Then again, while I think Bush has done a terrible job in most areas - he does plan to veto the $300B housing bailout bill. Let's hope the veto is sustained.
I read the article; nobody knows quite how to make things better. 27 percent think new tax cuts might help; boy, when you drink that Kool-Aid, you really drink it.
Well I can say I do not think the Bush policies were very good for society, he did come into a shitstorm. Creating a war has been the policy for the last 60 years when the Fed smells deflation and he did a good job at that.
First of all, just because 75% of respondents think they are worse off, that does not imply that they "blame Bush". (Although they probably do.)
But would the current situation be any better if, say, Al Gore had been President? We still would have had the Greenspan Fed, the housing bubble, the credit bubble, securitization gone mad, etc...
You can blame Bush for cutting taxes and starting a war when we should have been reducing the deficit, and thus making matters worse going forward. But looking solely at the economy, I doubt the last eight years would have been any different no matter who was President. Although I guess we would already have had a housing bail-out signed, sealed, and delivered.
Nobody could have predicted that putting two sociopathic oil executives in charge of the country would result in oil companies and other corporations raping and pillaging our economy.
As long as there are a significant number of troops in Iraq, the US economy is going to be in the toilet.
(where "significant number" means "anything more than one rapid-response force of battalion-level strength")
Bush has turned into the lamest of lame ducks. While moderates and progressives have known all along of his incompetence, the right-wing base is just now waking up to this fact due to his inaction, the massive amount of WH staff jumping ship, and the insider tellalls beginning early.
To those of you who think "oh, Obama won't be any better", why do you believe that? Obama has pledged for, above all else, a more transparent government. That alone will do more for budgetary concerns than anything this administration could ever dream up.
Please Calculated Risk stop with the sugarcoating on abysmal economic performance of Bush admin. unless of course you're part of the upper 0.1% of Americans...
25+ yrs of industrial production decline and increasingly financial engineered driven bullshit for the US economy ( especially last 8 yrs under Bush ) with massive market bubbles has created systemic damage.
The USA needs $2B a day from China et al or could not keep its economy stable or spare the dollar from collapse.
The USA already has close to $10 Trillion in national debt
The USA has a trade deficit of $800B/yr
The USA is the prime engine for derivatives 'ticking bomb' that grew into a massive bubble, from about $100 trillion in 2000 to $516 trillion by 2007 that is starting to go off in blowback stages and the latest ploys by the The Fed, G7 will have little effect to stop it.
The USA already has way too many Americans overwhelmed by personal debt racking up a household debt-to-income ratio of 1.42 ( for total of $13.8 trillion in debt including mortgages ) that already matches the countrys $14 trillion G.D.P.
The USA has Bushie boy racking up $32 Trillion dollars in total liabilities and unfunded commitments for future payments since 2000.
Bush is to blame. He went to war to steal Irqui oil. he could not even do that. Rupert Murdoch, a Bush acolyte, indated that we would pay $ 20.00 after the Iraq war. He was wrong. we are paying $ 135.00
The US now controls the world's fourth largest reserves of oil-- something like 100 billion barrels. Even at 2 Trillion dollars in expenses, that still only works out to ~$20/gallon.
Rupert Murdoch, a Bush acolyte, indated that we would pay $ 20.00 after the Iraq war
That only speaks to how little Murdoch thinks. Why would the Sauds support a "liberation" of Iraq if it meant the price of their main asset would be cut in half?
Bush made it worse, but he didn't start it. Simply kicked away the few remaining restraints on the rich and powerful.
Every administration since Nixon (at least) has helped this snowball roll down hill and get larger and larger until the inevitable crash. Some just accepted it as the political reality, others joyfully pushed it with all their might.
Those charts over at Haver Analytics on confidence and personal consumption expenditures -- and the nice correlation between the two -- convinced me (1) to pay attention to confidence and (2) that consumption may be falling off a cliff shortly.
Pres. Os--- will be inheriting one big mess. And, I feel comfortable that, like the trailblazing Socialist FDR, he will make a big, big hash of it.
Why more than 75% should Blame Bush for Abysmal Economic Policy
In the last 7yrs we have seen the increasing concentration of wealth in a very small number of hands - roughly the top 0.1%. They have managed to essentially capture all income growth for themselves, leaving everybody else with stagnant real incomes.
Plentiful and cheap debt was a simple way to distract people from their plight, by giving them a convenient way (and, when backed by house price increases, an apparently safe one) to continue on spending even without the requisite income, and thus to feel prosperous.
That was a deliberate con, pushing the ideology of greed, idolizing financial markets and the stupendous profits they seems to generate (but, in fact, capture from others), and driving the economy to focus on only one thing: corporate profits, at the expense of everything else, in particular wages and workers' perks and rights.
Tax cuts for the rich, pork for corporate friends, anti-labor propaganda everywhere, and cheap debt for everybody to "pay" for it or sugarcoat it.
Nemo: A sensible energy policy would have put the country in a whole lot better shape than it is in now. Believe it or not, for most people, oil prices are far more significant than house prices or credit issues. Would Gore have persued a more sensible energy policy? I believe yes, though he would have done it for environmental, rather than economic reasons.
Personally, I have done OK, but regardless of that I consider Bush a disgrace.
And you think it's going to get better when all those trained killers come back to the states and can't find work in this economy?
Yes. The United States should be the leader in the creation, manufacturing, and deployment of alternative fuel technologies. Solar, wind, nuclear, hydrogen, etc. There are millions upon millions of jobs that could be available at all levels, from the "trained killer" that you're talking about up to the skilled computer technician currently analyzing satellite data to even the platoon leader.
In short, were we to turn the "War on Terror" into the "War on Oil" this country could be great again. Tell me you don't want to see the skyline of Detroit look like the skyline of Dubai. That is possible, today, as long as we get some leadership to push the country in that direction.
awgee writes:
I blame Woodrow Wilson for selling the Constitution down the toilet when he passed legislation creating the Federal Reserve.
awgee | 06.25.08 - 7:33 pm | #
Ya well I blame Napoleon Bonaparte - the SOB sold the Louisiana Purchase to Jefferson... If he hadn't done that I'd live in France now... have 36 hour work weeks and the whole month of August off.
Pres. Os--- will be inheriting one big mess. And, I feel comfortable that, like the trailblazing Socialist FDR, he will make a big, big hash of it.
jg | 06.25.08 - 7:48 pm | #
Things wouldn't be all better if Gore were pres. But in addition to a better energy policy, and no Iraq war, we'd have the social security lockbox. And the bubble wouldn't have been a bit less gigantic without those tax cuts for the investing class. Katrina would have been handled better. Yeah, I'm liking the economy better under Gore.
I just went to a big fireworks store.7 PM and I was the only one there.I was there about 1/2 hour and one couple came in.It also hit me today that in my area(Louisville.Ky.) I have not seen any fireworks stands.They usually set up a month before the 4th.There are usually 10 or more within a mile area where I live,but none as of yet.
The trouble is not President Bush. It is an unthinking citizenry simply unable to fathom how the same tyranny of 232 years ago continues. We have become so thoroughly penetrated by loyalists that the average American cannot tell the difference between Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. and Prince Phillip.
Prediction: once Os--- is elected President in Nov., gold will shoot through the roof, as folks of means in the U.S. buy gold and vault it overseas, as protection against confiscatory taxation rates and capital controls under the Os--- regime.
Hey, libs, the money you want and Os--- needs for his universal healthcare and yet-to-be-announced silliness will have disappeared between Nov. and Jan.
Unfortunately, a country founded by slave owners, who committed genocide on the natives on a scale that made the nazi's look nice, then stole the land from the Mexicans, then enslaved Japanese-Americans for no reason, etc... will always be divided.
Sorry, wrong board. These political discussion lead no where...
But would the current situation be any better if, say, Al Gore had been President? We still would have had the Greenspan Fed, the housing bubble, the credit bubble, securitization gone mad, etc...
It would be a lot better now with a Gore presidency... if you were a Republican running for office this cycle.
Perspective is everything.
The irony of this whole thing is I told some very anti-Clinton GOPers way back in 2000 I thought the best thing history will say about Bill Clinton was that he was sandwiched between Bushes... nothing he did could have ever made him look that good as the comparison before & after.
I also told them Bush would do for Republicans what Carter did for Dems - turn a whole generation off their message - right or wrong.
On that theme... there is one thing that could save W's legacy its in the hands of whoever comes next (my guess McCain - pundits & polls aside)... if he does worse then we'll be looking back fondly at the good ol' Bush years.
Ya sure - who could possibly do worse? I remember saying the same thing after Jerry Ford... and I even LIKED Carter... but his presidency, not so much.
Bush is a complete tool, but does anyone really think anything would have been a lot different with another talking head in the White House? This is just another example of how clueless most people are.
This situation is all our faults. Our collective short term oriented behavior for 2-3 decades has put us all here. You can't borrow your way to prosperity.
The President, the Vice-President and the Cabinet are supposed to be a management team. They are supposed to be managing the affairs of this country (to the betterment of all the citizens).
Yeah, the coach, the American people, put in the QB, who has a tendency to fumble, can't call the signals straight, keeps trying to throw the bomb although he's inaccurate, has a hard time keeping the opposing team in mind, has no sense of the play clock or game clock, screwed the first half and came into the second half even worse, and now at the two minute warning is looking up into the stands,... I think he's got some responsibility for this mess.
I've sat through games like this wondering what the hell the coach was thinking.
Elvis is definetly in the house and taking care of business.
Bush is OK with the remaining 25% because he has "kept us safe."
Ok, in the next couple of months we have:
Food prices up 10%
Gas up, oh, maybe 20 cents a gallon.
Utility prices up in some areas 30% plus.
Stocks down maybe 2%
Housing down another 3%
I like it. Its not often in life where everything goes so wrong. It builds character. Glodly folk won't starve - only those shiftless types.
I hope every born-again nutjob gets foreclosed on and has to stay at a shelter for 6 months.
e_tu_alt_a? writes:
The economy is one of the few things I don't blame Bush for
e_tu_alt_a? | 06.25.08 - 7:37 pm | #
Same here. Handled poorly by Bush but bigger than any single president. The next d00d will learn the same thing probably just as hard. They'll be breaking their pick on it also.
For past for 25+ yrs ( starting with Reagan ) the GOP has been the party of Idiocracy where cultural anti-intellectualism runs rampant and dysgenic pressure has resulted in a increasingly stupid American society.
However finally after 8 yrs of Bush and now with the possibility of another McBush with McCain enough Americans have sobered or wised up and see that it must be Obama.
To those of you who think "oh, Obama won't be any better", why do you believe that? Obama has pledged for, above all else, a more transparent government. That alone will do more for budgetary concerns than anything this administration could ever dream up.
Americans don't really want transparency - they want competency. When the poop hits the fan they demand transparency to find out why the a-holes weren't so damned incompetent.
You can almost say we still have a republic because we keep electing Bush types and as a result have to get up out of our nap, walk over & kick the thing one more time to make it work.
I know that flies in the face of reason but I think there is real truth in that.
If we ever really have a tyrant you can bet he'll be one competent 'leader' & when he's done the republic will also be done.
Obama will be better, in my opinion. He'll hire more technically competent cabinet members...
And we know that how? He's been pretty tight-lipped about his advisers. Some of the public ones, Robert Reich, Bill Richardson, Gore, etc. don't exactly exude competence. Just heard Reich bloviate on CNBC about the merits of Shelby-Dodd and said housing is near a bottom...
Ummm, Argento, how about Paul Volcker? It is only Barack Obama, in his person, in his ideas, in his ability to understand and to articulate both our needs and our hopes that provide the potential for strong and fresh leadership." Volcker: I Endorse Obama - Real Time Economics - WSJ
Only one thing I worry about Obama - he seems to be a "visionary" a la Carly Fiorina and gets on the "execution" side when things go bad. Mark Hurd at HP has quiety demonstrated that execution matters a lot. Vision when combined with execution abilities leads to success. I hope Bama will get it and soon! McCain as far as I have seen has neither.
Evolution is widely considered to be one of many competing theories in this country, including by the present president, who has stated the jury's still out. "As a friend puts it, 'he doesn't really care about that kind of thing.'" 'Nuff said...
There is no question in my mind that life would have been different under a different president.
nobody can say if it would be "better" or "worse" because we don't know what would have happened... we only know what did happen.
however, I fundamentally disagree with almost every policy that the people who really control Mr. Bush have enacted.
under Gore it would have been very different. That is not to say that I know it would have been better. There would be some consequences to Gore's actions that none of us can fathom. But he would have made choices based on fundamentals that more closely align with my philosophy. he would also have made choices wich I vehemently oppose.
As for Obama. He scares me if he's what he claims. That is not to say that I don't want him.
I have no idea if he will really "change" anything... or if he has the power to change anything... or if this is just his catch phrase. But with change often comes unpleasantness... revolutions are often like that. times were turbulent especially when the greatest agent of change was in action (Jesus). [this is not to compare Obama to Jesus. it is to show that massive change can cause translocations that are very painful in the short term, regardless of how "good" the agent of change is]
So IMO Obama may be a charlatan (sad), or genuine but impotent (most likely) or actually achieve change (terrifying).
I'd agree with Dobbs, dryfly, etc. in that the problems we face have been building up for the better part of a century. If anyone thinks this is simply another little economic cycle to weather, well, they're sorely mistaken.
The problem lies in the disparity of wealth that lies around the world. We are the fat kid on the seasaw up in the air and the four skinny kids on the other side just jumped off.
Nothing is going to change because are rulers don't want change.
Obama will get handed a giant economic turd, which will kill any chance of re-election. Things are going to get much worse, and it won't matter who is in the War House.
Gov't's can't fix qa broken economy. Only make it worse. Organized theft always makes things worse. The Dumborats and just as corrupt as the Rebooblikuds.
I appreciate your perspective, Yearning to Learn, and what you say makes sense. On the other hand, I foresee an Obama presidency as change in the sense that we get back to common sense in our leadership, not the terrifying kind of change.
What I wouldn't worry about is socialized medicine. We already pay far more than any other country for a crazy quilt system jammed packed with bureaucratic overhead...
Not only is the cost-per-month of the war more expensive than the Vietnam war in inflation-adjusted terms, the level of corruption involved in military and paramilitary contracts has been unprecedented in American history.
I've loathed the Bush admin for a long time on practically every policy decision. So funny that it took increased fuel costs to turn J6P against Bush. Not the war, not civil liberties, not torture -- but a 42% increase in fuel in a year. Yes, it sucks. However its going to suck more for a long time. And as much as Bush is to blame for this economy, we have the leader we deserve. Personal, corporate, state and federal spending is and has been out of control -- lots of debt, leverage every where, no moral hazard,etc.
Hey, libs, the money you want and Os--- needs for his universal healthcare and yet-to-be-announced silliness will have disappeared between Nov. and Jan.
Breaks my heart!
Technically you're right about the money (there is none), but it's also true that having no money has never stopped Congress or the Fed before. $300 billion for a starter bailout + TAF, + BSC + Hope Now should be proof enough of that.
But... universal healthcare = silliness?
I suppose you should call every other industrialized nation (and quite a few third-world ones) "silly" too. I for one would like to know I won't go bankrupt for being sick and unemployed on the same day. And if we're going to waste money we don't have on something, better universal healthcare than Iraq or more bailouts for Wall Street.
So when will the Los Angeles Times poll to find what percent of respondents blame Greenspan or Bernanke? They found 75% blame Bush. About 95% of this board blame the two Fed chairs.
I wish there were a little less rhetoric about the evils of trade and especially international commerce. I really do believe . . . that while there are always winners and losers in any transition, by and large the standard of livings have been improving around the world"
This is from the Chair of P&G that Geoff linked...,
has the guy noticed that americans are the losers and that is causing some discontent?
If the US could cover everyone and get healthcare spending down to somewhere around 10-12% of GDP like every other industrialized country instead of north of 15%, that would have an effect 4 or 5 x the stimulus package. And it would stimulate every single year, not just one time. If the next Administration could do that, even if they get nothing else accomplished, it would be a huge step forward.
We know why 1% of the people think they are better off becasue of Bush. The other 24% have read "The Secret" and are deluded into believing everything will be OK if they just think positively enough.
Did the poll ask how many lifelong Republicans are ashamed to state their party affiliation at present? Would be interesting. I know I am ashamed.
What I signed up for: small government, balanced budget, strong currency, business friendly, strict Constructionism, rule of law.
What I got: big government, fiscal crisis, currency collapse, overregulation (unless a friend of Bush), abandonment of the Constitution, rampant corruption.
I haven't voted with my party since 2002. I'm surprised they have as much support as they do. Momentum, I guess.
