Towards Freedom

ex programmer craig

By no mean I am saying that Greenspan was a total flop, nor am I saying that Democrats did not fail in seeing it coming. As a matter of fact many of his policies and theories have gained permanent place in the text books today.  I only wish republicans stop complaining and help the administration in getting the economy going rather than being a party of No and wishing[as their leader Rush The Druggie] so blatantly preaches, to fail.

As to panic after 9/11, If Mr. Bush had acted more decisively in bringing Osama to justice, and IF he had not wrongfully started the Iraq war, most of our problems would have been averted.[this is purely my personal opinion, and I have been wrong before]

Mr. Greenspan's major blonder was lowering the Prime rate during times of inflation, which anyone with Econ 101  should know not to do. What the rate cut did was to avert the investment from manufacturing and infra-structure sectors to soft money[Wall Street], being mortgage and lending. Can one blame the investors for seeking more return on their investment? NO. This was Fed's prime responsibility to increase the prime rate, and re-direct the investments to those sectors that were falling apart, namely Auto, Textile, Garment etc etc. Lack of fresh investments caused these jobs/industries to migrate to China, India and so on and so forth[I shall not get into the obvious any further].

I do agree with some of your points, government should NOT get into running the private sector , which I doubt they want to. Due to the massive amounts we have put into Auto Industry for instance, whether we like it or not, we[taxpayers/government] are majority stock holders.

Did government have any other option? Sure they did, namely Tax cut instead of expenditure. This is the main difference between economic policies of Democrats vs Republicans. Two acceptable economic theory and widly used if you ask me.  As we see, Mr. Obama's team has taken advantage of both systems, massive tax cuts for 90% of the tax payers combined with massive government expenditure. Do keep in mind please, government of any country is THE one with that much money to spend. No private institution has  the resources, nor would they ever want to spend.

Lastly, you mentioned USPS, As a matter of fact, they are the only government agency who have been truing profit, and this is due the steps they took in early to mid 90's to compete with private companies such as UPS and FedEx. Granted they have been in trouble in past year or so due to general economic recession.

Economy is not an exact science, we can only PROJECT based on empirical and historical data. One thing for certain, economic decisions  made today may not show the actual results in 1 to 3 years. It is just the nature of the beast.

Regards

-YT 

Fish...the day is still young :-)

Fact: The independent mortgage companies you refer to who weren not subject to CRA sold these loans to banks that were subject to the CRA. In fact, in a majority of cases the mortgage company would not fund the loan and allow escrow to close until the CRA-bound bank who was actually buying the loan approved it.

The pattern was like this:

Homeowner --> Mortgage Broker --> Independent Mortgage Lender --> Bank --> Wall Street

Independent mortgage lenders almost never own the paper. They sold it to banks who were/are bound by the CRA.

The ones who hold their own paper are known as "portfolio lenders". They are in the minority. Their lending guidelines are generally much stricter. But many of the same banks who hold their own loan portfolio also purchased loans on the wholesale market from the independent mortgage companies you mention. That's how they met compliance with CRA.

That's why the larger banks have survived while smaller ones were taken over by the FDIC. The smaller banks had greater exposure to these bad loans. The bank Maxine Waters and her husband were a huge part of, OneUnited Bank, was one of the ones who were taken over.

In a way, the CRA is predatory, by taking advantage of a segment of people who are not savvy or sophisticated in matters of business and using them as a pawn to further a political agenda.

capt_ayhab

I'm not a banker and the last thing I want to do is jump in the middle of this, but the US went through a similar problem in the 1980s. Credit Card debt and variable-rate mortgage traps were a serious nightmare, and although I was in the Marines for most of the 1980s I remember how much it effected friends and family. It was Alan Greenspan who helped us get out of that in the early 1990s (does anyone remember how bad the economy was in 1991/1992?) so I don't think he can be fully to blame for causing it to happen again! The dot com crash of the late 1990s followed by 9/11 caused a lot of panic, and I think fear is what got us into the mess we are in now. There was no shortage of assholes ready to exploit that fear on Wall Street and in the Banking Industry, and teh Government didn't excercise it's role of oversight properly (largely due to fear, in my opinion) but that's no excuse to transtition the role of Government from oversight to direct control! If they can't even oversee these institutions competently, how much worse will they be at actually RUNNING them? Head down to your local DMV or Post Office, and find out. The proimary motivating factor for Government Beureacracies is finding ways to justify their own existance. That's not compatibile with for-profit free enterprise!

