NationStates Jolt Archive

i miss live-NSGing things

edit: i got you this link to the video and text. don't say i never did anything for you.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/02/24/The-Presidents-address-Excerpt/

drinking to 'jobs' seems like a great idea

sadly, there's a hockey game on. and hockey beats out speeches. Plus, I have no beer.

Watching. Quite embarressing how he spoke over Pelosi in the beginning.

Anyway, so far so good. Interesting how the Republicans stood up and cheered him when he came in, while haven't done that for Bush in the longest time. . .

Speech is good so far.

Cause nobody messes with Joe



Good line.

Cause nobody messes with Joe



Good line.

I giggled. Also, is Biden taking a fucking nap? :D:p

Quite embarressing how he spoke over Pelosi in the beginning.

take that, protocol!

Cause nobody messes with Joe



Good line.

Would you mess with that smooth motherfucker?

I am too sleepy to be a good citizen and pay attention to such things tonight, I fear.

I giggled. Also, is Biden taking a fucking nap? :D:p

hey, he's had a long day. being veep is hard work. you have to be constantly on call, waiting for the president to die.

take that, protocol!
lol. :p

I'm watching Fox and they said something about how he hasn't been very good with formal introductions, with that and his swearing in. . .

but then they stated that he's always came through with a good speech or something like that.

Would you mess with that smooth motherfucker?

Dude, I love Biden, I dont care waht anyone says.

lol. :p

I'm watching Fox and they said something about how he hasn't been very good with formal introductions, with that and his swearing in. . .

but then they stated that he's always came through with a good speech or something like that.

Leave it to Fox to pretend like the swearing in screw up was his fault and not Justice Roberts.

hey, he's had a long day. being veep is hard work. you have to be constantly on call, waiting for the president to die.

:D

Spot on, spot on. You're on a roll tonight, FS.

Leave it to Fox to pretend like the swearing in screw up was his fault and not Justice Roberts.
Wasn't it both? If I remember Roberts fucked up and then Obama did or something.


Anyway, I don't really care. I was in D.C. at the Inauguration (yeah, I know :p ) and nobody gave a shit, we were like wtf...and then waiting for them to proceed.

Wasn't it both? If I remember Roberts fucked up and then Obama did or something.


Nah, he said it right, he just didnt repeat Roberts's (wrong) reciting word for word.


Anyway, he's pretty optimistic so far. Its refreshing.

I am looking foward to seeing his budget.

Nah, he said it right, he just didnt repeat Roberts's (wrong) reciting word for word.


Anyway, he's pretty optimistic so far. Its refreshing.
It's a good speech. So far a big thing I've been upset with is that Obama hasn't had the spine to really smack the protectionism out of the Dems running amock. Not something he's doing, but something he isn't stopping, or not stopping enough.

I do really enjoy his speeches though.

obama: "...everyone in this chamber, democrats and republicans..."

he forgot sanders and lieberman

obama: "...everyone in this chamber, democrats and republicans..."

he forgot sanders and lieberman

They're the bisexuals in a government of straights.

Dude, I love Biden, I dont care waht anyone says.

Who the fuck doesn't love Biden? I certainly do. I was referencing this...http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3117/2795341044_bba1d22bdf.jpg?v=0

obama: "...everyone in this chamber, democrats and republicans..."

he forgot sanders and lieberman

Fuck that guy.


Three most important things for him? Energy, Healthcare, and Education.


Good. I can get behind that 100%.

Yeah! Fuck Germany and Japan!

Leave it to Fox to pretend like the swearing in screw up was his fault and not Justice Roberts.

there is a white man and a colored fellow Its always the colored fellow's fault.

I like the idea of a technology-race with Germany, Japan and China.

Biden always looks a bit irritated whenever they give Obama a standing ovation. He shoots Pelosi a look that basically says, "Shit I got to stand up again?!? Sit the fuck down bitch!"

No, we pretty much do whats easy.

Came in half way through. MSNBC is copying the CNN lines deal... but I think someone fucked up the colors. It says taht McCain voters are the red line, but that thing has been pegged at the top so hard I thought it was a border, while the blue line has waved more. Maybe the old McCain voters fell asleep on their switches

Biden always looks a bit irritated whenever they give Obama a standing ovation. He shoots Pelosi a look that basically says, "Shit I got to stand up again?!? Sit the fuck down bitch!"

He's too busy being Jesus to stand up.

Who the fuck doesn't love Biden? I certainly do. I was referencing this...http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3117/2795341044_bba1d22bdf.jpg?v=0Somebody needs to do a "Biden, fuck yeah." motivational poster. :D

No, we pretty much do whats easy.

Hell, it's a principle I live by.

I love the one or two out of place Republicans that stand up to applaud him.

Calm down Nancy...you nearly jumped up there...

Came in half way through. MSNBC is copying the CNN lines deal... but I think someone fucked up the colors. It says taht McCain voters are the red line, but that thing has been pegged at the top so hard I thought it was a border, while the blue line has waved more. Maybe the old McCain voters fell asleep on their switches

fuck, i was watching cnn and disappointed by the lack of lines. changing channels now

Calm down Nancy...you nearly jumped up there...

I am 100% sure she wants to suck Barrack dry.

Im still skeptical about anything being done over healthcare reform. I want to believe him that itll happen this year. I just cant make that leap of faith.

I'm watching lolwuttv atm, dunno if I can be bothered to switch over to some CNN stream.

Wait, is he asking us to do shit? Are asking not? Crazy talk.

You know, I really like the whole idea of the government helping you pay for school if you do community service.


Lets see if it happens.

You know, Nancy, I like ya, your my rep and all...but for crying out loud, this isn't an aerobics class or catholic church, you don't have to stand up every second sentence.

Eliminate payments to Agro businesses that dont need them and no-bid contracts in Iraq? Awesome.

You know, I really like the whole idea of the government helping you pay for school if you do community service.


Lets see if it happens.

Honestly, time machine, if I had it all to do-I would have spent a good three to four years volunteering to earn my money for college no problem. At the time the only way I knew to do that was to 'volunteer' to carry a gun for at least two years and I wasn't down with that.

You know, Nancy, I like ya, your my rep and all...but for crying out loud, this isn't an aerobics class or catholic church, you don't have to stand up every second sentence.
I think she's sitting on hot rocks. . . :p

Love how Republicans are semi-enthusiastic to stand on tax-breaks for the middle and lower class.

Honestly, time machine, if I had it all to do-I would have spent a good three to four years volunteering to earn my money for college no problem. At the time the only way I knew to do that was to 'volunteer' to carry a gun for at least two years and I wasn't down with that.


Agreed. I like the idea of the government helping you pay for school if you give back to your country in a way that doesnt involve shooting people.

Love how Republicans are semi-enthusiastic to stand on tax-breaks for the middle and lower class.

It was great. A few shot up, and the rest were like "Oh right, the press is here. Yeah, I love helping out you poor folk and such....*shifty eyes*"

I just started watching.

What did he just say about "... we will not let it."?

They're going apeshit crazy for him!

EDIT: Terrorists? I bet it was terrorists...

I just started watching.

What did he just say about "... we will not let it."?

They're going apeshit crazy for him!

He talked about fight'n t'rrism and supporting our troops.

Good photo op for Congress to go apeshit over.

My friends and I are playing a drinking game. We take a drink everytime one of his ideas can be replaced by "privatization". There's 7 of us and 1 case of beer is empty, a second is half gone, Soviet Mike's puking, WrongWayMatt is passed out, and Steve's wearing a lampshade on his head.

This will be a long night.

I just started watching.

What did he just say about "... we will not let it."?

They're going apeshit crazy for him!

I forgot, it's like a fucking Beatles concert, so much cheering you can barely hear the music.

AWESOME!

Good shot at Bush with the "I can stand here and say...the United States does not torture" bit.

That was good.

And epic.

Notice the people sitting when he talks about closing down Gitmo and not violating Human Rights...

Dude, I could make a drinking game out of how many under the table shots he takes at Bush during this speech.

Notice the people sitting when he talks about closing down Gitmo and not violating Human Rights...

Yeah, it was like, John McCain stood up, the rest of the right wing cried.

avoid protectionism!

By the way, to anyone who isn't watching, this speech kicks the ass of his inauguration speech. It's awesome.

Dude, I could make a drinking game out of how many under the table shots he takes at Bush during this speech.

This would be awesome!

I just started watching.

What did he just say about "... we will not let it."?

They're going apeshit crazy for him!

EDIT: Terrorists? I bet it was terrorists...

What are you using to watch it?

By the way, to anyone who isn't watching, this speech kicks the ass of his inauguration speech. It's awesome.

It does curb-stomp it.

Good for her :) That is a fantastic moment for her :)

Ok, watching it on CNN now.

Damn, Nancy looks really.. strange.

Good for her :) That is a fantastic moment for her :)

Michelle Obama seemed very genuine to the girl too.


Makes me happy.

Im watching, Its okay, had some boring moments, I liked the Joe Biden line, lol...

I want to know how MSNBC knows who their viewers voted for and what their reactions are, lol..

God I hate the Shout Out portion of political speeches..."I'm reminded of little BoPeep, who I met in the hills of Kansas...watching her sheep...eating curds and wheh out of...her little wooden bowl. When all of a sudden...right out of the blue, while she's out there, trying to mind her sheep, a spider comes along and sits down beside her. She lost her curds and whey. I want to see to it that this doesn't happen to BoPeep again, nor to all the BoPeeps in this great nation..."

hate it.

I wish he had ended it with "Praise be to Allah"


Just for lulz.

Damn, missed basically all of it.

Im watching, Its okay, had some boring moments, I liked the Joe Biden line, lol...