"I agree with him, we would have been better off. No war in Iraq would be nice right now.."
Really?
"In 1950, Hammer made Mr. Gore "a partner in a cattle-breeding business, from which the Senator made a substantial profit." Thereafter, Gore was Hammer's designated door-opener in official Washington. When Mr. Gore retired, Hammer made him president of Occidental's coal division, where he "earned more than $500,000 a year."
The Gore's are supine to the oil industry. Always been. Unless Shrub-boy and Dickhead specifically called up 911, then Gore would have done same. IMHO.
But would the current situation be any better if, say, Al Gore had been President?
Dunno, many of the problems we face now got rolling in Clinton's 2nd term -- the trade deficit with China, housing bubble.
The present Republican Party's brand of government has to be part of the problem, though.
In their view, no regulation is good, government interference and protections are bad.
Hence we get the 10 Trillion Dollar housing bubble/souffle we see now. That was a failure of government oversight, mostly in the executive branch.
The major failures of this administration will be felt for the next 10-20 years, however, since this administration has done little to strengthen the national fisc for the demographic and resource challenges facing us.
It will happen. count on it. but it won't come from Obama or Clinton or anything similar.
It will come from GE and GM and Genentech. (sorry, just wanted some alliteration).
American Businesses do not like the high costs associated with work-sponsored medical plans. They've already cut back considerably over the last decade, and it is accelorating. I know because I see it in my job every day.
As Toyota overtakes GM/Ford, and if Airbus overtakes Boeing etc you will hear squawking about how the American Businesses can't make up the deficit caused by medical entitlements. They will be the drivers of Nationalized Health Care. (NHC)
amercians are not ready for NHC. that is not to say it's not a better model... I think it probably will be a better model in aggregate but we will have winners and losers. Our populace will get more preventive care and more regular perks... but we'll lose on the fringe care and the end of life care. it will be a HUGE transition, and Americans aren't going to like it.
but a lot of the savings will come through the reduction in the mess that is American Health care. Do you know how much money we WASTE in administration? Hint: Bill McGwire CEO United Health Group: $50-100M/year. one guy. Hint: I have coders and specialists that have to work to get 10 different insurance codes correct.
A lot simpler and smoother with one payer. But a lot less will get paid for. Luckily, I'm sure we'll go similar to the British route... NHC for everybody, and then private insurance/medical system for those who choose to pay for it.
A lot of good comments. I echo the sentiment that come election 2012, we'll be calling '08 the good old days before double digit unemployment and stinging deflation. And before that nuke went off in NYC...
"since this is a matter of religion more than facts."
Yep Dumborats and Rebooblikuds act like shiites and sunnis. Or pick you religious division. I don't, as I don't support either. And I presented facts. But you can close your eyes, cover your ears, and go neener, neener, neener if you prefer.
I'd like to add my vote to Bush & his retarded, manipulative, corrupt, collusion with The Ownership Society debacle... what a snake. Amazing he was not impeached, just amazing the lack of courage in The Senate & Congress -- and then those retards are the first to collect lobby cash, while they ignore the reality of all the death associated with their lack of honesty!
Also see: Japan's Nikkei stock average rose 0.4 percent on Thursday on a drop in oil prices and after Wall Street gained on reduced expectations for a rate hike by the U.S. Federal Reserve at its next meeting and a pump by Japan PPT.
I would not expect any type of NHC scheme to miraculously solve all HC related problems in the country overnight. Even so, I'm amazed at the sheer numbers of people who believe it cannot work in the U.S. Every other industrialized nation on earth has it already.
So... the richest (for now, anyways) and most powerful country in the world --the one that launched the Manhattan project and sent men to the moon 6X-- cannot provide a basic level of healthcare to all its citizens, while backward Communist regimes like Cuba can?
The problem with Medicare is that the savings from have a single payer system gets obliterated because CMS can't consider cost-effectiveness. I remember a couple of years back when CMS tried to implement cost-effectiveness in its coverage decisions; for example, CMS would only cover implantable cardio debrillators if certain metrics were met. Without fail some Congressman or Senator would pass a resolution demonizing those conditions.
Aheadofthecurve writes:
If the US could cover everyone and get healthcare spending down to somewhere around 10-12% of GDP like every other industrialized country instead of north of 15%, that would have an effect 4 or 5 x the stimulus package. And it would stimulate every single year, not just one time. If the next Administration could do that, even if they get nothing else accomplished, it would be a huge step forward.
Yes! Then maybe Canadian trained doctors would stay in Canada instead of heading south for the big bucks....
I hope the survey instrument was worded like: So, Mister Big shot Enterpriser Entrepreneurial real-estate-speculator genius, how's that ownership society working out for ya?
NHC...gibberish. Ge5t rid of the tax loophole for businesses and give it to employees. The consumer will now control his health care policy. You want a Mercedes 500 insurance policy you pay for it. You want a KIA, again, you pay for it.
Such a change will change the products available. But as I've said for decades, you can't insure against colds, or flu, or other very common occurences...because they are COMMON.
Pay as you go on those and insure ourself against uncommon things. That'll bring costs down because beuraticised insurance company "pay for everything" insurance spikes doctors costs.
Getting rid of the FDA would help as well.
BTW, any NHC in this country, would be the gov't paying peoples' insurance premiums. You all don't honestly believe that our rulers would allow mere politicians to take away their cash cows, do you?
I agree that universal health care will work, but we need to align our concept of "health care" with that of Europe. We simply can't say that life is priceless, because trade-offs must be made. For example, in the US, we have the "Baby Doe Law" which provides federal funding for treatment of seriously premature babies regardless of the parents' wishes. So now, there's a whole industry based on extending viability for preemies. This is an American phenomenon because we refuse to put a price on life. Meanwhile, we have people dying because they don't have access to penicillin.
I really don't know why Ted Kennedy didn't use his illness to demonstrate the liberals love of national health care. He could have gone to Canada, got his diagnosis, and waited two years for treatment.
"Just let the drug companies self regulate? let consumers choose their medicine?"
And let them choose their own cars!? Let them choose their own food?! Let them choose their own airline?!
Heaven fofend! Gosh, we can't let people hire their own experts to advise them. We need a pharmeceutical controled beuratcy determine for them. Much better their masters are manufacturing AND making the medicines.
These chat rooms are going parabolic. I mean 200 comments! CR we are approaching critical mass. Join me brothers and lets leave the weak US dollar economy
I also agree that the problems were building for at least 30 years. Bush was just so incompetent at addressing it.
The thing that history will ask is how in the world did Bush manage to screw up the real application of power so badly.
He stole the 2000 election. He had a terrorist attack on our soil. He had a good economy coming into office. We should have had a constitutional amendment allowing him president for life with his bro as heir apparent.
Instead the economy is in the toilet which could be forgivable, but he has also managed to screw up in country terrorist trials and gitmo to the point that GOP judges are slapping him, and managed to lose a war and screw up the military to boot.
If that is not enough, he will turn over the new powers at declaring enemies to be terrorists and wire tapping to his political enemies.
He may top it all by declaring war on IRAN and making $4.00 gas look like the good times.
"What country do you think does health care right? Or anything else, for that matter?"
None. Health care is your business. Not the state's or anyone else. Illness is common. Severe illness is a possibility. Prepare yourself. Do you drive without auto ins8urance? Fire insurance? Do you expect Uncle Sugar to take care of you if you don't? If yes to these you're part of the problem.
If Gore had been elected, probably 9-11 would have never happened. It's been widely reported that Tenet warned Rice that the system was flashing red in the summer of 2001, and the PDB in early August reported that NY was a target and planes would be involved. The CIA personally briefed Bush at his ranch in Texas in August and Bush did.....nothing. I think as a minimum, Gore would have at least asked a question, and probably would have concluded (common sense) to have the FBI and CIA share information. And had they done that, it would have been very likely they could have stopped 9-11. It is inconceivable to me that given the "system flashing red" and the intel saying NY was under surveillance, the POTUS did nothing. So, yes, IMO, a Gore presidency would have been significantly better.
Very well put, Vader. Bush's incompetence would be scarcely believable, if I hadn't been along for the ride.
The economic problems had been building for a long time, but Bush (and McCain) were oblivious to the obvious problems. Bush was trying fix Social Security, which will have a deficit after the year 2040. Never mind that the we have deficits today and that the Medicare deficit is 1000 times more critical than that of Social Security. And did you hear any concern from him with regard to the trade deficit? No. His tax cuts had taken care of our economic problems. Wow!
I'm a conservative, but tuned out of the Limbaugh/Hannity crap years ago. Limbaugh was going on about how good deregulation was and it wasn't like it was during the robber baron period... and it struck me that you can't presume a seachange in people's sense of morality/ethics in the course of 100 years. And that's when the radio went off.
I stand by my assessment since nothing's proven otherwise.
Yes, I'll be laughing my ass off when that priapic foreign devil takes over the unitary executive and uses his totatlitarian powers to mix the races and push you out of that spot you clinched at Harvard. So much for your major life achievement, being white!
"By October, the FDA might be totally emasculated. Already, patients can not sue for damages for:
(1) injuries caused by medical devices
(2) injuries caused by drugs that were fraudulently approved
In October, the Supreme Court will decide whether all injuries caused by pharmaceutical drugs are preempted."
Exactly. The gov't gets to decide whether it is liable for the harm it causes. So the FDA approves drugs because the people working for the FDA are angling for a 7 figure income with pharmy's when the leave office. And the approval by the FDA insulates the big pharmy's. Another regulator captured by the regulated.
Sound familiar? It should...SEC anyone, anyone..Bueler?
It will happen. count on it. but it won't come from Obama or Clinton or anything similar.
It will come from GE and GM and Genentech. (sorry, just wanted some alliteration).
American Businesses do not like the high costs associated with work-sponsored medical plans. They've already cut back considerably over the last decade, and it is accelorating. I know because I see it in my job every day.
So no country does health care correctly? Isn't this the equivalent of a Communist arguing that if pure Communism were adopted by some country that it would work great?
Can't you cite some example of where the world as you envision it works better than, say, the health care system in France?
And my question is not restricted to health care, but rather to your libertarian world view in general. Where does it work?
Misean,
Remember we had Iraq paralyzed with no fly zone between the 33nd and 36th parallel..In northern zone until 03..
I don't think we attack under Gore...I see him using more UN influence..
Where is it given an opportunity to work? Remember the stories of Dr's house calls? They were still doing them in the 70's when corporate health insurance still carried hefty deductibles.
If you can show me how common illnesses can be insured, then I might have a peak at NHC. But they can't.
The point is that only rare occurences can be insured.
"say, the health care system in France?"
What about it? It's as technologically backward as the rest of Europe...which is stuck in the 60's.
But that is irrelevant as well. The point is, do you and your family make the decision on health care for a loved one, or does some beurorat working for the state make that decision. I'd rather do so...if you don't mind. And I think I have a right to.
I wasn't trying to say that "cost plus" doesn't work. My point is that most countries health care plans resemble ERISA plans; we know how popular those are. If it's covered, it's covered. If not, too bad. No remedies for damages.
Politically, Congress can't contain coverage, especially with beginning/end of life care. Controlling health care costs by limiting coverage is saying "I don't care that you die." Look at the war Sen. Chuck Grassley is waging with 20K/month cancer drugs. Despite what Obama keeps saying, even will NHC, we won't get the same care as every member of Congress. You think we all get Duke Medical for brain surgery?
For NHC to work, it must ration, not based on the person, but on the coverage. The health care divide will still exist. If the government won't pay for it, the wealthy will just go on a health care vacation to Thailand.
"Remember we had Iraq paralyzed with no fly zone between the 33nd and 36th parallel..In northern zone until 03..
I don't think we attack under Gore...I see him using more UN influence.."
That's a good point. But Afgahnistan is another matter. I personally believe Gore would have gone into Africa. Same diff...different continent.
Hey YTL - this health insurance/payments issue - I worked in the IT ( claims adjudication systems ) side at Wellpoint for 5 years, I sort of know the Brit system of healthcare since I grew up there and lived therefor 26 years and I recently had to fully understand the US health care system ( I have Aetna PPO coverage ) as I resolved my prostate cancer issue.
The price of health care IS NEGOTIABLE !
Last year I helped my uninsured neighbor navigate the billing aspects for his 3-stents heart procedure -we brought down his bills from 96K to 36K and he's brought that down to 28K and he still only paying that off at 150/month to the hospital and 50/month to the doctors..
When I look at my own bills the ludicrosity ( bad English but never mind ) never ceases to amaze me - For example, as I was showing to my British GP friend who was visiting last weekend, the anesthelogist services ( for the operation) was billed at $1600, Aetna pays 900, I pay my 10% of 90 bucks and they WRITE OFF the 600 bucks..
WHAT THE HELL is the true price for his services ? We ( well, you and I ) know this is a Medicare billing SCAM(IMO) - that the true price is $1000, but they bill at $1600 which is what Medicare will and does pay and because of the arcane and disgraceful rules of Medicare they can't bill anybody else at a lower price.. BUT THEY CAN ACCEPT LESS - and that's what they do..
Stupid, stupid stupid.
Obviously I can show this to be true for a whole host of procedures - bone scans, MRIs, nuclear stress tests, hospital stays - oncologist consultations, biopsies.. I have the f***cking bills to demonstrate this.
I guess the bankster in you never dies. It's sad to see someone so clear in thought who can't let go of ideology.
Starting on the day he was sworn in and signed an executive order increasing energy rates for Californians. To deregulation of banking. When a deficit becomes a twin deficit from tax cuts and over spending on military and medicaid. While the treasury continues to print money do you think that had anything to do with Greenspan increasing rates thirteen times? Even if it had little to do with it, would hundreds of billions in surplus been able to soften the blow.
These Texas boys are mafia that have screwed this country and dumped it over a bridge. Thier plan to gain leverage over Iraqs oil feilds, enhance it's relationship with Opec, who in turn cuts the flow and helps them price there gas on a 135.00 a barrel? This was the plan all along. Thank you Bandar Bush.
Get real CR try the quarter back and the offensive line.
No, you're correct on that point. I was discussing my earlier post, where pre tax insurance payments shift from companies to inividuals, and as such the person is paying for his plan, etc. etc.
Detroit Dan writes:
Very well put, Vader. Bush's incompetence would be scarcely believable, if I hadn't been along for the ride
according to the Evilgelicals at work, the economy is tanking to give ppl one last chance to repent, and they will be raptured off the earth before things hit the fan. they still generally believe Bush is one of the greatest leaders in the 6,000 years since the earth was created
Here's some info on the French health care system:
France's health care system bodyslams us on most every metric. Beyond the beds per 1,000 stat mentioned above, France has more doctors per 1,000 people (3.3 vs. 2.4), spends way less, has 3.2 more physician visits per capita (6 in France vs. 2.8 in America, which probably accounts for the better preventive care in France), has a much higher hospital admission rate, and beats us handily on the most important measure: potential years of life lost. American women lose 3,836 years per 100,000, while American men give up 6,648 in the same sample size (yes, we get screwed). In France, the comparable numbers are 2,588 years for the women and 5,610 for the men. Still not great, but quite a bit better. [Ezra Klein]
Who knows "what could have been"
I could see that in a Neil Diamond song though! Used to be's dont count anymore they just lie on the floor until sweep them away!
Congratulations to Fresno State
first ever mens ncaa championship
Well, when 9/11 happened, that was a big shock to our system. After that Mr. Bush came to media and said that we should go shopping to prop the economy.
If he was a true conservative president with wisdom he would had to TV and asked us to conserve energy, sacrifice, spend less, borrow less and etc.
BUT HE DID NOT. The man is a puppet of Oil and Defense industry conglomerate.
Bush took a system that has been in the making for over 25 years to rape the public and perfected it but he had 435 others thieves and 35,000 lobbyist helping.
Anon, agree with that view..
513 subscibers of peak stupidity and corporate greed didn't help a bit. Thier open checkbook policy, spending like thier's no tomorrow is troubling to me..Peak stupidity in congress! Theirs over 513 people who read and comment here that would do a far superior job..
That's absurd. The over-leveraged, indebted consumer economy has been hollowing out from the inside for 30 years now. That everyone levered up from 95 to 2000 on tech stocks didn't make the economy "good" any more than everyone levering up on real estate made the economy "good" in 2005.
The problems are far more structural and bi-partisan than people here are willing to admit. Can't blame us, the sh*t-heads who now have a negative savings rate, can we? No, it's the elected officials that got us here.
And let them choose their own cars!? Let them choose their own food?! Let them choose their own airline?!
Heaven fofend! Gosh, we can't let people hire their own experts to advise them. We need a pharmeceutical controled beuratcy determine for them. Much better their masters are manufacturing AND making the medicines.
