Credit Bailout? Walpole Opinions on the subject...?

[The Raven]

President Bush is announcing a plan to help stem the foreclosures happening around the country, including here in Walpole.

Average townfolk, what is your opinion of this plan?

[Unregistered]

Things have been pretty bad for a while now for this to really make a difference. All indicators are that foreclosures are going to continue, and that housing values will continue to fall. I read one article recently that values will drop 13 percent in the coming year. That is actually a lot, in my opinion!

[Unregistered]

Stuff like this makes me really wondering what the future will bring. It will be interesting to see who ends up in jail after all of this, Enron/Ken Lay style

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/04/AR2007120402186.html?nav=most_emailed_emailafriend

[Unregistered]

We let the financial leaders of our country come up with a way to give mortgages out in the name of the american dream to persons who never would have qualified "back-in-the-day". Local lenders, realtors & appraisers cooperated in all of this.

We sat back smiling, because, after all, our property values were going sky-high...whats the problem?

None of us could put two and two together and see the obvious. The rising property values would essentially make it impossible for our children to afford living in our community. What is the heart of a community? I say it is families and the resources and character they bring. When you destroy that, you really destroy the essence of a community.

What is the future for Walpole? A bedroom community of transient persons, living in overpriced buildings, all anxiously trying to build "equity" so they can eventually move on to retirement.....elsewhere. THis is not unique to Walpole...it is happening everywhere.

shame on us. Shame on us

What to do about it?

Demand from our legislators that they come up with new laws to prevent what has happened from happening again. Demand from our banking system a loan system that is based on researching ones character and ability to pay back a loan.

If one says nothing, look what happens?

The head of the US Treasury was once a former leader in the finance world...he didn't see all of this coming. The CEO's of all of the companies that have written down billions of dollars for their companies didn't see all of this coming. Our own president didn't seem to have a clue. How come? They are all supposedly "in the know". I can tell you this: the average working-class joe at the local coffee shops knew this was coming.

[Unregistered]

If someone buys a house with a very minimum down payment (say, 5%) and the value drops by 6%, the mortgage can be "upside down". That person effectively has little or no equity in the house.
There's a lesson here: Don't overpay for a house. Protect your equity.
I don't believe in bailing out people who invested in big screen TV and other extravagence while not paying down their home mortgages.

[Unregistered]

Consumers have a personal responsibility to live within our means. Personal savings rates are very low, and personal debt is skyrocketing. Using home equity loans to support our unsustainable lifestyles is shortsighted and self-defeating.

Investment bankers encouraged every American to overextend ourselves in their quest to package risky mortgages as "safe, high grade" bonds. Then they re-sold this debt, weaving its instability into the very fabric of our economic system. The bond ratings given to these securities did not reflect the risky nature of the underlying loans upon which they were based. As the economy worsens and more homeowners default on their loans, the effects will snowball through the stock market and touch every corner of our economy.

Meanwhile, our federal government refuses to live within its own means, running up trillions of dollars in debt as they sell our economic future to overseas investors. At the same time, they have refused to address the serious trade imbalance, which causes foreign investors and governments to control the value of the U. S. dollar.

The national security risks should be obvious. If China (as one example) decided to wage war against us, they would start by dumping their holdings of $USD, decimating our economy and creating a depression in this country. We'd be weakened much the same way that Iraq or Cuba have been weakened by decades of economic sanctions. We'll be on our knees long before the first overt act of war.

The entire house of cards will come tumbling down eventually. The bailout being proposed today does nothing to change this. We must, as individuals and as a nation, learn to live within our means. We must take individual responsibility to pay down our personal debt and begin saving for the inevitable rainy day. We must demand that our leaders balance the federal budget and take concrete steps to pay down the national debt.

I hope you saved the box that plasma TV came in - you'll be using it for shelter soon enough.

[Bailout]

I agree with the previous poster regarding the China situation. Time to stop borrowing to buy luxuries. I'd like big screen TV, but I'd prefer to own a house. I don't have a 30-year mortgage that gets refinanced every five years, giving me another 30-year mortgage. I bought my house with a 20-year mortgage. When I refinanced after 7 years, I got a 13-year mortgage. I'll actually own my house someday. Those who keep refinancing and starting the clock all over again will NEVER own their house. Also, we pay off our credit card each month. The checks that they send me get torn up and discarded.

[dalesd]

A bailout will only reward the business who made these bad decisions.

The responsible thing to do is let those businesses fail. That will reward the people that made responsible decisions.

If you reward bad behavior, you're going to encourage more bad behavior.

[Unregistered]

"President Bush said Tuesday that he is watching very carefully to see if the struggling U.S. economy needs a short-term boost from the federal government." WBZ.com

I can recall several years ago that President Bush was proudly claiming that "home ownership" was at record levels...and that it was a good thing.

What he really should have said was "home loans have been given out to every tom, dick and harry...and that is a stupid thing.."

Our leaders were asleep at the switch. No Bailouts....None. Let all those who participated in the housing bubble pay the price. Then we will return to some sense of normalcy.

[Unregistered]

Bank of America buys Countrywide, one of the leaders in loaning money to persons unqualified to take on the loans. Angelo Mozillo, Countrywide CEO, may get $83,000,000 out of the deal.

Lesson for Americans: Screw up the country, and you may get rewarded!

[Unregistered]

President Bush has come up with a plan to help the economy.

In spite of repeated warnings of a country running a monstrous deficit, his idea is to spend more money. The proposed tax-rebate...(what, $800??) is his answer. Go out and spend it (don't dare save it!!!) to stimulate the economy.

Also, the Federal Reserve, in spite of repeated warnings from financial experts that the United States is a country of debt ridden non-savers, the Fed will reduce interest rates (and punish savers).

In my estimation, our country would be better run by Big Joe, the Gorrilla at Franklin Park Zoo.

What about the current crop of candidates? I fear all of them are just "more of the same" (except for Ron Paul, who hasn't got a snowballs chance in hell of winning).

[Unregistered]

http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/21/news/economy/stimulus_retailsales/index.htm?postversion=2008012114

"Richard Hastings, economic adviser with the Federation of Credit and Financial Professionals, was more critical of the stimulus proposal, calling it a "comfort patch."
"Unfortunately we don't have the same context now that we had in 2001 to make this an effective stimulus plan," Hastings said.
The big problem in his eye is inflation. "Health care costs are much higher than they were in 2001," he said. "Energy prices, food and services costs are much higher today."
Hastings believes the nation's economic problems run much deeper than how much people are spending at the mall.

"If the government is trying to prevent a recession with this plan, it's the silliest thing to do," he said."


Unfortunately, we got the president we deserve! (I think we are about to do it again....shucks)

[Unregistered]

Sobering projections from Merrill Lynch today...the news keeps getting worse. I find it all quite interesting...


http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/23/real_estate/merrill_forecast/index.htm?postversion=2008012313

[Unregistered]

Sobering projections from Merrill Lynch today...the news keeps getting worse. I find it all quite interesting...


http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/23/real_estate/merrill_forecast/index.htm?postversion=2008012313

I see this all as so much self fulfilling prophesy. Enough reports come out claiming that a recession is coming which then causes people to withhold investing or spending which causes businesses to slow down which causes layoffs which causes loan defaults/foreclosures and it all skews the supply and demand of big ticket items like houses which causes home prices to fall...

But, you know, the sky is falling. I swear.

[Unregistered]

Read what Director Lockhart thinks of the plan to raise the jumbo loan limit:

"STATEMENT OF OFHEO DIRECTOR JAMES B. LOCKHART ON CONFORMING LOAN LIMIT INCREASE

We are very disappointed in the proposal to increase the conforming loan limit as we believe it is a mistake to do so in the absence of comprehensive GSE regulatory reform. To restore confidence in the markets we must ensure that the GSEs’ regulator has all the necessary safety and soundness tools."


http://www.ofheo.gov/newsroom.aspx?ID=410&q1=1&q2=None

Gotta help the poor people by those overpriced McMansions in Walpole!!

Director Lockhart is trying to avert disaster at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

[Unregistered]

A shift has been noticed in the mission of Fannie Mae....take a look at this from CNBC:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/22841437

.......The focus has clearly shifted from families:

In 2005: “Our public mission, and our defining goal, is to help more families achieve the American Dream of homeownership. We do that by providing financial products and services that make it possible for low-, moderate-, and middle-income families to buy homes of their own.”

to lenders:

In 2008: “We exist to expand affordable housing and bring global capital to local communities in order to serve the U.S. housing market. Fannie Mae has a federal charter and operates in America’s secondary mortgage market to ensure that mortgage bankers and other lenders have enough funds to lend to home buyers at low rates. Our job is to help those who house America.”

[Unregistered]

We Are Screwed....

[Unregistered]

Here it is. Pretty sobering stuff.

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=3756665n

The parts of the country that had the highest run-up in home prices over the past 4 or 5 years, are due to for the biggest drops in housing values. Get Ready Walpole!

[Unregistered]

The Senate Banking Committee will be considering changes proposed by the President. Let them know how you feel about the changes....

http://banking.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Form

Walpole News:
How about links on the front page to our Senators & Congressmen?

[Unregistered]

I see this all as so much self fulfilling prophesy. Enough reports come out claiming that a recession is coming which then causes people to withhold investing or spending which causes businesses to slow down which causes layoffs which causes loan defaults/foreclosures and it all skews the supply and demand of big ticket items like houses which causes home prices to fall...

But, you know, the sky is falling. I swear.



Thats it...go blame the media...Not the greed built into all of us.

[Unregistered]

Walpole Cooperative Bank and Norwood Bank (formerly Norwood Cooperative Bank) merger is off. Two of the fastest growing local banks over the past 10 years. Both made significant additions to their buildings

So much hoopla and fanfare about the merger, and now its off??!??

What is going on? Anyone have any clues?? is this a sign of the times??

http://www.dailynewstranscript.com/homepage/x1191327972

[Brown Bear Returns]

I'm not displeased to hear that the merger is off. I don't understand the benefit of it in the first place. I understand both banks to be stable institutions.
Co-operative banks are owned by the depositors. Co-operative banks operate for the benefit of their depositors. This is unlike the larger banks who take an entirely different view of depositors. Co-operative banks are more like non-profit institutions. When they have extra money they can pay higher interest to their depositors, reduce the interest rates for their loans, increase operating expenses or build a building (asset used for improved operation).

[Unregistered]

Is the US next? If so, watch out America! The housing ATM has shut down, and it is documented that people are using their credit cards. If banks start yanking credit cards here, we are in for a big surprise. The rumors about an economic downturn similar to the Great Depression will not be so far-fetched if this happens.


http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/citigroup-withdraw-cards-some-uk/story.aspx?guid=%7B9F5D39CF%2DC21E%2D45CB%2D846F%2 DE7D9314BCFE7%7D&dist=hplatest

[Unregistered]

I think you are mixing oranges and eggs. In other words you're not even close.

Citicorp brought out a Credit Card company and then went over the books. Guess what they found people who aren't credit worthy. A lot of people. With the way the market is acting I don't blame them.

I rather see this kind of report then have another crisis hit in 6 months or year because they ignored the problem.

If people are maxed out on their current credit cards and go for another from some company playing the odds or hoping to collect big fees on interest then yes we will have a problem if a company ignores the basic laws of economics.

This is not going to cause a 'Great Depression'.

[Unregistered]

Myself, I am not affected, but I assume from all of the previous gloom and doom there are some in Walpole that are feeling squeezed. Are any of you, or do you know someone who is?

[Unregistered]

I know a realtor who is desperately trying to sell a house: their own!

[Unregistered]

http://pics4.city-data.com/ztrends/02081.png (http://www.city-data.com/zips/02081.html)

and heading lower.......timber!!!!!!!

the number of homes listed on the market is still about 4 times normal for this time of year. Sellers have to get real: To expect to get the prices they had 2 years ago is unreasonable considering what is going on.

No amount of government intervention is going to bring things back to where they were.

[Unregistered]

Excellent post with the visual to prove your point. What people should be doing is their research of house prices sold. By researching I mean similar houses that have sold in the town (Capes, Garrison), what kind of upgrades have you done, what needs to be done, do you have need to sell immediately (maybe a much lower price) or can you wait for 6 months to a year, what kind of neighborhood do you live in (largest house on the block? you'll be overpriced for the neighborhood).

Bottom line is, what you think your house is worth is not what it was worth last year. You have be realistic and price your house to match today's market. If someone sold a similar home for 500,00.00 two years ago you'll be looking at 400,000 maybe 350,000.

All this kind of information will allow you to call for many real estate agents to visit you on a particilar day and then use what they tell you to fix, upgrade or select an agent to list your house with.

If you need to upgrade a bath room or kitchen be careful not to go over board. You will not get back all that investment if you put in a beautiful kitchen while the neighborhood doesn't meet price you spent and want to recoup.

[Unregistered]

The most notable number on that graph: The number of homes sold in the last quarter of 2007..am I reading that right...under 20 homes?

I'd really like to see that chart spread back ten years. Can anyone give us newcomers an idea of how sales were in Walpole in "normal" (non-housing bubble) times?

Our political and financial leaders weren't keeping their eyes on the ball during the craziness. Its obvious that they are scurrying around trying to fix something that became broken about 5 years ago.

I would guess we are going to see hard times for local banks & mortgage companies, builders and all of the people who work in those industries.

[Unregistered]

and heading lower.......timber!!!!!!!

the number of homes listed on the market is still about 4 times normal for this time of year. Sellers have to get real: To expect to get the prices they had 2 years ago is unreasonable considering what is going on.

No amount of government intervention is going to bring things back to where they were.

Let's not get out of control here. All we're really seeing in that graphic is a somewhat incomplete representation of supply and demand. The median selling price of a house has dropped along side of a drop in demand. What's not represented in the graphic is the supply side of the equation.

When you consider that the news/media have done nothing but cry "recession" and "housing bubble" for the last 6 months to a year, then you start to understand how they are self-fulfilling prophecies. Potential home buyers are holding off on their purchases because they fear an economy slow down and this is affecting the natural supply and demand in the housing market. If 1 of 2 things were to happen here, you would see an instant increase in home valuations; 1) if sellers were to remove their homes from the market you would see the supply and demand ratio change and selling prices would clime as buyers would be forced to increase their bids, or 2) buyers ignore the fear mongering calls of "recession" and instead continue to buy homes at a normal pace you would see the supply and demand ratio change and home prices would return to normal. It's kind of simple, really.

In the end, children are still born, they grow, they marry, and they need a house for their family. People will continue to buy houses, people will continue to sell houses. We will return to a more balanced supply and demand ratio and with that you will see home prices stabilize and then return to a positive appreciation schedule.

If you want to light a fire under something try this one... demographics show that the US is "graying", meaning that our senior population is growing and will continue to represent a larger portion of our population. Seniors tend to gravitate towards warmer climates, single level homes, and smaller plots of land. The supply and demand of very large homes on acre plus lots will start to change and you should see a buyers market emerge for 4+ bedroom homes. Watch for it.

[Unregistered]

"Our political and financial leaders did not keep their eye on the ball"????? Real estate is cyclical, prices go up and down. While the existence of easy credit certainly helped to inflate the bubble, aren't the real estate developers, speculators, and homeowners who used the paper buildup in their home equity as a personal ATM to buy a plasma tv, a SECOND home at Pompanesset for 10% down at least equally to blame? Everyone had and still has the ability to lock in a fixed rate at historically low rates, but many chose to use ARMS or even interest only loans so that they would have to pay as little as possible each month. Well, the bill has come due! While the graph is quite illustrative, more alarming is the number of foreclosures, and that will increase dramatically once the repricing mechanism plays out, and people discover they owe more than their house is worth. Negative equity is not good. But honestly, did townsfolks really think they could afford that ski condo and live in a McMansion with cathedral ceilings and drive a Lexus on a 5 figure salary?

[Unregistered]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aSsM5ENYiZHI&refer=home

the fallout from the credit debacle is yet to all take place. Read this and weep.

[Unregistered]

"the fallout from the credit debacle is yet to all take place. Read this and weep."

What you say is true. What needs to be done is do away with the Turnpike Authurity(TA) and put it under a larger umbrella. This may actually enhance the viability of the bonds they are trying to sell because the whole state will be behind it not just the TA.

[Unregistered]

http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/20/news/companies/bondhitmain/index.htm?postversion=2008022111

You know something, I find it extremely interesting that somehow we the taxpayers are going to pay in some way for the excesses of the mortgage and banking industries, when they came up with "Securitizing" Mortgages.

It isn't a credit crisis...its a result of fiduciary irresponsibility by banks and mortgage companies.

[Unregistered]

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/more-subprime-pain-way-says/story.aspx?guid=%7B4D4DABD9%2D6D5F%2D470A%2D8508%2 D640B5273C4AB%7D

Do you all think that the government should bail-out people facing foreclosure? Did you ever ride-out a time in history (recent history) when your home value had dropped and the mortgage you were paying was more than the value of the home itself? Did you expect the government to come out and help you?

Check out Hillary Clintons idea for help:

"....Meanwhile, Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton issued a statement Friday morning touting her plan to help out borrowers.
"I am the only candidate with a comprehensive plan to end the housing crisis," Clinton said. "My plan is a workout, not a bailout, that will keep families in their homes and help halt our economy's slide into recession."
She has called for $30 billion in assistance to states, cities and communities to help ward off foreclosures, as well as a 90-day foreclosure moratorium on subprime mortgages and a 5-year freeze on payments on subprime ARMs...."

$30 Billion in "assistance" to be funded by....(take a look in the mirror). Listen: if you participated in the recent housing boom (over the last 5 years) then you are going to have to go it alone. If you are having trouble, its time to face the music.

[Unregistered]

I couldn't agree with you more. Why should we, the average homeowner, have to pay for someone else’s greed? My wife and I went through the mid-1970 when Boston couldn't get people to stay (and we bought). The 1980's when car loans were 20% and the house mortgages were 13% but there were no special interest rates. You either knew you couldn't buy and waited or bit-the-bullet and hoped you could refinance in a few years. One thing not to many people did was buy beyond their income times house price. At that time it was 3 times your income. i.e. $35K X $90,000 was high as I could go OR get.

Are these people dreaming, whether they were duped by mortgage brokers or thought they could get cheap rate, while we are responsibly for their problems? For that matter so are Hillary and Obama.

Yes, the lure of a home is big one. Come on, did they really think that if you earn $25K-$50K a year they could qualify for $300K-$500K home? These are people who don't think logically or can't manage money to begin with and we are to feel sorry for them and should pickup the tab for them? I for one don't think so.

[Unregistered]

From what I heard Subprime mortgages are a drop in the bucket compared to the real issue facing mortgages. If the housing market drops by an additional 10%, very likely, there will be 3 Trillion dollars worth of regular mortgages, not subprime, that will be higher than the values of the home. I grew up with a father that lived through the depression. He saved every dime and he did not spend if he did not have too. Unfortunately I did not pick up any of his savyness but I did learn if you can not afford it do not buy it. Why would anyone want to be house locked and strapped to the extreme? To me that is not the American dream but again I am not in thier situation. I just want to thank my blessings.

[Unregistered]

Fannie Mae posts $3.6 Billion Dollar loss...CEO earns $4.45 Million. Tell me fellow citizens: Do you see something wrong here??

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=FNM


http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/27/news/companies/bc.apfn.earns.fanniemae.ap/index.htm?postversion=2008022709

Fannie Mae is the government sponsored entity, that, under the leadership of Daniel H. Mudd, age 49, (heretofore known as "The Idiot") bought up countless bad loans for mortgage companies and lenders nationwide.

Personally, I think Mr. Mudds name is "Mud"

[Unregistered]

From what I heard Subprime mortgages are a drop in the bucket compared to the real issue facing mortgages. If the housing market drops by an additional 10%, very likely, there will be 3 Trillion dollars worth of regular mortgages, not subprime, that will be higher than the values of the home. I grew up with a father that lived through the depression. He saved every dime and he did not spend if he did not have too. Unfortunately I did not pick up any of his savyness but I did learn if you can not afford it do not buy it. Why would anyone want to be house locked and strapped to the extreme? To me that is not the American dream but again I am not in thier situation. I just want to thank my blessings.


Lending standards went so far out the window, the Mafia would have done a better job of giving loans!

[Unregistered]

And they would have made sure those loans were paid back too.

[Unregistered]

And they would have made sure those loans were paid back too.

.....one way or another!

[Unregistered]

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/03/news/companies/bc.apfn.mbia.compensation.ap/index.htm?postversion=2008030310


stuff like this makes me sick

[Unregistered]

Today Fed Chairman Bernanke is talking about having banks take a hit on the principal owed on loans they made.

....."This situation calls for a vigorous response," Bernanke said in a speech to the Independent Community Bankers of America. The only way to avoid millions of foreclosures is to figure out how to reduce the principal amount the homeowner owes....."


http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/bernanke-beginning-understand-mortgage-mess/story.aspx?guid=%7BA0AF3FA8%2D7334%2D4814%2DB13A%2 D81F0F0A07EFE%7D

Question for a local that can break this down for me: If this indeed happens, isn't it in effect saying the home was not worth what it sold for? Doesn't this drastically set home prices further back in an automatic way? Isn't it essentially a bailout for buyers?

What would happen if my Honda that I bought two years ago for $21,000 suddenly dropped in "initial value" by $5000. Wouldn't the book value of all cars drop accordingly?

[Unregistered]

Put it on the charge card! I swear we are headed for an economic armageddon!

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aJCsK7w8YlGk&refer=home

[Unregistered]

Put it on the charge card! I swear we are headed for an economic armageddon!

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aJCsK7w8YlGk&refer=home

I think part of the problem is the rising fuel prices everyone is paying. If your last oil bill was $500 or $600 to fill the tank and you're living from paycheck to paycheck then you have no other option but the charge it. This is the worst situation to be in, especially if these people have young children or elderly in the home. I think the problem is that the gov't isn't taking the fuel crisis in this country seriously enough.

When the oil companies are making billions in profits and our gov't officials just stands around with their thumbs on their nose thinking 'maybe we should look at this', we are indeed facing an economic meltdown.

I think we can safely say that nothing in Washington is going to happen until the general election is held.

The stock markets are also going up and down for the same reason. It use to be that only the US stock markets were affected by the US Presidential race. Now with the 'global economy', the internet and the increased oil demand from China and India, the US consumers are being left to fend for themselves.

