There ya go with your goofy interpretations again. You seem to be too dense to understand that I didn't call for NO restrictions or regulations. Thats just your goofiness at work.
On Mar 17, 5:55 pm, Hollywood <jims29...@gmail.com> wrote: > Zeb, > > Oh, so YOUR brilliant plan is that if there are NO restrictions and/or > regulations it follows that there could not be bad or poorly regulated > controls or restrictions. > > Ya' got me lad. It would be the same as if there were No building > codes there could not possibly be BAD ones. Fucking brilliant. > > On Mar 17, 3:48 pm, Zebnick <zebn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > What would you have "regulated" that would have averted the mortgage > > banking meltdown? Greedy banks? What would the regulation have been? > > Order them not to write risky loans? It was the fuckin government that > > ordered them TO write risky loans. > > > On Mar 17, 4:13 pm, Hollywood <jims29...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Zeb, > > > > NOTHING is beyond debate. The only question is which side, the > > > negative or the positive, will make the best case for it's arguement. > > > Riiiight, let's just have a completely unregulated and unrestricted > > > banking system and see how things go. Fucking brilliant idea. > > > > On Mar 17, 2:41 pm, Zebnick <zebn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > The US economy is suffering because of liberal government intervention > > > > into the banking system, specifically in mortgage guidelines. And that > > > > is beyond debate. > > > > > On Mar 17, 12:30 pm, Biff <jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > > Vastly more accurate than the corporate whore voodoo economists the > > > > > wingnuts produce. Free market fundamentalism is a bust and the entire > > > > > US economy and millions are still suffering for it. Even Greenspan > > > > > admitted that. Using facts and figures to demonstrate what hypocrites > > > > > the republofascists are instead of a lot of made up rhetorical crap > > > > > with a big helping of faux patriotism slavered on top.....way to go > > > > > Paul!. Keep up the good work. > > > > > > On Mar 15, 11:13 pm, Sage2 <wisdom...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Paul Krugman is the most unreliable source in the > > > > > > business. He is simply a hack for the NYT"s , nothing more, nothing > > > > > > less ! > > > > > > > ****************************************************************************************** > > > > > > > On Mar 15, 11:46 pm, Biff <jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > “Don’t cut Medicare. The reform bills passed by the House and > > > > > > > Senate > > > > > > > cut Medicare by approximately $500 billion. This is wrong.” So > > > > > > > declared Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, in a > > > > > > > recent > > > > > > > op-ed article written with John Goodman, the president of the > > > > > > > National > > > > > > > Center for Policy Analysis. > > > > > > > > And irony died. > > > > > > > > Now, Mr. Gingrich was just repeating the current party line. > > > > > > > Furious > > > > > > > denunciations of any effort to seek cost savings in Medicare — > > > > > > > death > > > > > > > panels! — have been central to Republican efforts to demonize > > > > > > > health > > > > > > > reform. What’s amazing, however, is that they’re getting away > > > > > > > with it. > > > > > > > > Why is this amazing? It’s not just the fact that Republicans are > > > > > > > now > > > > > > > posing as staunch defenders of a program they have hated ever > > > > > > > since > > > > > > > the days when Ronald Reagan warned that Medicare would destroy > > > > > > > America’s freedom. Nor is it even the fact that, as House > > > > > > > speaker, Mr. > > > > > > > Gingrich personally tried to ram through deep cuts in Medicare — > > > > > > > and, > > > > > > > in 1995, went so far as to shut down the federal government in an > > > > > > > attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting those cuts. > > > > > > > > After all, you could explain this about-face by supposing that > > > > > > > Republicans have had a change of heart, that they have finally > > > > > > > realized just how much good Medicare does. And if you believe > > > > > > > that, > > > > > > > I’ve got some mortgage-backed securities you might want to buy. > > > > > > > > No, what’s truly mind-boggling is this: Even as Republicans > > > > > > > denounce > > > > > > > modest proposals to rein in Medicare’s rising costs, they are, > > > > > > > themselves, seeking to dismantle