Misean - sit back and just think - put the libertarian philosophy on the shelf for a second.
Each of those examples you listed have their own regulatory bodies: FAA, NTSB, USDA. They do similar things for their markets that the FDA does for drugs/devices. People really don't 'choose' everything for themselves there either.
Secondly - the idea that each of us would hire a 'professional' to 'advise' us... Are you going to hire an aeronautical engineer to tell you its safe to fly a specific plane? A civil engineer to every time you cross a bridge? Etc.?
Plus how would they even know unless the companies producing those goods shared information? Detailed proprietary information. And then didn't lie or obfuscate? Who would check? How would they know & what corrective actions would they be able to force through without power of law?
Have individuals go to court and force discovery & remedy so they can know a bridge is safe to cross or a pill safe to take?
I agree it is sometimes disturbing to have gov't agencies make 'decisions' for us but there aren't workable alternatives in many cases - the systems are too complex and subject to specializations most of us do not have.
I suppose in a perfect world maybe those gov't 'regulators' would just make sure there was full & open disclosure - then let 'forums' of 'experts' debate the merits & demerits of each & us decide from those public arguments. Sort of what goes on here.
I'm not sure that is better - considering the light/heat ratios we see here.
Plus it means we have to spend all our time 'researching' just to be 'safe'. Who has time for that?
I can tell you 100% - people will not put up with it. So instead of pushing for no regulation - push for effective, efficient & lowest possible cost regulation based on disclosure as much as is possible. But where not possible - then insist on GOOD regulation.
There is no substitute for good policy made by honest people for the good of society. Its tough to get & requires we as citizens act as vigilantes to hound & chase the bad apples out - you know they are there.
But there really isn't any other alternative except hide away on your own deserted island - and hope nobody else washes ashore.
Bush's years is simply the culmination of Reaganism. Putting aside the "callous incompetence", there are at least three neocon policies that came home to roost:
Encouragement of overconsumption at all costs.
Reckless fiscal policies.
Encouragement of debt to finance both public and personal expenditure.
The result is weak dollar, asset bubbles, soaring commodities, record indebtedness, record inequality, enormous transfer of wealth to less-than-friendly countries, and an economy whose inefficiency is increasingly obvious. Long-term prospects of the economy are further threatened by underinvestment in science and education and out-of-control healthcare costs. (And yes, I do believe politicians are largely responsible for overconsumption, although Democrats share some of the blame).
But I am deeply grateful to Bush for showing the true face of neoconservatism. Had he lost, that ideology might survive a great deal longer and potentially wreak even greater havoc. I don't think it's too late to reverse most of these policies, as the neocons have been too incompetent to destroy the democracy.
praetorian writes:
He had a good economy coming into office.
That's absurd. The over-leveraged, indebted consumer economy has been hollowing out from the inside for 30 years now. That everyone levered up from 95 to 2000 on tech stocks didn't make the economy "good" any more than everyone levering up on real estate made the economy "good" in 2005.
The problems are far more structural and bi-partisan than people here are willing to admit. Can't blame us, the sh*t-heads who now have a negative savings rate, can we? No, it's the elected officials that got us here.
Yay, ponies!
Cheers,
prat
praetorian | 06.25.08 - 10:49 pm | #
I'm on the exact opposite end of the political spectrum from prat - and I fully agree.
I blame Bush for a lot - but this mess was baked in way before Bush came into the picture. Dems would be wise to consider that just in case they really do have power in January. Just sayin'...
"which probably accounts for the better preventive care in France"
The evidence is good here. One thing that gets lost in all of this is that in the US med system, if a cure could have been via tech, etc., Dr's and hospitals get sued. Not so in France.
I admit that health care is a mess, I just question nationalizing it. That everyone is doing it doesn't convince me that it is a superior solution.
Do any one of you seriously believe that gas would cost less if dubya were not the bumbling dofus president today? Do you think the world would have more oil? Do you think the arabs would be inclined to be more accommodating, like they were under Carter?
Sheesh. What a bunch of sore loser conspiracy theorists.
"I agree it is sometimes disturbing to have gov't agencies make 'decisions' for us but there aren't workable alternatives in many cases - the systems are too complex and subject to specializations most of us do not have."
Hmmm...I obviously disagree. But I understand the thrust of your post.
The problem is the regulators get captured by the regulated. How does that get prevented?
"The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves."
Dresden James
"The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost invariably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And if he is not romantic personally, he is apt to spread discontent among those who are."
Henry Louis Mencken (1880 - 1956)
"The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos."
right... it's Bush's fault. it's the Republican Congress' fault. It's the Democratic Congress' fault. It's Countrywide's fault. Mozilo's fault. Greenspan? Bernanke? etc etc etc.
And yet there are plenty of us not in the trap. It's a game and many people are losing. Sure traps were laid for them, but who is ignorant...er... so fucking stupid as to believe that money is given away for "free".
Re: "What makes you think the little shit is leaving office"
I wonder that too, as national Security may require a third term for the turd and then Congress and Senate would go along for the ride and the lobbies would all show the way towards The New Order.
The problem is the regulators get captured by the regulated. How does that get prevented?
Misean does have a valid point, "captive agency" is a huge problem, with the FDA the biggest culprit. The irony is that agencies were created because the subject matter was deemed to be too complex for Congress, and the administrative agency setup was deemed more efficient. Now, we have the opposite problem; too much deference is given both by congressional oversight committees and the courts. We're at the point that if the federal regulators say approve the product, you can't sue.
The irony is that in Milton Friedman's open deregulated market, torts was to be the hammer.
The problem is the regulators get captured by the regulated. How does that get prevented?
The only defense is a vigilante and active citizenry who not only throws the bums out but also throws them in jail if they cross over from civil servant to self-serving. Make the bastards pay if they cross over.
And some will - we know that so be ever vigilant.
And that's where 'libertarian' ideals come in to play - force full disclosure & free discussion on open forums as much as possible - then encourage people to punish (or reward) at the ballot box according to their informed beliefs.
In matters where people can make their own decisions without effecting others - let them. But that 'freedom' shouldn't extend to choosing tolerance limits for turbine bearings.
Civic vigilance is really the only way. But having no regulators means we end up with the 'might make right' guys deciding what we'll get & then not telling us what we are getting.
BTW - I used to be a libertarian in college for a few years - what turned me off was trying to 'operationalize' the philosophy in my mind. The more I worked on that the more I came to believe it isn't a political or economic system but rather a 'way to live' - similar to Christianity or even Marxism. I don't want either of them to operationalize for me either.
""The problem is the regulators get captured by the regulated. How does that get prevented?"" Misean
Ah, my Latin is coming back.. 'quis custodiet ipsos custodes'... who watches the watchers?
If that's the problem with regulation (I agree, mostly), then the solution sure isn't letting the 'corporate interests" write the laws.
But there are a lot of solutions.. sunset laws, laws limiting revolving door employment, review by elected committees, etc.. Custom solutions for custom situations.
Hey, democracy was supposed to be about equal representation.... nobody said it was supposed to be EASY!
Sooner will a camel pass through a needle's eye than a great man be 'discovered' by an election
The [Republican Party] should not become a constable of public opinion, but must dominate it. It must not become a servant of the masses, but their master!
From millions of men . . . one man must step forward who with apodictic force will form granite principles from the wavering idea-world of the broad masses and take up the struggle for their sole correctness, until from the shifting waves of a fre thought-world there will arise a brazen cliff of solid unity in faith and will.
There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man.
The art of leadership. . . consists in consolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary and taking care that nothing will split up that attention. . . . The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category
Armies for the preservation of peace do not exist; they exist only for the triumphant exertion of war
Look, the United States is still the economic powerhouse in the Global Economy-- 30-35% of Global GDP and therefore plays a LeaderShip role. What our central bank does with respect to interest rates and the money supply most of the other 'central banks' will follow -- to one extent or another. An example is the enormous increases in Global money supply growth occuring over the last 7-8 years. You can see the rate of U.S money supply growth at the St. Louis Federal Reserve Website. Other countries (some of which have their currencies pegged to the U.S. dollar) ratcheted up their money supplies as well, during Bush's tenor, and in some instances to extraordinary levels.
What do you think this does for growth, the value of domestic currencies, and demand for raw materials-- Not to mention-- INFLATION? Maybe an exponential rise in the demand, and therefore, the price increases in commodities as growth in the BRIC countries goes flying off the charts?
Now, you combine those rates of Global Money Supply growth with an Un-Regulated Home Lending Market in the U.S. for the last 7-8 years, (which also expanded to overseas Housing Markets), and an Un-Regulated Credit Derivatives Market (structured finance) that has ballooned upwards to Biblical Proportions and what do you have??
You have Big Problems heading your way, which in my view, were (and have been by many) Completely Foreseable.
One could argue that these problems (De-Regulation of the Home Lending Market) had its roots in the Clinton Administration, and perhaps before that, but there are still enforceable Banking and Home Lending laws on the books that would have limited/prevented the current crises (had they been enforced) by restricting the Amounts Of Leverage the Banks could use and not allowing anyone with a Pulse to get loans that they either could not pay off or had no intention of paying off.
What were these regulatory agencies (FDIC, FED, OTS, OCC, FHA, SEC etc.) doing on Bushes watch??? Especially with respect to "Structered Finance" and the credit derivatives markets?
Take a look at some of the White House Press releases from 02-04 and you can see it was certainly a priority of the Administration to make 'housing more affordable' for lower-middle income class folks (Ironically-- by the time he leaves office-- it looks like just the opposite is going to happen).
While I strongly support our service men and women in the U.S. Military, and their efforts in fighting the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, I think it's become abundantly clear this Administration Grossly Under-estimated the political, social and economic costs of these wars. (And in so doing put even more unnecessary Hardship on our Military personnel).
Then there's the (Bogus) Headline Economic Numbers from the Commerce, BLS, BEA, and Labor departments that seem, in many instances to be Devoid of Reality. The Administration was Cheerleading these releases up until very recently. Hank Paulson (Mr. Strong Dollar) stating repeatedly last year the SubPrime Mess was "all contained". Bernanke issuing similar Absurd statements on the economy. Then there's Bush Himself who not 2 months ago said "He hadn't heard gas prices would likely go to 4 dollars per gallon of gasoline".
3 Months ago we had the Federal Reserve pull out some unprecedented moves in it's playbook to stop a Meltdown from occuring in the Financial Markets with it's engineered Bail-Out of Bear Stearns. If the Federal Reserve had not done this what could one reasonably have expected to have happened to the Financial Markets-- given the levels of Counter-Party Risk that were/are still out there? Would it likely have escalated into a National Security threat?
Do I blame Bush, the Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets, and the rest of the administration for this Complete Economic Mess were in?? And were these problems Foreseable??
Absolutely.
The man is simply Incompetent and a Complete Moron.
BK Judge Rules Stated Income HELOC Debt Dischargeable
In fact, the very egregiousness of the borrowers' misrepresentations and chronic debt-binging behavior is what seems to have sent the Judge over the edge here, leading her to ask the profoundly important question of how a bank like National City could have "reasonably relied" on these borrowers' unverified statements of income to make this loan.
John writes:
Look, the United States is still the economic powerhouse in the Global Economy-- 30-35% of Global GDP and therefore plays a LeaderShip role. What our central bank does with respect to interest rates and the money supply most of th....
...The man is simply Incompetent and a Complete Moron.
John | 06.25.08 - 11:33 pm | #
In journalism I think they call that 'Burying The Lead'. Maybe Gretchen is lurking & can confirm...
I'm a G.K. Chesterton conservative, so I doubt we are as diametrically opposed as you think.
OTOH, my take on bush is that he's a fundamentally decent but dull guy trying to do the right thing mod his parties biggest financial backers. So maybe we are.
Paulson, on the other hand? The devil himself. I mean, look at those eyes:
I think some people live to vent about the president. Seriously, I think it runs their lives and defines their being. I feel sorry for these people, even though I can't help but laugh at the things they make up. You can make a lot of money writing Fiction novels folks, don't waste your ammo here.
OTOH, my take on bush is that he's a fundamentally decent but dull guy trying to do the right thing mod his parties biggest financial backers. So maybe we are.
Ya that sounds like the guy to me too. He probably wouldn't be too bad to hang around with as long as you didn't get all 'heavy' on him - especially fun before he quit drinking. He really did quit, right?
OT: The value of homeowners insurance liability claims resulting from dog bites increased 10.5 percent in 2007, according to a study released Wednesday by the Insurance Information Institute.
We are going to withdraw the {fucking} money and invest elsewhere," Mahdi was quoted as saying by Austrian daily Die Presse.
"If you withdraw more than $100 billion, then of course this will bring about a scarcity of money and have an impact on the world economy."
The 27-nation EU agreed new punitive measures on Monday targeting businesses and individuals the West says are linked to Iran's nuclear and ballistic programs.
Cassius:
"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings."
Julius Caesar (I, ii, 140-141)
Bush is just a man. Ultimately you have to control your own destiny and not look to forces outside of your control to blame for your failures. The nation needs to relearn this ancient lesson.
Shares in Washington Mutual plummeted 4.48 per cent to 5.54 after the ailing banking firm's shareholders approved Tuesday a bailout of seven billion dollars led by investment group TPG.
I can't speak in regards to the FDA as a whole, but the medical device sectio is so weighed down by internal cultural inertia that there's almost no point bringing product to market.
My father's firm was sued by the FDA for making unapproved devices even though there's a clear exception to custom devices. The FDA lost decisively mainly because they failed to give any example of anybody being harmed and because the career staffers(who aren't looking to parachute into the private sector because they'd get shitcanned in a week) had declined approval on a device because that's what they did 30 years ago.
Coming at the end of a variety of political viewpoints, I don't expect this post to gather much attention, which is fine. But shifting the attention slightly from Bush himself to Bush's policies, I wonder if people who say it would have been no different under another president aren't underestimating the impact of the war/national security scare on the economy? I'm reflecting my Southern California viewpoint here, but I know 9-10 defense oriented engineer-managers who were able to vault into houses in excess of a million dollars because of the boomlet created by renewed defense spending. None, so far, are foreclosed, and I would never say war spending "caused" the housing crisis. But it does seem to me to be something of a factor in the ridiculous run-up in the San Diego area, at least.
While many like Calculated Risk, most should expect higher quality historical analysis and less political spin.
A little history . . . .
A Short History of Subprime
By White, Brenda B
Publication: Mortgage Banking
Date: Wednesday, March 1 2006
To say the subprime mortgage industry has grown tremendously since the mid-iggos is not news to most of us. According to Inside B&C Lending, nearly one in five loans originated today is a subprime loan. The focus of this column is to add some "color" to a segment of the market that by now seems a given, and to understand some of the key events that shaped the emergence of the subprime industry.
. . . adoption of the Depository Institutions Deregulatory and Monetary Control Act in 1980 eliminated rate caps and made subprime lending more feasible for lenders. . .
. . . Tax Reform Act of 1986 eliminated interest deductions on consumer and auto loans while allowing interest deductions on mortgage debt, thus making the latter a more attractive source of financing. . . .
1992 - A politicized Boston Fed finds discrimination in "outdated" traditional lending criteria
. . . 1994 to 1997
It wasn't until the mid-1990s that subprime lending began to gain traction: . . .
. . . According to Inside B&C Lending, subprime originations grew from 535 billion to 5125 billion between 1994 and 1997. . .
. . . According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the number of subprime lenders tripled, going from 70 to 210 between 1994 and 1997. To support their expansion through this phase of rapid growth, many lenders turned to the equity markets for funding. . . .
. . . 1998 to 1999
A number of events that would reshape the subprime industry for many years to come happened in 1998. . . .
Reference to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999. Note that Rubin drove this forward from 1998 and left for Citigroup after resigning.
Greenspans bubble #1 3Q98 - LTCM
Late 1990's / Early 2000's - Citigroup and Chase acquire mortgage companies.
Greenspan echo bubble #2 - 1999/2000 Stock Market
. . . 2003 to Present
Historically low interest rates, coupled with escalating home prices, result in rapid expansion of the subprime industry . . . .
. . . Since 1994, the securitization rate of subprime loans has increased from approximately 32 percent to nearly 78 percent of total subprime originations. . . .
Greenspans bubble #3 - 2002-2006 Real Estate
As already noted low interest rates and relaxed lending criteria drove up demand for homes. Homes became a persons primary investment vehicle but also a primary ATM. Home prices ALWAYS go up, right? Why not take out seconds and refinance those homes? You can always leverage out later.
Subprime Mortgages: A Primer
NPR
2007
Who are these borrowers?
