I'm not absolving Bush of blame. He certainly hasn't done anything to resolve the problems that preceded his presidency, regarding illegal immigration, excessive legal immigration that displaces American workers, offshoring jobs (which has accellerated during the W. Bush years), and a trade deficit that has expanded to 800 billion during the W. Bush years. All of which have continued and accellerated in the last 7 years under Bush.
All I'm doing challenging the scapegoatism that blames it all on Bush.
When in truth, as I've said many times, this is a betrayal of the U.S. by both parties, and that both parties are paid for by corporate lobbyists, to enrich themselves at the expense of the American people. Clinton signed the free trade agreements, Clinton vastly expanded legal immigration and relaxed enforcement against illegal immigration, Clinton had large trade deficits, Bush Sr. pushed for globalism and a "new world order", Reagan relaxed laws against corporate bankruptcy, Reagan allowed the steel industry to leave the U.S., Carter allowed double-digit inflation, left us vulnerable to oil dependency and a second hyperinflated oil crisis, and allowed greater Japanese imports, Nixon took us off the gold standard and led us toward having an interdependent economy with China.
So it's bullshit to heap all the blame at W. Bush's door.
Fair enough. Although I will say Bush Jr is twice as much a fuck up as Clinton and Daddy combined. IMO. You'd have a hard time convincing me otherwise.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
so, wondy it's either fully a democrat's fault or partially a republican's fault, right?
Please show me where I said it was fully the Democrats' fault.
......
In the realm of liberalism and related social issues (as opposed to the economics we're discussing in this topic), I see the Democrats as having primary, if not sole, blame. But that's not the issue we're discussing here.
i wasn't talking about this issue soley, i was talking about your assignment of blame overall. thanks for making it easy to prove my point. you have so much bile and hatred for liberals. i bet you hated those liberals long hairslike Jesus and Thomas Jefferson? Damn those liberals for undermining the great Roman-based societies with their new "ideas."
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
Originally Posted By: WonderBoy
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
so, wondy it's either fully a democrat's fault or partially a republican's fault, right?
Please show me where I said it was fully the Democrats' fault.
......
In the realm of liberalism and related social issues (as opposed to the economics we're discussing in this topic), I see the Democrats as having primary, if not sole, blame. But that's not the issue we're discussing here.
i wasn't talking about this issue soley, i was talking about your assignment of blame overall. thanks for making it easy to prove my point. you have so much bile and hatred for liberals. i bet you hated those liberals long hairslike Jesus and Thomas Jefferson? Damn those liberals for undermining the great Roman-based societies with their new "ideas."
Uh...
Originally Posted By: WB
I just said that GATT and NAFTA were signed (and thus offshoring began) under Clinton. I listed a lot of Republicans in that laundry list.
There are a few very antagonistic, very spiteful, and very deceitful liberals like yourself, that I truly do despise. And even reaching the point of despising you took a long time.
Mostly, I just disagree with liberals politically. I may hate their ideology, and a few of their most deceitful spokespersons, but I generally don't hate liberals. Most are harmless in their naive well-wishing for a better world, that makes them buy into a flawed ideology. Most are well-meaning in their intentions, if flawed in the ideas they believe. And all but the core thinkers and activists, the Lenins and Stalins, the Howard Deans, the Michael Moores, the MoveOn.orgs, the Whomods and the Ray Adlers, are not malicious and out to destroy people in pursuit of their goals and ideology. A few are beyond annoying, and truly dangerous and a threat to democracy and western culture.
I'm pretty patient with people who lose their temper and speak harshly when they discuss things they are passionate about. To a degree, I can take that and be patient with it, and not be offended. But you go way beyond that.
It frankly took a long time for me to truly despise you, Ray. But you made it so bitter, and so slanderous, and so personal, for so long, that I truly and deeply despise you.
You are the embodiment of everything I despise about liberals at their very worst, the way you just lash out with anger, intolerance and slander at anyone who disagrees with you.
As annoying and unpleasant as you are to deal with, I take comfort in the fact that don't know you personally. And in the fact that as angry, vicious, slanderous and manipulative as you are, it must be hell to live in the same home with you. And that based on your character, you must bring misery to whoever you come in contact with, if not to yourself as well.
What I could hate about Jefferson or Jesus, I couldn't possibly imagine. That's another manufactured slander that's managed to tear its way out of your angry, intolerant, insane mind. Good luck with that.
There are a few very antagonistic, very spiteful, and very deceitful liberals like yourself, that I truly do despise. And even reaching the point of despising you took a long time.
wow. not really into the whole love thy neighbor/turn the other cheek part of your religion are you? i mean, you go beyond defending yourself in a calm manner and just insult. now, of course, that's something we all do here. but you speak out against it and you speak of yourself as a christian, meaning you set a higher standard than a secular liberal like myself. it's a shame really. to watch hatred destroy someone. It's like your fear of women, ethnic people, and change in general has lead you to anger. And that anger at women, ethnic people, and change in general has lead you to hate. and hatred, as PJP will confirm, is the path to the dark side.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
Originally Posted By: WonderBoy
There are a few very antagonistic, very spiteful, and very deceitful liberals like yourself, that I truly do despise. And even reaching the point of despising you took a long time.
wow. not really into the whole love thy neighbor/turn the other cheek part of your religion are you? i mean, you go beyond defending yourself in a calm manner and just insult. now, of course, that's something we all do here. but you speak out against it and you speak of yourself as a christian, meaning you set a higher standard than a secular liberal like myself. it's a shame really. to watch hatred destroy someone. It's like your fear of women, ethnic people, and change in general has lead you to anger. And that anger at women, ethnic people, and change in general has lead you to hate. and hatred, as PJP will confirm, is the path to the dark side.
More of the same usual slander.