Shame on our Washington Senators and Reps.

[Unregistered]

I think part of the problem is the rising fuel prices everyone is paying. If your last oil bill was $500 or $600 to fill the tank and you're living from paycheck to paycheck then you have no other option but the charge it. This is the worst situation to be in, especially if these people have young children or elderly in the home. I think the problem is that the gov't isn't taking the fuel crisis in this country seriously enough.

When the oil companies are making billions in profits and our gov't officials just stands around with their thumbs on their nose thinking 'maybe we should look at this', we are indeed facing an economic meltdown.

I think we can safely say that nothing in Washington is going to happen until the general election is held.

The stock markets are also going up and down for the same reason. It use to be that only the US stock markets were affected by the US Presidential race. Now with the 'global economy', the internet and the increased oil demand from China and India, the US consumers are being left to fend for themselves.

Shame on our Washington Senators and Reps.

I agree. Washington is in should a tisie about who took what drug while they played baseball that they've taken their eye off the real problem. Then again, maybe that's why. It's the easiest target in 'town'.

[Unregistered]

Countrywide Financial being investigated by FBI...it may turn out be be totally criminal.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=atU2Uy.lOsyw&refer=home

[Unregistered]

To make matters worse..

The government is going to give a tax rebate - they expect us to spend this money - pick one:

A new TV - what the gov't wants, keep retail numbers up
Pay off the extra winter fuel cost - what we should probably do
Pay down credit card debt - not a bad idea either

This rebate is not enough to pay off credit card debt, fuel costs or anything but the sheep in Washington want it done. It makes me crazy - I am not a tax and spend democrat but what the heck can this band-aid really accomplish?

Either don't run up the national debt further or invest the money in new energy resources.

Polling bloggers - what will you do with your rebate and do you really think that collectively it will fix anything?

[Unregistered]

To make matters worse..

The government is going to give a tax rebate - they expect us to spend this money - pick one:

A new TV - what the gov't wants, keep retail numbers up
Pay off the extra winter fuel cost - what we should probably do
Pay down credit card debt - not a bad idea either

This rebate is not enough to pay off credit card debt, fuel costs or anything but the sheep in Washington want it done. It makes me crazy - I am not a tax and spend democrat but what the heck can this band-aid really accomplish?

Either don't run up the national debt further or invest the money in new energy resources.

Polling bloggers - what will you do with your rebate and do you really think that collectively it will fix anything?

I am going to put it towards a CD

[Unregistered]

I'll spend mine on a new TV since my old one is dying and with the new requirements for receiving cable stations coming up next year(?), I'll support the retailers. That is unless my oil tank gets really low and with the price of heating oil up again than I'm going to do my part to support the Big Oil Companies.

[Unregistered]

"His biggest criticisms, though, are reserved for mortgage brokers and appraisers. As Bitner describes it, lenders like his company, which underwrote loans offered up by brokers and resold them to giants like Countrywide, spent much of their workdays trying to spot the stupid tricks brokers routinely used to get unqualified borrowers approved for loans. They'd say a buyer intended to live in a house when it was really an investment property. They'd falsify the buyer's income by having a relative pose as his employer, or use scanners and software to forge W-2 forms. They'd find ways to hide debts (like a car payment) by looking for a credit report that omitted key data. They also routinely gamed the appraisal system, encouraging appraisers to look for "comparables" that were far nicer homes in better neighborhoods—all in an effort to drive up the appraised value of the home they were mortgaging."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/121512

Bottom Line: We Are Screwed

[Unregistered]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aSsM5ENYiZHI&refer=home

the fallout from the credit debacle is yet to all take place. Read this and weep.

Its happening!

http://www.boston.com/news/traffic/bigdig/articles/2008/03/19/turnpike_managers_scramble_for_plan_b/

[Unregistered]

Its happening!

http://www.boston.com/news/traffic/bigdig/articles/2008/03/19/turnpike_managers_scramble_for_plan_b/

I think you're being a little too pessimistic. We've had economic down cycles before and from what I've been reading this one should be shorter then the one in the mid 1970's and late 1990's.

http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/Short_and_Mild_Recession_080321.html

Even a recession has some good in it. Many of the inflated schemes are revealed and removed, gov't spending on internal improvements increases and people get to a dose of reality again (read become wiser for their greed).

[Unregistered]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23748513/

I agree with the previous poster. We will have a purge go through the economy. Its looking like it will be worse than previously mentioned, however.

[Unregistered]

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/03/mccain_offers_t.html

[Unregistered]

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/03/mccain_offers_t.html

I didn't see this in the Globe, but now makes me think he'd be the best one for President.

I certainly didn't get help from my parents to buy a home let alone the government!

Sometimes people have to learn life the hard way. Too bad for those who thought buying the biggest house as your first house was more acceptable then going with a starter home and work your way up like the rest of us.

No sympathy here.

[Unregistered]

Below is a long message written by Ken Savage on his site www.kensavage.com.
Kind of interesting take on what might happen if we do have a depression.

"The biggest questions on the minds of Americans today are, What is going to happen to our economy?"* "Will we have a depression?"* "How can I survive?"

It has been my opinion for the past 10 years that we are long overdue for a full scale economic depression.* But, it will be completely different from the depression predicted by my contemporaries.

We have already seen a stock market crash in 1987 bigger than the one that preceded the depression of the 1930s. And, we have already had more bank and S&L failures (percentage wise) than back then, too.

The rate of bankruptcies has grown from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands each year now, over a million bankruptcies each year - with the biggest percentage of bankruptcies in the higher income brackets.

Employee lay-offs, plant closings, and business failures have increased exponentially over the past 5 years.* And, for the first time in our history, the unemployment rate among white-collar executives is higher (percentage wise) than among blue-collar workers.

All of these facts lead me to sincerely believe that ...

The Depression of the 1930s was a "Blue Collar" Depression

But ...
The Next Depression will be a "White Collar" Depression

Simply because ...
Our Economy Has Become Top Heavy

There are simply too many white-collar workers, bureaucrats, and unnecessary people doing unnecessary paper-shuffling busy work.* They consume far more than they are capable of producing. These are the people who will be out of work, on the bread lines, during the next depression ... NOT the blue-collar workers.

As an illustration:* Before I had money enough to pay someone to sweep the floors, I did it myself (still do; on occasion). That is the essence of the difference between the White Collar workers of the 1930s and those of today.

Because there were few business schools before the depression of the 1930s, the vast majority of White Collar workers came up through the Blue Collar ranks.* Then, when the economy got tough, Blue Collar workers were let-go and the White Collar workers stepped from behind their desks and filled those jobs.* After all, they were the most experienced and best qualified to hold those productive jobs.

Today, the vast majority of White Collar workers are schooled in the arts and sciences of business.* They have studied management, economics, political*science, marketing, production, contract negotiation, and employee supervision.* But, they have never done the jobs they manage and supervise.

It is one thing to tell an employee, "this needs to be milled another one-thousandth of an inch," and quite another to say, "here, let me show you how to mill this to specifications" (and do it).

As the next depression deepens, it will become necessary (as it was in the 1930s) for businesses to "chop heads" to reduce overhead costs.* This time, however, it will be White Collar heads that roll because they are the least experienced and the poorest qualified to "produce" the many goods and services required by our society.

Contrary to the allegations made by a Japanese official, the Blue Collar workers in the U.S. are not lazy and ignorant.* They are the victims of the emotional rhetoric of the lazy and ignorant "book learned" White Collar segment of our society.* When the Blue Collar workers find that their knee-jerk reactions to that emotional rhetoric has been overcome by reality, they will return to* producing more than they consume.

Lest you begin to condemn me as a book burner, consider this ... a Blue Collar worker, upon entering the White Collar world, will by necessity read books in order to learn about doing the things he/she does not know how to do.* On the other hand, a "book learned" White Collar worker will rarely, if ever, go out on the shop floor and learn how to do the jobs being directed. My point is that "book learning" is an absolute necessity, it has, however, become an end unto* itself.* Therefore, I do not condemn book learning, I simply consider it to be a "starting place" not an "ending place."

Blue-collar workers may be laid-off; the plants they work-for may be closed, but, they will find work because they have historically produced more than they have consumed.* They will take jobs at lower wages, without many of the now customary benefits, in order to produce the goods and provide the services needed.* And, because of the reduced costs to produce those goods and services, the prices will fall proportionately.

Businesses that will survive and prosper during the next depression will be those businesses that eliminate top-heavy management positions (its already happening) and reduce their debt to a minimum (also happening).

Why? Because, contrary to the economic manipulators in our government ...

You Cannot "Borrow" Your Way Out Of Debt

Even if the "prime rate" goes to 2%, blue-collar workers won't be borrowing.* Neither will wise and prudent businesses.* The only people vying for those low-interest loans will be the out-of-work white-collar segment of our society. trying to borrow their way out of debt.

Blue-collar workers will -- as they have historically -- only "borrow" for purchases of major necessities.* Instead of spending their hard earned dollars on frills & fancies, they will save their money for that proverbial rainy day.

Beyond that, during the next depression, there will be ...

No Major Banking Collapse

Why? Because the banks in this country have already been frightened into tightening their belts. Go to your local bank and count the number of empty desks in the area where the junior vice-presidents used to be. And, with more low-cost blue-collar savings money coming into their hands, they are shoring-up their shaky liquidity and reserves. PLUS, with the relaxation of some of the more outdated banking regulations, the banks are now in a position to put their depositors monies in higher yielding equity positions.

Because of that, during the next depression, there will be ...

No Stock Market Crash

In 1987, when the stock market did crash, most of the trading activity was in the hands of individual investors.* Today, most of the trading is in the hands of professional traders ... managed accounts, mutual funds, institutional investors ... with less liklihood of the major sell-offs that cause market crashes.

But, during the next depression, there will be ...

Major Insurance Company Failures

From the F.D.I.C., on down, you can expect Insurance Company after Insurance Company to fail.

Why? Because the biggest buyers of insurance are the white-collar segments of our society (individual & corporate).* They have, for too many years, been laying-off their major liabilities to insurance underwriters. As this white-collar segment loses jobs and default on their insurance premium payments, more and more insurance companies will suffer a cash crunch.

When that happens, insurance claims that have usually been paid from current premiums collected, will have to be paid from reserves.* Then, when the reserves are gone, it will be time to start dipping into assets ... selling at pennies on the dollar in order to meet claims payments.

Of course, as the insurance companies fail, there will be more white-collar unemployed.* That will only deepen the white-collar depression.

So ... to survive and prosper during the next depression ...

Start Thinking Blue Collar

Put aside some money in a savings account with a smaller, local area bank. Stay away from regional or statewide banks.* Preferrable is a State chartered bank instead of a National bank and, if you can find one, a bank that is NOT F.D.I.C. insured.* You won't make a bundle in interest, but your savings will be safer.

Quit borrowing money, or buying on credit, except for major necessities.* Even if the prime rates goes to 2%, stay away from unnecessary credit.

Invest in the stock market. Buy stock in companies that produce goods or provide needed services.* Put some money in a managed account or mutual fund and learn to trade stock profitably for your own portfolio.

Send your kids to Trade School instead of College.* Let them learn welding instead of economics.* They will have jobs when the economists are in the bread lines.

Those who produce more than they consume will survive and prosper.

Those who consume more than they produce will suffer the fate of the proverbial grasshopper ... and ... the hardest hit will be government employees at all levels, city, county, state and federal. It couldn t happen to a more deserving bunch of economic parasites.

The "economic parasites" to whom I refer are ... holders of positions in redundant and outdated government agencies, bureaus, and commissions; some of which have survived since the early 1900s without any useful purpose today ... redundant government employees; unnecessary people who are employed for the sole purpose of maintaining the use of budgeted funds (then can t be fired without an act of God) ... and those persons who perpetuate those unnecessary, outdated and redundant offices and jobs.

I know.* I know.* What I am saying goes against everything my contemporaries are preaching ... and ... I know I'm going to catch thunder from some of them. BUT* ...


Hide & Watch!"

[Unregistered]

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1121603

sounds like someone knew that things were going to go awry. But they did nothing.

[Unregistered]

Ten Reasons to Oppose the Wall Street Bailout
1. It costs $700 billion dollars, which is as much money as the combined annual budgets of the Departments of Defense, Education and Health and Human Services. It amounts to $2,300 for every man, woman, and child in America.

2. This $700 billion will all be borrowed money. The plan raises the national debt ceiling to $11.3 trillion. That is $11,300,000,000,000.

3. It gives Sec. Henry Paulson, formerly the head of Goldman Sachs, the power to buy assets from his former firm with no court or administrative oversight.

4. Goldman Sachs, like many Wall Street firms, gave its CEO a $67.9 million bonus last year. That is more than 1,400 times what the median American earns. Yet the plan has no provision to cap salaries or reduce bonuses at Wall Street banks that take taxpayer money.

5.The bailout has a "reverse dutch auction" format that allows Wall Street firms to set the price taxpayers will pay.

6.The 5 companies managing the bailout auction are also Wall Street firms, and will likely receive billions of tax dollars in fees.

7. The plan buys "troubled assets" from foreign banks.

8. The plan hurts responsible U.S. banks by keeping reckless, insolvent investment banks in business.

9. The idea that taxpayers will make money is a fraud. If a profit was possible, private speculators would readily buy these "troubled assets." Instead, the bailout lets Wall Street push its losses on the taxpayer.

10. The plan violates basic principles of American capitalism by creating a system of "private profits, socialized losses."

[Unregistered]

You have all these people who bought these McMansions, now a lot of them cannot afford them any longer. Then we sell adjustable rate loans to people who, for the good of the American Dream, will purchase a home and re-pay the mortgage every month. Guess what, when you sell to people who cannot afford them in the first place, how would you expect them to pay when the rates go up. Croporate Greed also played a significant role in this mess and hopefully all the big wig CEO's will suffer.

Now read this too an put it all together.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09242008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/illegal_aliens__the_mortgage_mess_130482.htm

[Unregistered]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/09/eviction_protes.html?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed7

[Unregistered]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Paulson

Treasury Secy Henry Paulson earned $37 MILLION in 2005, and $16 MILLION in 2006. (All in a days work, right?) at Goldman Sachs.

And you mean to tell me he didn't see what was coming with these sub-prime mortgages? I think he is part of the problem.

Lets hurry up and make a solution, and let George Bush and Henry Paulson "fix" it all for us.

I smell a revolution about to happen in the streets

[Unregistered]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/09/eviction_protes.html?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed7

Yeh, and let Deutsche Bank be bailed out by Germany since that who they're own by. Why do we have to bail this bank out too?

[Unregistered]

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/politics/view/2008_09_29_How_the_Bay_State_delegation_voted/srvc=home&position=recent

I can't beleive it! Did he actually read my e-mail asking him not to bailout Wall Street?

Much like an alcoholic must hit bottom before he can really help himself, I think our economy has to crash to find a new way of doing things. This is not over. Not by a longshot. :(

[Unregistered]

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/politics/view/2008_09_29_How_the_Bay_State_delegation_voted/srvc=home&position=recent

I can't beleive it! Did he actually read my e-mail asking him not to bailout Wall Street?

Much like an alcoholic must hit bottom before he can really help himself, I think our economy has to crash to find a new way of doing things. This is not over. Not by a longshot. :(

From what I've been hearing on the radio and TV talk shows they emails were 200/1 against the bailout.

I know Lynch isn't up for election, I don't know about the other two, this year so it had to be he thought this was not a good deal for his constituents.

Nice going Rep. Lynch.

[Unregistered]

Guess what: at this moment, you cannot access the write-your-rep website

http://www.house.gov/writerep/

Obviously the congress is hearing it from the people: No Bailout. Let the system fail. Time for those who created this mess to lose.

[Unregistered]

We convinced the world that Iraq had WMD. They didn't.

We convinced the world that our currency was safe and secure. It wasn't.

We convinced the world that our mortgages were appraised, triple-A rated, and as good as gold. They weren't.

We convinced the world, post-Sarbanes-Oxley, that are CEO's were legit, and that their personal guarantee was on their companies' financial results. Instead, they were corrupt, the results were fiction, and there would be no prosecutions.

We convinced the world that we should be trusted and respected. Instead, we screwed them all.

So, are we now The Great Deceiver? Should the world ever trust us again? Will the world ever trust us again? And aren't you ashamed that the good name of America has now been destroyed? Include the good name of a small town southwest of Boston called Walpole.

We are SOOO (prounounced like Sarah Palin) Screwed. :( :( :( :(

[Unregistered]

We convinced the world that Iraq had WMD. They didn't.

We convinced the world that our currency was safe and secure. It wasn't.

We convinced the world that our mortgages were appraised, triple-A rated, and as good as gold. They weren't.

We convinced the world, post-Sarbanes-Oxley, that are CEO's were legit, and that their personal guarantee was on their companies' financial results. Instead, they were corrupt, the results were fiction, and there would be no prosecutions.

We convinced the world that we should be trusted and respected. Instead, we screwed them all.

So, are we now The Great Deceiver? Should the world ever trust us again? Will the world ever trust us again? And aren't you ashamed that the good name of America has now been destroyed? Include the good name of a small town southwest of Boston called Walpole.

We are SOOO (prounounced like Sarah Palin) Screwed. :( :( :( :(

Sarbanes-Oxley was brain child of Paulson, not the Republicans. We got screwed by a Congress and an SEC that went along with it.

As to the rest of world, they bought into the derivitives just like the average American. There are just as many smart people in the London, German etc.... exchanges that knew what was going on. They just wanted in on the action. Let them accept the results of their greed too!

As to what Sarah Palin has to do with this topic I will need clearer explaination.

[Unregistered]

California seeks 7 billion dollar loan...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/03/california.loan/index.html

Massachusetts seeks loans....


http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1123285&pos=breaking




Its only going to get worse. When is Walpole going to apply for a loan??

[Unregistered]

Walpole will apply for a loan on Tuesday night at the selectman's meeting

[Unregistered]

Read this link and think about all the pork built into the bailout bill.

The U.S. public has been taken to cleaners again by our so-called representatives and senators!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26994238/

[Unregistered]

Go here to read all the other reactions to a badly conceived bailout.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/03/bottomless-bailout-now-they-tell-us-its-not-enough/

You have wonder why nothing like this is on the TV news or in the newspapers!

[Unregistered]

With the dramatic drop in all worlds’ stock markets today things will be uncertain for the near future.

We need to keep things in perspective. Look at the differences today and the Great Crash in 1929.

We have a 6% unemployment, though it may go up a little: the Great Depression (GD)
was 40%.

We have bank's with FDIC insurance: the GD none.

While credit will be tight and your 401K has dropped, most of those going through the GD
had neither.

If you need more on survival tips go the following link:

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/StockInvestingTrading/7-tips-surviving-a-financial-panic.aspx

I'm not trying to be glib here because I know people will be hurting. I know that there is more bad news to come. But I've been through many bad times in this country and I know, as long as the American public trusts in itself, neighbors help neighbors and make people make wise choices by using the resources we have available today that were not available during the GD: research on the internet before you buy any necessity items. A more intertwined global economy (even though every country is going to protect it's economy first).

We've come through worst things and came out stronger.

[Unregistered]

Gee....Where's Mr. Know it All been lately? (Alan Greenspan). Nowhere to be seen.. What a joke. That armchair coaching he was doing to push his book/thoughts is zip lately.

[Unregistered]

Gee....Where's Mr. Know it All been lately? (Alan Greenspan). Nowhere to be seen.. What a joke. That armchair coaching he was doing to push his book/thoughts is zip lately.

Interesting what Greenspan is saying now: my model doesn't work any more, I should have paid more attention to housing bubble, we should have been watching the stock market guys.

[Unregistered]

Interesting what Greenspan is saying now: my model doesn't work any more, I should have paid more attention to housing bubble, we should have been watching the stock market guys.

Of course his model doesn't work any more. It was dependent on the banks following the rules: people needed to have a certain percentage income to qualify for a home. The bubble burst because too many people were buying houses that were way beyond their income to support. All this was due to the lying on loan applications, putting down $1,000 for a $400,000 house and then selling these mortgages to the secondary, third party and derivitive markets to spread these bad mortgages around.

[Unregistered]

I keep hearing about struggling homeowners needing a bailout. But isn't it true that when many of those struggling homeowners "bought" (read: got a loan to buy) their homes, they probably didn't really qualify to be "homeowners" to begin with?

Following this logic, then they need to be returned to their "pre-homeowner" status (renters!)

Presto: Problem Solved!

[Unregistered]

The government will "bail out " those not qualified once,twice until they give them the house free. For those struggling to make the payments and do the right thing WELCOME TO SOCIALISM!!

[Unregistered]

socialism, communism: big deal. half the junk we use is made in the largest communist country in the world.

we are living in a backwards society:

a democracy, which relies on a communist state to exist

[Unregistered]

socialism, communism: big deal. half the junk we use is made in the largest communist country in the world.

we are living in a backwards society:

a democracy, which relies on a communist state to exist

It's only going to get worst because we're going to borrowing $500B from China to fund Obama infrastructure rebuild and the money crisisA!

[Unregistered]

With Geithner selection as the head of the Treasury chief, we now have the fox in the chicken coop.

His first order of business, "...provide more support for housing and credit markets, and possibly a new effort to absorb troubled assets from banks."

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE50K19820090127?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=76

Yeh right. We already have Citi Bank buying a new corporate jet for $50M with our bailout money. Great way to open up the borrowing market. Do you think he's going to make them recind this purchase? I doubt it.

I wrote our Steve Lynch about not voting for him but I have idea how he voted - yet.

[Unregistered]

My solution would have been to give every U.S. citizen over the age of 21, $1M.
It would have been a less costly bailout and the American citizens would have stimulated the economy by paying off mortgages, buying cars, electronics, vacation homes and traveling. Everyone would have benefited by this kind of bailout package. The banks, auto industry and stock markets would have been riding the financial wave. People would be investing money for the future.

[Unregistered]

The last time the government gave money to individuals it really did nothing to the economy. Although I did like the money but I used it to pay bills. To me why give people $1,000 that is nothing when people every day are losing their jobs. Kids will be graduating colleges with debts up to $120,000 this May and they will not be able to find jobs. The unemployment numbers will climb since all honestly no one is spending money. Things are going to get tougher and seriously we are not there yet. When I graduated college unemployment was 9% in Mass, nationally we were at 7%. I think we will hit 9-10% mark by the end of this year. We need to invest in Technology, infrastructure and education (Science and Math).

