Yes on Prop 8 wrote on Oct 9, 2008 1:27 AM:We need to deny marriage rights to same sex couples, and use the government to enforce morality in the bedroom.

Mathematician wrote on Oct 9, 2008 1:41 AM:Mathematician and Magicians:

How can it be a “better idea” to give $50,000 to each adult, when your math is so terribly wrong? Dave Concannon’s idea is better than Paulson’s, but his math is almost as bad as that of the Treasury department.

The cost of $50,000 X 218,000,000 would be one trillion and ninety billion dollars ($1,090,000,000,000), which is close to what the Treasury has already committed, and we haven’t been able to turn things around yet.

Talented woman wrote on Oct 9, 2008 1:46 AM:Yes, Sarah Palin is a breath of fresh air, much like Paris Hilton and Dolly Partin. I'm sure they could find a job for her somewhere in Nashville with such charm and talent. And those coquettish winks just melt the men.

What if wrote on Oct 9, 2008 1:58 AM:How Racism Works:

What if John McCain were a former president of the Harvard Law Review?

What if Barack Obama finished fifth from the bottom of his graduating class?

What if McCain were still married to the first woman he said "I do" to?

What if Obama were the candidate who left his first wife after she no longer
measured up to his standards?

What if Michelle Obama were a wife who not only became addicted to pain killers, but acquired them illegally through her charitable organization?
What if Cindy McCain graduated from Harvard?

What if Obama were a member of the Keating-5?

What if McCain were a charismatic, eloquent speaker?

If these questions reflected reality, do you really believe the election
numbers would be as close as they are?

This is what racism does. It covers up, rationalizes and minimizes positive
qualities in one candidate and emphasizes negative qualities in another when there is a color difference.

You are The Boss... which team would you hire?

With America facing historic debt, 2 wars, stumbling health care, a weakened
dollar, all-time high prison population, mortgage crises, bank
foreclosures, etc.


Educational Background:

Obama:
Columbia University - B.A. Political Science with a Specialization in
International Relations.
Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude

Biden:
University of Delaware - B.A. in History and B.A. in Political
Science.
Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)

vs.

McCain: United States Naval Academy - Class rank: 894 of 899

Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester
North Idaho College - 2 semesters - general study
University of Idaho - 2 semesters - journalism
Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester
University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in Journalism

Now, which team are you going to hire ?

PS: What if Barack Obama had an unwed, pregnant teenage daughter?

Chuck wrote on Oct 9, 2008 3:12 AM:>>>>Wanda raised a question, Why are Chuck and Ron missing in action today?>>> Gee, I'm sorry that I didnt interrupt my day on the balcony, the beach and the marina to post to morons.

OBAMACAN wrote on Oct 9, 2008 5:25 AM:Keshava Prasad's letter has it completely backward. Obama is looking forward, Old Man McCain is rooted in his failed past. What Prasad fails to understand, and this failure is the root of so many other Republican failures, is that you do have to look to the past long enough to understand what caused mistakes so that, when we do turn back to the future, we don't repeat the mistakes of the past.
Prasad joins McCain and Palin who have each criticized Obama for wanting to understand where we came from so we can chart a better course as we plan for the future.
Palin has said she doesn't care what caused climate change; she just wants to fix it. Well, duh, my neighbor is dying of lung cancer, still smoking 3 packs a day and doesn't care what caused it, just wants it fixed. True conservative thinking!
McCain doesn't care what errors caused the war in Iraq or the economic meltdown (though he hypocrtically tries to go back to successful programs of Carter and even FDR - what a double standard!), he just wants to fix it.

Bottom line: Republicans don't see the connections between causes and cures.
Sure explains a lot, doesn't it.

He Said wrote on Oct 9, 2008 6:28 AM:Marie Rench will have to move to and vote in Northern California to unseat Pelosi. Why even bring it up unless it is just an indirect slam against the Democratic Party. Childish at best.

VOR wrote on Oct 9, 2008 6:44 AM:270 Electoral votes needed to win.

Projected electoral votes 10/9

Obama- 353 49% of the country
McBush- 185 43% of the country

Result- Democratic landslide!!!! LOL

Wanda wrote on Oct 9, 2008 6:48 AM:Glean Chappell seems to think Sarah Palin is a "breath of fresh air", perhaps because she has been packaged and marketed as an "outsider" and a "maverick".

Sarah Palin is another mindless ideologue being sold to you by the same folks who brought you Bush / Cheney. How's that working out for you?

How's that ruinously expensive, counterproductive war working out for you?

How's rampant deregulation working out for you?

How's corporate wellfare working out for you?

How's tax breaks for the top 5% working out for you?

Are you sure you want more of the same? The rest of us have seen how this trickle down economics actually works and are tired of being trickled on. Sarah Palin is not a "breath of fresh air", she's a vacuous bimbo out to sell you more of the same.

Golly gee.

Get a clue.

VOR wrote on Oct 9, 2008 6:49 AM:Great post "what if"!!!

What you forgot is whats most important to conservos--- ideology, hate and prejudice.

Don't you remember? "Youve done a great job Brownie!!" That's how Conservos veiw job qualifications.

How prejudice are you?
Do you hate others that aren't your race?
Do you hate people with different sexual perferences?
Do you hate others having the same rights you do?
Do you hate others that don't believe what you do?

If you say yes.....you can be Vice Presidential material.

Wanda wrote on Oct 9, 2008 6:56 AM:Chuck at 3:12 AM (3:12 AM?) claims he didn't post yesterday because he got a life.

Good for you, Chuck!

Roger wrote on Oct 9, 2008 7:03 AM:The 1:46 AM post unfairly compares Sarah Palin to Dolly Parton. Dolly Parton is not a vacuous bimbo, and has affected some major changes in the music industry.

To What If wrote on Oct 9, 2008 7:07 AM:To answer your questions from: What if
[-] wrote on Oct 9, 2008 1:58 AM:
MCCAIN!! I don't want a socialist that thinks it is your RIGHT and not RESPONSIBILITY for Health care. What else will become a right at the expense of others? Heil you know who!

Cant Decide wrote on Oct 9, 2008 7:10 AM:Just received my absentee ballot yesterday. Just can't seem to decide on the Presidential candidate. Keep changing my mind based on the lurid deductions, spins, redundancies, speculations, character assassinations, lies, misinformation, unhealthy obsessions, plus other illegitimate, meaningless talking points found on this blog. Maybe I'll just stick to local and state issues that seem to be flying mostly (except Prop 8) under the radar.

To Wanda wrote on Oct 9, 2008 7:14 AM:Wanda
[-] wrote on Oct 9, 2008 6:48 AM: Glean Chappell seems to think Sarah Palin is a "breath of fresh air", perhaps because she has been packaged and marketed as an "outsider" and a "maverick". etc...

Roger [-] wrote on Oct 9, 2008 7:03 AM:The 1:46 AM post unfairly compares Sarah Palin to Dolly Parton. Dolly Parton is not a vacuous bimbo, and has affected some major changes in the music industry.

Perhaps Wanda should get going on her Candidacy if she is so great instead of living in a blog world. She seems to have all of the answers and bravery. :)

Bob wrote on Oct 9, 2008 7:18 AM:"Stay The Course" has been repackaged as "A Breath Of Fresh Air"?

Brings to mind Steve Miller's "...same old story with a new set of words..."

He Said wrote on Oct 9, 2008 7:22 AM:To VOR : What about the libs and
Do you hate others that are more successful and have more money, better education, and more toys than you?

Caro Hussein Cogitatus wrote on Oct 9, 2008 7:33 AM:Mathematician, it's even worse! My calculator shows 218,000,000 times 50,000 is

$10,900,000,000,000

As in 10.9 trillion dollars. With math skills like that, I'm sure Dave Concannon is on McSame's short list for Treasury Secretary.

Apollo wrote on Oct 9, 2008 7:36 AM:Re: Marie Rench (letter)
The wonderful thing about our democratic republic is that we get to choose our leaders and representaitves.
So Marie Rench is welcome to speak out and campaign against Nancy Pelosi.
She can even vote to unseat her, but first she is going to have to move to Pelosi's Northern California district. Funny thing about electing representatives, you have to live in the district being represented.

As for the "disgraceful partisan speech" by Pelosi, I guess the truth hurts.
Before complaining, please identify which specific statements holding the Republicans accountable was in error. And after the nasty partisan rancor fomented by Republicans, complaining that a Democrat was partisan is just laughable.

And as for delaying the bailout bill, the delay allowed time to make it more populist by adding additional benefits for consumers so it wasn't just a bailout for the perpetrators - it had more benefits for Main Street.

To What if wrote on Oct 9, 2008 7:46 AM:It's called white privilege!!!

JohnM wrote on Oct 9, 2008 7:51 AM:With all due respects to letter writer Dave Concannon and "Mathematician" above, 218M x 50,000 is TEN trillion, nine hundred billion.

Don't you see Escondido? This is what your schools produce -- the inability to do basic multiplication.

Republican Healthcare Socialist wrote on Oct 9, 2008 7:54 AM:Amazing, the response at 7:07 a.m. to the earlier excellent blog from "What If."

This is a perfect example of how Republican partisan hacks want to disregard real qualifications of education, accomplishment, leadership and character, and just call names like SOCIALIST!

Socialist?
Having the government involved in public policies such as public health and safety is socialism?
Are public security guards (police) socialist?
Are public property protectors (firefighters) socialist?
Are public schools (education) socialist?
At one time, all of the above were primarily delivered through private, for-profit businesses.

Health care: Oh yeah, more deregulation will really help. McCain writes in the Sept/Oct 2008 issue of "Contingencies" (professional journal of healthcare actuaries) an article entitled: "Better Care at Lower Cost for Every American" by John McCain. In it, McCain proposes further deregulation of private sector healthcare insurers, and cites as a supporting example the "success" of his efforts in working with Phil "nation of whiners" Gramm in deregulating the financial markets. Now he wants to pretend that his "reform" efforts were more oversight, not removing it as he actually supported.
McCain was asked on "60 Minutes" (9-21-08) if he regretted his 1999 vote for Gramm's bill to reduce oversight of financial institutions and he said he still believes deregulation of financial markets "stimulated" the economy, even though the prosperous economy of the 1990's started to go bad after that law took effect.

Democrats, starting with FDR, have repeatedly saved this country from socialism by showing a model of REGULATED private sector entrepreneurship that engenders broad-based freedom and prosperity.

Republicans swing wildly from unregulated lassiez faire free markets and corporatocracy, then when it implodes - as it always does - THEY become the party of pure socialism. Witness:

Republican socialism:
Socialism for the rich (but no protections or bailouts for individual victims who need help the most):
Privatize profits; socialize losses (make the taxpayers pay). What happened to "risk" by capitalists?
Not merely bailouts or loan guarantees, but full Federal takeover (ownership and operation) of private lending corporations Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and an 80% equity ownership in the nation's largest property-casualty insurance company (but getting involved with merely setting standards for health care delivered through private providers is socialist). Huh? [Scratching head]

Republican Socialism in Alaska:
The Republican presidential nominee selects as his running mate the governor of the only true Sociliast economy in the U.S. (Alaska, financed by the commercial oil ventures it owns [and if there was any doubt about that, CSPAN recently rebroadcast a debate from her 2006 gubernatorial campaign in which there was extensive discussion of managing the commercial oil operations THEY OWN - also, I got to actually watch her express support for that "Bridge to Nowhere." The debate obviously occurred while she was still for it before she was against it].
The 9-15-08 issue of Newsweek (page 30) cites REPUBLICAN former governor of Alaska Wally Hickel (who also served as, ironically, Secretary of the INTERIOR under REPUBLICAN Richard Nixon, as advocating an "economy of the commons."
Commons? As in Communism?
Hickel was referring to the state ownership and operation of the communal oil business.

Greencinitan wrote on Oct 9, 2008 8:03 AM:If McCain is such a wise maverick and raised concerns about earmarks and about Fannie and Freddie years ago, what does it say about his leadership abilities that nobody paid any attention and followed? Can you be a leader of change if nobody listens?

