I've seen that Hitchens piece before, and it's one long string of undocumentable assertions. "If only we had those secret documents, we could really pin something on him!" Rather like Joseph McCarthy, don't you think? There aren't even photos, like this one of Jimmy Carter and the Shah of Iran: Or this one of Jimmy Carter also:
Google "command economy" and "demand economy" and get back to me, perhaps with some knowledge about these things.
in hindsight- the shah wasnt that bad of a dude, especially in light of what followed him. and u do realize that i could easily produce the photo's of rumsfled with saddam as well. my point being here is that the americans have made some dubious bedfellows to do their bidding.
what u fail to realize is that im not some wacky lefty who's hellbent on imposing his beliefs on anyone. i consider myself a reasonable man who's unfettered by the extremes, left or right. to that end, equating the obama administration with the nazi's is both irresponsible and stupid, thats part of the reason why your national discourse on all things political has been undermined by the psycho babble, i.e. obama is hitler in blackface
I don't at all think that Obama is hitler in blackface, as you put it. I think he's looking incompetent surrounded by incompetents. He's accomplished little, and that's through a lack of leadership on his own part. Likely that is due to bad advise from those he surrounded himself with in his administration. He's spending us into oblivion, and the legislation he's fighting for is bad policy. Especially this health care bill that is absurdly expensive and is little more than a transfer of $1T from taxpayers (through higher taxes) and (1/2 that figure from) medicare to big insurance companies. It's been debated for over a year, he's taken his case to the people directly, and few people buy that it's worth passing. He's neglected the common man. His predictions about keeping unemployment lower through his only significant passed legislation have proven to be wrong, and he hasn't adjusted his policies to address the things govt. did wrong that have put real hurt on millions of people. To make it worse, he seems to not even care about them, as his best offer is a $1500 check to help people move into their cars after their homes get foreclosed on by the banks. The city of Detroit is all but a ghost town after he meddled in their largest industry. It was one of the most beautiful places in the USA. Now there isn't a single chain grocery store in the city limits, debilitated homes can be bought for $10,000 or less, and the only successful big business is Ford who steered clear of government interference. The money he spent on his stimulus package would literally have funded 32,000 startup companies, each with 100 to 200 employees for 5 years. Add up the jobs and it's between 3.2M and 6.4M, and they'd all be paying taxes and their mortgages instead of getting an extended unemployment check and being foreclosed on. 32,000 companies could have meant 8,000 green energy companies, 8,000 manufacturing companies, and you still have 16,000 companies that could have been strategically placed in states that are firing policemen and firemen and teachers because they can't balance their budgets. The debt he's racking up is unprecedented, except during WW II. The problem is that the interest payments on that debt will be quadruple what we're paying in interest payments now, and we will be faced with choosing between paying rich people and foreign countries their interest due them or elderly people their social security checks. That is after doubling our taxes on everything. Sorry, but I don't see any of these things as reasonable to argue for, nor do the people. At every opportunity since Obama's election, the people have elected anyone they could who'd at least be a speed bump for this terrible agenda. Obama's now in a rush to pass this bad health care bill because he sees the writing on the wall - the house and senate could both be republican controlled after November, mostly his own doing. I am a pragmatic libertarian. On your diamond shaped political spectrum, I'm right up near the topmost point. The pragmatic part of me says that since our elected officials insist on making government big and intrusive, the best we can do is try to keep the threat to civil liberties in check and make sure the money we're paying in taxes is well spent. To that end, I've proposed and supported a purely socialized medical program as a public option that doesn't cost the taxpayer $1T or transfer $.01 to the insurance companies. Something like it was never considered by any of the politicians, particularly the ones who excluded the minority party in all deliberations, and to the disappointment of their own base of voters. They're backed into a corner, politically, where they lose 100 seats if they don't pass the bill and 99 if they do, and they'll be damned if they lose that extra seat over a measly $1T and all the bill's ill effects.
