What's Up With Food Prices?
Way Back Jack
In 2008, they blamed the bump-up on gas prices. But food prices
haven't dropped as gas prices have come down. In fact, some are still
rising, e.g., lb. store-brand broccoli florets from $1.59 to $1.89.
And today I see that cans of tuna have dropped in size from 6 oz. to 5
oz., with Star-Kist at 4.5 oz.! My Gawd, I can remember when the std.
size was 8 oz., then 7, 6 1/4, and 6.
Before long, nobody will be fat anymore, especially with Obamaflation
just around the corner.
Evelyn Leeper
No, they'll be fatter, because the cheapest foods available are those
that make people fat (like all those with high-fructose corn syrup).
Compare the costs of that broccoli with, say, bread and butter. The
latter has remained fairly stable. So people will eat more bread and
butter and less broccoli.
--
Evelyn C. Leeper
Nobody believes the official spokesman ... but everybody
trusts an unidentified source. -Ron Nesen, 1977
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
"Way Back Jack" <Her...@Home.org> wrote in message
news:49a415ed...@news.motzarella.org...
well jack, the real cause is being hidden by blaming it on gas prices. i'm
guessing production is down. i believe a famine is on the way.
Jeff
> Yeah, "Up" is a good word for it.
>
> In 2008, they blamed the bump-up on gas prices. But food prices
> haven't dropped as gas prices have come down. In fact, some are still
> rising, e.g., lb. store-brand broccoli florets from $1.59 to $1.89.
> And today I see that cans of tuna have dropped in size from 6 oz. to 5
> oz., with Star-Kist at 4.5 oz.! My Gawd, I can remember when the std.
> size was 8 oz., then 7, 6 1/4, and 6.
A few factors, at least one is the high cost of diesel. Little farm
equipment runs on gas.
Look to to ethanol for shifting crops to the highly profitable corn,
driving up all prices.
And lastly, and perhaps most important: speculation in the
commodities market in food. Pretty much the same driver in oils rapid
rise and subsequent collapse when it unwound.
>
> Before long, nobody will be fat anymore, especially with Obamaflation
> just around the corner.
That's funny that you are blaming the guy that has been in office one
month, and not the guy under whose watch this happened. Inherited annual
deficit from W is 1.2 T. National debt is more than twice what it was
when W took office and gave away the store. What benefit accrued from
his policies?
I think you are disconnected from reality, not worrying about what
has happened and buying into right wing hypotheticals. Those guys you
believe in have got a terrible track record.
Jeff
Rod Speed
> Yeah, "Up" is a good word for it.
> In 2008, they blamed the bump-up on gas prices. But food prices
> haven't dropped as gas prices have come down. In fact, some are
> still rising, e.g., lb. store-brand broccoli florets from $1.59 to $1.89.
Some have gone down again, most obviously bulk skinless chicken breasts.
> And today I see that cans of tuna have dropped in size from 6 oz. to 5
> oz., with Star-Kist at 4.5 oz.! My Gawd, I can remember when the std.
> size was 8 oz., then 7, 6 1/4, and 6.
> Before long, nobody will be fat anymore, especially with Obamaflation
> just around the corner.
Wanna bet ?
Vladimir
We'll give the affirmative action prince a chance, but I fear the OP
is predicting accurately.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
"Jeff" <dont_...@all.uk> wrote in message
news:Ot-dnc-uHIerojnU...@earthlink.com...
> Way Back Jack wrote:
>> Before long, nobody will be fat anymore, especially with Obamaflation
>> just around the corner.
>
>
> That's funny that you are blaming the guy that has been in office one
> month, and not the guy under whose watch this happened. Inherited annual
> deficit from W is 1.2 T. National debt is more than twice what it was when
> W took office and gave away the store. What benefit accrued from his
> policies?
this problem has been around for longer than bush, 1 or 2. both sides are
responsible.
ricok987
be at war before that happens, you know, the haves, vs the have nots.
"AllEmailDeletedImmediately" <der...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:m7Vol.1409$tw4...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Vladimir
Global warming good for farming. Expect watermelon patch in land of
Eskimo and even in land of penguin. Also, much water for irrigation
as iceburgers melt.
Sure could have used some global warming this winter though.
Dave
"Vladimir" <n...@work.org> wrote in message
news:49a479de...@news.datemas.de...
>
>
> Global warming good for farming. Expect watermelon patch in land of
> Eskimo and even in land of penguin. Also, much water for irrigation
> as iceburgers melt.
Ummm...if you study global warming, you will note that it eventually
triggers an ICE AGE. But for sake of argument, let's assume that you could
grow a watermelon patch in the land of the Eskimo. That would mean that the
bread basket area of Canada and U.S. would be a desert. Consequently, there
would be a decrease of about 50% or more of available land for growing food
(worldwide). Yes, there would be food growing in areas where you currently
can't grow food. Problem is, there wouldn't be enough new food crop land to
make up for the loss of farm space elsewhere.
>
> Sure could have used some global warming this winter though.
Even if you still refer to it mistakenly as "global warming", you should
know that the early stages of global warming lead to extreme weather
conditions, such as really cold winters for example. -Dave
Vladimir
>
>"Vladimir" <n...@work.org> wrote in message
>news:49a479de...@news.datemas.de...
>>
>>
>> Global warming good for farming. Expect watermelon patch in land of
>> Eskimo and even in land of penguin. Also, much water for irrigation
>> as iceburgers melt.
>
>Ummm...if you study global warming, you will note that it eventually
>triggers an ICE AGE. But for sake of argument, let's assume that you could
>grow a watermelon patch in the land of the Eskimo. That would mean that the
>bread basket area of Canada and U.S. would be a desert. Consequently, there
>would be a decrease of about 50% or more of available land for growing food
>(worldwide). Yes, there would be food growing in areas where you currently
>can't grow food. Problem is, there wouldn't be enough new food crop land to
>make up for the loss of farm space elsewhere.
Nyet. Much land for temperate farming in land of 'moes. 'Moes
become new world power.
Meanwhile, in US of A, plenty of water from icebergers melting. No
desert, jungle.
We have jungle crops in US of A.
John A. Weeks III
Her...@Home.org (Way Back Jack) wrote:
> Yeah, "Up" is a good word for it.
>
> In 2008, they blamed the bump-up on gas prices. But food prices
> haven't dropped as gas prices have come down.
There is a lag time for food costs to come down after fuel comes
down. The stuff in the store now was grown over the past 2 years.
Wait another year, and if fuel stays low, you should see that.
Fuel is just one component of food costs. Another is competition.
There is huge demand for corn for ethanol, which has driven corn
prices sky high. Since corn isn't as freely available, other
grains are being used as a substitute where corn used to be used.
That drives their price up as demand increases.
-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 612-720-2854 jo...@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
Jeff
Sure, but it's W who really took it to a new high. Presidents of both
parties in the past have sought to rein in deficits eventually. W is the
exception, he believed so deeply in "Trickle Down" that he didn't care
about the deficit. Dogma kept him from making the needed adjustment.
Instead he grew the size of government dramatically at the same time as
pushing tax cuts for the rich. Much of that tax cut money flowed into
the same financial instruments that are crippling the economy now.
I appreciate the other posters statement to give Obama a chance.
Remember that all the old methods of growth; housing, automotive and
creative financial instruments are smoldering ruins.
This country needs to find a new way forward.
Jeff
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
"ricok987" <rico...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:49a4789e$0$5895$607e...@cv.net...
> Famine due to global warming-that is. But don't worry, the whole world
> will be at war before that happens, you know, the haves, vs the have nots.
famine due to monsanto's gmo seeds.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
"Dave" <now...@noway2.not> wrote in message
news:go20e5$nr8$1...@news.motzarella.org...
and we know this for a fact because we already lived thru this cycle?
scientists
were around to record that fact? scientists will tell you this globe has
gone thru
an iceage in the past, so evidently it's just a normal phase of things for
planet earth.
we've been warmer in the past.
>
>
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
"John A. Weeks III" <jo...@johnweeks.com> wrote in message
news:john-FA263E.1...@news-3.octanews.net...
> In article <49a415ed...@news.motzarella.org>,
> Her...@Home.org (Way Back Jack) wrote:
>
>> Yeah, "Up" is a good word for it.
>>
>> In 2008, they blamed the bump-up on gas prices. But food prices
>> haven't dropped as gas prices have come down.
>
> There is a lag time for food costs to come down after fuel comes
> down. The stuff in the store now was grown over the past 2 years.
> Wait another year, and if fuel stays low, you should see that.
> Fuel is just one component of food costs. Another is competition.
> There is huge demand for corn for ethanol, which has driven corn
> prices sky high. Since corn isn't as freely available, other
> grains are being used as a substitute where corn used to be used.
> That drives their price up as demand increases.
and let's not forget printing up money which causes inflation, thereby
raising the price of everything.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
> AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:
>>
>> "Jeff" <dont_...@all.uk> wrote in message
>> news:Ot-dnc-uHIerojnU...@earthlink.com...
>>> Way Back Jack wrote:
>>>> Before long, nobody will be fat anymore, especially with Obamaflation
>>>> just around the corner.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's funny that you are blaming the guy that has been in office one
>>> month, and not the guy under whose watch this happened. Inherited annual
>>> deficit from W is 1.2 T. National debt is more than twice what it was
>>> when W took office and gave away the store. What benefit accrued from
>>> his policies?
>>
>> this problem has been around for longer than bush, 1 or 2. both sides
>> are
>> responsible.
>
> Sure, but it's W who really took it to a new high. Presidents of both
> parties in the past have sought to rein in deficits eventually. W is the
> exception, he believed so deeply in "Trickle Down" that he didn't care
> about the deficit. Dogma kept him from making the needed adjustment.