"A typical subprime borrower is not someone buying a house, but someone refinancing," says Mary Moore, a spokeswoman from the Center for Responsible Lending, a nonprofit that advocates curbs on predatory lending. "A typical subprime borrower is someone who has a lot of credit-card debt, and is refinancing to pay some of it off.". . .
So contrary to the political spin here we see subprime borrowers refinancing those ever escalating home prices to pay off debt and. . . . . . buy more! This is why some of the foreclosures are not only the lower income brackets, but people who got caught in the deflation of real estate. Now they can't refi, there is no equity. Or, they are upside down.
That sound you heard from bubble #3, the credit bubble, popping is why we are experiencing the latest economic turmoil.
What I don't get are the people who are claiming it's not Bush are the same ones who blame Jimmy Carter, praise Reagan, and are afraid of Obama,...like who is the president doesn't matter. And goddamn it, I wouldn't be so pissed off if you had elected McCain when you first had the chance, instead of pushing an idiot on us.
Wow, you're a friggin nutcase Crispy&Cole. Spending all your time hating everyone who's not like you is a sad way to go through life, get some help. Hint: Karl Rove is not responsible for all of your problems.
Hope things are well in San Francisco, and good luck!
j------g - still proudly serving the Vaterland? Just kidding, of course, in the interest of fun, because I'm certain someone like you easily accepts being called a baby killing murderer while serving your country. All good clean fun between adults, right?
'Pres. Os--- will be inheriting one big mess. And, I feel comfortable that, like the trailblazing Socialist FDR, he will make a big, big hash of it.'
Let me see - FDR inherits a big mess, and then goes on not only to lead the U.S. to victory in the largest war in human history, but is able to create the social foundations for the United States to win the Cold War. Except for red baiting Nixon - who made a big hash of Vietnam, and wage and price controls, though his opening to China certainly worked out well, particularly the inspired choice of Amb. Bush.
And to think you are truly the first (well, self-described) naval officer who seems to be an almost unbelievable stereotype of a reactionary I have met in my life, not counting a couple who pretended to be something they weren't. If you graduated from Annapolis (Navy or Marine - I've known a number of both), then it is a sad commentary on how far that institution has sunk. West Point, on the other hand....
They needed a new 'Pearl Harbor' to speed up the 'Project for a New American Century'. They said they needed that. They needed it or they did it? This is the biggest question of the New American Century. Do you know this question has been answered!
Everybody is in on the 911 cover-up! The public. The media. Congress. The executive branch. The courts. The blogs (generally). Other world leaders.
But there's the gag orders. The late night calls. The junk science. Removal of evidence at the scene. New 'chilling effect' laws for researchers of organized crime. Defamation of activists.
But there are still hundreds of ex-CIA, military, architects, engineers, physicists, scholars from every field, eyewitnesses, first responders, foreign government officials, etc. who are all paranoid schizophrenics, multiple personalities, tripping on acid, traitors, etc. who says there's evidenve to look at. Those crazy nutcases!
Executive orders are in place declaring marshal law if the evidence were to surface into the light of the mainstream media or courts.
Kucinich will soon bring 60 more impeachment articles plus the 30 he already has. There's be 30 or so for 911 itself no doubt. Just opinion. Late night ramblings of someone with chem trails poisoning. I'm just paranoid and have spent shells, depleted uranium poisoning of the brain. Let's keep our little secret OK? Deal or no deal?
And...one more.
Just look at the two sides of the 911 argumant. One one side there's namecalling, censorship, intimidation, journalist 'bebunking', threats, and basically just silence. On the other side with questions and doubts is scientific research from a variety of fields, challenges for debates, offers of a millions bucks to trade evidence, eyewitness accounts, examination of the physical evidence, peer reviewed journal articles, timelines of events, examination of anomolies, contradictions, and inconsistencies, etc. You decide if you're not to afraid to even think about it...
Start a pre-emptive war in the Middle East, cut taxes (first in history during war time), guess what happened???
National debt is going from 5Trillion on the way to 10T during Bush's stay in the Whitehouse. What an accomplishment.
What a pair of phsyco's, what a legacy.
as I said, I have many criticisms of the FDA. The largest one is what you've already stated: The problem is the regulators get captured by the regulated. How does that get prevented?
the second one is that they don't have adequate staffing.
(by the way, there are ways to address these very important questions without right away turning to Halliburton to rate my medical care)
but again, the issue for me is: WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE.
you are a smart guy, but not as smart as you think you are. I have 11 years of medical training AFTER college. I had near perfect SAT scores, and I had top 1% MCAT scores. I was the top of my class at the hardetst-to-get-into medical school in the world. But if there were no FDA I would not be able to evaluate the safety/efficacy of medicines or devices. If I couldn't do it, neither can you.
if there were no FDA (or similar entity) then you would have full corporate dominance of medical information. here's a hint: Corporations care about PROFIT. As we've seen time and time again (Merck anyone?) if truth gets in the way of PROFIT then PROFIT will win.
as it is, we still have SIGNIFICANT corporate dominance of information, but there is always the FDA keeping it in check, just a little. and that "little bit" makes a big difference. It needs to be the FDA because it has the Teeth of the Government behind it. Talk all you want about corporations, but CEOs do care (just a little) about the wild card of the govt.
if there were no FDA, there would most assuredly be companies who would check this stuff for you. So I guess you'd go to Moody's. Because Moody's is so good at rating things. And they (as a private company) NEVER had any issue with "capture" did they? they NEVER had any issue with conflicts of interest did they? as a highly rated rating institution you would be secure in your knowledge that they were rating things well for you. Because if they failed in their rating ability they'd go out of business... therefore they must do a great job. Or if you didn't trust Moody's you could follow Moody's AND Fitch AND S&P. surely all 3 could never get something wrong.
Or you could go to Consumer Reports? Not sure how they would be funded though. Because consumers would use the site and simply tell their friends the information. It's not like toasters and cars...and it's not like there are a ton of new drugs on the market every year. And who would pay for the initial research? that would be one hefty consumer reports bill for the few who could afford it.
I guess you could do your own research? HA! Yeah right. You do not have the time or training to learn if it is safe. A blog cannot help you know if it is safe. The blog would be filled with 1000 CONFLICTING reports (look at Tripadvisor for 10 seconds and get back to me). Maybe after 15-20 years of training you would have a partial idea, IF you chose the right specialty. (as example, I know very little about the efficacy and safety of the latest cholesterol drugs because I don't use them day to day... So I personally need a specialist to discuss my own meds with me, DESPITE my medical degree, my years of cutting edge research, my subspecialty training, my IQ, and my ego)
The FDA has many faults. But the FDA combined with the CDC (which also has many faults) and many doctors (some of whom have many faults) combined acts as somewhat of a barrier to total corporate dominance.
without them, HOW would you evaluate a medicine? you'd go to some private company? and how would you know what private company to go to?
like I said: you might as well just choose Moody's to rate the medicines and the devices for you.
I disagree with President Bush's policies, but I don't see why things are so bad and why we need someone to blame. I understand things are bad for the poor, and President Bush certainly could have done more in this area. But it seems silly that we feel the need to blame someone for the fact that poor people are struggling.
The problem is not that people are paying $50/mo more for groceries or $100/mo more for gasoline. The problem is that $150/mo can cause people such great trouble.
Sure, a few percent of the population went crazy on buying houses they couldn't afford. Any stupid activity like that will have negative consequences. I'm sure the same type of people are doing some other stupid financial move right now.
I must be drinking the same tap water as Elvis because it seems like the economy is fine. GDP is only growing at 1%, but to me that seems like at least it's going in the right direction. If I exclude international, my portfolio is about what it was two years ago, but I think we can muddle through that. That's the nature of investing. Sometimes they do better than others.
I completely understand criticism of President Bush's policies. Claims that the economy is so bad seem like bellyaching to me.
The economy is in a bit of trouble due to monetary and leverage problems. Americans have been living beyond their means for a long time, and that had to end eventually.
Now, as I've said before, I don't think a recession now and then is a bad thing, and I blame the Bush Administration more for its regulation and undue influence on financial markets which has smoothed the business cycle than for (for instance) gas prices, which are basically out of their hands.
I'd like to see Paulsen and Co. stop strong arming banks and rating agencies. I'd like to see the SEC stop chasing hedge fund managers for "fraud" and start chasing banks about producing some honest financials. I'd like to see a slightly more progressive tax system producing about the same amount of revenue. I'd like to see spending cuts on national defense, border security, entitlements, and I'd like to see us make all foreign aid contingent on good behavior.
Of course, none of the above changes the fact that this is about the best place in the world to live. It's the most dynamic, innovative, productive economy in the world. Any American whining about high fuel prices, falling wages, or lack of health care doesn't realize how good they have it and ought to shut up until they do.
It's just sad how pathetic Bush is. I get the feeling that most of his advisors are pretty smart if not incredibly short sited and partisan.
Say what you will about Cheney. He's a sharp mouthed opportunist willing to sell the constitution out for power. I think he would gladly accept a "reluntant dictator" role for the "good of the country". I can hear him say it now. But Cheney is definately not dumb or naive.
But W? He just seems lost. Nice man, but president? What the hell was the GOP thinking. He's like a kid at the store who lost his parents. "Attention please, we have a nice man here at the service desk. He's dressed in a suit and tie..."
I would like to see poll data from the large metro areas - is it recorded? For example, here in San Diego we've been paying for high gas prices for 5 years now. At just under $5 nobody is happy about it but I see no evidence that people are altering their lifestyles over it. Plus our food prices are up at least 20%. Things did appear very quiet and depressed during Winter months but most things are buzzing along now. Sure there are fewer eating out so no lines or waiting for a table. Maybe we're all just spending our rebates? But it can't go that far. As for blaming Bush, well the President always takes the heat - the 70s oil price spike hurt Nixon and Carter was blamed for the inflation surge. Think Bush cares?
Blame Canada!
I blame Bush's parents, because they molded him. Damn you, Barbara. You should be ashamed. And, George H., why didn't you love him more?
It appears that the rich define "hardship" differently than the poor. Like, "Oh, Buffy, the caviar embargo is such a hardship. Whatever shall we do?"
Well, starting a $2T war can't help...
Then again, while I think Bush has done a terrible job in most areas - he does plan to veto the $300B housing bailout bill. Let's hope the veto is sustained.
Hell yes, altough which ever one of the two clowns wins that is going to replace him ain't gonna be no better.
I read the article; nobody knows quite how to make things better. 27 percent think new tax cuts might help; boy, when you drink that Kool-Aid, you really drink it.
I have a solution to make things better...maps for the children.
So then Bush was smart for setting up his original tax cuts for the rich to expire. Since Ten Trillion in debt isn't good in any QB's playbook.
So let them expire as he planned, and he'll get all the credit.
Boy, I bet President Cheney is having a big 'ol harhardehar over that one! Gotta go and check my Halliburton stock...
Well I can say I do not think the Bush policies were very good for society, he did come into a shitstorm. Creating a war has been the policy for the last 60 years when the Fed smells deflation and he did a good job at that.
I have a solution to make things better...maps for the children.
and passports and one-way tickets...
"But it's pretty clear that Americans are not happy."
I find myself much happier these day, although I think it has to do more with the pharmaceutical drugs in my tap water than the services of my prez.
I blame Woodrow Wilson for selling the Constitution down the toilet when he passed legislation creating the Federal Reserve.
First of all, just because 75% of respondents think they are worse off, that does not imply that they "blame Bush". (Although they probably do.)
But would the current situation be any better if, say, Al Gore had been President? We still would have had the Greenspan Fed, the housing bubble, the credit bubble, securitization gone mad, etc...
You can blame Bush for cutting taxes and starting a war when we should have been reducing the deficit, and thus making matters worse going forward. But looking solely at the economy, I doubt the last eight years would have been any different no matter who was President. Although I guess we would already have had a housing bail-out signed, sealed, and delivered.
Nobody could have predicted that putting two sociopathic oil executives in charge of the country would result in oil companies and other corporations raping and pillaging our economy.
The economy is one of the few things I don't blame Bush for
But the rich got really rich on his watch. That's has to be worth something.
As long as there are a significant number of troops in Iraq, the US economy is going to be in the toilet.
(where "significant number" means "anything more than one rapid-response force of battalion-level strength")
Bush has turned into the lamest of lame ducks. While moderates and progressives have known all along of his incompetence, the right-wing base is just now waking up to this fact due to his inaction, the massive amount of WH staff jumping ship, and the insider tellalls beginning early.
To those of you who think "oh, Obama won't be any better", why do you believe that? Obama has pledged for, above all else, a more transparent government. That alone will do more for budgetary concerns than anything this administration could ever dream up.
Organizing for America | BarackObama.com | Policy Issues
Is this about the economy or personal economic conditions? Because, if it's the former, there 22% of respondents are bat-sh*t crazy.
Please Calculated Risk stop with the sugarcoating on abysmal economic performance of Bush admin. unless of course you're part of the upper 0.1% of Americans...
25+ yrs of industrial production decline and increasingly financial engineered driven bullshit for the US economy ( especially last 8 yrs under Bush ) with massive market bubbles has created systemic damage.
This is kind of like blaming the quarterback for a loss;
True, but surely you didn't expect otherwise.
Bush is to blame. He went to war to steal Irqui oil. he could not even do that. Rupert Murdoch, a Bush acolyte, indated that we would pay $ 20.00 after the Iraq war. He was wrong. we are paying $ 135.00
Invading Iraq was a great economic move.
The US now controls the world's fourth largest reserves of oil-- something like 100 billion barrels. Even at 2 Trillion dollars in expenses, that still only works out to ~$20/gallon.
Rupert Murdoch, a Bush acolyte, indated that we would pay $ 20.00 after the Iraq war
That only speaks to how little Murdoch thinks. Why would the Sauds support a "liberation" of Iraq if it meant the price of their main asset would be cut in half?
Bush made it worse, but he didn't start it. Simply kicked away the few remaining restraints on the rich and powerful.
Every administration since Nixon (at least) has helped this snowball roll down hill and get larger and larger until the inevitable crash. Some just accepted it as the political reality, others joyfully pushed it with all their might.
Blame sombody.......feel better now?
Problem solved
75% is nothing, my wife is miserable 100% of the time.
4runner,
"The US now controls the world's fourth largest reserves of oil"
Controls?! Bwahahahahahhaahhahaha!
Good one. That was almost as good as some of Elvis' posts in the last thread.
Cheers,
I blame Alex Trebec. Ever since Jeopardy went into syndication, bad things have transpired.
Yes, confidence polls are coincident indicators.
Those charts over at Haver Analytics on confidence and personal consumption expenditures -- and the nice correlation between the two -- convinced me (1) to pay attention to confidence and (2) that consumption may be falling off a cliff shortly.
Pres. Os--- will be inheriting one big mess. And, I feel comfortable that, like the trailblazing Socialist FDR, he will make a big, big hash of it.
Mark writes:
As long as there are a significant number of troops in Iraq, the US economy is going to be in the toilet.
And you think it's going to get better when all those trained killers come back to the states and can't find work in this economy?
Hey JG - you know where you can take it, right?
Why more than 75% should Blame Bush for Abysmal Economic Policy
In the last 7yrs we have seen the increasing concentration of wealth in a very small number of hands - roughly the top 0.1%. They have managed to essentially capture all income growth for themselves, leaving everybody else with stagnant real incomes.
Plentiful and cheap debt was a simple way to distract people from their plight, by giving them a convenient way (and, when backed by house price increases, an apparently safe one) to continue on spending even without the requisite income, and thus to feel prosperous.
That was a deliberate con, pushing the ideology of greed, idolizing financial markets and the stupendous profits they seems to generate (but, in fact, capture from others), and driving the economy to focus on only one thing: corporate profits, at the expense of everything else, in particular wages and workers' perks and rights.
Tax cuts for the rich, pork for corporate friends, anti-labor propaganda everywhere, and cheap debt for everybody to "pay" for it or sugarcoat it.
Nemo: A sensible energy policy would have put the country in a whole lot better shape than it is in now. Believe it or not, for most people, oil prices are far more significant than house prices or credit issues. Would Gore have persued a more sensible energy policy? I believe yes, though he would have done it for environmental, rather than economic reasons.
Personally, I have done OK, but regardless of that I consider Bush a disgrace.
FT.com / In depth - P&G chief urges candidates to ease on gloom
P&G head goes one step beyond. Great...he probably believes that the media caused the housing bust too. Moron.
TCA writes:
And you think it's going to get better when all those trained killers come back to the states and can't find work in this economy?
Yes. The United States should be the leader in the creation, manufacturing, and deployment of alternative fuel technologies. Solar, wind, nuclear, hydrogen, etc. There are millions upon millions of jobs that could be available at all levels, from the "trained killer" that you're talking about up to the skilled computer technician currently analyzing satellite data to even the platoon leader.
