might simply be out of America's hands. Nobody seems to make real progress there, and when they do, it proves to be short-lived. But I disagree with the assertion that things are any different as a result of Obama's policies. Krauthammer implied that North Korea only became provocative after Obama's election-an utterly preposterous assertion IMO. Pretty interesting exchange between him and Fahreed Zakaria on that.

Apparently Newt is running around saying Obama is giving some of these leaders legitimacy by speaking to them or shaking their hands. It's an incredible display of arrogance on Gingrich's part (as well as Judd Greg and Boehner) to assert that elections in one's own country do not give a leader legitimacy, as if the American President is the sole gatekeeper to appoint who may represent their people to the world and who may not. The international community doesn't live under those auspices, I don't see why our President should continue to pretend they exist.

again, i think NK is a wholly different situation than any other country on the planet.. i dont think Obama will have any more success, but i am open to trying a different tack

glad handing for photo ops is not the same thing as substantive diplomacy.. we will see if anything actually happens

[BurgundyNGold]

Talking to someone/shaking someone's hand is not appeasement. Although I would agree that our NK policy under Clinton and Bush could be construed as appeasement because we did offer them goods and energy in exchange for them to stop their programs. In that case you are right, appeasement doesn't work. Unfortunately, nothing else seems to work either.
A massive EMP assault on the NK military establishment, followed by air and cruise missile pounding and a huge land invasion might work. Like Bobby "The Happy Elf" Jindal says, "Americans can do aaaanyyyythiiiing", lol.

[BurgundyNGold]

again, i think NK is a wholly different situation than any other country on the planet.. i dont think Obama will have any more success, but i am open to trying a different tack

glad handing for photo ops is not the same thing as substantive diplomacy.. we will see if anything actually happens
Considering the NK penchant for breaking every agreement and playing games of brinkmanship, they really only leave you one evident option: Call their bluff. They only come to the table when things get really bad. Wait them out. Isolate them even further. Cut off all aid. If NK rattles the saber of aggression against SK or Japan, the only thing you can do is to get up an international coalition to handle them. In the end, that might not be a bad thing to do sooner rather than later. It might serve as a deterrent to Iran and others watching how the powers that be handle such proliferation.

Personally, I'd like to see if we can negotiate out some serious aid for a change in behavior. Instead of offering them a carrot or stick, how about a truckload of carrots or a telephone pole, lol?

[shally]

Considering the NK penchant for breaking every agreement and playing games of brinkmanship, they really only leave you one evident option: Call their bluff. They only come to the table when things get really bad. Wait them out. Isolate them even further. Cut off all aid. If NK rattles the saber of aggression against SK or Japan, the only thing you can do is to get up an international coalition to handle them. In the end, that might not be a bad thing to do sooner rather than later. It might serve as a deterrent to Iran and others watching how the powers that be handle such proliferation.

Personally, I'd like to see if we can negotiate out some serious aid for a change in behavior. Instead of offering them a carrot or stick, how about a truckload of carrots or a telephone pole, lol?

if you are dealing with a wacko leader, but a sane country with a history of
mostly normal behavior that might work (say Cuba ?? or Venezuela??).. but NK is so abnormal from top to bottom from it's very inception that their society is traumatized beyond recovery for at least a generation..
people in that society have literally grown up knowing no other way of life.
they are isolated from media, unlike cuba or venezuela or even iran..

there is no easy solution for NK, short of asking China to invade and subjugate NK...

[BurgundyNGold]

if you are dealing with a wacko leader, but a sane country with a history of
mostly normal behavior that might work (say Cuba ?? or Venezuela??).. but NK is so abnormal from top to bottom from it's very inception that their society is traumatized beyond recovery for at least a generation..
people in that society have literally grown up knowing no other way of life.
they are isolated from media, unlike cuba or venezuela or even iran..

there is no easy solution for NK, short of asking China to invade and subjugate NK...
Which brings us back to Obama's needing to get the Chinese to step up. That's what the 6 party talks were designed to do. However, it's time for China to start taking responsibility for their own backyard.

[RedskinsDave]

http://www.drudgereport.com/och.jpg

Old buddies just hanging out. Jesus.

[shally]

Which brings us back to Obama's needing to get the Chinese to step up. That's what the 6 party talks were designed to do. However, it's time for China to start taking responsibility for their own backyard.


if there is some kind of nuclear cataclysm, it is the Chinese who will be most effected.. then again, they are pretty good at ignoring environmental disasters already...

[BurgundyNGold]

if there is some kind of nuclear cataclysm, it is the Chinese who will be most effected.. then again, they are pretty good at ignoring environmental disasters already...
I think the Japanese and SK might disagree with that assessment. ;)

[shally]

I think the Japanese and SK might disagree with that assessment. ;)


my bad.. forgot which way the pravailing winds blow...

[BurgundyNGold]

my bad.. forgot which way the pravailing winds blow...
The prevailing winds would be a distant afterthought to the fact that the prevailing NK rocket guidance systems point south and east, lol.