Sounds good, Craig,

I'll e0mail you within the next day or two. Actually sounds even better because then I don't have to worry about mentioning names of anyone who might be here or come to this thread.

You take care,

r.

Captain

What I am telling you is that Bush (advisers, specifically) had indeed called for greater oversight of these matters in 2001 and again in 2003, only to be rebuffed repeatedly by the chairs of the committees charged with their oversight. Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Paul Kanjorski, and their people did not want increrased oversight on lending practices. Lending practices that were in place because of the CRA.

But Maxine Waters is on public record as stating she wanted to nationalize the petroleum industry!

This has always been about politics!

No, I am not blaming Obama for all of it. His party, yes. I blame Obama for this stupid, worthless scam called a stimulus that has done absolutely nothing. The only thing it has stimulated is the acid in my stomach. And now Steny Hoyer, Maryland Congressman who is nothing more than Nancy Pelosi's pet, is calling for ANOTHER stimulus!

Captain...who is going to pay for it?

Kaveh

You noted[Bankers know better than politicians....]

Assuming that you are either in banking industry or related mortgage, and being perfectly frank with you this statement of yours is the funniest thing I have ever heard.

This is not to say that politicians are any better, BUT bankers? Aren't they the ones who put us in this mess?

And CRA is to blame? And only took 30 years to bring about the melt down?

Refigh, longest economic cycle is 5-10 years[Cyclical] , from prosperity  to recession and back to recovery. Are you telling me that in these cycles the self correcting economy[!] and   massive deregulation did NOT fix it?

Are you telling me that Mr. Bush, with 8 years in office, hand in hand with Mr. Greenspan[the longest held position in history of Fed. Res.] did not see it coming? But Mr. Obama's 6 month office tenure is to be blamed for all of it.

And are you telling me that Mr. Bush tried to fix CRA, which all the studies show it was AS PROFITABLE[No fixing needed]  but Democratic congress did not let him?????????

My exact point then, He[Mr. Bush] was a disgrace to the office and the nation.

Pauleeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzz Kaveh jan.

-YT 

p/s Republicans had started to blame Mr. Obama BEFORE he took oath of office am I wrong?

no no no!!!

This is classic conservative reaction to facts that are supported on virtually every level!!!  It has been proven time and time again and yet you keep reciting totally unstantiated facts.

Proven fact #1.  Independent mortgage companies, which are not covered by CRA, made more than TWICE the amount of high cost loans than did banks.  More so, these independent mortgage companies were never subject to CRA -- or any federal regulator. Law didn't make them lend. The profit motive did.  I think you're confusing "predatory" lending with the CRA.  And it's for sure that CRA is NOT a predatory lender.

In 2004, your very own Bush administration weakened CRA regulations, pulling small and mid-sized banks out from under the law's toughest standards. Yet sub-prime lending continued, and even intensified -- at the very time when activity under CRA had slowed and the law had weakened!!!

These are simply facts... one can wish and wish all they want and voice empty accusations against liberals or Obama or the Democrat party all they want.  But GREED is to blame.  Wall Street GREED.  And that is not CRA. 

I can accept that two intelligent people can have two different points of view... two different concepts of political or economic theories.  My oldest and dearest friend in the world is a Carolina Gamecock for god's sake!  