> Instead he grew the size of government dramatically at the same time as
> pushing tax cuts for the rich. Much of that tax cut money flowed into the
> same financial instruments that are crippling the economy now.
both sides have deliberately worked toward this end. greenspan knew;
that's why he jumped ship when he did. it was his job to fake this country
out in any way he could. w just was the one in office when the crumbling s
tarted. i think he who has hopenetized the country is going to fare much
worse. but, that's the plan. this country has been bankrupt for yrs and
it's
now at the point where peter can no longer be robbed to pay paul. how
convenient that a semi-black male will take the fall. that's why he was
put
into the office, don't ya know?
John A. Weeks III
"AllEmailDeletedImmediately" <der...@hotmail.com> wrote:
And let's not forget that inflation is near zero (according to
the CPI) and interest rates could hardly be lower, and since
we printed trillions under Bush to pay for his failed wars,
it proves that your assertion is false.
Jeff
I find it fascinating that the first thing Republicans mention is that
Obama is black. They do it in complimetary terms but they want it known
that he is black. Jindle did it last night, and so did McCain in his key
speeches.
I don't see it that way, and neither does Obama. Obama see this as a
key moment in history, one he does not intend to slip by (unlike W).
Obama is above all else, a pragmatist when it comes to leading.
Republicans, particularly now, see the solution to everything as tax
cuts and less oversight. The same failed dogma.
The savings rate of this country has been essentially negative for
much of the last decade, that will take a long time to rebalance. That
is the key problem, that consumers are tapped out. As far as the country
being bankrupt, the debt to GDP has been higher before, and is quite a
bit higher presently in other countries. This is manageable, but it
needs a new engine of growth. Retreating in a shell will not work.
Jeff
>
Vladimir
Solution is to keep giving affirmative action loans to deadbeats that
started under Carter's "Community Reinvestment Act" and exploded when
Clinton rewrote regulations which effectively overthrew safeguards.
Share the wealth, babeeeee.
jdkki
And whatever he said about change, he's just appointed
slick retreads, including slick's arsehole wife. Some change.
> Republicans, particularly now, see the solution to everything as tax cuts and less oversight. The same failed dogma.
> The savings rate of this country has been essentially negative for much of the last decade,
No it hasn't. You only get a result like that if you ignore the equity in the houses they are buying.
> that will take a long time to rebalance.
You won't see significant savings in other than the equity in
the houses they are buying while interest rates are so low.
> That is the key problem, that consumers are tapped out.
Nope. The real problem is that most of them are playing
safe when there is a real risk of them losing their jobs.
> As far as the country being bankrupt, the debt to GDP has been higher before, and is quite a bit higher presently in
> other countries.
Indeed.
> This is manageable, but it needs a new engine of growth.
Nope, just a return of confidence and decent regulation to avoid another sub prime fiasco.
> Retreating in a shell will not work.
Correct.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
> AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:
snip
> I find it fascinating that the first thing Republicans mention is that
> Obama is black. They do it in complimetary terms but they want it known
> that he is black. Jindle did it last night, and so did McCain in his key
> speeches.
i'm not a republican. and for all you know, i'm black. the point i was
making was that when it comes time to ruin this country, the powers that be
want it to be blamed on a non-white person.
Jeff
You need to hang up your conspiracy theories and stop staring at the
pyramids on your dollar bills.
Jeff
>
>
Jeff
So, you still got a hangup over Bill's blowjob. I'm not surprised. If
it rattles your cage, it's not a bad thing.
>
>> Republicans, particularly now, see the solution to everything as tax cuts and less oversight. The same failed dogma.
>
>> The savings rate of this country has been essentially negative for much of the last decade,
>
> No it hasn't. You only get a result like that if you ignore the equity in the houses they are buying.
>
Seems like you missed the fact that home prices are falling, so much
so that an awful lot of people are under water in their homes. 40% who
bought homes in the last few years, and rising.
Your argument about tapping a homes equity has gotten a lot of people
in trouble.
>> that will take a long time to rebalance.
>
> You won't see significant savings in other than the equity in
> the houses they are buying while interest rates are so low.
Home sales have fallen off the cliff. A few smart people, mostly
foreigners are snapping them up.
>
>> That is the key problem, that consumers are tapped out.
>
> Nope. The real problem is that most of them are playing
> safe when there is a real risk of them losing their jobs.
Yes, that also. Note that credit card debt is sky high.
>
>> As far as the country being bankrupt, the debt to GDP has been higher before, and is quite a bit higher presently in
>> other countries.
>
> Indeed.
>
>> This is manageable, but it needs a new engine of growth.
>
> Nope, just a return of confidence and decent regulation to avoid another sub prime fiasco.
The one thing about W is that he was the ultimate cheerleader. No
matter how bad things were, W never let it get to him. It got quite
surreal at times. Reason has returned.
There is huge glut of inventory in both homes and autos. The big 3
kept auto sales high for quite some time by insane incentives. A lot of
people grabbed those deals and won't need to replace theirs cars for
some time.
What big ticket item do people need that they don't already have?
Jeff
Jeff
Most subprime loans were not made under the CRA. And most loans made
under CRA regulations are performing. On top of that, institutions that
made CRA loans are more likely to hold them rather than securitize them
off. It's is the securitization of loans that is the big problem.
You are buying into half truths. You must be a ditto head.
>
> Share the wealth, babeeeee.
I got mine, screw you, baby...
Jeff
jdkki
Nope, couldn't actually care less. Nor about JFK fucking anything that wasnt actually dead either.
> I'm not surprised. If it rattles your cage,
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
> it's not a bad thing.
>
>>
>>> Republicans, particularly now, see the solution to everything as
>>> tax cuts and less oversight. The same failed dogma.
>>
>>> The savings rate of this country has been essentially negative for
>>> much of the last decade,
>>
>> No it hasn't. You only get a result like that if you ignore the
>> equity in the houses they are buying.
> Seems like you missed the fact that home prices are falling,
Nope, because even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that
those who have their house fully paid off still have plenty of equity left.
> so much so that an awful lot of people are under water in their homes.
FAR fewer than those still with equity in their houses.
> 40% who bought homes in the last few years, and rising.
Pity about all the rest.
> Your argument about tapping a homes equity
Never said a word about tapping that equity. JUST that that equity has
to be included when you are calculating what savings individuals have.
> has gotten a lot of people in trouble.
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
>>> that will take a long time to rebalance.
>> You won't see significant savings in other than the equity in
>> the houses they are buying while interest rates are so low.
> Home sales have fallen off the cliff.
Irrelevant to whether you will see significant savings in
other than houses while ever interest rates are so low.
> A few smart people, mostly foreigners are snapping them up.
You dont have to be smart to realise that once the price
of houses stops dropping, that is the time to buy them.
>>> That is the key problem, that consumers are tapped out.
>> Nope. The real problem is that most of them are playing
>> safe when there is a real risk of them losing their jobs.
> Yes, that also.
That is in fact the main factor thats produced the massive drop in retail sales.
> Note that credit card debt is sky high.
It was even higher before the sub prime faisco imploded the world financial system.
>>> As far as the country being bankrupt, the debt to GDP has been
>>> higher before, and is quite a bit higher presently in other countries.
>> Indeed.
>>> This is manageable, but it needs a new engine of growth.
>> Nope, just a return of confidence and decent regulation to avoid
>> another sub prime fiasco.
> The one thing about W is that he was the ultimate cheerleader. No matter how bad things were, W never let it get to
> him. It got quite surreal at times. Reason has returned.
No it hasnt. We've just seen a lack of confidence in how long their
current job will last for, and that confidence ALWAYS returns.
> There is huge glut of inventory in both homes and autos.
We've seen that before, most obviously with the S&L fiasco.
> The big 3 kept auto sales high for quite some time by insane incentives.
It had nothing to do with incentives, everything to do with
confidence in how long they were likely to keep their job for.
> A lot of people grabbed those deals
Fuck all did, actually. The sales volume didnt peak significantly.
> and won't need to replace theirs cars for some time.
> What big ticket item do people need that they don't already have?
It aint about big ticket items, its actually about what everyone does every day.
Vladimir
How A Clinton-Era Rule Rewrite Made Subprime Crisis Inevitable
By TERRY JONES
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, September 24, 2008 4:30
PM PT
One of the most frequently asked questions about the subprime market
meltdown and housing crisis is: How did the government get so deeply
involved in the housing market?
The answer is: President Clinton wanted it that way.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, even into the early 1990s, weren't the
juggernauts they'd later be.
While President Carter in 1977 signed the Community Reinvestment Act,
which pushed Fannie and Freddie to aggressively lend to minority
communities, it was Clinton who supercharged the process. After
entering office in 1993, he extensively rewrote Fannie's and Freddie's
rules.
In so doing, he turned the two quasi-private, mortgage-funding firms
into a semi-nationalized monopoly that dispensed cash to markets, made
loans to large Democratic voting blocs and handed favors, jobs and
money to political allies. This potent mix led inevitably to
corruption and the Fannie-Freddie collapse.
Despite warnings of trouble at Fannie and Freddie, in 1994 Clinton
unveiled his National Homeownership Strategy, which broadened the CRA
in ways Congress never intended.
Addressing the National Association of Realtors that year, Clinton
bluntly told the group that "more Americans should own their own
homes." He meant it.
Clinton saw homeownership as a way to open the door for blacks and
other minorities to enter the middle class.
Though well-intended, the problem was that Congress was about to
change hands, from the Democrats to the Republicans. Rather than
submit legislation that the GOP-led Congress was almost sure to
reject, Clinton ordered Robert Rubin's Treasury Department to rewrite
the rules in 1995.