[shally]

The prevailing winds would be a distant afterthought to the fact that the prevailing NK rocket guidance systems point south and east, lol.


kind of sounds vaguely like the prevailing Snyderrato draft guidance systems...heading South all the time..lol

[skinguy]

this should be good :

Obama: Give me ideas on tightening federal belt
By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer - 26 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Think you can do better than your federal boss? President Barack Obama wants to know how. . .

rest of article ---> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090425/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_spending

how 'bout we cut :

Empty airport lands $150 million in tax dollars

> http://www.yahoo.com/

[BurgundyNGold]

this should be good :

Obama: Give me ideas on tightening federal belt
By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer - 26 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Think you can do better than your federal boss? President Barack Obama wants to know how. . .

rest of article ---> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090425/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_spending

how 'bout we cut :

Empty airport lands $150 million in tax dollars

> http://www.yahoo.com/
I'm interested to see if folks submit suggestions, how will they be received? Will they disappear into a black hole?

[RedskinsDave]

Brilliant idea to fly a 747 with a military jet escort over NYC.

[BurgundyNGold]

Brilliant idea to fly a 747 with a military jet escort over NYC.
Seriously.

Remember last month when a file crew was filming a "fireball" in the Potomac by Key Bridge? Every news outlet knew about it and reported it days in advance. For all of the press coverage, the "fireball", if one can call it that, was little more than a 5' orb of flash paper about 2' off the water that lasted for less than a second.

It seems to me that flying a jumbo jet and a fighter low throughout and around Manhattan would be something that might have benefited from some forewarning of the public. Especially after 9/11.

[RedskinsDave]

How much does it cost to have AF1 in the air escorted by a military jet? Then tell me how much a licensed edition of PhotoShop is. Morons.

[RedskinsDave]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHJlkHaApn4o&refer=home

Photo OP: $328K

Photoshop: $3-500

[dj_stouty]

I can't wait to see this picture...

[fent]

I can't wait to see this picture...

i'm willing to bet it won't be released now...

[CNYSkinFan]

In all seriousness....someone needs to be fired. This was a major mess. I doubt Obama was ordering this (maybe Biden lol) so someone else made the decision that this was a good thing. A head should roll.

[fent]

In all seriousness....someone needs to be fired. This was a major mess. I doubt Obama was ordering this (maybe Biden lol) so someone else made the decision that this was a good thing. A head should roll.

i dunno...you may be hearing different up near the scene of the crime, but everything i've heard is that Bloomberg's folks were told that this was going to happen, they just never passed it up to Bloomberg.

[BurgundyNGold]

In all seriousness....someone needs to be fired. This was a major mess. I doubt Obama was ordering this (maybe Biden lol) so someone else made the decision that this was a good thing. A head should roll.
I bet you $20 that somehow this gets blamed on Bush, lol.

[CNYSkinFan]

i dunno...you may be hearing different up near the scene of the crime, but everything i've heard is that Bloomberg's folks were told that this was going to happen, they just never passed it up to Bloomberg.
still a stupid idea. Even if the publica was wanrned, not everyone is going to get that warning. There simply is no need for it.

[CNYSkinFan]

I bet you $20 that somehow this gets blamed on Bush, lol.
and then on Clinton!

[BurgundyNGold]

and then on Clinton!
Which one? ;)

I'm serious, though. I'm guessing that the guy in charge will say that this was something that was planned by the previous administration and carried over as a matter of business.

[CNYSkinFan]

Which one? ;)

I'm serious, though. I'm guessing that the guy in charge will say that this was something that was planned by the previous administration and carried over as a matter of business.
I don't care...someone said it was ok to do....that someone needs to be fired. It was an unbelievably stupid and dangerous thing to do. Mass panic that was caused could have lead to stampedes.

Any other city, it would have been a mildy dumb expensive thing to do. But NYC? Really? Why don't we go flood New Orleans so the presidential yact can be seen in the 9th ward?

[BurgundyNGold]

I don't care...someone said it was ok to do....that someone needs to be fired. It was an unbelievably stupid and dangerous thing to do. Mass panic that was caused could have lead to stampedes.
Agreed.

Any other city, it would have been a mildy dumb expensive thing to do. But NYC? Really? Why don't we go flood New Orleans so the presidential yact can be seen in the 9th ward?
:lol1:

Now that's funny right there, lol.

[Keino]

For me the issue is much more basic, and {Shudder} Dave pretty much sums it up. In this economic environment, any unecessary expense is inexcusable, ESPECIALLY, given the enormous spending packages that have been passed.

Seriously, I don't think it is a justifiable expense. Why not photo shop it if it's that important? Why not some adance warning to the people of NYC?

[shally]

I don't care...someone said it was ok to do....that someone needs to be fired. It was an unbelievably stupid and dangerous thing to do. Mass panic that was caused could have lead to stampedes.

Any other city, it would have been a mildy dumb expensive thing to do. But NYC? Really? Why don't we go flood New Orleans so the presidential yact can be seen in the 9th ward?


you dont have to flood new orleans, nature will take care of that all by herself...

[BostonSkins]

And here I thought Obama was a secret Muslim terrorist who took control of the cockpit and commandeered AF1 in his 100 day Jihad on America.

NYCers need to calm down

[RedskinsDave]

And here I thought Obama was a secret Muslim terrorist who took control of the cockpit and commandeered AF1 in his 100 day Jihad on America.