I want to know how MSNBC knows who their viewers voted for and what their reactions are, lol..

I assume they have to take their word for it.

Whoops. He was so excited at the end he almost forgot to say "God Bless America".

He got it though, haha Awesome speech!

Damn, missed basically all of it.

i shall summarize

"obama smash!!!!"

I wish he had ended it with "Praise be to Allah"


Just for lulz.

Or Salaam Alaikum

I wish he had ended it with "Praise be to Allah"


Just for lulz.

Allah achbar!

I don't know if it was just me and my screwed up way of looking at things, but the speech struck me as a tad bit Nationalistic.

Man, he had a lot of really good ideas. If even half of these ideas he proposes go through, Ill be happy.

i shall summarize

"obama smash!!!!"

But, dont worry he tired himself out...

"Obama sleepy...."

I wish he had ended it with "Praise be to Allah"


Just for lulz.
Or "Hail Satan!"

or pull the mic off the podium and drop in on the floor with his arms in the air.

I don't know if it was just me and my screwed up way of looking at things, but the speech struck me as a tad bit Nationalistic.

Dude, hes the president. Its his job to be nationalistic.

I don't know if it was just me and my screwed up way of looking at things, but the speech struck me as a tad bit Nationalistic.

1. Duh. This is an American State of the Union speech.

2. So?

Or "Hail Satan!"

or pull the mic off the podium and drop in on the floor with his arms in the air.

A Reagan esq snaffu woulda been great...

"We will commence bombing Russia in five minutes..."

Man, he had a lot of really good ideas. If even half of these ideas he proposes go through, Ill be happy.

He did say some good stuff, among a bit of populism.

I really like all the emphasis on science and technology. I'm a huuuuge fan of that.

Did Obama just kiss some old guy on the cheek?

I don't know if it was just me and my screwed up way of looking at things, but the speech struck me as a tad bit Nationalistic.

It was, it was at least half designed to 'buck up' the nation.

Did Obama just kiss some old guy on the cheek?

Apperantly hes not only black and a muslim, but gay too.

A Reagan esq snaffu woulda been great...

"We will commence bombing Russia in five minutes..."

I've just finished signing legislation outlawing Russia forever. The bombing will commence in 5 minutes. :p What a guy.

I don't know if it was just me and my screwed up way of looking at things, but the speech struck me as a tad bit Nationalistic.Edit: I meant what KoL said, but I phrased it wrong.

He's not anymore nationalistic than I expect any other president to be.

I am watching popular Republican Governor of Louisiana Bobby Jindal who would make Rush Limbaugh jump for joy, lol.

Anyone want to see the sight of Rush Limbaugh jump for joy, lol?

Anyone want to see the sight of Rush Limbaugh jump for joy, lol?

Unless that jump is off a very high cliff, no.

For some reason, I just don't like the way Gov Jindal talks. At all.

Whoops! On MSNBC Obermann's mic wasn't cut as quickly as he'd thought, when Jindal walked out you can hear Obermann mutter with disgust, "Oh god..."

Dude, hes the president. Its his job to be nationalistic.

Well, he seemed to be more nationalistic then Bush did during the states of the unions that I can remember. Although Bush never did face an economic situation like this. I'm not being critical of him, I'm just saying that his tone was different from what I've come to expect.

For some reason, I just don't like the way Gov Jindal talks. At all.

Maybe its because hes an idiot?

Did Obama just kiss some old guy on the cheek?

Kiss of death.

holy fuck, katrina?!

"There's a lesson here...um...keep your boat registered and your insurance up to date?"

Maybe its because hes an idiot?

Well that and he sounds like the standard voice over for retarded commercials.

holy fuck, katrina?!

Is Jindal talking? I changed the channel. If I want the opinions of that peice of shit, Ill ressurect Hitler and merge him with Zombie Reagan.

I have to admit, Olbermann is a hardcore liberal, but then, you just have to look at him as the counterbalance to Bill O'Reily and Rush Limbaugh. Those two say way more stupid stuff separately than Olbermann.

Does anyone else notice that MSNBC has stolen CNN's line feature? Two categories: "McCain Voters" and "Obama Voters".

Okay, seriously...what's wrong with a train from Las Vegas to LA, and doesn't that not actually exist?

holy fuck, katrina?!

I know, even Im like, "WtF's that got to do with the Economic Crisis?"

Is Jindal talking? I changed the channel. If I want the opinions of that peice of shit, Ill ressurect Hitler and merge him with Zombie Reagan.

yes, and now he is claiming that volcano monitoring is a dumb idea.

Hmmm... in regards to Knight's post, if you made Jindall white and gave him a toothbrush moustache...

OH MY GOD.

yes, and now he is claiming that volcano monitoring is a dumb idea.

Of course. Anything that isnt nuking the Middle East, torturing the children of suspected terrorists, and allowing the rich to not pay taxes is a "dumb idea" to that idiot.

Okay, seriously...what's wrong with a train from Las Vegas to LA, and doesn't that not actually exist?

It's a pet project that benefits a very small portion of the country at a very high cost.

A trans-continental high speed train? Sure, that sounds pretty epic! But one serving such a small percentage? No.

yes, and now he is claiming that volcano monitoring is a dumb idea.

I know, who needs to watch out for Natural Disasters anyway, I mean, when Hurricane Katrina struck we demanded......



Wait....

Came in half way through. MSNBC is copying the CNN lines deal... but I think someone fucked up the colors. It says taht McCain voters are the red line, but that thing has been pegged at the top so hard I thought it was a border, while the blue line has waved more. Maybe the old McCain voters fell asleep on their switches

I have to admit, Olbermann is a hardcore liberal, but then, you just have to look at him as the counterbalance to Bill O'Reily and Rush Limbaugh. Those two say way more stupid stuff separately than Olbermann.

Does anyone else notice that MSNBC has stolen CNN's line feature? Two categories: "McCain Voters" and "Obama Voters".

Way ahead of ya...

Okay, really, Bobby? Do you really want to keep bringing up Katrina as a good thing for the Republicans? Did you think that one through?

No, he's bringing up Louisiana as a good thing for him and him only. He probably thinks this is "Gov. Jindall's response to the people of Louisiana about the Not-State-of-the-Union."

Wow, this guy just keeps saying the same damn thing. Democrats believe they should do work as your representatives and we believe you fuckers are on your own.

I also love that every time a Democrat gets in power, Republicans suddenly remember they're supposed to be fiscal conservatives.

AHA! The MSNBC crew just completely has melted down in disbelief on how stupid Jindall is. Or at least how he mentioned Katrina as a model.

I prefer to think it's the first one...

Okay, really, Bobby? Do you really want to keep bringing up Katrina as a good thing for the Republicans? Did you think that one through?

I thought Governor Barbour did a good job, However I dont think there's anything in Louisiana that can be termed a success after that disaster...

It's a pet project that benefits a very small portion of the country at a very high cost.

A trans-continental high speed train? Sure, that sounds pretty epic! But one serving such a small percentage? No.

It connects the second most populace city, and a transportation hub for the west, and a massive global destination to the 28th and also one of the biggest destinations in the country. This isn't a bridge from Podunk to Bumfuck, it's a connecting conduit to two major revenue generating cities and something that can be expanded and attached over time to national rail.

No, he's bringing up Louisiana as a good thing for him and him only. He probably thinks this is "Gov. Jindall's response to the people of Louisiana about the Not-State-of-the-Union."

His first campaign speech of the 2012 election?

It also conveniently connects Nancy Pelosi's district to Harry Reid's state, so Republicans are using it as a symbol of things they don't like.

The hypothetical train, that is. Not his speech. The quote thing isn't working for me.

It also conveniently connects Nancy Pelosi's district to Harry Reid's state, so Republicans are using it as a symbol of things they don't like.

The hypothetical train, that is. Not his speech. The quote thing isn't working for me.
Nancy is the Rep for ebul librul San Francisco. She's my rep, dammit, you can't just hand her off to dirty SoCal...

His first campaign speech of the 2012 election?

Of course. See, the people obviously just want someone with dark skin. Just like the only reason people were supporting Hillary is her vagina, which is why Palin was such a boon for the ticket, what with having a vagina and all.

Wow, this guy just keeps saying the same damn thing. Democrats believe they should do work as your representatives and we believe you fuckers are on your own.

I also love that every time a Democrat gets in power, Republicans suddenly remember they're supposed to be fiscal conservatives.

The new definition of fiscal conservative is you throw trillions of dollars at projects you like, ie the ones that benefit a few, especialy if they involve blowing shit up, and oppose the ones you dont, especially if they involve helping anyone but the wealthiest 2%.

i am so looking forward to the battle between jindal and palin. fucking christ, the stupid will be epic!

i am so looking forward to the battle between jindal and palin. fucking christ, the stupid will be epic!

Moooooron Kombaaaat!

i am so looking forward to the battle between jindal and palin. fucking christ, the stupid will be epic!

You just made me really sad. :(

Nancy is the Rep for ebul librul San Francisco. She's my rep, dammit, you can't just hand her off to dirty SoCal...

Ah, true. The first time I heard about the non-existent train it was running from San Fran to Lost Wages. Probably because I heard it from someone who got it from Rush Limbaugh.

Well, it's still connecting <gasp> HOLLYWOOD to <shriek> LAS VEGAS. They could call it the Train of Moral Turpitude. Actually, you'd think conservatives would love it, all those Hollywood liberals would go bankrupt spending all their time in Vegas.

Moooooron Kombaaaat!Please, leave the fatalities in the rules, please!

Of course. See, the people obviously just want someone with dark skin. Just like the only reason people were supporting Hillary is her vagina, which is why Palin was such a boon for the ticket, what with having a vagina and all.