I can also accept that neither party is perfect and neither is demonic.  I said before (gag gag) that both parties are necessary for a truly democatic government.  What I can't accept is a blind-eyed negative reaction to anything Democrat. 

I've tried reasoning with you.  Now I'm just going to have to beat the shit out of you.  <sigh>  And it was promising to be such a lovely day.  :-)

IRANdokht

So much for ignoring my comments, I suppose.

Kourosh

I'm not laughing. There's nothing funny about it.

You don't think that this country is on the path to socialism? You need to read more about this health care proposal Obama is trying to push into law at such a record pace.

Your position on income taxes is socialist. Being taxed at a higher rate when your income is higher is wrong. Tax everyone at the same rate. The higher income brackets will still pay more in taxes. What you're supporting means that an individual who earns more gets to keep a smaller percentage of the money he earns. That is something that I will never subscribe to.

I am hardly separated from my community. And you cannot have contributions from all levels of society if some members are doing more than their fair share. What ever happend to the concepts of "fairness" and "equality?

Who is exploiting the auto workers, Kourosh? The Big Three? Hardly. There was a time where labor unions were beneficial. There was no competition for GM, Ford or Chrysler. The union was a necessity to ensure that those things you mentioned wouldn't happen anymore.

But that has all changed. Instead of three car companies from Michigan, there are plants everywhere. California, Alabama, South Carolina, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Texas, West Virginia, Tennessee, and elsewhere. American workers building foreign-brand cars in non-union assembly pants who are enjoying the same benefits for health-care and retirement and profit sharing as the employees at Ford, Chrysler and GM.

They're not exploited, and they're not collapsing from exhaustion to build a Toyota Camry or Honda Accord.

They've never had a labor dispute, they've never had a walkout. And they enjoy a decent standard of living.

Meanwhile the UAW took the money they've been collecting from workers paychecks to buy a country club that cost more than $33 million just to buy and loses millions more in operating costs each year. Do you own a union built car or truck? Well, part of the cost of that car went to that. More than $23 million dollars pissed away in the past five years alone.

FYI...the American Dream may belong to all Americans, but the dream doesn't come true for all Americans. That's the reality.

And on the war...I've said it before and will say it again. It was bungled. Bush screwed it up. I have never had a problem in saying that. But what you and the rest of those who think Obama is the Second Coming fail to realize is that he is no different. Obama boasted about closing Guantanamo, and now, he can't get it done. and it's his own party that controls Congress. He boasted that he was going to end the war, he just moved them over.

So before continuing with this pattern of trashing Bush for every single thing he did including waking up this morning, Show one positive result from Obama's actions that you can hang your hat on.

Rosie

There's nothing wrong with your idea except for the fact that every time I name names my commenst start getting mass-deleted. And last time my account even got deleted. If that happens again, I won't be back. And I'd rather not go through the frustration of being censored and not being able to do anything about it. Again. It may be an important topic, but it's not particularly important to me. I'm neither Iranian nor Iranian American, which means I'm not really a part of this community. I do have Iranian friends, but they either have never been active on this website or they are no longer active on this website. I appreciate the fact that you've spoken up about the matter in the past... that's one of the reasons I like you :)

By the way if you want to talk about it off the net my email is:

programmer.craig@gmail.com

I had thought it was visible from my ptrofile here, but I guess it's not.

And PS! I made Corporal after about 2 years! I was in for 6!  Not that I wasComandant of the MArine Corps when I got out, or anything :)

Jaleho,

I don't really care if you "agree" with anything I say or not. My political views haven't changed in 20 years and I've been laughing about the way you and others here have been calling me a neocon, for years now. And, just because you agree with me (now) doesn't mean I agree with you. About anything.

Sorry, Fish

These lenders were all obligated by the CRA. Many of these lenders were actually owned by banks, who created these lenders as separate entities so that the parent banks that owned them could adhere to the CRA. Other lenders entered into loan servicing agreements, collecting the payments on these subprime mortgages. BofA, Wells Fargo and Chase are just some of them. They would buy loans in multi-million dollar packages from various lenders.