[Unregistered]

My solution would have been to give every U.S. citizen over the age of 21, $1M.
It would have been a less costly bailout and the American citizens would have stimulated the economy by paying off mortgages, buying cars, electronics, vacation homes and traveling. Everyone would have benefited by this kind of bailout package. The banks, auto industry and stock markets would have been riding the financial wave. People would be investing money for the future.

Interesting idea, but I must correct one glaring error in your math. There are approximately 200 million U.S. citizens over the age of 21. To give each of these folks $1M would cost $200 TRILLION dollars. So when you say this would be a "less costly bailout" I'm afraid you are waaaaaay off.

Besides, who would greet you at WalMart when you walk in the door waving your near worthless $1 million dollar bill around? If you're lucky, (post inflation) it'll buy you a loaf of stale bread and 5 pounds of gov't surplus cheese.

Cute idea, but you don't help solve the problem when you promote unrealistic solutions.

[Unregistered]

Thanks for the math correction. My mistake.
So the feds have another great idea. Why don't we send these bums to jail for bringing the economy down through continued greed and selfishness. Why should we bail them out, I thought we lived in a democratic society not socialist. Big business has had 20 years to steal from us and they get rewarded for it.
What ever happened to "Thou shalt not steal"? Should it read, "Thou shalt not steal while anyone is looking". My prayers are for the Obama administration, but he's not the savior that you think he is. He's just another man with high hopes. If you have a solution to this countires fiancial woes you should call your congressman.

[Unregistered]

Thanks for the math correction. My mistake.
So the feds have another great idea. Why don't we send these bums to jail for bringing the economy down through continued greed and selfishness. Why should we bail them out, I thought we lived in a democratic society not socialist. Big business has had 20 years to steal from us and they get rewarded for it.
What ever happened to "Thou shalt not steal"? Should it read, "Thou shalt not steal while anyone is looking". My prayers are for the Obama administration, but he's not the savior that you think he is. He's just another man with high hopes. If you have a solution to this countires fiancial woes you should call your congressman.

Calling, writing or emailing our Senators/Representatives is useless. I did that and all I got from Kenney was the glowing endorsement of the Stimulus Package even though I pointed out that there were pork items added at the last minute, that the House hadn't even received any of the written document (email, Word Doc or otherwise) and they were expected to vote on it this morning. Steve Lynch's response was the typical form email response I get every time I email him.

The bottom line - they're Democrats. They are going to pass this bill come h*ll-or-high-water.

Notice that NOT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN voted for this bill. It wasn't all because of party politics, a lot had to do with there was no bi-partisian partnership and the ramming down the American throat the cost we, our kids, grandchildren and great-grandchilden will be paying.

As to throwing those who's greed got us in this mess into jail, I agree. But, our Senators and Representatives can't do both, thrown them in jail and ask for their contributions, at the same time - must be a conflict of interest thing.

[Unregistered]

Calling, writing or emailing our Senators/Representatives is useless. I did that and all I got from Kenney was the glowing endorsement of the Stimulus Package even though I pointed out that there were pork items added at the last minute, that the House hadn't even received any of the written document (email, Word Doc or otherwise) and they were expected to vote on it this morning. Steve Lynch's response was the typical form email response I get every time I email him.

The bottom line - they're Democrats. They are going to pass this bill come h*ll-or-high-water.

Notice that NOT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN voted for this bill. It wasn't all because of party politics, a lot had to do with there was no bi-partisian partnership and the ramming down the American throat the cost we, our kids, grandchildren and great-grandchilden will be paying.

As to throwing those who's greed got us in this mess into jail, I agree. But, our Senators and Representatives can't do both, thrown them in jail and ask for their contributions, at the same time - must be a conflict of interest thing.

Yeah. Republicans like to vote for no-strings-attached bailout bills that give taxpayer money to the same people who caused this economic crisis. But they definitely will not vote for a stimulus package that will provide billions of dollars to victims of the recession through unemployment benefits, food stamps, medical care, job retraining and more; tens of billions for states to offset cuts they might otherwise have to make in aid to schools and local governments; $48 billion for transportation projects such as road and bridge construction, mass transit and high-speed rail; tax cuts for 95 percent of all Americans, much of the relief in the form of a break of $400 for individuals and $800 for couples.

All that money will be poured into the economy. People will spend those tax cuts. Infrastructure improvement projects will create jobs and put people to work. Haven't you ever heard that it takes money to make money?

Why don't you take off your partisan goggles and give our new president a fair chance to cope with this financial emergency? It is despicable how Rush Limbaugh and the ghosts of the neo-conservative abomination are so openly hoping for our country to fail.

[Unregistered]

All that money will be poured into the economy. People will spend those tax cuts. Infrastructure improvement projects will create jobs and put people to work. Haven't you ever heard that it takes money to make money?

Why don't you take off your partisan goggles and give our new president a fair chance to cope with this financial emergency? It is despicable how Rush Limbaugh and the ghosts of the neo-conservative abomination are so openly hoping for our country to fail.

I would like to give him a chance, but when the Democrats are going Hog Wild about putting in pork items at the last minute, how much of that money is actually going to their special interest groups as oppose to the nation as whole? Again, only Pres. Obama made an effort to get the Republicans to join but Dowd and Pelosi didn't give a d*mn what the Republicans were asking - to slow down a bit a review this package before the vote was taken. Again, ramming it down our throats.

By the way, did you see the picture on the front page of Herald today, Deval rolling in the money? Are he and the State going to restore those cuts to the Cherry sheet? We'll have to wait on that one - until maybe next year.

As to Rush Limbaugh, I could care less what he says. I have my own mind, read a lot about this Stimulus package and discussed it with people who are on both sides

As to the $400/800 everyone is suppose to get, let’s see if it really is everyone. Last time around my son didn't because he made $120 more than the cut off limit (granting that it was Republican thing).

As to the infrastructure repairs, are the towns going to share in this or is it limited to only state highways/bridges. We don't know yet because the Stimulus package is 1,100 pages long, with a lot in it that probably contradicts itself or is confusing. We may have to wait until Congress straightens out the language.

[Unregistered]

I would like to give him a chance, but when the Democrats are going Hog Wild about putting in pork items at the last minute, how much of that money is actually going to their special interest groups as oppose to the nation as whole? Again, only Pres. Obama made an effort to get the Republicans to join but Dowd and Pelosi didn't give a d*mn what the Republicans were asking - to slow down a bit a review this package before the vote was taken. Again, ramming it down our throats.

By the way, did you see the picture on the front page of Herald today, Deval rolling in the money? Are he and the State going to restore those cuts to the Cherry sheet? We'll have to wait on that one - until maybe next year.

As to Rush Limbaugh, I could care less what he says. I have my own mind, read a lot about this Stimulus package and discussed it with people who are on both sides

As to the $400/800 everyone is suppose to get, let’s see if it really is everyone. Last time around my son didn't because he made $120 more than the cut off limit (granting that it was Republican thing).

As to the infrastructure repairs, are the towns going to share in this or is it limited to only state highways/bridges. We don't know yet because the Stimulus package is 1,100 pages long, with a lot in it that probably contradicts itself or is confusing. We may have to wait until Congress straightens out the language.

Huh. My understanding is that the original stimulus bill was $700B, and that the "last minute" additions put another $200B on top in an attempt to appease Republicans who were sitting on the fence. Regardless, the total bill is far less than we've spent on the ill-advised invasion and occupation of Iraq, which the Republican administration absolutely refused to slow down for proper review.

And speaking of the former president, why did he do absolutely nothing about the economic meltdown during his waning days in office? The negligent inaction of the Bush administration is precisely the reason why swift action is required now. And the persistent attempts of the Republican party to make this somehow the Democrats' fault is despicable.

You also seem more interested in whether your son will get a piece of the stimulus package than you are about whether this money will get into the hands of those who need it most. The purpose of the stimulus package is to stimulate the economy before it gets any worse, not to enrich anybody.

You claim this is not about partisan politics, but you proudly proclaim that not a single Republican voted for it. Sounds partisan to me. If the Republican leadership feels so marginalized by the Democrats, then where is their superior stimulus proposal? They are too busy playing the blame game while Rome is burning.

Offer up a better solution, or else get out of the way while the Dems clean up the mess that Bush and Co. left behind. But please, do not try to exploit a global economic crisis and the suffering of real actual people for political gain. You're embarrassing yourself.

[Unregistered]

Huh. My understanding is that the original stimulus bill was $700B, and that the "last minute" additions put another $200B on top in an attempt to appease Republicans who were sitting on the fence. ....

You still don't answer the question of why no one got to read the entire package before the vote was taken. Yes, there is a need to get things moving but at what extra expense that doesn't need to be there.




Well considering that it was Barry Frank and Chris Dowd that pushed throught the original freeing up the restraints on Wall Street and the banks. Yes it is partly the Democrats fault.


[QUOTE=You also seem more interested in whether your son will get a piece of the stimulus package than you are about whether this money will get into the hands of those who need it most. The purpose of the stimulus package is to stimulate the economy before it gets any worse, not to enrich anybody./QUOTE]

Who are you to say my son did or didn't need 'a piece of this'? Who made you God? He contributes to economy just like anyone else, pays his taxes and more, is forced to buy into expensive state health insurance that he really doesn't need and work his tail off and SAVES his money. This while going to college on his own dime.

[QUOTE=You claim this is not about partisan politics, but you proudly proclaim that not a single Republican voted for it. Sounds partisan to me. If the Republican leadership feels so marginalized by the Democrats, then where is their superior stimulus proposal? They are too busy playing the blame game while Rome is burning./QUOTE]

And the Democrats didn't play the same game while out of power? Now who's playing partisan politics.

[QUOTE=Offer up a better solution, or else get out of the way while the Dems clean up the mess that Bush and Co. left behind. But please, do not try to exploit a global economic crisis and the suffering of real actual people for political gain. You're embarrassing yourself.

Actually, I did offer up a something to both Kennedy and Lynch. Below is what I sent to both.

'I don't believe that this package is in the best interest of the American public as it now stands. There are too many give aways, too much waste and way to much government control.

Why not just send every taxpayer who filed a tax return last year $5,000.00? That's only 1 trillion dollars [assuming 200,000,000 people paid filed] as opposed to this plan, which is going to cost much more before it done.

This direct money would end up being spent, for the most part, on things like paying their taxes (therefore increasing the local gov'ts money), buying anything in the local stores (which are hurting the most and again into the local economy), some might go to pay for improvements on that person's local property (again helping the local tradesman which you are quite aware need this) or maybe just buying something that is currently beyond their income but would add something to their lives AND again the local economy. Some might hold on to theirs but it's still local. All of this will be immediate after receiving the check as oppose to the trickle down effect while we wait for Federal and State levels to figure out who's getting what amount, if anything at all.

Congress always has great ideas on how to fix things but Congress NEVERS follows through on the implementation or the management of these kinds of plan. The first thing that comes to my mind is the Big Dig here in Boston. A lot of money, mismanaged, not done correctly (look at the woman killed), and a large amount of corruption.

Do you really think this bail out bill will be any different?'

Did you have any idea of what you thought should be done or were you just sitting at the computer sputting off on this thread? At least I tried to offer an alternative!

Have a nice day.

[Unregistered]

Found this today on another site. http://navy.togetherweserved.com/usn/servlet/tws.webapp.WebApp?cmd=ForumDisplay&type=ForumThreadExt&ID=45074

On Black Wednesday (September 16, 1992), Soros became immediately famous when he sold short more than $10 billion worth of pounds, profiting from the Bank of England's reluctance to either raise its interest rates to levels comparable to those of other European Exchange Rate Mechanism countries or to float its currency.



Finally, the Bank of England was forced to withdraw the currency from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism and to devalue the pound sterling, and Soros earned an estimated US$ 1.1 billion in the process. He was dubbed "the man who broke the Bank of England."



The Times of Monday, October 26, 1992, quoted Soros as saying: "Our total position by Black Wednesday had to be worth almost $10 billion. We planned to sell more than that. In fact, when Norman Lamont said just before the devaluation that he would borrow nearly $15 billion to defend sterling, we were amused because that was about how much we wanted to sell."



According to Steven Drobny,[15] Stanley Druckenmiller, who traded under Soros, originally saw the weakness in the pound. "Soros' contribution was pushing him to take a gigantic position," in accord with Druckenmiller's own research and instincts.



In 1997, during the Asian financial crisis, then Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir bin Mohamad accused Soros of using the wealth under his control to punish ASEAN for welcoming Myanmar as a member.


So this is how the Democratic Party gets all its money.

[Unregistered]

You still don't answer the question of why no one got to read the entire package before the vote was taken. Yes, there is a need to get things moving but at what extra expense that doesn't need to be there.

According to the letter you sent to Lynch and Kennedy, it sounds like you knew exactly what was in the 1,000 page stimulus bill. How else could you have concluded that it contains "too many give aways, too much waste, and too much government control?"

If you understood the bill well enough to draw such educated conclusions without making wild assumptions, then it is a bit disingenuous for a U.S. Senator to claim that they didn't have enough time to read the bill, don't you think?


Who are you to say my son did or didn't need 'a piece of this'? Who made you God? He contributes to economy just like anyone else, pays his taxes and more, is forced to buy into expensive state health insurance that he really doesn't need and work his tail off and SAVES his money. This while going to college on his own dime.

I don't know who you think I am, but let me tell you that I did not draft the tax bailout that you are complaining about. I did not set the income cutoff levels that caused your son not to receive a piece of the pie last time around. I am just an ordinary, hard-working American who contributes to the economy, pays my taxes, pays for health insurance that I don't really need, works my tail off, saves my money, and paid my own way through college.

Nobody "made me God" as you say. YOU are the one who said your son's income was high enough that he didn't qualify for a handout. Are you so delusional that you think I was responsible for setting the cutoff level?

Let me tell you something - from what I understand, my household will not receive the tax break outlined in the new stimulus plan. And that doesn't bother me in the least. I still have a job, which is more than a lot of people can say. I would prefer that any money that the government hands out goes directly into the hands of those who need it the most - those who have lost their jobs and/or who are in danger of losing their homes.

You sound very bitter that your son didn't get a handout. Your "superior" proposal is to give a no-strings-attached handout to every American citizen. Honestly, you sound like you would support any stimulus plan that puts the money directly into your own pocket.


And the Democrats didn't play the same game while out of power? Now who's playing partisan politics.

You're talking yourself in circles. First you said Democrats would vote for this plan "come hell or high water" because they are Democrats, and that no Republican voted for this. You said it isn't about partisan politics, even as you try to turn this into a partisan issue. And when I call you on it, your only defense is some vague claim that the Democrats did the same thing back when they were in the minority? At least you admit that the Republicans ARE playing partisan politics.

Maybe you should figure out what point you are trying to make before you start typing. Just a friendly suggestion. :)


Actually, I did offer up a something to both Kennedy and Lynch. Below is what I sent to both.

'I don't believe that this package is in the best interest of the American public as it now stands. There are too many give aways, too much waste and way to much government control.

And what is wrong with government oversight? I point you to the TARP bailout plan of late last year, which poured billions into teetering financial institutions WITHOUT ANY GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT and what happened? Bank of America and CitiGroup are each now worth less than the amount of no-questions-asked money they were given under the plan.

Yeah, let's just go handing out money without any oversight whatsoever. Great idea.

Here's a better idea: http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/PressSummary01-15-09.pdf


Why not just send every taxpayer who filed a tax return last year $5,000.00? That's only 1 trillion dollars [assuming 200,000,000 people paid filed] as opposed to this plan, which is going to cost much more before it done.

This direct money would end up being spent, for the most part, on things like paying their taxes (therefore increasing the local gov'ts money), buying anything in the local stores (which are hurting the most and again into the local economy), some might go to pay for improvements on that person's local property (again helping the local tradesman which you are quite aware need this) or maybe just buying something that is currently beyond their income but would add something to their lives AND again the local economy. Some might hold on to theirs but it's still local. All of this will be immediate after receiving the check as oppose to the trickle down effect while we wait for Federal and State levels to figure out who's getting what amount, if anything at all.

Congress always has great ideas on how to fix things but Congress NEVERS follows through on the implementation or the management of these kinds of plan. The first thing that comes to my mind is the Big Dig here in Boston. A lot of money, mismanaged, not done correctly (look at the woman killed), and a large amount of corruption.

Do you really think this bail out bill will be any different?'

Did you have any idea of what you thought should be done or were you just sitting at the computer sputting off on this thread? At least I tried to offer an alternative!

Have a nice day.

Let me guess - you are the same person who said that we should just give $1M to every American over the age of 21? Talk about rushing a proposal into print without proper consideration - you didn't even check your own math.

In case you haven't been paying attention, Senator Kennedy is gravely ill and did not even vote on this bill. So I am pretty sure he didn't go rushing into the Senate Chamber clutching your typo-riddled e-mail and shouting "wait, stop the stimulus bill, one of my constituents has a better idea!"

Here's a hint. If you expect your elected leaders to take your proposal seriously, you might want to check for spelling and grammatical errors before you click on the "send" button. And while you're at it, check the logic of your arguments for unfounded assumptions. Whenever you use the word "probably" (and you seem to do that quite frequently) you are making a claim that is not based on facts.

In case you hadn't noticed, I also offered an alternative - give this president a fair chance to do his job. Nobody has a magic bullet that is going to right the economy instantaneously. The stimulus bill is not perfect, but it is a major step in the right direction. I hope that both parties will work together to restore confidence in the economy instead of trying to exploit this crisis for political gain using the shallow partisan politics that are evident in your posts.

[Unregistered]

Tax and spend liberals. Hold on to your wallets, what's left in them, because here comes NoBama, Pelosi, Geitner, Frank, Kennedy, Reid and all the rest of the spending liberals. This spending plan, excuse while I call it that, is a joke.

[Unregistered]

Tax and spend liberals. Hold on to your wallets, what's left in them, because here comes NoBama, Pelosi, Geitner, Frank, Kennedy, Reid and all the rest of the spending liberals. This spending plan, excuse while I call it that, is a joke.

According to the White House's own data, the "fiscal conservatives" Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr. are ENTIRELY responsible for this nation's post-WWII debt. Every other president since Truman has reduced the gross national debt.

So when you complain about federal spending by liberals, please realize that you are buying into one of the greatest lies of the 20th century.

http://zfacts.com/p/480.html

Hold onto your great-grandchildren's wallets, folks! The bitter "conservatives" would rather sabotage any hopes of economic recovery than allow a Democratic president to succeed.

[Unregistered]

I ran across this today. The video is from CSPAN. Listen to it and see what you think.


Rep. Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania explains what former Treasury Secretary Paulson and Fed Chairman Bernanke told congress during the September 2008 closed door session. During the first third of the video an enraged caller is ranting to Rep. Kanjorski about how wasteful the first $700 billion bailout was. The best part is 2 minutes and 15 seconds into the tape where Rep. Kanjorski reveals what Paulson and Bernanke told congress that shocked them into supporting the first $700 billion bailout.

On Thursday Sept 15, 2008 at roughly 11 AM The Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous draw down of money market accounts in the USA to the tune of $550 Billion dollars in a matter of an hour or two. Money was being removed electronically.

The Treasury tried to help, opened their window and pumped in $150 Billion but quickly realized they could not stem the tide. We were having an electronic run on the banks. So they decided to closed down the accounts.

Had they not closed down the accounts they estimated that by 2 PM that afternoon. Within 3 hours. $5.5 Trillion would have been withdrawn and the entire economy of the United States would have collapsed, and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed.



Kanjorski also explains why Paulson spent the bailout money differently than he originally proposed.

Some other gems from the recording:

It would have been the end of our economic and political system.

We would have had to spend 3 to 4 Trillion dollars to buy up all the toxic assets. But we didn't have that much we only had 700 Billion.

Without a banking system you don't have an economy.

We are no better off now than we were three months ago.

They didn’t know who had done this but had safeguards now in place

Someone threw us in the middle of the Atlantic ocean without a life raft. We are trying to determine which is the closest shore and whether there is any chance in the world to swim that far. We don't know.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ca2_1234032281

[Unregistered]

Now read this post from a friend on the same site:

Rush did a show tuesday about this and played that video and had commentary on it. I provided a link if anyone cares to listen hope it works. I also posted some related stories of that event.

(membership required for following link - tg)

http://stream.rushlimbaugh.com/cgi-bin/members.cgi?stream=clips/09/02/021009_3_kanjorksi.wma&site=rushlimb
'Buck-breaking' money market mutual fund returns initial $26B

The first in an unspecified number of distributions from the Reserve Primary Fund began Thursday with checks being mailed to retail-direct shareholders, Reserve Management Co. said. Payments to all other shareholders will be made by wire on Friday.
Each investor is getting about half their current account balance, the company said. It said all investors are being treated the same, whether or not they tendered redemption orders, and that the payout is being done on a pro-rata basis.

"This distribution marks a significant step in the process of liquidating the Primary Fund and distributing money back to shareholders," Reserve Management Co. President Bruce R. Bent said in a statement. "We are committed to making future distributions when more cash becomes available."
The fund had total assets of about $51 billion as of Sept. 30. It held $64 billion in assets on Sept. 12, before a soured investment in Lehman Brothers debt triggered a rush of institutional investors pulling out cash.

FIND MORE STORIES IN: Lehman Brothers | Reserve Primary Fund

On Sept. 16, the rapid sell-off of assets caused the value of fund assets to fall to 97 cents for each investor dollar put in — the first instance in 14 years of a money-market mutual fund "breaking the buck," or having its per-share value fall below $1.
Reserve Management froze redemption orders. That led institutional investors to pull out cash from that fund and others, creating fears about the safety of the $3.4 trillion in assets held in money-market funds, and a new temporary government money fund guarantee program.

Reserve Management said it is "focused on liquidating the fund's holdings at amortized cost as quickly as possible."

[Unregistered]

According to the letter you sent to Lynch and Kennedy, it sounds like you knew exactly what was in the 1,000 page stimulus bill. How else could you have concluded that it contains "too many give aways, too much waste, and too much government control?"

