Capt.Slog

True. In some case, he didn't even ask Congress for permission, or if it wasn't there, he went ahead and acted on his own. Are you sure you want Obama to remember that lesson from Reagan? In 2009, who gets to be “Iran” and who are the “Contras”? It’s 2009 - ‘Teflon’ is no longer cutting edge. How about meta-materials? /Marg … ‘pithy’ for [rehmwa] ; ‘nano’ for someone else ; & Cal for [kelpdiver] [insert bear icon here] Invisibility isn't cutting edge either. Hades gave Perseus a helmet that made him invisible, and that was millennia ago.

They bury him?

Quade - they were "leading economists", not your garden variety. Funny how the right is so panicked that they'll do anything to try to derail the recovery.

the CRA did NOT cause the housing crisis. Another myth from the right wing blogosphere that has been debunked completely (by the Federal Reserve Bank, no less) but it still comes back over and over again. Wrong, rules around it WERE a big part of it and was ultimatly the trigger. Congress is the CRA. If we do not place the blame where it belongs then we can never fix it. If you cant be convinced that the CRA is involved. Do a little research and find out for yourself where most of the forclosuers are happening. In rural central Iowa or larger urban low income areas. Might be very eye opening to you. Also, do a little research on bank fittness by area. Again, compare Iowa to other areas of the country. I do not expect you to report your findings as they will be damaging to your position As usual, you are completely and utterly WRONG. Read: O. Emre Ergungor, "Foreclosures in Ohio: Does Lender Type Matter?", Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland working paper. Pressman, Aaron. "Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis - BusinessWeek". www.businessweek.com. http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html. Retrieved on 2008-10-14. Ellis, Luci. "The housing meltdown: Why did it happen in the United States?". BIS Working Papers (259): 5. (http://www.bis.org/publ/work259.pdf?noframes=1). "Let me ask you: where in the CRA does it say: make loans to people who can't afford to repay? No-where!""Sheila Bair: Stop Blaming the Community Reinvestment Act". U.S. News and World Report. 12/17/2008. http://www.usnews.com/blogs/the-home-front/2008/12/17/sheila-bair-stop-blaming-the-community-reinvestment-act.html. "Comptroller Dugan Says CRA Not Responsible for Subprime Lending Abuses". Reuters. 11/19/2008. http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS195590+19-Nov-2008+PRN20081119. Westrich, Tim. "Setting the Record Straight". www.americanprogress.org. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/09/cra.html. Retrieved on 2008-10-14.

the CRA did NOT cause the housing crisis. Another myth from the right wing blogosphere that has been debunked completely (by the Federal Reserve Bank, no less) but it still comes back over and over again. I'm not talking about the CRA. There were laws passed well after the CRA that I'm talking about. My wife is in the mortgage business and watched it all go down. . The Gramm (R)-Leach(R)-Bliley(R) Act, maybe? Or maybe The Enron Loophole", drafted by Enron Corporation lobbyists working with Phil Gramm (R-TX) to create a deregulated market for their experimental "Enron On-line" initiative. Yup, great legislation those R's produced.

Um...no - but thanks for playing. It's OK. Once you get past the denial stage things get better.

So the avian economy would collapse without the "undocumented" geese? What's with this "undocumented" shit anyway?

It's really SIMPLE. When TAXPAYERS see executives of corporations that TAXPAYERS have had to bailout buying bizjets, and TAXPAYERS are used to seeing bizjets prominent on the ramps at ski resorts, ocean resorts, gambling resorts, island resorts, etc., etc., then it's not unexpected that TAXPAYERS get pissed off. Do you understand yet? I sir have understood from the beginning. It is you that has yet to understand. In the nicest possible way - you do write a lot of nonsense.

Story.

Unfortunately it will be very hard to counter the impression caused by the high visibility of corporate jets at major sporting events (Indy, Daytona, Superbowl), Aspen, Jackson Hole, Vegas, and other such. Hard for the corporations to argue in the face of obvious abuses by their execs.