You'll forgive me if I don't take advice on Christianity from a guy who outspokenly despises Christianity, and never took the time to understand Christianity, except to manipulate out-of context chunks of it to attack people who actually beleive in the Bible and its teachings.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
Originally Posted By: WonderBoy
There are a few very antagonistic, very spiteful, and very deceitful liberals like yourself, that I truly do despise. And even reaching the point of despising you took a long time.
wow. not really into the whole love thy neighbor/turn the other cheek part of your religion are you? i mean, you go beyond defending yourself in a calm manner and just insult. now, of course, that's something we all do here. but you speak out against it and you speak of yourself as a christian, meaning you set a higher standard than a secular liberal like myself. it's a shame really. to watch hatred destroy someone. It's like your fear of women, ethnic people, and change in general has lead you to anger. And that anger at women, ethnic people, and change in general has lead you to hate. and hatred, as PJP will confirm, is the path to the dark side.
More of the same usual slander.
You'll forgive me if I don't take advice on Christianity from a guy who outspokenly despises Christianity, and never took the time to understand Christianity, except to manipulate out-of context chunks of it to attack people who actually beleive in the Bible and its teachings.
first of all. you need to learn words. you misuse them a lot. and you use the same words for different meanings. learn the language and customs of our message boards, por favor.
second, i was raised christian. i understand the good and bad sides of it. i don't hate christianity, i just think it's all fairy tales. some people use it to promote positive change and happiness in the world and some use it to look down on others and justify bad acts. guess which one you are? and the point wasn't a lesson in the scripture. the point was that YOU say you're christian but don't act according to the principles of your own faith. that's like being a cop who takes bribes but lectures people who speed. try reading your own posts and ask yourself if those are "christian" words. ask yourself if you are judging other humans and reacting with anger. ask yourself if you need to insult liberal minded people by using the word liberal as if it were a slur. ask yourself if you are living up to your own moral and ethical beliefs, and let god take care of "punishing" those who offend you.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
first of all. you need to learn words. you misuse them a lot. and you use the same words for different meanings. learn the language and customs of our message boards, por favor.
second, i was raised christian. i understand the good and bad sides of it. i don't hate christianity, i just think it's all fairy tales. some people use it to promote positive change and happiness in the world and some use it to look down on others and justify bad acts. guess which one you are? and the point wasn't a lesson in the scripture. the point was that YOU say you're christian but don't act according to the principles of your own faith. that's like being a cop who takes bribes but lectures people who speed. try reading your own posts and ask yourself if those are "christian" words. ask yourself if you are judging other humans and reacting with anger. ask yourself if you need to insult liberal minded people by using the word liberal as if it were a slur. ask yourself if you are living up to your own moral and ethical beliefs, and let god take care of "punishing" those who offend you.
You're such a lying weasel, Ray. Jesus would call a lying slanderous weasel like you a lying slanderous weasel.
What words do I misuse? ad hominem ? It's been defined on these boards about a million times. It's avoiding the true issue by attacking someone personally, slandering their character, or otherwise emotionalizing the argument to change the subject. Victory by smear, and not by facts. I use the word in context, and you are the textbook example of an ad hominem attack. You and Whomod and Halo and Rex have all made such attacks the centerpiece of any political discussion you participate in. Your priority is smearing the character of anyone you disagree with, not making a factual argument.
You consistently paraphrase and ad-lib myself and anyone else you disagree with, to falsely paint us as goose-stepping white-racist Nazis, and haters of some kind or other, to slanderously morph us into your pre-conceived stereotype of whatever it is you love to hate.
I'm the one who just posts my opinion on these boards. You're the one who online-stalks me, vomiting out every last ounce of your hatred at me, every time I post. And then you have the audacity to talk about "anger" and "hate", and not behaving like Jesus. Oh, the irony.
You're one of the most miserable human beings I've ever encountered. And if you're this unpleasant on a message board, I can only imagine how ugly and unbearable you must be in person.
You're such a lying weasel, Ray. Jesus would call a lying slanderous weasel like you a lying slanderous weasel.
wow. wondy, I want you to know that i understand how frustrating life must be for you. someone at your age, looking at a failed life and a world that no longer values him. I truly feel your pain and know that it's not me you're mad at, but the black woman who stole your job because of quotas and illegal immigration from the female half of Africa.
Quote:
What words do I misuse?
a lot of them. i would stop and point it out everytime, but i think it's kind of cute. like when a toddler tries to use a gun.
Quote:
ad hominem ? It's been defined on these boards about a million times. It's avoiding the true issue by attacking someone personally, slandering their character, or otherwise emotionalizing the argument to change the subject. Victory by smear, and not by facts. I use the word in context, and you are the textbook example of an ad hominem attack. You and Whomod and Halo and Rex have all made such attacks the centerpiece of any political discussion you participate in. Your priority is smearing the character of anyone you disagree with, not making a factual argument.
but the point is that you use ad hominem attacks after denouncing them. by doing something you denounce you become a hypocrite.
Quote:
You consistently paraphrase and ad-lib myself and anyone else you disagree with, to falsely paint us as goose-stepping white-racist Nazis, and haters of some kind or other, to slanderously morph us into your pre-conceived stereotype of whatever it is you love to hate.
no, i quote you. i remember what you said on earlier threads. and then i quote many of your posts where you're against this ethnic group or that, or you bitch about women, all to accurately paint the picture of a bitter old man who feels insecure about the world.
Quote:
I'm the one who just posts my opinion on these boards. You're the one who online-stalks me, vomiting out every last ounce of your hatred at me, every time I post. And then you have the audacity to talk about "anger" and "hate", and not behaving like Jesus. Oh, the irony.
I think "online-stalks" requires more than just posting on the same message board. everyone here posts their opinions. you generally use blanket attacks on any liberal position. and your attacks are interchangable, showing just a severe hatred and insecurity of anything different than yourself.
Quote:
You're one of the most miserable human beings I've ever encountered. And if you're this unpleasant on a message board, I can only imagine how ugly and unbearable you must be in person.
how am i miserable? i'm having fun with this. you make everything so easy by falling into the same old stereotype of the cranky old man. unlike you, i don't display my insecurities over life for the world to see. I don't (usually) go for the same blanket attack phrases like you do. say what you will about me, but at least i'm creative. and i'm quite well liked in life for my whimsical wit and charm. my half-filipino, half-black, half-chinese girlfriend says so everytime i go to her family functions and point out how inferior they are.