Ans: I was listening to CNN discussing it late that night. One point brought out was: They removed a provisions in the bill to reward new car buyers (stimulate the economy, help the automakers) with a large tax credit for doing so, yet allow the Pelosi Marsh Mouse 300 million dollars to stay.


If you understood the bill well enough to draw such educated conclusions without making wild assumptions, then it is a bit disingenuous for a U.S. Senator to claim that they didn't have enough time to read the bill, don't you think?

Ans: Maybe I had more time to listen to the news than they did. Nevertheless, it was a complaint made by many members in the House. They should have at least been able to give different sections to their staff to read and review the good/bad points with the office holder before the vote was taken.



I don't know who you think I am, but let me tell you that I did not draft the tax bailout that you are complaining about. I did not set the income cutoff levels that caused your son not to receive a piece of the pie last time around. I am just an ordinary, hard-working American who contributes to the economy, pays my taxes, pays for health insurance that I don't really need, works my tail off, saves my money, and paid my own way through college.

Nobody "made me God" as you say. YOU are the one who said your son's income was high enough that he didn't qualify for a handout. Are you so delusional that you think I was responsible for setting the cutoff level?

Ans: Never said you were responsible for the cutoff just that you came off sounding like the wrath of God in your post. Maybe you should tone it down a bit.


Let me tell you something - from what I understand, my household will not receive the tax break outlined in the new stimulus plan. And that doesn't bother me in the least. I still have a job, which is more than a lot of people can say. I would prefer that any money that the government hands out goes directly into the hands of those who need it the most - those who have lost their jobs and/or who are in danger of losing their homes.

Ans: I’m glad we both still have jobs; that I’ll probably not receive a tax break either. I agree it should go to ‘those who have lost their jobs and/or who are in danger of losing their homes.’ See, I can be reasonable.


You sound very bitter that your son didn't get a handout. Your "superior" proposal is to give a no-strings-attached handout to every American citizen. Honestly, you sound like you would support any stimulus plan that puts the money directly into your own pocket.

Ans: If I were to support any stimulus plan doesn’t that mean I would quietly go along with this one? Is this a contradiction in your thoughts?


You're talking yourself in circles. First you said Democrats would vote for this plan "come hell or high water" because they are Democrats, and that no Republican voted for this. You said it isn't about partisan politics, even as you try to turn this into a partisan issue. And when I call you on it, your only defense is some vague claim that the Democrats did the same thing back when they were in the minority? At least you admit that the Republicans ARE playing partisan politics.

Ans: Yes, both sides are playing this game. By the way you forgot the comma after First.

Maybe you should figure out what point you are trying to make before you start typing. Just a friendly suggestion. :)



And what is wrong with government oversight? I point you to the TARP bailout plan of late last year, which poured billions into teetering financial institutions WITHOUT ANY GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT and what happened? Bank of America and CitiGroup are each now worth less than the amount of no-questions-asked money they were given under the plan.

Ans: I never stated there should be No Oversight. Maybe I should have put in Pres. Obama’s little speech about reporting to the gov’t if a school isn’t built when the money is given out. That’s more like Big Brother. I do think there should be accountability but not down that path.


Yeah, let's just go handing out money without any oversight whatsoever. Great idea.

Here's a better idea: http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/PressSummary01-15-09.pdf

Ans: Good find. Much better than mine - see I can be agreeable.



Let me guess - you are the same person who said that we should just give $1M to every American over the age of 21? Talk about rushing a proposal into print without proper consideration - you didn't even check your own math.

Ans: Sorry, not the same poster. EVEN I SAW THAT ERROR.


In case you haven't been paying attention, Senator Kennedy is gravely ill and did not even vote on this bill. So I am pretty sure he didn't go rushing into the Senate Chamber clutching your typo-riddled e-mail and shouting "wait, stop the stimulus bill, one of my constituents has a better idea!"

Ans: When the email was sent I’ve knew Senator Kennedy was sick and didn’t expect anything back. I assumed the email was auto-generated based on keywords.



Here's a hint. If you expect your elected leaders to take your proposal seriously, you might want to check for spelling and grammatical errors before you click on the "send" button. And while you're at it, check the logic of your arguments for unfounded assumptions. Whenever you use the word "probably" (and you seem to do that quite frequently) you are making a claim that is not based on facts.

Ans: Probably also means: easy to believe based on the available evidence.
Next time I might use one these synonyms to throw you off: likely, credible, possible, feasible, plausible, or apparent. Does that make you feel better?
By the way, you tend to use end-of-sentence preposition.


In case you hadn't noticed, I also offered an alternative - give this president a fair chance to do his job. Nobody has a magic bullet that is going to right the economy instantaneously. The stimulus bill is not perfect, but it is a major step in the right direction. I hope that both parties will work together to restore confidence in the economy instead of trying to exploit this crisis for political gain using the shallow partisan politics that are evident in your posts.

Ans: Good point and I’ll try to be more patient, but I still think there are too many unnecessary add-ons that only increased the total of this bill.

[Unregistered]

I was listening to CNN discussing it late that night. One point brought out was: They removed a provisions in the bill to reward new car buyers (stimulate the economy, help the automakers) with a large tax credit for doing so, yet allow the Pelosi Marsh Mouse 300 million dollars to stay.

Again, you should check your facts before you go around misquoting something you think you heard on television.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/stimulus-package/pelosi-staff-conservative-talking-point-about-30-million-for-mice-is-fabrication/

This lie originated with a GOP staffer who claimed (without providing any details) that the bill contained $30M (not $300M) for "wetlands restoration around San Francisco", and then claimed that the funds would be spent to preserve the Marsh Mouse.

You do yourself and your country a disservice to argue ideology from a position of ignorance.


Maybe I had more time to listen to the news than they did. Nevertheless, it was a complaint made by many members in the House. They should have at least been able to give different sections to their staff to read and review the good/bad points with the office holder before the vote was taken.

Considering that it is the legislators' full time job to participate in drafting and understanding legislation, they have no-one but themselves to blame if they are so out of touch that you know more about the stimulus package than they do.

The truth is that many in the GOP support the stimulus package, but voted against it along party lines because they plan to use it as an issue in the mid-term elections coming up next year. Partisan politics at its worst.


Never said you were responsible for the cutoff just that you came off sounding like the wrath of God in your post. Maybe you should tone it down a bit.

"The bottom line - they're Democrats. They are going to pass this bill come h*ll-or-high-water."

"...when the Democrats are going Hog Wild about putting in pork items at the last minute... Dowd and Pelosi didn't give a d*mn what the Republicans were asking... Again, ramming it down our throats."

Wow, I could only hope to someday command the authority of Wrath Of God in my writing. But perhaps you could take a dose of your own advice and tone down the neocon rhetoric a bit?


I’m glad we both still have jobs; that I’ll probably not receive a tax break either. I agree it should go to ‘those who have lost their jobs and/or who are in danger of losing their homes.’ See, I can be reasonable.

...

If I were to support any stimulus plan doesn’t that mean I would quietly go along with this one? Is this a contradiction in your thoughts?

Your reading comprehension skills are in doubt. I wrote: "Honestly, you sound like you would support any stimulus plan that puts the money directly into your own pocket." Since you admit that you will probably not qualify for the tax break outlined in this stimulus plan, and since you clearly do not support this plan, then I see absolutely no contradiction in my thoughts whatsoever.

I do see gaping holes in your logic, though. If you cannot even interpret a simple sentence correctly, do you really expect me to lend any weight to your other conclusions?


Yes, both sides are playing this game. By the way you forgot the comma after First.

No, again your reading comprehension skills are lacking. Placing a comma where you propose would give the sentence a different meter and meaning than what I intended. If you want to get into nit-picking punctuation, you should have de-capitalized and put quotation marks around the word "first." Regardless...

The Democrats have enough votes that they could have drafted their own bill without any concessions to the GOP side of the aisle. They went out of their way to make this a bi-partisan rescue effort. Republicans went along with the drafting of the stimulus plan and asked for concessions (that were granted) which ultimately added $200B in additional spending to the bill. Then they unanimously withdrew their support at the last minute and complained about the price tag.

If the Democrats were playing the same game, the House would strip the bill of all concessions to any GOP Senator in order to inflict maximum suffering onto the home districts of any GOP legislator. Then they would pass this bill, calling it the Democratic Stimulus Package and lay claim to rescuing the economy without any help from Republicans. If I were the gambling type, I would bet you a week's salary that they won't lower themselves to that level of pettiness, and I doubt Obama would stand for it if they did.

Any impartial observer can see that the GOP is trying to sabotage the stimulus plan for their own political gain. Unfortunately, it is the average U.S. citizen who will suffer if we do not all work together to solve this crisis.


I never stated there should be No Oversight. Maybe I should have put in Pres. Obama’s little speech about reporting to the gov’t if a school isn’t built when the money is given out. That’s more like Big Brother. I do think there should be accountability but not down that path.

So you think there should be accountability, but you don't think the funds should be used for their intended purpose? Exactly what do you mean by "accountability" then?

Seriously, having a way for citizens to report when the funds are being misspent is not "too much government oversight." It is exactly the opposite. It means that Obama does not wish to tie up government resources by adding bureaucratic overhead to the allocation process. Instead, he is relying on the people to monitor that the local funds are used in the intended manner.



Here's a better idea: http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/...ry01-15-09.pdf

Good find. Much better than mine - see I can be agreeable.

I'm not sure what it is you are agreeing to. That link is to the House description of the very stimulus plan that you are deriding.


Sorry, not the same poster. EVEN I SAW THAT ERROR.

OK, but then you turned $30M into $300M while you were repeating an unfounded rumor as fact.


When the email was sent I’ve knew Senator Kennedy was sick and didn’t expect anything back. I assumed the email was auto-generated based on keywords.

...

Probably also means: easy to believe based on the available evidence.
Next time I might use one these synonyms to throw you off: likely, credible, possible, feasible, plausible, or apparent. Does that make you feel better?
By the way, you tend to use end-of-sentence preposition.

I have to laugh at someone who can say things like "I've knew" even as they critique my grammar. Any fifth grader can tell you that the use of an end-of-sentence preposition has become an accepted grammatical form when it avoids excessively awkward sentence structure. Besides, I'd go toe-to-toe with you any day if you want to get an English Professor to grade our respective writing styles.

Instead of using a thesaurus to mask the assumptions in your logic, why don't you do actual research to verify your facts? Then you could replace the word "probably" with more concrete statements of fact. Who knows - you might even learn something about the underlying issues in the process.


Good point and I’ll try to be more patient, but I still think there are too many unnecessary add-ons that only increased the total of this bill.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

[Unregistered]

The truth is that many in the GOP support the stimulus package, but voted against it along party lines because they plan to use it as an issue in the mid-term elections coming up next year. Partisan politics at its worst.

Feel free to cite your sources which will support these statements. I suspect that you meant to express your opinion but mistakenly wrote these statements as fact.

[Unregistered]

The truth is that many in the GOP support the stimulus package, but voted against it along party lines because they plan to use it as an issue in the mid-term elections coming up next year. Partisan politics at its worst.
Feel free to cite your sources which will support these statements. I suspect that you meant to express your opinion but mistakenly wrote these statements as fact.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/13/specter-republicans-suppo_n_166875.html

I expect you to return the courtesy and cite sources for your past and future statements as well.

[Unregistered]

This has turned into a debate as oppose to a discussion forum.

The economy is in the toilet. For every person that blames the GOP, another one will blame the democrats. We can all cite something that supports who we want to blame.

The real question is what has each of us done to support/hurt the economy.

Did you buy an unneccessary purchase (Big Screen, Vacation, boat, etc.) on credit instead of cash?

Do you support local merchants when possible (Jalepeno's for dinner instead of Friday's, Rocky's Hardware instead of Home Depot)

But an American BUILT Car. (I don't really care about the brand too much, but at least looking to where the car you are buying was built, Camrys for example)

Did you buy way more house than you could afford and now face foreclosure?

Did you spend every cent of your income and not leave yourself an emergency fund? (Driving up your debt on Credit Cards when you suddenly need the car fixed or the like)

We all need to look at what we have done right and what we have done wrong, figure out what we need to do get it straightened out.

I know that alot of the problems in the economy can not be fixed at the kitchen table, but we should start focusing on the ones that can!

[Unregistered]

This has turned into a debate as oppose to a discussion forum.

The economy is in the toilet. For every person that blames the GOP, another one will blame the democrats. We can all cite something that supports who we want to blame.

Sorry to turn this into a debate, but I am very alarmed when I see one political party working so hard to derail the federal stimulus plan for apparently political purposes. I, for one, will not allow such nonsense to be brought to this local discussion forum without answering it.

And it does not escape my notice that you are changing the subject without conceding that you were wrong or backing up any of your statements with proper citations. I have provided links that demonstrate that the GOP is actively trying to damage the federal recovery effort, so please don't insult me with this "for every person that blames the GOP, another one will blame the democrats" nonsense. If "we can all cite something that supports who we want to blame" then please, by all means, provide your citations. I can wait.

I am not trying to lay blame. I am trying to derail the relentless assault on common sense that has driven political discourse in this country for too long. There is too much at stake for me to just sit by and watch it happen.

[Unregistered]

Sorry to turn this into a debate, but I am very alarmed when I see one political party working so hard to derail the federal stimulus plan for apparently political purposes. I, for one, will not allow such nonsense to be brought to this local discussion forum without answering it.

And it does not escape my notice that you are changing the subject without conceding that you were wrong or backing up any of your statements with proper citations. I have provided links that demonstrate that the GOP is actively trying to damage the federal recovery effort, so please don't insult me with this "for every person that blames the GOP, another one will blame the democrats" nonsense. If "we can all cite something that supports who we want to blame" then please, by all means, provide your citations. I can wait.

I am not trying to lay blame. I am trying to derail the relentless assault on common sense that has driven political discourse in this country for too long. There is too much at stake for me to just sit by and watch it happen.

You must be a Kool-Aid drinker. Did any of the money thrown at the problem by Bush in Oct make a difference? Do you know that nobody can account for the money? Will this money make a difference? I think not because nobody knows what they are doing. Blaming Rebublicans for trying to derail this debacle is nonsense. Truly, I hope you are young. You absolutely did not live through the 1970s with 20% auto loans and 18% mortgages and a president who vowed to stay holed up in the Rose Garden until the hostages were released (on the day of Reagan's inauguration). Common sense? Think again.

[Unregistered]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/13/specter-republicans-suppo_n_166875.html

I expect you to return the courtesy and cite sources for your past and future statements as well.

If an Arlen Specter quote on the Huffington Post is your source, then all future and past statements of yours are instantly suspect. Specter is an abomination (not just for this act, but other transgressions in his past). The Huffington Post is so unbelievably leftist that it can't be trusted.

You're going to need to provide a reliable source from a person who is not invested in the lie to begin with. The simple truth of is it, you can't speak to the thoughts of the GOP Senators and your previous statement has no basis in fact.

The stimulus is not a stimulus, it's a special interest pay off.

[Unregistered]

Sorry to turn this into a debate, but I am very alarmed when I see one political party working so hard to derail the federal stimulus plan for apparently political purposes. I, for one, will not allow such nonsense to be brought to this local discussion forum without answering it.

And it does not escape my notice that you are changing the subject without conceding that you were wrong or backing up any of your statements with proper citations. I have provided links that demonstrate that the GOP is actively trying to damage the federal recovery effort, so please don't insult me with this "for every person that blames the GOP, another one will blame the democrats" nonsense. If "we can all cite something that supports who we want to blame" then please, by all means, provide your citations. I can wait.

I am not trying to lay blame. I am trying to derail the relentless assault on common sense that has driven political discourse in this country for too long. There is too much at stake for me to just sit by and watch it happen.

With all due respect... you're off your rocker. The dems are trying to shove this down our throats before we are able to discern what is in the bill. As time goes by, more and more people are coming to find out that the "stimulus" is anything but. Keep looking left so don't have to see what's right in front of you.

[Unregistered]

You reply making the assumption that I am the same person you have been endlessly going back and forth with.

I am not (The problem of annonymous posting)

Thanks for proving my point by the way, the endless debate of you too has driven the discussion right out of this forum Apparently you fell if anyone dares to move away from the Neocon V. Liberal spewing from the two of you that they are blind to the issues at hand.

I am not blind to it, I just don't trust the government to fix my checkbook.

My point was simpy this: If everyone took care of their own house, we would be in much better shape.

I will admit this is my opinion, and I have better things to do than research the 50 different websites that apparently I must reference now in order to dare enter into what you have claimed as your own political soap box, so this will be my second and last post.

[Unregistered]

If an Arlen Specter quote on the Huffington Post is your source, then all future and past statements of yours are instantly suspect. Specter is an abomination (not just for this act, but other transgressions in his past). The Huffington Post is so unbelievably leftist that it can't be trusted.

You're going to need to provide a reliable source from a person who is not invested in the lie to begin with. The simple truth of is it, you can't speak to the thoughts of the GOP Senators and your previous statement has no basis in fact.

The stimulus is not a stimulus, it's a special interest pay off.

I have provided a link to a quote by a Republican United States Senator to back up my statements. Provide your own links to information which disproves my argument, or don't. But I have nothing further to prove if you continue to make unfounded statements without any citations of your own.

This stimulus plan has been circulated in draft form on the internet for weeks, and the form that was passed by the Senate is largely unchanged. It spends money on infrastructure projects that will create jobs and pay for themselves over the long term. It shores up faltering state revenues to reduce cuts in state and local services. Please explain to me how these expenditures will not help to reverse the economic crisis and make our nation stronger?

If the name callers insist otherwise, I simply ask that you google the stimulus plan, read about it, and provide a concrete example to back up your statements.

http://www.google.com

I can wait. :)

[Unregistered]

I have provided a link to a quote by a Republican United States Senator to back up my statements. Provide your own links to information which disproves my argument, or don't. But I have nothing further to prove if you continue to make unfounded statements without any citations of your own.

This stimulus plan has been circulated in draft form on the internet for weeks, and the form that was passed by the Senate is largely unchanged. It spends money on infrastructure projects that will create jobs and pay for themselves over the long term. It shores up faltering state revenues to reduce cuts in state and local services. Please explain to me how these expenditures will not help to reverse the economic crisis and make our nation stronger?

If the name callers insist otherwise, I simply ask that you google the stimulus plan, read about it, and provide a concrete example to back up your statements.

http://www.google.com

I can wait. :)

The point of the matter was that you cannot know the thoughts of every GOP Senator, yet you claim based on Specter's Huffington Post quote to know their thoughts. Look up "hearsay" and get back to me.

For the reverse argument, I will not and can not look up sources citing the thoughts of the GOP Senators. Those thoughts are not published.

As long as we're posting google links, here's mine:
http://www.google.com/search?q=stimulus+pork

[Unregistered]

"I have provided a link to a quote by a Republican United States Senator to back up my statements. Provide your own links to information which disproves my argument, or don't. But I have nothing further to prove if you continue to make unfounded statements without any citations of your own."(QUOTE)

Could you please stop demanding that people cite sources? This is an opinion forum not a high school class. You are not our teacher and we are not your students. Google, my foot.

[Unregistered]

"I have provided a link to a quote by a Republican United States Senator to back up my statements. Provide your own links to information which disproves my argument, or don't. But I have nothing further to prove if you continue to make unfounded statements without any citations of your own."

Could you please stop demanding that people cite sources? This is an opinion forum not a high school class. You are not our teacher and we are not your students. Google, my foot.

Thank you! You have confirmed something that I have suspected for a long time.

There are two types of people in this world - those who believe whatever they want to believe regardless of hard evidence to the contrary, and those who ask questions with an open mind and seek the truth. Judging from the opinions voiced here on Walpole Words today, I conclude that the people who believe the GOP talking points about the stimulus plan fall predominantly into the first category.

Hey, no skin off my nose if you don't want to be bothered checking your facts before you go spouting off here. I did say "provide your own links... or don't." I am not trying to convince you that you are wrong - I am trying to convince those who might stumble onto this discussion in their search for the truth that you are wrong. You only make that easier for me to do when you demonstrate such contempt for doing your research.

Perfect example - the "Pelosi Marsh Mouse." I had never heard of that particular critter until it was mentioned in this discussion. I simply typed those three words into google and one of the top hits told me not only what the Pelosi Marsh Mouse was, but also who invented this talking point and what the actual dollar amount was. Instead of simply believing a rumor that somebody repeated, I took 60 seconds to learn the truth about it. Had the original poster done the same, they might have made a more convincing argument against the stimulus plan.

Senator Spector was quoted to say that Republican Senators voted against the bill for political reasons even though they actually supported it. Regardless of what you think of the news outlets that reported this quote, the man did say it, and he certainly knows more about the motivations of the GOP Senators than either you or I. You can slap your hands over your ears and shriek that you don't believe it, or you can seek out comments from other senators to dispute my claim. The choice is yours.

No matter. President Obama just signed the stimulus plan into law. I can't wait to see what he will accomplish during his next 95 months in office!

A wise man once said that "reality has a liberal bias." I now understand perfectly what he meant. :)

[Unregistered]

And I can't wait for 1/20/13. I imagine it's silly season since schools are on vacation! BTW, google is not a source just as "the library" or "tv" is not a source. Study up for the SATs, dear.

[Unregistered]

Post 110, I have a question only you can answer with all your worldly wisdom.

Why was it necessary to pass the stimulus bill ASAP and then Obama doesn't sign it until today, in Denver, CO?

The extra 2 days it seems would not have matter to have a better understanding by all.

[Unregistered]

And I can't wait for 1/20/13. I imagine it's silly season since schools are on vacation! BTW, google is not a source just as "the library" or "tv" is not a source. Study up for the SATs, dear.

Well Dearie, in case you weren't paying attention, I never cited google as a source. I only recommended it as a good tool for finding information on the internet. You might want to brush up on those reading comprehension skills.

School vacation? What does that have to do with any of this? You assume too much. I am not a student or a teacher. I already disclosed that I paid my own way through college, but I never mentioned how many years ago that was. But if it makes you feel better to assume that I am a youngster, well then by all means wrap yourself up tight in that cocoon of delusion. Looks like it's gonna be a long, cold winter.

[Unregistered]

Post 110, I have a question only you can answer with all your worldly wisdom.