The rewrite, as City Journal noted back in 2000, "made getting a
satisfactory CRA rating harder." Banks were given strict new numerical
quotas and measures for the level of "diversity" in their loan
portfolios. Getting a good CRA rating was key for a bank that wanted
to expand or merge with another.
Loans started being made on the basis of race, and often little else.
"Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data, broken down by
neighborhood, income group and race, to rate banks on performance,"
wrote Howard Husock, a scholar at the Manhattan Institute.
But those rules weren't enough.
Clinton got the Department of Housing and Urban Development to
double-team the issue. That would later prove disastrous.
Clinton's HUD secretary, Andrew Cuomo, "made a series of decisions
between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country's current
crisis," the liberal Village Voice noted. Among those decisions were
changes that let Fannie and Freddie get into subprime loan markets in
a big way.
Other rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage,
allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments,
vs. 10% for banks.
Since they could borrow at lower rates than banks due to implicit
government guarantees for their debt, the government-sponsored
enterprises boomed.
With incentives in place, banks poured billions of dollars of loans
into poor communities, often "no doc" and "no income" loans that
required no money down and no verification of income.
By 2007, Fannie and Freddie owned or guaranteed nearly half of the $12
trillion U.S. mortgage market — a staggering exposure.
Worse still was the cronyism.
Fannie and Freddie became home to out-of-work politicians, mostly
Clinton Democrats. An informal survey of their top officials shows a
roughly 2-to-1 dominance of Democrats over Republicans.
Then there were the campaign donations. From 1989 to 2008, some 384
politicians got their tip jars filled by Fannie and Freddie.
Over that time, the two GSEs spent $200 million on lobbying and
political activities. Their charitable foundations dropped millions
more on think tanks and radical community groups.
Did it work? Well, if measured by the goal of putting more poor people
into homes, the answer would have to be yes.
From 1995 to 2005, a Harvard study shows, minorities made up 49% of
the 12.5 million new homeowners.
The problem is that many of those loans have now gone bad, and
minority homeownership rates are shrinking fast.
Fannie and Freddie, with their massive loan portfolios stuffed with
securitized mortgage-backed paper created from subprime loans, are a
failed legacy of the Clinton era.
_________
John A. Weeks III
wrote:
> One of the most frequently asked questions about the subprime market
> meltdown and housing crisis is: How did the government get so deeply
> involved in the housing market?
>
> The answer is: President Clinton wanted it that way.
Actually, everyone has wanted it that way from long before
President Clinton was elected to office. Ever hear of the
FHA? Government involvement in home mortgages is part of
the concept of the ownership society that thinks that home
ownership is a good thing, and that government should encourage
it. Even Bush Jr used those words.
> While President Carter in 1977 signed the Community Reinvestment Act,
> which pushed Fannie and Freddie to aggressively lend to minority
> communities, it was Clinton who supercharged the process. After
> entering office in 1993, he extensively rewrote Fannie's and Freddie's
> rules.
The CRA has nothing to do with the mortgage crisis. The vast
majority of CRA loans were locally held and are performing. The
mortgage crisis is due to non-CRA loans that people got where
they simply could not afford the home, or were unable to make the
payments or refinance when interest rates went up.
Please stop spreading misinformation.
Jeff
>> I'm not surprised. If it rattles your cage,
>
> Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
You are sick.
>
>> it's not a bad thing.
>>
>>>> Republicans, particularly now, see the solution to everything as
>>>> tax cuts and less oversight. The same failed dogma.
>>>> The savings rate of this country has been essentially negative for
>>>> much of the last decade,
>>> No it hasn't. You only get a result like that if you ignore the
>>> equity in the houses they are buying.
>
>> Seems like you missed the fact that home prices are falling,
>
> Nope, because even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that
> those who have their house fully paid off still have plenty of equity left.
And how many people are that? I paid off mine years ago, but this is
rare for people under 50.
>
>> so much so that an awful lot of people are under water in their homes.
>
> FAR fewer than those still with equity in their houses.
So, your tradeoff is to sell your home so you can recover your equity?
You have to live somewhere, and reverse mortgages are not easy to get.
>
>> 40% who bought homes in the last few years, and rising.
>
> Pity about all the rest.
>
>> Your argument about tapping a homes equity
>
> Never said a word about tapping that equity. JUST that that equity has
> to be included when you are calculating what savings individuals have.
>
>> has gotten a lot of people in trouble.
>
> Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
A strawman is a creation of your own making designed so that you can
attack it instead of the real case. You seem to be clueless about that.
I suspect you bring it up now because you've heard those words used to
attack your own made up reasoning.
There are many many people who took out loans for the appraised value of
the house rather than it's selling price. At closing they got money
back, almost all those homes have been foreclosed, usually within a year.
>
>>>> that will take a long time to rebalance.
>
>>> You won't see significant savings in other than the equity in
>>> the houses they are buying while interest rates are so low.
>
>> Home sales have fallen off the cliff.
>
> Irrelevant to whether you will see significant savings in
> other than houses while ever interest rates are so low.
>
>> A few smart people, mostly foreigners are snapping them up.
>
> You dont have to be smart to realise that once the price
> of houses stops dropping, that is the time to buy them.
>
>>>> That is the key problem, that consumers are tapped out.
>
>>> Nope. The real problem is that most of them are playing
>>> safe when there is a real risk of them losing their jobs.
>
>> Yes, that also.
>
> That is in fact the main factor thats produced the massive drop in retail sales.
That is because reason has returned, not to everyone, obviously.
>
>> Note that credit card debt is sky high.
>
> It was even higher before the sub prime faisco imploded the world financial system.
The Fed doesn't agree with you:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g19/hist/cc_hist_sa.html
>
>>>> As far as the country being bankrupt, the debt to GDP has been
>>>> higher before, and is quite a bit higher presently in other countries.
>
>>> Indeed.
>
>>>> This is manageable, but it needs a new engine of growth.
>
>>> Nope, just a return of confidence and decent regulation to avoid
>>> another sub prime fiasco.
>
>> The one thing about W is that he was the ultimate cheerleader. No matter how bad things were, W never let it get to
>> him. It got quite surreal at times. Reason has returned.
>
> No it hasnt. We've just seen a lack of confidence in how long their
> current job will last for, and that confidence ALWAYS returns.
>
>> There is huge glut of inventory in both homes and autos.
>
> We've seen that before, most obviously with the S&L fiasco.
>
>> The big 3 kept auto sales high for quite some time by insane incentives.
>
> It had nothing to do with incentives, everything to do with
> confidence in how long they were likely to keep their job for.
>
>> A lot of people grabbed those deals
>
> Fuck all did, actually. The sales volume didnt peak significantly.
Car manufacturers were selling 2 million more cars than historically
they should have, that continued for all those years they ran
incentives. They knew that, but thought it just keep going on. It was
unsustainable plateau.
>
>> and won't need to replace theirs cars for some time.
>
>> What big ticket item do people need that they don't already have?
>
> It aint about big ticket items, its actually about what everyone does every day.
Well people have scaled back on everything but necessities. You can't
grow an economy that way. An it won't.
Jeff
Vladimir
You're the leftist Kool-Aid drinker spreading the misinformation.
And for your further edification:
In Sept. 2003 President Bush proposed a new agency to oversee
regulatory
reforms of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Here is an excerpt form the
above
linked article from Sept. 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.
Then in 2005 John McCain co-sponsored the Federal Housing Enterprise
Regulatory Reform Act of 2005.
The Bill was never passed. John McCain addressed the floor on May
26th,
2006. Here is an excerpt:
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.
This bill was shot down by the Democrats and some Republicans in
Congress.
John McCain fought two years ago to shield the American people from
the
crisis some of us are facing.
What was Barack’s vote??
Jeff
> Learn the truth, whigger:
Oh, another nasty boy.
Get some perspective, instead of those half truths you have latched on to:
San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank Governor Randall Kroszner has stated
that no empirical evidence had been presented to support the claim that
"the law pushed banking institutions to undertake high-risk mortgage
lending".[56] In a Bank for International Settlements ("BIS") working
paper, economist Luci Ellis concluded that "there is no evidence that
the Community Reinvestment Act was responsible for encouraging the
subprime lending boom and subsequent housing bust," relying partly on
evidence that the housing bust has been a largely exurban event.[61]
Others have also concluded that the CRA did not contribute to the
current financial crisis, for example, FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair,[62]
Comptroller of the Currency John C. Dugan,[63] Tim Westrich of the
Center for American Progress,[64] Robert Gordon of the American
Prospect,[65] Daniel Gross of Slate, and Aaron Pressman from
BusinessWeek.[66]
Some legal and financial experts note that CRA regulated loans tend to
be safe and profitable, and that subprime excesses came mainly from
institutions not regulated by the CRA. In the February 2008 House
hearing, law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official
under President Clinton,[67][34] stated that a Federal Reserve survey
showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and
not overly risky. He noted that approximately 50% of the subprime loans
were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by
the CRA, and another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated
bank subsidiaries and affiliates. Barr noted that institutions fully
regulated by CRA made "perhaps one in four" sub-prime loans, and that
"the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with
the least federal oversight".[68] According to Janet L. Yellen,
President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, independent
mortgage companies made risky "high-priced loans" at more than twice the
rate of the banks and thrifts; most CRA loans were responsibly made, and
were not the higher-priced loans that have contributed to the current
crisis.[69] A 2008 study by Traiger & Hinckley LLP, a law firm that
counsels financial institutions on CRA compliance, found that CRA
regulated institutions were less likely to make subprime loans, and when
they did the interest rates were lower. CRA banks were also half as
likely to resell the loans.[70] Emre Ergungor of the Federal Reserve
Bank of Cleveland found that there was no statistical difference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
Poor people are not to blame for todays crisis. Instead it is poorly
regulated companies looking for a quick buck. That is almost always the
way these bubbles blow up and collapse.