Apollo wrote on Oct 9, 2008 8:06 AM:Re: Mike Kania (letter)
Yet another example of conservatives trying to rewrite history and make up their own facts.
No, Mike, there was nothing in any of the Democratic proposals or legislation that required anyone to make "risky" loans to people who were unqualified. There were laws passed by Democrats to prohibit redlining (literally drawing red lines on maps to exclude ethnic minority areas - you know, back when maps were on paper instead of MapQuest - for those unlike McCain who know how to log onto the Internet).
To help open up equality of opportunity (not outcomes) Democrats also provided for secondary funding sources to assist in the process. This was a funding mechanism. Nothing in any Democratic proposal, whether subsequently enacted or not, promoted issuing loans to unqualified buyers - unless you are saying that all ethnic minorities are inherently unqualified, in which case we have a substantial change in the topic of discussion.

Kania belabors the factually-distorted point that in 2004 several prominent House Democrats could not be persuaded to pass further deregulatory assaults on oversight. What he fails to note is that in 2004, the Republicans controlled the House, Senate, Presidency and a majority of appointees to the Supreme Court. Especially in the House, where straight majority rules, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and Maxine Waters had no power whatsoever.

Kania provides another perfect example of those who broke it trying to blame those who want to fix it.

Vista Granny wrote on Oct 9, 2008 8:10 AM:I certainly hope "yes on Prop 8" is making some kind of sick joke! Prop 8 -- and the government in our bedrooms are both immoral! I have in my possession a letter written to a prospective bride in 1923. In the letter is a list of ingredients for a concoction which will prevent pregnancy. There was no birth control available for sale. In fact, birth control was not legal!!Is this the world we want to return to? Would this person like to have cameras in everyone's homes to see what they are doing at all times? Believe me, that type of law is only for the "have nots." The very wealthy have always done whatever they please, with whomever they please, where ever they please and always will.

No on Prop 8 wrote on Oct 9, 2008 8:27 AM:We need to allow marriage rights to same sex couples, and use the streets and parks and public bath houses to replace morality in the bedroom.

Apollo wrote on Oct 9, 2008 8:30 AM:Re: He Said (7:22 a.m.)
I do not hate others that are more successful or have more money or have a better education, nor do I care how many "toys" anyone else has.

I do have a wee bit of a problem with those who wage class warfare against the middle class, who rely on working people to create their wealth, then take a disproportionate share of the wealth created by others, and then expect welfare for the rich elitsts (the real "welfare queens") in the form of lower taxes on UNEARNED investment income (wealth created by the labor of others) and expecting the working class to give corporate welfare to oil companies and financial institutions who cause the economy to implode while they sail gently into the billowing clouds hoisted by the comfort of their golden parachutes.

Cindy McCain, for example, has just about more toys than anyone, yet she never did one damn thing to earn it. She just inherited it all from Daddy and lives off the unearned investment income of wealth created by others.

Sure, Sarah Palin supports "Joe Six Pack" - as long as Joe buys the six-pack from Cindy's beer company.

to Greencinitan wrote on Oct 9, 2008 8:31 AM:You can lead a horse to water... Does the lack of smarts on the part of the horse make the leader less important?

Alf wrote on Oct 9, 2008 8:32 AM:The letter from Dave Concannon contains the same math error that emails circulating around make -
misplacing decimals.
218 Million people times $50 thousand dollars is
are you ready
NOT 109 Billion dollars
IT IS
10.9 TRILLION dollars!!!
I realize that working with that many digits confuses some.
Regards, Alf.

To Cant Decide wrote on Oct 9, 2008 8:39 AM:To "Can't Decide" If you recall every election carries spin and confusion. If you can't see the stark contrast between McCain-Palin and Obama-Biden then perhaps you shouldn't vote. It's a little frightening that the undecided (those who for various reasons are not aware of these stark differences, especially after 2 years of campaigning) are the ones who will probably decide the next president. My suggestion, vote for the intelligent ones. Intelligence is usually easy to spot (even during debates). We just had 8 years of an unintelligent leader and look where that got us. If intelligence isn’t an important issue for you then vote for the party that celebrates mediocre candidates (Joe six-pack folks like you and me). Just close your eyes and imagine the next leaders winking at you while saying such folksy things as my friends, shucks, gosh darn and ain't, as the world falls apart around them. It would be like having your goofy uncle as our leader. If you prefer the later, perhaps all we really need to do is change the constitution so we can keep Bush as our permanent president, this would save the time and money used to replace him with clones (i.e. individuals who favor the same failed policies, the same intolerant social agendas, the same strategy to divide our country and cripple our international reputation, and who rely on the same low level of intelligence (which they don't need anyway because God tells them what to do). This isn't rocket science, it's comon sense.

The real NO on Eight wrote on Oct 9, 2008 8:40 AM:Same sex couples who are allowed to marry don't need to use streets or parks or public bath houses.
It always strikes me as odd that the same people who complain about same sex promiscuity are the same folks who don't want to allow them to legitimize their relationships.

Seems like some folks are really insecure about their own relationships or their own sexuality.
Otherwise, why should they feel so threatened by who others are or what they do?

Alf wrote on Oct 9, 2008 8:43 AM:I believe that "Mathematician" at 1:41AM may have made a mistake,
my calculator (both the brain type and the computer type) says
$10,900,000,000,000.00 is the result of multiplying 218,000,000 people times $50,000.00 dollars each.
Regards, Alf.

Chuck wrote on Oct 9, 2008 8:52 AM:>> unfairly compares Sarah Palin to Dolly Parton>>> I'd like to compare Hussein OStalin to Rosie. They are exactly the same, except one has bigger ears and is a Muslim

to Alf wrote on Oct 9, 2008 8:54 AM:It's easy! Just add up the zeros! ;-)

chuck wrote on Oct 9, 2008 8:58 AM:>>Seems like some folks are really insecure about their own relationships or their own sexuality>>> LOL, right out of the gay racketeers talking points and agenda. ie if you're against it, you must be one of them. it laughable. I guess, using the gay racketeers logic, Hussein must be a capitalist

Af wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:00 AM:Well, "to Alf" at 8:54AM,
why didn't I think of that?
Regards, Alf.

Wanda wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:09 AM:Chuck is back.

Apparently, that get a life attempt yesterday didn't work out.

Alf wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:10 AM:Well, "chuck" at 8:58AM,
if you're old enough,
did you also say
"black racketeers"
and
"woman racketeers"??
Enquiring Alfs want to know?
Regards, Alf.

Teen Pregnancy wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:27 AM:"What If" at 1:58 a.m. asks us to imagine what the right-wing hate media would be spewing if it were Obama who had the pregnant unwed teen daughter.

We don't have to imagine.

Just watch the video clips of how Bill O'Reilly responded to two unwed teen pregnancies:

Bristol Palin - excoriated anyone who dared to criticize her or her parents.

Jamie Lynn Spears (just a few weeks earlier) - railed against irresponsible teen pregnancy and said it was the parents who should be held completely responsible.

But there's no double standard, is there? IS THERE?

Pluto wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:27 AM:Keshava Prasad has a point. McSame doesn't want to look back because he and his party and their President have screwed absolutely everything up so badly. It's very opportunistic for him to look forward, don't point fingers, let bygones be bygones, don't figure out what went wrong.

Pluto wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:38 AM:It's very clear that Prop 8 supporters are motivated by certain (narrow) religious beliefs (so-called "traditional morality") which they want to impose on everyone. This "morality" is left over from an era when sex was not for fun or intimacy, only for procreation. This was enforced by the church for many centuries. Contraception and all forms of non-procreative sex were immoral, sinful, strictly forbidden. That's where this concept of "traditional morality" is from. If you agree and want to prohibit others from non-procreative sex, vote Yes on Prop 8. Then maybe we can prohibit women over 40 from getting married, and we can put cameras in bedrooms to enforce the missionary position, which is best suited for conception, etc. If you think we've evolved beyond that, vote No.

gracchus wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:38 AM:using chuck's logic that obama is a muslim, can we extrapolate that sarah palin sees the vice-presidency as a temporary job while she's waiting to be raptured into heaven, and that the north viet namese brainwashed john mccain, anticipating that they would control him once he reached the white house?

Yes on 8 wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:41 AM:Protect the traditional definition of marriage between a man and a woman.

Vote No on Prop T wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:49 AM:The City of Escondido has an agreement to spend $145 million from redevelopment funds to construct three new high schools and to refurbish the existing high schools. Voting NO on Prop T will insure that the City has to live up to its contract to invest in our schools.

Karl wrote on Oct 9, 2008 10:16 AM:He Said @ 6:28 AM:

Pelosi's recklessness crosses party lines. She is bad for all Americans in this Independent's view.

He said, are you happy with her performance?

tjefferson wrote on Oct 9, 2008 10:19 AM:"The Bush administration is considering taking over ownership stakes in a number of U. S. banks as one option it might use to deal with a serious credit crisis" an administration official said Wednesday. (AP today) Bush wants to nationalize the banks! Now we know that Reaganomics and unregulated capitalism are really dead. Bush just wrote the obituary. I've waited 26 years for this day.

He Said wrote on Oct 9, 2008 10:20 AM:to Apollo @ 8:30. Thanks for answering my question in the first sentence. Quite frankly, I just don't care about the rest of the post. You just can't keep your fingers away from the keyboard can you? Don't waste your time explaining and justifying your beliefs. I already know them and understand the reasons behind them. If fact, I believe everyone else here does also (time after time, time after time,... Reminds me of a Cindy Lauper song. Don't let your mythical god moniker take over your personality. "I knew Apollo and your are not him!" :)

Poppy wrote on Oct 9, 2008 10:28 AM:Yesterday Phil Epstein invited us to join his "I told you so club" if Obama is elected.

I just want to say that I have been a member of the "I told you so club" for the last eight years and there is no satisfaction in it.

Good luck to Phil.

Roger wrote on Oct 9, 2008 10:29 AM:Still trying to figure out how the 7:14 AM poster ties me in with Wanda's candidacy?

Karl wrote on Oct 9, 2008 10:33 AM:VOR @ 6:49 AM:Great post "what if"!!!

Response from a "conservo".

What you forgot is whats most important to conservos--- ideology, hate and prejudice.

Sounds just like liberal prejudice to me.

Don't you remember? "Youve done a great job Brownie!!" That's how Conservos veiw job qualifications.

I'll not even get into bad jobs done by either sides of the Democan Party. The list is very long and includes lots from both party's.

How prejudice are you?
Do you hate others that aren't your race?

No and never. I was very fortunate that my parents moved from St. Louis, MO when I was 2 months old because of racial prejudice and they instilled in me the value of the "Golden Rule".

Do you hate people with different sexual perferences?

No and never. I may disagree with their PAC's occasionally but I disagree with many PAC's occasionally.

Do you hate others having the same rights you do?

Hell no, why would anyone except for a small percentage of pathetic idiots? We should really feel sorry for these losers and hope that education will bring them back from the dark side.

Do you hate others that don't believe what you do?

No, I revel in opposing opinions and learn from them as well. You might try the same attitude sometime, it can be very enlightening.

If you say yes.....you can be Vice Presidential material.

Well, there go my chances. Darn, I was hoping to put myself under the microscope and learn more about myself than I already know.

Peace (and a few birdies today please)

Karl wrote on Oct 9, 2008 10:37 AM:Caro Hussein Cogitatus @ 7:33 AM:

I tried to do the math but my 99 cent calculator only goes to 9,999. Oh well, I'll leave the math for people with better calculalators and more time on their hands.

Surfer wrote on Oct 9, 2008 10:42 AM:Chuck[-] wrote on Oct 9, 2008 8:52 AM:
Dude. Poor Rosey! See ya.

Olaf wrote on Oct 9, 2008 10:46 AM:I don't understand the hate for people who make money, work hard, and get an education in something other then basket weaving. The "rich as you all call them pay the same taxes as you just not more. Because we are jealous of their wealth they should pay more for programs for thos who pay none? Is that called trickle down taxing? Tax the ubber rich and they pass that cost down to the middle class? Trickle down economics work if wall street wasn't let loose to do what they will (which was done by both party people- look it up Glass/ Steagall act). So lets go to a flat tax and be done with it? EVERYONE pays 15% of their money and no one can complain? Right?

hardtack wrote on Oct 9, 2008 10:53 AM:Nice try, Dave Concannon – except one thing: If you divide $108,000,000,000 among 218,000,000 folks, they each get $495, not $50,000.