There's a bit when Kevin Smith talks about the trials and tribulations he went through during his brief tenure as screenwriter for the new one (prior to Superman Returns) where one of the producers who had been a producer on Batman (Burton) confided in him, "You know why the first Batman was so successful? Those henchmen with swords, they were real swordsman."

You can, in the back of your head, hear Brian the Dog's voice, "Swing and a miss."

Some people are comically incapable of actually recognizing what makes something successful.

Of course. See, the people obviously just want someone with dark skin. Just like the only reason people were supporting Hillary is her vagina, which is why Palin was such a boon for the ticket, what with having a vagina and all.

God damnit Joc, you just dont get it do you? The vagina of Palin was only not the winner of the election because of the ebil liberal media's liberal bias. Otherwise it would have been victorious and vanquished Obama.


Keep up.

Ah, true. The first time I heard about the non-existent train it was running from San Fran to Lost Wages. Probably because I heard it from someone who got it from Rush Limbaugh.

Well, it's still connecting <gasp> HOLLYWOOD to <shriek> LAS VEGAS. They could call it the Train of Moral Turpitude. Actually, you'd think conservatives would love it, all those Hollywood liberals would go bankrupt spending all their time in Vegas.

There's been a plan to connect San Francisco and LA with a high speed rail for a while. Most of the hang up is determining its path. You'd think that they'd go after that. But I guess they can't really paint that as going from Disneyland to Adult Disneyland. But at least it exists.

God damnit Joc, you just dont get it do you? The vagina of Palin was only not the winner of the election because of the ebil liberal media's liberal bias. Otherwise it would have been victorious and vanquished Obama.


Keep up.


Will you two stop!

You're making me celibate!

On Maher last night, he made a good point. For a large part of this country, the money is gone and our government is going broke.

Here's the rub. For 20 years, under Presidents from both parties, the average income in America hasn't gone up. However, a very small percentage of the population has prospered under those pro-corporate policies. Why is it so preposterous to say that when the bill the gigantic meal of the last 20 years comes in, it gets laid before the people who actually got food?

On Maher last night, he made a good point. For a large part of this country, the money is gone and our government is going broke.

Here's the rub. For 20 years, under Presidents from both parties, the average income in America hasn't gone up. However, a very small percentage of the population has prospered under those pro-corporate policies. Why is it so preposterous to say that when the bill the gigantic meal of the last 20 years comes in, it gets laid before the people who actually got food?

But...but...flaaaaaaaaaaaaaat taaaaaaaaaaaaaaaax

As an aside, I fucking hate Michael Steel. Have urban hip hop convey the parties messege? Yeah, thats what a bunch of inner city black kids want to hear about. Trickle Down economics and cutting social services.

My plan. Run up as much educational debt as I can. Then leave the country and never pay a dime in taxes or return of the loans.

There's been a plan to connect San Francisco and LA with a high speed rail for a while. Most of the hang up is determining its path. You'd think that they'd go after that. But I guess they can't really paint that as going from Disneyland to Adult Disneyland. But at least it exists.

But, but, but if they make a high-speed, up-to-date, high-tech railway, all the car companies will stop paying lobbyists to buy them stuff!

Wow, this preacher on the daily show just said Obama was a bisexual hitler pimp

Obama's speech was the best I've heard so far. It was clear, it was bold. He brought a whole box of gauntlets and flung them down before everyone -- the Republicans, the Democrats, them furriners, and the people -- including those good for nothing kids. I admire the audacity of his health care reform calls, and the gauntlet he flung at agribusiness.

I laughed my ass off at the standing ovations. Yes, Biden did look ready to clock Pelosi one if she didn't stay down and let him relax for two minutes. On the other hand, it was a good way to keep some of the older members from nodding off as they normally do. :D

And I also enjoyed the way the poor Republicans didn't know whether to sit or stand depending on what they feared more -- their party leaders or those cameras that kept panning the room. And Mitch McConnel, that scumbag, with his mouth pressed so tight it looked like a chicken's ass -- his discomfort was a joy to behold.

And the red/blue lines were freaking me out. So much for divisive politics, eh? The solid high positive of both lines is pretty symbolic of the public's desire to see something just get the fuck done already, and their willingness to give this president's policies a chance.

For some reason, I just don't like the way Gov Jindal talks. At all.
It's because he somehow manages to sound totally fake yet sincerely stupid at the same time. And he sounds like a stupid person talking down to smarter people.

Wow, this guy just keeps saying the same damn thing. Democrats believe they should do work as your representatives and we believe you fuckers are on your own.

When he said that, I was shouting at the tv, "You know one way for LA to save some money? Stop paying your salary. What do they need you for, if you think WE should be the ones digging ourselves out of this hole? If government can't do anything, then you can get the fuck out of that governor's mansion. Let the people who you think should be saving your state turn it into a school or a hospital or something, while you get your fake-goober ass a real job at Walmart."

But, but, but if they make a high-speed, up-to-date, high-tech railway, all the car companies will stop paying lobbyists to buy them stuff!

As if LA is going to get rid of cars anytime soon. If gas runs out there'll still be people in LA squeezing shop rags into funnels in the hopes of getting the last few feet out of their cars...

My plan. Run up as much educational debt as I can. Then leave the country and never pay a dime in taxes or return of the loans.

this sounds like a bad plan. you want to cash advance the credit cards for moving and living costs.

this sounds like a bad plan. you want to cash advance the credit cards for moving and living costs.
My banks been nothing but good to me. I will even pay back the unsubsidized loans. I wont pay back the subsidized loans.

My mayor (who is on MSNBC) is a pretty pretty man.

My mayor (who is on MSNBC) is a pretty pretty man.
yes he is!

he's like the anti-jindal he so dreamy and articulate.

sadly, there's a hockey game on. and hockey beats out speeches. Plus, I have no beer.

Yeah baby!

Politics: 345873498574724, Hockey: 2!

When he said that, I was shouting at the tv, "You know one way for LA to save some money? Stop paying your salary. What do they need you for, if you think WE should be the ones digging ourselves out of this hole? If government can't do anything, then you can get the fuck out of that governor's mansion. Let the people who you think should be saving your state turn it into a school or a hospital or something, while you get your fake-goober ass a real job at Walmart."

DOn't sugarcoat it. Tell him what you really think. ;)

Nah. My interest is currently on the plane crash near Amsterdam, with 9 deaths, 25 seriously wounded and a number of less serious injuries.

A bit odd NSG seems to be ignoring that.

Probably my favorite moment was his educational topic. Basically calling on every American to committing to one year of higher education and basically telling kids if they drop out of high school, they're bad Americans is harsh, but awesome.

ANd saying "Go back to school of the terrorists win" certainly beats the hell out of "Buy shit or the terrorists win" like we had in late 2001-early 2002.

Probably my favorite moment was his educational topic. Basically calling on every American to committing to one year of higher education and basically telling kids if they drop out of high school, they're bad Americans is harsh, but awesome.

ANd saying "Go back to school of the terrorists win" certainly beats the hell out of "Buy shit or the terrorists win" like we had in late 2001-early 2002.
yeah i wonder if "why do you hate america?" will have more chance of getting a kid to stay in school or do his homework.

but i liked the idea and the crowd seemed to love it.

Nah. My interest is currently on the plane crash near Amsterdam, with 9 deaths, 25 seriously wounded and a number of less serious injuries.

A bit odd NSG seems to be ignoring that.

Didn't happen in the US or UK. Sorry mate. :(

Didn't happen in the US or UK. Sorry mate. :(

True. But it has been the main story on the BBC and CNN websites all day nevertheless.
Then again, more people die in traffic.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/02/25/turkish.plane.amsterdam/index.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7909683.stm

obama's got the video and transcript up on the whitehouse blog
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/02/24/The-Presidents-address-Excerpt/

Nah. My interest is currently on the plane crash near Amsterdam, with 9 deaths, 25 seriously wounded and a number of less serious injuries.

A bit odd NSG seems to be ignoring that.

That doesn't really affect me though

i miss live-NSGing things

edit: i got you this link to the video and text. don't say i never did anything for you.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/02/24/The-Presidents-address-Excerpt/

There was a speech there? All I saw was everyone hugging and kissing King Barack I.

True. But it has been the main story on the BBC and CNN websites all day nevertheless.
Then again, more people die in traffic.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/02/25/turkish.plane.amsterdam/index.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7909683.stm
ive never seen the point of having threads on news stories like that. its not like there is anything to debate.

the plane crashed. many people survived. the pilot must have done something right. do you really need a bunch of "oh isnt that tragic!" posts?

It's because he somehow manages to sound totally fake yet sincerely stupid at the same time. And he sounds like a stupid person talking down to smarter people.
I loved Rachel Maddow's reaction to Jindal: a Republican, from Louisiana yet, bringing up the handling of Katrina as an example? I am speechless, I literally cannot do the job I am paid to do, I cannot make commentary on this...

There was a speech there? All I saw was everyone hugging and kissing King Barack I.

Dk?

Dk?

the next incarnation!

I watched the whole speech though (sidenote: making a 50 minute speech must be exhausting) and was very impressed. Eloquent as usual, though still looking significantly more tired than he did before, Obama did a great job laying out the issues that need to be faced.

I was very much unimpressed. Disgusted might be a better word.

"That’s what this is about. It’s not about helping banks – it’s about helping people. Because when credit is available again, that young family can finally buy a new home. And then some company will hire workers to build it. And then those workers will have money to spend, and if they can get a loan too, maybe they’ll finally buy that car, or open their own business. Investors will return to the market, and American families will see their retirement secured once more. Slowly, but surely, confidence will return, and our economy will recover."