While Bush says everything is fine with the economy, the Fed has increased its future cash injections by 50% so that banks can maintain proper liquidity. Ignore the high fuel prices, forget about the housing crash, don't even think about the employment numbers (The new report says only 18,000 new jobs last month. Holy cow, that's incredibly bad. Worse still, unemployment jumped from 4.7% to 5%.) and for heavens sake, pretend as though we do not have a credit crisis in America. All done? Great. Now you too can be just like George Bush. Not a problem in the world. Heck, with this great strategy of ignoring the facts on the ground, it's no wonder he's once again talking about tax cuts.
Bush has run our economy, and our surplus, into the ground, and now he wants to cut government revenues even further. Reagan's tax cuts didn't generate enough income to make up for them. Bush's tax cuts didn't generate enough income. So now he wants to cut taxes even further. Absolutely ridiculous.
Taking action to help the economy (which Bush says is solid) makes perfect sense. If ever there was a moment to take the keys away from Bush it's now. For him to stand up and say the "economy is on a solid foundation" should be all we need to hear from him. The Democrats - especially the presidential candidates - are going to have to step up and provide their own plan. Leaving these decisions up to the idiot who created them would be painfully foolish. I'm sure the Democrats have it in them to take on this challenge.
In a sign of how the once mighty U.S. dollar has fallen, India's tourism minister said yesterday U.S. currency will no longer be accepted at heritage tourist sites, including the Taj Mahal.
For years the U.S. buck was worth about 50 rupees and tourists visiting most sites in India were charged either $5 or 250 rupees.
But with the greenback at a nine-year low against the rupee -- falling 11 per cent in 2007 and now hovering at around 39 rupees -- that deal has become a losing proposition for the tourism industry.
From Ron Paul to the Jobs Report, Fox News Filters What its Audience Sees and Knows. Yesterday the U.S. Department of Labor released the December "jobs report." It showed that the employment rate "was essentially unchanged" with only 18,000 jobs created last month. Wall Street's already lowered expectation was for 70,000 new jobs. According to Forbes, "That's the smallest monthly gain since August 2003...and far below the 111,000 average monthly gain in 2007 and just a fraction of the 100,000 jobs the economy needs to keep up with new entrants to the workforce."
The report also showed that, "The number of unemployed persons increased by 474,000 to 7.7 million in December and the unemployment rate rose by 0.3 percentage point to 5.0 percent. A year earlier, the number of unemployed persons was 6.8 million, and the jobless rate was 4.4 percent."
So, how did Neil Cavuto report this news yesterday morning (January 5, 2008) during Cavuto on Business? Like this, in the form of a chyron/lower third blurb:
Quote:
18,000 Jobs Added in December; Employment Rate Drops to 95%
This passes, just barely, as "reporting" the jobs report news but it provides so little context that in the end it's nothing more than pro-Bush/Republican propaganda. Sanitizing tomorrow's GOP debate by excluding Ron Paul's voice is one of louder, more public acts of filtering what its audiences sees that Fox has done, but quiet little chyrons like the one above sit on Fox's screen, cleansing the news for Fox viewers all the time.
From Ron Paul to the Jobs Report, Fox News Filters What its Audience Sees and Knows. Yesterday the U.S. Department of Labor released the December "jobs report." It showed that the employment rate "was essentially unchanged" with only 18,000 jobs created last month. Wall Street's already lowered expectation was for 70,000 new jobs. According to Forbes, "That's the smallest monthly gain since August 2003...and far below the 111,000 average monthly gain in 2007 and just a fraction of the 100,000 jobs the economy needs to keep up with new entrants to the workforce."
The report also showed that, "The number of unemployed persons increased by 474,000 to 7.7 million in December and the unemployment rate rose by 0.3 percentage point to 5.0 percent. A year earlier, the number of unemployed persons was 6.8 million, and the jobless rate was 4.4 percent."
So, how did Neil Cavuto report this news yesterday morning (January 5, 2008) during Cavuto on Business? Like this, in the form of a chyron/lower third blurb:
Quote:
18,000 Jobs Added in December; Employment Rate Drops to 95%
This passes, just barely, as "reporting" the jobs report news but it provides so little context that in the end it's nothing more than pro-Bush/Republican propaganda. Sanitizing tomorrow's GOP debate by excluding Ron Paul's voice is one of louder, more public acts of filtering what its audiences sees that Fox has done, but quiet little chyrons like the one above sit on Fox's screen, cleansing the news for Fox viewers all the time.
Well at least they don't have infomericals
I might start praying again in the hopes God will keep WB from breeding.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. average retail price for home heating oil soared 5.4 cents over the past week to a record $3.40 a gallon, the government said on Wednesday.
The national heating oil price was up 98 cents from a year ago, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said in its weekly survey of heating fuel costs around the country. It was the fourth week in a row that heating oil hit a record.
Heating oil prices are rising because of higher crude oil costs, which topped at a record above $100 a barrel last week, and tight supplies.
While distillate fuel inventories, which include heating oil and diesel fuel, increased by 1.5 million barrels last week, stocks are still down almost 15 million barrels from a year ago and are in the lower half of the average range for inventories at this time of year, according to the EIA.
Washington D.C. again had the highest heating oil price at $3.77 a gallon, up 8.7 cents from the previous week. The next-highest prices were in New Jersey at $3.55, New York at $3.52 and Connecticut at $3.50.
The lowest price for heating oil was in Nebraska at $3.01 a gallon, up 2.3 cents, followed by Iowa at $3.04, Kentucky at $3.08 and Ohio at $3.09.
Northeast households that rely the most on heating oil are expected to pay a record average $3.34 a gallon for the fuel this winter, up 84 cents from last winter, according to the EIA.
Heating oil costs in the region, where one out of three households use the fuel, are forecast to average $2,078 for the winter, up 38 percent from last year.
The National Fuel Funds Network, which represents more than 300 charity-funded energy assistance programs, this week called for the Bush administration to release government funds provided by Congress to help poor families pay their winter heating bills.
In a letter to President George W. Bush, the group asked for the release of $590 million from the federal Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, known as LIHEAP.
"Mr. President, we are barely half way through this heating season. Oil reached over $100 per barrel last week. There is more cold weather to come," the group wrote.