If we each got $50,000 it would cost the taxpayers – us – $10.9 trillion. That’s too big a bucket for us to stand in while we try to lift ourselves up by the handle.

hardtack wrote on Oct 9, 2008 11:15 AM:Thomas Calabrese & Robert Salvi both make valid points.
Whereas the bailout made great political sense, it made no moral or economic sense what-so-ever. What do we expect in an election year?

Reardon wrote on Oct 9, 2008 11:23 AM:From KFYI Radio Mews, Arizona:

(Quote)One illegal alien was arrested this year in Tucson after allegedly using a stolen social security number to buy two homes and rack up over $780,000 in bad debt.


Some five million fraudulent home mortgages are in the hands of illegal aliens, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

It's not known how many of those have contributed to the subprime housing mortgage meltdown, but it has affected every state, including Arizona.

The problem began years ago when banks were forced to give mortgages without confirming social security numbers or borrower identification. As a result, illegal immigrants were able to obtain home mortgages which they could not afford.
(UNQUOTE)

Same Sex Obsession wrote on Oct 9, 2008 11:36 AM:There goes good ol' Chuck again at 8:58 a.m., still obsessed about others' sexuality that has nothing to do with him.

He is truly in BONDIge in his enslavement to bizarre obsessions with others' private lives.

P.S.: correction to Chuckie's 8:52 a.m. - you are wrong, Rosie O'Donnel is not a Muslim either - she is not even a practicing Christian, as Obama is.
And your hatred of a good, god-fearing Christian like Obama shows you to be far more Islamic than the one you accuse.

Bill wrote on Oct 9, 2008 11:38 AM:One look at the blogs on this site and its easy to see how we ended up in this mess.

Too many people are concerned with placing blame. Intellectually honest people recognize there is no way to pin this on one party and that there is more than enough blame to go around.

Too bad there arent more intellectually honest people.

People that arent intellectually honest can also rationalize overstating their income on a loan application or defaulting on a credit card.

With his pie in the sky promises, I now expect Obama to clean this mess up at warp speed. Now that Barack has tied all this to Bushs policies, it ought to be easy to fix.

When he fails, I will tie it to his policies.

The truth is that despite all this, weve enjoyed positive GDP and GNP growth so the economy isnt in the shambles were told it is. Only sectors are hurting after years of unprecedented wealth. Thats called a settling market. The markets settle and we call it a crash. Had Amercians saved their money instead of foolishly spending it like they do, they would be in the same position Ms. M and I are in.

Ms. M cried about the economy and then claims shes doing fine.

Why is she crying when Im not?

Im enjoying this ecomnomy and my net worth is going up all because I saved my money during good times. Despite the drop in values of my assets, I am obtaining more assets now at rock bottom prices to make up for it.

Theres a reason for that saying "save for a rainy day".

If Ms. M isnt hurting or isnt in default, then why is she crying when others werent as wise as her and are asking for help?

She wouldnt be saying that if she wasnt in dire straits herself.

She would be saying what I am saying and shes not. It sounds as if Bushs policies didnt effect her if whats shes saying is true.

Why the tears then?

Main St. created this mess but no politician has the guts to say it.

The pander bear Obama is going to find out its a lot easier to campaign than it is to legislate.

Ms M wrote on Oct 9, 2008 11:39 AM:Reardon
[-] wrote on Oct 9, 2008 11:23 AM:...The problem began years ago when banks were forced to give mortgages without confirming social security numbers or borrower identification...I cannot believe that the government FORCED the banks to give out loans without knowing who they were giving millions to. It seems more like predatory (greed)lending that the financial industry is being investigated for.

Chuck wrote on Oct 9, 2008 11:46 AM:The news says Suspected U.S. missile strike in Pakistan kills nine.

Good 9 more filth terrorists have bit the dust. Pulse will need a rittalin as soon as he finished his online class with BillAyres and finds out

Maverick wrote on Oct 9, 2008 11:47 AM:to Greencinitan[-] wrote on Oct 9, 2008 8:31 AM: Who selected the horse?

Who You Kiding wrote on Oct 9, 2008 11:50 AM:Yes on 8[-] wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:41 AM:
The tradition of marriage was never endangered by same sex marriages. The proponents of Prop 8 do not want the treatment of all citizens equally under the law. The fact, it is these fundamentalist Christians who want their concept and alleged sacrament of marriage to be superior.

chuck wrote on Oct 9, 2008 11:51 AM:>>>>if you're old enough,
did you also say
"black racketeers">>>

And would Alfy call the good Revs Jackson and Sharpton?

chuck wrote on Oct 9, 2008 11:54 AM:If all they really want is gay marriage, why do they sue the Boy Scouts,? why do they jam SB777 down our throats? why did they remove the words mother and father from textbooks, etc, etc x 1000

Told Ya So Club wrote on Oct 9, 2008 11:58 AM:Great blog from Poppy at 10:28 a.m.
I've been an unhappy member of the Told Ya So Club for the last 8 years, too.

The good news is that, after Obama does get elected (if the Repubs don't steal the election), and does turn the economy around (as Clinton did despite all the dire warnings from Republicans who keep getting it WRONG time after time after time - sounds like a Cyndi Lauper song), we will still be saying I told ya so, but the conservatives will complain about looking backward, or they'll find a way to explain how really it was because of Bush.

Told ya so!

Looking Glass wrote on Oct 9, 2008 12:03 PM:Bill brings up an excellent point - whatever happened to living within your means? If more people avoided impulse buying and keeping up with the Jones's, the economy would be in much better shape then it is now.

Ms M wrote on Oct 9, 2008 12:13 PM:Bill
[-] wrote on Oct 9, 2008 11:38 AM:...Bill for some reason you have a thing about me. If you have ever read any of my posts I have NEVER cried about anything. Just because I am doing fine (my house note gets paid by direct deposit each month on the 1st, I have been a homeowner since 1978, have multiple financial accounts), does not mean that I can say to hell with everyone else. America is only as healthy as ALL it's folks not just a few as we have seen in this administration. Just who do you think you are to assume that I am in dire straits. It seems like it's the fat cats that have come crying to our government for bailout. As with AIG, having $500,000 bashes after getting my hard earned money. Why aren't you calling out the fat cats? Your post are getting to be really really DESPERATE!

He Said wrote on Oct 9, 2008 12:14 PM:To Karl @ 10:16: I think she's over the top. No common sense, just power hungry. Just can't see how any of us So. Cals could do anything about it.

Alf wrote on Oct 9, 2008 12:25 PM:Well, "Reardon" at 11:23AM,
the quote you posted makes no sense in this respect -
no RESPECTABLE lending institution that I know of will give a home loan or just about any other type of loan to someone without verifying their income and the value of the property.
Confirming borrower identification is the key to verifying income, so how can that be forbidden?
Regards, Alf.

Reardon wrote on Oct 9, 2008 12:26 PM:Bill: Every stock sold in a dropping market is BOUGHT by someone.

There is a saying in the market: “Bulls make money, Bears make money, but Pigs don't make money!”

I have reported on these pages often that the number of homes being bought in Zip Code 92026 is approximately equal to the number of homes coming on the market on a daily and weekly basis.

Markets, by their nature rise too high on "irrational exuberance" and fall too low on fear.

Those who can keep their heads, make money. I am not making money only because I must retain capital to support family members who were not wise, but congratulations on your perspicacity.

Reardons Rightwing Radio News wrote on Oct 9, 2008 12:50 PM:Give. Me. A. Break., Reardon at 11:23 a.m.
Are you really this desperate to prove your fabricated "facts"?

What a disappointment. I expect that from Ron, Raoul and Chuck, but you at least usually hold to a little higher standard. Must be really desperate.

KFYI (Phoenix, Arizona - 550 on your AM dial) is not a NEWS station
It is a talk radio station. A right-wing hate radio station.
Its lineup includes Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, as well as some local ideologues of the same ilk.
Is this really the best you can do?

They are spewing OPINION, racist OPINION trying to discredit legitimate programs designed to prevent race-based redlining in mortgage lending.

Instead of quoting right-wing hate radio fact fabricators, why don't you cite something authoritative.

Oh. That's. Why.

gracchus wrote on Oct 9, 2008 1:01 PM:wrong, olaf, at 10:46 a.m. a 15% flat tax, or any flat income tax is unfair to the less affluent.

an income earner of $30,000 under your plan would $4,500 a year. an income earner of $250,000 would pay $37,500 a year. the richer income earner pays more taxes under your plan in one year than the poorer income earner receives in wages or salary.

no liberal begrudges the rich the amenities which their wealth provides them. we just want them to pay a reasonable price for the privilege of living in the greatest country in the world. the price is a fair contribution in taxes to make the government work for the benefit of all citizens. and inasmuch as they enjoy more benefits lving in the u.s.a., they should pay more to support it.

tom wolfe wrote a hilarious novel in the late 80s about the conspicuous consumption of the super-rich--BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES. the principal character is a wall street money manager who can't support himself and his family on a million dollars a year.

if the super rich who have enjoyed tax cuts from gw bush over the past few years can't handle obama's proposed tax increases, they'll need to learn money management skills on their disposable income. if not, they can always think about emigrating to a country with few taxes where a few families control the nation's economy, the middle class is non-existent, and the vast majority languish in poverty.

Roger wrote on Oct 9, 2008 1:08 PM:Bill at 11:38 AM laments the lack of "intellectually honest people" on this board (a valid observation) but then goes on to point out the "positive GDP and GNP growth" as signs that the economy isn't as bad as it obviously is.

When you pay a bunch of monry to a divorce attorney the GDP and GNP goes up, though no product was or wealth created. Same for a bankrupcy attorney or a tow truck. These are pretty bogus indicators.

Reardon wrote on Oct 9, 2008 1:10 PM:Alf: Ever hear of "Liar Loans?"

Ever hear of NINJA Loans" (No Income, No Job, No No Assets?)

This is from local Ch. 10 News (Feb. 13, 2007)

(QUOTE)LOS ANGELES -- Bank of America is now offering credit cards to customers without Social Security numbers, reported 10News.

It's an effort to extend credit to illegal immigrants.

In recent years, banks across the country have been offering checking accounts and even mortgages to illegal immigrants, but not major credit cards.

The new Bank of America card is open to people who lack both a Social Security number and a credit history, as long as they have held a checking account with the bank for three months without an overdraft, reported 10News.

The program is now available at 51 Bank of America branches in Los Angeles County.(UNQUOTE)

Apollo wrote on Oct 9, 2008 1:15 PM:Resubmission of skipped blog

Re: Yes on 8 (9:41 a.m.)
We witness yet another example of someone not knowing their facts.

As has been pointed out here so many times (thank you 3D), "traditional" Bible-based marriage consists of one man with multiple underage prepubescent females of the same ethnic tribe, in an arranged marriage, maintaining "dominion" over these wives in the same way as his herds, flocks and other livestock.
I'm sure this blogger supports the FLDS (Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints) who want to return us to traditional marriage as defined by the Bible and practiced throughout most of history.

The rest of us will vote to PROTECT FAMILIES and DEFEND MARRIAGE: NO on 8.

Boy Scout wrote on Oct 9, 2008 1:21 PM:Chuck at 11:54 a.m. is still obsessing about same sex marriage, Chuck has to go for the Boy Scouts distraction - AGAIN.
How many times do we have to repeat before it gets through that layer of beta amyloid plaques?

AGAIN:
The Bou Scouts can't have it both ways. They cannot claim to be both a religious organization (exempt from discrimination laws) and a public agency (which gets favored treatment and special access).

So, Chuck, I'll let YOU decide:
a - let the Boy Scouts have special low cost or no cost access to public facilities because they are a non-profit quasi-public organization; OR
b - let them declare themselves a private religious organization exempt from discrimination laws and pay full standard fees for access to public facilities.