Are you trying to confuse the righties with facts AGAIN? They have to have their little myths or their heads would explode.

I believe the Federal Reserve analysis in 2008 trumps the NYT from 1994. CRA loans did NOT cause the economic crisis.

Here is a link showing exactly that. Oddly enough, the debt as compared to the GDP was at its lowest at the end of the Carter administration. Went up fast for Reagan and both Bushes, and down for Clinton. Unless your contention is that a higher percentage is better . Wendy W. She takes the hook. You are quite correct. While we face the highest debt to GDP numbers ever, Obama wants a stimulus package that will add over 10% to the country's insane debt....and he's been in office less than a month. Can't wait to see what he spends next month. Yes, it sucks that he inherited an economy in the shitter thanks to Reagan/Bush policies. Cleaning up a mess is never pretty, but it has to be done.

Call it what you want, it worked. Wish we had the witch doctor today. No, it just led to a huge debt from which we never recovered. Anyone can appear to be wealthy if all they do is borrow and not pay it back.

Even worse, the same people that couldn't keep a *brothel* running!! Not to mention the fact that you can't sue the gov't like you can an insurance company. But Texans trust the government to run a flawless criminal justice system that executes people with great regularity.

who has the burden of proof in criminal justice? That State already did that. Then it's up to the defendant to show some reason why that proof was wrong. And in the 25 years since, the defense has been unable to vacate the verdict, or show good cause for a new trial. So say the highest courts in the land. I'd say if there was valid cause to overturn the verdict, then that's certainly plenty of time to do it. He's had his chance. Now his time is up. It's time for this murderer to die. Good riddance. So you hate the government intervening when it comes to helping people, denigrate the government when it comes to being able to run a health care system, but are all in favor when it comes to killing people and consider the government run criminal justice system to be so perfect that you'd bet your life on it. You are wierd as well as inconsistent.

Yes; but the habit is already ingrained: private health insurers, in the US, have already been doing that for quite some time now. I've seen examples of doctors being paid "usual and customary" fees rather than charged fees than the billed charge, do you have examples of denial of service due to cost, on the decision of the insurance companies? *edit to add* "Denial of service" in regards to things that are not already limited by the policy itself, such as psych treatment or chiropractic visits for example. Yes, my insurer frequently denies requests (from the MD) for PET scans on the basis of cost. Fair enough - thank you for the info. Of course, in that instance, you *could* pay for the test yourself, although I imagine the cost would be....exhorbitant. Once the government takes over healthcare, I fear that option will become unavailable. I have no idea if anything else is denied, the PET scan info was something I came across by chance last week. A PET scan costs around $5k, I believe.

Tell me again who the majority party in Congress is, if you don't mind? What does that have to do with the Paulson/Bush plan?

The facts say otherwise, but don't let that interrupt your whining.

The Bush/Paulson plan seems to be taking care of Wall Street executives: uk.reuters.com/article/marketsNewsUS/idUKN1135227020090211 But I guess that doesn't bother you righties as much as helping an unemployed person.

Truly remarkable number of right wing whiners around here.

Yes; but the habit is already ingrained: private health insurers, in the US, have already been doing that for quite some time now. I've seen examples of doctors being paid "usual and customary" fees rather than charged fees than the billed charge, do you have examples of denial of service due to cost, on the decision of the insurance companies? *edit to add* "Denial of service" in regards to things that are not already limited by the policy itself, such as psych treatment or chiropractic visits for example. Yes, my insurer frequently denies requests (from the MD) for PET scans on the basis of cost.

Seems to fit perfectly with this news: uk.reuters.com/article/marketsNewsUS/idUKN1135227020090211 Wonderful people, those executives.

You should try READING your own cite. Figure 3 from the article you quote shows very clearly which party increases spending more than revenue, and which increases revenue more than spending. www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/Revenue_v_Spending.png The Republicans have absolutely NO standing to preach fiscal responsibility.

If you hate America so much, why do you stay here?