"Americans need to be able to be comfortable in their homes. They should not have to make hard decisions between providing food for their families or heat for their homes," the group said.
I guess Bush is still considering his options here too. Heck, ol' Dick Cheney hasn't complained, so how bad can it really be?
Why the heck does someone need to take the initiative to write a letter in order to make him aware in the 1st place?? After 4 weeks of this??
It just seem to take obliviousness to a whole new level.
Pull up a chair fellows and let's have a talk. You have plenty of time to talk, don't you? Great. Mr. Waxman would like to review the comfortable severance packages in light of the incredible failures during your time at the helm. You don't mind chatting about these platinum parachutes while Wall Street removes billions in revenue from their books, do you? Yes, they would be the same "billions" that propped up your bonus/performance numbers.
Can we round up some of the board members too while we're at it? It would be enlightening to hear the juicy details of those much-too-cozy relationships. Just how do they justify paying their circle of friends such money for such massive failure? CEOs are going to pass the buck so let's bring in everyone so Americans can catch a glimpse of this wonderful system. Put them all in a room and let's hear how it works.
It's truly distressing to see so many people in the shekels of poverty, and how many people just yuan it off as if it was nothing.
It was distressing to see how casually people dismiss real problems suffered by people today by pointing to the stock market when it reaches a new high.
Topping Congress’s agenda as it returns this week is a plan to “jump-start the economy and try to shorten the slowdown that many economists say has already begun to take hold.”
Today, Rep. Eric Cantor (VA), the chief deputy Republican whip in the House, unveiled his proposal to stimulate the economy. His legislation — the so-called Middle Class Job Protection Act — does nothing for the middle class. Instead, it reduces the corporate tax rate by 28 percent. It's just another Orwellian titled GOP bill that does the exact opposite of it's name. Help the rich, fuck the poor. Nothing new here folks, move along..
At a press conference today unveiling the stimulus proposal, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) justified the conservative plan to give tax breaks to corporations — instead of working Americans — by arguing that people actually like working long hours:
Quote:
I am so proud to be from the state of Minnesota. We’re the workingest state in the country, and the reason why we are, we have more people that are working longer hours, we have people that are working two jobs.
Bachmann’s version of the American Dream is apparently working two full-time jobs and struggling to get by.
Yesterday, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that corporate tax cuts, such as the one proposed by Cantor, “may be less cost-effective in the short term” and less effective than a stimulus plan consisting of “tax rebates, extended unemployment benefits and a temporary increase in food stamps.”
In Europe, they have paid vacation time every year. Like, at least a month. We're the workingest first world nation EVAR!
Old men, fear me! You will shatter under my ruthless apathetic assault!
Uschi - 2 Old Men - 0
"I am convinced that this world is of no importance, and that the only people who care about dates are imbeciles and Spanish teachers." -- Jean Arp, 1921
"If Jesus came back and saw what people are doing in his name, he would never never stop throwing up." - Max von Sydow, "Hannah and Her Sisters"
In Europe, they have paid vacation time every year. Like, at least a month. We're the workingest first world nation EVAR!
Right now I'm almost at the end of a 6 week time off. Ever since I asked for it, my job and my boss have been giving me hell for it. Yesterday I got a certified letter from human resources in RI telling me that I didn't submit the proper paperwork to them in RI WITHIN 5 DAYS I would be fired. When I called this morning telling them that the paperwork was sent almost a month ago by my family doctor and it can be verified, suddenly they tell me that yes, they received it 2 days ago
That was after they sent paperwork that was completely inapplicable to why I took a leave in the 1st place. of course the doctor just N/a ed everything and reminded them of California law as it pertains to family bonding.
Indicating the “depth of subprime losses and housing woes,” the “Dow Jones industrial average lost more than 300 points” yesterday, “bringing its decline to 15 percent since its peak in October.” “Basically every day now, you have more and more investors leaning toward the camp that yes, this is going to be a recession, and it could be a severe one,” said David Kovacs, a quantitative investment strategist at Turner Investment Partners in Pennsylvania.
In Europe, they have paid vacation time every year. Like, at least a month. We're the workingest first world nation EVAR!
Originally Posted By: whomod
A recent report by Rebecca Ray and John Schmitt of the Center for Economic and Policy Research says this: "The United States," they write, "is the only advanced economy in the world that does not guarantee its workers paid vacation." Take notice of that word "only." Every other advanced economy offers a government guarantee of paid vacation to its workforce. Britain assures its workforce of 20 days of guaranteed, compensated leave. Germany gives 24. And France gives, yes, 30.
We guarantee zero. Absolutely none. That's why one out of 10 full-time American employees, and more than six out of 10 part-time employees, get no vacation. And even among workers with paid vacation benefits, the average number of days enjoyed is a mere 12. In other words, even those of us who are lucky enough to get some vacation typically receive just over a third of what the French are guaranteed.
This is strange. Of all these countries, the United States is, by far, the richest. And you would think that, as our wealth grew and our productivity increased, a certain amount of our resources would go into, well, us. Into leisure. Into time off. You would think that we'd take advantage of the fact that we can create more wealth in less time to wrest back some of those hours for ourselves and our families.
But instead, the exact opposite has happened. The average American man today works 100 more hours a year than he did in the 1970s, according to Cornell University economist Robert Frank. That's 2 1/2 weeks of added labor. The average woman works 200 more hours — that's five added weeks. And those hours are coming from somewhere: from time with our kids, our friends, our spouses, even our bed. The typical American, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, sleeps one to two hours less a night than his or her parents did.
This would all be fine if it were what we wanted. But that doesn't seem to be the case. One famous 1996 study asked associates at major law firms which world they'd prefer: The one they resided in, or one in which they took a 10% pay cut in return for a 10% reduction in hours worked. They overwhelmingly preferred the latter. Elsewhere, economists have given individuals sets of choices pitting leisure against goods. Leisure doesn't always win out, but it is certainly competitive. Yet we're pumping ever more hours into work, seeking ever-higher incomes to fund ever-greater consumption. Why?