Your choice, Chuckie. One or the other.

to Reardon wrote on Oct 9, 2008 1:31 PM:Thanks for trying but the lemmings will only see and hear what they choose to.

Bob wrote on Oct 9, 2008 1:32 PM:Regarding Roger's 1:08 PM post, there was a good article on bogus economic indicators in the May 2008 issue of Harper's Magazine ("Numbers Racket: why the economy is worse than we know" by Kevin P. Philips) which is available on line in their archives.

ORACLE wrote on Oct 9, 2008 1:49 PM:BLOOD on Wall Street today

The DOW lost 678 points today, closing down for a loss of 40% from this date last year. Almost every sector was down. There is no where for investors to hide except cash and gold. Black gold dropped to $84 bbl.

Financials continue their slide, but the big news is General Motors, whose cap value is now only about $3 billion, lower than it was in 1928! Shares closed at about $4.75, and were dropping fast at close. Many specialists are saying GM is going to go into bankruptcy, along with GMAC, because (1) sales have plummeted and (2) it acquired loan out too much to new car buyers and may not be able to collect. GM is 20th in size in the world for market capitalization for auto manufacturers. “As GM goes, so goes the nation” is the old saying.

Obamanation wrote on Oct 9, 2008 1:50 PM:All VOR has in poker terminology is a J K A repeating J K of hatred and slanted lies in hope that the Socialist tax raising Obama will get elected. It would be the perfect storm to elect a tax increaser at a time like this. Only a person who thought a J K was a great hand would promote the flawed logic of Obama. McCain is far from perfect but at least his mindset is where it needs to be to get us through this mess. The President gets too much public blame in times like this and Congress way too little. I have your A A VOR. You can keep your dumb J K.

Betcha wrote on Oct 9, 2008 1:53 PM:chuck[-] wrote on Oct 9, 2008 11:54 AM: The litigants regarding equal protection of the law for marriage are not the same litigants who sued the Boy Scouts.

Gota Wonder wrote on Oct 9, 2008 2:06 PM:SARAH PALIN AND THE ALASKAN INDEPENCE PARTY; Seems that her husband, Todd, was a member of the AIP. Furthermore, that Sarah Palin has attended AIP functions and conventions and as late of 2008 addressed them as Governor of Alaska. So, is Sarah paling around with traitorous secessionists?

Mathematician wrote on Oct 9, 2008 2:07 PM:Mathematician to Caro H.C. ~

Thank you for your correction (7:33 AM). I am embarrassed. Your comment is even more poignant with your correction.

The NC Times generally refuses to publish a letter when it is libelous, vulgar or factually incorrect. This letter was factually incorrect, but then mathematician was half asleep at 1:41 AM, and got it factually wrong, also. Thanks, Caro.

Ron wrote on Oct 9, 2008 2:07 PM:Wow-wee! lookie all I missed out on today!
LOL

Ya got some poser lib with this Yes on 8 thing. Then, a Mathematician that can't add. Next, What if the former president of the Harvard Law Review couldn't show one piece of legal work product. My buddy OBAMACAN't talking about the messiah {small "m"} back to smoking 3 packs a day. The totally dellusional VOR predicting a Democratic landslide, when Zogby's got the race split by 2-2.5 points. While Wanda's wailing about tax breaks for "the Rich", when everyone knowledgable knows every taxpayer got a tax break. {maybe she don't pay any taxes?} Back to VOR & his ideology, hate and prejudice, as voiced by his messiah. We now know Roger prefers country-western singers to women governors. Apollo's still defending Pelosi. Angry Lib "Republican Healthcare Socialist" aka LibJim still hiding out. We now know Teen Pregnancy watches BillO, and gets angrier by the minute. So, that's fun to see.
Ah.. who else..?
Oh, yes.. never to be out done, tjefferson squawking about unregulated capitalism, as if that were true.
Ms M is still confused about a greedy government using banks like their personal flunkies forcing them to hand out loans based on skin color, instead of credit history or ability to pay.
My buddy and land reformer gracchus{Stalin was a land reformer too} still eye-balling OPM (other people's money trying to say that he has to eat mac & cheese 3 times a week, they should too.

Ah.. the disillusionment that will follow should Barackous NObamous become the next President. Tugging at all those liberal heart strings, playing em like a fiddle. Yes, WE Can!!!
We can have ALL these things, even if the roof is falling down, AND.....
for the 95%.. you'll get em for FREE!

And people ask me how I know about Batter Liberal Syndrone? LOL
And do you want to know what is going to be even funnier? WHEN the messiah can't make all this promised land stuff happen, they are gonna cut him a break.
They are gonna roll over, and say...
it's the Republicans fault we can't have all this. LOL even funnier!
Better get your wading gear together, cause the rice paddies.. they ARE a coming!

Bill wrote on Oct 9, 2008 2:17 PM:Ms. M

How are you saying the hell to everyone else?

Nobody was preyed on. People made their own decisions. There are people who refianced their homes several times, took time off work, spent the money, and now are in default. They made those decisions on their own but you stay silent on that in persuit of your utopian nonsense that somehow the poor little consumer was preyed on.

I dont remember any home owners saying it was horrible when the artificial demand created by lax standards drove their home values up. Nobody complained so your claim that they are in no way responsible for their own fate is disingenious.

From the sound of it, you sound as if you come from the same school of thought that I do as you have made good decisions and are not effected by this mess like so many others are.

The waitress at Dennys, the frocery store worker, the bell hop at Ramada...those are who I feel bad for as they have been locked out of this feeding frenzy of people using their homes as ATMs. Now, the waitress at Dennys can start dreaming again as prices have dropped to where her and her blue collar husband can now afford a home.

But you dont speak for them for some reason.

What about them?

So what do you mean when you say you would be saying the hell to EVERYONE ELSE?

Not them.

The banks, investors, loan reps, realtors, and homeowners all share blame as all of them were driven by greed.

Thats not desperate.

That is fact as all of them had a role in putting people with risky financial situations in homes.

Oh sure, the banks have culpability and I admit that. However, we are all ultimately responsible for our own decisions.

I dont want to pay for the decisions of irresponsible consumers anymore than I want to pay for Wall St. investor bailouts.

How is that a desperate argument?

There is plenty of people that are benefitting in this economy but people like you give them no voice.

That is either disingenious or uninformed.

Which is it?

tjefferson wrote on Oct 9, 2008 2:18 PM:It's a good thing the polls indicate proposition 8 will pass. California's constitution will soon define marriage according to the bible. This should be just the start of changing our laws to conform to God's law. The bible demands that disobedient children be stoned to death and our state law should reflect His law. There are some very obnoxious teenagers in my neighborhood. I would be willing to cast the first stone when God's law is in effect. If we do not change our laws conform to His law, God will destroy our state, probably with a huge hurricane. You might think He would punish Californians by earthquake, but I've heard from excellent authority that His punishment is usually by hurricane. Please understand, I really love gay folks, golly gee, wink, wink, God love em'..

Wanda wrote on Oct 9, 2008 2:18 PM:Kevin Philips (see Bob at 1:32 PM) wrote a book: "Bad Money".

Reardon wrote on Oct 9, 2008 2:24 PM:People like me, who look for the genesis of this housing problem and subsequent market meltdown, are often stymied by the bureaucrats.

In 2007 the bureaucrats at HUD pulled down the copy of the National Homeownership Strategy, written in 1994 under the direction of Henry Cisneros as ordered by President Clinton. President Clinton has already preempted criticism by admitting his and his administration guilt in this crises, but it is interesting nonetheless to track the issue – particularly in light of the attempted cover-up.

I am indebted to Joseph Mason, Associate Professor of Finance, Drexel University LeBow College of Business, Senior Fellow at the Wharton School, and Financial Industry Consultant, Criterion Economics, LLC. who brought this to light in Business Week. Fortunately for him, a colleague (Joshua Rosner) had mirrored the National Homeownership Strategy before HUD took it down in an abundance of caution considering the then coming crises.

Mason says in his February 26, 2008 commentary, quoting from the currently unavailable National Homeowner Strategy”:

(QUOTE)Chapter 4 of the Strategy deals with innovative approaches to mortgage
financing that can help borrowers live in homes (I say “live in” homes because
non- or negative-amortizing instruments do not help individuals buy homes). In
what now appears to be rather startling language, the Strategy advocates,
“…financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and
public sectors,” to help homebuyers that lack cash to buy a home or income to make the payments,” (The National Homeownership Strategy: Partners in the
American Dream, Chapter 4: Financing). It strikes me as reckless to promote
home sales to individuals in such constrained financial predicaments. (UNQUOTE)

Testing wrote on Oct 9, 2008 2:27 PM:[b]Testing... Testing.... Is this thing on?[/b]

Reardon wrote on Oct 9, 2008 2:32 PM:Could someone tell me again about "Global Warming?"

Greenergy wrote on Oct 9, 2008 2:50 PM:I knew it!
Reardon at 2:32 p.m. confirms that he has zero -0- ZERO knowledge about climate change.
I'l love to help ya, Reardon, but your question is a tad open ended.
There are whole books on the subject.
There are thousands of PEER-REVIEWED articles on the subject.

Maybe if you could narrow the scope of your inquiry a bit, you could get some much-needed help.
Maybe start with Google, Wikipeda, and then maybe someone could help you check out the Journal of Geophysical Research.

Karl wrote on Oct 9, 2008 2:58 PM:Oh great Reardon (2:32 PM). Do we have to go through that again? I'd rather have a root canal done by Chris with no novacaine.

Karl wrote on Oct 9, 2008 3:11 PM:The dynamics of partisans voting strictly down party lines has puzzled me for years. I have a question for all the Democrats and/or liberals on this blog.

If the Democrat's party ticket was Edward Kennedy as President and Nancy Pelosi as Vice President would your vote for this pair?

jvc wrote on Oct 9, 2008 3:12 PM:Many school board members in the county
are the pillars of the community that are helped get elected by self-interest groups! The electorate of the people must take back the electoral process!
No more powerful self-interest group
school board members on our school boards!There are three issues for determining school board members: 1) students 2) students 3) students.

tjefferson wrote on Oct 9, 2008 3:20 PM:I want to thank some of the posters on this board for helping me through this economic meltdown. My net worth is down more that I am willing to admit, even though I am a very conservative investor. But now that you've made me understand it wasn't Reagonomics or unregulated capitalism without oversight and corporate greed that caused the meltdown I feel better. It was actually the illegal immigrants and ethnic minorities who caused this financial catastrophe. I suspect that allowing gays to marry had something to do with it too. Kissing up and kicking down does make you feel better after all. Thank you.

VOR wrote on Oct 9, 2008 3:25 PM:All these Conservos have is hate talk radio, NewsMax, WorldNetDaily, Drudge to get their talking points. They copy and paste. Copy their one liners and paste into google and walha....you find what Conservo hate site they got it from.

Reardon is so weak. Conservatism is dead and slowly everything will be corrected as Democrats take over. The steamroller has started and will roll over the hatred, prejudice and discrimination of the right. Thank goodness

VOR wrote on Oct 9, 2008 3:28 PM:One day award winner Reardon will be on here when the enviornment is in crisis like the financial world is today, spewing his nothings. Well Reardon, I soent bigtime today in the market and will again tomorrow. Global warming is made from the hot air that comes from the hate on the right.

grj wrote on Oct 9, 2008 3:31 PM:Wow what censorship, I made a joke about clintons brother and Billy Beer vs. Sarah Palin and Moosehead Beer and oh my I offended someone. As for 15% tax rate for someone making well below $50,000 it is way too much to pay and still afford rent etc. Rich should pay more.

Chris wrote on Oct 9, 2008 3:35 PM:So Bill say's that it only takes one to start a war and two to start peace. Well we are the one that started the war and want nothing to do with making peace. And if we eventually have peace it will only be after we have gotten all the spoils we want. That is a puppet government that will do our will in impoverishing their citizens for the good of the U.S. corporations.