No one resents a legitimate effort to help minorities. But is it truly helpful to anyone, minority or not, to approve their application for a loan when they really don't qualify? The Republican position isn't resentful of minorities or helping them. But of you want to help them, show them what they need to do in order to actually qualify for these loans. Just because they're a minority doesn't mean they should be homeowners, and it appears as though that is what you're saying and believing. And it's certainly what the Democrats believed and were pushing for all of these years.

Now these same minorities who had less than perfect credit have a foreclosure and in many cases a bankruptcy on their credit bureaus that will haunt them a bad case of herpes for the next ten years.

And the minorities who had excellent credit now have shitty credit reports as well.

If you want an example of to the Democrats' role in this mess, look at Maxine Waters, congresswoman from L.A.

She and her husband were major shareholders of black-owned OneUnited Bank, which made many of these bad loans. (But apparently not to Miami's poorer Cuban community, according to numerous complaints). Her husband was at one time on the board of directors. She secured bailout money to prop up the bank after they were wiped out from the bad loans they wrote.

Another one of course is Barney Frank. He rejected the idea of having the Treasury Department regulate Fannie and Freddie, which owns over half the mortgage paper today. Barney Frank blocked  the adoption of tougher banking regulations.

Yes, it's shameful. But the shame falls on the Dems who patronized these minorities with these stupid and reckless lending programs that they forced upon banks.

Okay, Craig, I had an idea..

we're referring here to a certain group of people which I think we both mean more or less the same group loosely speaking..but naturally groups are not blocks of wood (as indeed, neither are military professionals..), and so I was thinking..and I think this is perfectly fair, given that this is an open forum and people's views are a matter of public record..

why not you choose two specific people here who you feel most exemplify this...phenomen we're talking about...and use them for our discussion instead of just some nebulous...group...

Of course I wouldn't recommend that it be anyone who's actively participating on this now relatively obscure little thread... and of course in discussing the views and behavior' of the two people we could refer to as many others as we needed to...it could serve as a kind of..framework...

It's fair game, Craig. Whatever anyone writes here can be considered a body of work, open for public scrutiny and analysis by others at any time. Why muddy the waters talking about some nebulous....group....

and well like you said, it's not what a person says, it's what a person does. I don't do bullshit anymore. Let's be real.

And then I think we could scrutinize them according to at least four theoretical concepts and see where it leads..

apologist, apologist sabzi, Fascist in petticoats, and the H word.

And who knows, after that we could perhaps even go to the 'right' side of the spectrum and do the same with three new theoretical concepts, and the fourth one the same old one: the H word.

Deal, Corporal? I'm down.

__________________________

But seriously..I'm serious...I was just parodying things a bit but I really do think it would be far more useful to talk about this in concrete rather than abstract terms. It's a very real thing, this Fascism in petticoats, a very real thing. But on the other hand I still think there's validity to my original post, (but not for everyone,) and also the two ideas are not mutually exclusive

Kaveh

You are so funny Kaveh. Bush's entire political life has been sealed  as him being known as a  maverick and snobbish. IT is already gone down in history as such and there ain't no way you could bring it back to life. Your nightmares about this country going down the path of socialism lack a solid foundation.

Democrats are not against profit, they are against too much profit and right they are. The taxes are levied, aside from the political reasons, to supposedly create a more balanced situation in the society and to make it more fair for everyone living in that society, To level the playing fileds. You can rest assured that for those  that do not want to play by the rules and stay at home or be a street bum all their lives, Does not what party ideology is in charge, they will pay the price anyways, and social programs do have benefits for so many people who actually intend to use them in a way that benefits them.

To pay a higher percentage on taxes on a higher income, vs those with a lesser income, is absolutely fair. Since you are such a die hard in the belief that it should be up to the individual to develop higher income-earning capacity, Why can't you believe in the fact that somehow, some day that poor fella that is making less money than you, with some help, can grow and start to make the same level of money that you do. Can you Envision such a possibility? You seem to have somehow separated yourself from your community that you live in and seem to have forgotten that you need service and contribution of people of all levels of the society to make this work.