In short, were we to turn the "War on Terror" into the "War on Oil" this country could be great again. Tell me you don't want to see the skyline of Detroit look like the skyline of Dubai. That is possible, today, as long as we get some leadership to push the country in that direction.
awgee writes:
I blame Woodrow Wilson for selling the Constitution down the toilet when he passed legislation creating the Federal Reserve.
awgee | 06.25.08 - 7:33 pm | #
Ya well I blame Napoleon Bonaparte - the SOB sold the Louisiana Purchase to Jefferson... If he hadn't done that I'd live in France now... have 36 hour work weeks and the whole month of August off.
Oh and damn good wine too.
Pres. Os--- will be inheriting one big mess. And, I feel comfortable that, like the trailblazing Socialist FDR, he will make a big, big hash of it.
jg | 06.25.08 - 7:48 pm | #
I like hash.
Can we find the 25% who actually like this guy? Where do these idiots live?
crispy - some live in northern San Diego county. Not sure where else the crazies hang out.
I guess Rove, et al got what they wanted a divided country. The old divide and conquer strategy sure worked good.
Meanwhile, all of the talk show pundits blame this mess on BHO. Not sure how that works - getting blamed before you are sworn in...
Things wouldn't be all better if Gore were pres. But in addition to a better energy policy, and no Iraq war, we'd have the social security lockbox. And the bubble wouldn't have been a bit less gigantic without those tax cuts for the investing class. Katrina would have been handled better. Yeah, I'm liking the economy better under Gore.
I just went to a big fireworks store.7 PM and I was the only one there.I was there about 1/2 hour and one couple came in.It also hit me today that in my area(Louisville.Ky.) I have not seen any fireworks stands.They usually set up a month before the 4th.There are usually 10 or more within a mile area where I live,but none as of yet.
The trouble is not President Bush. It is an unthinking citizenry simply unable to fathom how the same tyranny of 232 years ago continues. We have become so thoroughly penetrated by loyalists that the average American cannot tell the difference between Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. and Prince Phillip.
What is idiotic about supporting bush if you're rich or involved in the oil or defense business? You're the idiot for saying such a thing.
NEWS FOR JUNE 25, 2009
75% of Americans say they blame President Obama for the state of the economy.
(sigh)
"What is idiotic about supporting bush if you're rich or involved in the oil or defense business? You're the idiot for saying such a thing."
Because while a rising tide doesn't necessarily lift all boats, a tsunami does sink them all?
Prediction: once Os--- is elected President in Nov., gold will shoot through the roof, as folks of means in the U.S. buy gold and vault it overseas, as protection against confiscatory taxation rates and capital controls under the Os--- regime.
Hey, libs, the money you want and Os--- needs for his universal healthcare and yet-to-be-announced silliness will have disappeared between Nov. and Jan.
Breaks my heart!
Unfortunately, a country founded by slave owners, who committed genocide on the natives on a scale that made the nazi's look nice, then stole the land from the Mexicans, then enslaved Japanese-Americans for no reason, etc... will always be divided.
Sorry, wrong board. These political discussion lead no where...
When will the crucifixion begin?
Good thing Bush bought a 100,000 hideout in Paraguay. When this economic collapse thing finally happens he's going to need it...
And when he's surveying his land, crops, livestock, and servants, maybe he'll have some time to "think" about what he's done.
But would the current situation be any better if, say, Al Gore had been President? We still would have had the Greenspan Fed, the housing bubble, the credit bubble, securitization gone mad, etc...
It would be a lot better now with a Gore presidency... if you were a Republican running for office this cycle.
Perspective is everything.
The irony of this whole thing is I told some very anti-Clinton GOPers way back in 2000 I thought the best thing history will say about Bill Clinton was that he was sandwiched between Bushes... nothing he did could have ever made him look that good as the comparison before & after.
I also told them Bush would do for Republicans what Carter did for Dems - turn a whole generation off their message - right or wrong.
On that theme... there is one thing that could save W's legacy its in the hands of whoever comes next (my guess McCain - pundits & polls aside)... if he does worse then we'll be looking back fondly at the good ol' Bush years.
Ya sure - who could possibly do worse? I remember saying the same thing after Jerry Ford... and I even LIKED Carter... but his presidency, not so much.
Bush is a complete tool, but does anyone really think anything would have been a lot different with another talking head in the White House? This is just another example of how clueless most people are.
This situation is all our faults. Our collective short term oriented behavior for 2-3 decades has put us all here. You can't borrow your way to prosperity.
crispy&cole writes:
Can we find the 25% who actually like this guy? Where do these idiots live?
crispy&cole | Homepage | 06.25.08 - 7:58 pm | #
I know a bunch in rural Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Iowa... the 'Louisiana Purchase'.
The President, the Vice-President and the Cabinet are supposed to be a management team. They are supposed to be managing the affairs of this country (to the betterment of all the citizens).
In my book, they get a failing grade.
Yeah, the coach, the American people, put in the QB, who has a tendency to fumble, can't call the signals straight, keeps trying to throw the bomb although he's inaccurate, has a hard time keeping the opposing team in mind, has no sense of the play clock or game clock, screwed the first half and came into the second half even worse, and now at the two minute warning is looking up into the stands,... I think he's got some responsibility for this mess.
I've sat through games like this wondering what the hell the coach was thinking.
BrantW, Its unamerican to blame the american people.
BTW - Everyone here is a "great American"...what did Sam Adams say about this exterme patriotism?
Elvis writes:
I blame Alex Trebec. Ever since Jeopardy went into syndication, bad things have transpired.
Elvis | 06.25.08 - 7:46 pm | #
That wasn't a question though...
BTW- Where is Ryan Leaf anyhow?
Elvis is definetly in the house and taking care of business.
Bush is OK with the remaining 25% because he has "kept us safe."
Ok, in the next couple of months we have:
Food prices up 10%
Gas up, oh, maybe 20 cents a gallon.
Utility prices up in some areas 30% plus.
Stocks down maybe 2%
Housing down another 3%
I like it. Its not often in life where everything goes so wrong. It builds character. Glodly folk won't starve - only those shiftless types.
I hope every born-again nutjob gets foreclosed on and has to stay at a shelter for 6 months.
e_tu_alt_a? writes:
The economy is one of the few things I don't blame Bush for
e_tu_alt_a? | 06.25.08 - 7:37 pm | #
Same here. Handled poorly by Bush but bigger than any single president. The next d00d will learn the same thing probably just as hard. They'll be breaking their pick on it also.
BrantW writes:
Bush is a complete tool, but does anyone really think anything would have been a lot different with another talking head in the White House?
No Bush means...
...no Cheney.
...no Rumsfeld.
...no Libby.
...no Wolfowitz.
...no Perle.
...no Feith.
...no Rove.
...no Armitage.
...no Bolton.
...no Bennett.
...no Ashcroft.
...no Gonzalez.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure things would be a lot different.
Remember Jesus and the twelve apostles? The list above is pretty much the devil's version of that.
"I hope every born-again nutjob gets foreclosed on and has to stay at a shelter for 6 months."
LMFAO!!!
Blame is different than accountability.
Bush will ride off into the sunset -- mission accomplished, indeed.
For past for 25+ yrs ( starting with Reagan ) the GOP has been the party of Idiocracy where cultural anti-intellectualism runs rampant and dysgenic pressure has resulted in a increasingly stupid American society.
However finally after 8 yrs of Bush and now with the possibility of another McBush with McCain enough Americans have sobered or wised up and see that it must be Obama.
BrantW writes:
Bush is a complete tool, but does anyone really think anything would have been a lot different with another talking head in the White House?
In a word, yes.
The cynical belief that "It doesn't matter" was one of Ralph Nader's memes in 2000, which delivered us Bush in the first place.
To those of you who think "oh, Obama won't be any better", why do you believe that? Obama has pledged for, above all else, a more transparent government. That alone will do more for budgetary concerns than anything this administration could ever dream up.
Americans don't really want transparency - they want competency. When the poop hits the fan they demand transparency to find out why the a-holes weren't so damned incompetent.
You can almost say we still have a republic because we keep electing Bush types and as a result have to get up out of our nap, walk over & kick the thing one more time to make it work.
I know that flies in the face of reason but I think there is real truth in that.
If we ever really have a tyrant you can bet he'll be one competent 'leader' & when he's done the republic will also be done.
So elect more Bushes.
Obama will be better, in my opinion. He'll hire more technically competent cabinet members...
Yep you can blame Canada..........
Obama does not like Canadian oil...
NAFTA and Oil: Obama plays ‘dirty’ oil card - FP Comment
Oilsands producers don't care.....
Canada holds winning hand in oil fight
More butter please...........
Obama will be better, in my opinion. He'll hire more technically competent cabinet members...
And we know that how? He's been pretty tight-lipped about his advisers. Some of the public ones, Robert Reich, Bill Richardson, Gore, etc. don't exactly exude competence. Just heard Reich bloviate on CNBC about the merits of Shelby-Dodd and said housing is near a bottom...
Like Jimmy Carter? Oh, sorry, he is a cabinet maker now.
Ummm, Argento, how about Paul Volcker? It is only Barack Obama, in his person, in his ideas, in his ability to understand and to articulate both our needs and our hopes that provide the potential for strong and fresh leadership."
Volcker: I Endorse Obama - Real Time Economics - WSJ
Might also reflect the fact that W and his cronies have raped the country.
And that W is an idiot.
But most of us knew that.
Only one thing I worry about Obama - he seems to be a "visionary" a la Carly Fiorina and gets on the "execution" side when things go bad. Mark Hurd at HP has quiety demonstrated that execution matters a lot. Vision when combined with execution abilities leads to success. I hope Bama will get it and soon! McCain as far as I have seen has neither.
It's Bush's fault. . . . and it's a great time to buy!
Evolution is widely considered to be one of many competing theories in this country, including by the present president, who has stated the jury's still out. "As a friend puts it, 'he doesn't really care about that kind of thing.'" 'Nuff said...
There is no question in my mind that life would have been different under a different president.
nobody can say if it would be "better" or "worse" because we don't know what would have happened... we only know what did happen.
however, I fundamentally disagree with almost every policy that the people who really control Mr. Bush have enacted.
under Gore it would have been very different. That is not to say that I know it would have been better. There would be some consequences to Gore's actions that none of us can fathom. But he would have made choices based on fundamentals that more closely align with my philosophy. he would also have made choices wich I vehemently oppose.
As for Obama. He scares me if he's what he claims. That is not to say that I don't want him.
I have no idea if he will really "change" anything... or if he has the power to change anything... or if this is just his catch phrase. But with change often comes unpleasantness... revolutions are often like that. times were turbulent especially when the greatest agent of change was in action (Jesus). [this is not to compare Obama to Jesus. it is to show that massive change can cause translocations that are very painful in the short term, regardless of how "good" the agent of change is]
So IMO Obama may be a charlatan (sad), or genuine but impotent (most likely) or actually achieve change (terrifying).
Can I blame "American Idol"?
I'd agree with Dobbs, dryfly, etc. in that the problems we face have been building up for the better part of a century. If anyone thinks this is simply another little economic cycle to weather, well, they're sorely mistaken.
The problem lies in the disparity of wealth that lies around the world. We are the fat kid on the seasaw up in the air and the four skinny kids on the other side just jumped off.
Argento --
Robert Reich also thinks the Fed should have lowered rates today. Can't have "real" inflation without a wage-price spiral, ya know.
But then, Reich is just an endorser of Obama, not an adviser.
Nothing is going to change because are rulers don't want change.
Obama will get handed a giant economic turd, which will kill any chance of re-election. Things are going to get much worse, and it won't matter who is in the War House.
Gov't's can't fix qa broken economy. Only make it worse. Organized theft always makes things worse. The Dumborats and just as corrupt as the Rebooblikuds.
Cheers,
I wish the gov't would lower waits at the DMV. Takes too long to get a new driver's license.
I appreciate your perspective, Yearning to Learn, and what you say makes sense. On the other hand, I foresee an Obama presidency as change in the sense that we get back to common sense in our leadership, not the terrifying kind of change.
What I wouldn't worry about is socialized medicine. We already pay far more than any other country for a crazy quilt system jammed packed with bureaucratic overhead...
Not only is the cost-per-month of the war more expensive than the Vietnam war in inflation-adjusted terms, the level of corruption involved in military and paramilitary contracts has been unprecedented in American history.
I've loathed the Bush admin for a long time on practically every policy decision. So funny that it took increased fuel costs to turn J6P against Bush. Not the war, not civil liberties, not torture -- but a 42% increase in fuel in a year. Yes, it sucks. However its going to suck more for a long time. And as much as Bush is to blame for this economy, we have the leader we deserve. Personal, corporate, state and federal spending is and has been out of control -- lots of debt, leverage every where, no moral hazard,etc.
Hey, libs, the money you want and Os--- needs for his universal healthcare and yet-to-be-announced silliness will have disappeared between Nov. and Jan.
Breaks my heart!
Technically you're right about the money (there is none), but it's also true that having no money has never stopped Congress or the Fed before. $300 billion for a starter bailout + TAF, + BSC + Hope Now should be proof enough of that.
But... universal healthcare = silliness?
I suppose you should call every other industrialized nation (and quite a few third-world ones) "silly" too. I for one would like to know I won't go bankrupt for being sick and unemployed on the same day. And if we're going to waste money we don't have on something, better universal healthcare than Iraq or more bailouts for Wall Street.
Nemo-Mark said it best above
No Bush means...
...no Cheney.
...no Rumsfeld.
...no Libby.
...no Wolfowitz.
...no Perle.
...no Feith.
...no Rove.
...no Armitage.
...no Bolton.
...no Bennett.
...no Ashcroft.
...no Gonzalez.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure things would be a lot different.
Remember Jesus and the twelve apostles? The list above is pretty much the devil's version of that.
Mark | Homepage | 06.25.08 - 8:17 pm
I agree with him, we would have been better off. No war in Iraq would be nice right now..
I know a couple roads that need some paving in the bay area
Stdfs-Ryan Leaf? Probably wheat farmer outside of Spokane turning all that draft money into more! His brother is college qb in pac 10..
So when will the Los Angeles Times poll to find what percent of respondents blame Greenspan or Bernanke? They found 75% blame Bush. About 95% of this board blame the two Fed chairs.
I wish there were a little less rhetoric about the evils of trade and especially international commerce. I really do believe . . . that while there are always winners and losers in any transition, by and large the standard of livings have been improving around the world"
This is from the Chair of P&G that Geoff linked...,
has the guy noticed that americans are the losers and that is causing some discontent?
Remember, Gore's vice prez would have been Zionist Lieberman - a member of the same neocons.
"we have the leader we deserve"
"We have met the enemy and he is us."
--Pogo
Bush renominated Greenspan and hand-picked Bernanke.
If the US could cover everyone and get healthcare spending down to somewhere around 10-12% of GDP like every other industrialized country instead of north of 15%, that would have an effect 4 or 5 x the stimulus package. And it would stimulate every single year, not just one time. If the next Administration could do that, even if they get nothing else accomplished, it would be a huge step forward.
Neocons?
"Bush renominated Greenspan and hand-picked Bernanke."
So did Clinton. Like I said above.
Cheers,
We know why 1% of the people think they are better off becasue of Bush. The other 24% have read "The Secret" and are deluded into believing everything will be OK if they just think positively enough.
Did the poll ask how many lifelong Republicans are ashamed to state their party affiliation at present? Would be interesting. I know I am ashamed.
What I signed up for: small government, balanced budget, strong currency, business friendly, strict Constructionism, rule of law.
What I got: big government, fiscal crisis, currency collapse, overregulation (unless a friend of Bush), abandonment of the Constitution, rampant corruption.
I haven't voted with my party since 2002. I'm surprised they have as much support as they do. Momentum, I guess.
cd,
"I agree with him, we would have been better off. No war in Iraq would be nice right now.."
Really?
"In 1950, Hammer made Mr. Gore "a partner in a cattle-breeding business, from which the Senator made a substantial profit." Thereafter, Gore was Hammer's designated door-opener in official Washington. When Mr. Gore retired, Hammer made him president of Occidental's coal division, where he "earned more than $500,000 a year."
DOSSIER: THE SECRET HISTORY OF ARMAND HAMMER
The Gore's are supine to the oil industry. Always been. Unless Shrub-boy and Dickhead specifically called up 911, then Gore would have done same. IMHO.
Cheers,
But would the current situation be any better if, say, Al Gore had been President?
Dunno, many of the problems we face now got rolling in Clinton's 2nd term -- the trade deficit with China, housing bubble.
The present Republican Party's brand of government has to be part of the problem, though.