To Karl wrote on Oct 9, 2008 3:44 PM:"Karl
[-] wrote on Oct 9, 2008 3:11 PM
If the Democrat's party ticket was Edward Kennedy as President and Nancy Pelosi as Vice President would your vote for this pair?"

I would have to study Kennedy a lot more to give an answer to that but I would NOT vote for Pelosi. Bush and Cheney should have been impeached two years ago.

Chris wrote on Oct 9, 2008 3:50 PM:Oh, more good news. The debt clock in N.Y. has run out of digits. Not to worry. There will be a new debt clock in about a year with more digits.

chuck wrote on Oct 9, 2008 3:51 PM:>>>Could someone tell me again about "Global Warming?">>>>

I only consider reading an article about global warming if it begins "Once upon a time, there was this moron who invented the intenet, and then ivented the biggest money grab ever on the face of the planet............"

Fireside chat wrote on Oct 9, 2008 3:52 PM:Pendleton smoking like an old stogie. Santa Anas breathing down our necks. Sit by the fireside and listen to the tale of an old soldier who ran for president while his party ran amuck. He hired a right hand woman to carry his grey water and went of in an RV to chase his dream. Ran out of gas in October when the winds came up and parked it in a ditch with my 201K. Texas cowboy honked as he went past in his daddy's caddy. Had to call a Chicago tow truck driver to pull us all out. Happily after the last 8 years.

Alf wrote on Oct 9, 2008 3:54 PM:Well, "chuck" at 11:51AM,
I would call them anachronistic loud-mouthed pains in the behind.
Some people just can't seem to come live in the present world.
Do you want to be thought of as one of them?
Regards, Alf.

Looking Glass wrote on Oct 9, 2008 3:56 PM:And the Dow falls below 9000 today. Sounds to me like liberals and conservatives alike are too busy bickering to fix the problems that beset the economy. And throwing money at the problem only makes it worse. Doesn't anyone in the government learn from their mistakes? I won't be holding my breath.

Olaf wrote on Oct 9, 2008 3:57 PM:So Gracchus: your saying that those (let's say a family of four in California) who make more then 250,000 a year are "rich" and SHOULD pay more money then the DINKS (double income no kids in let's say Texas) who make 100,000 are not? Isn't it the bottom 40% who pay NO taxes (not including non-papered workers who pay nothing but sales tax unless they bought a house that Reardon talked about) that is a lot of people and the taxes that everybody likes to talk about that the "rich" are not paying are the taxes that GW repealed from Clinton. IT is not a tax break it is a repealing of a tax hike. So My question stands why is wealth redistribution fair? Because it rewards those that don't try in society and brings down those that do? Just wondering why EVERYONE doesn't have to pay their fair share to live in this wonderfull country? For a disclaimer I do not make anything near any of those amounts. So I must be poor but I sure pay a lot of taxes though. But I do not covet what my neighbor has.

mS m wrote on Oct 9, 2008 3:58 PM:Karl
[-] wrote on Oct 9, 2008 3:11 PM:...this election will NOT be along party lines. There are many many republicans that are crossing over to vote for Obama - you see AMERICANS cannot see this great country brought to it's knees. Common sense will tell you that we cannot have the same folks in Washington running our country for another 4-8, years we cannot afford it. Karl, if it was the libs that put our country where it is now - I would cross over in a heartbeat as I have in the past.

The cons are DESPERATE - just look at the campaign they are running. BEYOND DESPERATE.

Olaf wrote on Oct 9, 2008 4:01 PM:To VOR: That is funny about talking points. I heard the famous left one the other night stright out of Obamas mouth. "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb McCain" he must have been reading the blogs?

Chris wrote on Oct 9, 2008 4:03 PM:Poor Olaf just doesn't get it. When a person works in a bank or is dealing in secrities then it is their feduciary responsability to make sure that the people they are loaning money to are a good risk and has enough eqity in the property so that if anything does happen then the property can be forclosed and the bank will not loose money. However what happened is that there are people who have people comming in for a loan and the person at the bank falseifies the information on the person who wants the loan. Therefor the bank sells the loans and makes their money for making the loan. However at some point the person who got the loan defaults and then whoever holds the securities is screwed. I know that you don't get it because you spend too much time listening to Limbaugh and you think that these people who are rich got that way because of hard work and not by efectivly stealing.

Alf wrote on Oct 9, 2008 4:06 PM:Well, "Bill" at 11:38AM
no matter who becomes president,
if they fail,
are you going to be "Intellectually honest",
or are you going to be a hypocrite?
I must point out that you want to give GWB a pass with your "intellectual honesty" but about Obama you say "When he fails, I will tie it to his policies".
Which is it, Honesty or Hypocrisy?
Regards, Alf.

Obamanation wrote on Oct 9, 2008 4:12 PM:At least Reardon has an Ace King in his hand Vor. All your guys have are weak J K. I do recall a better LA economy under Reardon than under the present guy I shook hands with at the Isreali flag raising ceremony I attended outside the Isreali Consulate almost two weeks back. The Smoozer and hand shaker was on top of his game alright. He is a good politician but is a poor Mayor.

KarlQ wrote on Oct 9, 2008 4:15 PM:Karl 3:11 - your question is a boondoggle. Kennedy/Pelosi are not running and don't do justice to the excellent candidates that Democratic Party has selected. I agree with your point though. I'm a Dem who voted for Pappy Bush in 92 instead of Slick Willy. Thought we should pick the best candidate so I jumped my party. I think they nailed it this time and Obama will be our next president and he will be on a par with Lincoln. Maybe even greater than Ray Gun.

Alf wrote on Oct 9, 2008 4:19 PM:Well, "Reardon" at 1:10PM,
I thought that I said "RESPECTABLE".
B of A is not respectable they are bottom of the barrel feeding opportunists. THAT'S why we need to re-establish some of the regulations, yo know, the ones that would have prevented this.
I concur 110% that ALL the pertpetrators should be tossed in the clink.
Regards, Alf.

sdraoul wrote on Oct 9, 2008 4:37 PM:Thanks, censor, for not publishing responses to idiotic posts such as that of "What if" today Thanks.

Sky is Falling wrote on Oct 9, 2008 4:39 PM:You're kidding, aren't you, VOR at 3:28 p.m., about a future environmental meltdown?
You don't really think conservatives could get things THAT wrong, do you?
Just because they were wrong about Bill Clinton's economic recovery plan in 1993?
Just because they were wrong about WMD and trusting Bush on Iraq?
Just because they were wrong about Bush turning surpluses in deficits?
Just because they were wrong about dismantling emergency services before hurricanes came?
Just because they were wrong about deregulating financial institutions causing market collapses? (Referring of course to late 1920's. And late 1980's. And 2000's. Just bad luck, of course.)

Those were just flukes.

Doesn't mean they'd be wrong about the environment.

Doesn't mean McCain is wrong when he promises, PROMISES that he will do for health care what he did for financial markets in deregulating and let market forces create prosperity. [Sept/Oct 2008 issue of "Contingencies" (professional journal of healthcare actuaries), written just before the economic meltdown.]

In other words, McCain wants to take credit for deregulation of financial institutions.
Let him have it.

But then he promises (threatens?) to do the same to health care.....

sdraoul wrote on Oct 9, 2008 4:40 PM:"Talented woman" what state have you been elected to govern? In what state is yoru governorship supported by 60 to 85% of the people?

Wink, wink!

Sleeping Like a Baby wrote on Oct 9, 2008 4:47 PM:This Market allows me to sleep like a baby. I wake up every 2 hours--cry out loud--and then go back sleep.

Allan wrote on Oct 9, 2008 5:02 PM:Once again the Republicans are trying character assassination to win a presidential election. It worked against Dukakis and Kerry, but this time is different. In this election the country faces its most serious financial problems since the great depression. We need solutions not attacks on character. In taking the low road John McCain has squandered a reputation for honesty built up over years. Now he is just another dishonest politician. It's not going to work this time.

Reardon wrote on Oct 9, 2008 5:03 PM:To Greenergy; The economic crises has consumed all of the oxygen and I had not heard if Miami and New Your City have been engulfed by the oceans yet, as famously predicted by Nobel Prize winning Al Gore?

I have not even heard the oceans had started to rise in the local news, so I though I would check and get the latest on Global Whatever.

Apparently, there is no recent news but I sure am glad I live at 1,700 feet above (current) sea level.

Just checking.

Roger wrote on Oct 9, 2008 5:07 PM:Hey grj at 3:31 PM, it wasn't Clinton's brother with "Billy Beer", it was Carter's brother.

Do thank the NCT "censors" for sparing us the joke.

Reardon wrote on Oct 9, 2008 5:12 PM:Olaf: Because I believe in equality under the law, I agree with a flat tax -- poor people NEED to have a stake in this country.

The only thing worse than taxation without representation, is representation without taxation.

Poor people deserve to have equal treatment, and pay their fair share of taxes!

Vista Granny wrote on Oct 9, 2008 5:27 PM:Frankly, I would take a Kennedy/Pelosi ticket over McCain/Palin any time. To those Ted Kennedy bashers may I say that regardless (there is no such word as irregardless)of the Chappaquidic (sp?) affair, Ted Kennedy has been and is a very intelligent, fair Senator. His personal life aside, he is well-educated, well-spoken and well-loved by most in Massachusetts. How many of you who like to make fun of him, or call him names could have kept going as brother after brother lost his life in war and assasinations, and a sister lost hers in a plane crash? He has been a father to all his nieces and nephews, and a strong shoulder for his sisters in law. He lost his own son and nephews. Whatever happened that night long ago, it is over, and Ted Kennedy paid the price long ago. I think he would have made a magnificent president!!! Nancy? Well she's sure better than Sarah.

Reardon wrote on Oct 9, 2008 5:38 PM:Alf: I guess we need to turn to you to define "respectable."

I'll keep that in mind.

gracchus wrote on Oct 9, 2008 5:44 PM:yes, olaf, concerning your question posed at 3:57 p.m., an individual who earns annually at least $250,000 a year is rich. if he has three dependents, he will recieve his appropriate deductions.

your hypothetical couple with no children that together earn $100,000 a year has made a life-style choice for whatever reason. the couple can afford amenities as long as each maintain its health. neither will have children or grandchildren to attend to himself or herself in old age.

your question about redistribution of money through taxes depends upon how it is framed. is it redistribution to expect the wealthier part of the population to pay more to maintain government services? or is paying a larger percentage of tax, if one earns more money, a fair expectation of a society grounded on the sanctity of property rights and the abhorrence of the state's capricious deprivation of those rights?

i believe that a well-ordered state that provides domestic tranquillity, defense against foreign aggressors, a good legal system, and infrastructure and services is an expensive enterprise. and i think that those individuals who have benefited most from it have a greater obligation to support it.

this not about depriving hard-working achievers their well-earned fruits, and transferring wealth to slackards. i doubt that there is another country in the world where citizen and non-citizen alike can feel secure about the safety of their property. but to insure that security, better-off citizens and residents need to attend to the needs of their hard-working fellows upon whom fortune has not smiled.

it is not preposterous to expect a high income earner to pay more taxes to insure that he can continue to earn his high income. it is preposterous to expect a low-income earner to pay a significant portion of his wages to taxes that could not merely deprive him of amenities, but of actual necessities.

Reardon wrote on Oct 9, 2008 5:50 PM:National news (NBC) is saying that the stock meltdown is driving investment money to real estate, because the real estate market has already been driven to the bottom.

Yes, the market is being heavily sold at the lowest level in Zip 92026 with almost all sales below $400,000 -- but yesterday a home went into "pending" in Hidden Meadows (part of 92026) for $1,200,000. (That home had been on the market for 487 days!)

Greenergy wrote on Oct 9, 2008 5:50 PM:I remain disappointed in Reardon at 5:03 p.m.
I don't expect much from him, but I do expect better than Ron and Raoul, and better than this.
If you are going to quote Al Gore (who is a journalist, not a scientist), at least quote him correctly.
Yes, like many others, he predicts that New York City and Miami could be flooded.
He never said by 2008. He is talking decades in the future.
But the time to take preventive action on that is NOW.
If we wait until the demise is imminent, it will be too late.