I never said that these board members are exclusively from the auto industry. What is the big deal about Labor concessions? do you believe is a system similar to indenture servitude? damn workers... work , work so hard until you pass out on the assembly line, and shut your filthy peasant mouths off, god forbid you lower our product's quality and increase our costs? Is that the real kaveh coming out now? Do you belive in exploiting the workers? Why should workesr sacrifice their well-being and lives so that some freakiing, snob, jackass board member could ensure that his profit has not dwindled? 

 You know who the real investors are? The workers and their family members. The ones who actually work hard to make things happen and make them possible. And i don't care what it takes to protect them, It must be done. And FYI the american dream belongs to ALL americans, And all have the right to it,  Not just certain americans.

What a great finale on afghanistan!!! It was not Bush's priority, because Iraq was and so because of all that It falls on obama!! very brilliant kaveh. Bush was the idiot who started it and was even a more idiot who could not finish off the right way. Obama came into the scene, trying to clean his republicn predecessors Crap. Now he is being blamed for getting a free pass! I guess only a highly sophisticatd capitalistic - oriented mind can come up with such a conclusion.

it's just like Magic

and poof!

Obama owns the Afghanistan war...   all his fault: The economy, the wars, the no exit strategy, no winning plans, just as if the wars and the bail-outs started after he took office.

it's got to be Magic!  The republicans propaganda machine's MAGIC!

IRANdokht

Something happened to PC?!!

"I agree with you that Obama is not at fault for many of the things he's done. In fact, I think he's done a surprisingly good job in a few areas. Surprising to me, anyway. And it's not my way to bash a popularly elected President unless they cross some line that exists only in my own head, which Obama hasn'd done yet. The two items I can foresee where that may happen are Afghanistan and the Economy. " 

All these words of logic from our 'o dear programmer craig? Heaven forbid a generalization, but I find myself in agreement with this and everything he's saying in this last post of his!!!!!!!!

correction Kaveh

Sub prime and CRA the cause of all this mess?  Let me refresh your memory somewhat.  And these are commonly know facts to most people!!!

Most of the highcost loans were originated by lenders NOT obligated to CRA... fully 3/4's of them... or in percentages... 6%.  It's a stretch to say that CRA is to blame!  And what?  It took 30 years for this colossel breakdown?  Get real!

I hate to take this attitude about republicans but it's true.  This was a measure offered to help minorities... and republicans resent it.  Did you know that 40% of the highrisk loans were made to WHITE MEN.  NOT MINORITIES. 

"those people" DID quality for loans under the CRA.  It's the ultimate greed of wall street that allowed this to happen and guess what... "those people" were NOT the beneficiaries of this mess!

shameful!  shameful!

Sub-prime lending

is a product of the CRA. I didn't mention it because I assumed you knew that. After all, God knows you and I have been going back and forth on the subject like a Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe on a volley at Wimbledon.

(I know, I'm McEnroe. I wonder why?  LOL)

We can go to the Indian casinos, where I KNOW we'll find a few people who are more than happy to blame it on the Mayflower. :-)

If I recall correctly, Bill Clinton said that he should have sought greater regulation on derivatives.

But Greenspan was right. The government has shown repeatedly that their involvement inevitably poisons the private sector. Bankers know better than politicians. And it was thw politicians that made these types of consumer credit commonplace in order to ensure "everyone realizes the American Dream"

That why it's called a dream and not a right.

Had these regulations that were sought in 2001 been enacted, the toxic derivatives such as credit default swaps would not have had the profound effect that it has had.

Subprime lending was and still is an excellent credit tool when used properly. Not when it is used to put a guy washing cars at $11 an hour into a $500K home. And if the CRA did not essentially blackmail the banks into making these loans this wouldn't have happened, at least not on the scale we're witnessing today.