In their view, no regulation is good, government interference and protections are bad.
Hence we get the 10 Trillion Dollar housing bubble/souffle we see now. That was a failure of government oversight, mostly in the executive branch.
The major failures of this administration will be felt for the next 10-20 years, however, since this administration has done little to strengthen the national fisc for the demographic and resource challenges facing us.
then Gore would have done same. IMHO.
and . . . you'd be wrong. No need to argue it though since this is a matter of religion more than facts.
like every other industrialized country instead of north of 15%, that would have an effect 4 or 5 x the stimulus package
and cause your neighborhood BMW and Mercedes dealers to slit their wrists.
as for socialized medicine.
It will happen. count on it. but it won't come from Obama or Clinton or anything similar.
It will come from GE and GM and Genentech. (sorry, just wanted some alliteration).
American Businesses do not like the high costs associated with work-sponsored medical plans. They've already cut back considerably over the last decade, and it is accelorating. I know because I see it in my job every day.
As Toyota overtakes GM/Ford, and if Airbus overtakes Boeing etc you will hear squawking about how the American Businesses can't make up the deficit caused by medical entitlements. They will be the drivers of Nationalized Health Care. (NHC)
amercians are not ready for NHC. that is not to say it's not a better model... I think it probably will be a better model in aggregate but we will have winners and losers. Our populace will get more preventive care and more regular perks... but we'll lose on the fringe care and the end of life care. it will be a HUGE transition, and Americans aren't going to like it.
but a lot of the savings will come through the reduction in the mess that is American Health care. Do you know how much money we WASTE in administration? Hint: Bill McGwire CEO United Health Group: $50-100M/year. one guy. Hint: I have coders and specialists that have to work to get 10 different insurance codes correct.
A lot simpler and smoother with one payer. But a lot less will get paid for. Luckily, I'm sure we'll go similar to the British route... NHC for everybody, and then private insurance/medical system for those who choose to pay for it.
steps off podium...
Al gore would not have invaded IRAQ for all you Bush nuthuggers on this board and that would have made a huge difference.
A lot of good comments. I echo the sentiment that come election 2012, we'll be calling '08 the good old days before double digit unemployment and stinging deflation. And before that nuke went off in NYC...
Personally, I blame ALL Republicans, and everyone who voted for them.
And most of the Democrats, too.
A lot simpler and smoother with one payer. But a lot less will get paid for.
Someone forgot to tell Medicare and Medicaid. A single payer "cost plus" solution to our health care is a mirage.
Troy,
"since this is a matter of religion more than facts."
Yep Dumborats and Rebooblikuds act like shiites and sunnis. Or pick you religious division. I don't, as I don't support either. And I presented facts. But you can close your eyes, cover your ears, and go neener, neener, neener if you prefer.
Cheers,
A single payer "cost plus" solution to our health care is a mirage.
Unless you don't have and cannot afford private healthcare. Then the 'mirage' transforms into a lovely oasis.
No. Medicare is already in the process of holding costs as steady as possible.
This year as an example CMS decided that it would pay 10.8% LESS per RVU (Relative Value Unit). thus, for the same procedure, we all make 10.8% less.
My salary will go down 17% this year. some of the specialists (interventional cardiology, and radiology as exmaple) face up to 25% drops in salary.
The Medicare boondoggle is not due to single payer.
(example: the huge gift that the Republicans put through so that Medicare/aid cannot bid competitively for prescription drug products).
you will see significant drops in what is/is not covered for Medicare.
as I said: it is starting... but slowly
I'd like to add my vote to Bush & his retarded, manipulative, corrupt, collusion with The Ownership Society debacle... what a snake. Amazing he was not impeached, just amazing the lack of courage in The Senate & Congress -- and then those retards are the first to collect lobby cash, while they ignore the reality of all the death associated with their lack of honesty!
Also see: Japan's Nikkei stock average rose 0.4 percent on Thursday on a drop in oil prices and after Wall Street gained on reduced expectations for a rate hike by the U.S. Federal Reserve at its next meeting and a pump by Japan PPT.
I should amend:
the gift that CONGRESS gave the pharmaceutical companies.
I would not expect any type of NHC scheme to miraculously solve all HC related problems in the country overnight. Even so, I'm amazed at the sheer numbers of people who believe it cannot work in the U.S. Every other industrialized nation on earth has it already.
So... the richest (for now, anyways) and most powerful country in the world --the one that launched the Manhattan project and sent men to the moon 6X-- cannot provide a basic level of healthcare to all its citizens, while backward Communist regimes like Cuba can?
The lack of faith is breathtaking.
YTL:
The problem with Medicare is that the savings from have a single payer system gets obliterated because CMS can't consider cost-effectiveness. I remember a couple of years back when CMS tried to implement cost-effectiveness in its coverage decisions; for example, CMS would only cover implantable cardio debrillators if certain metrics were met. Without fail some Congressman or Senator would pass a resolution demonizing those conditions.
Aheadofthecurve writes:
If the US could cover everyone and get healthcare spending down to somewhere around 10-12% of GDP like every other industrialized country instead of north of 15%, that would have an effect 4 or 5 x the stimulus package. And it would stimulate every single year, not just one time. If the next Administration could do that, even if they get nothing else accomplished, it would be a huge step forward.
Yes! Then maybe Canadian trained doctors would stay in Canada instead of heading south for the big bucks....
More butter please...........
Canadian, you are going to be glad for your national health system, given the massive quantities of butter you're consuming lately.
I hope the survey instrument was worded like: So, Mister Big shot Enterpriser Entrepreneurial real-estate-speculator genius, how's that ownership society working out for ya?
At least we won't have to count the silverware when Bush leaves office.
.
What makes you think the little shit is leaving office?
NHC...gibberish. Ge5t rid of the tax loophole for businesses and give it to employees. The consumer will now control his health care policy. You want a Mercedes 500 insurance policy you pay for it. You want a KIA, again, you pay for it.
Such a change will change the products available. But as I've said for decades, you can't insure against colds, or flu, or other very common occurences...because they are COMMON.
Pay as you go on those and insure ourself against uncommon things. That'll bring costs down because beuraticised insurance company "pay for everything" insurance spikes doctors costs.
Getting rid of the FDA would help as well.
BTW, any NHC in this country, would be the gov't paying peoples' insurance premiums. You all don't honestly believe that our rulers would allow mere politicians to take away their cash cows, do you?
Cheers,
HARM:
I agree that universal health care will work, but we need to align our concept of "health care" with that of Europe. We simply can't say that life is priceless, because trade-offs must be made. For example, in the US, we have the "Baby Doe Law" which provides federal funding for treatment of seriously premature babies regardless of the parents' wishes. So now, there's a whole industry based on extending viability for preemies. This is an American phenomenon because we refuse to put a price on life. Meanwhile, we have people dying because they don't have access to penicillin.
Million-Dollar Babies
Getting rid of the FDA would help as well.
and replace it with what? Just let the drug companies self regulate? let consumers choose their medicine?
CR
The minorist of comments, but I really appreciate that the y-zxis of most of your graphs start at zero, and if not they are identified as such.
Helps keep things in perspective.
Getting rid of the FDA would help as well.
I guess we could let Moody's rate the meds. they do a really good job.
(FWIW: I think that major changes need to happen to the FDA, but as they say "it's the best of all evils" for now)
Yearning, Thanks for the informed comments on health care. I work for Blue Cross, and see some of the same things...
I really don't know why Ted Kennedy didn't use his illness to demonstrate the liberals love of national health care. He could have gone to Canada, got his diagnosis, and waited two years for treatment.
schade writes:
What makes you think the little shit is leaving office?
To make room for the big shit obama coming in.
.
Yearning To Learn,
"Just let the drug companies self regulate? let consumers choose their medicine?"
And let them choose their own cars!? Let them choose their own food?! Let them choose their own airline?!
Heaven fofend! Gosh, we can't let people hire their own experts to advise them. We need a pharmeceutical controled beuratcy determine for them. Much better their masters are manufacturing AND making the medicines.
Cheers,
These chat rooms are going parabolic. I mean 200 comments! CR we are approaching critical mass. Join me brothers and lets leave the weak US dollar economy
Misean,
What country do you think does health care right? Or anything else, for that matter?
BigR,
"?This is an American phenomenon because we refuse to put a price on life."
Given the gov't's treatment of injured soldiers, and rather averse to having it put a price on life. Rather those that care for the patient do that.
Cheers,
Yeah the Daily Kos must be down.
YTL:
The House blocked the Medicare cuts, didn't they? Now waiting for the Senate.
House Blocks Medicare Pay Cut. What’s Next? - Health Blog - WSJ
I also agree that the problems were building for at least 30 years. Bush was just so incompetent at addressing it.
The thing that history will ask is how in the world did Bush manage to screw up the real application of power so badly.
He stole the 2000 election. He had a terrorist attack on our soil. He had a good economy coming into office. We should have had a constitutional amendment allowing him president for life with his bro as heir apparent.
Instead the economy is in the toilet which could be forgivable, but he has also managed to screw up in country terrorist trials and gitmo to the point that GOP judges are slapping him, and managed to lose a war and screw up the military to boot.
If that is not enough, he will turn over the new powers at declaring enemies to be terrorists and wire tapping to his political enemies.
He may top it all by declaring war on IRAN and making $4.00 gas look like the good times.
Detroit Dan,
"What country do you think does health care right? Or anything else, for that matter?"
None. Health care is your business. Not the state's or anyone else. Illness is common. Severe illness is a possibility. Prepare yourself. Do you drive without auto ins8urance? Fire insurance? Do you expect Uncle Sugar to take care of you if you don't? If yes to these you're part of the problem.
Cheers,
If Gore had been elected, probably 9-11 would have never happened. It's been widely reported that Tenet warned Rice that the system was flashing red in the summer of 2001, and the PDB in early August reported that NY was a target and planes would be involved. The CIA personally briefed Bush at his ranch in Texas in August and Bush did.....nothing. I think as a minimum, Gore would have at least asked a question, and probably would have concluded (common sense) to have the FBI and CIA share information. And had they done that, it would have been very likely they could have stopped 9-11. It is inconceivable to me that given the "system flashing red" and the intel saying NY was under surveillance, the POTUS did nothing. So, yes, IMO, a Gore presidency would have been significantly better.
By October, the FDA might be totally emasculated. Already, patients can not sue for damages for:
(1) injuries caused by medical devices
(2) injuries caused by drugs that were fraudulently approved
In October, the Supreme Court will decide whether all injuries caused by pharmaceutical drugs are preempted.
Three trillion dollars plus interest in Iraq and no end in sight.
Very well put, Vader. Bush's incompetence would be scarcely believable, if I hadn't been along for the ride.
The economic problems had been building for a long time, but Bush (and McCain) were oblivious to the obvious problems. Bush was trying fix Social Security, which will have a deficit after the year 2040. Never mind that the we have deficits today and that the Medicare deficit is 1000 times more critical than that of Social Security. And did you hear any concern from him with regard to the trade deficit? No. His tax cuts had taken care of our economic problems. Wow!
I'm a conservative, but tuned out of the Limbaugh/Hannity crap years ago. Limbaugh was going on about how good deregulation was and it wasn't like it was during the robber baron period... and it struck me that you can't presume a seachange in people's sense of morality/ethics in the course of 100 years. And that's when the radio went off.
I stand by my assessment since nothing's proven otherwise.
Yes, I'll be laughing my ass off when that priapic foreign devil takes over the unitary executive and uses his totatlitarian powers to mix the races and push you out of that spot you clinched at Harvard. So much for your major life achievement, being white!
BigR,
"By October, the FDA might be totally emasculated. Already, patients can not sue for damages for:
(1) injuries caused by medical devices
(2) injuries caused by drugs that were fraudulently approved
In October, the Supreme Court will decide whether all injuries caused by pharmaceutical drugs are preempted."
Exactly. The gov't gets to decide whether it is liable for the harm it causes. So the FDA approves drugs because the people working for the FDA are angling for a 7 figure income with pharmy's when the leave office. And the approval by the FDA insulates the big pharmy's. Another regulator captured by the regulated.
Sound familiar? It should...SEC anyone, anyone..Bueler?
Cheers,
Terra-ist fist bump nation!
Misean @ 956:
Well said. Shit happens.
So does cancer, sepsis and other unpleasantries.
It will happen. count on it. but it won't come from Obama or Clinton or anything similar.
It will come from GE and GM and Genentech. (sorry, just wanted some alliteration).
American Businesses do not like the high costs associated with work-sponsored medical plans. They've already cut back considerably over the last decade, and it is accelorating. I know because I see it in my job every day.
Yup.
Grandpa McCain and his crazy spiritual advisor John Hagee is praying for another terrorist incident in hopes that will get him elected.
Had enough?
Misean,
So no country does health care correctly? Isn't this the equivalent of a Communist arguing that if pure Communism were adopted by some country that it would work great?
Can't you cite some example of where the world as you envision it works better than, say, the health care system in France?
And my question is not restricted to health care, but rather to your libertarian world view in general. Where does it work?
Misean,
Remember we had Iraq paralyzed with no fly zone between the 33nd and 36th parallel..In northern zone until 03..
I don't think we attack under Gore...I see him using more UN influence..
Cheers.
This last 7.5 years feels like the 'evil Kirk' episode of Star Trek.
Incredulous,
How many more daze Dewey have to put UP w/ that same comment?
At least use some verbal threats in hopes that your IP is banned.
Thx
Detroit Dan,
"Where does it work?"
Where is it given an opportunity to work? Remember the stories of Dr's house calls? They were still doing them in the 70's when corporate health insurance still carried hefty deductibles.
If you can show me how common illnesses can be insured, then I might have a peak at NHC. But they can't.
The point is that only rare occurences can be insured.
"say, the health care system in France?"
What about it? It's as technologically backward as the rest of Europe...which is stuck in the 60's.
But that is irrelevant as well. The point is, do you and your family make the decision on health care for a loved one, or does some beurorat working for the state make that decision. I'd rather do so...if you don't mind. And I think I have a right to.
Cheers,
Detroit Dan/YTL:
I wasn't trying to say that "cost plus" doesn't work. My point is that most countries health care plans resemble ERISA plans; we know how popular those are. If it's covered, it's covered. If not, too bad. No remedies for damages.
Politically, Congress can't contain coverage, especially with beginning/end of life care. Controlling health care costs by limiting coverage is saying "I don't care that you die." Look at the war Sen. Chuck Grassley is waging with 20K/month cancer drugs. Despite what Obama keeps saying, even will NHC, we won't get the same care as every member of Congress. You think we all get Duke Medical for brain surgery?
For NHC to work, it must ration, not based on the person, but on the coverage. The health care divide will still exist. If the government won't pay for it, the wealthy will just go on a health care vacation to Thailand.
cd,
"Remember we had Iraq paralyzed with no fly zone between the 33nd and 36th parallel..In northern zone until 03..
I don't think we attack under Gore...I see him using more UN influence.."
That's a good point. But Afgahnistan is another matter. I personally believe Gore would have gone into Africa. Same diff...different continent.
Cheers,
OTOTOTOTOTOT
Hey YTL - this health insurance/payments issue - I worked in the IT ( claims adjudication systems ) side at Wellpoint for 5 years, I sort of know the Brit system of healthcare since I grew up there and lived therefor 26 years and I recently had to fully understand the US health care system ( I have Aetna PPO coverage ) as I resolved my prostate cancer issue.
The price of health care IS NEGOTIABLE !
Last year I helped my uninsured neighbor navigate the billing aspects for his 3-stents heart procedure -we brought down his bills from 96K to 36K and he's brought that down to 28K and he still only paying that off at 150/month to the hospital and 50/month to the doctors..
When I look at my own bills the ludicrosity ( bad English but never mind ) never ceases to amaze me - For example, as I was showing to my British GP friend who was visiting last weekend, the anesthelogist services ( for the operation) was billed at $1600, Aetna pays 900, I pay my 10% of 90 bucks and they WRITE OFF the 600 bucks..
WHAT THE HELL is the true price for his services ? We ( well, you and I ) know this is a Medicare billing SCAM(IMO) - that the true price is $1000, but they bill at $1600 which is what Medicare will and does pay and because of the arcane and disgraceful rules of Medicare they can't bill anybody else at a lower price.. BUT THEY CAN ACCEPT LESS - and that's what they do..
Stupid, stupid stupid.
Obviously I can show this to be true for a whole host of procedures - bone scans, MRIs, nuclear stress tests, hospital stays - oncologist consultations, biopsies.. I have the f***cking bills to demonstrate this.
-K
The point is, do you and your family make the decision on health care for a loved one, or does some beurorat working for the state make that decision.