I am extremely disappointed to hear President Obama say decisively that the current economic problems of America can be fixed by having the government force (or entice) banks to make loans. He even used as his example of the path to prosperity making sure a family unable to afford a home can get a loan to buy one. The entire financial crisis is based upon banks giving out loans--specifically, home loans--to people that they shouldn't have, especially by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and at the Congress's behest. (The problem with the "credit crisis" is not liquidity; the banks have money, and the initial rescue package forcibly confirmed as much. Giving them money will not cause them to lend more. Only time, the chance to construct new risk-assessment formulae, and the stability of a government not constantly juggling the rules pertaining to securities, investments, and the outstanding "toxic" assets can give bankers the confidence to resume mortgage lending, and even then housing credit should never approach the leniency that got us into this mess.)

"Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs. More than 90% of these jobs will be in the private sector – jobs rebuilding our roads and bridges; constructing wind turbines and solar panels; laying broadband and expanding mass transit."

I am disappointed that President Obama pretends the stimulus package will create real jobs, giving as examples the construction of roads, bridges, and wind farms. Of course, roads, bridges, and wind farms do not generate money of themselves, and thus do not create jobs--rather, they require regular government funding to maintain. The stimulus package doesn't create jobs. It hires contractors dependent on government funds. Only if the stimulus is permanent (that is, if we issue such a stimulus every year) will such jobs be permanent.

The 3.5 million jobs he claims will be created by the stimulus package are dependent on continued government contracts--they are not sustainable jobs that will begin creating wealth that the government can then tax to pay for other things. No, all of these 3.5 million government jobs will supposedly be funded by taxing real wealth creators, the top 2% of American income earners. Of course, when we lose those income-earners by chasing them away, draining their assets, and destroying their businesses, we'll have to find some other way to fund all these government contracts, lest we want to be responsible for putting 3.5 million individuals out of work.

"So I ask this Congress to send me legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in America. And to support that innovation, we will invest fifteen billion dollars a year to develop technologies like wind power and solar power; advanced biofuels, clean coal, and more fuel-efficient cars and trucks built right here in America."

I am disturbed at the doublespeak behind President Obama's cap-and-trade scheme. He calls it a market-driven approach to ensuring clean energy. In fact, it inverses the market by making it profitable (due to government subsidy) to run companies at a loss, while punishing (through energy taxes) companies that actually make money. And the most ridiculous part of the equation is that the scheme depends on looting the resources of the companies it is discouraging--anything that emits carbon dioxide, in this case--in order to fund companies that cannot survive without these subsidies. When the de facto carbon tax actually achieves its goal of driving all carbon-producing operations out of business, the source of money to pay for the "clean" corporations dries up. The looters will have to look for other income-earning businesses upon which to impose taxes in order to continue funding their unprofitable energy sinkholes.

Also, what happened to his promises to build new nuclear power plants to supplement or replace our obsolete plants from the seventies? Another political stand conveniently made during debates on the campaign trail seems to have been forgotten after election night. Nuclear power is one of the few clean energies that actually attracts private investment and pays for itself rather than being dependent on government subsidy, but fear-mongering anti-science "environmentalists" within the Democratic party continue to oppose nuclear power at all costs (or rather, in spite of all the costs of the alternatives). So we'll end up with unreliable wind farms paid for and maintained entirely by government subsidy, while unable to consistently provide power as needed and actually losing money in terms of electricity prices for electricity produced versus the ongoing costs of construction and maintenance, not to mention the opportunity costs resulting from the land, material, and capital wasted on such projects instead of being spent on something--anything--actually productive.

"In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will also end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. But let me perfectly clear, because I know you’ll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime. In fact, the recovery plan provides a tax cut – that’s right, a tax cut – for 95% of working families. And these checks are on the way."

President Obama, unsurprisingly, is effecting the tax increase he denied on the campaign trail that he would ever impose (even as "nonpartisan" fact-checking sites attacked John McCain as a liar for suggesting Obama was planning to raise taxes de facto by repealing Bush's tax cuts). Just as in the carbon cap-and-trade scheme, he plans to tax those who earn money (in this case, anyone earning over $250,000) in order to subsidize those who do not contribute to the government's funds.

The repeated assurances that most voters won't be sacrificed to pay for this scheme ignores the public's discomfort with the concept: i.e., that the government is entitled to disproportionately violate the property rights of certain American citizens so long as those so violated are in the minority. This sort of social cannibalism is not logically sustainable--gutting the productive to provide for the nonproductive will ultimately leave you a world with nonproductive citizens and no producers left to gut (although realistically, Republicans will come back into power in 2010, at least until the Democrats kick them out, and we'll keep wavering on a cycle of production and distribution, hopefully ad nauseam, rather than destroying ourselves).

"My administration has also begun to go line by line through the federal budget in order to eliminate wasteful and ineffective programs. As you can imagine, this is a process that will take some time. But we’re starting with the biggest lines. We have already identified two trillion dollars in savings over the next decade."

How much has the government spent or promised to spend since the onset of the financial crisis? The answer of course, is measured in trillions, over the course of mere months. But don't worry, President Obama says he can save us 200 billion dollars a year (which, if he's serious, is still 20 billion dollars short of the most optimistic estimates of the annual cost of the nationalized universal healthcare entitlement which he has demanded that congress enact by the end of the year).

"We will root out the waste, fraud, and abuse in our Medicare program that doesn’t make our seniors any healthier, and we will restore a sense of fairness and balance to our tax code by finally ending the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas."

Of course, what President Obama means is that he'll raise taxes on international companies (there are no tax breaks that specifically target companies based on their having overseas branches). Taken at face value, this translates into an added tax for all companies in America that also hire internationally: PepsiCo, Honda, Microsoft, Ikea, et al. A noble concept in his mind, I suppose, but laughable in application, in that it will merely encourage businesses to go the rest of the way and move completely overseas. Why stay in a country that taxes your business more than the next guy's just because you have a factory in India? You're better off moving your headquarters there too. (Or, if they stay, they'll hire less employees or reduce wages in order to offset the increased tax burden... which isn't any better for America than letting the companies ship jobs overseas; it's worse, in fact, because it will result in a global decline in production in addition to reduced American employment and/or standard of living.)

I'm afraid that I am becoming, in President Obama's own words, "cynical and doubtful." But he should think twice before condemning those opposed to his proposals as "consumed with the petty and trivial." These issues are neither petty nor trivial. They address the future of the American economy, and whether the government will define itself in the role of encouraging growth and production, or of destroying wealth to reward favored nonproducers, a role that would ultimately lead not only the the American economy's stagnation but its elimination.

Edit: Also, the automobile was invented in Germany, not America.

Edit: Also, the automobile was invented in Germany, not America.
But assembly-line mass-production of automobiles was our idea.

I was very much unimpressed. Disgusted might be a better word.



I am extremely disappointed to hear President Obama say decisively that the current economic problems of America can be fixed by having the government force (or entice) banks to make loans. He even used as his example of the path to prosperity making sure a family unable to afford a home can get a loan to buy one.

Unable to afford the home? You're right. Obama's speeches are much more offensive when you make shit up that he didn't say.

Now, saying that a family should be able to get a loan to buy a home isn't offensive, because that's what home loans are for.

And apparently, roads and infrastructure cost money, but don't use people to work on them. That's odd. I mean, I worked for a company division completely employed in the upkeep of infrastructure. I guess I'll have to let them know they don't actually have jobs.

*snip a ton of inane crap*
Seriously, that's all wrong and your standard neocon propaganda bullshit.

Unable to afford the home? You're right. Obama's speeches are much more offensive when you make shit up that he didn't say.

Now, saying that a family should be able to get a loan to buy a home isn't offensive, because that's what home loans are for.

So you agree with the president that we need to make the banks give out more loans than they're willing to give right now. This would require creating incentives or enacting directives to encourage loan-giving from the banks, beyond the mere monetary incentive of the market. In other words, we should make banks give out loans even if they're not profitable.

You really should take a closer look at the origins of the credit crisis. What you're calling for is a replica of what started this mess.

And apparently, roads and infrastructure cost money, but don't use people to work on them. That's odd. I mean, I worked for a company division completely employed in the upkeep of infrastructure. I guess I'll have to let them know they don't actually have jobs.

I never said they don't require people to work on them. But these jobs are merely government contracts. They do not produce wealth, they do not increase tax revenues, they do not expand and create independent jobs in the private sector. Yes, you'll temporarily reduce unemployment, but it's not sustainable. These jobs are dependent on continued government contracts, so unless there's a stimulus bill of this magnitude every year, these new jobs will just dry up.

So you agree with the president that we need to make the banks give out more loans than they're willing to give right now. This would require creating incentives or enacting directives to encourage loan-giving from the banks, beyond the mere monetary incentive of the market. In other words, we should make banks give out loans even if they're not profitable.

You really should take a closer look at the origins of the credit crisis. What you're calling for is a replica of what started this mess.

um, yeah. it isn't the profitability of new private loans that has frozen the credit market.

I never said they don't require people to work on them. But these jobs are merely government contracts. They do not produce wealth, they do not increase tax revenues, they do not expand and create independent jobs in the private sector. Yes, you'll temporarily reduce unemployment, but it's not sustainable. These jobs are dependent on continued government contracts, so unless there's a stimulus bill of this magnitude every year, these new jobs will just dry up.

haha

So you agree with the president that we need to make the banks give out more loans than they're willing to give right now. This would require creating incentives or enacting directives to encourage loan-giving from the banks, beyond the mere monetary incentive of the market. In other words, we should make banks give out loans even if they're not profitable.

You really should take a closer look at the origins of the credit crisis. What you're calling for is a replica of what started this mess.