NYCers need to calm down

Congrats on the dumbest post in the thread.

[skinguy]

2 words :


photo shop





:smash:

[BurgundyNGold]

2 words :


photo shop





:smash:
Yeah, that's what Dave said too. This whole thing has been ridiculous. It's the difference between spending $350K and causing mass hysteria in Manhattan or spending $500 on Photoshop and getting the same picture.

[skinguy]

Proposal would require all to have health coverage
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR and ERICA WERNER, Associated Press

WASHINGTON – House Democrats are crafting a plan that would require all Americans to carry health insurance and would help families making less than $88,000 pay the premiums. Employers, too, would have to help foot the bill.

It's the latest development in President Barack Obama's push to fix the ailing U.S. health care system by getting the government more deeply involved. . .

> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090514/ap_on_go_co/us_health_overhaul

~ ~ here we gooooo .......... :smash:

[Keino]

Yea God forbid employers provide Health Insurance for the people who they employ.

Skinguy, is the current health care system working? If no, what should be done to fix it?

I'd love to hear you actually offer a friggin' opinion of your own without a smiley and a squigley. Are you capable of an adult conversation?

[BurgundyNGold]

Proposal would require all to have health coverage
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR and ERICA WERNER, Associated Press

WASHINGTON – House Democrats are crafting a plan that would require all Americans to carry health insurance and would help families making less than $88,000 pay the premiums. Employers, too, would have to help foot the bill.

It's the latest development in President Barack Obama's push to fix the ailing U.S. health care system by getting the government more deeply involved. . .

> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090514/ap_on_go_co/us_health_overhaul

~ ~ here we gooooo .......... :smash:
Honestly, this isn't much different than the Canadian plan. The first step in a single payer system is to get 100% of folks covered. Mandating coverage has th happen. The only debate is about how. Just mandating that employers pay ain't gonna cut it. Most already do, yet 45M Americans at any one time have no health insurance.

[akhhorus]

Honestly, this isn't much different than the Canadian plan. The first step in a single payer system is to get 100% of folks covered. Mandating coverage has th happen. The only debate is about how. Just mandating that employers pay ain't gonna cut it. Most already do, yet 45M Americans at any one time have no health insurance.

Except that Kelly/Merlin/whatever is wrong. The House version thats floating around doesn't have any mandates.

[shally]

Except that Kelly/Merlin/whatever is wrong. The House version thats floating around doesn't have any mandates.

as we spoke, i dont think it will work without mandates of some kind..

[akhhorus]

as we spoke, i dont think it will work without mandates of some kind..

There's a major difference between a mandate for everyone to have insurance and regulating the industry to cover patients they'd rather not to.

[skinguy]

MOVING JOBS OFFSHORE
By Neal Boortz @ June 5, 2009 8:23 AM

Did you hear what the CEO of Microsoft had to say about Barack Obama's tax plans? Remember that last month, Barack Obama outlined a plan to outlaw or restrict about $190 billion in tax breaks for offshore companies. This includes companies like Microsoft. So Microsoft CEO Steven Ballmer says that his company would move some employees offshore if Congress enacted Obama's plans. He says, "It makes U.S. jobs more expensive ... We're better off taking lots of people and moving them out of the U.S. as opposed to keeping them inside the U.S."

Is anyone listening?

Now, this is nothing that both you and I don't already know. Barack Obama claims that his proposals will create jobs in the United States. Most of you who aren't government educated will understand that that is a flat out lie. Now, we have the CEO of the world's largest software company saying that he would take employees and move them overseas if Obama enacts his plan. That is exactly the OPPOSITE of what Obama claims would happen. But what does Steven Ballmer know? I'm sure the government will have its say in companies like his soon enough.

> http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/index.html

[shally]

MOVING JOBS OFFSHORE
By Neal Boortz @ June 5, 2009 8:23 AM

Did you hear what the CEO of Microsoft had to say about Barack Obama's tax plans? Remember that last month, Barack Obama outlined a plan to outlaw or restrict about $190 billion in tax breaks for offshore companies. This includes companies like Microsoft. So Microsoft CEO Steven Ballmer says that his company would move some employees offshore if Congress enacted Obama's plans. He says, "It makes U.S. jobs more expensive ... We're better off taking lots of people and moving them out of the U.S. as opposed to keeping them inside the U.S."

Is anyone listening?

Now, this is nothing that both you and I don't already know. Barack Obama claims that his proposals will create jobs in the United States. Most of you who aren't government educated will understand that that is a flat out lie. Now, we have the CEO of the world's largest software company saying that he would take employees and move them overseas if Obama enacts his plan. That is exactly the OPPOSITE of what Obama claims would happen. But what does Steven Ballmer know? I'm sure the government will have its say in companies like his soon enough.

> http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/index.html

bottom line is that if Microsoft can make more offshore than inthe US, they will eventually move that portion out of the US- regardless of what Obama does or doesnt do.. this has been going on for quite some time and, frankly, there is little the government can do about it..