A possible answer can be found in Frank's work. He argues that the U.S. economy has set its incentives up so as to systematically underemphasize leisure and overemphasize consumption.
In Europe, they have paid vacation time every year. Like, at least a month. We're the workingest first world nation EVAR!
I love you when you remind me to love my country.
"Batman is only meaningful as an answer to a world which in its basics is chaotic and in the hands of the wrong people, where no justice can be found. I think it's very suitable to our perception of the world's condition today... Batman embodies the will to resist evil" -Frank Miller
"Conan, what's the meaning of life?" "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!" -Conan the Barbarian
"Well, yeah." -Jason E. Perkins
"If I had a dime for every time Pariah was right about something I'd owe twenty cents." -Ultimate Jaburg53
"Fair enough. I defer to your expertise." -Prometheus
Without regulation, the invisible hand of the market is robbing us blind.
By Al Meyerhoff
January 14, 2008
For about the last 30 years, our nation has been traveling the deregulation highway, a road with no rules or direction. We have let enterprise be free, business go unfettered, the good times roll. And roll they have, but to where? One stopping point: the current mortgage crisis.
Recently, however, there has been a slight regulatory bump in the road. After its chairman acknowledged that "market discipline has in some cases broken down," the Federal Reserve released new mortgage lending rules "to protect consumers against fraud [and] deception." Banks making sub-prime loans will be required to actually consider the borrower's ability to pay and confirm a borrower's income before handing over the money. Now there's a radical notion.
Disclosure also will be required of those nasty little (actually not so little) "bonuses" that brokers receive for writing loans at rates higher than a poor, unwitting consumer can afford.
To some, they may not be much, but the absence of such rules encouraged the predatory lending practices that have left millions of Americans facing foreclosure.
Let's take a look at how we got here before the deregulation highway takes us over a cliff.
The Reagan revolution was the beginning, when we started seeing rollbacks in government safeguards, such as those protecting food, drinking water and the environment. Then came the savings and loan crash in the 1980s, a pit stop that cost taxpayers $150 billion. President Clinton added the "bridge to the 21st century," along with his proclamation that the "era of big government was over." During his administration, Congress repealed a Depression-era law called Glass-Steagall, which kept banking and investment separate. Henceforth, banks could offer investment advice as well as loans -- one-stop shopping on the road to disaster.
However, deregulation of the markets really took hold in 1994 with the GOP's "Contract with America." The first to go were the nation's securities laws. Over a Clinton veto, Congress enacted the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, making it far more difficult to prove securities fraud. Said to be necessary to free the markets of red tape and trial lawyers, it gave the green light to corporate chiefs such as Ken Lay and Dennis Kozlowski and led to the Enron, WorldCom, Tyco and HealthSouth fraud debacles. As a result, shareholders lost hundreds of billions of dollars from a wave of fraud unseen since the Roaring '20s -- and maybe not even then.
A declawed Securities and Exchange Commission, a neutered plaintiffs' bar and missing congressional oversight empowered Wall Street to push as far as it could. Facts were hidden, self-dealing was rampant and deceit rewarded. Congress finally intervened in 2002 by passing the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, imposing strict new accounting rules and other controls on business. That law is now under siege.
The current sub-prime mortgage mess is simply the latest wreck on the highway. Banks have been left to their own devices, unchecked by government watchdogs or pesky regulations. Interest rates on millions of mortgages are set -- like time bombs -- to accelerate in 2008. Defaults of $1 trillion are predicted -- affecting not only large institutions such as pension funds, hedge funds and universities but also countless average Americans. Hand-wringing time? Just consider these recent events:
* Moody's and other such agencies have threatened to downgrade the ratings of securities that are based on mortgages that allow accelerated payment -- with far more bad paper still out there.
* To avoid bankruptcy after its stock plummeted because of record high foreclosures, Countrywide Financial is being acquired by Bank of America.
* Money managers including Bear Stearns and investment bankers Citigroup, Merrill Lynch and Washington Mutual are under investigation for fraud and allegedly making Enron-like off-balance-sheet transactions.
* Of the nearly 3 million sub-prime adjustable-rate loans surveyed by the Mortgage Bankers Assn., a record 18.81% are already past due.
What clearer evidence do we need that markets do not regulate themselves? Yet the government response has been mostly timid.
The Fed's recent rules allow action against predatory lenders only on showing a "pattern and practice" of unlawful conduct; disclosures of "yield-spread premiums" -- kickbacks -- can still remain buried in a mountain of loan documents. Prepayment penalties make it nearly impossible for good-faith borrowers to get out from under bad loans. The Bush administration's voluntary mortgage rate "freeze" will reach less than 25% of borrowers.
Politicians of every stripe are running scared -- and for cover. Yet Republicans and some Democrats (lining up at the Wall Street trough) are actually still calling for less regulation of U.S. markets.
It is time -- it is past time -- to get off this deregulation highway. We need more government, not less, to protect us against banks and conglomerates and the sheer concentration of power they portend.
We need the SEC to change from Wall Street lap dog to aggressive advocate for the public interest. Instead of holding round-tables with corporate lawyers to find ways to prevent shareholder lawsuits, it should act, for example, on an investors petition to require polluters to disclose their multibillion-dollar liability for climate change. And the Justice Department needs to be the people's law firm again -- not house counsel for big banks and corporations, as has been the case in every major fraud and antitrust lawsuit before the Supreme Court of late. And Congress needs to enact and send to the White House the proposed Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act to strengthen consumer safeguards against rapacious bankers and their Wall Street enablers.
Change, it is said, is in the wind. There is no better place to start than reining in the robber barons of the 21st century.
Al Meyerhoff is of counsel in a law firm specializing in securities fraud cases
Asian stock markets plunged Monday following declines on Wall Street last week amid investor pessimism over the U.S. government’s stimulus plan to prevent a recession.
Japan’s benchmark Nikkei 225 index slid 3.9 percent to close at 13,325.94 points, the lowest in more than 2 years. China’s Shanghai Composite index plunged 5.1 percent, the biggest percentage drop since July 5, to 4,914.44.