Neither. The pointy-headed beurocrat in the insurance company denies your claim. Geezus, you usually don't make such straw mans.
Ah CR-
I guess the bankster in you never dies. It's sad to see someone so clear in thought who can't let go of ideology.
Starting on the day he was sworn in and signed an executive order increasing energy rates for Californians. To deregulation of banking. When a deficit becomes a twin deficit from tax cuts and over spending on military and medicaid. While the treasury continues to print money do you think that had anything to do with Greenspan increasing rates thirteen times? Even if it had little to do with it, would hundreds of billions in surplus been able to soften the blow.
These Texas boys are mafia that have screwed this country and dumped it over a bridge. Thier plan to gain leverage over Iraqs oil feilds, enhance it's relationship with Opec, who in turn cuts the flow and helps them price there gas on a 135.00 a barrel? This was the plan all along. Thank you Bandar Bush.
Get real CR try the quarter back and the offensive line.
Anonymouse,
"Geezus, you usually don't make such straw mans."
No, you're correct on that point. I was discussing my earlier post, where pre tax insurance payments shift from companies to inividuals, and as such the person is paying for his plan, etc. etc.
Cheers,
Detroit Dan writes:
Very well put, Vader. Bush's incompetence would be scarcely believable, if I hadn't been along for the ride
according to the Evilgelicals at work, the economy is tanking to give ppl one last chance to repent, and they will be raptured off the earth before things hit the fan. they still generally believe Bush is one of the greatest leaders in the 6,000 years since the earth was created
Misean,
Sorry. I didn't recall reading your advocacy for eliminating insurance companies. We now agree on something w/ regard to health care.
Thanks for the response, Misean.
Here's some info on the French health care system:
France's health care system bodyslams us on most every metric. Beyond the beds per 1,000 stat mentioned above, France has more doctors per 1,000 people (3.3 vs. 2.4), spends way less, has 3.2 more physician visits per capita (6 in France vs. 2.8 in America, which probably accounts for the better preventive care in France), has a much higher hospital admission rate, and beats us handily on the most important measure: potential years of life lost. American women lose 3,836 years per 100,000, while American men give up 6,648 in the same sample size (yes, we get screwed). In France, the comparable numbers are 2,588 years for the women and 5,610 for the men. Still not great, but quite a bit better. [Ezra Klein]
Misean,
Who knows "what could have been"
I could see that in a Neil Diamond song though! Used to be's dont count anymore they just lie on the floor until sweep them away!
Congratulations to Fresno State
first ever mens ncaa championship
Wow,I can't believe the LA Times would post a negative Bush article. Things must really be bad!
Good night to all. Thanks for your thoughtful comments...
Well, when 9/11 happened, that was a big shock to our system. After that Mr. Bush came to media and said that we should go shopping to prop the economy.
If he was a true conservative president with wisdom he would had to TV and asked us to conserve energy, sacrifice, spend less, borrow less and etc.
BUT HE DID NOT. The man is a puppet of Oil and Defense industry conglomerate.
Disclosure: I am a Bush hatting conservative.
Bush took a system that has been in the making for over 25 years to rape the public and perfected it but he had 435 others thieves and 35,000 lobbyist helping.
Anon, agree with that view..
513 subscibers of peak stupidity and corporate greed didn't help a bit. Thier open checkbook policy, spending like thier's no tomorrow is troubling to me..Peak stupidity in congress! Theirs over 513 people who read and comment here that would do a far superior job..
He had a good economy coming into office.
That's absurd. The over-leveraged, indebted consumer economy has been hollowing out from the inside for 30 years now. That everyone levered up from 95 to 2000 on tech stocks didn't make the economy "good" any more than everyone levering up on real estate made the economy "good" in 2005.
The problems are far more structural and bi-partisan than people here are willing to admit. Can't blame us, the sh*t-heads who now have a negative savings rate, can we? No, it's the elected officials that got us here.
Yay, ponies!
Cheers,
prat
And let them choose their own cars!? Let them choose their own food?! Let them choose their own airline?!
Heaven fofend! Gosh, we can't let people hire their own experts to advise them. We need a pharmeceutical controled beuratcy determine for them. Much better their masters are manufacturing AND making the medicines.
Misean - sit back and just think - put the libertarian philosophy on the shelf for a second.
Each of those examples you listed have their own regulatory bodies: FAA, NTSB, USDA. They do similar things for their markets that the FDA does for drugs/devices. People really don't 'choose' everything for themselves there either.
Secondly - the idea that each of us would hire a 'professional' to 'advise' us... Are you going to hire an aeronautical engineer to tell you its safe to fly a specific plane? A civil engineer to every time you cross a bridge? Etc.?
Plus how would they even know unless the companies producing those goods shared information? Detailed proprietary information. And then didn't lie or obfuscate? Who would check? How would they know & what corrective actions would they be able to force through without power of law?
Have individuals go to court and force discovery & remedy so they can know a bridge is safe to cross or a pill safe to take?
I agree it is sometimes disturbing to have gov't agencies make 'decisions' for us but there aren't workable alternatives in many cases - the systems are too complex and subject to specializations most of us do not have.
I suppose in a perfect world maybe those gov't 'regulators' would just make sure there was full & open disclosure - then let 'forums' of 'experts' debate the merits & demerits of each & us decide from those public arguments. Sort of what goes on here.
I'm not sure that is better - considering the light/heat ratios we see here.
Plus it means we have to spend all our time 'researching' just to be 'safe'. Who has time for that?
I can tell you 100% - people will not put up with it. So instead of pushing for no regulation - push for effective, efficient & lowest possible cost regulation based on disclosure as much as is possible. But where not possible - then insist on GOOD regulation.
There is no substitute for good policy made by honest people for the good of society. Its tough to get & requires we as citizens act as vigilantes to hound & chase the bad apples out - you know they are there.
But there really isn't any other alternative except hide away on your own deserted island - and hope nobody else washes ashore.
Bush's years is simply the culmination of Reaganism. Putting aside the "callous incompetence", there are at least three neocon policies that came home to roost:
The result is weak dollar, asset bubbles, soaring commodities, record indebtedness, record inequality, enormous transfer of wealth to less-than-friendly countries, and an economy whose inefficiency is increasingly obvious. Long-term prospects of the economy are further threatened by underinvestment in science and education and out-of-control healthcare costs. (And yes, I do believe politicians are largely responsible for overconsumption, although Democrats share some of the blame).
But I am deeply grateful to Bush for showing the true face of neoconservatism. Had he lost, that ideology might survive a great deal longer and potentially wreak even greater havoc. I don't think it's too late to reverse most of these policies, as the neocons have been too incompetent to destroy the democracy.
praetorian writes:
He had a good economy coming into office.
That's absurd. The over-leveraged, indebted consumer economy has been hollowing out from the inside for 30 years now. That everyone levered up from 95 to 2000 on tech stocks didn't make the economy "good" any more than everyone levering up on real estate made the economy "good" in 2005.
The problems are far more structural and bi-partisan than people here are willing to admit. Can't blame us, the sh*t-heads who now have a negative savings rate, can we? No, it's the elected officials that got us here.
Yay, ponies!
Cheers,
prat
praetorian | 06.25.08 - 10:49 pm | #
I'm on the exact opposite end of the political spectrum from prat - and I fully agree.
I blame Bush for a lot - but this mess was baked in way before Bush came into the picture. Dems would be wise to consider that just in case they really do have power in January. Just sayin'...
Anonymous writes:
Wow,I can't believe the LA Times would post a negative Bush article. Things must really be bad!
Anonymous | 06.25.08 - 10:30 pm | #
Next they'll report the Pope is still Catholic.
He is right?
Detroit Dan,
"which probably accounts for the better preventive care in France"
The evidence is good here. One thing that gets lost in all of this is that in the US med system, if a cure could have been via tech, etc., Dr's and hospitals get sued. Not so in France.
I admit that health care is a mess, I just question nationalizing it. That everyone is doing it doesn't convince me that it is a superior solution.
Have a good night.
Cheers,
Do any one of you seriously believe that gas would cost less if dubya were not the bumbling dofus president today? Do you think the world would have more oil? Do you think the arabs would be inclined to be more accommodating, like they were under Carter?
Sheesh. What a bunch of sore loser conspiracy theorists.
dryfly,
"I agree it is sometimes disturbing to have gov't agencies make 'decisions' for us but there aren't workable alternatives in many cases - the systems are too complex and subject to specializations most of us do not have."
Hmmm...I obviously disagree. But I understand the thrust of your post.
The problem is the regulators get captured by the regulated. How does that get prevented?
Cheers,
barely,
"Sheesh. What a bunch of sore loser conspiracy theorists."
I remain a hard core Super Colander Tin Foil Hat conspiriracy theorist. And I refuse to repent.
Cheers,
"The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves."
Dresden James
"The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost invariably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And if he is not romantic personally, he is apt to spread discontent among those who are."
Henry Louis Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Anonymous | 06.25.08,
"The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos."
Ah Menchen...We need a few miliion of them today.
Cheers,
right... it's Bush's fault. it's the Republican Congress' fault. It's the Democratic Congress' fault. It's Countrywide's fault. Mozilo's fault. Greenspan? Bernanke? etc etc etc.
And yet there are plenty of us not in the trap. It's a game and many people are losing. Sure traps were laid for them, but who is ignorant...er... so fucking stupid as to believe that money is given away for "free".
This blame-game gets sooooooo old.
Re: "What makes you think the little shit is leaving office"
I wonder that too, as national Security may require a third term for the turd and then Congress and Senate would go along for the ride and the lobbies would all show the way towards The New Order.
The problem is the regulators get captured by the regulated. How does that get prevented?
Misean does have a valid point, "captive agency" is a huge problem, with the FDA the biggest culprit. The irony is that agencies were created because the subject matter was deemed to be too complex for Congress, and the administrative agency setup was deemed more efficient. Now, we have the opposite problem; too much deference is given both by congressional oversight committees and the courts. We're at the point that if the federal regulators say approve the product, you can't sue.
The irony is that in Milton Friedman's open deregulated market, torts was to be the hammer.
Has this been posted before? SF to name sewage plant for Bush:
San Francisco may name sewage treatment plant after Bush - The New York Times
The only memorial to a US President to which you can contribute by flushing your toilet.
The problem is the regulators get captured by the regulated. How does that get prevented?
The only defense is a vigilante and active citizenry who not only throws the bums out but also throws them in jail if they cross over from civil servant to self-serving. Make the bastards pay if they cross over.
And some will - we know that so be ever vigilant.
And that's where 'libertarian' ideals come in to play - force full disclosure & free discussion on open forums as much as possible - then encourage people to punish (or reward) at the ballot box according to their informed beliefs.
In matters where people can make their own decisions without effecting others - let them. But that 'freedom' shouldn't extend to choosing tolerance limits for turbine bearings.
Civic vigilance is really the only way. But having no regulators means we end up with the 'might make right' guys deciding what we'll get & then not telling us what we are getting.
BTW - I used to be a libertarian in college for a few years - what turned me off was trying to 'operationalize' the philosophy in my mind. The more I worked on that the more I came to believe it isn't a political or economic system but rather a 'way to live' - similar to Christianity or even Marxism. I don't want either of them to operationalize for me either.
""The problem is the regulators get captured by the regulated. How does that get prevented?"" Misean
Ah, my Latin is coming back.. 'quis custodiet ipsos custodes'... who watches the watchers?
If that's the problem with regulation (I agree, mostly), then the solution sure isn't letting the 'corporate interests" write the laws.
But there are a lot of solutions.. sunset laws, laws limiting revolving door employment, review by elected committees, etc.. Custom solutions for custom situations.
Hey, democracy was supposed to be about equal representation.... nobody said it was supposed to be EASY!
Sooner will a camel pass through a needle's eye than a great man be 'discovered' by an election
The [Republican Party] should not become a constable of public opinion, but must dominate it. It must not become a servant of the masses, but their master!
From millions of men . . . one man must step forward who with apodictic force will form granite principles from the wavering idea-world of the broad masses and take up the struggle for their sole correctness, until from the shifting waves of a fre thought-world there will arise a brazen cliff of solid unity in faith and will.
There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man.
The art of leadership. . . consists in consolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary and taking care that nothing will split up that attention. . . . The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category
Armies for the preservation of peace do not exist; they exist only for the triumphant exertion of war
San Francisco may name sewage treatment plant after Bush
San Francisco may name sewage treatment plant after Bush - The New York Times
Think he's getting a crappy deal. LMAO
Look, the United States is still the economic powerhouse in the Global Economy-- 30-35% of Global GDP and therefore plays a LeaderShip role. What our central bank does with respect to interest rates and the money supply most of the other 'central banks' will follow -- to one extent or another. An example is the enormous increases in Global money supply growth occuring over the last 7-8 years. You can see the rate of U.S money supply growth at the St. Louis Federal Reserve Website. Other countries (some of which have their currencies pegged to the U.S. dollar) ratcheted up their money supplies as well, during Bush's tenor, and in some instances to extraordinary levels.
What do you think this does for growth, the value of domestic currencies, and demand for raw materials-- Not to mention-- INFLATION? Maybe an exponential rise in the demand, and therefore, the price increases in commodities as growth in the BRIC countries goes flying off the charts?
Now, you combine those rates of Global Money Supply growth with an Un-Regulated Home Lending Market in the U.S. for the last 7-8 years, (which also expanded to overseas Housing Markets), and an Un-Regulated Credit Derivatives Market (structured finance) that has ballooned upwards to Biblical Proportions and what do you have??
You have Big Problems heading your way, which in my view, were (and have been by many) Completely Foreseable.
One could argue that these problems (De-Regulation of the Home Lending Market) had its roots in the Clinton Administration, and perhaps before that, but there are still enforceable Banking and Home Lending laws on the books that would have limited/prevented the current crises (had they been enforced) by restricting the Amounts Of Leverage the Banks could use and not allowing anyone with a Pulse to get loans that they either could not pay off or had no intention of paying off.
What were these regulatory agencies (FDIC, FED, OTS, OCC, FHA, SEC etc.) doing on Bushes watch??? Especially with respect to "Structered Finance" and the credit derivatives markets?
Take a look at some of the White House Press releases from 02-04 and you can see it was certainly a priority of the Administration to make 'housing more affordable' for lower-middle income class folks (Ironically-- by the time he leaves office-- it looks like just the opposite is going to happen).
While I strongly support our service men and women in the U.S. Military, and their efforts in fighting the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, I think it's become abundantly clear this Administration Grossly Under-estimated the political, social and economic costs of these wars. (And in so doing put even more unnecessary Hardship on our Military personnel).
Then there's the (Bogus) Headline Economic Numbers from the Commerce, BLS, BEA, and Labor departments that seem, in many instances to be Devoid of Reality. The Administration was Cheerleading these releases up until very recently. Hank Paulson (Mr. Strong Dollar) stating repeatedly last year the SubPrime Mess was "all contained". Bernanke issuing similar Absurd statements on the economy. Then there's Bush Himself who not 2 months ago said "He hadn't heard gas prices would likely go to 4 dollars per gallon of gasoline".
3 Months ago we had the Federal Reserve pull out some unprecedented moves in it's playbook to stop a Meltdown from occuring in the Financial Markets with it's engineered Bail-Out of Bear Stearns. If the Federal Reserve had not done this what could one reasonably have expected to have happened to the Financial Markets-- given the levels of Counter-Party Risk that were/are still out there? Would it likely have escalated into a National Security threat?
Do I blame Bush, the Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets, and the rest of the administration for this Complete Economic Mess were in?? And were these problems Foreseable??
Absolutely.
The man is simply Incompetent and a Complete Moron.
** Good OT: I missed this great post by Tanta a month ago, and if anyone else missed it, please go over it!
Calculated Risk: BK Judge Rules Stated Income HELOC Debt Dischargeable
BK Judge Rules Stated Income HELOC Debt Dischargeable
In fact, the very egregiousness of the borrowers' misrepresentations and chronic debt-binging behavior is what seems to have sent the Judge over the edge here, leading her to ask the profoundly important question of how a bank like National City could have "reasonably relied" on these borrowers' unverified statements of income to make this loan.
John writes:
Look, the United States is still the economic powerhouse in the Global Economy-- 30-35% of Global GDP and therefore plays a LeaderShip role. What our central bank does with respect to interest rates and the money supply most of th....
...The man is simply Incompetent and a Complete Moron.
John | 06.25.08 - 11:33 pm | #
In journalism I think they call that 'Burying The Lead'. Maybe Gretchen is lurking & can confirm...
dryfly,
I'm a G.K. Chesterton conservative, so I doubt we are as diametrically opposed as you think.
OTOH, my take on bush is that he's a fundamentally decent but dull guy trying to do the right thing mod his parties biggest financial backers. So maybe we are.