the whole program. And the > > > > > > > process of > > > > > > > dismantling would begin with spending cuts of about $650 billion > > > > > > > over > > > > > > > the next decade. Math is hard, but I do believe that’s more than > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > roughly $400 billion (not $500 billion) in Medicare savings > > > > > > > projected > > > > > > > for the Democratic health bills. > > > > > > > > What I’m talking about here is the “Roadmap for America’s > > > > > > > Future,” the > > > > > > > budget plan recently released by Representative Paul Ryan, the > > > > > > > ranking > > > > > > > Republican member of the House Budget Committee. Other leading > > > > > > > Republicans have been bobbing and weaving on the official status > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > this proposal, but it’s pretty clear that Mr. Ryan’s vision does, > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > fact, represent what the G.O.P. would try to do if it returns to > > > > > > > power. > > > > > > > > The broad picture that emerges from the “roadmap” is of an > > > > > > > economic > > > > > > > agenda that hasn’t changed one iota in response to the economic > > > > > > > failures of the Bush years. In particular, Mr. Ryan offers a plan > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > Social Security privatization that is basically identical to the > > > > > > > Bush > > > > > > > proposals of five years ago. > > > > > > > > But what’s really worth noting, given the way the G.O.P. has > > > > > > > campaigned against health care reform, is what Mr. Ryan proposes > > > > > > > doing > > > > > > > with and to Medicare. > > > > > > > > In the Ryan proposal, nobody currently under the age of 55 would > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > covered by Medicare as it now exists. Instead, people would > > > > > > > receive > > > > > > > vouchers and be told to buy their own insurance. And even this > > > > > > > new, > > > > > > > privatized version of Medicare would erode over time because the > > > > > > > value > > > > > > > of these vouchers would almost surely lag ever further behind the > > > > > > > actual cost of health insurance. By the time Americans now in > > > > > > > their > > > > > > > 20s or 30s reached the age of eligibility, there wouldn’t be much > > > > > > > of a > > > > > > > Medicare program left. > > > > > > > > But what about those who already are covered by Medicare, or will > > > > > > > enter the program over the next decade? You’re safe, says the > > > > > > > roadmap; > > > > > > > you’ll still be eligible for traditional Medicare. Except, that > > > > > > > is, > > > > > > > for the fact that the plan “strengthens the current program with > > > > > > > changes such as income-relating drug benefit premiums to ensure > > > > > > > long- > > > > > > > term sustainability.” > > > > > > > > If this sounds like deliberately confusing gobbledygook, that’s > > > > > > > because it is. Fortunately, the Congressional Budget Office, > > > > > > > which has > > > > > > > done an evaluation of the roadmap, offers a translation: “Some > > > > > > > higher- > > > > > > > income enrollees would pay higher premiums, and some program > > > > > > > payments > > > > > > > would be reduced.” In short, there would be Medicare cuts. > > > > > > > > And it’s possible to back out the size of those cuts from the > > > > > > > budget > > > > > > > office analysis, which compares the Ryan proposal with a > > > > > > > “baseline” > > > > > > > representing current policy. As I’ve already said, the total over > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > next decade comes to about $650 billion — substantially bigger > > > > > > > than > > > > > > > the Medicare savings in the Democratic bills. > > > > > > > > The bottom line, then, is that the crusade against health reform > > > > > > > has > > > > > > > relied, crucially, on utter hypocrisy: Republicans who hate > > > > > > > Medicare, > > > > > > > tried to slash Medicare in the past, and still aim to dismantle > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > program over time, have been scoring political points by > > > > > > > denouncing > > > > > > > proposals for modest cost savings — savings that are substantially > > > > > > > smaller than the spending cuts buried in their own proposals." > > > > > > > > Paul Krugman > > > > > > > > On Mar 15, 4:47 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > >http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2010&mo... > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