India’s benchmark Sensex stock index fell as much as 10.9 percent before closing down 7.4 percent. Hong Kong’s blue chip Hang Seng index, meanwhile, plummeted 5.5 percent to 23,818.86, its biggest percentage drop since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
Investors dumped shares because they were skeptical about an economic stimulus plan President Bush announced Friday. The plan, which requires approval by Congress, calls for about $145 billion worth of tax relief to encourage consumer spending.[..]
Markets in South Korea, Australia, Singapore, Taiwan and the Philippines also sank.
But on FOX Business Channel, things will be just fine if no one panics, because the global markets are tanking not because of US market issues, but because of the valuations in their own markets were over-inflated. Uh huh.
TOKYO (AP) -- Global stock markets extended their shakeout into a second day Tuesday, plunging amid worries that a possible U.S. recession will cause a worldwide economic slowdown. The dramatic declines were expected to spread to Wall Street, where stock index futures were already down sharply hours before the trading day began.
Japan's Nikkei 225 index, the benchmark for Asia's biggest bourse, skidded 4.4 percent in morning trading to 12,738.31 points, after dropping 3.9 percent Monday. Hong Kong's Hang Seng index was down 5.2 percent after plunging 5.5 percent the day before.
"Unless we get some positive 'shock effects,' such as drastic measures from the U.S. government, there is almost no hope for a recovery in stocks," said Koji Takeuchi, senior economist at Mizuho Research Institute in Tokyo.
U.S. markets were closed Monday for a holiday commemorating civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. But Wall Street future prices were down sharply, portending a plunge when trading begins at 9:30 a.m. Eastern time.
Dow Jones industrial average futures were down 436 points, or 3.6 percent, at 11,670, while Standard & Poor's 500 futures were down 57.1 points, or 4.3 percent, at 1,268.
Markets have been plunging amid pessimism about the ability of the U.S. government to prevent a recession. The Federal Reserve has indicated it will lower interest rates further, and President Bush has proposed an economic stimulus package that includes $145 billion in tax cuts, but investors around the world are doubtful that the measures will lift the economy quickly.
The U.S. economy has been battered by a slump in the housing market and a credit crisis that has led to billions of dollars of losses among major U.S. banks.
In Europe Monday, investors also dumped stocks, sending the Britain's benchmark FTSE-100 down 5.5 percent and France's CAC-40 Index sliding 6.8 percent. Germany's blue-chip DAX 30 plunged 7.2 percent to 6,790.19.
Takeuchi said investors feel that the selloff is spreading worldwide, setting off fears of a global downturn. Risks of economic contraction have been growing in Japan as both exports and consumer spending are weakening, he said.
Kirby Daley, strategist at Newedge Group, said the Nikkei could shed another 10 percent to 15 percent to the 11,000 level in the next few months. Japanese companies depend on exports and capital investments to keep up profits, and both are endangered if there is a U.S. slowdown, he said.
"The argument that valuations are cheap for Japanese stocks is flawed," Daley said. "The basis for those earnings valuations doesn't consider ongoing problems in the U.S. economy, which are likely to get worse."
Even usually upbeat Japanese Economy Minister Hiroko Ota acknowledged that downsides risks are growing, given the volatile markets and surging oil prices.
"The economy keeps recovering as recent production data show, but downside risks are growing these days," Ota told reporters.
Zuckerman: I don't think it's an exaggeration. It's an understatement. You've heard me say here I think we are facing the worst financial crunch and crisis since the Great Depression. You have the entire banking system now that is virtually frozen and there are not just the sub-prime mortgage thing. There are other things called credit default swaps where they're going to lose as much money, 250 billion dollars on. The banks are frozen. They're not making loans because they have such huge debts that they have to take onto their balance sheets and nobody knows how to deal with that because you had a dramatic...you had two bubbles that have burst at the same time. The housing bubble which has collapsed in this country. The first time since the Great Depression that housing values have gone down for a year since the depression and it's going to go down even more next year. The credit crunch, you've just exploded the whole credit system in this country. We were way over leveraged. The banking system was over-leveraged. People didn't even know about it. The bankers didn't know about it. They didn't access the risk. Now that risk is piling in and every body's going to pay the price. Uh it's going to stimulate nothing other, I mean it's going to destimulate the economy. Nobody has money to lend. They're saving all their money to pay off their debts. They're borrowing money or looking at uh the rest of the world to enhance their capital and it's still not going to solve their problems.
Mort Zuckerman paints as gloomy a picture of the economy as I've heard but he refuses to admit that the occupation in Iraq might have anything to do with the economy tanking now. Zuckerman is also completely dismissive of Ron Paul's arguments about the economy during the ABC GOP Debate.
Of course Buchanan and Crowley think it's only a minor drag on the economy and Crowley goes so far as to start spouting off about how great the economic growth is there. How's that occupation going for you Monica? Oh the economy is booming....it's wonderful. Clift and McLaughlin disagree.
We do have a real mess on our hands as Zuckerman describes with the sub-prime lending industry and the economic forecast is looking very dreary to put it mildly for the reasons he describes, but I don't understand how anyone can completely separate our irresponsible borrowing and spending on the bottomless pit called Iraq from the state of the economy in general we're facing now. The conservatives answer to our problems of course, lower taxes and cut government spending, code for gut Medicaid and Social Security, but that war spending, no problem.
Quote:
“Herbert Hoover was a bad President, but even he didn’t lose an entire city.” —Bill Maher
MUMBAI, Jan. 22 (Xinhua) -- The Indian stock benchmark Sensex Tuesday tumbled 875.41 points to close the day at 16,729.94 points, recovering some 1,470 points from days low of 15,332.42 points.
Tuesday saw investors lose some 160 billion U.S. dollars within minutes of opening of the Bombay Stock Exchange, which was immediately suspended for an hour after the 30-share barometer index Sensex hit the circuit limit of 10 percent.
Brace yourselves. (As generous as the cut was)It doesn't look as if this is going to be enough.
SHANGHAI -- The stock market sell-off in Asia accelerated today, as fears spread of an unavoidable U.S. recession and its effect on the global economy.
"It's clearly indiscriminate panic," said Tim Condon, chief Asia economist for ING Financial Markets in Singapore.