Jeff
clams_casino
>Learn the truth, whigger:
>
>
>
>While President Carter in 1977 signed the Community Reinvestment Act,
>which pushed Fannie and Freddie to aggressively lend to minority
>communities, it was Clinton who supercharged the process. After
>entering office in 1993, he extensively rewrote Fannie's and Freddie's
>rules.
>
>
>
So if Crater is still effecting the economy after 30 years, does that
mean we are doomed by the GW ineptness for another 30+ years?
Vladimir
Thanks to Marxists now in power, I will be growing cabbages and you
potatoes and we will share, comrade.
Vladimir
Nonsense.
Opinion of limousine socialists irrelevant.
Objective truth here:
http://beltwaysnark.com/2008/09/16/john-mccain-supported-a-proposal-for-
an-agency-to-oversee-fannie-and-freddiein-2005/
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:39:23 -0500, clams_casino
> Thanks to Marxists now in power, I will be growing cabbages and you
> potatoes and we will share, comrade.
and didn't hitler & marx & lenin give really great speeches, too? >(;-o)
jdkki
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
>>> I'm not surprised. If it rattles your cage,
>> Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
> You are sick.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
>>> it's not a bad thing.
>>>
>>>>> Republicans, particularly now, see the solution to everything as
>>>>> tax cuts and less oversight. The same failed dogma.
>>>>> The savings rate of this country has been essentially negative for
>>>>> much of the last decade,
>>>> No it hasn't. You only get a result like that if you ignore the
>>>> equity in the houses they are buying.
>>
>>> Seems like you missed the fact that home prices are falling,
>>
>> Nope, because even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that
>> those who have their house fully paid off still have plenty of equity left.
> And how many people are that?
Hell of a big percentage, actually, like around 40%
> I paid off mine years ago, but this is rare for people under 50.
Like hell it is.
>>> so much so that an awful lot of people are under water in their homes.
>> FAR fewer than those still with equity in their houses.
> So, your tradeoff is to sell your home so you can recover your equity?
Nope. I JUST said that equity in your house has to be included in the CALCULATION of the savings.
> You have to live somewhere, and reverse mortgages are not easy to get.
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
>>> 40% who bought homes in the last few years, and rising.
>> Pity about all the rest.
>>> Your argument about tapping a homes equity
>> Never said a word about tapping that equity. JUST that that equity has to be included when you are calculating what
>> savings individuals have.
>>> has gotten a lot of people in trouble.
>> Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
> A strawman is a creation of your own making designed so that you can attack it instead of the real case.
And that is precisely what you are doing when I JUST said that
the equity in the house has to be included in the calculation of
savings and didnt say a damned thing about 'tapping' that equity.
> You seem to be clueless about that. I suspect you bring it up now because you've heard those words used to attack your
> own made up reasoning.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
> There are many many people who took out loans for the appraised value
> of the house rather than it's selling price. At closing they got money back, almost all those homes have been
> foreclosed, usually within a year.
Completely and utterly irrelevant to whether the equity in
houses should be included in the CALCULATION of savings.
>>>>> that will take a long time to rebalance.
>>>> You won't see significant savings in other than the equity in
>>>> the houses they are buying while interest rates are so low.
>>> Home sales have fallen off the cliff.
>> Irrelevant to whether you will see significant savings in
>> other than houses while ever interest rates are so low.
>>> A few smart people, mostly foreigners are snapping them up.
>> You dont have to be smart to realise that once the price
>> of houses stops dropping, that is the time to buy them.
>>>>> That is the key problem, that consumers are tapped out.
>>>> Nope. The real problem is that most of them are playing
>>>> safe when there is a real risk of them losing their jobs.
>>> Yes, that also.
>> That is in fact the main factor thats produced the massive drop in retail sales.
> That is because reason has returned,
Nope, its actually because of fears about how long the current job will last for.
> not to everyone, obviously.
>>> Note that credit card debt is sky high.
>> It was even higher before the sub prime faisco imploded the world financial system.
> The Fed doesn't agree with you:
> http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g19/hist/cc_hist_sa.html
Yes it does, that is saying precisely what I said.
>>>>> As far as the country being bankrupt, the debt to GDP has been
>>>>> higher before, and is quite a bit higher presently in other countries.
>>>> Indeed.
>>>>> This is manageable, but it needs a new engine of growth.
>>>> Nope, just a return of confidence and decent regulation to avoid
>>>> another sub prime fiasco.
>>> The one thing about W is that he was the ultimate cheerleader. No matter how bad things were, W never let it get to
>>> him. It got quite surreal at times. Reason has returned.
>> No it hasnt. We've just seen a lack of confidence in how long their
>> current job will last for, and that confidence ALWAYS returns.
>>> There is huge glut of inventory in both homes and autos.
>> We've seen that before, most obviously with the S&L fiasco.
>>> The big 3 kept auto sales high for quite some time by insane incentives.
>> It had nothing to do with incentives, everything to do with
>> confidence in how long they were likely to keep their job for.
>>> A lot of people grabbed those deals
>> Fuck all did, actually. The sales volume didnt peak significantly.
> Car manufacturers were selling 2 million more cars than historically they should have,
There is no such animal as that last.
> that continued for all those years they ran incentives.
It was actually the result of the longest boom thats ever been seen.
Nothing to do with 'incentives'
> They knew that, but thought it just keep going on. It was unsustainable plateau.
Yes, the longest boom thats ever been seen had to end sometime.
>>> and won't need to replace theirs cars for some time.
>>> What big ticket item do people need that they don't already have?
>> It aint about big ticket items, its actually about what everyone does every day.
> Well people have scaled back on everything but necessities.
What I said in different words.
> You can't grow an economy that way. An it won't.
The consumers dont do that forever. They wont this time either.
Jeff
> You're the leftist Kool-Aid drinker spreading the misinformation.
And yet you offer not a shred of evidence that the CRA has anything to
do with the mortgage meltdown.
Why don't you tell us what KoolAide John McCain drank from Phil Gramms cup:
Note that these derivatives are what brought down AIG (and others) and
the Fed under "W" has already spent more money on it, 200 billion + than
Obama proposed for the Mortgage mess.
Lurking in the background of this weekend's collapse of two of Wall
Street's biggest names, is a $62 trillion segment of the $450 trillion
market for derivatives that grew huge thanks to John McCain's chief
economic advisor, Phil "Americans are Whiners" Gramm. That's because in
December 2000, Gramm, while a U.S. Senator, snuck in a 262-page
amendment to a government re-authorization bill that created what is now
the $62 trillion market for credit default swaps (CDSs).
I realize it is painful to read about yet another Wall Street acronym,
but this is important because it will help you understand why the global
financial markets are collapsing. And it will give you information to
consider when you vote in November. CDSs are like insurance policies for
bondholders. In exchange for a premium, the bondholders get insurance in
case the bondholder can't pay. As I posted, in the case of the $1.4
trillion worth of Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE)
bonds, the government's nationalization last Sunday triggered the CDSs
on those bonds. The people who received the CDS premiums are now
obligated to deliver those bonds to the ones who paid the premiums.
Gramm's 262-page amendment, dubbed "The Commodity Futures Modernization
Act," according to Texas Observer, freed financial institutions from
oversight of their CDS transactions. "Prior to its passage, they say,
banks underwrote mortgages and were responsible for the risks involved.
Now, through the use of [CDSs]-which in theory insure the banks against
bad debts-those risks are passed along to insurance companies and other
investors," wrote Texas Observer.
How does this relate to Lehman's bankruptcy? "[CDSs] were a key factor
in encouraging lenders to feel they could make loans without knowing the
risks or whether the loan would be paid back. The Commodity Futures
Modernization Act freed them of federal oversight," according to Texas
Monthly. And it was due to these CDSs that Wall Street held an emergency
session yesterday to try to minimize the damage of Lehman's CDSs and
other derivatives. Unfortunately, this session did not produce much
thanks to the built-in lack of knowledge of the risks in these
transactions that Gramm's legislation ensured.
You are going to be reading more and more about CDSs over the months
ahead -- it will become as familiar as the phrase subprime mortgage was
in 2007. Unfortunately, there were "only" $1.3 trillion worth of
subprime mortgages and the CDS market is 48 times bigger than that --
and more than four times bigger than U.S. GDP. And since nobody has ever
had to deal with this volume of CDS unwindings, it is impossible to
calculate how much they will cost.
Jeff
Vladimir
How A Clinton-Era Rule Rewrite Made Subprime Crisis Inevitable
By TERRY JONES
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, September 24, 2008 4:30
PM PT
One of the most frequently asked questions about the subprime market
meltdown and housing crisis is: How did the government get so deeply
involved in the housing market?
The answer is: President Clinton wanted it that way.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, even into the early 1990s, weren't the
juggernauts they'd later be.
While President Carter in 1977 signed the Community Reinvestment Act,
which pushed Fannie and Freddie to aggressively lend to minority
communities, it was Clinton who supercharged the process. After
entering office in 1993, he extensively rewrote Fannie's and Freddie's
rules.
In so doing, he turned the two quasi-private, mortgage-funding firms
Jeff
> How A Clinton-Era Rule Rewrite Made Subprime Crisis Inevitable
> By TERRY JONES
> INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, September 24, 2008 4:30
Vladimir is stuck in rut, copying and pasting the same tripe while
avoiding the essential question, What does the CRA have to do with the
mortgage meltdown?