He's talking about forcing the market to move when credit worries have frozen it. It's the task of the government to protect our economy.

I did. In fact, I don't even have to lie about what he said in order to examine the origins. He's talking about forcing them to give manageable loans to people who can afford them.

The cause of this crisis was due to lending to people who couldn't repay it. It was also due to deregulation. It was also due to predation and speculative borrowing. This isn't any of those things. Obama's plan is danger of becoming that problem like an elderly person in depends is in danger of becoming a toddler.

I never said they don't require people to work on them. But these jobs are merely government contracts. They do not produce wealth, they do not increase tax revenues, they do not expand and create independent jobs in the private sector. Yes, you'll temporarily reduce unemployment, but it's not sustainable. These jobs are dependent on continued government contracts, so unless there's a stimulus bill of this magnitude every year, these new jobs will just dry up.

Uh, what? Government contracts don't produce wealth? I'll let my former coworkers know that as well. It's interesting that you believe that these companies are doing work that has not monetary benefit to them after you earlier assertions.

Changing from the current sub-par state of affairs that resulted in several terrible tragedies in the last two decades to a regular upkeep will not only create jobs, but save us money. Preventive maintenance is actually CHEAPER than corrective maintenance. The new jobs won't dry up because the infrastructure they're fixing will have to keep being fixed, and the new infrastructure they'll be creating will need upkeep.

On top of that, the people who get those jobs will have money to spend. In spending money, they will create jobs. And so on. You do know how economics works, yeah?

um, yeah. it isn't the profitability of new private loans that has frozen the credit market.



haha

I love the part where he says that government contracts don't create wealth. One wonders how I got the money to start my own business, given that my only income prior to that was from government contracts. In fact, a government contract I'm on right now is creating a fairly incredible amount of wealth for me right now.

The cause of this crisis was due to lending to people who couldn't repay it. It was also due to deregulation. It was also due to predation and speculative borrowing. This isn't any of those things. Obama's plan is danger of becoming that problem like an elderly person in depends is in danger of becoming a toddler.

You're completely ignoring congressional involvement in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. For the sake of the poor Americans who could not afford to buy homes unless they received loans, congressional oversight directly encouraged the mortgage loans that ultimately defaulted.

You seem to believe that the politicians who crafted the stimulus package will be better able to discern which individuals will ultimately be capable of repaying a loan better than the bank owners themselves. Do you really believe that politicians in Washington understand how to make profit from banking better than bankers?

I guess I can't argue with that, if that's seriously the way you perceive the world.

The new jobs won't dry up because the infrastructure they're fixing will have to keep being fixed, and the new infrastructure they'll be creating will need upkeep.

Please reread what you're writing. You're saying that the new jobs created by the stimulus package, such as building roads, will incur even more costs down the line because we'll need to keep paying to maintain these roads. So anything we pay for with this one-time stimulus package, we'll have to keep paying for every year, forever.

You definitely understand what I mean when I say these jobs will dry up if they're not funded every year with similar "stimulus packages."

On top of that, the people who get those jobs will have money to spend. In spending money, they will create jobs. And so on. You do know how economics works, yeah?

Were you paying attention when Bush tried his stimulus package? It was a useful experiment, if only to show that injecting spending money into the economy does not result in long-term sustainable growth. Further, none of the people hired by the stimulus are going to be paying more in taxes than the stimulus is going to be paying them, so unlike Bush's across-the-board stimulus checks, this stimulus won't even provide a temporary increase in tax revenue.

Consider the following:

1) We collect money for the stimulus by taxing a fraction of income of a fraction of the populace.

2) We use the stimulus package to hire contractors to construct and maintain roads and wind farms. The stimulus package pays the contractor's salaries. The contractors do not earn money selling products--the roads are public access, and the wind farms operate at a loss except for their government subsidies, also paid for by the stimulus package.

3) Some of the contractors might actually earn enough to be taxed. This money goes back to the government, but it is necessarily only a minute portion of what was given out in salaries.

Yes, some people will have money that they otherwise wouldn't. And they will spend this money, increasing the profits of certain non-government businesses which can then be taxed. But again, only a percentage of what a business earns is taxed. Assuming they're paying corporate taxes of about 30%, and that stimulus money "trickled up" from government-hired contractors to make up the unbelievably optimistic tune of about 50% of the company profits, then you've got only 15% of the stimulus package coming back to the government in the form of tax revenue. And we know that the government isn't hiring anywhere near half of all Americans, so few companies will be receiving 50% of their profits from stimulus-hired employees, so getting back even 15% of the initial investment is ridiculously optimistic.

Furthermore, the stimulus is affecting the job market by encouraging growth in the industries it is stimulating... in this case, in the industries that build and maintain roads, bridges, and windfarms. In other words, it's attracting manpower and resources from other industries, industries that would earn profit on their own, and consequently earn tax revenue for the government. So not only does the stimulus pour money into stimulating industries that will not return money in the form of tax revenues, but it discourages expansion in the industries that actually do produce tax revenue.

That's what I mean when I say that these government contract jobs will not themselves create wealth. They merely drain and rearrange it.

The whole situation is just a recipe for government bankruptcy.

You're completely ignoring congressional involvement in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. For the sake of the poor Americans who could not afford to buy homes unless they received loans, congressional oversight directly encouraged the mortgage loans that ultimately defaulted.

that isn't actually what happened

that isn't actually what happened

Shhhhh... stop injecting reality.

Not to meantion the fact, I didn't ignore anything. I just don't focus on one cause and forsake all others. Perhaps it's because I don't chose a position and then choose my evidence, but rather the proper way around. Our friend quite obviously started with the position Obama is wrong and is ignoring all evidence to the contrary. In fact, our friend has already been caught making things up out of thin air.

Please reread what you're writing. You're saying that the new jobs created by the stimulus package, such as building roads, will incur even more costs down the line because we'll need to keep paying to maintain these roads. So anything we pay for with this one-time stimulus package, we'll have to keep paying for every year, forever.

You definitely understand what I mean when I say these jobs will dry up if they're not funded every year with similar "stimulus packages."

Quick question, which costs more, preventive maintenance or corrective maintenance? I already gave you the answer, but I'll let you show that you actually read it.

In other words, properly upkept infrastructure costs less. Where is the reduced cost? Materials. The labor is actually about the same. If you'd like I can actually show you some demonstrable examples actually dealing with the infrastructure of our nation.

In short, people do work, our infrastructure works better, and it costs less. Want to test my theory, don't change your oil. Add one hour of labor every three months for the oil changes you didn't do, and keep adding that up until your engine is destroyed. Then compare the cost of replacing your engine. You'll see the labor is pretty close, but a year or two of oil changes costs much less in materials. That's an easy one, but we can do roads if you like. I'll call an engineer and get a copy of one our proposals.

In fact, our friend has already been caught making things up out of thin air.

You're referring to my saying that President Obama was suggesting that we should encourage banks to give loans to those who can't otherwise afford a home? I think you're just misinterpreting my words. When I said they couldn't afford a home, I didn't mean they couldn't afford to pay their home loans--I literally meant they could not afford to pay the up front cost of a new home, and thus turned to a bank for a loan. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

You're referring to my saying that President Obama was suggesting that we should encourage banks to give loans to those who can't otherwise afford a home? I think you're just misinterpreting my words. When I said they couldn't afford a home, I didn't mean they couldn't afford to pay their home loans--I literally meant they could not afford to pay the up front cost of a new home, and thus turned to a bank for a loan. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Hmmm... am I?

Let's let your words speak for themselves...

"He even used as his example of the path to prosperity making sure a family unable to afford a home can get a loan to buy one."

The question is easy. Are you lying or did he actually use an as example, making sure a family unable to afford a home can get a loan to buy one? It's easy enough to check. Can you quote the example used by the President? I'll wait.

Quick question, which costs more, preventive maintenance or corrective maintenance? I already gave you the answer, but I'll let you show that you actually read it.

The maintenance of existing roads should be covered under the normal state and federal budgets, notin a one-time stimulus package intended to deal with a recession and credit crisis.

The maintenance of existing roads should be covered under the normal state and federal budgets, notin a one-time stimulus package intended to deal with a recession and credit crisis.

But, due to the aforementioned credit crisis and recession, the Federal and State budgets dont have the funds to maintain the existing roads...

So, how else are you going to get them the money to do so, except with a Stimulus Package that will enable them to have the money to get their budgets in order?

The maintenance of existing roads should be covered under the normal state and federal budgets, notin a one-time stimulus package intended to deal with a recession and credit crisis.

Except it isn't. The US government has been supplementing it for a long time and with good reason. The interstates are *gasp* called interstates because they do exactly that. The states do the work, but the US government gives them money to help them cover roads that fall under US jurisdiction.

I love how now you're abandoning your earlier arguments. A breakdown of infrastructure DOES affect the economy. We need the infrastructure to support our economy. Travel is a necessary part of our services. On top of that, as I pointed out it creates jobs and wealth. Something you denied absent the very real evidence.

But, due to the aforementioned credit crisis and recession, the Federal and State budgets dont have the funds to maintain the existing roads...

So, how else are you going to get them the money to do so, except with a Stimulus Package that will enable them to have the money to get their budgets in order?

The states haven't had the money for some time. The government promised to help them more than they did and after the damage was too far for the states to handle, they stopped supporting them properly, abandoning them for other pet projects, like the Iraq War. States are supposed to get help from the feds to cover interstate roads and other landmarks that are considered to have national relevance like railroads and waterways.

Except it isn't. The US government has been supplementing it for a long time and with good reason. The interstates are *gasp* called interstates because they do exactly that. The states do the work, but the US government gives them money to help them cover roads that fall under US jurisdiction.