Why was it necessary to pass the stimulus bill ASAP and then Obama doesn't sign it until today, in Denver, CO?

The extra 2 days it seems would not have matter to have a better understanding by all.

I'm sure if Obama had signed the bill within minutes of House ratification you would be complaining that he rammed it down your throat without proper review.

[Unregistered]

Post 110, I have a question only you can answer with all your worldly wisdom.

Why was it necessary to pass the stimulus bill ASAP and then Obama doesn't sign it until today, in Denver, CO?

The extra 2 days it seems would not have matter to have a better understanding by all.

Both parties had a say in what went into the bill. When it went to the House, either side had opportunity to propose amendments. So is there an actual problem with the bill, or are you just expressing sour grapes that the Republican party got decimated in the last election?

C'mon. You've had several days to review the plan now. My question to those who say it "contains too much pork" is this: Would you care to give a single example of what you consider to be a pork item or are you just aping the GOP party line without question?

[Unregistered]

Today: why gas keeps going up while we see the price of oil dropping.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090216/ap_on_bi_ge/gas_prices_unhinged

[Unregistered]

Both parties had a say in what went into the bill. When it went to the House, either side had opportunity to propose amendments. So is there an actual problem with the bill, or are you just expressing sour grapes that the Republican party got decimated in the last election?

C'mon. You've had several days to review the plan now. My question to those who say it "contains too much pork" is this: Would you care to give a single example of what you consider to be a pork item or are you just aping the GOP party line without question?

I didn't write the post you are questioning, but here is some examples of those PORK related items you asked for:


1. 1 billion for Amtrak, which hasn’t earned a profit in four decades
2. $2 billion to help subsidize child care.
3. $2.4 billion for projects to demonstrate how carbon greenhouse gas can be safely removed from the atmosphere.
4. $650 million for coupons to help consumers convert their TV sets from analog to digital, part of the digital TV conversion.
5. $75 million to fund programs to help people quit smoking
6. $600 million to buy a new fleet of cars for federal employees and government departments.
7. $2.25 billion for national parks. This item has sparked calls for an investigation, because the chief lobbyist of the National Parks Association is the son of Rep. David R. Obey, D-Wisc. The $2,25 billion is about equal to the National Park Service’s entire annual budget. The Washington Times reports it is a threefold increase over what was originally proposed for parks in the stimulus bill. Obey is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.
8. $335 million for treatment and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases
9. $44 million to renovate the headquarters building of the Agriculture Department

And on and on it goes. Want more??? Just look at the plan, it will make you sick

[Unregistered]

'Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it . And if it stops moving, subsidize it.'

- Ronald Reagan

'The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'
- Ronald Reagan


'The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.'

- Ronald Reagan

[Unregistered]

Glad to learn there are only two kinds of people in this world and someone in Walpole is able to categorize each and every one into the appropriate category. This forum has turned into a "BlueMassGroup" offshoot, where liberal progs try to impress each other with their high school debating techniques. "Give us your cite" is the rallying cry. Whatever Arlen Specter says must be Gospel..just look at the SpyGate fiasco. Which one of us is preaching talking points? There is no way anyone has absorbed this pork sandwich yet, but posters challenge others to cite an example of wasteful spending! All from the land of the BigDig and one party rule, and look how smoothly MAss is slipping into the abyss. How are Dems going to finance their ambitions when hard working folks are tapped out and are tired of Obamites redistributing their wealth to people w/o any skin in the game?

[Unregistered]

I didn't write the post you are questioning, but here is some examples of those PORK related items you asked for:

1. 1 billion for Amtrak, which hasn’t earned a profit in four decades
2. $2 billion to help subsidize child care.
3. $2.4 billion for projects to demonstrate how carbon greenhouse gas can be safely removed from the atmosphere.
4. $650 million for coupons to help consumers convert their TV sets from analog to digital, part of the digital TV conversion.
5. $75 million to fund programs to help people quit smoking
6. $600 million to buy a new fleet of cars for federal employees and government departments.
7. $2.25 billion for national parks. This item has sparked calls for an investigation, because the chief lobbyist of the National Parks Association is the son of Rep. David R. Obey, D-Wisc. The $2,25 billion is about equal to the National Park Service’s entire annual budget. The Washington Times reports it is a threefold increase over what was originally proposed for parks in the stimulus bill. Obey is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.
8. $335 million for treatment and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases
9. $44 million to renovate the headquarters building of the Agriculture Department

And on and on it goes. Want more??? Just look at the plan, it will make you sick

There is a big difference between "investment" and "pork." All of these initiatives serve a purpose in the larger goals of the stimulus plan to decrease our reliance on foreign fossil fuels and/or invest in development projects that will pay for themselves over the mid- to long-term.

1. Amtrak: Use of public transportation decreases energy consumption and wear on our public roadways. Rail improvements will not only benefit passenger rail, but also heavy transportation of goods and materials for industry.
2. Child Care Subsidies: Helps parents go back to work and reduces their reliance on welfare programs.
3. Greenhouse Gas Studies: Our nation has more coal than oil at our disposal. Can't burn it if we're trying to get other countries to stop polluting. Can sell these technologies to developing nations (like China) who bring one new coal-fired power plant online every day.
4. Analog Converter Boxes: Did you know that one role of the FCC is to protect the rights of ordinary citizens to get access to news and other programming through the public airways? The switch to digital TV has the danger of stranding people without the means to stay informed. The analog converter coupon program was a concession by the broadcasters, who stand to profit immensely when they can abandon analog broadcasting. One reason the changeover was delayed was because the coupon program was underfunded for the demand placed on it.
5. Quit Smoking: Did you know that the United States spends over $70 BILLION dollars on care for smoking-related health issues? Spending $75 million to get more people to quit is a long-term gain. This program will easily pay for itself.
6. Federal Fleet: Buying new, more fuel efficient cars to replace the federal fleet will help ailing automakers to return to profitability, and save on federal fuel and repair costs for that fleet. I prefer this kind of plan to simply floating loans to the industry, hoping that individuals will start buying again before they go bankrupt.
7. Federal Parks: The federal park system has been decaying for years, even as park rangers have been forced to assume more duties related to policing - protection of endangered species and illegal use of federal lands for drug production. According to the GAO, the federal park system has an $8 BILLION backlog of critical projects.
8. Treatment and Prevention of STDs: See #5. Did yo know that more than $8 BILLION is spent every year to treat STDs in the United States (not including HIV) and that approximately 50% of all Americans will contract an STD during their lifetime? Again, this program will easily pay for itself.
9. Renovation of Agriculture Bldg: This is part of the green energy initiative to improve the condition and efficiency of federal buildings while creating construction jobs.

I look at this list and I see investment in our nation's future. Every one of these initiatives will create jobs, reduce our reliance on foreign energy supplies, reduce overall spending on welfare and health care programs, repair and improve our infrastructure, and provide a much-needed boost to the automotive and green energy industries. Most of these programs will pay for themselves and actually reduce the national debt over the long term.

So I am still wondering, where's the pork? You don't seem to know what that word means.

[Unregistered]

'Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it . And if it stops moving, subsidize it.'
- Ronald Reagan

'The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'
- Ronald Reagan

'The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.'
- Ronald Reagan

Reagan represents the beginning of the neoconservative arc that ended so disastrously with the Bush Presidency. Someone earlier in this thread had the gall to cite the release of the Iranian Hostages on the day of Reagan's inauguration, when it has been well documented that Reagan's political team (under Willam Casey) struck a secret deal with Iran to delay the release of the hostages for several months. This deal included money, arms, and spare parts for military vehicles in a cynical attempt to exploit the hostages for political gain.

Reagan also was the first president since the end of WWII to increase the national deficit. He promised lower taxes, but simply transferred the costs of his unprecedented military buildup through deficit spending that has helped to cripple our economy today. This economic shell game was repeated by the two Presidents Bush such that the federal deficit now totals over 70% of our GDP today!

And de-regulation? Are you serious? You DO realize that the neocon trend toward deregulation at any cost was instrumental in creating the current financial crisis? Bond underwriters, freshly deregulated by Bush Jr. were allowed to rate their own bonds without any oversight, causing billions of dollars in high-risk loans to be repackaged as Grade A securities. Deregulation of investment banks relaxed the asset requirements for lenders, enabling them to lend out as much as $30 for every $1 of assets held in reserve. The inevitable defaults were the cause of the mortgage bubble and subsequent failure of investment banks last year.

If Reagan is one of your heroes, that tells me more than I need to know about you.

[Unregistered]

121, you're so unbelievably left that I'm beginning to wonder if you're not part of the "peace group".

I really think the "democratic underground" website would be more your speed.

[Unregistered]

Glad to learn there are only two kinds of people in this world and someone in Walpole is able to categorize each and every one into the appropriate category. This forum has turned into a "BlueMassGroup" offshoot, where liberal progs try to impress each other with their high school debating techniques. "Give us your cite" is the rallying cry. Whatever Arlen Specter says must be Gospel..just look at the SpyGate fiasco. Which one of us is preaching talking points? There is no way anyone has absorbed this pork sandwich yet, but posters challenge others to cite an example of wasteful spending! All from the land of the BigDig and one party rule, and look how smoothly MAss is slipping into the abyss. How are Dems going to finance their ambitions when hard working folks are tapped out and are tired of Obamites redistributing their wealth to people w/o any skin in the game?

Well some posters have made bold statements that there is too much pork in the bill, so I hope they are basing these statements on fact and not just making stuff up. If what you say is true - that there is no way anybody has absorbed this yet, then I wonder how these folks can be so certain?

I am amused that you ridicule me for asking people to back up their claims with some kind of citation. It is so much easier to just spout off without any basis in reality! That's the kind of lazy thinking that got us mired in an unnecessary war in Iraq, which is projected will cost our nation $3 TRILLION dollars when all is said and done.

If you don't like Massachusetts, you are welcome to move to a more prosperous state like Mississippi or California. Good luck getting to the airport without using the Big Dig tunnel.

Bye bye!

[Unregistered]

120-You certainly do not have any idea what pork is. Stop trying to impress with your "knowledge". Don't you have papers to correct, SATs to study for or the Peace & Justice march to prepare for? Nobody is listening.

[Unregistered]

121, you're so unbelievably left that I'm beginning to wonder if you're not part of the "peace group".

I really think the "democratic underground" website would be more your speed.

Thanks for the tip, but no. I respect what Walpole Peace and Justice does, but have no connection to them.

The so-called conservatives of the past 30 years have been the most dishonest group of leeches to ever set foot in the White House. If I am "left" it is because I've been paying attention to who stands for what in this country.

I guess that's the burden of actually checking facts instead of just believing what I'm told.

[Unregistered]

120-You certainly do not have any idea what pork is.

Pork - n.
1. The flesh of a pig or hog used as food.
2. Government funds, appointments, or benefits dispensed or legislated by politicians to gain favor with their constituents.


Stop trying to impress with your "knowledge". Don't you have papers to correct, SATs to study for or the Peace & Justice march to prepare for? Nobody is listening.

Since this is an anonymous forum, I fail to see the value in trying to impress anybody.

I don't know why you would assume that I am a high school student. I don't assume that you are a grumpy senior citizen who needs more fiber in your diet.

[Unregistered]

120-You certainly do not have any idea what pork is. Stop trying to impress with your "knowledge". Don't you have papers to correct, SATs to study for or the Peace & Justice march to prepare for? Nobody is listening.

For someone who isn't listening, you sure seem to be awfully upset.

[Unregistered]

Reagan represents the beginning of the neoconservative arc that ended so disastrously with the Bush Presidency. Someone earlier in this thread had the gall to cite the release of the Iranian Hostages on the day of Reagan's inauguration, when it has been well documented that Reagan's political team (under Willam Casey) struck a secret deal with Iran to delay the release of the hostages for several months. This deal included money, arms, and spare parts for military vehicles in a cynical attempt to exploit the hostages for political gain.

Reagan also was the first president since the end of WWII to increase the national deficit. He promised lower taxes, but simply transferred the costs of his unprecedented military buildup through deficit spending that has helped to cripple our economy today. This economic shell game was repeated by the two Presidents Bush such that the federal deficit now totals over 70% of our GDP today!

And de-regulation? Are you serious? You DO realize that the neocon trend toward deregulation at any cost was instrumental in creating the current financial crisis? Bond underwriters, freshly deregulated by Bush Jr. were allowed to rate their own bonds without any oversight, causing billions of dollars in high-risk loans to be repackaged as Grade A securities. Deregulation of investment banks relaxed the asset requirements for lenders, enabling them to lend out as much as $30 for every $1 of assets held in reserve. The inevitable defaults were the cause of the mortgage bubble and subsequent failure of investment banks last year.

If Reagan is one of your heroes, that tells me more than I need to know about you.

As u like to tell everyone else - CITE YOUR SOURCE.

[Unregistered]

1. $50 million for National Endowment of the Arts
2. $4 billion for community activist programs such as ACORN
3. $20 billion for food stamps
4. $4.2 billion for “neighborhood stabilization activities
5. $150 million for the Smithsonian (To do what?)
6. $88 million to help move the Public Health Service into a new building
7. $448 million for constructing a new Homeland Security Department headquarters
8. $600 million to convert the federal auto fleet to hybrids (I gues this is how he want to support the auto industry?)

Pork is pork is pork and lot of it in this plan. One man's pork is another man's stimulus

[Unregistered]

Headlines On This Date 4 Years Ago:

"Republicans spending $42 million on inauguration while troops Die in unarmored Humvees"

"Bush extravagance exceeds any reason during tough economic times"

"Fat cats get their $42 million inauguration party, Ordinary Americans get the shaft"

Headlines Today:

"Historic Obama Inauguration will cost only $120 million"

"Obama Spends $170 million on inauguration; America Needs A Big Party"

"Everyman Obama shows America how to celebrate"

"Citibank executives contribute $8 million to Obama Inauguration"

Yep. There's just nothing like fair & unbiased coverage of the news by a liberal media!!!

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are
willing to work and give to those who are not. - Thomas Jefferson

[Unregistered]

1. $50 million for National Endowment of the Arts
2. $4 billion for community activist programs such as ACORN
3. $20 billion for food stamps
4. $4.2 billion for “neighborhood stabilization activities
5. $150 million for the Smithsonian (To do what?)
6. $88 million to help move the Public Health Service into a new building
7. $448 million for constructing a new Homeland Security Department headquarters
8. $600 million to convert the federal auto fleet to hybrids (I gues this is how he want to support the auto industry?)

Pork is pork is pork and lot of it in this plan. One man's pork is another man's stimulus

We obviously are not going to agree about spending priorities to help get the economy back on track. Clearly you refuse to understand the goals of this package and how it will create jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign energy, update infrastructure, and invest in technology. So I'll try to put it into terms you can understand.

It's already been signed into law, so I guess you'll just have to suck it up. :D

[Unregistered]

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who are not. - Thomas Jefferson

I think Jefferson was speaking of the executives who pocketed massive bonuses even as the firms they preside over tanked, putting millions of Americans out of work.

Fewer than 500,000 people cared to attend Bush's inauguration, whereas 2,000,000 people attended Obama's. So by comparison the Obama inauguration was a bargain. You are comparing apples to oranges.

[Unregistered]

As u like to tell everyone else - CITE YOUR SOURCE.

The Iran Hostages deal has been widely reported. If you don't believe it, you might want to read October Surprise by Gary Sick, a retired Naval Captain who served on the National Security Council to Presidents Ford, Carter, and Reagan.

http://www.amazon.com/October-Surprise-Gary-Sick/dp/0812920872

"Suspicions about a deal between the Reagan campaign and Iran over the hostages have circulated since the day of President Reagan's inaugural, when Iran agreed to release the 52 American hostages exactly five minutes after Mr. Reagan took the oath of office.

Later, as it became known that arms started to flow to Iran via Israel only a few days after the inauguration, suspicions deepened that a secret arms-for-hostages deal had been concluded. Five years later, when the Iran-contra affair revealed a similar swap of hostages for arms delivered through Israel, questions were revived about the 1980 election. In an ironic twist, the phrase `October surprise,' which Vice Presidential candidate George Bush had coined to warn of possible political manipulation of the hostages by Jimmy Carter, began to be applied to the suspected secret activities of the 1980 Reagan-Bush campaign.

In a Madrid hotel in late July 1980, an important Iranian cleric, Mehdi Karrubi, who is now the speaker of the Iranian Parliament, met with Mr. Casey (Reagan's campaign manager and later his Director of the CIA) and a U.S. intelligence officer who was operating outside authority. The same group met again several weeks later. From Oct. 15 to Oct. 20, events came to a head in a series of meetings in several hotels in Paris, involving members of the Reagan-Bush campaign and high-level Iranian and Israeli representatives.

Various accounts of these meetings agree on three points: William Casey was a key participant; the Iranian representatives agreed that the hostages would not be released prior to the Presidential election on Nov. 4; in return, Israel would serve as a conduit for arms and spare parts to Iran. Vice Presidential candidate George Bush was present for at least one meeting in Paris.

Immediately after the Paris meetings, things began to happen. On Oct. 21, Iran publicly shifted its position in the negotiations with the Carter Administration, disclaiming any further interest in receiving military equipment. Between Oct. 21 and Oct. 23, Israel sent a planeload of F-4 fighter aircraft tires to Iran in contravention of the U.S. boycott and without informing Washington. Cyrus Hashemi, using his own contacts began privately organizing military shipments to Iran. On Oct. 22, the hostages were suddenly dispersed to different locations. And a series of delaying tactics in late October by the Iranian Parliament stymied all attempts by the Carter Administration to act on the hostage question until only hours before Election Day.

On Jan. 15, Iran did an about-face, offering a series of startling concessions that reignited the talks and resulted in a final agreement in the last few hours of Jimmy Carter's Presidency. The hostages were released on Jan. 21, 1981, minutes after Ronald Reagan was sworn in as President. Almost immediately thereafter, according to Israeli and American former officials, arms began to flow to Iran in substantial quantities. Moshe Arens, the Israeli Ambassador to Washington in 1982, told The Boston Globe in October 1982 that Israeli's arms shipments to Iran at this time were coordinated with the U.S. Government `at almost the highest of levels.'

This has many disturbing implications for the U.S. political system. One is the tampering with foreign policy for partisan benefit. That has, of course, happened before and it may well happen again, but it assumes special poignancy in this case since it involved tampering with the lives and freedom of 52 Americans. Another implication is that leaders of the U.S. exposed themselves to the possibility of blackmail by Iran or Israel. Third, the events suggest that the arms-for-hostage deal that in the twilight of the Reagan Presidency became known as the Iran-contra affair, instead of being an aberration, was in fact the re-emergence of a policy that began even before the Reagan-Bush Administration took office.

But I'm sure the Reagan-worshippers won't accept the truth even when they are confronted with it; they'll continue to live in the false comfort of ignorant denial.

[Unregistered]

"Raised suspicions" are now truth? 29 years later?

[Unregistered]

Yes, President Reagan sent parts to Iran via Israel, but the implication that he made a deal prior to his election to actually keep the hostages in Iran for political reasons has no basis in fact and instead once again shows the extreme left viewpoint dripping in derangement.

[Unregistered]

"Raised suspicions" are now truth? 29 years later?

Read the many, many books on the subject written by White House staffers under Reagan and then you will be able to answer your own question. Or remain ignorant and continue to believe whatever you wish.

The arms-for-hostages deal was corroborated by government officials from several nations (including the United States) as well as the Air Force's own travel records and flight officers, and contradict Bush's alibi.

And even if there were no such evidence, a truly skeptical person might ask themself how Reagan was able to release the hostages within his first few minutes in office, before his inauguration party had even kicked into full gear. Only a gullible fool would continue to gush about this travesty as if it was one of Reagan's great achievements.

[Unregistered]

Yes, President Reagan sent parts to Iran via Israel, but the implication that he made a deal prior to his election to actually keep the hostages in Iran for political reasons has no basis in fact and instead once again shows the extreme left viewpoint dripping in derangement.

Read the books. Just because you refuse to acknowledge the mountain of evidence right in front of you doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[Unregistered]

What happened.. I thought this thread was concerning the bailout?
Maybe we should go back to Genesis.

[Unregistered]

One of the dangers of education is that there is no rubric to filter anonymous bloggers. People believe what they want to believe, and because they "read it in a book" they feel they can offer a link to legitimize their rantings. The problem lies that the well-read can find any author to buttress their claims, and the less intelligent are unable to decipher the subtleties and differences between authors. The inability to comprehend and discern between different viewpoints is running rampant on this forum. There currently is a very persuasive best seller out that absolutely lambastes FDR's New Deal as not solving the Depression-era economic problems, but prolonging them. There also is equally persuasive books arguing the opposite. We can type, type in LARGE CAP, cite, recite, and argue either side of the issue. What is the point? There are leftist liberals determined to try to prove every gain under Republican rule was ill-conceived and illegitimate. Obama has been in office less than a month, and they are ready to anoint him to Rushmore, despite his very tangible, obvious stumbles and mistakes. There also are Repubs still cheering for Ronaldus Maximus. Unless you are offering something to move the ball forward, please spare us all the rhetoric, the talking points, and the unoriginal thought on this site. None of you are going to convince any reader to switch sides, so try a more constructive angle, this is really getting boring!

[Unregistered]

I think Jefferson was speaking of the executives who pocketed massive bonuses even as the firms they preside over tanked, putting millions of Americans out of work.

Fewer than 500,000 people cared to attend Bush's inauguration, whereas 2,000,000 people attended Obama's. So by comparison the Obama inauguration was a bargain. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Hope you don't mind that your great-grandchildren will paying for all this.

[Unregistered]

Read the many, many books on the subject written by White House staffers under Reagan and then you will be able to answer your own question. Or remain ignorant and continue to believe whatever you wish.

The arms-for-hostages deal was corroborated by government officials from several nations (including the United States) as well as the Air Force's own travel records and flight officers, and contradict Bush's alibi.

And even if there were no such evidence, a truly skeptical person might ask themself how Reagan was able to release the hostages within his first few minutes in office, before his inauguration party had even kicked into full gear. Only a gullible fool would continue to gush about this travesty as if it was one of Reagan's great achievements.

These are books meant to sell a 'story' and make money. As was ask, "Raised suspicions" are now truth? 29 years later?", believe only nothing you read and 1/2 of what you see still holds true. Some may even contradict one another. I would suggest reading deeper.