look to the world, teabagger!!! my prime minister, stephen harper stormed onto the political scene in the late 80's lauding "less government, less cheese, liberty and christ". well in the 20 years or so interim before he became relevant as the prime minister of canada- the liberals (centre- left) dominated canadian politics with unchallenged majorities. to put it in layman terms- the canadian public from coast to coast gave them a mandate to do as they wished for nearly 20 years. and what did the liberals do? they cut and they cut some more, so much so that the deficit the conservatives amassed in the 80's trying to spend themselves out of a recession was gone by the mid 90's. deja vu in 2010? harper hobbled into power with a minority government but managed to amass a hefty deficit trying to spend "us" out of a recession and the liberals here are at the door again promising a hatchet job. the morale of the story is that recession spending is a necessary evil and the politricks is an unnecessary side show. as for some of your comments- i agree that some of the stimulus spending seems superfluous but i think its more a function of deal making which occurs on both sides of the aisles than anything else. its funny how u cite detroit as example of decay yet if u know anything about detroit and the state of michigan at large- u would know that its been in steady decline since the 80's. i had a ex boss of mine who visited detroit soon after the foreclosure crisis hit the front page news and he took pictures of entire neighbourhoods abandoned, that didnt happen over night
Obama just appears to be completely tone deaf about things that ultimately matter to the citizens here. Obama facing uprising over new NASA strategy Americans' Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop Obama's liberal base 'disengaged' Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval (new low) Budget deficit sets record in February Unemployment tops 20% in eight California counties The state's jobless rate of 12.5% in January was its worst on record and fifth-highest in the nation. Gov't workers feel no economic pain Security, wages, benefits beat private sector's
Sean Hannity is currently doing a series of segments on Stimulus spending... So far we've seen $200,000 to preserve Michigan State Universities Bug Collection, $219,000 to Syracuse University for a study on collegiate sexual behavior, and $96,000 to the Providence, Rhode Island Police Department to buy their supervisors new Blackberrys. The stimulus package was a fucking joke.
I consider any waste of tax payer dollars as significant, however I fully understand that the bigger picture is much more disgusting.
I think the real points to be made are the lack of good effect, and the massive debt/interest payments we're going to see from that kind of wasteful spending.
u do realize that recession spending is a norm throughout the world even with a teabagger hall of famer like stephen harper as our pm north of the 49th? and to attach the appropriate context- this problem was aggravated by bush's military adventurism in mesopotamia and tax cuts that he could never justify. nevertheless, i wouldnt fret too much because the chinese are unwilling to float their yen and appear satisfied with the greenback. and europe might be experiencing another shock with their debt crisis.
Dude, I fully concur that republicans and Bush spent a lot and even ran up the debt overly so. However, at the time the democrats took over congress, gasoline was $2, unemployment was 5%, housing prices were stable, homes weren't forcelosed on like they are now, the banks were doing fine, etc. And it was republicans like McCain and Bush who warned us about freddie mac and fannie mae, but democrats (and some republicans) opposed regulating them so there was nothing done. Bush and McCain Proposed Oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Okay. Now somebody is not telling the whole story here. This September 17, 2008, article in the Washington Post, begins by stating this: A decade ago, Sen. John McCain embraced legislation to broadly deregulate the banking and insurance industries, helping to sweep aside a thicket of rules established over decades in favor of a less restricted financial marketplace that proponents said would result in greater economic growth. It goes on to state: In 2002, McCain introduced a bill to deregulate the broadband Internet market, warning that “the potential for government interference with market forces is not limited to federal regulation.” Three years earlier, McCain had joined with other Republicans to push through landmark legislation sponsored by then-Sen. Phil Gramm (Tex.), who is now an economic adviser to his campaign. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act aimed to make the country’s financial institutions competitive by removing the Depression-era walls between banking, investment and insurance companies. But there is no mention whatsoever of the following from the New York Times in September of 2003 and this is why the credibility of most of the media is at risk because they slant the story to say what they want it to say and not even try to give an overall truthful picture: New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae By Stephen Labaton September 11, 2003 The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry. The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios. The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates. ”There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,” Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan. Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing. ”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.” Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed. ”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said. And it is more than a little disturbing that there was no mention of John McCain’s words before congress in 2006: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 The United States Senate May 25, 2006 Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]: Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal. The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac. The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform. For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay. I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole. I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation. The Democrats killed this measure in Committee preventing the full Senate Vote.