Kind of like the economic meltdown.
Kind of like Katrina.
Kind of like the implosion of military and foreign policy.
Kind of like turning surpluses in to deficits.

Who coulda seen it coming?

Why do you always go with the ones who NEVER GOT IT RIGHT - NEVER!

Poppy wrote on Oct 9, 2008 5:59 PM:"Olaf
[-] wrote on Oct 9, 2008 4:01 PM:To VOR: That is funny about talking points. I heard the famous left one the other night stright out of Obamas mouth. "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb McCain"

Provide a link proving he said that or shut up. We will not abide liars.

OBSERVATON wrote on Oct 9, 2008 5:59 PM:ANCHORAGE, Alaska - The state Supreme Court refused Thursday to halt an ethics investigation into Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee."
from the AP.

Poppy wrote on Oct 9, 2008 6:00 PM:"Obamanation
[-] wrote on Oct 9, 2008 4:12 PM:At least Reardon has an Ace King in his hand Vor. All your guys have are weak J K. I do recall a better LA economy under Reardon than under the present guy I shook hands with at the Isreali flag raising ceremony I attended outside the Isreali Consulate almost two weeks back. The Smoozer and hand shaker was on top of his game alright. He is a good politician but is a poor Mayor."

What exactly are you trying to say? Your post is gibberish.

Hmmmm wrote on Oct 9, 2008 6:02 PM:Is Obamanation also Reardon?

Wanda wrote on Oct 9, 2008 6:03 PM:Allan at 5:02 PM is quick to fault the McCain campaign. It's not entirely their fault. What else do they have?

They have to take the low road.

Fortunately they can't afford to run their insipid attack ads as much as they'd like.

ORACLE wrote on Oct 9, 2008 6:05 PM:Where did all the liquidity (money) disappear?

First the economic crisis was touted as a “Mortgage Crisis”. People stopped paying their mortgages. Those on the right blamed the"irresponsible" mortagees. Those on the left said the people were suffering from economic misfortune, loss of jobs, major illness, unfair mortgage contracts.

Second the crisis was toted as a “Liquidity Crisis”. Money was taken out of circulation because of debts and bad investments. Banks held onto their cash reserves, individuals put it under the mattress. Those on the right said it was the fault of the people who pulled the rug out from under the leveraged house of cards, upsetting what should have been a safe economic model. Those on the left said the bankers and brokers got what they deserved.

Third the crisis is now being toted as a “Crisis of Trust”. Nobody lends to anybody, because they are uncertain they will be paid back. One giant bank does not trust another big bank, because they do not know what toxic “stuff” they have hidden in their portfolio which could lead them to bankruptcy.
So the system begins to collapse, because without positive velocity in the circulatory system, the heart stops. No one seems to believe anymore that 700 billion dollars will make much difference. That’s true. The purpose of the bailout was largely for psychological purposes - to boost confidence the government is doing something really big to clear out bad debt (plaque?) that was clogging the system.

Where do we go from here? Economist Robert Reich gives this answer: “The Fed and other central banks can pour endless money into the system but the problem is no longer just on the supply side. It’s now also on the demand side. Which means the federal government, as spender of last resort, has to jump start the economy, as do other governments. Now’s the time to start rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure – roads, bridges, levees, public transit. And help cash-starved state and local governments invest in their schools. “

Pouring more tax dollars into the brokerages and banks is like pouring it into a black hole. The government is going to have to begin rebuilding the economy from the foundation up, not from the top down.

Bah Humbug wrote on Oct 9, 2008 6:06 PM:"Reardon
[-] wrote on Oct 9, 2008 5:12 PM:
Poor people deserve to have equal treatment, and pay their fair share of taxes!"

Get back with me when the poor receive equal treatment and I might agree with you.

Scrooge.

Poppy wrote on Oct 9, 2008 6:09 PM:As much as I don't like Pelosi, I think I will agree with Vista Granny. Exactly.

Reardon wrote on Oct 9, 2008 6:15 PM:From The Hill Newspaper today:

Obama, Clinton support McCain-backed earmark measure

By Manu Raju
Posted: 03/10/08 05:52 PM [ET]
The two leading Democratic presidential candidates plan to sign onto an amendment that would establish a temporary freeze on lawmakers’ pet projects, a move that could help blunt attacks by Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the presumptive GOP nominee, over the Democrats’ support for congressional earmarks.

Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) have agreed to co-sponsor an amendment establishing a one-year ban on earmarks, which Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) plans to offer this week to a fiscal 2009 budget resolution. McCain, who has long attacked earmarks as a waste of taxpayer dollars, was one of the original sponsors of the DeMint amendment and has been pushing the Democratic candidates to back the measure.

Obama announced his support for the amendment Monday, which was soon followed by an announcement from Clinton’s office that she would also cosponsor the measure, according to Senate aides...

...McCain sought no money for earmarks last year, but Obama and Clinton co-sponsored $98 million and $342 million in earmarks respectively last year, according to the Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Reardon wrote on Oct 9, 2008 6:20 PM:To Bah Humbug: Our Founders tied taxation to representation.

So do I.

Either way suits me: Either tax everyone equally, or remove the "equal" one man, one vote.

Works for me. Your choice. THAT is equal treatment UNDER THE LAW!

What if wrote on Oct 9, 2008 6:23 PM:What if President Palin has to take charge of the economy?

sdraoul wrote on Oct 9, 2008 6:28 PM:Just watched a video tape of Louis Farahkhan endorsing Barack Obama for Presidentand calling him the "Messiah."

Golly gee, sergeant!

Alf wrote on Oct 9, 2008 6:34 PM:Well, "Teen Pregnancy" at 9:27AM,
if you want to see more spin than Bill O'Spin,
check out another spinning Bill,
the post by "Bill" at 11:38AM.
His definition of "intellectual honesty" is to minimize GWB's blame in this financial crisis while declaring that if Obama can't fix it if he is President,
it is because of Obama's policies.
Spinning double-standards abound in the Republican clan!!
Regards, Alf.

Talented woman wrote on Oct 9, 2008 6:35 PM:If Sara Palin ran for governor of Texas, she would get 90% of the male vote. She’s got sex appeal, she’s folksy, and she knows how to flirt. And she’s below average intelligence of the Texas male.

Wink, wink!

Oh Please wrote on Oct 9, 2008 6:43 PM:Reardon[-] wrote on Oct 9, 2008 5:12 PM:
If you seek to increase the taxes on the poor, you might as well put them in chains. The poor would become slaves.

Karl wrote on Oct 9, 2008 6:45 PM:Cool, Obamanation @ 1:50 PM, I learned something about poker on this blog and I'm going to Vegas this weekend.

Seriously, I don't gamble much but like to throw a few bucks at a baseball game and sit at the sports book drinking free Rocky Mountain Lite Amber Adult beverages and watching the game. Any advice on the playoff games this weekend?

Oh Please wrote on Oct 9, 2008 6:47 PM:Reardon[-] wrote on Oct 9, 2008 6:20 PM:
Citizens will not give up universal suffrage. Taxation will be determined by the people. You will not get either one of them discarded. I can tell you any scheme to return to the franchise based upon property rights in this country would mean a revolution. Don't you doubt it.

Reardon wrote on Oct 9, 2008 6:52 PM:Gosh! Where are all of those who favor equal treatment under the law for homosexuals, when I ask for equal treatment for the poor under the law?

Hmmm...

SOLON wrote on Oct 9, 2008 6:58 PM:How do you get banks to let go of their cash?

Banks won’t let go of their cash. They won’t loan to other banks. They won’t loan even to long term, credit worthy customers. John Q. Public and his wife won’t spend their money, seized with fear of a depression. Money (“liquidity”) is the life blood of the economy. Without the blood flowing, the economy dies.

So, how do you get the banks and brokerages to put their liquidity back into the system? You offer them a big reward.

The Treasury and Fed must nationalize several of the largest banks, take over the assets by paying stockholders the current bottom stock valuations. Cheap. Citibank almost bought all of Wachovia for a mere $1 billion. The nationalized super banks then offer other banks and brokerages 20% interest for their money. This will attract their capital. Then these nationalized banks should loan this money out at 2% to businesses and community banks with the restriction they can charge no more than 4% to individuals.

It does make sense to help homeowners directly, as Barack Obama has said. But John McCain came up with the stupidist plan I've heard yet for doing so. He wants the government to buy mortgages from the banks at face value and then write down the principal for homeowners. This would be the biggest handout yet to the financial industry. Taxpayers would take all the losses, including the downside risks of additional defaults if houses drop further in value, while the banks would get off Scott free.

The Obama plan would be very expensive, but the McCain plan would be astronomically and prohibitively costly. Offering a temporary lure of a high interest rate would suck liquidity back into the system quickly and cost far, far less -- and it would be a short term expense to taxpayers.

Then after recovery, the government can sell the few big banks on the market with a sizable profit.

The patient is dying. Drastic measures are required.

THOUGHT YOU WOULD LIKE TO KNOW wrote on Oct 9, 2008 7:09 PM:While McCain and Palin are chasing boogeymen in a lame attempt to discredit Obama, consider this:

McCain Voted for Bush’s 2006 Social Security Privatization Plan. In 2006, McCain voted for the Social Security Reserve Fund. The proposal would shift Social Security’s annual surpluses into a reserve account that would be converted into risky private accounts. [SCR 83, Vote #68, 3/16/06; SCR 83, Vote #68, 3/16/06]

In 2000 McCain Wanted to Divert Social Security Money to Private Accounts. The Wall Street Journal reported that “[a] centerpiece of a McCain presidential bid in 2000 was a plan to divert a portion of Social Security payroll taxes to fund private accounts, much as President Bush proposed unsuccessfully.” The plan would put workers’ retirement money into the risky market and reduce the amount of Social Security payments they would receive from the government. The plan would undermine the Social Security system. [Wall Street Journal, 3/3/08]

McCain STILL Proposes Privatizing Social Security—Despite What His Website Says. McCain told the Wall Street Journal he still backs a system of private retirement accounts that he supported in 2000 and President Bush pushed unsuccessfully. The Journal reported he “disowned” details of a proposal on his 2008 campaign website that says he would “supplement” the existing Social Security system with personally managed accounts. But when asked about the position change he denied it and promised to change the website to reflect his true position. “I’m totally in favor of personal savings accounts… As part of Social Security reform, I believe that private savings accounts are a part of it—along the lines that President Bush proposed,” McCain told the Journal.[Wall Street Journal, 3/3/08; Campaign Website, accessed 3/3/08]

SO WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED TO YOU SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNT?

ENDORSEMENT wrote on Oct 9, 2008 7:10 PM:I just watched a video of Ahmadinejad endorsing John McCain, proclaiming him as the American “Destroyer”.

Allah is Great!

Ms M wrote on Oct 9, 2008 7:17 PM:OBSERVATON
[-] wrote on Oct 9, 2008 5:59 PM:...AND Palin has issued a statement regarding HER investigation that exonerates her. The firing had to do with financial/business issues - PATHETIC.

Alf wrote on Oct 9, 2008 7:18 PM:Well, "Reardon" at 5:38PM,
unfortunately, it was regulation that kept banks "RESPECTABLE".
There seems to be NO respectability whatsoever, no inner moral compass at all in the banking industry unless there are regulations, rules which define acceptable versus unacceptable behavior.
I equate deregulation with anarchy.
And anarchy, IMHO, is the opposite if civilized society
I hope that explains it.
Regards, Alf.

Reardon wrote on Oct 9, 2008 7:19 PM:Update: Two homes have now sold or gone into Pending at over $1,200,000 in Hidden Meadows in the past 48 hours.

Both had been on the market for more than 450 days.

WAY too early for a trend, still...the economy could use some good news. There is enough bad economic news going around.

Homes should be for keeping rain off of you in reasonable comfort. They should NOT be an investment unless you are a landlord.

Ms M wrote on Oct 9, 2008 7:21 PM:McCain was giving a speech today. He brought up "the bridge to no where". Now obviously the audience was 98% cons. Are you guys really that stupid? Or maybe he's not insulting your intelligence - he's just lost it!