Vladimir will never answer that because he can't. Instead he will
pull out the same tired bit about Clinton. There are no statistics to
support his view, so it's wingnut response time.
And the men he idolizes will yearn for the days of Goldwater. What a
sorry excuse for a political party Republicans have gotten.
Jeff
<snip>
Jeff
I thought it might be you, Rod! The misspellings, the bad grammar, the
bad attitude.
Back in the killfile you go, since you've never had anything
constructive to say about anything.
Jeff
Vladimir
>Vladimir wrote:
>> How A Clinton-Era Rule Rewrite Made Subprime Crisis Inevitable
>> By TERRY JONES
>> INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, September 24, 2008 4:30
>
>
>Vladimir is stuck in rut, copying and pasting the same tripe while
>avoiding the essential question, What does the CRA have to do with the
>mortgage meltdown?
>
> Vladimir will never answer that because he can't. Instead he will
>pull out the same tired bit about Clinton. There are no statistics to
>support his view, so it's wingnut response time.
Vladimir should believe Obama Kool-Aid drinker rather than article?
Have another sip.
> And the men he idolizes will yearn for the days of Goldwater. What a
>sorry excuse for a political party Republicans have gotten.
Actually, Vladimir is ashamed to admit he is still democrat even
though party has been hijacked by Marxists.
But why change parties? Repubs are wimps, pussies.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
> Actually, Vladimir is ashamed to admit he is still democrat even
> though party has been hijacked by Marxists.
>
> But why change parties? Repubs are wimps, pussies.
All politicians are wimps and pussies (wussies for short), always on the
lookout for their next election instead of actually doing anything
constructive.
Vladimir
All pols are assholes; it's a job requirement.
Vladimir
And it amazes Vladimir how we believe that one party is filled with
brilliant saints while the other is plagued with brain-dead evildoers.
This adulation over scumbag Obama, who has been allied with
anti-American terrorists like Ayres, racists like Wright (for 20
years), and communists like Olinsky .... well let Vladimir say that in
65 years, Vladimir thought he has seen everything. But this ..... O
Gawd have mercy of the US and the world.
Jeff
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:44:28 -0500, Jeff <dont_...@all.uk> wrote:
>
>> Vladimir wrote:
>>> How A Clinton-Era Rule Rewrite Made Subprime Crisis Inevitable
>>> By TERRY JONES
>>> INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, September 24, 2008 4:30
>>
>> Vladimir is stuck in rut, copying and pasting the same tripe while
>> avoiding the essential question, What does the CRA have to do with the
>> mortgage meltdown?
>>
>> Vladimir will never answer that because he can't. Instead he will
>> pull out the same tired bit about Clinton. There are no statistics to
>> support his view, so it's wingnut response time.
>
> Vladimir should believe Obama Kool-Aid drinker rather than article?
Vladimir should realize that article never says anything directly
about CRA contributing to the Mortgage Meltdown. I sent you the
wikipedia article which is fully annotated and you can follow the
sources. There is no annotations and no statistics in your article, all
it say is that Clinton pushed for wider CRA acceptance (for the reasons
that John has already enumerated), nowhere does it say that that CRA
loans caused the mortgage meltdown. Indeed the most regulated loans are
the ones with the fewest problems, CRA loans are largely performing.
You've made a leap of faith based on, well nothing except what the
author wants you to believe. Learn not to mislead. Is Vladimir a sheep?
Get the whole story instead of buying into someone else's supposition.
I'm about done with Vladimir, Vladimir will either have to look into
his own sources or go on believing what he is fed.
Jeff
jimbo
Fat lot of good that will do you, gutless.
> since you've never had anything constructive to say about anything.
Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.
Vladimir
Carter's CRA was well-meaning. Hell, Carter's efforts to eliminate
rare diseases in Africa are well-meaning too, but he never gives
thought to the cost of his endeavors. But his CRA ran into Clinton's
regulations which are WELL-DOCUMENTED.
______
Here is my mentor's take on your boy Carter:
Alligator smile came a callin' in the snail mail with his arms
extended, palms up. Yep, bleeding heart Jimmy Carter's back in town
requesting donations to fight yet more third-world diseases, this time
they're lymphatic filariasis and schistosomiasis which plague 320
million globally, including 140 million in Mother Africa.
Y'all are familiar with Jimmy Carter's other do-gooder project,
Habitat For Humanity. This is the organization that buys up chunks of
vanishing real estate to provide housing for irresponsible,
overpopulating people who have literally fucked themselves into
poverty. I recall one family of four, with another sprog on the way,
living in cardboard boxes. A short time after Jimmy and Rosalynn
moved them into a Habitat Home, daddy complained, "Things are gettin'
crowded here too; our family keeps a growin', ya know."
In Jimmy's latest plea to lighten my bank acct., he boasted of the
strides made in controlling other third-world maladies, i.e., "Guinea
worm" (sounds vaguely politically-incorrect) and "river blindness."
Ya gotta admire this man's devotion to exotic causes and the sympathy
he exudes for de mutha country from which we all sprang.
Nevertheless, inasmuch as I, Brother Jack, the Mad Monk, the
Irreverent Reverend, am a man of the cloth, I felt it necessary to
advise him that good works are not enough (especially when others are
footing the good works' bill). He must also confess and do some real
penance for being a major player in the liberal ruling class that
destroyed American society during the past 50 years, and for
empowering terroristic Iran.
I trust that Jimmy and Rosalynn will take my sacerdotal counsel in the
spirit in which it was intended.
Peace be with you. My piece is a .44 caliber Ruger.
Marsha
> Jeff wrote:
>> jdkki wrote:
>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>> jdkki wrote:
>>>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>>>> jdkki wrote:
>>>>>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>>>>>> AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:
Trim your fucking posts. Jeezus H. Christ, what a bunch of morons.
jimbo
> jimbo wrote:
>> Jeff wrote:
>>> jdkki wrote:
>>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>>> jdkki wrote:
>>>>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>>>>> jdkki wrote:
>>>>>>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>>>>>>> AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:
> Trim your fucking posts.
Go and fuck yourself. Again.
> Jeezus H. Christ, what a bunch of morons.
Your sig is sposed to have a line with just -- on it in front of it, cretin.
Jeff
Christ, Jimmy Carter. That's 30 + years ago!
But if you want a defense of Carter I'll give you two things that
Carter does not get enough credit for:
1)
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/9657
Carter faced a crisis from a combination of economic problems, failed
policies of his predecessors and, finally, an Iranian revolution that
cut access to some Middle Eastern oil.
Carter met the problems by starting sweeping oil-reduction reforms,
including creation of the Cabinet-level Department of Energy.
He began spending millions of dollars researching alternative sources
for electrical power, including solar power. He got utilities to cut
their use of oil for electricity and ramp up their use of natural gas or
coal.
"Up until Carter, we were getting about 20 percent of our electricity
from oil generation," said Jay Hakes, director of the Energy Information
Administration under Carter and an authority on modern presidents and
oil. "And post-Carter, it went down to about 3 percent."
Carter insisted that U.S. automakers build more fuel-efficient cars,
with a goal of 27.5 miles per gallon over the following decade - a
requirement passed under Gerald Ford but put into force by Carter.
He offered incentives for getting oil from shale, creating a boom
initially in the Rockies - and a bust when it failed to be
cost-effective. He offered deductions for using solar water heaters in
homes and commercial buildings.
*Can you imagine what the energy crisis would be like today if we were
still using that oil for power?*
2) Roughly every 8 years Israel fought a major war with Egypt and
neighboring states. Real wars, not this Gaza bit. Israel has been at
peace with Egypt ever since Camp David.
I don't believe George W Bush has done anything like that.
Now, you can get back to your whining.
Jeff
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
> And it amazes Vladimir how we believe that one party is filled with
> brilliant saints while the other is plagued with brain-dead evildoers.
both of the major parties are filled with brain dead evildoers.
>
> This adulation over scumbag Obama, who has been allied with
> anti-American terrorists like Ayres, racists like Wright (for 20
> years), and communists like Olinsky .... well let Vladimir say that in
> 65 years, Vladimir thought he has seen everything. But this ..... O
> Gawd have mercy of the US and the world.
they've all by hopenotized by the hopenosis of the obamanation.
>
Vladimir
Carter, Clinton, Frank Raines, Gorelick, Chris Dodd, Barney "Banking
Queen" Frank deserve the lion's share of blame for financial crisis.
You ain't seen nuthin' yet tho.
Way Back Jack
> I'm about done with Vladimir, Vladimir will either have to look into
>his own sources or go on believing what he is fed.
Feed on this:
Here are 50 of the most outrageous items in the stimulus package:
VARIOUS LEFT-WINGERY
The easiest targets in the stimulus bill are the ones that were
clearly thrown in as a sop to one liberal cause or another, even
though the proposed spending would have little to no stimulative
effect. The National Endowment for the Arts, for example, is in line
for $50 million, increasing its total budget by a third. The
unemployed can fill their days attending abstract-film festivals and
sitar concerts.
Then there are the usual welfare-expansion programs that sound nice
but repeatedly fail cost-benefit analyses. The bill provides $380
million to set up a rainy-day fund for a nutrition program that serves
low-income women and children, and $300 million for grants to combat
violence against women. Laudable goals, perhaps, but where’s the
economic stimulus? And the bill would double the amount spent on
federal child-care subsidies. Brian Riedl, a budget expert with the
Heritage Foundation, quips, “Maybe it’s to help future Obama cabinet
secretaries, so that they don’t have to pay taxes on their nannies.”