As to self-correction, it can only happen when the government gets out of the way. Failing that, jobs can't be created and consumer confidence cannot increase.

P/S Kaveh

You said[The Community Reinvestment Act of 1978 was Jimmy Carter's little pet project designed to force banks to lend in poorer communities. This is where it all started.]

Allow me to correct you buddy. kindly take a look at the study done by Mr's Glenn Canner and Wayne Passmore On Econpapers:

//econpapers.repec.org/paper/fipfedgfe/1997-7...

Excerpts: 

No 1997-7, Finance and Economics Discussion Series from Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.)

Abstract:
The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) requires lenders "to help meet the
credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered,
consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions.''
For proponents of efficient markets, the CRA is a threat to lender
profitability. For others, the CRA has the potential to increase
profitability. We examine the relative profitability of commercial
banks that specialize in mortgage lending in lower-income neighborhoods
or to lower-income borrowers using three different techniques, and find
that lenders active in lower-income neighborhoods and with lower-income
borrowers appear to be as profitable as other mortgage-oriented
commercial banks.

End Excerpts

-YT 

Kaveh

Come on Kaveh, are you telling me that your self correcting economy could not fix it self and that Community Reinvestment Act of 1978 was the cause of the claps of the economy?[30 year span]. If you want to go that far, why not blame it on Mayflower.

I was under the impression that sub-prime lending practices, hand in hand with constant decrease of Prime Rate during times of inflation, magnifies by unregulated derivatives by Chairman Alan Greenspan  were some of the major causes of the claps of the economy!

I thought that all these practices, particularly during past 8 years took the investment Dollars away from manufacturing and infra-structure in favor of those markets are the major cause of the disaster. 

FYI Greenspan confessed to his mistakes in deregulation policies, and self correcting nature of economy in House Reform Committee hearing on October of 2008. See the video please.

P/S I am still waiting for your answer on HOW the economy is going to be self correcting, specially after the deregulation disaster.

-YT 

Captain

No matter how much you and I discuss this, you still completely ignore the role of the Democrats in this.

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1978 was Jimmy Carter's little pet project designed to force banks to lend in poorer communities. This is where it all started.

Unfortunately, many of the people who live in these areas where the CRA was trying to have an effect simply did not qualify for loans under commonly recognized and universally accepted standards and practices for consumer lending.

What was the Democrats" answer? Make the loans anyway, otherwise, you (the banks) will be turned down when you want to expand, open new branches, acquire, merge with, take over another bank, get preferable rates when you're borrowing money, etc.

Can you explain the logic behind that? I can. It was purely political. It was so that the Democrats could "buy' support from the lower socio-economic classes. By making them appear benevolent. Governments are not benevolent. Show me one government that is actually benevolent, please, somebody. Anybody.

Also please explain to me why, when in April 2001, when Bush's people went to Congress (specifically the House Financial Services Committee, led by Barney Frank, Masschusetts Democrat, whose boyfriend was an executive at Fannie Mae) seeking increased oversight and regulation (REPUBLICANS asking DEMOCRATS for an increase of OVERSIGHT and REGULATORY CONTROL) they were told: (by DEMOCRATS)

The system is fundamentally sound. Increased regulation and oversight is unnecessary and costly.

So, please let's not go there anymore.

This entire financial collapse is the work of the Democrats. And Bush never had a chance in hell of getting anything through Congress because of partisan and personal spite. Hatred for him and GOP undermined the needs and interests of the country.

Kaveh

You noted[But I'm not blaming Obama for any of that. I blame him for taking a bad economic situation that would have correct itself on its own as it always has for the past 233 years and making it infinitely worse by throwing good money after bad.]

Can you explain how an economy that was brought  to its knees by Republican politicians  and the WORST chairm of Fed. Reserve in history of the nation, for lack of any accountability and regulations would correct itself? And since the economy is self correcting according to you, why did it go this bad in the first place??