[BurgundyNGold]

MOVING JOBS OFFSHORE
By Neal Boortz @ June 5, 2009 8:23 AM

Did you hear what the CEO of Microsoft had to say about Barack Obama's tax plans? Remember that last month, Barack Obama outlined a plan to outlaw or restrict about $190 billion in tax breaks for offshore companies. This includes companies like Microsoft. So Microsoft CEO Steven Ballmer says that his company would move some employees offshore if Congress enacted Obama's plans. He says, "It makes U.S. jobs more expensive ... We're better off taking lots of people and moving them out of the U.S. as opposed to keeping them inside the U.S."

Is anyone listening?

Now, this is nothing that both you and I don't already know. Barack Obama claims that his proposals will create jobs in the United States. Most of you who aren't government educated will understand that that is a flat out lie. Now, we have the CEO of the world's largest software company saying that he would take employees and move them overseas if Obama enacts his plan. That is exactly the OPPOSITE of what Obama claims would happen. But what does Steven Ballmer know? I'm sure the government will have its say in companies like his soon enough.

> http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/index.html
Ugh, Boortz. I was rather getting to like when you posted your actual thoughts like in the Sotomayor thread.

[akhhorus]

bottom line is that if Microsoft can make more offshore than inthe US, they will eventually move that portion out of the US- regardless of what Obama does or doesnt do.. this has been going on for quite some time and, frankly, there is little the government can do about it..

Yup, but Kelly and Neil Boortz both miss two obvious points:
1-Microsoft can move jobs like help center and such to India, but there's a lot they can't move out because the US is the prime market for IT. Anybody who believes that this is going to suddenly cost millions of jobs is a moron.
2-The proposal being kicked around in the Senate will close 190 billion in loopholes(spread across thousands of companies), but they get a small tax cut somewhere in exchange for that. Thats much different than is what being railed against.

[RedskinsDave]

Anyone else excited for the town hall discussion ABC is giving Obama and hour to sell his socialized health care plan on? Of course there will be no dissenting opinion but why would there be when all the mantras the press san under Bush are now ignored. I guess questioning our leaders is no longer patriotic. Its both sad and comical at the same time.

To anyone who IS for government run health care I ask you to assess your experience at the DMV. That's something the government has run since its inception.

[akhhorus]

Anyone else excited for the town hall discussion ABC is giving Obama and hour to sell his socialized health care plan on? Of course there will be no dissenting opinion but why would there be when all the mantras the press san under Bush are now ignored. I guess questioning our leaders is no longer patriotic. Its both sad and comical at the same time.

To anyone who IS for government run health care I ask you to assess your experience at the DMV. That's something the government has run since its inception.

It would be nice if we could come up with an alternative that is more than tax breaks. The system, as is, is impossible to sustain financially. A public plan without a mandate to buy it is the best plan put forward so far(and how exactly is that socialism?).

[RedskinsDave]

What's wrong with tax break?

If you honestly think this will remain an opt out program then you trust the left way too much. Give them an inch.....

[akhhorus]

What's wrong with tax break?

No problem with tax cuts, but with health care reform, it accomplishes absolutely nothing to fix the problem. All you're doing is enabling the problem further.

If you honestly think this will remain an opt out program then you trust the left way too much. Give them an inch.....

There's no way they could make health care in America a single payer plan. There's no support for that even on the left(except for guys like Bernie Saunders). The plan would die in the Senate long before it ever got to a vote. You get outraged over the impossible if you want.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Anyone else excited for the town hall discussion ABC is giving Obama and hour to sell his socialized health care plan on? Of course there will be no dissenting opinion but why would there be when all the mantras the press san under Bush are now ignored. I guess questioning our leaders is no longer patriotic. Its both sad and comical at the same time.

To anyone who IS for government run health care I ask you to assess your experience at the DMV. That's something the government has run since its inception.

I am shocked that you are following your Republican marching orders just like Republicans on every other message board.

I'm also shocked that as of January 20th, 2009, Republicans are pro-fairness doctrine.

BTW, you should use the DMV on 4 mile run near Shirlington. It's actually pretty damn efficient-not that I accept the comparison.

As for the costs of private health insurance vs. a Government run program, that's not a debate you're going to win either.

http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/health/spend/cost_longlife75.gif

[shally]

No problem with tax cuts, but with health care reform, it accomplishes absolutely nothing to fix the problem. All you're doing is enabling the problem further.



There's no way they could make health care in America a single payer plan. There's no support for that even on the left(except for guys like Bernie Saunders). The plan would die in the Senate long before it ever got to a vote. You get outraged over the impossible if you want.


not enough money in the treasury to float it either..even with some restrictions, people have no clue how expensive an entitlement that would be..

[akhhorus]

not enough money in the treasury to float it either..even with some restrictions, people have no clue how expensive an entitlement that would be..

Basically, yeah. At some point, it will be the same or cheaper than the current system..but thats 10-20 years away. They're better off doing a plan that gives people who don't get it from their employers coverage at a small fee, which would transform medicare into paying for the public plan(and save billions for the feds and the states). There's still going to be a market for private coverage and add on coverage from private plans.

[RedskinsDave]

I am shocked that you are following your Republican marching orders just like Republicans on every other message board.

I'm also shocked that as of January 20th, 2009, Republicans are pro-fairness doctrine.