Perhaps spending $6 billion on university building projects will put
some unemployed construction workers to work, but how does a $15
billion expansion of the Pell Grant program meet the standard of
“temporary, timely, and targeted”? Another provision would allocate an
extra $1.2 billion to a “youth” summer-jobs program—and increase the
age-eligibility limit from 21 to 24. Federal job-training
programs—despite a long track record of failure—come in for $4 billion
total in additional funding through the stimulus.
Of course, it wouldn’t be a liberal wish list if it didn’t include
something for ACORN, and sure enough, there is $5.2 billion for
community-development block grants and “neighborhood stabilization
activities,” which ACORN is eligible to apply for. Finally, the bill
allocates $650 million for activities related to the switch from
analog to digital TV, including $90 million to educate “vulnerable
populations” that they need to go out and get their converter boxes or
lose their TV signals. Obviously, this is stimulative stuff: Any
economist will tell you that you can’t get higher productivity and
economic growth without access to reruns of Family Feud.
Summary:
$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts
$380 million in the Senate bill for the Women, Infants and Children
program
$300 million for grants to combat violence against women
$2 billion for federal child-care block grants
$6 billion for university building projects
$15 billion for boosting Pell Grant college scholarships
$4 billion for job-training programs, including $1.2 billion for
“youths” up to the age of 24
$1 billion for community-development block grants
$4.2 billion for “neighborhood stabilization activities”
$650 million for digital-TV coupons; $90 million to educate
“vulnerable populations”
POORLY DESIGNED TAX RELIEF
The stimulus package’s tax provisions are poorly designed and should
be replaced with something closer to what the Republican Study
Committee in the House has proposed. Obama would extend some of the
business tax credits included in the stimulus bill Congress passed
about a year ago, and this is good as far as it goes. The RSC plan,
however, also calls for a cut in the corporate-tax rate that could be
expected to boost wages, lower prices, and increase profits,
stimulating economic activity across the board.
The RSC plan also calls for a 5 percent across-the-board income-tax
cut, which would increase productivity by providing additional
incentives to save, work, and invest. An across-the-board payroll-tax
cut might make even more sense, especially for low- to middle-income
workers who don’t make enough to pay income taxes. Obama’s “Making
Work Pay” tax credit is aimed at helping these workers, but it uses a
rebate check instead of a rate cut. Rebate checks are not effective
stimulus, as we discovered last spring: They might boost consumption,
a little, but that’s all they do.
Finally, the RSC proposal provides direct tax relief to strapped
families by expanding the child tax credit, reducing taxes on parents’
investment in the next generation of taxpayers. Obama’s expansion of
the child tax credit is not nearly as ambitious. Overall, his plan
adds up to a lot of forgone revenue without much stimulus to show for
it. Senators should push for the tax relief to be better designed.
Summary:
$15 billion for business-loss carry-backs
$145 billion for “Making Work Pay” tax credits
$83 billion for the earned income credit
STIMULUS FOR THE GOVERNMENT
Even as their budgets were growing robustly during the Bush
administration, many federal agencies couldn’t find the money to keep
up with repairs—at least that’s the conclusion one is forced to draw
from looking at the stimulus bill. Apparently the entire capital is a
shambles. Congress has already removed $200 million to fix up the
National Mall after word of that provision leaked out and attracted
scorn. But one fixture of the mall—the Smithsonian—dodged the ax: It’s
slated to receive $150 million for renovations.
The stimulus package is packed with approximately $7 billion worth of
federal building projects, including $34 million to fix up the
Commerce Department, $500 million for improvements to National
Institutes of Health facilities, and $44 million for repairs at the
Department of Agriculture. The Agriculture Department would also get
$350 million for new computers—the better to calculate all the new
farm subsidies in the bill (see “Pure pork” below).
One theme in this bill is superfluous spending items coated with green
sugar to make them more palatable. Both NASA and NOAA come in for
appropriations that properly belong in the regular budget, but this
spending apparently qualifies for the stimulus bill because part of
the money from each allocation is reserved for climate-change
research. For instance, the bill grants NASA $450 million, but it
states that the agency must spend at least $200 million on
“climate-research missions,” which raises the question: Is there
global warming in space?
The bottom line is that there is a way to fund government agencies,
and that is the federal budget, not an “emergency” stimulus package.
As Riedl puts it, “Amount allocated to the Census Bureau? $1 billion.
Jobs created? None.”
Summary:
$150 million for the Smithsonian
$34 million to renovate the Department of Commerce headquarters
$500 million for improvement projects for National Institutes of
Health facilities
$44 million for repairs to Department of Agriculture headquarters
$350 million for Agriculture Department computers
$88 million to help move the Public Health Service into a new building
$448 million for constructing a new Homeland Security Department
headquarters
$600 million to convert the federal auto fleet to hybrids
$450 million for NASA (carve-out for “climate-research missions”)
$600 million for NOAA (carve-out for “climate modeling”)
$1 billion for the Census Bureau
INCOME TRANSFERS
A big chunk of the stimulus package is designed not to create wealth
but to spread it around. It contains $89 billion in Medicaid
extensions and $36 billion in expanded unemployment benefits—and this
is in addition to the state-budget bailout (see “Rewarding state
irresponsibility” below).
The Medicaid extension is structured as a temporary increase in the
federal match, but make no mistake: Like many spending increases in
the stimulus package, this one has a good chance of becoming
permanent. As for extending unemployment benefits through the
downturn, it might be a good idea for other reasons, but it wouldn’t
stimulate economic growth: It would provide an incentive for
job-seekers to delay reentry into the workforce.
Summary:
$89 billion for Medicaid
$30 billion for COBRA insurance extension
$36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits
$20 billion for food stamps
PURE PORK
The problem with trying to spend $1 trillion quickly is that you end
up wasting a lot of it. Take, for instance, the proposed $4.5 billion
addition to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers budget. Not only does
this effectively double the Corps’ budget overnight, but it adds to
the Corps’ $3.2 billion unobligated balance—money that has been
appropriated, but that the Corps has not yet figured out how to spend.
Keep in mind, this is an agency that is often criticized for wasting
taxpayers’ money. “They cannot spend that money wisely,” says Steve
Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense. “I don’t even think they can
spend that much money unwisely.”
Speaking of spending money unwisely, the stimulus bill adds another
$850 million for Amtrak, the railroad that can’t turn a profit.
There’s also $1.7 billion for “critical deferred maintenance needs” in
the National Park System, and $55 million for the preservation of
historic landmarks. Also, the U.S. Coast Guard needs $87 million for a
polar icebreaking ship—maybe global warming isn’t working fast enough.
It should come as no surprise that rural communities—those parts of
the nation that were hardest hit by rampant real-estate speculation
and the collapse of the investment-banking industry—are in dire need
of an additional $7.6 billion for “advancement programs.” Congress
passed a $300 billion farm bill last year, but apparently that wasn’t
enough. This bill provides additional subsidies for farmers, including
$150 million for producers of livestock, honeybees, and farm-raised
fish.
Summary:
$4.5 billion for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
$850 million for Amtrak
$87 million for a polar icebreaking ship
$1.7 billion for the National Park System
$55 million for Historic Preservation Fund
$7.6 billion for “rural community advancement programs”
$150 million for agricultural-commodity purchases
$150 million for “producers of livestock, honeybees, and farm-raised
fish”
RENEWABLE WASTE
Open up the section of the stimulus devoted to renewable energy and
what you find is anti-stimulus: billions of dollars allocated to
money-losing technologies that have not proven cost-efficient despite
decades of government support. “Green energy” is not a new idea, Riedl
points out. The government has poured billions into loan-guarantees
and subsidies and has even mandated the use of ethanol in gasoline, to
no avail. “It is the triumph of hope over experience,” he says, “to
think that the next $20 billion will magically transform the economy.”
Many of the renewable-energy projects in the stimulus bill are
duplicative. It sets aside $3.5 billion for energy efficiency and
conservation block grants, and $3.4 billion for the State Energy
Program. What’s the difference? Well, energy efficiency and
conservation block grants “assist eligible entities in implementing
energy efficiency and conservation strategies,” while the State Energy
Program “provides funding to states to design and carry out their own
energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.”
While some programs would spend lavishly on technologies that are
proven failures, others would spend too little to make a difference.
The stimulus would spend $4.5 billion to modernize the nation’s
electricity grid. But as Robert Samuelson has pointed out, “An
industry study in 2004—surely outdated—put the price tag of
modernizing the grid at $165 billion.” Most important, the stimulus
bill is not the place to make these changes. There is a regular
authorization process for energy spending; Obama is just trying to
take a shortcut around it.
Summary:
$2 billion for renewable-energy research ($400 million for
global-warming research)
$2 billion for a “clean coal” power plant in Illinois
$6.2 billion for the Weatherization Assistance Program
$3.5 billion for energy-efficiency and conservation block grants
$3.4 billion for the State Energy Program
$200 million for state and local electric-transport projects
$300 million for energy-efficient-appliance rebate programs
$400 million for hybrid cars for state and local governments
$1 billion for the manufacturing of advanced batteries
$1.5 billion for green-technology loan guarantees
$8 billion for innovative-technology loan-guarantee program
$2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects
$4.5 billion for electricity grid
REWARDING STATE IRRESPONSIBILITY
One of the ugliest aspects of the stimulus package is a bailout for
spendthrift state legislatures. Remember the old fable about the ant
and the grasshopper? In Aesop’s version, the happy-go-lucky
grasshopper realizes the error of his ways when winter comes and he
goes hungry while the industrious ant lives on his stores. In Obama’s
version, the federal government levies a tax on the ant and
redistributes his wealth to the party-hearty grasshopper, who just
happens to belong to a government-employees’ union. This happens
through something called the “State Fiscal Stabilization Fund,” by
which taxpayers in the states that have exercised financial discipline
are raided to subsidize Democratic-leaning Electoral College
powerhouses—e.g., California—that have spent their way into big
trouble.