I love how now you're abandoning your earlier arguments. A breakdown of infrastructure DOES affect the economy. We need the infrastructure to support our economy. Travel is a necessary part of our services. On top of that, as I pointed out it creates jobs and wealth. Something you denied absent the very real evidence.

the interstates are considered state properties if you will notice the highway patrolman are all state officers.
The federal government gives states money for the interstates because they have found it a nice way to influence state laws such as the drinking age and BAC thresholds by threatening to cut off part of the funding.

Dk?

the next incarnation!

Actually, I didn't see any of the speech. I just saw some stuff before it, which DID kinda look like what I described. :D

And I am not DK. :(

The question is easy. Are you lying or did he actually use an as example, making sure a family unable to afford a home can get a loan to buy one? It's easy enough to check. Can you quote the example used by the President? I'll wait.

Here you go:

It’s not about helping banks – it’s about helping people. Because when credit is available again, that young family can finally buy a new home.

The young family needs available credit to buy a new home. If they could afford its asking cost upfront, now why would they need a loan?

Of all the things you could address from my original response to the speech, this seems the most trivial.

The young family needs available credit to buy a new home. If they could afford its asking cost upfront, now why would they need a loan?

Of all the things you could address from my original response to the speech, this seems the most trivial.

So, unless a family has $100000 or so, just laying around somewhere...They should just stay in a small apartment or something?

Where are you going with this?

The young family needs available credit to buy a new home. If they could afford its asking cost upfront, now why would they need a loan?

Of all the things you could address from my original response to the speech, this seems the most trivial.

wait, you think... holy shit dude. just, wow...

the interstates are considered state properties if you will notice the highway patrolman are all state officers.
The federal government gives states money for the interstates because they have found it a nice way to influence state laws such as the drinking age and BAC thresholds by threatening to cut off part of the funding.

Um, I didn't say there were federal property. I said they are relevant to interestate trade and cross borders. That's why the federal government supports them and makes laws like a universal requirement of having a speed limit, for example.

Interstate travel is fully under the jurisdiction of the US and they certainly have the right and authority to butt into the conversation about things that affect that travel. And they have a responsibility to pay for that privelege, which the last adminstration did not really do. State DOTs have been spinning their wheels just trying to keep the roads in a good enough state to get by and hoping the economy would recover. It didn't and now they can't go on without help. Much like a great deal of the public.

Here you go:



The young family needs available credit to buy a new home. If they could afford its asking cost upfront, now why would they need a loan?

Of all the things you could address from my original response to the speech, this seems the most trivial.

Lookout everyone, for you may be hitting by fast moving goalposts. Now, you don't mean they can't afford the loan, but that they can't afford the home without borrowing money? Honestly, do you even understand what credit is for?

No, I'm not saying loans are bad. I'm just correcting Jocabia, who for some reason didn't believe that the President said that families need loans to buy homes, or perhaps just took issue with the way I worded it.

What I'm saying is bad is government involvement that would change the rules to force bankers to lend, even against their own interests. And as soon as politicians start deciding who the banks should lend to, the rules are superceding the bank's own interests.

But, due to the aforementioned credit crisis and recession, the Federal and State budgets dont have the funds to maintain the existing roads...

So, how else are you going to get them the money to do so, except with a Stimulus Package that will enable them to have the money to get their budgets in order?

Not all the states mismanaged their own budgets so horribly that they went into debt. Those that did, such as Wisconsin and California, cannot blame their debt on the recession, as they were already in debt before the crisis affected the economy. If state highways are underfunded, perhaps the states in question should consider balancing their budgets so that they can afford to maintain them. If we reward the states that failed their taxpayers by mismanaging their funding and going into debt, we're just throwing good money after bad.

And state governments are not using the stimulus package to address one-time costs. They're integrating it into their existing state budgets and using it to increase funding for other projects. They are in effect adding to the state spending burden. So when next year's budget rolls around, they'll need another stimulus bill to pay for the things on which they commit this one.

Alright, we've gotten to the point where you chuckles are just ignoring what I've said, or asking me to repeat or rephrase things from my original post, or from post #161 (where I address the mistaken notion that government jobs create wealth). But no worries, reasonable people can disagree, and I see that some of you disagree with conventional economic wisdom. Since there's nothing Republicans can do to stop the plans that Pelosi and Obama wish to set into motion, we'll see first hand the results of President Obama's new deal, no matter our differences on the Internet, lol

Careful, there go the goalposts again.

So let's be clear. Are you claiming the President used an example of a family that cannot afford a home or were you lying when you said that?

Also, it is not mismanaging your budget to expect the government to not take a way a fairly large workforce (the national guard) from the support they are supposed to provide. It's not mismanagement to expect the feds to meet their burden and to uphold their promises. I know you're just going to pretend that didn't happen and keep talking, but the fact is that they pulled the rug out using all kinds of excuses, mixing all kinds of issues, and basically saved themselves money by screwing the states.

Is it mismanaging your budget if I as your employer promise you a bonus, tell you how much it is, tell you'll receive in on Dec 20th and then you budget as if that will happen?

The President did use, as an example of the need for a restoration of credit flow, a family that could not afford a home. I have given you the quote from his address. How you can continue to perceive this as a lie is beyond my ken.

All I can say is that I appreciate your OotS user pic.

The President did use, as an example of the need for a restoration of credit flow, a family that could not afford a home. I have given you the quote from his address. How you can continue to perceive this as a lie is beyond my ken.

All I can say is that I appreciate your OotS user pic.

Um, here is the quote.

"It’s not about helping banks – it’s about helping people. Because when credit is available again, that young family can finally buy a new home."

Where does it say that they cannot afford that home? I must have missed it in this rather simple statement.

Unsurprisingly, when you say that someone said something and then upon providing the quote they actually didn't say anything like that, I consider that lying. Crazy, I know.

This is silly.

Look, if you can't extrapolate the knowledge that the family can't buy a new home without credit from the statement "when credit is available again, that young family can finally buy a new home" then I question whether you can understand any of the other things I've written here. Believe me, it says that. You worked for the government, I'll grant you that, if you'll grant me the fact that I have earned a sadly unemployable degree in English.

I suspect that you're just choosing to be petty and trivial in order to draw attention away from the meat of my opposition to the policies outlined in President Obama's congressional address.

This is silly.

Look, if you can't extrapolate the knowledge that the family can't buy a new home without credit from the statement "when credit is available again, that young family can finally buy a new home" then I question whether you can understand any of the other things I've written here. Believe me, it says that. You worked for the government, I'll grant you that, if you'll grant me the fact that I have earned a sadly unemployable degree in English.

I suspect that you're just choosing to be petty and trivial in order to draw attention away from the meat of my opposition to the policies outlined in President Obama's congressional address.

Credit doesn't mean you cannot afford something. It means you don't have liquid assets available. By your definition, about 99% American businesses can't afford to survive.

So you're claiming to have a degree in English and you don't know what affording a home doesn't imply "without the need for a home loan".

So let's get this straight, you're upset that Obama is forcing banks to give home loans to people who cannot afford homes, when the only reason for a home loan is because you can't afford the home? Honestly? That's what you're going with?

You're correct it's silly. I suspect that you and everyone reading your posts would disagree on why it's silly, however.

This is silly.

Look, if you can't extrapolate the knowledge that the family can't buy a new home without credit from the statement "when credit is available again, that young family can finally buy a new home" then I question whether you can understand any of the other things I've written here. Believe me, it says that. You worked for the government, I'll grant you that, if you'll grant me the fact that I have earned a sadly unemployable degree in English.

I suspect that you're just choosing to be petty and trivial in order to draw attention away from the meat of my opposition to the policies outlined in President Obama's congressional address.

You're suggesting that anybody that can't lay down payment in full on a new home can't afford one.

You're suggesting that anybody that can't lay down payment in full on a new home can't afford one.

Is it a bad sign when LG thinks someone is being a bit silly?

Is it a bad sign when LG thinks someone is being a bit silly?

I can smell my own kind. :)

I can smell my own kind. :)

Have you notice the similarity in our avatars, speaking of own kind. Also, I think I have mud in my butt crack. Don't ask me to explain why.

Have you notice the similarity in our avatars, speaking of own kind. Also, I think I have mud in my butt crack. Don't ask me to explain why.

I have indeed. In fact, I think I commented on it in another thread.

As for the mud in your buttcrack, yay! It does have the ability to work it's way into the most interesting bodily crevices, doesn't it?

As for the why, you must decide whether the story will add to or take away from the image of mud in your butt. It's your call. :)

My exact words were: "He even used as his example of the path to prosperity making sure a family unable to afford a home can get a loan to buy one." I did not intend to imply that the family could not afford to pay their loan, merely that they needed the loan to buy the house in the first place.

Friend, it was a matter of phrasing. I never said Obama wanted to force people into loans that they couldn't afford. He wants to ensure that people can get loans so they can afford homes that they otherwise can not afford. Understand that?

That said, the very nature of forcing banks to give loans to people without regard to the bank's financial interests is indeed going to result in giving loans to people who truly cannot afford to repay their loans. But I never intended to say that Obama himself said that, and implying as much is a lie.

I am indeed upset that Obama is forcing banks to act without their interests in mind. As I said in my very first post (and here I'll note that we're running in circles again because you chose to misinterpret me) the government encouraging banks to give loans is exactly what ignited this credit crisis, in the forms of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac.

Of course, the crisis is deeper than congressional interference with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (mistaken risk-assessment formulae in regards to housing prices and mark-to-market rules also played important roles), but to ignore that congressional involvement is to ignore a crucial element of the entire housing crash, and dangerously so. We should not repeat the same mistakes.