Since you are so infatuated by abolishing  any government regulations and oversight, why not get rid of all the civil and criminal laws since we need a government to oversee them. Society would correct itself right?

Lack of laws and regulation = anarchy

-YT 

:o)

check out the latest news contributions i did. i think you'll like them too.

lol

well thank you Roiban!

That DID provide me with my laugh of the day.  :-0

I don't know where to start... so many choices.  Rush Limbaugh an important force in the party?  ooookay.  Obama's popularity is less than GW's in his first term?  right.  global warming - it might not be warming after all.  really really REALLY don't know how to respond to that one.  And the best one... McCain was misunderstood.

Good one!

Kourosh

You know what Bogus is? It is when someone with a snobbishly maverik attitude takes control and either single-handedly and in some cases in conjunction with others, manage to screw every thing from top to the bottom, both in private and the public sectors

Man, you just described Obama to a "T"!

No political parties are against profit? Then explain why the modus operandi of the Democrats is to levy tax upon tax upon tax, upon the higher income brackets? I'll tell you why....In order to fund the myriad social programs that have been repeatedly proven to be nothing but a complete FAILURE from the very beginning.

For me to pay a higher percentage than someone who earns less than I do is sickening. I'm aready proportionally paying more, and the Democrats still say it's not enough.

And if the Democrats were not against profit then they wouldn't have these various "czars" (interesting use of the word by the party that says it's for the common man). One of which, is a "czar" to determine how much people should be compensated at their jobs.

How many different ways can I say...WHAT THE F**K?

As to GM and Chrysler, please don't speak from an uninformed position. I have personal ties to the U.S. auto industry, especially with Chrysler, and know what really has happened.

The board members consisted of people from various industries, not just the auto industry. Their fiduciary responsibility was to ensure the viability and profitability of the company. But the single greatest obstacle is and always has been the United Auto Workers Union. These thugs, led by Ron Gettelfinger, have held GM, Ford and Chrysler hostage for decades, bullying the automakers into labor concessions under the constant threat of a strike that drove up the costs of production at the expense of product quality. A UAW assembly worker earns $70 an hour compared to less than $40 for a non-union assembly worker who works at one of the plants that manufacture vehicles and components for Toyota, Lexus, Honda, Acura, Mazda, Nissan, Infiniti, Mitsubishi, Subaru, Mercedes-Benz and BMW....here in the United States.

And what does Obama do? Gives Chrysler and GM money, with conditions that any first year business school student knows the companies cannot possibly meet. This entire drive into bankruptcy was orchestrated by Obama. Replacing Rick Wagoner at GM with an Obama "yes man", and giving the UAW majority ownership in both companies. So, now the UAW will be collecting union dues AND stock dividends. Meanwhile, individual investors in the two automakers were told to eat shit. Their portfolios are worthless.

At least Ford had the foresight to realize what they would be in for and said "no, thanks". Wait and see. Mark my words. When the time comes for a new labor contract, the UAW will retaliate against Ford Motor Company and their will be a strike. And if Obama is still in office at the time, he will force Ford's hand.

Afghanistan was never really a priority for Bush. Iraq was, for all the wrong reasons. That's obvious. So this is indeed Obama's war. And just because Bush didn't have an exit strategy for Iraq doesn't mean Obama should get a free pass on Afghanistan.

If he is so much better as a leader, a commander, a president, then let's see it. All I see is someone who has taken every negative quality about Bush, and every negative quality about liberals, and amplified it 100 times over. 

Well Fish, PC..

Fishie, since you are "speaking of 'the devil' " (LOL, Bush I mean...), just thought I'd throw this into the mix since it is something I think will get a rise out of both you and PC:

//www.esquire.com/features/jeb-bush-interview-0809

Craig, I will not be able to continue our conversatin til later. I am working on some very important news items right now, piecing them together. But I'll be back by tonight. Take care,

r.