Japan's Nikkei 225 index plunged 5.7%, following a 3.9% decline a day earlier -- the worst two-day fall in 17 years, according to Moody's Economy.com. Trading in India was halted after markets opened nearly 10% lower, finishing down 4.6% on top of a loss of 7.4% on Monday. Hong Kong's Hang Seng index slid 8.7% Tuesday, after falling more than 5% the previous day.
I'll grant that we have a housing sub-prime foreclosure crisis, and that credit debt has reached a crisis-level too (partly feuled by deficit spending of home-owners who spent in anticipation that home-values would continue to skyrocket, and then they could sell their homes at higher values and pay off their debts. But instead, home prices fell, and they ended up stuck in depreciating homes they couldn't sell.
But even so, stock-market speculation around the world is not the fault of the United States.
And while Bush deserves a lot of blame for not stopping these crises, he does not deserve sole blame (as you continually slap on him) for what has been an ongoing problem through several administrations.
I'm more concerned about the decreasing value of the dollar internationally, and its abandonment by many in favor of the better-performing Euro-dollar. Caused by huge trade deficits through several presidents, export of high-paying jobs to China, India and other third-world nations, and excessive immigration (both legal and illegal) that has displaced high-wage highly educated U.S. workers (as Pun-isher pointed out in his last post).
I'm reluctant to defend Bush at all, because regarding jobs, the weakening Dollar, and other economic issues, Bush deserves a considerable share of the blame for allowing the export of jobs and manufacturing to not only continue, but to accellerate. But this was already occurring under Clinton, with the signing of NAFTA and GATT, and with the vast expansion of immigration under Clinton as well.
Again, this is a problem that has snowballed through the complicity of Presidents and Congressional majorities of both parties. The two-party system is in truth a one-party system, controlled by corporate lobbyists.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
In yesterday’s press briefing, a reporter asked White House Press Secretary Dana Perino about the tie between the current U.S. economy and the Iraq war. Perino quickly dismissed the reporter’s question, insisting that the U.S. economy has been “very strong” and adding that the money was necessary to “take the fight to the enemy” after 9/11. Watch it:
Oil prices are at approximately $88 a barrel, although they have dropped from the record high of $100 earlier this month. As Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz recently noted in Vanity Fair,
Quote:
“The soaring price of oil is clearly related to the Iraq war. The issue is not whether to blame the war for this but simply how much to blame it.”
Before the war, economists were predicting that oil prices at just $75 a barrel could potentially send the U.S. economy into a recession. Therefore, the current economic situation should not come as a complete shock to the Bush administration. A look at economists’ pre-war predictions:
Quote:
“A war against Iraq could cost the United States hundreds of billions of dollars, play havoc with an already depressed domestic economy and tip the world into recession because of the adverse effect on oil prices, inflation and interest rates, an academic study [by William Nordhaus, Sterling professor of economics at Yale University] has warned.” [Independent, 11/16/02]
Quote:
“If war with Iraq drags on longer than the few weeks or months most are predicting, corporate revenues will be flat for the coming year and will put the U.S. economy at risk of recession, according to a poll of chief financial officers.” [CBS MarketWatch, 3/20/03]
Quote:
“If the conflict wears on or, worse, spreads, the economic consequences become very serious. Late last year, George Perry at the Brookings Institution ran some simulations and found that after taking into account a reasonable use of oil reserves, a cut in world oil production of just 6.5 percent a year would send the United States and the world into recession.” [Robert Shapiro, former undersecretary of commerce in the Clinton administration, 10/2/02]
Quote:
“Gerd Häusler, the IMF’s director of international capital markets, said that ‘purely from a financial markets perspective, a serious conflict with Iraq would not be a very healthy development.’ … Häusler said there could be a repeat of what happened in 1990 following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, when there was a sharp rise in oil prices.” [World Bank, 9/02]
President Bush's so-called economic stimulus plan might be his most cynical proposal since his post-9/11 recommendation that we go shopping. It is nothing less than an attempt to keep the economy afloat through the end of his term, regardless of the consequences.
Putting $800 (for individuals) or $1,600 (for married couples) in our hands would prove devastating. Hardly any Americans save any of their income, our infrastructure is crumbling, deficits are at record highs, the sub-prime fiasco is in full swing, and Bush has again suggested that we go shopping. This, after having already spent hundreds of billions on his ill-advised escapade in Iraq.
Timed perfectly, another tax cut now would complete the wrecking of our economy on the watch of the next, likely Democratic, administration. Congress needs to end the occupation of Iraq and refrain from issuing any further tax cuts, "one time" or not.
Not only would the proposed economic stimulus package make our deficit worse, it's a complete sham.
Even if everyone spent the tax rebate, it would only "help" retailers. How does buying an Apple iPhone fix the credit crisis in the financial sector? How will spending my rebate check at Old Navy help borrowers? How does any of this help banks, lenders or mortgage insurers?
No, there is only one reason for the tax rebates: so politicians can say, "The recession is over." If there is a momentary uptick in the gross domestic product in a fiscal quarter, then by definition the recession is over. If the checks go out fast enough, politicians might even be able to say, "We avoided a recession."
This package won't address the underlying problems affecting our economy, but it will put us even deeper into debt.
This $150 billion is a lot of money that has to come from somewhere.
Where, exactly?
In 1972, Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern proposed that the federal government send $1,000 to every American. For this, he was laughed out of the election and carried only one state. In 1980, he was drummed out of the Senate.
Now, to ease our national economic doldrums, Bush wants to do essentially the same thing, and it's considered sound economic policy. This "conservative" wants to throw money at a problem.
People wondering why Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke suddenly moved to reduce the bank borrowing rate by three quarters of a point should know that in private he has expressed growing pessimism about the economy. Whispers has learned that has told people in recent weeks that the economic situation some see falling into recession will be much worse than he has admitted to publicly.
We're told by those who've heard him that he says the first six months of this year will be "bad," an adjective that some interpret this as signaling there is better than a 50-50 chance for a recession. Even worse, the former Princeton prof believes the ensuing recovery will be "weak" because of persistent problems in the housing market that will result in subdued consumer spending.