[Unregistered]

These are books meant to sell a 'story' and make money. As was ask, "Raised suspicions" are now truth? 29 years later?", believe only nothing you read and 1/2 of what you see still holds true. Some may even contradict one another. I would suggest reading deeper.

You are reading a historical accounting of the arms-for-hostage crisis, which speaks of suspicions being raised, and then continues to provide the evidence that came out over the next several years. If you must latch onto two words (which don't even appear in the excerpt that I quoted) and repeat them endlessly, then it is not I who needs to read deeper.

Vague statements like "some may even contradict one another" mean nothing, and underscore the unfounded assumptions in your thinking. If you are so certain, please point me toward a historical accounting that contradicts the dozen plus books and hundreds of newspaper articles that document this dark event in American history so that I may drink from the fountain of your superior intellect.

[Unregistered]

Hope you don't mind that your great-grandchildren will paying for all this.

Most of the spending initiatives in the bill are designed to reduce federal spending over the mid to long term. I predict that Obama will ultimately reduce the federal deficit during his time in office, just as Clinton did, and just as Reagan, Bush, and Shrub failed to do. (http://zfacts.com/p/480.html)

Hope you don't mind that your great-great-grandchildren will be paying for the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens because of an intellectually lazy Republican administration that valued ideology over factual evidence.

[Unregistered]

One of the dangers of education is that there is no rubric to filter anonymous bloggers. People believe what they want to believe, and because they "read it in a book" they feel they can offer a link to legitimize their rantings. The problem lies that the well-read can find any author to buttress their claims, and the less intelligent are unable to decipher the subtleties and differences between authors. The inability to comprehend and discern between different viewpoints is running rampant on this forum.

The war on intellectualism continues. Maybe we should hold a good old-fashioned book burning party down at Bird Park? Budget crisis solved - replace the Walpole Public Schools with a football boot camp. Who needs a library as long as my taxes don't increase?!

I agree with much of what you have said, but your underlying thesis is flawed. You attribute equal credibility to both sides of the debate here without the ability to discern the qualitative difference between those who can provide external citations to back up their points and those who cannot or will not.

You assume incorrectly that I started from a point of liberal ideology and then sought out references to buttress my point of view. You fail to realize that I lived through these events and formed my opinion by reading the newspaper every day, reading books written by people who were directly involved in these events, and by watching my worst fears become reality over time.

Before the Iraq war began, I sensed that the Bush administration was rushing to judgement. I could see that there were credible questions being raised about the supposed "evidence" of WMD, and I could see that the administration was dismissing them out-of-hand. Before the invasion, I predicted that no WMD would be found and that we would be mired in an intractable war for many years to come. And I was treated to exactly the kind of uninformed derision that you see on this forum today.

Well now the shoe is on the other foot. I happen to agree with the goals and priorities of the Obama administration in trying to head off the worst of this economic crisis. You and others here write my reasoned opinions off as "leftist" simply because I refuse to sit by and watch people repeat the same mistakes. The reason I ask for citations is to determine whether the folks arguing the opposite point-of-view have arrived at their opinion through a similarly rigorous mental process, or whether they are repeating what they wish to believe like so many sheep grazing on the plain.

I do have an open mind to other alternatives, and I would gladly read any references that people would care to offer. So far I have not seen ANY credible arguments raised on this forum that would change my mind. And it saddens me greatly to see that there are people here in Walpole who do not recognize the difference.

If you find this discussion to be boring, you are more than welcome to turn off your computer and go shopping.

[Unregistered]

Gee, Nostradamus, can you accompany me to the Vegas Sports Book? Your rigorous intellectual process consists of "reading the daily newspaper?" If some "scholar" read the Boston Globe and the NY Times cover-to-cover each day, his world view would be completely at-odds with reality. You have lived throguh events, so therefore you have a superior knowledge base to those of us who were not actively observing? I too lived through Game 6 in 1986. I have read all the news stories, the books, the video accounts, and I do not pretend to know what the conversation was about between John McNamara and Roger Clemens. My "worst fears" were realized during this event. But more recently, one must reconsider the veracity of Roger's versions of the events. He seems to have a different grasp on reality. My point? You claim some superior intellectual high ground and moral superiority because you foresaw this economic crisis unfolding before your very eyes. To that, I claim BS! Why didn't you short the dollar, short the XLF, get long crude then short it at the top. Just think, then you could privately donate for all your liberal friends' "Spread the Wealth" around programs instead of asking those of us who played by the rules, paid our taxes and our mortgages, and lived within our means to contribute to state-sanctioned socialism.

[Unregistered]

The war on intellectualism continues.
Actually, you have probably started a jihad against your pseudo-intellectualism. Who are you trying to impress?

If you find this discussion to be boring, you are more than welcome to turn off your computer and go shopping.

No, we find you boring, and sanctimonius. For example:

You assume incorrectly that I started from a point of liberal ideology and then sought out references to buttress my point of view. You fail to realize that I lived through these events and formed my opinion by reading the newspaper every day, reading books written by people who were directly involved in these events, and by watching my worst fears become reality over time.

Do you talk to real people like this? If you do, I bet you get your "buttress" kicked quite regularly.

Poster 145 skewered you more eloquently than I can here, but I will repeat my admittedly sophomoric interrogatory: "How many lockers were you stuffed into as a kid?"

[Unregistered]

Yes, Nostradamus should probably go into telling fortunes as a second job. BTW, Reagan did not release the hostages. Khomeini did. I second 145 & 146. Not to worry. Nostradamus' posts will be falling off dramatically when school starts.

[Unregistered]

We should all express outrage over the notion they we may have to pay for our neighbor's mortgage, particularly if they bought far more house than they could actually afford and wrapped us so much in credit card debt, so they could enjoy their luxurious vacations and SUV's.

NoBama's socialism is coming to fruition. Be scared, be very scared!

[Unregistered]

Where do I spend my $13.00 a week first this year and then the $7.70 next year?

Taxes
The recovery package has tax breaks for families that send a child to college, purchase a new car, buy a first home or make the one they own more energy efficient.

Millions of workers can expect to see about $13 extra in their weekly paychecks, starting around June, from a new $400 tax credit to be doled out through the rest of the year. Couples would get up to $800. In 2010, the credit would be about $7.70 a week, if it is spread over the entire year.

A $1,000 child tax credit would be extended to more low-income families that don't make enough money to pay income taxes, and poor families with three or more children will get an expanded earned income tax credit.

Middle-income and wealthy taxpayers will be spared from paying the alternative minimum tax, which was designed 40 years ago to make sure wealthy taxpayers paid at least some tax but was never indexed for inflation. Congress fixes it each year, usually in the fall.

[Unregistered]

Where do I spend my $13.00 a week first this year and then the $7.70 next year?

Taxes
The recovery package has tax breaks for families that send a child to college, purchase a new car, buy a first home or make the one they own more energy efficient.

Millions of workers can expect to see about $13 extra in their weekly paychecks, starting around June, from a new $400 tax credit to be doled out through the rest of the year. Couples would get up to $800. In 2010, the credit would be about $7.70 a week, if it is spread over the entire year.

A $1,000 child tax credit would be extended to more low-income families that don't make enough money to pay income taxes, and poor families with three or more children will get an expanded earned income tax credit.

Middle-income and wealthy taxpayers will be spared from paying the alternative minimum tax, which was designed 40 years ago to make sure wealthy taxpayers paid at least some tax but was never indexed for inflation. Congress fixes it each year, usually in the fall.


Your $13.00 will get you fed at Finnegans, with a beer on the side. Whats the problem? : ) :)

[Unregistered]

Your $13.00 will get you fed at Finnegans, with a beer on the side. Whats the problem? : ) :)

The 2nd year. With only $7.70 that person couldn't eat there the following year.

[Unregistered]

Actually, you have probably started a jihad against your pseudo-intellectualism. Who are you trying to impress?

Asked and answered. No point in trying to "impress" anybody on an anonymous forum.


No, we find you boring, and sanctimonius.

...

Do you talk to real people like this? If you do, I bet you get your "buttress" kicked quite regularly.

Clever! Did you think of that one all by yourself?


Poster 145 skewered you more eloquently than I can here, but I will repeat my admittedly sophomoric interrogatory: "How many lockers were you stuffed into as a kid?"

I don't doubt that you lack the ability to do any better than #145, but your idea of "skewering" is more like being poked with a strand of overcooked spaghetti.

If this discussion has you in such a frustrated state that you are fantasizing about acts of violence against a total stranger, then I'll make another prediction: court-ordered anger management classes are in your future.


Gee, Nostradamus, can you accompany me to the Vegas Sports Book? Your rigorous intellectual process consists of "reading the daily newspaper?" If some "scholar" read the Boston Globe and the NY Times cover-to-cover each day, his world view would be completely at-odds with reality. You have lived throguh events, so therefore you have a superior knowledge base to those of us who were not actively observing? I too lived through Game 6 in 1986. I have read all the news stories, the books, the video accounts, and I do not pretend to know what the conversation was about between John McNamara and Roger Clemens. My "worst fears" were realized during this event. But more recently, one must reconsider the veracity of Roger's versions of the events. He seems to have a different grasp on reality. My point? You claim some superior intellectual high ground and moral superiority because you foresaw this economic crisis unfolding before your very eyes.

You are comparing a simple "he said, she said" event (where the only two witnesses have differing accounts of what took place) to an event which was corroborated by hundreds of witnesses from around the globe, all with direct involvement in the deal.


To that, I claim BS! Why didn't you short the dollar, short the XLF, get long crude then short it at the top. Just think, then you could privately donate for all your liberal friends' "Spread the Wealth" around programs instead of asking those of us who played by the rules, paid our taxes and our mortgages, and lived within our means to contribute to state-sanctioned socialism.

Why didn't I short the dollar, etc.? On what basis do you conclude that I didn't? ;)

[Unregistered]

Here's a link to the breakdown within each state of what the Stimulus package contains.

Click on the Description column and you can vote as to whether it's critical or not.

http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/by_state

[Unregistered]

By the way, I suggest taking the Site Tutorial as it gives you a good idea of how to find
different aspects of the projects mentioned.

[Unregistered]

I've read the project list for Mass and have a comment to make.

These projects were based on the lists made by the Mayor's Priority List. With that in mind, a lot of cities here in Mass were left off because the projects needed never made it to this list.

The problem here is that bridges and roads within a town are that town's province not the state. Items to note: 1) Since they're on the Major's List it get some money; 2) A few of these roads are classified as state roads; 3) These are short-term jobs that may be going to the same contractors and crews. This means that a job total of 14 (the least #) for each road project in Malden could be the same 14 people. The picking of a company to do any road work here has a lot to do with the right polictical connections, how cheap their original bid is (but it almost always goes into cost over runs) and of course the contribution to the campaign fund of the state rep/senator for that area.

Where's the stimulus if a limited few get the work?

What happens if it goes into cost over runs and the stimulus money is gone?

Can we apply for more stimulus money to complete that project?

[Unregistered]

I wasn't planning on using $13.00 to bail out Finnegan's. Thanks for the suggestion though.

[Unregistered]

Now that the State knows that you are going to get the tremendous sum of $13 per week from the feds ( why does this NOT feel like the trillion dollars ) they are moving quickly to snatch it.
The gov has proposed a gas tax of $.19 per gallon ( about 3 fill up will erase the $13 ).
Locally selectman Denapoli wants you to pay trash pick up fees.
Now how do you feel about the STIMULUS.

[Unregistered]

Don't you dare paint us all with the same broad brush and say we are all to blame for this!

I for one did not buy my house until I could afford a decent monthly mortage at a good rate. I did not buy my house for the same reason many people did. I bought decent old house that needed work that was someplace to raise a family. I did not but some gaudy McMansion with 5 bedrooms and a three car garage when I only had two kids.

I also was not STUPID enough to sign my name to a mortgage I could not afford.

I was not a scumbag looking to prey on these same stupid, materialistic fools with ARMs and balloon payments and interest only mortgages.

It's a matter of simply fiscal management. If you spend within your means and you work hard and save, you will be fine.

I did this, and because of a bunch of

A) ignorant

or

B) materialistic

morons, I am now not fine and will have to worker harder and longer to achieve my personal goals.


Please don't blame Clinton & Bush or even Greenspan for this. If someone has to look to the government to tell whether or not they can afford a home, then that person isn't smart enough to own a home. And please - stop saying home ownership is a right. It's a priviledge and it needs to be EARNED.

[Unregistered]

It was noted today that 5 states are responsible for the most problems with the housing market and MA is not one of them.

So, it become apparent that maybe this stimulus package with all the good and bad parts was not as necessary as it was once was thought.

It shows that a rush to judgement was made before all the facts were gathered and a bad bill was pushed through for the gain of those who shouldn't have been given mortgages in the first place, for the benefit of banks, financial companies and others that are only in this for the money (think ACORN).

[Unregistered]

Don't you dare paint us all with the same broad brush and say we are all to blame for this!

I for one did not buy my house until I could afford a decent monthly mortage at a good rate. I did not buy my house for the same reason many people did. I bought decent old house that needed work that was someplace to raise a family. I did not but some gaudy McMansion with 5 bedrooms and a three car garage when I only had two kids.

I also was not STUPID enough to sign my name to a mortgage I could not afford.

I was not a scumbag looking to prey on these same stupid, materialistic fools with ARMs and balloon payments and interest only mortgages.

It's a matter of simply fiscal management. If you spend within your means and you work hard and save, you will be fine.

I did this, and because of a bunch of

A) ignorant

or

B) materialistic

morons, I am now not fine and will have to worker harder and longer to achieve my personal goals.


Please don't blame Clinton & Bush or even Greenspan for this. If someone has to look to the government to tell whether or not they can afford a home, then that person isn't smart enough to own a home. And please - stop saying home ownership is a right. It's a priviledge and it needs to be EARNED.

By some estimates, as much as 17% of consumer loans (mortgages, credit cards, etc.) will be in default by the end of this crisis. That means that approximately 83% of us are continuing to pay our bills and do everything right. The entire crisis has been caused by the fact that banks have leveraged themselves so badly in their desperation to move ever more "product" (consumer debt) that they cannot withstand one out of six people going into personal bankruptcy.

You are absolutely right. You and I and most people did nothing wrong, but we are all caught up in this together. The ultra-wealthy bankers cannot continue to pay themselves eight-figure bonuses, and Average Joe cannot continue to earn minimum wage until and unless we work together to restore confidence in the economy.

It is important to understand the root causes of the current crisis in order to resolve it and prevent the next one. I believe that deregulation of the mortgage bond market was a huge factor in allowing so many consumers to get too deeply into debt. I do not believe that the correct solution is to put one out of six families out in the snow in order to teach them how to live within their means, however.

Truthfully, the best solution moving forward is to make those who approve the loans also be permanently on the hook for the risks inherent in doing so. If a mortgage broker packages consumer loans and re-sells them as Grade A bonds, that same broker should be required to insure the bonds at a comparable level of risk. Ie: if they rate the bond as if only 2% of loans will default, and it turns out that more than say, 4% of loans go bad, the broker should be required to make up a significant percentage of investor losses.

This would stabilize markets in three ways. First, it would eliminate much of the financial incentive that mortgage brokers enjoyed by writing bad loans and reselling them before they could go into default. Second, it would give the brokers incentive to work with homeowners who are having trouble making payments, to help them stay in their homes. Finally, it would extract the funds necessary to re-stabilize the crashing bonds from the very same people who pocketed the short-term profits to be had by writing the bad loans in the first place.

Many on this forum seem mistrustful of "big government" and "regulation" without any acknowledgement that sensible laws and the power to enforce them are a key component to offsetting the negative effects of unchecked greed in our society.

[Unregistered]

Great ideas.

The biggest problem is though that the original money given to banks at the end of 2008 mostly went to buying up other banks instead of being used to help the financial loan crisis.

[Unregistered]

It was noted today that 5 states are responsible for the most problems with the housing market and MA is not one of them.

So, it become apparent that maybe this stimulus package with all the good and bad parts was not as necessary as it was once was thought.

It shows that a rush to judgement was made before all the facts were gathered and a bad bill was pushed through for the gain of those who shouldn't have been given mortgages in the first place, for the benefit of banks, financial companies and others that are only in this for the money (think ACORN).

Mortgage defaults are causing lethal pressure on financial institutions around the world. A wide range of investment instruments have tanked in the past nine months, including just about every personal 401K retirement account. Consumer confidence (aka "spending") is torpid, causing distress throughout the economy. The world's stock markets keep searching in vain for the bottom. Every major lender is teetering on the brink of insolvency, as are hundreds of massive corporations and millions of small businesses. We are officially 13 months into a recession, with most economists predicting no turnaround until 2010 at the earliest. Over 3 million Americans have lost their jobs in the past year.

Are you really saying that the economy is fine, except for five states where the worst of the foreclosures is occurring? What a relief! If your prediction comes true and the Great Recession just goes "poof" like a bad dream, then I promise to vote for whichever candidates you endorse for the next 20 election cycles! Your amazing foresight and compassion for other human beings should be recognized for exactly what it is!

Or "maybe" you don't understand the true nature of the problem? (Didn't you really mean to say "probably?") ;)

You neglected to mention where "it was noted today" that we're all fine. Don't be shy - please tell us the name of the libertarian think tank that has convinced you there is no problem that cannot be solved by dissolving the federal government altogether. :rolleyes:

[Unregistered]

Gee, Nostradamus, can you accompany me to the Vegas Sports Book? Your rigorous intellectual process consists of "reading the daily newspaper?" If some "scholar" read the Boston Globe and the NY Times cover-to-cover each day, his world view would be completely at-odds with reality.

I wonder how you stay so well informed, then. Psychic Friends Hotline?

[Unregistered]

I wonder how you stay so well informed, then. Psychic Friends Hotline?

I don't know about the original poster or you, but most people I know will read the Globe and the Hearld to get opposite points of view, then some internet sites like Michelle Malkin, Univeral Hub, research gov't site and a number of others.

Since you limited yourself to two newspapers (both a carbon copy) you're not as well rounded as you would like everyone to think.

[Unregistered]

I don't know about the original poster or you, but most people I know will read the Globe and the Hearld to get opposite points of view, then some internet sites like Michelle Malkin, Univeral Hub, research gov't site and a number of others.

Since you limited yourself to two newspapers (both a carbon copy) you're not as well rounded as you would like everyone to think.

Um, no. I never actually said which newspapers and television news programs I watch. The person who wrote that post made an assumption and you accepted it as truth without any foundation in reality. It seems like reading comprehension here in Walpole is about as poor as I have ever witnessed in all my travels.

I do read the Globe cover to cover every day, and I skim the Herald, though I find the journalistic standards of the latter to be somewhat lacking. I read a few weekly news magazines, and I watch the news on a different network every night, sometimes on two different networks in an evening. Sometimes I pick up the WSJ or other papers. I do a lot of online research, and seek out international reporting as well.

I watch for the bias in every source. The better ones provide space to both liberal and conservative points of view, but rarely in equal quantities. I have found that there are very few news sources available inside the United States that provide the unvarnished truth about the activities of our government.

So again, I ask the original poster how they get the information they use to form such strong opinions when they are so derisive of any source of information?

[Unregistered]

The original poster used the Globe & NYT as examples of virtually identical editorial positions. Nobody can presume to know what you read. Please check your own reading comprehension.

[Unregistered]

The original poster used the Globe & NYT as examples of virtually identical editorial positions. Nobody can presume to know what you read. Please check your own reading comprehension.

Neither the original poster nor I claimed to read both the Globe and the NYT, so your conclusion that "you're not as well rounded as you would like everyone to think" really doesn't make sense in any context. Maybe it's my reading comprehension, or maybe it's your writing skills that are lacking. In either case I welcome clarification of what you meant to say.

I also invite the original poster #145 to explain the basis for their strong opinions when they seem to distrust every newspaper, television network, website, and book that has ever been written. It is easy to shift the discussion by attacking my sources, but not so easy to provide your own backup, eh?

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but if you're going to stand in the public square with a megaphone, you'd better be able to explain yourself.

[Unregistered]

I was 166-not any other poster so please keep your criticism to yourself.

[Unregistered]

I was 166-not any other poster so please keep your criticism to yourself.

Then it is mighty presumptuous of you to jump into the middle of a discussion to (a) offer your interpretation of what someone else wrote, and (b) criticize me out of the blue. If you are going to inject your comments into the middle of a discussion to answer a question posed to somebody else, then you are implying that you are one of the participants in the discussion.

I asked a question of the person who made post #145, and have now gotten two unhelpful and completely off-base answers from people who seem to think they are mind readers. You don't need to defend that person, just let them speak for themself.

[Unregistered]

Sorry, buddy. You quoted me. You are completely off base. At this point, I have to question your cognitive abilities.

[Unregistered]

Then it is mighty presumptuous of you to jump into the middle of a discussion to (a) offer your interpretation of what someone else wrote, and (b) criticize me out of the blue. If you are going to inject your comments into the middle of a discussion to answer a question posed to somebody else, then you are implying that you are one of the participants in the discussion.

I asked a question of the person who made post #145, and have now gotten two unhelpful and completely off-base answers from people who seem to think they are mind readers. You don't need to defend that person, just let them speak for themself.

So what if two people posted their responses. Where do you get off stating no one is allow to post an answer to something you posted, specially when you’ve confused two posts!

You seem to be an egotistical, pseudo intellectual who needs a real life. However, more to the point poster 168 was responding to both of you posters. Maybe your reading comprehension is in question. YOU should be able to distinguish between two writing styles. By the way, poster 145 may have given you their finally answer.

Bottom line, drop this stupid distraction of the real discussion and let the rest of us get on with the more important issues concerning Walpole.

[Unregistered]

So what if two people posted their responses. Where do you get off stating no one is allow to post an answer to something you posted, specially when you’ve confused two posts!

You seem to be an egotistical, pseudo intellectual who needs a real life. However, more to the point poster 168 was responding to both of you posters. Maybe your reading comprehension is in question. YOU should be able to distinguish between two writing styles. By the way, poster 145 may have given you their finally answer.

Bottom line, drop this stupid distraction of the real discussion and let the rest of us get on with the more important issues concerning Walpole.