Who is pro-Fairness Doctrine? Is asking ABC to at least appear impartial too much? Is having a dissenting voice on a huge issue asking too much? Weren't you one of the wimpy libs crying about Bush pushing his agenda and not having anyone stop it? How would you have felt if the MEDIA was one of those nodding in agreement? Oh yeah, your vagina would have puckered.

BTW, you should use the DMV on 4 mile run near Shirlington. It's actually pretty damn efficient-not that I accept the comparison.

As for the costs of private health insurance vs. a Government run program, that's not a debate you're going to win either.

http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/health/spend/cost_longlife75.gif

If you think comparing a new United States leftist run health care is comparable to countries who have had socialized health care for a long long time is legit then you are far dumber than I could ever imagine.

The point of my original post was that ABC is a party to the Obamania. I guess everyone is enough of lemmings to accept it. Pravda would approve.

[akhhorus]

Who is pro-Fairness Doctrine? Is asking ABC to at least appear impartial too much? Is having a dissenting voice on a huge issue asking too much? Weren't you one of the wimpy libs crying about Bush pushing his agenda and not having anyone stop it? How would you have felt if the MEDIA was one of those nodding in agreement? Oh yeah, your vagina would have puckered.

So, the New York Times not questioning the case for the Iraq war until 2006 doesn't count?

The point of my original post was that ABC is a party to the Obamania. I guess everyone is enough of lemmings to accept it. Pravda would approve.

Who's choosing the questioners and audience? The white house or ABC?

[Ibleedburgundy]

Who is pro-Fairness Doctrine? Is asking ABC to at least appear impartial too much? Is having a dissenting voice on a huge issue asking too much? .

You haven't even seen the damn thing yet and somebody has already managed to make up your mind for you. Who told you there wouldn't be any dissenting voices? Man I gotta hand it to Limbaugh/Drudge, they have you Republicans in full rage today.

Weren't you one of the wimpy libs crying about Bush pushing his agenda and not having anyone stop it? How would you have felt if the MEDIA was one of those nodding in agreement? Oh yeah, your vagina would have puckered.


The media did roll over for Bush. Not only did they accept all the pure nonsense about a robust Iraqi nuclear weapons program, they also adopted the pure fallacy about tax cuts increasing revenue, or that they were tax cuts at all (and not merely a procrastination of debt).

If you think comparing a new United States leftist run health care is comparable to countries who have had socialized health care for a long long time is legit then you are far dumber than I could ever imagine.


Oh right, clearly the DMV is a more direct comparison than the healthcare systems we would be studying in order to formulate our plan.

The point of my original post was that ABC is a party to the Obamania. I guess everyone is enough of lemmings to accept it. Pravda would approve

Those are strong words for someone who takes marching orders from this guy:

Dear Mr. Westin:

As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC's astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform “town hall” at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC’s web news “will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda.” This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president’s health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming.

Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party's views to those of the President's to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. I believe that the President should have the ability to speak directly to the America people. However, I find it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party's opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects millions of ABC viewers.

In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda. If that is the case, this primetime infomercial should be paid for out of the DNC coffers. President Obama does not hold a monopoly on health care reform ideas or on free airtime. The President has stated time and time again that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican Party should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC should pay for your airtime.

Respectfully,
Ken McKay
Republican National Committee
Chief of Staff

[shally]

Basically, yeah. At some point, it will be the same or cheaper than the current system..but thats 10-20 years away. They're better off doing a plan that gives people who don't get it from their employers coverage at a small fee, which would transform medicare into paying for the public plan(and save billions for the feds and the states). There's still going to be a market for private coverage and add on coverage from private plans.

ultimately, the ONLY way this works is to squeeze both ends

lower payments to providers

deny procedures or certain types of coverage to patients


nobody is going to like that system.. but once it is in place it will take a generation before things other than plastic surgery and a few other specialties
are available privately.. it will be like the canadian or GB system which almost everyone dislikes, who HAS to use it.. it England, private clinics exist. in Canada, not so ( many just came over here)

if they dont outlaw it, concierge service medicine will explode overnight..and Docs are going to be so overwhelmed in primary care that the system will essentially freeze up.. again, no one is going to like it, except corporations, if they can escape from providing healthcare for their employees-- they will love it

[akhhorus]

ultimately, the ONLY way this works is to squeeze both ends

lower payments to providers

deny procedures or certain types of coverage to patients


nobody is going to like that system.. but once it is in place it will take a generation before things other than plastic surgery and a few other specialties
are available privately.. it will be like the canadian or GB system which almost everyone dislikes, who HAS to use it.. it England, private clinics exist. in Canada, not so ( many just came over here)

if they dont outlaw it, concierge service medicine will explode overnight..and Docs are going to be so overwhelmed in primary care that the system will essentially freeze up.. again, no one is going to like it, except corporations, if they can escape from providing healthcare for their employees-- they will love it

If you maintain the status quo, agreed. But when you have the states paying 110 billion a year(and that will go up dramatically) in Medicaid and the feds paying 170-220 billion a year in medicare(which also will go up dramatically), the Co-op/public plan ideas(which wouldn't change much for the people who get insurance through their employers) at 100-160 billion a year(according to the CBO) looks pretty good lol. You could even overfund the program dramatically and still be saving money(and everyone will be saving money: the Fed. gov, the states and for individuals). Nevermind that the cash has already been approved lol.