Ears Marked wrote on Oct 9, 2008 7:25 PM:I read the blog from Reardon at 6:15 p.m. about earmarks.
I kept looking and looking for something about McCain's VP pick and the fact that, both as mayor of a teensy weensy hamlet and later as governor, she said new all-time records for per-capita earmarks.

Several times this year, including the first debate, McCain said he would name names and "make them famous" of the greedy pigs seeking earmarks.
Well, he named Sarah Palin his VP and "made her famous."

But I didn't see anything about this in Reardon's blog.
This biased, partisan propagandist has absolutely zero credibility on this subject.

Karl wrote on Oct 9, 2008 7:27 PM:To Karl @ 2008 3:44 PM, Thanks for the honest response. I appreciate it.

Oh Please wrote on Oct 9, 2008 7:29 PM:Reardon[-] wrote on Oct 9, 2008 6:52 PM:
You did not ask for equal treatment of the poor under the law. IMHO, it seems that you want a return to property right franchise.That means that not only would the rich have the wealth they would have all the power as well. You wish to raise rich people into political aristocrats.
That would mean a leveling right quick.

Alf wrote on Oct 9, 2008 7:32 PM:Well, "Reardon" at 6:52PM,
are you talking about those who define fair taxation as being "tax the rich", who want to take away "loopholes" for the "rich" while keeping the "loopholes" that they enjoy?
In my envious heart, I am one of those,
in my actions, I am one who favors a two-tiered flat tax (I know, that's an oxymoron, but life is a compromise) of 0 to 250k being 7 or 8 percent and 250k+1 to the sky being 10 percent. No exemptions, no deductions, no difference between "earned" and "unearned" income, no medical deductions, no business expense deductions, applicable to all units, be they 1 single person or a married couple or a business of 50,000 employees.
The IRS Tax Code would be less than 1/2 of 1 page.
Regards, Alf.

Obamanation wrote on Oct 9, 2008 7:37 PM:Obamanation asks VOR: What economic policy does the Obamanator have that will get us through this chaos? Will removing even more capital from the private system through the increased taxation make sense at a time when the system needs liquidity? Or will the wise Obama just rub his Genie lamp and create wealth through the government largesse he advocates? Obama represents a worse problem than the past that got us into this mess. Unbridled government programs will not help this situation. You cannot lean on the private side of the economy at a time like this and governmentally spend this country to prosperity. An Obamanation would bring not only a Obamacession but more than likely a future Obamapression. And one more thing: What party has controlled Congress while this has all unraveled? Yes we all know where the real power of the purse is and it is not in the White House.

Karl wrote on Oct 9, 2008 7:41 PM:mS m @ 3:58 PM:

Thanks for your reply. Fom you it sounds sincere.

Peace

RWE wrote on Oct 9, 2008 7:41 PM:For those of you who think Sarah Palin is a viable candidate for the office of Vice President, I'm reminded of a time back in the sixties when some folks in Berkeley ran a pig for President and many people voted for him (her?). This seems to be another one of those times. Knowledge is power; ignorance is slavery.

Karl wrote on Oct 9, 2008 7:47 PM:KarlQ @ 4:15 PM, it's getting late and my one brain cell is way too tired. I just figured out who "Ray Gun" is while typing this. Thanks for the response.

Ron wrote on Oct 9, 2008 7:53 PM:Gotta love that full faith & credit of the United States Government...
Eh?...
"THOUGHT YOU WOULD LIKE TO KNOW?"
LOL....

Man did these people see you coming! LOL

Now, this is what we know.
We know the NObama budget was scored, and by the end of just 4 short years, we will be another $3.4 trillion in debt.
Between Social Security & MediCare we have a $54 trillion dollar problem over the next 20-30 years.
That's a very easy math equation:
54 divided by 20, 0r 30 years, and you come out with $2.7 trillion each year for 20 years. Or you come out with $1.8 trillion over the 30 years.
It really depends on how long you live, and are able to collect.
Anyways....
We still have a nation to run. Military, Courts, FEMA, Transportation, etc., etc., etc. Right?
Currently our Fed budget is $3.1 trillion. If you have $2.7 coming out just to pay off the old folks, what else can't you fund? Certainly no tax cuts for the lower 95%.
Even if the Government took the Nation's entire GDP for one year, that's somewhere between $12-13 trillion. That would be about 5 years of giving the government everything, just to make sure granny & grampy are able to make it to the bingo on Friday nights.
For me? I'll take my chances with the crooks on Wall Street any day of the week, than the crooks that reside in the halls of Washington D.C.
The crooks in Wall Street I don't have to invest with, they won't put me in jail if I don't invest with them.
On the other hand, the crooks in the Capital, will.
You catching my drift here?
P.S. Buy Gold, and put it in a safe place.

OBAMACAN wrote on Oct 9, 2008 7:59 PM:Obamanation at 7:37 p.m. demonstrates ignorance of economics and politics.
Obama has offered very specific proposals, including the reregulation of financial institutions he first proposed in 2005 and the restructuring of tax incentives.

Obamanation whines about "increased taxation" but fails to note that Obama offers NO increased taxes for anyone earning less than $250,000.00 per year. More important, he offers huge financial incetives for the broad majority of consumers earning less than $200,000 per year, three times that of what McCain offers for 95% of Americans.
Obamanation still believes in the discredited theory of Republican trickle down.
Most Americans are tired of being trickled on.
Economic recovery has always been based on DEMAND-side economics - demand from consumers.
Without that, there is nothing for the supply siders to supply.
Supply-side theory has ALWAYS FAILED.
Demand-side recovery has ALWAYS SUCCEDED.

Ron wrote on Oct 9, 2008 8:04 PM:In the current political environment...
I completely understand how
"Greenergy" @5:50 PM can call Al Bore a
journalist.

I wonder if he's gettin a tinkling sensation up his leg too? LOL

Reardon wrote on Oct 9, 2008 8:05 PM:To Ears Marked: I quoted the entire pertinent parts of an article in The Hill, a Capitol Hill newspaper. (Palin is not on Capitol Hill.) I made no comments myself, at all. If you have points, make them with citations as i did.

To Alf: Your solution is not equal treatment under the law, as you yourself have asked for regarding Proposition 8.

Your solution is a great improvement on the current situation where we have 30+% of the population are worse than freeloaders, they are on permanent welfare because of "Earned Income Credits."

(How exactly do they "earn" it? Fog a mirror?)

Karl wrote on Oct 9, 2008 8:16 PM:If you think "Allan @ 5:02 PM:" that the Republican Party is the only party that practices "character assassination" you are working with limited mental capacity. Do you really believe that?

Karl wrote on Oct 9, 2008 8:19 PM:Hold your horses "Roger @ 5:07 PM:". The joke may have been some kind of funny comparision. Maybe Hillary was involved.

Ron wrote on Oct 9, 2008 8:26 PM:Man, this just keeps gettin funnier & funnier...
I always get a kick out of Alf,
but "Alf" @7:32 PM has just gone over the edge, and drank the Kool-Aid.

Let me bring your attention to just how successful the Leftists have been in telling the Big Lie.
What is the Big Lie?
"The Rich, aren't paying their fair share." That's the Big Lie.

Now, what are the facts. According to the IRS, the top 1% pay 39% of all income taxes in this country. The top 1% begins at $388K a year.
The top 5%, who's income begins at $153K a year, pay 60% of all income taxes.
The Top 10% who's income begins $108K a year, pays 70%.
The top 25% who's income begins at $64K a year, pays 86%.
The top 50% of taxpayers begins at $32K a year, and they round it out at 96%.
Some 49 million Americans pay NO income taxes at all. In fact, many receive back, through EIC a welfare stipend.

And ta boot....
The top 1% of taxpayers earned $1.79 trillion (22.06% of the total) in 2006 and paid $408.4 billion in taxes (about 40% of the total). The bottom 95% of taxpayers earned $5.14 trillion (63.34% of the total) and paid $408.1 billion taxes (about 40% of the total).

In other words, the top 1% of U.S. taxpayers paid slightly more in federal income taxes ($408.4 billion) in 2006 than the entire bottom 95% of taxpayers paid ($408.1 billion).

Right, fair share.... get a life.

Apollo wrote on Oct 9, 2008 8:32 PM:Re: Reardon (8:05 p.m.)
What a disingenuous, misleading comment.
The point of the article you cited is that Hillary and Obama joined forces to ban earmarks.
One of Obama's BIPARTISAN successes is to join with uber-conservative Tom Coburn (R-OK) for transparency on earmarks and posting them on the Internet.
Of course it does not mention Palin.
She was completely unknown when this was written.
But the FACT that your lack of context omits is that Palin set a new record for per-capita earmarks, more than TWENTY TIMES those of Obama's state.

This is the kind of dishonest taking of figures out of context that engenders distrust about the phony manipulation of statistics.
Sorry, Reardon, a lot of us thought you were better than this.
What a disappointment.

To Karl wrote on Oct 9, 2008 8:36 PM:"Karl
[-] wrote on Oct 9, 2008 8:16 PM:If you think "Allan @ 5:02 PM:" that the Republican Party is the only party that practices "character assassination" you are working with limited mental capacity."

We have seen the violent rhetoric that McCain/Palin are using, that inspires people to shout "Kill him" and "Traitor" at their rallys.

Can you give us a fair comparison of "character assasination" that Obama/Biden have used on them?

Be specific please.

To Karl wrote on Oct 9, 2008 8:37 PM:You have the very oddest sense of humor I have ever come across. More power to you.

Karl wrote on Oct 9, 2008 8:38 PM:Vista Granny @ 5:27 PM:

You make some very good points.

With the losses in his personal life most would have a hard time dealing. I have been very fortunate in this area and cannot imagine the toll it would take on me.

"He has been a father to all his nieces and nephews, and a strong shoulder for his sisters in law". Don't get me wrong here but could his behavior be a manifestation of his feelings of guilt for Mary Joe's family?

"Ted Kennedy paid the price long ago". Really? I haven't heard a confession yet. You and I know the details. If I had done the same thing, "years ago" would not erase the outright criminal acts that lead to the death of a young women on that night. I can see forgiveness if one has rued the day and asked for forgiveness.

"Whatever happened that night long ago, it is over, and Ted Kennedy paid the price long ago". Please inform me as to what that price was. Did he go to jail? did he pay a financial penalty? Did it interrupt his career?

"I think he would have made a magnificent president!!!" You are talking in the past tense, is he dead?

"Well she's sure better than Sarah". How so?

Peace








I think he would have made a magnificent president!!! Nancy? Well she's sure better than Sarah.

Karl wrote on Oct 9, 2008 8:41 PM:OBSERVATON @ 5:59 PM:

Hip Hip Hurray. The sooner the better.

Karl wrote on Oct 9, 2008 8:46 PM:Oh Please @ 6:47 PM:

Wrong!! "Taxation will be determined by the people".

The "people" can and have been overturned on many issues by the courts. Try again.

Karl wrote on Oct 9, 2008 8:51 PM:Thanks for the entertainment tonight folks.

Peace out

Karl wrote on Oct 9, 2008 8:54 PM:To Karl @ 8:36 PM:

If I have to provide examples, you are too far gone and it would do no good.

Good luck and Peace.

Ron wrote on Oct 9, 2008 8:54 PM:One of the problems with Liberals, like "OBAMACAN" @7:59 PM is that they do not understand economics.
I'm sorry, they just don't...

It's neither a trickle down, nor a bubble up economy, these are both myth's built by liberals to describe theories have have no clue about.
Supply-side is the theory that there is an optimal tax rate where at some point you garner enough taxes to run a civil society, yet not distract from economic growth within the private sector, the area in which you hope to extract the money {taxes}.
This was the theory of John Kennedy.

Now, we will have the NObama version of
partial Keynesian economics on steriods.

The main problem with most liberals is, they envy other people's stuff. And it confuses them, because then they hate those who have more. They then become the enemy, and someone to get even with.
So for them, it's always about dividing a shrinking economic pie, or at least, a status quo pie. They believe ina closed economic system, rather than an ever growing, ever widening pie.