The state-bailout fund has a built-in provision to channel the money
to the Democrats’ most reliable group of campaign donors: the
teachers’ unions. The current bill requires that a fixed percentage of
the bailout money go toward ensuring that school budgets are not
reduced below 2006 levels. Given that the fastest-growing segment of
public-school expense is administrators’ salaries—not teachers’ pay,
not direct spending on classroom learning—this is a requirement that
has almost nothing to do with ensuring high-quality education and
everything to do with ensuring that the school bureaucracy continues
to be a cash cow for Democrats.
Setting aside this obvious sop to Democratic constituencies, the State
Fiscal Stabilization Fund is problematic in that it creates a moral
hazard by punishing the thrifty to subsidize the extravagant.
California, which has suffered the fiscal one-two punch of a liberal,
populist Republican governor and a spendthrift Democratic legislature,
is in the worst shape, but even this fiduciary felon would have only
to scale back spending to Gray Davis–era levels to eliminate its
looming deficit. (The Davis years are not remembered as being
especially austere.) Pennsylvania is looking to offload much of its
bloated corrections-system budget onto Uncle Sam in order to shunt
funds to Gov. Ed Rendell’s allies at the county-government level, who
will use that largesse to put off making hard budgetary calls and
necessary reforms. Alaska is looking for a billion bucks, including
$630 million for transportation projects—not a great sign for the
state that brought us the “Bridge to Nowhere” fiasco.
Other features leap out: Of the $4 billion set aside for the Community
Oriented Policing Services—COPS—program, half is allocated for
communities of fewer than 150,000 people. That’s $2 billion to fight
nonexistent crime waves in places like Frog Suck, Wyo., and Hoople,
N.D.
The great French economist Frédéric Bastiat called politics “the great
fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of
everybody else.” But who pays for the state bailout? Savers will pay
to bail out spenders, and future generations will pay to bail out the
undisciplined present.
In sum, this is an $80 billion boondoggle that is going to reward the
irresponsible and help state governments evade a needed reordering of
their financial priorities. And the money has to come from somewhere:
At best, we’re just shifting money around from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction, robbing a relatively prudent Cheyenne to pay an
incontinent Albany. If we want more ants and fewer grasshoppers, let
the prodigal governors get a little hungry.
Summary:
$79 billion for State Fiscal Stabilization Fund
Dennis
>AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:
>>
>> "Jeff" <dont_...@all.uk> wrote in message
>> news:4emdnRrVvrg-0jjU...@earthlink.com...
>>> AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>>> I find it fascinating that the first thing Republicans mention is that
>>> Obama is black. They do it in complimetary terms but they want it
>>> known that he is black. Jindle did it last night, and so did McCain in
>>> his key speeches.
>>
>> i'm not a republican. and for all you know, i'm black. the point i was
>> making was that when it comes time to ruin this country, the powers that be
>> want it to be blamed on a non-white person.
>
> You need to hang up your conspiracy theories and stop staring at the
>pyramids on your dollar bills.
>
> Jeff
Funny, coming from the poster boy for BDS.
Dennis (evil)
--
An inherent weakness of a pure democracy is that half
the voters are below average intelligence.
Dave
> and we know this for a fact because we already lived thru this cycle?
As a matter of fact, YES.
> scientists
> were around to record that fact?
Unfortunately, science had not progressed very far at the last ice age.
State of the art at the time was a carved stick used to throw spears
farther/faster. But now science has progressed far enough that we can look
back in time to get a good idea of what the future holds.
> scientists will tell you this globe has gone thru
> an iceage in the past, so evidently it's just a normal phase of things for
> planet earth.
It's a real bitch about the human population decreasing by about 99.99% or
more, though.
> we've been warmer in the past.
And we'll be a lot colder soon. But not to worry, our descendants won't
suffer long. -Dave
Dave
>>> Eskimo and even in land of penguin. Also, much water for irrigation
>>> as iceburgers melt.
>>
>>Ummm...if you study global warming, you will note that it eventually
>>triggers an ICE AGE. But for sake of argument, let's assume that you
>>could
>>grow a watermelon patch in the land of the Eskimo. That would mean that
>>the
>>bread basket area of Canada and U.S. would be a desert. Consequently,
>>there
>>would be a decrease of about 50% or more of available land for growing
>>food
>>(worldwide). Yes, there would be food growing in areas where you
>>currently
>>can't grow food. Problem is, there wouldn't be enough new food crop land
>>to
>>make up for the loss of farm space elsewhere.
>
> Nyet. Much land for temperate farming in land of 'moes. 'Moes
> become new world power.
Not hardly. Before it got that warm up there, there would be a natural
correction. Google snowball earth for more information. 'Moes and
everybody else would be dead long before 'Moes had a chance to be a world
power.
>
> Meanwhile, in US of A, plenty of water from icebergers melting. No
> desert, jungle.
How are you going to irrigate crops with salt water? The icebergs might be
a good source of irrigation water. Problem is, they melt into the ocean.
You can't irrigate crops with oceans. And any scheme for turning salt water
into fresh would fail due to lack of power to run it. If we had to irrigate
the entire bread basket area of North America with water from the
Atlantic/Pacific, it would take more energy to convert salt water than the
total energy output of the WORLD, currently. And we still wouldn't be able
to grow current crops, because the temperatures would be too high. In other
words, well irrigated land that averages 140F during the day still won't be
useful to grow wheat (for example)
>
> We have jungle crops in US of A.
Perhaps. Only problem is, the US of A is currently feeding the whole world.
You expect eskimos to take over this task, using much less available crop
land? There will never be enough jungle crops to replace grain crops
currently grown in the heartland. -Dave
Vladimir
>>>> Global warming good for farming. Expect watermelon patch in land of
>>>> Eskimo and even in land of penguin. Also, much water for irrigation
>>>> as iceburgers melt.
>>>
>>>Ummm...if you study global warming, you will note that it eventually
>>>triggers an ICE AGE. But for sake of argument, let's assume that you
>>>could
>>>grow a watermelon patch in the land of the Eskimo. That would mean that
>>>the
>>>bread basket area of Canada and U.S. would be a desert. Consequently,
>>>there
>>>would be a decrease of about 50% or more of available land for growing
>>>food
>>>(worldwide). Yes, there would be food growing in areas where you
>>>currently
>>>can't grow food. Problem is, there wouldn't be enough new food crop land
>>>to
>>>make up for the loss of farm space elsewhere.
>>
>> Nyet. Much land for temperate farming in land of 'moes. 'Moes
>> become new world power.
>
>Not hardly. Before it got that warm up there, there would be a natural
>correction. Google snowball earth for more information. 'Moes and
>everybody else would be dead long before 'Moes had a chance to be a world
>power.
John Holdren disciple.
Heh.
>>
>> Meanwhile, in US of A, plenty of water from icebergers melting. No
>> desert, jungle.
>
>How are you going to irrigate crops with salt water? The icebergs might be
>a good source of irrigation water. Problem is, they melt into the ocean.
>You can't irrigate crops with oceans. And any scheme for turning salt water
>into fresh would fail due to lack of power to run it. If we had to irrigate
>the entire bread basket area of North America with water from the
>Atlantic/Pacific, it would take more energy to convert salt water than the
>total energy output of the WORLD, currently. And we still wouldn't be able
>to grow current crops, because the temperatures would be too high. In other
>words, well irrigated land that averages 140F during the day still won't be
>useful to grow wheat (for example)
Global warming cause increase in rainfall.
Moisture will be least of worries.
>>
>> We have jungle crops in US of A.
>
>Perhaps. Only problem is, the US of A is currently feeding the whole world.
>You expect eskimos to take over this task, using much less available crop
>land? There will never be enough jungle crops to replace grain crops
>currently grown in the heartland. -Dave
US of A not feeding whole world. In fact, much produce consumed in US
of A come from south of the border.
'Moes' land turn from tundra to crop land; many workers from Canada,
US of A, and points south be happy to work farms for 'Moes.
jdkki
>>>> Global warming good for farming. Expect watermelon patch in land
>>>> of Eskimo and even in land of penguin. Also, much water for
>>>> irrigation as iceburgers melt.
>>>
>>> Ummm...if you study global warming, you will note that it eventually
>>> triggers an ICE AGE. But for sake of argument, let's assume that
>>> you could
>>> grow a watermelon patch in the land of the Eskimo. That would mean
>>> that the
>>> bread basket area of Canada and U.S. would be a desert. Consequently, there
>>> would be a decrease of about 50% or more of available land for
>>> growing food
>>> (worldwide). Yes, there would be food growing in areas where you
>>> currently
>>> can't grow food. Problem is, there wouldn't be enough new food
>>> crop land to
>>> make up for the loss of farm space elsewhere.
>>
>> Nyet. Much land for temperate farming in land of 'moes. 'Moes
>> become new world power.
> Not hardly. Before it got that warm up there, there would be a natural correction.
Nope, we didn't get that the last time it was that warm there.
> Google snowball earth for more information.
Doesn't make it gospel.
> 'Moes and everybody else would be dead long before 'Moes had a chance to be a world power.
Wrong again.
>> Meanwhile, in US of A, plenty of water from icebergers melting. No
>> desert, jungle.
> How are you going to irrigate crops with salt water?
Don't need to.
> The icebergs might be a good source of irrigation water. Problem is, they melt into the ocean. You can't irrigate
> crops with oceans.
You can however irrigate them with melting glaciers and the rain wont stop.