[shally]

If you maintain the status quo, agreed. But when you have the states paying 110 billion a year(and that will go up dramatically) in Medicaid and the feds paying 170-220 billion a year in medicare(which also will go up dramatically), the Co-op/public plan ideas(which wouldn't change much for the people who get insurance through their employers) at 100-160 billion a year(according to the CBO) looks pretty good lol. You could even overfund the program dramatically and still be saving money(and everyone will be saving money: the Fed. gov, the states and for individuals). Nevermind that the cash has already been approved lol.

i think if there is ANY option for large corporations to dump their medical plans and let people have to get them from the govt, they will opt out in a heart beat-- even if it means a hefty fine.. part of the reason GM went under is the weight of all those endless medical payments.. once the government is a part owner of GM why not move it from one pocket to another ?

[RedskinsDave]

You haven't even seen the damn thing yet and somebody has already managed to make up your mind for you. Who told you there wouldn't be any dissenting voices? Man I gotta hand it to Limbaugh/Drudge, they have you Republicans in full rage today.

Keep ignoring that ABC is pimping Barry's agenda and ignore the lack of any sense of journalism.

The media did roll over for Bush. Not only did they accept all the pure nonsense about a robust Iraqi nuclear weapons program, they also adopted the pure fallacy about tax cuts increasing revenue, or that they were tax cuts at all (and not merely a procrastination of debt).

That's hilarious coming from a guy whose Manchurian Candidate has spent billions taking over banks and car companies only to watch unemployment rise and double Bush's deficit.

Oh right, clearly the DMV is a more direct comparison than the healthcare systems we would be studying in order to formulate our plan.

Yeah, it makes much more sense to compare something our government runs versus what other countries have done. Keep following orders and you can stand in line to see the doctor.

Those are strong words for someone who takes marching orders from this guy:

You always make accusations like this and you never have anything to back it up, all the while you're the biggest lefty mindless lemming on the board. Hail Caesar!

[Ibleedburgundy]

That's hilarious coming from a guy whose Manchurian Candidate has spent billions taking over banks and car companies only to watch unemployment rise and double Bush's deficit.


Double? Did you get the memo? Obama quadroupled Bush's deficit!!! In fact he's already spent more in 5 Months than Bush did in 8 years!

Actually, Obama inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit and added his stimulus to make it between $1.75 and 1.84 trillion depending on tax revenue. He will have cut Bush's deficit in half by year 4.

http://www.factcheck.org/politics/obamas_prime_time_pitch.html

And I'm sure you are aware he inherited the employment trend as well. Impossible, I know, because tax cuts are the only factor in employment statistics-and Bush's tax cuts are still in place.

Yeah, it makes much more sense to compare something our government runs versus what other countries have done. Keep following orders and you can stand in line to see the doctor.

uf. Not trying to embarrass you or anything but DMVs are not run by the Federal Government.

And that is a great point about how awesome it is for the rest of us when 45 million people don't have healthcare. Totally agree-I would much rather someone else die of something preventable than have to wait in a line.

[shally]

Double? Did you get the memo? Obama quadroupled Bush's deficit!!! In fact he's already spent more in 5 Months than Bush did in 8 years!

Actually, Obama inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit and added his stimulus to make it between $1.75 and 1.84 trillion depending on tax revenue. He will have cut Bush's deficit in half by year 4.

http://www.factcheck.org/politics/obamas_prime_time_pitch.html

And I'm sure you are aware he inherited the employment trend as well. Impossible, I know, because tax cuts are the only factor in employment statistics-and Bush's tax cuts are still in place.



uf. Not trying to embarrass you or anything but DMVs are not run by the Federal Government.

And that is a great point about how awesome it is for the rest of us when 45 million people don't have healthcare. Totally agree-I would much rather someone else die of something preventable than have to wait in a line.

many of those 45 million who dont have health care, choose NOT to spend money to have health care.. young adults from 18-35 are notorious for opting not to purchase health care because they believe themselves to be immortal..

this does nothing to deny the existence of a huge problem, but some of the problem is with people themselves.. i want to see what will happen when Obama passes something ORDERING those people to buy health insurance..

[Ibleedburgundy]

many of those 45 million who dont have health care, choose NOT to spend money to have health care.. young adults from 18-35 are notorious for opting not to purchase health care because they believe themselves to be immortal..

this does nothing to deny the existence of a huge problem, but some of the problem is with people themselves.. i want to see what will happen when Obama passes something ORDERING those people to buy health insurance..

Of course this could all get lost in the negotiations, but I thought Obama's campaign position was to not have a mandate whereas Hillary did.