What I'd like to know is this: How is President Obama going to force banks to provide easier credit, but only to people who will not default on their loans? What magic formula does he have that lets banks assess risk more accurately than any formula that the actual bankers and risk-takers can develop on their own? We already know that the problem is not a lack of liquidity--the banks have money to lend.

You're suggesting that anybody that can't lay down payment in full on a new home can't afford one.

I meant that literally, that they could not afford to purchase the home without a loan. I did not say or imply that they could not afford to maintain the home or eventually pay off the mortgage debt of any loans taken out to purchase the home. If I did come across as implying as much, I apologize, and I'm grateful for this opportunity to correct myself.

I meant that literally, that they could not afford to purchase the home without a loan. I did not say or imply that they could not afford to maintain the home or eventually pay off the mortgage debt of any loans taken out to purchase the home.

Do you think it's in the best interests of banks to refuse to give loans to people who can afford the loans because they are deep in debt due to unwise investments when such refusal will mean a deepening of the recession, or do you think the federal government in return for helping these banks handle their inept debt load has a vested interest in making sure these banks help the country in return by easing the recession through responsible lending?

Do you think it's in the best interests of banks to refuse to give loans to people who can afford the loans because they are deep in debt due to unwise investments when such refusal will mean a deepening of the recession, or do you think the federal government in return for helping these banks handle their inept debt load has a vested interest in making sure these banks help the country in return by easing the recession through responsible lending?

Until I see the mechanism by which President Obama plans to force banks to make loans, I cannot say whether it will be superior or inferior to taking measures to stabilize the market by keeping laws consistent and allowing time for banks to reassess their strategies. Most economists agree that, if we take no government action, we will eventually recover from the recession. The question is whether government action will prolong the recession or reduce it. So far, I'm of the opinion that the measures proposed by President Obama in the congressional address will only prolong the recession.

Until I see the mechanism by which President Obama plans to force banks to make loans, I cannot say whether it will be superior or inferior to taking measures to stabilize the market by keeping laws consistent and allowing time for banks to reassess their strategies. Most economists agree that, if we take no government action, we will eventually recover from the recession. The question is whether government action will prolong the recession or reduce it. So far, I'm of the opinion that the measures proposed by President Obama in the congressional address will only prolong the recession.

'We' will eventually recover from the recession? I'm sure that will provide great comfort to those that lost their jobs because their companies could not make payroll due to the credit crunch and can no longer afford their houses due to losing their jobs. How many good people will suffer during this recession? My opinion is that waiting it out is not a solution. Letting the private sector work itself out is not a solution. The people who suggest it is aren't laid off and facing foreclosure. The government has a vested interest in helping it's citizens. The banks became partners willing or not in this the moment they accepted money from the first government bailout. You don't like Obama's plan? That's fine but take some comfort in knowing that:

A) He's a very intelligent man and unlike the prior administration, isn't going to commit to a plan that's failing. If it's not working, he'll try something else. and

B) Nobody has a reasonable alternative.

A) He's a very intelligent man and unlike the prior administration, isn't going to commit to a plan that's failing. If it's not working, he'll try something else.

I sure hope you're right, but given his and Nancy Pelosi's rejection of economic theory thus far, I'm not holding my breath. If he were really that intelligent and free of party ideology, he'd realize that Japan tried the stimulate-the-economy-through-infrastructure-projects course for years, and it only prolonged their recession. This isn't the time for trial-and-error when we have already seen and can deduce the results of our planned course of action.

And there's always a reasonable alternative.

What I'm saying is bad is government involvement that would change the rules to force bankers to lend, even against their own interests. And as soon as politicians start deciding who the banks should lend to, the rules are superceding the bank's own interests.l

Because the banks interests and the countries interests are always exactly the same...

...wait, what?

My exact words were: "He even used as his example of the path to prosperity making sure a family unable to afford a home can get a loan to buy one." I did not intend to imply that the family could not afford to pay their loan, merely that they needed the loan to buy the house in the first place.

And what, pray tell, do you think home loans are for, if not to provide the capital to purchase a house when you don't have it readily available?

I just want to get this clear. So you're pissed that Obama is making loans available to people who can afford to pay them back and need them to purchase homes?

Come on. You really expect us to ignore that you then went on a tirade about how lending money to people who couldn't pay it back got us into this mess? Seriously, we're mostly educated people. We know that paragraphs contain related sentences, a flow of information. You're asking us to ignore the evidence because your comment was a bold-faced lie and you got caught. Sorry, bub, but we're not buying what you're selling.

Because the banks interests and the countries interests are always exactly the same...

...wait, what?

Are they exactly the same? No. But the bank's interests and the country's interests do coincide.

The bank's goal is profit. It only gets profit on a loan if the debtor can pay back the loan and its interest. Thus, it is in the best interest of the bank to only loan to those who will have the means to pay back said loan. If the banks only make responsible loans, then responsible people will be able to expand their businesses and families. If banks are forced to make irresponsible loans against their best interest, they will continue to lose money on their investments, and their investments are everyone's investments, especially savings and retirement accounts. If the banks go under, so does everyone who doesn't keep all their money in their mattress.

Right now, the system is not set up in the best interest of the banks, due to mark-to-market accounting, mistaken ideas about property values, and other factors.

For example, current lending practice forbids banks from pursuing debtors for the remainder of their loan if, after the bank seizes a house that was borrowed against as collateral, the house is not worth the amount owed to the bank. This was not a problem when it was believed that housing prices only went up, and banks believed that seizing a home would provide them the full value of their loan. But housing prices began to decline, initially due to minor incidents in certain areas of the country.

In other words, if you owe a bank lots of money on your home loan, you might be better off abandoning the home and letting the bank take the house which is worth less than your debt. This was a factor in the housing crisis, in which houses were abandoned and banks were left with no means to pursue the debt owed them. And banks found themselves with a surplus of houses, further depressing their value.

It's no wonder that the banks don't want to lend. They shouldn't be lending until the laws and regulatory system adjust to accomodate the new examples of how property value truly works, and the resulting modifications to the risk formulae for borrowing and lending against property.

I meant that literally, that they could not afford to purchase the home without a loan. I did not say or imply that they could not afford to maintain the home or eventually pay off the mortgage debt of any loans taken out to purchase the home. If I did come across as implying as much, I apologize, and I'm grateful for this opportunity to correct myself.

Let's go to the tape...

I am extremely disappointed to hear President Obama say decisively that the current economic problems of America can be fixed by having the government force (or entice) banks to make loans. He even used as his example of the path to prosperity making sure a family unable to afford a home can get a loan to buy one. The entire financial crisis is based upon banks giving out loans--specifically, home loans--to people that they shouldn't have, especially by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and at the Congress's behest. (The problem with the "credit crisis" is not liquidity; the banks have money, and the initial rescue package forcibly confirmed as much. Giving them money will not cause them to lend more. Only time, the chance to construct new risk-assessment formulae, and the stability of a government not constantly juggling the rules pertaining to securities, investments, and the outstanding "toxic" assets can give bankers the confidence to resume mortgage lending, and even then housing credit should never approach the leniency that got us into this mess.)

So you made the statement about people not being able to afford a loan and then the following statement about banks giving out home loans to people they shouldn't have.

Hmmmm...

And the people the banks shouldn't have given loans are people who could afford to pay it back? Are you sure you really want to say that's what you really meant? Cuz it's kind of a stupid thing to say. Wouldn't it be better to just admit you exaggerated and were wrong. Not misspoke, cuz that makes your new statement even stupider. Just admit you exaggerated and that Obama never said what you claimed. It's not that hard. "I was lying." See. Easy.

Are they exactly the same? No. But the bank's interests and the country's interests do coincide.

The bank's goal is profit. It only gets profit on a loan if the debtor can pay back the loan and its interest. Thus, it is in the best interest of the bank to only loan to those who will have the means to pay back said loan. If the banks only make responsible loans, then responsible people will be able to expand their businesses and families. If banks are forced to make irresponsible loans against their best interest, they will continue to lose money on their investments, and their investments are everyone's investments, especially savings and retirement accounts. If the banks go under, so does everyone who doesn't keep all their money in their mattress.

Right now, the system is not set up in the best interest of the banks, due to mark-to-market accounting, mistaken ideas about property values, and other factors.

For example, current lending practice forbids banks from pursuing debtors for the remainder of their loan if, after the bank seizes a house that was borrowed against as collateral, the house is not worth the amount owed to the bank. This was not a problem when it was believed that housing prices only went up, and banks believed that seizing a home would provide them the full value of their loan. But housing prices began to decline, initially due to minor incidents in certain areas of the country.

In other words, if you owe a bank lots of money on your home loan, you might be better off abandoning the home and letting the bank take the house which is worth less than your debt. This was a factor in the housing crisis, in which houses were abandoned and banks were left with no means to pursue the debt owed them. And banks found themselves with a surplus of houses, further depressing their value.

It's no wonder that the banks don't want to lend. They shouldn't be lending until the laws and regulatory system adjust to accomodate the new examples of how property value truly works, and the resulting modifications to the risk formulae for borrowing and lending against property.

Ok, so if it is in the banks interests to only loan to people who can pay it back, then why the predatory lending? Come on, my friend, I know you know the answer. Come on. You know. Let's hear it.

I sure hope you're right, but given his and Nancy Pelosi's rejection of economic theory thus far, I'm not holding my breath. If he were really that intelligent and free of party ideology, he'd realize that Japan tried the stimulate-the-economy-through-infrastructure-projects course for years, and it only prolonged their recession. This isn't the time for trial-and-error when we have already seen and can deduce the results of our planned course of action.

And there's always a reasonable alternative.