So, here's their solution, they take from the top, give to the bottom, it's "bubble's up" back up to the top, and they repeat the process.
The amount of wealth remains the same, it's just get's redistributed.
And this is where they get this idea of fairness.

So, the guy at the bottom get's a few extra bucks that he/she should save, they don't. they go buy a new TV, another car, some video game...
And your still where you were.
Because the TV's wear out, so do the cars, and the video game breaks.

The point of this is, some people are better at sports than other's. Right?
Some people are better at some things, and other people, right?
So, why is this not true about money?
And the handling of money?
I personally know several people who make well over $100K a year, and they live paycheck to paycheck.
I also know several people who make a mere $50K a year, and they have wealth, real wealth. They didn't run out and buy the Nintendo Wii.
They saved.

And at the end of this "bubble-up", the money will again be back in the hands of those who know how to hang onto it.
I once heard it said, that if the government stole every nickle the Rich had, and gave it to the poor. Inside of 5 years, the Rich would be rich again, because they know how to do it.
While other's, simply do not.

Yawn wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:06 PM:How boring, to see Ron posting blogs on trivia this and nonsense that.
No serious issues. Can't find anything good to say about the old wrinkly guy or the beauty queen who has been enjoyng too much of Cindy's six packs before driving her kids to hockey practice.
Where is his defense of his floundering candidate?
Where is his ranting and railing about "socialism" after his own party turned out to be the socialists?

Gotta admit, at least it is interesting to see Ron, Raoul, Reardon and Chuckie spinning and flailing around.

Get used to saying it: "President Obama."

95% of Americans will be smiling on Nov 5.

Bill wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:10 PM:Chris

Are you claiming that we didnt fight AQ in Iraq?

Are you claiming AQ didnt attack us on 9/11?

Are you claiming that had we not invaded Iraq, then AQ would have left us alone forever?

Are you claiming AQ wants peace?

Are you claiming that?

We didnt start the war on terror and 9/11 was a strange way for Muslims to ask for peace.

Are you serious or on drugs?

Economics Lesson wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:12 PM:What a hoot to see Ron trying to lecture us about economics at 8:54 p.m.
Here is the guy who has been defending the failed policies of Hoover / Bush / McCain for years, explaining why those policies really are what works.

Ron's economic policies failed in the Great Depression in the late 1920's.
Ron's economic policies failed in the Keating/McCain deregulation of the S&L collapse of the late 1980's.
Ron's economic policies failed in the Phil "nation of whiners" deregulation joined by Bush and McCain.

Since Ron has never gotten it right yet, why does he think anyone would listen to him now, when his policies have driven our economy into the toilet.

At least we can thank Ron for a smidgen of entertainment value.
It we were not witnessing first hand a devastating economic meltdown, it would be funny.

AQ in Iraq wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:23 PM:Is Bill at 9:10 p.m. pulling our leg?
Since there was NO AL QAEDA in IRAQ before we created a political vacuum that they rushed into fill, his whole point is a non-sequitur.
We did not need to invade Iraq.
Bush was wrong.
McCain was wrong.
THEY HELPED AL QAEDA, because they took military pressure OFF Bin Laden in Afghanistan and destabilized Iraq so Al Qaeda, which had never been there before, could find a new place to thrive.
Thank you Bush and McCain.
Thank you very much.

Bill seems to suffer from the same ignorance as McCain who could not tell the difference between Sunni's and Shias.
He doesn't have the slightest grasp of the issues in Iraq.
How frightening to think that people with this level of ignorance will be voting for the next president.
Fortunately, it looks like they will be badly outnumbered.
Sanity will prevail.
Bush, McCain and Bill will be put out to pasture where they can do no more harm.

And Sarah Palin can drink all the six packs she wants as long as she doesn't drive her kids to hockey games afterward.

Reardon wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:26 PM:APOLLO: I wear your disappointment as a badge. Your applause or disappointment is of less than zero to me.

You make your points your way, and I'll write mine. You emphasize what you wish to take from the article, and I'll take my emphasis -- and that is that Obama and Hillary joined with sponsor John McCain, and that McCain had taken zero earmarks, while Obama and Hillary had been responsible for LOTS of earmarks.

Gosh I am sorry you are disappointed. Really. Sure I am.

Reardon wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:44 PM:To Economics: The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, writing the "first draft of history," described this situation (September 30, 1999 and May 31, 1999 respectively).

The liberal press was PROUD of the Clinton administration efforts to get unqualified people into loans, and they also predicted the eventual crash because of it.

Harkening back to the 1920s will not hack it -- try 1999 for this one. Not Hoover; Clinton.

Come on Ron youre killin me wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:46 PM:For someone who likes to point out that the other guys don't know Jack about economics, you don't seem to know much more.

Supply Side Economics was not the economics of John Kennedy...unless you are a believer in those supermarket tabloids that Kennedy didn't really die..because Supply Side Economics didn't even come into discussion until the 1970s, and the term was not even coined until about a dozen years after the Kennedy assassination.

So, Ron, it seems your lack of knowledge on economics is only second to your lack of knowledge in history.

Chris to Reardon wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:47 PM:What about all the earmarks that Sarah pallin took?

AQ in Iraq wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:50 PM:Re: Reardon (9:26 p.m.)
Hey, um, Reardon, I just looked over your blog and it is pure nonsense.
So, have you had those beta amyloid plaque levels checked lately?
Might be a good idea.
Got my results back. In the solid "excellent" range usual to advanced liberal cognition.

Chris wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:58 PM:Poor Bill. He just tries to twist and twist the issues. Anyhow I am claiming that there was no AQ in Iraq before we got there. The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. In fact there were no terrorist ( people trying to attack us) in Iraq before we got there and we mainly killed innocent Iraqis. Since there were no AQ in Iraq what has our invasion got to do with weather or not they would attack us? The invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with 9-11 but you love to spin don't you? I love how you equate AQ with muslims. Yes AQ may have been muslims but out of the millions of Muslims who's life we destroyed how many belonged to AQ. I just love how you phrase things. Spin, spin, spin, spin.

Alaska first wrote on Oct 9, 2008 10:01 PM:Do a YouTube search with keywords "Sarah Palin" and "Palling around with secessionists" and find video showing who is the real anti-American on a presidential ticket.

If this doesn't terrify you, you are not a patriot.

Quiz wrote on Oct 9, 2008 10:05 PM:Which president produced:

1. The highest growth in the gross domestic product?
2. The highest growth in jobs?
3. The biggest increase in personal disposable income after taxes?
4. The highest growth in industrial production?
5. The highest growth in hourly wages?
6. The lowest Misery Index (inflation plus unemployment)?
7. The lowest inflation?
8. The largest reduction in the deficit?

Answers: 1. Harry Truman, 2. Bill Clinton, 3. Lyndon Johnson, 4. John F. Kennedy, 5. Johnson, 6. Truman, 7. Truman, 8. Clinton
In economic success since WWII, Democrats are 8 for 8.

Kennedy wrote on Oct 9, 2008 10:24 PM:What a hypocrite, Ron at 8:54 p.m., to cite the "theory" of Kennedy regarding taxation.
You don't support him at all.
You are a cheap name-dropper.

Kennedy reduced the top marginal rate from 91% (13 brackets) to 70%.
(Well, actually it was LBJ in Feb 1964 after Kennedy was dead, but Kennedy first proposed it.)
That is the bottom line.
KENNEDY set a top marginal tax rate of 70% SEVENTY PERCENT.

Do you agree with Kennedy or not?

Norbert wrote on Oct 10, 2008 12:57 AM:Ed Larsen seems to forget that the cost of property taxes is usually included in the rent paid by tenants each month.

Not only DO renters pay property taxes in the end, they pay it for property they don't even own.

Obamanation wrote on Oct 10, 2008 3:31 AM:Putting words in my mouth Obamacannot? I never mentioned anything about supply side did I? Or about trickle down? Wow are you defensive about the ONE. What he does offer is reregulation? Hmmm I thought the subprime mess started when the Obamanation party deregulated so the poor and those with marginal credit could be included in the American dream. But where does Obamacant want to take us? He wants to continue an outdated forty thousand page tax code and make it more complex. He wants to increase taxation on those that create and expand our job base. And I might add those that have the ability to conduct business from anywhere in the world. Wealth flight is real when the US already has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. Yes Obamawont lets follow the messiah and tax the rich more and at the same time pay for all those of less means that will not have a job because of the stupid inexperienced psuedo intellectual (trying to sound Obamasmart) policies that only lead to bigger government and a smaller economic base. Answer this Obamafan: How many people of higher economic means have left California in the last few years for the greener lower tax states? Can you say a few million? Who replaced them? Low income earners that are leeches on the State. What the stupid Lefties forget first and foremost is that the smartest and richest did not reach they were at by making poor decisions. Go ahead and elect the Obamanation. The smart people he is about to soak will continue to flee oversees with their capital and business headquarters . It's easy for them to leave after all they are RICH. They can pay to do business from anywhere in the world. Especially from low cost locales. Obamacant needs to go back to business school and study how the wealthy react to market changes. They don't sit still.

To Karl wrote on Oct 10, 2008 5:10 AM:"Karl
[-] wrote on Oct 9, 2008 8:54 PM:To Karl @ 8:36 PM:

If I have to provide examples, you are too far gone and it would do no good."

I didn't think so. You make statements you cannot support. Pathetic but typical.

Mary wrote on Oct 10, 2008 7:28 AM:Since we all know Obama is going to be our next president, why isn't he solving the financial crisis NOW! We can't wait until January for him to work his magic. What is he waiting for, he knows what to do. The democrats could have passed the bailout bill without the republicans, they had enough votes, why didn't they do it? Since they still have enough votes to pass anything they want, why don't they pass something to save us? I agree with the Obama people here, it is time for socialism to take charge and for the government to tell us what to do and take care of us. Down with capitalism and wealthy people. We should all get the same salary that way we will not be greedy. The democrats and Obama are the only ones who know what to do, hopefully we will soon have only one party and the democrats will get rid of the republicans and anyone else who disagrees with democrats. Obama, you need to give us your plan NOW! You are the chosen one!

To Karl wrote on Oct 10, 2008 8:06 AM:First of all, maybe Kennedy did no wrong. If you don't know the answers to the rest of your questions -- too bad.

But Mary wrote on Oct 10, 2008 8:07 AM:The current President is Bush and he will remain President until mid-January.

Gotta Wonder wrote on Oct 10, 2008 8:10 AM:Mary[-] wrote on Oct 10, 2008 7:28 AM: Firstly, Obama has not been elected yet.
Secondly, Obama will not have any executive power until he takes the oath of office. The first bail out bill was defeated due to the e mails, phone calls and letter from millions of Americans stating not to pass the bill. The rest of your blog was foolishness. Sound like one of those conservo whinters whaaaaaaaaaa.

Republican Socialist wrote on Oct 10, 2008 8:43 AM:What's wrong with you guys at 8:07 and 8:10 a.m.?
Mary is a REPUBLICAN.
She don't need no stinkin' Constitution.

That's the problem with an elitist like Obama, who thinks he has to follow those silly old documents and wait until he sworn in before assuming the powers of the office.

Wow wrote on Oct 10, 2008 6:16 PM:Where were half you people in 2000 when the stock markets crashed?Tenth worst in history.Proving balanced or deficit doesn't really affect the economy..Where were you when clinton signed the law to push subprime loans.Where were you in 96 when he signed the defense of marriage act(Man and a woman blah blah)?Where were you in 98 when he signed the Iraqi liberation act and then started a four day bombing campaign.Where were you in 2003 when the bush administration recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago barney frank said there's no financial crisis.That's in the new york times archive.Go to youtube and search fannie mae and listen to the dems say there's nothing wrong.You can wikipedia this stuff to.Bush made a economic recovery then got knocked down when the mortgage crap caught up.The oil companies make 9.84% profit when you sell billions of gals. of gas you make billions.They have paid 2.2 trillion dollars taxes since 1977And we're arguing with people who defend gay marriage talking about a gay mule and a lesbian monkey.