[shally]

Of course this could all get lost in the negotiations, but I thought Obama's campaign position was to not have a mandate whereas Hillary did.

you need a scorecard to keep track of all the daily changes in positions..

the latest? smaller "co-op" insurance plans ? i am not even sure what this means, but i got a head's up from a website that monitors what is going on and they said this represented another permutation

[akhhorus]

you need a scorecard to keep track of all the daily changes in positions..

the latest? smaller "co-op" insurance plans ? i am not even sure what this means, but i got a head's up from a website that monitors what is going on and they said this represented another permutation

I hope this clears things up a bit:

Link (http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/06/cheat_sheet_the_public_plans.php)


1. The Schumer Plan -- would be a government-run plan that follows the same rules that insurance companies do. It would pay for itself via fees.

2. The Conrad Plan -- would be a series of health insurance cooperatives, administered privately but not for profit. Details remain vague. The federal government would not directly be involved.

3. The Rockefeller Plan -- would be a conventional, government-run plan that pays for itself via premiums and fees.Reimbursement rates would be based on Medicare for two years (at least), which could, in theory, pressure private plans to lower costs. The plan would follow guidelines that a new health care trust would create. This trust would function as a marketplace, giving providers and patients a sense of what other plans are charging and how effective they are. This is the strongest public plan offered so far by Senators.

4. The HELP (Kennedy) Plan -- still in progress, an early version would require providers to participate, would pay them 10% more than Medicare, and would also expand Medicare and S-CHIP.

5. The House Plan: Medicare would be expanded and eligibility would be based on income alone. The government plan would be modeled after Medicare; to get providers on board, there would be some (potentially significant) reimbursement rate adjustments.

6. The Snowe Float: for a few years, the government would offer a conventional, non-competitive plan. If insurance companies failed to reform, to cut costs, to improve quality, a much stronger, competitive plan would be offered. This is what's known as a "trigger" plan.

As Ambinder writes, the co/op-Conrad plan is extremely vague on details. Considering that the House is pretty clear that they won't vote for anything without a public plan, I think you can cross off #4 from what's going to happen. #6 might not be a bad idea.

EDIT: The House GOP released their full alternative today:
- A “new small business tax credit” to increase the number of employers providing health care to employees
- Allowing dependents to stay on their parents’ plans until the age of 25
- Giving employers “greater flexibility” to reward employees for healthy habits

[shally]

I hope this clears things up a bit:

Link (http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/06/cheat_sheet_the_public_plans.php)



As Ambinder writes, the co/op-Conrad plan is extremely vague on details. Considering that the House is pretty clear that they won't vote for anything without a public plan, I think you can cross off 4 and 5 from what's going to happen. #6 might not be a bad idea.

EDIT: The House GOP released their full alternative today:
- A “new small business tax credit” to increase the number of employers providing health care to employees
- Allowing dependents to stay on their parents’ plans until the age of 25
- Giving employers “greater flexibility” to reward employees for healthy habits

as always, thank you so much for cutting to the heart of the matter...
expect the insurance lobby to push hard for any plan the changes little, but has triggers... stall-ball at it's best

[akhhorus]

as always, thank you so much for cutting to the heart of the matter...
expect the insurance lobby to push hard for any plan the changes little, but has triggers... stall-ball at it's best

Yeah, that would be the logical conclusion for them(that or #4). I don't know if they would risk taking their chances with a difference congress down the road a ways. If I was a lobbyist advising the HMOs, I would try to talk my clients into Rockefeller's plan and try to scale it so that they get decent tax breaks(and tax breaks for big business to stay with private insurance) to put up with that public plan.

[shally]

Yeah, that would be the logical conclusion for them(that or #4). I don't know if they would risk taking their chances with a difference congress down the road a ways. If I was a lobbyist advising the HMOs, I would try to talk my clients into Rockefeller's plan and try to scale it so that they get decent tax breaks(and tax breaks for big business to stay with private insurance) to put up with that public plan.

i think they will push hard against any plan.. and give ground grudgingly, at best.. they are very well endowed and will fight a war of attrition..
time is on their side.. the longer it take Obama to get a plan through, the less that plan will hurt them...

[RedskinsDave]

Double? Did you get the memo? Obama quadroupled Bush's deficit!!! In fact he's already spent more in 5 Months than Bush did in 8 years!

Actually, Obama inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit and added his stimulus to make it between $1.75 and 1.84 trillion depending on tax revenue. He will have cut Bush's deficit in half by year 4.

http://www.factcheck.org/politics/obamas_prime_time_pitch.html

And I'm sure you are aware he inherited the employment trend as well. Impossible, I know, because tax cuts are the only factor in employment statistics-and Bush's tax cuts are still in place.

Yeah, its Bush's fault that Barry bought the banks and crappy car makers. I do love the new spin from Barry and the Douche where they are lauding the fact that unemployment increased at a slower rate. I could have sworn all that spending was going to create jobs. I can't wait for them to act like summer hires are full time jobs when the next numbers come out.

uf. Not trying to embarrass you or anything but DMVs are not run by the Federal Government.

Don't flatter yourself. You could never embarrass me. I am well aware that the states run the DMV's but forgive me if I'd rather compare how Americans would run and American program. You'd probably accept a comparison to Cuba if it fit you agenda.

And that is a great point about how awesome it is for the rest of us when 45 million people don't have healthcare. Totally agree-I would much rather someone else die of something preventable than have to wait in a line.

Excellent hyperbole.