When people write short, curt responses, there is little opportunity to evaluate and compare writing styles, and there is great opportunity to misinterpret the meaning of those words.

I have no problem with other people joining into the discussion, nor is it my place to demand otherwise. Just either be clear that you are not the original poster, or don't be surprised and angry if I confuse you for the original poster. If I direct a question at a particular person and you provide an answer, then it is not unreasonable for me to believe that you are the same person. Furthermore, if you defend someone else's words then it is a fair assumption that you share the viewpoint espoused in the original post, and it matters very little whether you are the same person or not.

I asked a reasonable question, and have still not received a reasonable answer. Talk about "stupid distractions," the whole question of whether you are one or many arguing with me is irrelevant. Simply changing the subject does not prove your point.

As far as post #168 goes, it spoke to "the original poster" and "you." Maybe I was wrong to assume that all of the comments directed at "you" were aimed at a single person, but I stand by my assertion that the "well rounded" comment makes no sense when directed at either one of us in that context. It simply does not follow from the available evidence. And if YOU (yes, you #170) or anyone else wish to defend that statement, by all means apply your mind-reading skills to tell me what the person who wrote that really meant.

I think it is funny that posters #164 and #166 both feel free to criticize me, but then get all huffy when I return the favor. My apologies if you feel somehow wronged, but I am not going anywhere. I live in Walpole and I am affected by what goes on in this town just as much as you are.

So please calm yourself down. The closed-minded often resort to emotional rants like yours when they run out of cogent arguments to make. There is no shame in revising your opinion when you are faced with new information that cannot be reconciled with your previous point of view. There is no need to resort to personal attacks.

No offense taken. :)

[Unregistered]

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view/2009_03_02_BofA_CEO_says_taking__20B_loan_was_a__m istake_/srvc=home&position=recent

These guys are all MORONS.

[Unregistered]

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view/2009_03_02_BofA_CEO_says_taking__20B_loan_was_a__m istake_/srvc=home&position=recent

These guys are all MORONS.

It sounds like BoA is going to eventually pay back all of the TARP money, so let's just hope they remain solvent until the economy turns around. From what I understand, most of BoA's current problems are due to their acquisition of Merrill Lynch, which was pushed through at the urging of federal banking regulators who were slowly learning from their past mistake of allowing Lehman Brothers to fold earlier last year.

It would have been nice if someone in the Bush Administration had heeded the early warnings of the economic meltdown so that a more orderly stabilization plan could have been rolled out. Instead, the battleship was on auto-pilot for the last 2 years while absentee George ran out the clock on his presidency, hoping to dump all these problems into someone else's lap. The result was a slap-dash TARP that had to be implemented on a moment's notice and without proper oversight.

I think the acronym TARP is fitting. Reminds me of a house with a leaky roof and a large blue tarp covering it as a stopgap measure because there isn't any time to do the job right before the next rainstorm.

[Unregistered]

“Owners of capital will stimulate the working class to buy more and more of expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable. The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to be nationalized, and the State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communism.”
— Karl Marx, 1867, Das Kapital

[Unregistered]

Marx also said 'greed will destroy capitalisim'

[Unregistered]

Gordon Gekko "greed, for lack of a better word, is good".

[Unregistered]

“Owners of capital will stimulate the working class to buy more and more of expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable. The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to be nationalized, and the State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communism.”
— Karl Marx, 1867, Das Kapital

Interesting stuff. Over 140 years ago, Marx was able to recognize what the ultra-wealthy in our own country did not. Unchecked greed and a relentless assault on any form of government oversight would eventually be our downfall.

No amount of money was enough to satisfy their appetite for wealth. They continued to expand the chasm between themselves and the masses of "consumers" upon whom they depend for their very survival, until they have irreparably broken the system and bitten the hand that feeds them. They can only take so much away from us before the hungry mobs overwhelm the gates outside their estates and devour them whole, cooked on a spit over a bonfire fueled by their worthless banknotes.

It's quite a stretch to compare our current situation with a state of communism, but coming off of eight years of totalitarian fascism, things could be a lot worse. Let's hope the pendulum has reversed in time to avert the end of our society altogether.

[Unregistered]

“Owners of capital will stimulate the working class to buy more and more of expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable. The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to be nationalized, and the State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communism.”
— Karl Marx, 1867, Das Kapital

Interesting quote. Too bad Marx didn't actually write it.

http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/01/faux_marx.php

This quote appears to have surfaced on the internet in December 2008, and has been spreading like a virus to discussion boards everywhere. In the days of Marx, the working class didn't usually buy "houses and technology," and consumer credit was virtually unheard of until nearly 60 years later.

I can only imagine the motivation of the person who would invent such a quotation.

[Unregistered]

A quote by the late Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931–2005

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy
out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another
person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to
anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody
else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work
because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other
half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is
going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of
any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

[Unregistered]

A quote by the late Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931–2005

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy
out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another
person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to
anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody
else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work
because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other
half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is
going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of
any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."


According to wikipedia, Dr. Adrian Rogers also said this:

"According to one author, the pastor (Dr. Rogers) once responded to a question about New Testament references in support of slavery by saying, "I believe slavery is a much maligned institution; if we had slavery today, we would not have this welfare mess."[1]

[Unregistered]

Interesting quote. Too bad Marx didn't actually write it.

http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/01/faux_marx.php

This quote appears to have surfaced on the internet in December 2008, and has been spreading like a virus to discussion boards everywhere. In the days of Marx, the working class didn't usually buy "houses and technology," and consumer credit was virtually unheard of until nearly 60 years later.

I can only imagine the motivation of the person who would invent such a quotation.

The message is for today and make total sense and kudos to whoever wrote it. Maybe they should be in Washington givne advice to Obama because he's lost and doesn't know where he's going.

[Unregistered]

The message is for today and make total sense and kudos to whoever wrote it. Maybe they should be in Washington givne advice to Obama because he's lost and doesn't know where he's going.

The author of the fake Marx quote is using the simple sleight-of-hand of casting it as a prediction written long ago. They want you to see the "truth" in the false prediction so that your weak mind will lend credence to the conclusion. They hope to terrorize you with the word "communism." It would seem that you are easily manipulated.

Too bad for you that the author of the quote didn't sign their own name to it, but instead chose to pass it off as the writings of Karl Marx in a twisted attempt to lend credibility to it. You have been robbed of the opportunity to send yet another neo-conservative liar to Washington to fight for ideology at the expense of truth and reason.

To your other comment, Obama seems to know exactly where he's going. He has been in office for only six weeks so far, and he's already enacted two major economic rescue initiatives, and is now setting the timetable for ending the conflict in Iraq. Almost unnoticed in all the domestic news is the fact that he has dispatched a high octane diplomatic team across the globe to mend bridges with the rest of the world. Most importantly, he has recently announced plans to return the country to a balanced budget before the end of his first term in office, something that his predecessor apparently did not feel was important to the sustained well-being of our fine republic. All of these were things Obama promised to do from the campaign trail last year.

Honesty and truth will always prevail over cynical manipulation here in the greatest nation on earth. God bess America!

[Unregistered]

What a funny coincidence at the exact moment that the baby boomers are about
to retire our economy collapses, they loose their jobs by the thousands,
their savings are depleted and they have to take low paying jobs
instead of retiring.

So is all the money that was supposed to be banked for social security some
how gone with the wind.

And the politicians and the bankers are still humming along.

This script is just too well written.

[Tom]

Most news sites and their writers are in business to earn money. They do this by selling ads on their web sites -- the more viewers, the more revenue. So in fairness to them, link to their pages, and take advantage of your post to add what you think. Long paste jobs -- more than a couple of paragraphs' worth -- will not be posted. To link, select (highlight) the word or words in your post you want to use as the link, click the "earth with chain link" icon above, paste in the url of page you're linking to. (that url can be copied from page's address bar,)



tom glynn

[Unregistered]

Doing a bang up job!!!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/06/study-dow-decline-marks-fastest-new-president-nearly-century/

[Unregistered]

Doing a bang up job!!!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/06/study-dow-decline-marks-fastest-new-president-nearly-century/

Yes, because we all know that the President of the United States has a magic lever on his desk in the Oval Office that controls the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

It's been snowing a lot since Obama took office, too. Can't he figure out how to operate the "balmy weather" button? What's wrong with this guy?

:rolleyes:

[Unregistered]

what about another bail out for AIG? I understand they hold the pensions, etc. for our politicians in Washington. I am sure they need more bail out money so those guys remain "safe". All Obama has done to date is sign off on a 6 trillion budget and a 6 billion plus stimulus. neither one has helped - we just keep pouring out the money... that seems to be the same mentality of the people that got us in this mess - worry about paying back your debt tomorrow! Live for today! Wish I had a money tree like the politicians seem to have. Is "nationalization" synonomous with "socialization"? Also, is Obama a "Union" person???

[Unregistered]

"To your other comment, Obama seems to know exactly where he's going. He has been in office for only six weeks so far, and he's already enacted two major economic rescue initiatives, and is now setting the timetable for ending the conflict in Iraq. Almost unnoticed in all the domestic news is the fact that he has dispatched a high octane diplomatic team across the globe to mend bridges with the rest of the world. Most importantly, he has recently announced plans to return the country to a balanced budget before the end of his first term in office, something that his predecessor apparently did not feel was important to the sustained well-being of our fine republic. All of these were things Obama promised to do from the campaign trail last year"

What in God's name are you drinking or smoking? In six weeks, Obama has offered up a veritable rogue's gallery of tax cheats and ne'er-do-wells, and rehashed and recycled Clinton operatives as his Cabinet. He has allowed the far-leftists of the Dem organization to hijack the economic stimulus package and stuff it full of pet projects and MoveOn paybacks that attempt to enburden future generations with the self-absorbed yearnings of the Baby Boomer generation. He has included codicils and provisions into accepting stimulus money that will permanently add to the welfare class, under a grand design to keep them perpetually dependent on the nanny-state largesse of the Federal Government, much like crack babies addicted to a fix. He is seeking to alter the status of federal student aid to make it a govt-designed affirmative action program because Michelle never felt quite right at Princeton. His timetable to end the conflict in Iraq has seemd to forget his ill-conceived notion to escalate the war in Afghanistan. His high-octane diplomacy overseas has been beset by a cavalcade of blunders. His treasury secrectary is adrift at sea, not quite sure what to do while peoples' life savings melt away. Balancing the budget is arithmetically impossible according to even the rosiest of predictions by economists far brighter than Obama. He is instigating class warfare against the savers, the industrious, and the successful. There is still a genocide in Darfur. There is a full-blown narcostate drugwar on our southwestern doorstep. But Barry wants to get his groove on every Wednesday night on the taxpayers' dime. Please step away from the Kool-Aid pitcher and reconsider the Obamaworship!

[Unregistered]

what about another bail out for AIG? I understand they hold the pensions, etc. for our politicians in Washington. I am sure they need more bail out money so those guys remain "safe". All Obama has done to date is sign off on a 6 trillion budget and a 6 billion plus stimulus. neither one has helped - we just keep pouring out the money... that seems to be the same mentality of the people that got us in this mess - worry about paying back your debt tomorrow! Live for today! Wish I had a money tree like the politicians seem to have. Is "nationalization" synonomous with "socialization"? Also, is Obama a "Union" person???


another one whining about Obama. The guy inherited this mess, or have you forgotten? Who were the idiots in charge when Paulsen gave away BILLIONS without any stipulations? Paulsen, the former head of Goldman Sachs..??

[Unregistered]

In six weeks, Obama has offered up a veritable rogue's gallery of tax cheats and ne'er-do-wells, and rehashed and recycled Clinton operatives as his Cabinet. He has allowed the far-leftists of the Dem organization to hijack the economic stimulus package and stuff it full of pet projects and MoveOn paybacks that attempt to enburden future generations with the self-absorbed yearnings of the Baby Boomer generation. He has included codicils and provisions into accepting stimulus money that will permanently add to the welfare class, under a grand design to keep them perpetually dependent on the nanny-state largesse of the Federal Government, much like crack babies addicted to a fix. He is seeking to alter the status of federal student aid to make it a govt-designed affirmative action program because Michelle never felt quite right at Princeton. His timetable to end the conflict in Iraq has seemd to forget his ill-conceived notion to escalate the war in Afghanistan. His high-octane diplomacy overseas has been beset by a cavalcade of blunders. His treasury secrectary is adrift at sea, not quite sure what to do while peoples' life savings melt away. Balancing the budget is arithmetically impossible according to even the rosiest of predictions by economists far brighter than Obama. He is instigating class warfare against the savers, the industrious, and the successful. There is still a genocide in Darfur. There is a full-blown narcostate drugwar on our southwestern doorstep. But Barry wants to get his groove on every Wednesday night on the taxpayers' dime. Please step away from the Kool-Aid pitcher and reconsider the Obamaworship!

I do not worship Obama by any means. He is a welcome breath of fresh air after the disgrace of the Bush presidency, and so far he is doing a remarkable job. You clearly have no patience if you can't even give the guy a fair chance to do his job before you draw such strong conclusions about the effects of his economic policies.

George Bush did virtually nothing for the last 20 months of his presidency, and by the way, packed his cabinet with recycles from his father's administration. (Including his self-appointed Vice President!) I don't recall reading any complaints from you then as he did nothing about Darfur, nothing to stabilize Afghanistan, nothing to find Bin Laden, nothing to end the "narcostate drug war" on our doorstep, nothing, nothing, nothing but nothing...

You are becoming hysterical about some imaginary class warfare between the "industrious, successful savers" and the "welfare state." You seem good at regurgitating the knee-jerk rhetoric of Rush Limbaugh, but you haven't explained to my simple mind how any of the provisions of Obama's stimulus plan are creating a "welfare state?" In case you didn't know, mortgage assistance programs are being carefully targeted toward homeowners who stand some chance of being able to pay their obligations over the long term, and the money to do so is coming from the banks who profited so heavily from writing the loans in the first place. Unemployment benefits are paid for by the same workers who collect them, and believe me, even an industrious, successful saver, through no fault of their own, can find themself without a job for an extended period of time in this kind of economy.

If you have truly been reading what the economists say, then you would drop the unrealistic expectation that Obama could solve any one of these problems within six weeks of taking office. Most economists predict that the economy will not turn around for at least another year, and some say it could be 2 or 3 years.

It is not "mathematically impossible" for Obama to balance the federal budget before the end of his first term in office. You wouldn't even make such a ridiculous statement if you understood either mathematics or budgeting. I am positive that you cannot provide a single link to a credible economist who would make such a claim.

[Unregistered]

When does the it's-all-W's-fault free pass end? After 100 days? One year? Barry was a memberof the Senate and House that must at least share responsibility for some of the economic problems, no? You don't recall reading any complaints from me? Are you sure? Would you know? I am not being hysterical, or knee-jerk. Obama has said on the rope line and more recently to the NYT reporters that he intends to "spread the wealth around a little." How much is enough? 50% of my paycheck? When there are more than 50% of the American populus not paying any taxes, but receiving "stimulus"?? Is this the America you envision? I'll include a link to an economist that hopefully passes your muster. He only wrote a few textbooks on the subject. http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/03/obamas_double_talk_on_the_budg.html

I appreciate you cherry-picking my "hysterical" screed. I notice you did not address the culture of personal corruption in BHO's cabinet, the pork and entitlements in the stimulus package and budget, or the gaffes by the diplomats.

[Vinny C]

No wonder nothing ever gets solved in this country. Too much energy is spent pointing the finger at someone else. Move on folks and work on a solution.

There's been a lot of "facts" thrown around as to whose fault it is that we're in this mess, but no one is blaming themselves for any of it. We all ponitificate as if we didn't benefit in the least over the "greed" and "stupidity" of everyone else.

So let's make this like an AA meeting, and I will go first:

Hi, My name is Vinny, and I'm a beneificiary of greed.

I did not have a sub-prime mortgage, nor did I buy more house than I could afford. On the contrary, I got a really good fixed rate back in 1998 for a house that needed a ton of work. It was what I could afford, and it was worth no more than I paid for it.

Once the market went nuts, my house (and your's) became extraordinarily over-valued. No way was my place worth what I had it apprasied at in 2000 - NO WAY!.

Now, did I "think ahead" at what this overvaluation might mean down the line to the global economy? No way baby! I took out a refi against that bogus euqity I never earned and put it right into my house (and a new car, and a vacation, proabably a new set of clubs, etc.)

My point is, stop whining that that you've lost money. It wasn't real. If put all your eggs in one basket with the assumption that 1999 would last forever, then you're to blame for allot of your own misery for being shortsighted.

Remember, all the nice things you bought, and the three car garages with the two Expeditions, and the second home down the Cape? Well, you were able to buy that stuff precisley because there were people out there spending beyond thier means, and unscrupulous bankers making loans they should'nt have, and over-values markets.

All those controls we're screaming for now? Well if they were in place in 1998 you know how much you'd be worth 2008? About 5.00 percent more than you did. (Obviously I'm talking here to folks that were in thier prime earning years in the 1990's - not young kids just starting out or folks over 65 - 70 - they're the one that are screwed due to our greed because they contributed very little to this mess.)

If you hade 10 good years because of the absence of those controls, then 10 years of your adult life was spent having more fun than you proabably should have had.

So stop with all the "We were all fooled", and "Government lied to us" crap. Since when do you let the government make these choices for you anyway? That kills me, we believe government while things are good, but we blame them when they go bad for the same reasons.

If we all thought rationally when we should have, then we wouldn't be here in the first place.

[Unregistered]

I think this excerpt says it all, and speaks to all the Obama-maniacs that drank the kool-aid of his nebulous change mantra throughout the campaign:

"Obama was in a protective media cocoon during the two years of the presidential campaign. Clearly he's gotten used to it. The media cocoon is still there, but what the president apparently hasn't realized is that the cocoon is much more effective when you're just making vaporous campaign statements that don't have an impact on people's lives. But once you're in office and actually charged with governing, what you say affects people's lives. They notice


You know the beauty for this adminstration? They can not lose.

No matter what they do, no matter what legislation they ram down our throat's, they can't lose. If what they do works (and the term "works" is a relative thing here, because what works for Obama's consituency likely doesn't work for anyone that works hard for a living) they look good.

If thier ideas fail, they'll be able to deflect the blame for away from themselves and onto "the sins of the former administration". This is already happening.

Mark my words, he won't. And why? Because it'll be too politically incorrect to criticize this guy. He's going to get a ton of slack. He's going to have to really screw up before anyone has the stones to call him on it. Especially this left-wing media.

I hope he takes half the heat Bush & Clinton took. We'll see what he's made of. I hope that same zealots that are claimng our government is evil are as outraged with Obama when his plans don't work either. I doubt it.

And yes. I hope I am proven wrong.

[Unregistered]

Pretty funny. I don't agree with the theory. But you're right about the blame game. It's non-productive and it's gotta stop.

[Unregistered]

And the beat goes on. Let's keep rewarding incompetency and Wahington will continue to sit on their butts and say we are helping America.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/03/15/after_170b_us_bailout_aig_to_pay_100m_in_bonuses/

[Unregistered]

When are the liberals going to stop with the "It's about the children" crap?

I'm a father of 4. From where I stand, what is bad for me ( higher taxes etc) is inherently bad for my kids. I say my kids because I do not care about your kids.

I am sick to death of paying for the "less fortunate".

Veterans ( Young & Old)
The truly sick & mentally ill
Roads
Cops & Fire & Prisons
A Controlled public education system that isn't run by the teachers union.


That is what I am willing to use my tax dollars for. Anything elsde to me is PORK PORK PORK.

[Dave]

Reagan represents the beginning of the neoconservative arc that ended so disastrously with the Bush Presidency. Someone earlier in this thread had the gall to cite the release of the Iranian Hostages on the day of Reagan's inauguration, when it has been well documented that Reagan's political team (under Willam Casey) struck a secret deal with Iran to delay the release of the hostages for several months. This deal included money, arms, and spare parts for military vehicles in a cynical attempt to exploit the hostages for political gain.

Reagan also was the first president since the end of WWII to increase the national deficit. He promised lower taxes, but simply transferred the costs of his unprecedented military buildup through deficit spending that has helped to cripple our economy today. This economic shell game was repeated by the two Presidents Bush such that the federal deficit now totals over 70% of our GDP today!

And de-regulation? Are you serious? You DO realize that the neocon trend toward deregulation at any cost was instrumental in creating the current financial crisis? Bond underwriters, freshly deregulated by Bush Jr. were allowed to rate their own bonds without any oversight, causing billions of dollars in high-risk loans to be repackaged as Grade A securities. Deregulation of investment banks relaxed the asset requirements for lenders, enabling them to lend out as much as $30 for every $1 of assets held in reserve. The inevitable defaults were the cause of the mortgage bubble and subsequent failure of investment banks last year.

If Reagan is one of your heroes, that tells me more than I need to know about you.

Personally, Reagan is on of my heroes. After having Carter tell us on national TV we were spoiled, and didn't have a reason to be optimistic, then having the stones to retaliate when we were threatened. Absolutley he overspent and in doing so he pushed the Soviets over the edge - which is essence ended the Cold War. He lied to US with IRAN/Contra, but that doesn't erase everything else, anymore more than FDR's little indiscretions don't erase the great things he did.




Can you tell me where it is "well documented" that this is so? Saying it is well documented doesn't make it true. And I think the credit nonsense started during the Clinton adminstration(?).

I did in fact hear Greenspan state himself that "looking back,he was wrong" in his reccomendations to during the mid-1990's to advocate a loose credit policy.

At least I am willing to say the right is to blame for some of it, but you liberals will never take a shred of the blame pie - it's always someone else's fault. You start the timeline of the collapse where it suits your argument. You're like children. Paranoid, little children.

You probably take Oliver Stone's JFK as based in "historical fact" as well.

[Unregistered]

Personally, Reagan is on of my heroes. After having Carter tell us on national TV we were spoiled, and didn't have a reason to be optimistic, then having the stones to retaliate when we were threatened. Absolutley he overspent and in doing so he pushed the Soviets over the edge - which is essence ended the Cold War. He lied to US with IRAN/Contra, but that doesn't erase everything else, anymore more than FDR's little indiscretions don't erase the great things he did.

Can you tell me where it is "well documented" that this is so? Saying it is well documented doesn't make it true. And I think the credit nonsense started during the Clinton adminstration(?).