Paulson, on the other hand? The devil himself. I mean, look at those eyes:
http://icanhazbailout.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/bernaulson_bear_stearns.jpg
"The bailouts will continue until the free market improves"
Cheers,
prat
I think some people live to vent about the president. Seriously, I think it runs their lives and defines their being. I feel sorry for these people, even though I can't help but laugh at the things they make up. You can make a lot of money writing Fiction novels folks, don't waste your ammo here.
I'm not saying anything you don't already know.
The only memorial to a US President to which you can contribute by flushing your toilet.
Snarf.
And I'm politically conservative (socially liberal, hmmm... libertarian. I'm voting Ron Paul).
Got Popcorn?
Neil
John writes:
Look, the United States is still the economic powerhouse in the Global Economy-- 30-35% of Global GDP
In other words, forget decoupling. Everyone is subprime now.
Got Popcorn?
Neil
OTOH, my take on bush is that he's a fundamentally decent but dull guy trying to do the right thing mod his parties biggest financial backers. So maybe we are.
Ya that sounds like the guy to me too. He probably wouldn't be too bad to hang around with as long as you didn't get all 'heavy' on him - especially fun before he quit drinking. He really did quit, right?
OT: The value of homeowners insurance liability claims resulting from dog bites increased 10.5 percent in 2007, according to a study released Wednesday by the Insurance Information Institute.
Iran to pull assets from EU over sanctions: minister
Iran to pull assets from EU over sanctions: minister
| Reuters
We are going to withdraw the {fucking} money and invest elsewhere," Mahdi was quoted as saying by Austrian daily Die Presse.
"If you withdraw more than $100 billion, then of course this will bring about a scarcity of money and have an impact on the world economy."
The 27-nation EU agreed new punitive measures on Monday targeting businesses and individuals the West says are linked to Iran's nuclear and ballistic programs.
Anyone know why WaMu was down 4.5% late today?
1. Encouragement of overconsumption at all costs.
I would add use of cronies to sabotage regulation, and purposeful wealth redistribution.
Cassius:
"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings."
Julius Caesar (I, ii, 140-141)
Bush is just a man. Ultimately you have to control your own destiny and not look to forces outside of your control to blame for your failures. The nation needs to relearn this ancient lesson.
Shares in Washington Mutual plummeted 4.48 per cent to 5.54 after the ailing banking firm's shareholders approved Tuesday a bailout of seven billion dollars led by investment group TPG.
I can't speak in regards to the FDA as a whole, but the medical device sectio is so weighed down by internal cultural inertia that there's almost no point bringing product to market.
My father's firm was sued by the FDA for making unapproved devices even though there's a clear exception to custom devices. The FDA lost decisively mainly because they failed to give any example of anybody being harmed and because the career staffers(who aren't looking to parachute into the private sector because they'd get shitcanned in a week) had declined approval on a device because that's what they did 30 years ago.
Anonymous | 06.26.08 - 12:15 am |
Conjure Bag says, "I wish WaMu's stockholders, including TPG, all the luck they're going to need."
Coming at the end of a variety of political viewpoints, I don't expect this post to gather much attention, which is fine. But shifting the attention slightly from Bush himself to Bush's policies, I wonder if people who say it would have been no different under another president aren't underestimating the impact of the war/national security scare on the economy? I'm reflecting my Southern California viewpoint here, but I know 9-10 defense oriented engineer-managers who were able to vault into houses in excess of a million dollars because of the boomlet created by renewed defense spending. None, so far, are foreclosed, and I would never say war spending "caused" the housing crisis. But it does seem to me to be something of a factor in the ridiculous run-up in the San Diego area, at least.
Bush is THE GREATEST AMERICAN PRESIDENT TO TAKE OFFICE IN THIS CENTURY!and will be until next year.
While many like Calculated Risk, most should expect higher quality historical analysis and less political spin.
A little history . . . .
A Short History of Subprime
By White, Brenda B
Publication: Mortgage Banking
Date: Wednesday, March 1 2006
To say the subprime mortgage industry has grown tremendously since the mid-iggos is not news to most of us. According to Inside B&C Lending, nearly one in five loans originated today is a subprime loan. The focus of this column is to add some "color" to a segment of the market that by now seems a given, and to understand some of the key events that shaped the emergence of the subprime industry.
. . . adoption of the Depository Institutions Deregulatory and Monetary Control Act in 1980 eliminated rate caps and made subprime lending more feasible for lenders. . .
. . . Tax Reform Act of 1986 eliminated interest deductions on consumer and auto loans while allowing interest deductions on mortgage debt, thus making the latter a more attractive source of financing. . . .
1992 - A politicized Boston Fed finds discrimination in "outdated" traditional lending criteria
. . . 1994 to 1997
It wasn't until the mid-1990s that subprime lending began to gain traction: . . .
. . . According to Inside B&C Lending, subprime originations grew from 535 billion to 5125 billion between 1994 and 1997. . .
. . . According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the number of subprime lenders tripled, going from 70 to 210 between 1994 and 1997. To support their expansion through this phase of rapid growth, many lenders turned to the equity markets for funding. . . .
. . . 1998 to 1999
A number of events that would reshape the subprime industry for many years to come happened in 1998. . . .
Reference to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999. Note that Rubin drove this forward from 1998 and left for Citigroup after resigning.
Greenspans bubble #1 3Q98 - LTCM
Late 1990's / Early 2000's - Citigroup and Chase acquire mortgage companies.
Greenspan echo bubble #2 - 1999/2000 Stock Market
. . . 2003 to Present
Historically low interest rates, coupled with escalating home prices, result in rapid expansion of the subprime industry . . . .
. . . Since 1994, the securitization rate of subprime loans has increased from approximately 32 percent to nearly 78 percent of total subprime originations. . . .
Greenspans bubble #3 - 2002-2006 Real Estate
As already noted low interest rates and relaxed lending criteria drove up demand for homes. Homes became a persons primary investment vehicle but also a primary ATM. Home prices ALWAYS go up, right? Why not take out seconds and refinance those homes? You can always leverage out later.
Subprime Mortgages: A Primer
NPR
2007
Who are these borrowers?
"A typical subprime borrower is not someone buying a house, but someone refinancing," says Mary Moore, a spokeswoman from the Center for Responsible Lending, a nonprofit that advocates curbs on predatory lending. "A typical subprime borrower is someone who has a lot of credit-card debt, and is refinancing to pay some of it off.". . .
So contrary to the political spin here we see subprime borrowers refinancing those ever escalating home prices to pay off debt and. . . . . . buy more! This is why some of the foreclosures are not only the lower income brackets, but people who got caught in the deflation of real estate. Now they can't refi, there is no equity. Or, they are upside down.
That sound you heard from bubble #3, the credit bubble, popping is why we are experiencing the latest economic turmoil.
What I don't get are the people who are claiming it's not Bush are the same ones who blame Jimmy Carter, praise Reagan, and are afraid of Obama,...like who is the president doesn't matter. And goddamn it, I wouldn't be so pissed off if you had elected McCain when you first had the chance, instead of pushing an idiot on us.
i have enjoyed with horror watching the preznitf mangle the English language and struggle to verbalize the most simple of coherent thoughts.
his ascendancy to president is the hallmark of US corruption and privilege.
Clearly the republican party had many many more qualified candidates
o one called me. Maybe because I blame all money printing, socialist republicans. It just happens that baby Bush is the leader of the idiots.
75% NOW blame Bush.....
F%@K.
Ah well, "told you so!"..................back in 2000.
......So 25% of America is Southern Baptist?
a G-dub presidency is a hell of a way to get yer Demographics.
Wow, you're a friggin nutcase Crispy&Cole. Spending all your time hating everyone who's not like you is a sad way to go through life, get some help. Hint: Karl Rove is not responsible for all of your problems.
Hope things are well in San Francisco, and good luck!
j------g - still proudly serving the Vaterland? Just kidding, of course, in the interest of fun, because I'm certain someone like you easily accepts being called a baby killing murderer while serving your country. All good clean fun between adults, right?
'Pres. Os--- will be inheriting one big mess. And, I feel comfortable that, like the trailblazing Socialist FDR, he will make a big, big hash of it.'
Let me see - FDR inherits a big mess, and then goes on not only to lead the U.S. to victory in the largest war in human history, but is able to create the social foundations for the United States to win the Cold War. Except for red baiting Nixon - who made a big hash of Vietnam, and wage and price controls, though his opening to China certainly worked out well, particularly the inspired choice of Amb. Bush.
And to think you are truly the first (well, self-described) naval officer who seems to be an almost unbelievable stereotype of a reactionary I have met in my life, not counting a couple who pretended to be something they weren't. If you graduated from Annapolis (Navy or Marine - I've known a number of both), then it is a sad commentary on how far that institution has sunk. West Point, on the other hand....
y-hw-h
They needed a new 'Pearl Harbor' to speed up the 'Project for a New American Century'. They said they needed that. They needed it or they did it? This is the biggest question of the New American Century. Do you know this question has been answered!
Everybody is in on the 911 cover-up! The public. The media. Congress. The executive branch. The courts. The blogs (generally). Other world leaders.
But there's the gag orders. The late night calls. The junk science. Removal of evidence at the scene. New 'chilling effect' laws for researchers of organized crime. Defamation of activists.
But there are still hundreds of ex-CIA, military, architects, engineers, physicists, scholars from every field, eyewitnesses, first responders, foreign government officials, etc. who are all paranoid schizophrenics, multiple personalities, tripping on acid, traitors, etc. who says there's evidenve to look at. Those crazy nutcases!
Executive orders are in place declaring marshal law if the evidence were to surface into the light of the mainstream media or courts.
Kucinich will soon bring 60 more impeachment articles plus the 30 he already has. There's be 30 or so for 911 itself no doubt. Just opinion. Late night ramblings of someone with chem trails poisoning. I'm just paranoid and have spent shells, depleted uranium poisoning of the brain. Let's keep our little secret OK? Deal or no deal?
Now we're going to get suckered into Iran the way we were suckered into Iraq(and Afganistan for that matter!)
We are just puppets on a string...
And...one more.
Just look at the two sides of the 911 argumant. One one side there's namecalling, censorship, intimidation, journalist 'bebunking', threats, and basically just silence. On the other side with questions and doubts is scientific research from a variety of fields, challenges for debates, offers of a millions bucks to trade evidence, eyewitness accounts, examination of the physical evidence, peer reviewed journal articles, timelines of events, examination of anomolies, contradictions, and inconsistencies, etc. You decide if you're not to afraid to even think about it...
Start a pre-emptive war in the Middle East, cut taxes (first in history during war time), guess what happened???
National debt is going from 5Trillion on the way to 10T during Bush's stay in the Whitehouse. What an accomplishment.
What a pair of phsyco's, what a legacy.
misean:
as I said, I have many criticisms of the FDA. The largest one is what you've already stated:
The problem is the regulators get captured by the regulated. How does that get prevented?
the second one is that they don't have adequate staffing.
(by the way, there are ways to address these very important questions without right away turning to Halliburton to rate my medical care)
but again, the issue for me is: WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE.
you are a smart guy, but not as smart as you think you are. I have 11 years of medical training AFTER college. I had near perfect SAT scores, and I had top 1% MCAT scores. I was the top of my class at the hardetst-to-get-into medical school in the world. But if there were no FDA I would not be able to evaluate the safety/efficacy of medicines or devices. If I couldn't do it, neither can you.
if there were no FDA (or similar entity) then you would have full corporate dominance of medical information. here's a hint: Corporations care about PROFIT. As we've seen time and time again (Merck anyone?) if truth gets in the way of PROFIT then PROFIT will win.
as it is, we still have SIGNIFICANT corporate dominance of information, but there is always the FDA keeping it in check, just a little. and that "little bit" makes a big difference. It needs to be the FDA because it has the Teeth of the Government behind it. Talk all you want about corporations, but CEOs do care (just a little) about the wild card of the govt.
if there were no FDA, there would most assuredly be companies who would check this stuff for you. So I guess you'd go to Moody's. Because Moody's is so good at rating things. And they (as a private company) NEVER had any issue with "capture" did they? they NEVER had any issue with conflicts of interest did they? as a highly rated rating institution you would be secure in your knowledge that they were rating things well for you. Because if they failed in their rating ability they'd go out of business... therefore they must do a great job. Or if you didn't trust Moody's you could follow Moody's AND Fitch AND S&P. surely all 3 could never get something wrong.
Or you could go to Consumer Reports? Not sure how they would be funded though. Because consumers would use the site and simply tell their friends the information. It's not like toasters and cars...and it's not like there are a ton of new drugs on the market every year. And who would pay for the initial research? that would be one hefty consumer reports bill for the few who could afford it.
I guess you could do your own research? HA! Yeah right. You do not have the time or training to learn if it is safe. A blog cannot help you know if it is safe. The blog would be filled with 1000 CONFLICTING reports (look at Tripadvisor for 10 seconds and get back to me). Maybe after 15-20 years of training you would have a partial idea, IF you chose the right specialty. (as example, I know very little about the efficacy and safety of the latest cholesterol drugs because I don't use them day to day... So I personally need a specialist to discuss my own meds with me, DESPITE my medical degree, my years of cutting edge research, my subspecialty training, my IQ, and my ego)
The FDA has many faults. But the FDA combined with the CDC (which also has many faults) and many doctors (some of whom have many faults) combined acts as somewhat of a barrier to total corporate dominance.
without them, HOW would you evaluate a medicine? you'd go to some private company? and how would you know what private company to go to?
like I said: you might as well just choose Moody's to rate the medicines and the devices for you.
Wow! Tough crowd. It appears that nobody likes what Bush did for the country, even though he's the most patriotic of them all!
I disagree with President Bush's policies, but I don't see why things are so bad and why we need someone to blame. I understand things are bad for the poor, and President Bush certainly could have done more in this area. But it seems silly that we feel the need to blame someone for the fact that poor people are struggling.
The problem is not that people are paying $50/mo more for groceries or $100/mo more for gasoline. The problem is that $150/mo can cause people such great trouble.
Sure, a few percent of the population went crazy on buying houses they couldn't afford. Any stupid activity like that will have negative consequences. I'm sure the same type of people are doing some other stupid financial move right now.
I must be drinking the same tap water as Elvis because it seems like the economy is fine. GDP is only growing at 1%, but to me that seems like at least it's going in the right direction. If I exclude international, my portfolio is about what it was two years ago, but I think we can muddle through that. That's the nature of investing. Sometimes they do better than others.
I completely understand criticism of President Bush's policies. Claims that the economy is so bad seem like bellyaching to me.
Gervasi and Lindmark both have a point.
The economy is in a bit of trouble due to monetary and leverage problems. Americans have been living beyond their means for a long time, and that had to end eventually.
Now, as I've said before, I don't think a recession now and then is a bad thing, and I blame the Bush Administration more for its regulation and undue influence on financial markets which has smoothed the business cycle than for (for instance) gas prices, which are basically out of their hands.
I'd like to see Paulsen and Co. stop strong arming banks and rating agencies. I'd like to see the SEC stop chasing hedge fund managers for "fraud" and start chasing banks about producing some honest financials. I'd like to see a slightly more progressive tax system producing about the same amount of revenue. I'd like to see spending cuts on national defense, border security, entitlements, and I'd like to see us make all foreign aid contingent on good behavior.
Of course, none of the above changes the fact that this is about the best place in the world to live. It's the most dynamic, innovative, productive economy in the world. Any American whining about high fuel prices, falling wages, or lack of health care doesn't realize how good they have it and ought to shut up until they do.
It's just sad how pathetic Bush is. I get the feeling that most of his advisors are pretty smart if not incredibly short sited and partisan.
Say what you will about Cheney. He's a sharp mouthed opportunist willing to sell the constitution out for power. I think he would gladly accept a "reluntant dictator" role for the "good of the country". I can hear him say it now. But Cheney is definately not dumb or naive.
But W? He just seems lost. Nice man, but president? What the hell was the GOP thinking. He's like a kid at the store who lost his parents. "Attention please, we have a nice man here at the service desk. He's dressed in a suit and tie..."
I would like to see poll data from the large metro areas - is it recorded? For example, here in San Diego we've been paying for high gas prices for 5 years now. At just under $5 nobody is happy about it but I see no evidence that people are altering their lifestyles over it. Plus our food prices are up at least 20%. Things did appear very quiet and depressed during Winter months but most things are buzzing along now. Sure there are fewer eating out so no lines or waiting for a table. Maybe we're all just spending our rebates? But it can't go that far. As for blaming Bush, well the President always takes the heat - the 70s oil price spike hurt Nixon and Carter was blamed for the inflation surge. Think Bush cares?