[akhhorus]

i think they will push hard against any plan.. and give ground grudgingly, at best.. they are very well endowed and will fight a war of attrition..
time is on their side.. the longer it take Obama to get a plan through, the less that plan will hurt them...

I don't think that they have a stomach for being seen destroying reform, if it fails this year, there will be a lot more support for bigger reform in 2011. There's some independent polling that over 60% of the country wants reform along the lines Obama is pushing. And the Dems have a trump card in all this: they can declare budget reconciliation, and they can string together 51 votes for a public plan if need be.

Yeah, its Bush's fault that Barry bought the banks and crappy car makers.

Not to nitpick, but Bush did TARP(which didn't nationalize the banks, neither has Obama) but that was taking temporary stakes in the banks, but they weren't controlling the banks. The closest TARP came to nationalization was AIG, but that was under Bush. Taking over GM/Chrysler in Chapter 11 is nationalization. But even with that, it means the US Government controls 0.21% of the corporate assets in the United States. If you want an example of socialism in the US, look at Alaska since the pipeline was put in.

[RedskinsDave]

Barbara Boxer, gimme a C, gimme a U, gimme an N, gimme a.....you get the picture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryEGmkjv8R8

Maybe she could have returned the respect and called him General. I am quite sure he worked much harder to earn that.

[RedskinsDave]

I cannot wait to hear how Barry plans on dealing with Iran and North Korea. This is going to be awesome.

[VegasSkinsFan]

I cannot wait to hear how Barry plans on dealing with Iran and North Korea. This is going to be awesome.

Just like this ;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24xYLYcPWYU&feature=related

[shally]

I cannot wait to hear how Barry plans on dealing with Iran and North Korea. This is going to be awesome.

not going to deal with iran at all... hoping that A-jad will like him now if he shuts up while the election is stolen

[akhhorus]

not going to deal with iran at all... hoping that A-jad will like him now if he shuts up while the election is stolen

Considering how paranoid the Iranians have been about western meddling in their government(see 1941, 1953, the Shah), the worst thing we could do would be to give Ajad and Khamenei an opening to paint Moussavi and his supporters as the tools of the west. We can and should help them(stuff like asking Twitter to stay online is the right course), but as long as Moussavi is out of power, our fingerprints do nothing but hurt him.

[shally]

Considering how paranoid the Iranians have been about western meddling in their government(see 1941, 1953, the Shah), the worst thing we could do would be to give Ajad and Khamenei an opening to paint Moussavi and his supporters as the tools of the west. We can and should help them(stuff like asking Twitter to stay online is the right course), but as long as Moussavi is out of power, our fingerprints do nothing but hurt him.

agree it is a very delicate situation.. anything we do in public will cause negative repercussions.. in fact, kahmeni has already alluded to that, and a jad as well..

still, i would hope there would be some back channel support for moussavi

the irani's have to do this on their own ultimately..

[BurgundyNGold]

Considering how paranoid the Iranians have been about western meddling in their government(see 1941, 1953, the Shah), the worst thing we could do would be to give Ajad and Khamenei an opening to paint Moussavi and his supporters as the tools of the west. We can and should help them(stuff like asking Twitter to stay online is the right course), but as long as Moussavi is out of power, our fingerprints do nothing but hurt him.
Agreed. The best thing to do with that is nothing. Even though, I'm sure we most assuredly are doing a whole lot of something on the ground there. The CIA, that is.

[RedskinsDave]

Agreed. The best thing to do with that is nothing. Even though, I'm sure we most assuredly are doing a whole lot of something on the ground there. The CIA, that is.

We can hope but with Leon at the helm, who knows? I love how little objection was made to someone so ill-equipped to run the our best intel agency.

I'm not sold on doing and saying nothing. It looks like they are all ready to go Tienanmen Square on the protesters while we sit on our hands. I can only imagine is Reagan had addressed the Russians with "Mr. Gorbachev, I have no opinion on this wall!!"

[Keino]

We can hope but with Leon at the helm, who knows? I love how little objection was made to someone so ill-equipped to run the our best intel agency.

I'm not sold on doing and saying nothing. It looks like they are all ready to go Tienanmen Square on the protesters while we sit on our hands. I can only imagine is Reagan had addressed the Russians with "Mr. Gorbachev, I have no opinion on this wall!!"

So, should Bush (The competent one) have done something about Tienanmen Square?

I am not sure doing anything other than decrying the situation is appropriate and not until there is something to decry. (Of course I type that after reading that the Ayatollah declared the election valid, so it appears there is something now)


As to your earlier points re: Unemployment, that is a lagging economic statistic. Economists differ on the time it lags, some would say 6 months (making the current unemployment figures on Bush's watch) and some say up to 18 months (also making the current unemployment figures on Bush's watch). And of course he is going to take credit for creating jobs, even if they are temporary, the same way your guy took credit for unemployment going down, while excluding the people who either were kicked out of the unemployment compensation system or took jobs that caused them to be under-employed.

Shally - I would love to know, in your estimation, what percentage of the 45 Million people without health insurance are choosing to go without it (and choosing to pay rent instead of health insurance is not really a choice). When I was younger, I opted not to purchase it because it would have been 75% of my take home pay. Insurance or the ability to feed myself? Hmmmmmm....