But Bernanke is setting the stage for an even bigger recession down the road. Just as the ultra-low rates of the early 2000s created many of the problems we're experiencing today, pumping money into the system would probably stoke inflation, forcing the Fed to hike rates sharply in the near future. "It's better to take a small recession and kill inflation immediately instead of facing high inflation and a really big recession later," says Carnegie Mellon economist Allan Meltzer.
Meltzer, who is finishing the second volume of his history of the Federal Reserve, warns that Bernanke is risking a disastrous replay of the 1970s, when high oil prices fueled double-digit inflation. Every time the Fed started to tighten and unemployment jumped, chairmen G. William Miller and Arthur Burns lost their nerve. They lowered rates to boost job growth, and inflation inevitably revived, causing a vicious price spiral. The Fed let the disease rage for so long that it took draconian action by chairman Paul Volcker in the early 1980s to finally defeat inflation. The price was a deep recession, with unemployment hitting 11% in 1982. "The mentality is the same as in the 1970s," says Meltzer. "'As soon as we get rid of the risk of recession, we'll do something about inflation.' But that comes too late."
Indeed, while the economy is sending mixed messages about growth, the signs of increasing inflation are flashing bright red. For 2007 the consumer price index rose 4.1%, the biggest annual increase in 17 years. Gold, historically a reliable harbinger of inflation, set an all-time high of more than $900 an ounce. The dollar is languishing at a record low against the euro and a weighted basket of international currencies. "Flooding the market with liquidity is a disaster for the purchasing power of the dollar," says David Gitlitz, chief economist for Trend Macrolytics.
yep. This plan is designed for one thing only. Try to temporarily stave off disaster and hopefully get George Bush out of dodge before it gets REALLY bad.
Again, this is a problem that has snowballed through the complicity of Presidents and Congressional majorities of both parties. The two-party system is in truth a one-party system, controlled by corporate lobbyists.
"Batman is only meaningful as an answer to a world which in its basics is chaotic and in the hands of the wrong people, where no justice can be found. I think it's very suitable to our perception of the world's condition today... Batman embodies the will to resist evil" -Frank Miller
"Conan, what's the meaning of life?" "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!" -Conan the Barbarian
"Well, yeah." -Jason E. Perkins
"If I had a dime for every time Pariah was right about something I'd owe twenty cents." -Ultimate Jaburg53
"Fair enough. I defer to your expertise." -Prometheus
In 1972, Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern proposed that the federal government send $1,000 to every American. For this, he was laughed out of the election and carried only one state. In 1980, he was drummed out of the Senate.
Now, to ease our national economic doldrums, Bush wants to do essentially the same thing, and it's considered sound economic policy. This "conservative" wants to throw money at a problem.
As I have mentioned on more than one occasion, part of the reason for Bush's low poll numbers is that conservatives generally feel that he has abandoned us on several key issues. This is one example. In fact, the American Spectator just took the president to task for this very thing:
The "stimulus" package... is sheer nonsense. It is likely to be not just ineffectual but, quite likely, counterproductive. They might call the developing proposal a "tax cut," but if the government is sending checks to everybody, they can call it macaroni if they want and it still won't change the reality that it's just another big spending program.
A similar "stimulus" barely helped in 2001, when the dollar was strong and the money really meant something; but with the dollar a 90-pound-weakling, the only thing that will be stimulated this time is an even faster flight into more stable currencies. A quarter century after Reaganomics put Keynesian economics in its grave, Bush has resurrected Keynes, complete with all the old shibboleths about how inflation and government largesse are the cures for economic slowdowns. They aren't, and that old Keynes sidekick stagflation may not be far behind.
I find it interesting, however, that Bush is proposing a very liberal solution to a problem and you still want to criticize him even when he does something in line with the type of policies you seem to advocate. It's this sort of thing that leads one to think that your criticism is based, not on policy, but plain old "Bush hate".
I find it interesting, however, that Bush is proposing a very liberal solution to a problem and you still want to criticize him even when he does something in line with the type of policies you seem to advocate. It's this sort of thing that leads one to think that your criticism is based, not on policy, but plain old "Bush hate".
No. I find this to be another "starve the beast" ploys. And that same post you quoted from me says as much.
So although it's the same plan as McGovern, I think it's being done for completely different reasons.
I sure as hell don't want to see this Government slide further into defecits.
"Starving the beast" is a fiscal-political strategy of some American conservatives [1] [2] [3] to use budget deficits via tax cuts to force future reductions in the size of government. The term "beast" refers to government and the programs it funds, particularly social programs such as welfare, Social Security, and Medicare.
US President George W. Bush has invoked the concept in reference to his administration's tax cuts. He has said "so we have the tax relief plan [...] that now provides a new kind -- a fiscal straightjacket for Congress. And that's good for the taxpayers, and it's incredibly positive news if you're worried about a federal government that has been growing at a dramatic pace over the past eight years and it has been.
First Bush thinks having to work 2 jobs is "uniquely American", then his stalker thinks that working longer hours and working 2 jobs is something to be proud of, now Mitt Romney, Big business' favourite GOP son thinks Grandma should go back to work!
Compassionate conservatism at it’s finest. Romney talking to CNN’s Anderson Cooper about his economic ideas for the future of America.
Quote:
Cooper: If you were president, what additional steps would you take to try and avoid a recession?
Romney:… and finally one more thing. I think people sixty five and older should not have payroll taxes taken out of their wages to allow folks to stay in the work force and to keep more of their income. They’ve paid for social security already. Let’s build up our work force and not go outside of the country to bring immigrants. Let’s let our own people keep more of their money and stay in the work force.
Part of Mitt Romney’s long term economic growth plan would be to increase the size of the US work force by cutting the taxes from people 65 years old and higher to keep them working longer. You gotta raise the amount of Bill O’Reilly’s demographic substantially in Romney’s world to save our economy and beat back those pesky immigrants. Get off the couch, dammit! Aren’t these people supposed to be collecting social security checks instead of pounding the pavement? List the jobs this new powerful work force would be able to harness….
“Mitt Romney: Live Longer—Work Harder.”
This is the guy Limbaugh and FOX News is stumping for now. Geez.