And this is obviously interesting for those who understand the emperor wears no clothes: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/07/top-senate-recipients-of-fanni.html Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Invest in Democrats Published by Lindsay Renick Mayer on July 16, 2008 5:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (27) (For an updated chart that includes contributions from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae's PACs and employees to ALL lawmakers back to 1989, including to their leadership PACs, go here.) and data The federal government recently announced that it will come to the rescue of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, two embattled mortgage buyers that for years have pursued a lobbying strategy to get lawmakers on their side. Both companies have poured money into lobbying and campaign contributions to federal candidates, parties and committees as a general tactic, but they've also directed those contributions strategically. In the 2006 election cycle, Fannie Mae was giving 53 percent of its total $1.3 million in contributions to Republicans, who controlled Congress at that time. This cycle, with Democrats in control, they've reversed course, giving the party 56 percent of their total $1.1 million in contributions. Similarly, Freddie Mac has given 53 percent of its $555,700 in contributions to Democrats this cycle, compared to the 44 percent it gave during 2006. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have also strategically given more contributions to lawmakers currently sitting on committees that primarily regulate their industry. Fifteen of the 25 lawmakers who have received the most from the two companies combined since the 1990 election sit on either the House Financial Services Committee; the Senate Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs Committee; or the Senate Finance Committee. The others have seats on the powerful Appropriations or Ways & Means committees, are members of the congressional leadership or have run for president. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate banking committee, has received the most from Fannie and Freddie's PACs and employees ($133,900 since 1989). Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.) has received $65,500. Kanjorski chairs the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government-Sponsored Enterprises, and Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs. Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008 Rank Name Office Party/State Total 1. Dodd, Christopher J S D-CT $133,900 2. Kerry, John S D-MA $111,000 3. Obama, Barack S D-IL $105,849 4. Clinton, Hillary S D-NY $75,550 5. Kanjorski, Paul E H D-PA $65,500
u do realize that he inherited a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit; 2 wars he had to pay for and the worse economic crisis since the fdr days. and the data suggests a halt: the jobs created, saved and lost numbers are the best since 2007 or prior to the crisis- i think the hemorrhaging has stopped. and if your genuinely concerned about cutting the deficit- i would suspect that u would favour a health care overhaul because that's the largest contributor to the deficit and maybe u might also favour an estate tax as well- both of which the republicans fiercely oppose. and lets not forgot that the president did institute a budget freeze and early on he pledged that he would halve the deficit- so he's actually listening to u guys on the right. thats a departure from his predecessor who only listened to two men: dick cheney and jesus. the interesting thing about your analysis is that u seem to look at your country in a vacuum but the world is a lot more integrated than u might think and the entire world is hurting. and a lot of things are said on the campaign trail but lets look at mccain's inner circle: http://motherjones.com/mojo/2008/09/mccains-fannie-and-freddie-connections
He didn't inherit a $1.3T deficit, he inherited a $450B deficit. Every president in recent memory inherited an economy in decline, but Obama, and especially his advisor Rahm Emanuel, made it worse and prolonged it for the sake of "never let a good crisis go to waste." Though the times were worse in 1980 after a similar president to Obama (Carter) finished his only term. If there are 100 total jobs in the economy and 99 or 100 are lost, the hemorrhaging stops! Amazing how that works. Health care is not the largest contributor to the deficit. People not having jobs and thus not paying taxes is a huge contributor to the deficits. There is no budget freeze, that's just horse shit. The budget has increased from $3T to $3.6T to close to $4T (the $3T being Bush's last and overly large budget).
i think u're being a little disingenuous or reading to much drudge report because every independent organization has confirmed that number. and btw- bush jr inherited a fairly robust economy. although, the same couldnt be said for bush sr and clinton. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...e-deficit-under-republicans/?fbid=EUNKAX0A9YU
off the top of my head- u guys spend something like 17 or 18% of your gdp on health care and that is by far your largest expenditure. and if your so concerned about tax collection- why dont u just tax high income earners to make up for any shortfalls in unemployment?