I did in fact hear Greenspan state himself that "looking back,he was wrong" in his reccomendations to during the mid-1990's to advocate a loose credit policy.

At least I am willing to say the right is to blame for some of it, but you liberals will never take a shred of the blame pie - it's always someone else's fault. You start the timeline of the collapse where it suits your argument. You're like children. Paranoid, little children.

You probably take Oliver Stone's JFK as based in "historical fact" as well.

So lying to the American People is fine when it covers up illegal arms deals (Reagan) or when it drums up support for an unnecessary invasion of a sovereign nation (Bush Jr.) but it is an impeachable offense when it involves consensual sex (Clinton).

Deficit spending is fine when it is used to buy weapons, (Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr.) but it is not Ok when it helps to stabilize financial and real estate markets, reduce our dependence on foreign energy supplies, and rebuild our national infrastructure (Obama).

I am in no way blinded by partisanship. I can see when either party gets it wrong. The problem for you is that over the past few decades, the Republican party has screwed this country up so badly and polarized any political discussion so completely that they deserve the bulk of the blame for our current situation; a fact that any unbiased observer can plainly see. And uninformed people like you post unsubstantiated nonsense to try to get people up-in-arms about the economic stimulus package. You are so blinded by your adoration of Reagan that you assume a liberal bias by anyone who would dare to criticize one of our GOP presidents.

I have already cited dozens of sources to support my opinions, including several links that document Reagan's illegal arms-for-hostages dealings. I am still waiting patiently for ANY citations to support the counter-claims. I notice that you don't have a single citation to support your Reagan idolatry. Why should I provide more citations for you to ignore when you adamantly refuse to provide any of your own?

Cat got your tongue?

[Unregistered]

Keep an eye out. We could see the lowest mortgage rates since WWII.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601213&sid=aIX8D0jfGdxc&refer=home

[Unregistered]

Cat got your tongue? [/quote]

I never said anything about Clinton's indiscretions about which - by the way - I couldn't care less. Everything I stated was opinion - there is nothing to cite, just as anything you have stated is opinion. That's what this is - an opinion based forum. Citing your own opinion doesn't make it a fact. That's cool, you are entitled to you opinion - no matter how much I disagree with it.

I liked Reagan in his first term, just like I liked Kennedy, and I suppose I would have liked Truman. Reagan screwed up big time with Iran Contra ( by the way, that was over 20 years ago - let it go brother) for that I think his legacy is deservedly tainted, just like the Bay of Pigs tainted Kennedy, and Korea tainted Truman. Which goes to show that every president has to make questionable - even unethical - decisions that at that time are perceived to be in the best interest of the country given the information available. You address the threats you are faced with. It's a thankless job.

I would says that the Democrats are equally to blame for this currect fiasco. Most liberals will not be as bipartisan when it comes to accepting blame. What's worse, condescending liberals like yourself look to make the rest of us feel stupid or uninformed for even suggesting that your ideology may be at the root of the problem to a degree.


So in the spirit of full disclosure, let's take a look at one of your like minded countrymen:

This is an interesting one. Looks like the Bush Administration (can that be?) recognized the risk with the lack of oversight on mortgages as early as 2003 and proposed a solution, which it also seems Barney Frank and some of his colleagues did not like. They did what liberals always do, they said the big, bad republicans were trying to take from the poor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html


Here's Barney in the 2003 New York Times interview:

[\QUOTE]''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''[quote/]

Barney says the two banks these two lenders are fine, just fine. To Barney, it's about making sure that anyone who wants a home, should have a home, and the rules should be changed to allow that to happen.

Heres Barney again in an August 2008 interview with CNN - well after the collapse of the housing market.

[\QUOTE]“But we have made a mistake in this society. The assumption that everybody can be a homeowner is wrong. We pushed and encouraged people into home ownership - people who, in some cases, weren't ready for it. You can't act on wishes that are unrealistic without having negative consequences.”[quote/]

Am I reading this right? Is this a liberal admitting that maybe thier logic was blinded by thier ideology? Not too worry though, Barney explains here when he was asked about his own culpability in the housing fiasco:

[quote/]"If I had the power to block things when I was in the minority, I wouldn't have started with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I would have blocked the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts to rich people, bills to weaken the Environmental Protection Agency and a very flawed prescription drug program." (As Reported in the Newton TAB, October 8, 2008 "Frank Explains Bailout, Defends Role in Crisis" by Chrissie Long)[\QUOTE]

So in other words, he'd have seen the errors of his thinking, but he was too busy focusing on other nasty, republican issues.

I have to admit, the last one is my favorite. He never answers the question. This is typical liberal crap: Ask a pointed, tough question, and get an answer to another completely unrelated question. By the way, this last one came from Barney's own web site. He's actually proud of this one.

Are republican to blame? You bethca! But so are liberal democrats, and that's the difference between you and me. I'll admit when I'm wrong. When you are wrong, it must be someone else's fault because you're blinded by your ideology.

[Unregistered]

Most of the spending initiatives in the bill are designed to reduce federal spending over the mid to long term. I predict that Obama will ultimately reduce the federal deficit during his time in office, just as Clinton did, and just as Reagan, Bush, and Shrub failed to do. (http://zfacts.com/p/480.html)

Hope you don't mind that your great-great-grandchildren will be paying for the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens because of an intellectually lazy Republican administration that valued ideology over factual evidence.

I'm not pretending that am am as well read as yourself, though I do know the difference between well read & and well informed - the latter having far more validitiy than the former.

Reading something that was crafted by an author with a specific bias should never be taken as gospel - just a bias. You set out to write a book knowing how you want it to end, and you craft the book so as to best meet that end.

Are you so blinded by your hatred of Bush that you really believe that hundreds and thousands of "non-combatants" have died in Iraq? You are the "source" guy/gal - where is your evidence that this is so? (An Iraqui web-site is not a source - show me something form the Red Cross and maybe I'll believe it.)

Also, is there "factual" evidence to show that Iraq did not possess the capability to launch biological or chemical warfare on it's neighbors? Are you assuming that because WMD was never found that it never existed? Isn't it equally as feasible that during the year and a half leading up the invasion of Iraq, while the UN was draggin it's feet on resolution after resolution, that friendly government of Iraq was simply laughing at them whle it unloaded its cache all over the region to the highest bidder or to like-minded haters of the West?

That kills me. It's as if Iraq is 10 square miles of paved roads, full of cooperative citizens. We should be able to find anyone or anything there, right? The realilty is the country is 85% desert. The landscape changes with the wind. It's full of people from in and outside of Iraq that have no intention of cooperating with an invading force, despite that fact that this same invading force freed them from the grip of a brutal dictatorship.

Sound far-fetched doesn't it? Well, it's no more far-fetched than your position. The sad thing - even if we did find WMD - in your eyes - we'd still not be justifed being there, and the US would still be at fault for these deaths.

Why?

It's not because you hate war. It's because you hate George Bush.

I'd prefer you preface your arguments with the fact that you're opinion is influenced by a personal hatred of the man, then we can take the rest of your argumnets for what they are worth.

[Unregistered]

I'm not pretending that am am as well read as yourself, though I do know the difference between well read & and well informed - the latter having far more validitiy than the former.

Reading something that was crafted by an author with a specific bias should never be taken as gospel - just a bias. You set out to write a book knowing how you want it to end, and you craft the book so as to best meet that end.

Are you so blinded by your hatred of Bush that you really believe that hundreds and thousands of "non-combatants" have died in Iraq? You are the "source" guy/gal - where is your evidence that this is so? (An Iraqui web-site is not a source - show me something form the Red Cross and maybe I'll believe it.)

Also, is there "factual" evidence to show that Iraq did not possess the capability to launch biological or chemical warfare on it's neighbors? Are you assuming that because WMD was never found that it never existed? Isn't it equally as feasible that during the year and a half leading up the invasion of Iraq, while the UN was draggin it's feet on resolution after resolution, that friendly government of Iraq was simply laughing at them whle it unloaded its cache all over the region to the highest bidder or to like-minded haters of the West?

That kills me. It's as if Iraq is 10 square miles of paved roads, full of cooperative citizens. We should be able to find anyone or anything there, right? The realilty is the country is 85% desert. The landscape changes with the wind. It's full of people from in and outside of Iraq that have no intention of cooperating with an invading force, despite that fact that this same invading force freed them from the grip of a brutal dictatorship.

Sound far-fetched doesn't it? Well, it's no more far-fetched than your position. The sad thing - even if we did find WMD - in your eyes - we'd still not be justifed being there, and the US would still be at fault for these deaths.

Why?

It's not because you hate war. It's because you hate George Bush.

I'd prefer you preface your arguments with the fact that you're opinion is influenced by a personal hatred of the man, then we can take the rest of your argumnets for what they are worth.

You're right on the point. This is an opinion forum not a history class with footnotes and superscript numerators.

If the poster doesn't like the fact that we have all have our own opinions, predisposed likes and dislikes, than let them stop posting and go to a site of like-minded individuals like themselves where they can rail all they want.

However, please stop pontificating!

[Unregistered]

I'm not pretending that am am as well read as yourself, though I do know the difference between well read & and well informed - the latter having far more validitiy than the former.

Reading something that was crafted by an author with a specific bias should never be taken as gospel - just a bias. You set out to write a book knowing how you want it to end, and you craft the book so as to best meet that end.

If you are alleging a bias in the sources I have cited, please feel free to offer your own sources to prove me wrong. But if you are unable to do so, then I can only conclude that you are not basing your own opinions on any provable facts, but are simply clinging to beliefs that you wish to be true.


Are you so blinded by your hatred of Bush that you really believe that hundreds and thousands of "non-combatants" have died in Iraq? You are the "source" guy/gal - where is your evidence that this is so? (An Iraqui web-site is not a source - show me something form the Red Cross and maybe I'll believe it.)

Also, is there "factual" evidence to show that Iraq did not possess the capability to launch biological or chemical warfare on it's neighbors? Are you assuming that because WMD was never found that it never existed? Isn't it equally as feasible that during the year and a half leading up the invasion of Iraq, while the UN was draggin it's feet on resolution after resolution, that friendly government of Iraq was simply laughing at them whle it unloaded its cache all over the region to the highest bidder or to like-minded haters of the West?

That kills me. It's as if Iraq is 10 square miles of paved roads, full of cooperative citizens. We should be able to find anyone or anything there, right? The realilty is the country is 85% desert. The landscape changes with the wind. It's full of people from in and outside of Iraq that have no intention of cooperating with an invading force, despite that fact that this same invading force freed them from the grip of a brutal dictatorship.

Sound far-fetched doesn't it? Well, it's no more far-fetched than your position. The sad thing - even if we did find WMD - in your eyes - we'd still not be justifed being there, and the US would still be at fault for these deaths.

Why?

It's not because you hate war. It's because you hate George Bush.

I'd prefer you preface your arguments with the fact that you're opinion is influenced by a personal hatred of the man, then we can take the rest of your argumnets for what they are worth.

Sorry, but you are confusing cause and effect. I disapprove of George Bush because of what he did as president, not the other way around.

If I cite casualty figures from the International Red Cross, then "maybe" you'll believe it? If the data support your pre-conceived notions, that is?

So let me get this straight... If I make a claim here, I will be relentlessly hounded to provide citations to prove my statement, citations which will be wholly disregarded once provided. However, you are free to claim that even though WMD were never found, that somehow Saddam Hussein snuck them out of Iraq in the middle of a military blockade and on the eve of a massive invasion, without providing one shred of evidence to support your theory? I wonder why none of these WMD have been used against us in the SIX YEARS since the invasion?

I do, in fact, hate war. Even a "civilized" nation with the best technology is incapable of waging war in a heavily populated area without killing boatloads of civilians. War is in some extreme cases justified, but only after every reasonable alternative has been exhausted. The rush to invade Iraq in 2003 did not meet this metric by any stretch of the imagination.

If you can still support the invasion of Iraq for dubious reasons at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives lost, and a price tag of $3 trillion dollars and counting, then you have absolutely no right to complain about the cost of Obama's economic stimulus package.

How many innocent human deaths are an "acceptable" cost for a mistake?

http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/review-868-p943/$File/irrc-868_Daponte.pdf

[Unregistered]

Everything I stated was opinion - there is nothing to cite, just as anything you have stated is opinion.

Let's just test this statement, shall we? You claim that nothing in post #198 is anything but opinion, and that none of it needs a citation.



Personally, Reagan is on of my heroes. After having Carter tell us on national TV we were spoiled, and didn't have a reason to be optimistic, then having the stones to retaliate when we were threatened. Absolutley he overspent and in doing so he pushed the Soviets over the edge - which is essence ended the Cold War. He lied to US with IRAN/Contra, but that doesn't erase everything else, anymore more than FDR's little indiscretions don't erase the great things he did.

Can you tell me where it is "well documented" that this is so? Saying it is well documented doesn't make it true. And I think the credit nonsense started during the Clinton adminstration(?).

I did in fact hear Greenspan state himself that "looking back,he was wrong" in his reccomendations to during the mid-1990's to advocate a loose credit policy.

At least I am willing to say the right is to blame for some of it, but you liberals will never take a shred of the blame pie - it's always someone else's fault. You start the timeline of the collapse where it suits your argument. You're like children. Paranoid, little children.

You probably take Oliver Stone's JFK as based in "historical fact" as well.

Missing citations:
1. When did President Carter "tell us we were spoiled and didn't have reason to be optimistic?" Please provide a transcript of the television broadcast to which you refer.
2. Please provide a citation to an economic analysis which proves that Reagan's military overspending ended the cold war.
3. How do you know Reagan lied about Iran/Contra? And if he did, why was that not an impeachable offense and an act of treason? (I might also ask how can you admire a man who, in your opinion is a treasonous liar?)
4. Please provide a specific event during the Clinton Administration which "started the credit nonsense?" And please explain how the Greed Is Good atmosphere of deregulating financial markets that began under Reagan (remember John McCain and the Keating Five?) is somehow the fault of the Clinton Administration?
5. Your fuzzy recollection of what you think you recall Alan Greenspan saying is not a citation, and definitely not a mere opinion. If you are going to quote public figures, I assume you can also point me toward the interview or policy speech in which Mr. Greenspan made those comments so I can judge them in their original context?

These are just five statements you have made which are presented as fact, and which you should be able to provide citations for. I seriously doubt that you are capable of providing sources for any of these statements, however.

I don't think an opinion forum needs to be operated like a history class. I don't believe every Walpole Words post needs a footnote section. However, the quality of the discussion here is directly determined by the quality of the supporting arguments, and too many participants are apparently incapable of saying where they read the "facts" they offer. If you can't tell me where you read it, you might just as well be making it up.

If you are going to make strong statements of fact to further your argument, then you have only as much credibility as you are able to prove. So far, your credibility score is zero. And for the record, Dave, I have never used an Oliver Stone movie as a citation of historical fact. Just one more case where you have leapt to a conclusion that is not based on any factual evidence.

[Unregistered]

#205, you need to lighten up. Citation: my opinion.

[David C]

I think we need to kill this thread. It has morphed into to an idealogical debate which has little to do with the intended topic, and it's not solving anything.

I am going to assume this is two posters going back and forth. Please do the rest of us a favor take your philosophical debate elsewhere. It's pretentious, boring and neither of you is offering anything constructive to the dicsussion.

[Unregistered]

If you are alleging a bias in the sources I have cited, please feel free to offer your own sources to prove me wrong. But if you are unable to do so, then I can only conclude that you are not basing your own opinions on any provable facts, but are simply clinging to beliefs that you wish to be true.

Yes - this is exactly what I have been saying. It's my opinion based on my interpretation of what I have seen and heard. Which is what you are doing too. And you know what - that's fine. I can agree to disagree. I maintain that you can not.


Sorry, but you are confusing cause and effect. I disapprove of George Bush because of what he did as president, not the other way around.

Forgive me but I do not believe you. There is a genuine hatred of this guy by the left that goes beyong Iraq. Iraq makes a great trump card for you, but that's not the reason. To you, he's just a dumb hick, silver spoon, never should have won mistake.


If I cite casualty figures from the International Red Cross, then "maybe" you'll believe it? If the data support your pre-conceived notions, that is?

No, I'm just saying that if you're going use these kinds of numbers when referring to something as important as casualties, it should be based on something more than just your passionate opinion.


So let me get this straight... If I make a claim here, I will be relentlessly hounded to provide citations to prove my statement, citations which will be wholly disregarded once provided. However, you are free to claim that even though WMD were never found, that somehow Saddam Hussein snuck them out of Iraq in the middle of a military blockade and on the eve of a massive invasion, without providing one shred of evidence to support your theory? I wonder why none of these WMD have been used against us in the SIX YEARS since the invasion?

You miss my point, I am not claiming anything. I am stating that I can not make such a claim - even though there is both circumstantial/historical evidence to support that WMD did exist and that Iraq had demonstrated the will to use WMD in recent history. Just as we can not claim it never existed simply because we did not find it.

Military blockade? - are you serious? If you call the Syrian, Pakistani, Jordanian or Afgan borders secure, or think for one second that any of these nations had or have the least bit of interest in helping the US - then you my friend are truly dillusional.



I do, in fact, hate war. Even a "civilized" nation with the best technology is incapable of waging war in a heavily populated area without killing boatloads of civilians. War is in some extreme cases justified, but only after every reasonable alternative has been exhausted. The rush to invade Iraq in 2003 did not meet this metric by any stretch of the imagination.

17 separate UN resolutions over 3 years time is a "rush"?


If you can still support the invasion of Iraq for dubious reasons at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives lost, and a price tag of $3 trillion dollars and counting, then you have absolutely no right to complain about the cost of Obama's economic stimulus package.

I did not support the invasion of Iraq. I supported the complete leveling of the region. Within one year after the invasion - once it became evident that we were not fully committed as a nation of from a strategic stanpoint - I supported our immediate and full withdrawal. On this last point it looks like we agree on something but the occupation has cost the money, not the "invasion". I hate war as well - who doesn't? I hate it so much that I want it over with a quick as possible, with as much effect so as to discourage anyone from wanting to face it ever again.


How many innocent human deaths are an "acceptable" cost for a mistake?.

Since this is an enemy that refuses to distinguish itself from the general population I guess that's up to the the extremists to answer that one. More than half the enemy is not even Iraqui. There dirtbags from all over that part of the world looking for a chance to take out an American.

At least I can say with a degree of certainty that - unlike the extremists who intentionally target innocent civilians with little or no military or governmental signifigance, the US targets military objectives which sad to say kill civilians. Admittedly, sometimes many.

I can assure you though, that if you can convince the insurgents to stop hiding in crowded mosques, schools, apartments buildings and shopping plazas, and come out and meet on the field of battle, the occupation will come to a swift end with little or no civilian casualties.

We are never going to agree, but let's not put everyone else through this. I will assume you have an intelligent rebuttal to everything above.

Let's move on.

[Unregistered]

Yes - this is exactly what I have been saying. It's my opinion based on my interpretation of what I have seen and heard. Which is what you are doing too. And you know what - that's fine. I can agree to disagree. I maintain that you can not.

Forgive me but I do not believe you. There is a genuine hatred of this guy by the left that goes beyong Iraq. Iraq makes a great trump card for you, but that's not the reason. To you, he's just a dumb hick, silver spoon, never should have won mistake.

I am not "the left." You do not know how I came to form my opinions about George Bush, so please stop assuming that you have insight into my thought processes. Yours is just one more strong statement of "fact" which was born in the vacuum of unsubstantiated opinion.

There is a huge grammatical difference between a statement of opinion and a statement of fact. Saying that "Carter said such-and-such on TV" is not an opinion, it is a statement of fact which remains unsubstantiated.

We have also seen people posting quotations (see post #194) where they do not name the original writer or provide a link to where the quote was written. These folks seem to think that just because they say "it is written that 'the sky is green'" that the quotation itself implies truthfulness. Without knowing the source of the quotation, its credibility is difficult or impossible to evaluate.

The only reason I push people here to provide citations is to get them to think about how they have come to form their opinions. It degrades the conversation when some participants phrase their opinions as fact, and when they cannot even explain how they came to believe what they do. Many times, I have revised my own opinion when I have done extra research to check my own facts.

If you just want to shout your opinions to all of Walpole Words, fine. But if you want to participate in a discussion that moves beyond the differences to arrive at a common understanding, then you must start by vetting your own statements before you make them public.

If you can't say how you know it, then you don't really know it.

[Unregistered]

Exactly Wrong on the Economy
by Newt Gingrich


I'm beginning this week by doing something I don't usually do: thanking the New York Times.

Last week, this was the Times headline over a story about President Obama's budget:

"A Bold Plan Sweeps Away Reagan Ideas"

And so I want to thank the New York Times for portraying the Obama budget for what it is: The most audacious attempt in generations to create a government-centered, bureaucratically controlled country.

[Unregistered]

If you just want to shout your opinions to all of Walpole Words, fine. But if you want to participate in a discussion that moves beyond the differences to arrive at a common understanding, then you must start by vetting your own statements before you make them public.

If you can't say how you know it, then you don't really know it.

You give this forum too much credit.

Having said that, I do think long and hard about what I'm going to say before I say it. But you gotta understand, my opinion isn't just some BS notion that I happen to subscribe to at a given moment in time. It's borne of years of my own personal experiences, my own interpretation of events and happenings. Your own experience, your conscience - should determine how you think,feel,and behave.

You've heard the expression "just becuase it's legal that doesn't make it right" haven't you?

Well, if I followed your logic by the book, I'd have to rely soley on data, reasearch, and footnotes to dictate how I should feel about important issues. Isn't that where the saying "Vote your conscience" comes from?

For example, I was bused as a kid back in the 70's. Got rocks throw at my bus almost everyday on my way to school. Got beat up more than once, and beat a few kids up myself in defense. It changed how I felt about allot of things. Took me years to finally come to grips with the idea that the "enemy" was just as scared as I was. Then we were all just mad at the "social re-engineers" that forced this on us all in the first place. It negatively impacted thousands and thousands of lives - of all races.

Now, were you so inclined, you would be able to find data that would convince you that forced busing was a good idea - a success even, and you would easily find statistics that could back up your position. I - through my own personal experiences - would disagree vehemently, and with good reason, no?

Not everything is proven with quotes, and footnotes, and citations. That's all I'm saying.