> And any scheme for turning salt water into fresh would fail due to lack of power to run it.
Nope.
> If we had to irrigate the entire bread basket area of North America with water from the Atlantic/Pacific, it would
> take more energy to convert salt water than the total energy output of the WORLD, currently.
The rain isnt going to stop, and nukes can be used to desalinate salt water.
> And we still wouldn't be able to grow current crops, because the temperatures would be too high.
Wrong again. Plenty grow the current crops at the new temps right now.
> In other words, well irrigated land that averages 140F during the day still won't be useful to grow wheat (for
> example)
Wrong again. Its perfectly possible to grow wheat at those temps.
And you can just grow them in other places like canada anyway.
>> We have jungle crops in US of A.
> Perhaps. Only problem is, the US of A is currently feeding the whole world.
Like hell it is.
> You expect eskimos to take over this task, using much less available crop land?
There is more than just those two alternatives.
> There will never be enough jungle crops to replace grain crops currently grown in the heartland.
Doesn't need to be.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
"Way Back Jack" <Her...@Home.org> wrote in message
news:49a7f99a...@news.motzarella.org...
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:24:03 -0500, Jeff <dont_...@all.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> I'm about done with Vladimir, Vladimir will either have to look into
>>his own sources or go on believing what he is fed.
>
> Feed on this:
>
> Here are 50 of the most outrageous items in the stimulus package:
yep, a package of CRAP. and when it doesn't work, of course it won't
be their fault.
Vladimir
How 'bout $250K for the Polynesian Voyaging Society (Hawaii)
and
$1.7 million for swine odor and manure management research (Iowa)
Marsha
> Go and fuck yourself. Again.
You are just sooooo intelligent - not. Your mother should have aborted you.
jdkki
Any 2 year old could leave that for dead.
Jeff
Unlike the happy result we got out of the last 8 years?
Did you fail to notice the farewell gifts of 6.2% economic
retraction, the $350 billion thrown away at, exports down 34%:
The revised data showed that three of the four engines of economic
growth -- consumer spending, business investment and exports -- slowed
sharply last quarter. Consumer spending fell at an annualized rate of
4.3 percent, compared with 3.8 percent in the third quarter. Business
investment in equipment and software sank at an annualized rate of 28.8
percent, compared with a decrease of 7.5 percent in the previous
quarter. And real exports of goods and services plummeted 23.6 percent,
And the great offwhite hope of the loyal opposition offered up neo
Goldwater and Katrina and the clear impression that he was out of touch
with anything Obama had just said.
Any kind of spending is stimulus. There is not a business out there
that is not retreating, and your plan is what?
Republicans have given up on having any kind of policy, and gone back
to the only thing they know, being obstructionists.
Oh but it's all Clintons fault, or Carter. The same blindness to
taking a lick of responsibility for any actions that W exhibited is
alive and well in the current Republican Party.
Not that any of you are Reublicans, you're all Democrats or
Libertarians or Independants or Neo Fascists.
Jeff
Jeff
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 02:17:28 GMT, n...@work.org (Vladimir) wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 02:15:04 GMT, "AllEmailDeletedImmediately"
>> <der...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Vladimir" <n...@work.org> wrote in message
>>> news:49a745cb...@news.datemas.de...
>>>
>>>> Actually, Vladimir is ashamed to admit he is still democrat even
>>>> though party has been hijacked by Marxists.
>>>>
>>>> But why change parties? Repubs are wimps, pussies.
>>> All politicians are wimps and pussies (wussies for short), always on the
>>> lookout for their next election instead of actually doing anything
>>> constructive.
>>>
>> All pols are assholes; it's a job requirement.
>
> And it amazes Vladimir how we believe that one party is filled with
> brilliant saints while the other is plagued with brain-dead evildoers.
Vladimir is so blinded by hate that he sees nothing. Vladimir
mistakes this for cool cold reason.
When Phil Gram said "We have .. become a nation of whiners", Phil
Gram must have been thinking of whiners like Vladimir.
"Why of course people don't want war. That is understood. But after all,
it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is
always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a fascist
dictatorship, democracy, pr a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do it tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
Jeff
Jeff
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 22:12:25 -0500, Jeff <dont_...@all.uk> wrote:
>
>> AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:
>>> "Jeff" <dont_...@all.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:4emdnRrVvrg-0jjU...@earthlink.com...
>>>> AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:
>>> snip
>>>
>>>> I find it fascinating that the first thing Republicans mention is that
>>>> Obama is black. They do it in complimetary terms but they want it
>>>> known that he is black. Jindle did it last night, and so did McCain in
>>>> his key speeches.
>>> i'm not a republican. and for all you know, i'm black. the point i was
>>> making was that when it comes time to ruin this country, the powers that be
>>> want it to be blamed on a non-white person.
>> You need to hang up your conspiracy theories and stop staring at the
>> pyramids on your dollar bills.
>>
>> Jeff
>
> Funny, coming from the poster boy for BDS.
And you've missed W's parting gift to the economy? What good came
out of 8 years of Bush? At least Nixon did some good.
Jeff
Vladimir
>Vladimir wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 02:17:28 GMT, n...@work.org (Vladimir) wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 02:15:04 GMT, "AllEmailDeletedImmediately"
>>> <der...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Vladimir" <n...@work.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:49a745cb...@news.datemas.de...
>>>>
>>>>> Actually, Vladimir is ashamed to admit he is still democrat even
>>>>> though party has been hijacked by Marxists.
>>>>>
>>>>> But why change parties? Repubs are wimps, pussies.
>>>> All politicians are wimps and pussies (wussies for short), always on the
>>>> lookout for their next election instead of actually doing anything
>>>> constructive.
>>>>
>>> All pols are assholes; it's a job requirement.
>>
>> And it amazes Vladimir how we believe that one party is filled with
>> brilliant saints while the other is plagued with brain-dead evildoers.
>
> Vladimir is so blinded by hate that he sees nothing. Vladimir
>mistakes this for cool cold reason.
Having honest opinion that all politicians are greedy, self-serving
assholes is hate??????
If so, then so be it, but that's still Vladimir opinion.
If they change their ways; Vladimir will change opinion.
> When Phil Gram said "We have .. become a nation of whiners", Phil
>Gram must have been thinking of whiners like Vladimir.
What was race baiter Eric Holder thinking when he called Americans
cowards?
>"Why of course people don't want war. That is understood. But after all,
>it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is
>always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a fascist
>dictatorship, democracy, pr a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
>Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
>the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do it tell them they are
>being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and
>exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
Huh?
Dennis
>Dennis wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 22:12:25 -0500, Jeff <dont_...@all.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:
>>>> "Jeff" <dont_...@all.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:4emdnRrVvrg-0jjU...@earthlink.com...
>>>>> AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:
>>>> snip
>>>>
>>>>> I find it fascinating that the first thing Republicans mention is that
>>>>> Obama is black. They do it in complimetary terms but they want it
>>>>> known that he is black. Jindle did it last night, and so did McCain in
>>>>> his key speeches.
>>>> i'm not a republican. and for all you know, i'm black. the point i was
>>>> making was that when it comes time to ruin this country, the powers that be
>>>> want it to be blamed on a non-white person.
>>> You need to hang up your conspiracy theories and stop staring at the
>>> pyramids on your dollar bills.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>
>> Funny, coming from the poster boy for BDS.
>
> And you've missed W's parting gift to the economy? What good came
>out of 8 years of Bush? At least Nixon did some good.
Your continued ranting only proves my point.
I'm no fan of Bush either -- didn't vote for him -- but I don't suffer
from the pathological obsession that folks like you (and your mentor
Keith) do.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
> AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:
>>
>> "Way Back Jack" <Her...@Home.org> wrote in message
>> news:49a7f99a...@news.motzarella.org...
>>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:24:03 -0500, Jeff <dont_...@all.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'm about done with Vladimir, Vladimir will either have to look into
>>>> his own sources or go on believing what he is fed.
>>>
>>> Feed on this:
>>>
>>> Here are 50 of the most outrageous items in the stimulus package:
>>
>> yep, a package of CRAP. and when it doesn't work, of course it won't
>> be their fault.
>
>
> Unlike the happy result we got out of the last 8 years?
virtually every piece of legislation is self-serving crap, crap, crap.
that's
all politicians know how to pass.
Jeff
> On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 10:25:02 -0500, Jeff <dont_...@all.uk> wrote:
>
>> Dennis wrote:
>>> On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 22:12:25 -0500, Jeff <dont_...@all.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:
>>>>> "Jeff" <dont_...@all.uk> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4emdnRrVvrg-0jjU...@earthlink.com...
>>>>>> AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:
>>>>> snip
>>>>>
>>>>>> I find it fascinating that the first thing Republicans mention is that
>>>>>> Obama is black. They do it in complimetary terms but they want it
>>>>>> known that he is black. Jindle did it last night, and so did McCain in
>>>>>> his key speeches.
>>>>> i'm not a republican. and for all you know, i'm black. the point i was
>>>>> making was that when it comes time to ruin this country, the powers that be
>>>>> want it to be blamed on a non-white person.
>>>> You need to hang up your conspiracy theories and stop staring at the
>>>> pyramids on your dollar bills.
>>>>
>>>> Jeff
>>> Funny, coming from the poster boy for BDS.
>> And you've missed W's parting gift to the economy? What good came
>> out of 8 years of Bush? At least Nixon did some good.
>
> Your continued ranting only proves my point.
Get over it.
>
> I'm no fan of Bush either -- didn't vote for him -- but I don't suffer
> from the pathological obsession that folks like you (and your mentor
> Keith) do.
Keith who?
Jeff