Well, so far neither the banks, congress nor the previous administration have shown any ability to make responsible choices. He's kind of the only door we haven't tried. :p

Well, so far neither the banks, congress nor the previous administration have shown any ability to make responsible choices. He's kind of the only door we haven't tried. :p

I love how overly simplistic our friend's view of the economy is. Banks never speculate and, thus, hope that a loan forecloses. Nah. That never happens. I mean, it did happen a ton when they gave out loans that would only be possible to pay back if the value of the houses kept on a steady rise, but shhhhhh.... let's not mention that. Reality has this inconvenient way of inserting itself into tirades.

While I'm glad you think my face is bold, I still don't see that I lied.

I noted that President Obama said that we need to get credit flowing again so that people can get loans to buy homes.

I then noted that government-encouraged easy credit--particularly for the purpose of buying homes--was a major factor in the origins of this credit crisis.

President Obama using the example of a family unable to otherwise purchase home sounds exactly like the arguments put forth by congress when they demanded that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provide easier credit for buying homes. And that turned out well, didn't it?

Now, maybe President Obama can magically make credit access easier for responsible people without making it easier for the irresponsible. He has not yet addressed how he plans to do this better than the banks themselves.

This was not a problem when it was believed that housing prices only went up, and banks believed that seizing a home would provide them the full value of their loan. But housing prices began to decline, initially due to minor incidents in certain areas of the country.

I want sources indicating who on earth is this fucking stupid.

I then noted that government-encouraged easy credit--particularly for the purpose of buying homes--was a major factor in the origins of this credit crisis.

No it wasn't. Investors trying to profit from these government rules through risky ventures relying on a housing bubble that could burst at any moment was the major factor.

Blaming the government encouraging lending for the credit crisis is like blaming cars for road rage.

I want sources indicating who on earth is this fucking stupid.

I'm not going to try to defend the banks for their stupid risk-assessment formulae. That stupidity is the root cause of the financial crisis.

While I'm glad you think my face is bold, I still don't see that I lied.

I noted that President Obama said that we need to get credit flowing again so that people can get loans to buy homes.
No, you didn't. You said so people who can't afford homes can buy them. See, lying is when you tell people something happened that didn't. First you lied about what Obama said, then you lied about what you said. See how easy that is to prove.


I then noted that government-encouraged easy credit--particularly for the purpose of buying homes--was a major factor in the origins of this credit crisis.

President Obama using the example of a family unable to otherwise purchase home sounds exactly like the arguments put forth by congress when they demanded that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provide easier credit for buying homes. And that turned out well, didn't it?

I'm suspecting you don't actually know that last bit to be true. I remember those arguments. They argued for changing the rules because current rules wouldn't allow people to get those loans and did not expand the risk.

This doesn't argue that. This argues for people who would be able to get loans if the credit markets were not seized up. It's arguing the risk is perceived.

Now, maybe President Obama can magically make credit access easier for responsible people without making it easier for the irresponsible. He has not yet addressed how he plans to do this better than the banks themselves.

The banks have shown themselves to be quite poor at doing so. See, unlike you, most of us aren't ignoring ALL of the factors to the housing crisis save one. You focus on the congress going out of their way to increase housing access for the poor. The fact is that the bank was largely put into trouble not by the poor but by those who were speculating on housing value increases. Those speculators were not anyone the banks were forced to do business with. Thus the predation. Banks and various other lenders thought housing would keep going up and cover their risks. They were wrong.

It's one thing to act like banks do it better in a normal economy. It's another thing, a wholly ridiculous thing, to ask us to forget that they've proven just this year that they are not very good at determining what is and isn't a good risk.

I want sources indicating who on earth is this fucking stupid.

Someone typed that post.

I'm not going to try to defend the banks for their stupid risk-assessment formulae. That stupidity is the root cause of the financial crisis.

Yet you seem to be arguing that the banks are best able to redetermine the rules by which they should operate...I have yet to see convincing evidence that this is the case.

Someone typed that post.

Must have missed that one...wasn't really serious, just wanted to point out that assuming property values will always increase is just about the most idiotic thing I've ever heard.

You can't even make that concept work at a local level...much less nationally.

Must have missed that one...wasn't really serious, just wanted to point out that assuming property values will always increase is just about the most idiotic thing I've ever heard.

You can't even make that concept work at a local level...much less nationally.

Actually, it did work for the last... hmm... 30 years or so in the Netherlands.
Not all property value obviously, but on average people did indeed tend to sell their homes for (far) more money than they bought.

I'm not going to try to defend the banks for their stupid risk-assessment formulae. That stupidity is the root cause of the financial crisis.

And yet you keep claiming relying on those formulas is the best way to solve the problem. You do realize you just shot your own argument in the kneecap, yeah?

No it wasn't. Investors trying to profit from these government rules through risky ventures relying on a housing bubble that could burst at any moment was the major factor.

Blaming the government encouraging lending for the credit crisis is like blaming cars for road rage.

No, the problem is that they weren't seen as the risky ventures they turned out to be. They were packaged as AA-rated safe investments and sold to mutual funds managers and the like, who didn't know better because their own risk assessment formulae were skewed to see the packaged mortgage-based securities as safe investments. Congress saw home loans as a win-win-win for both the banks, investors, and for the poor people needing loans to obtain the American dream of home ownership. You cannot seriously deny congressional involvement in encouraging lending, although I will grant you that the bubble was going to burst eventually, with or without congress's involvement, and there were many more factors at play than Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (which were only the matches that ignited one of the fuses to the powder keg). But market bubbles burst all the time, and they don't need to affect the entire economy to the extent of this current financial crisis.

No, you didn't. You said so people who can't afford homes can buy them.

You're willfully choosing to misinterpret my words. I have clarified the intent of my statement in several posts since then at your behest, so I can only assume you're trying to start a flame war.

Anyway, I'm off to bed. Thanks for the spar.

And yet you keep claiming relying on those formulas is the best way to solve the problem. You do realize you just shot your own argument in the kneecap, yeah?

Alright, one last dig. No, what I keep saying is that the banks need to overhaul these risk assessment formulae (which they're doing), and that congress needs to overhaul the laws set up around them (which congress ought to be doing). Not keep them. I haven't heard Obama say a thing about them, only about mysteriously forcing banks to lend.

Must have missed that one...wasn't really serious, just wanted to point out that assuming property values will always increase is just about the most idiotic thing I've ever heard.

You can't even make that concept work at a local level...much less nationally.

No, I meant the poster you responded to obviously thought it was okay at one point. You're right. It's stupid.

However, it's fair to say property values trend upwards. The problem with the banks was they counted on an incredible upward trend to basically never end.

The issue is a simple one. Do we want to have the lending driving by poor risk analysis that doesn't have the economy's best interest at heart, or do we want the oppositie? Adjusting the formula will happen. The banks have shown they aren't the right people to do it.

Actually, it did work for the last... hmm... 30 years or so in the Netherlands.
Not all property value obviously, but on average people did indeed tend to sell their homes for (far) more money than they bought.

That's the average, though, and to model your entire lending structure on numerous assumptions (no economic downturn will ever occur on a local, state, or national level...no natural disaster will ever decrease property values over a large area), is pretty short-sighted, and as we have seen, completely wrong.

Alright, one last dig. No, what I keep saying is that the banks need to overhaul these risk assessment formulae (which they're doing), and that congress needs to overhaul the laws set up around them (which congress ought to be doing). Not keep them. I haven't heard Obama say a thing about them, only about mysteriously forcing banks to lend.

Do you realize how long that speech would have been if he'd been explicit about every detail of his plan? Forcing them to lend is restructuring the formula. Seriously, this is basic stuff. And it should be those in power changing it.

Banks showed up at my door asking for my money because they fucked up. Now they're going to listen to me, the people. If they'd prefer to set their own formulas, they may. Right after they return my money.

No, the problem is that they weren't seen as the risky ventures they turned out to be. They were packaged as AA-rated safe investments and sold to mutual funds managers and the like, who didn't know better because their own risk assessment formulae were skewed to see the packaged mortgage-based securities as safe investments. Congress saw home loans as a win-win-win for both the banks, investors, and for the poor people needing loans to obtain the American dream of home ownership. You cannot seriously deny congressional involvement in encouraging lending, although I will grant you that the bubble was going to burst eventually, with or without congress's involvement, and there were many more factors at play than Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (which were only the matches that ignited one of the fuses to the powder keg). But market bubbles burst all the time, and they don't need to affect the entire economy to the extent of this current financial crisis.



You're willfully choosing to misinterpret my words. I have clarified the intent of my statement in several posts since then at your behest, so I can only assume you're trying to start a flame war.

Anyway, I'm off to bed. Thanks for the spar.


Once again you blame the banks for the problem in your discussions of how they tricked mutual funds into absorbing risk while also arguing we should trust them to fix it.

"Listen to us. Who know's better than us how to fix the problem we caused?"

At least we're not listening to the exact same administration that cause the problem when we listen to the government. However, the banks haven't even changes leadership. The same morons that created this mess are begging to be allowed to sculpt it's resolution. That's why I'm thankful that, at times, Obama is telling Pilosi and Reid to shut the hell up and listen for a change.

That's the average, though, and to model your entire lending structure on numerous assumptions (no economic downturn will ever occur on a local, state, or national level...no natural disaster will ever decrease property values over a large area), is pretty short-sighted, and as we have seen, completely wrong.

Of course. But the stockholders demanded no less...
And so ABN AMRO/Fortis fell over here. ING is wobbling. And Rabo, which does not issue stocks and used a decentralised approach to lending (and as such stayed far away from the states ;)), seems to be fine.

Short term profits. Aaah, so much to blame.