PC

Oh, I think we agree more than we disagree on this.  I don't like McClueless... I think he's an outdated antique in the political arena.  But I've never thought maliciously of him.  That is the diff.  I don't make the kind of comments you're referring to. :-)

Now if it were Bush?  I'd be hauling out the whips and chains.  He's another story all together.

And let me replace the term "military mindset" with "warmonger" as it relates to Iraq.  I tend to think that most military advisors were skeptical about Iraq from the beginning.  It was that criminal Cheney who wanted war.  And he got it.  And if he had HIS way again, we'd go to war with Iran.  But.  Thank God he's gone. 

PC & Kourosh.  I'm divided on the big government/small government issue.  I freely admit that I go back and forth. :-0  On one hand I agree with PC and Kaveh on the founding father's principal but I believe that was an important issue at that time.  I don't think it applies today.  I think the private sector, via Wall Street, have abused any and all privileges and need to be regulated.  Thus the need for more government control.  Where that will lead is subjective.  We might disagree on the final outcome.  I don't have that fatalistic attitude that it's going to lead to pure socialism.

Kaveh.  Yeah, well.  An enema is a necessary evil too.  Don't mean I got to like it.  :-)))

ex programmer

I wish more people Would recognize and put emphasis on the word Popular president there. Bush was supposedly re-elected based on being popular, but among those who voted for him, there were plenty who regreted it and decided to turn their backs to the republican pary and vote Obama. I know that his campaign was directed at women and minorities as well, but one can not deny the facts a lotta republicans had a change of heart after another four years of Nothing.

On war in afghanistan. I think there is way too much pressure is being put on obama in terms of expecting a winning strategy or an exit strategy. It is a major challlenge for him and for any president for that matter. How canhe give you or anyone a definitive anything, when there are so much that is unknown? Obama's weakness maybe in his abilities as a commander-in-chief , but his strenghts are showing through in devising and implementing domestic policies. And that is something very well worthy of support.

Big government... small government... why don't we look at what is practical and what is really at stake here? I may be wrong, which i seriously doubt it, But when you look at the economy being in the duldrums and all that has gone wrong, during this vast period of Deregulation and freedom of the private sector in which having been left to their own devices, they have taken full advantage and created a huge, unprecedented mess, Whom would you place the blame on? The private sector had the control of the field for a while, with no restrictions and no control, So why did things started to go downward instead of up?

The so-called Democratically advocated big government which eventually will lead to a society that is under the full control of a very powerful central one, like what we see in Venezuella, Is nothing but a baseless fear. This can and will not have any chances of materializing in US where the system of checks and balances are the strongest in the world, as corrupt as though it maybe, which has been in place based on that same constitutional document that you mentioned..  I have never laughed hard as much as i did, when i read the line on how democracts demonize personal success. Some people think that democratic policies do nothing but createe a bunch of life-time bums and that theyy essentially encourage laziness. I hardly belive that to be true.

We witnessed aggressive growth-oriented, fast-paced, policies which ultimately led to a crumbling of a very sturdy and solid structure. Now let's see if some changes can be introduced where this would not happen ever.

And On the matter of Privacy and individual liberty Was it not the bush and the republicans who planned and actually implemented and instituted massive and downright intrusive methods of evesdropping and spying on citizens? How come nobody points that out when defending the supposedly small and non-interfering government? WHy is that not a problem?

Well i certainly hope that will listen to their people as much as they can and as much as possible. At the end,certain laws and legislations will be rammed down our throats anywas, be it a Rep or Dem at the top. Health care needs to be made more affordable to the people, and it can not be of any benefits to all in its current shape.

KouroshS

I agree with you that Obama is not at fault for many of the things he's done. In fact, I think he's done a surprisingly good job in a few areas. Surprising to me, anyway. And it's not my way to bash a popularly elected President unless they cross some line that exists only in my own head, which Obama hasn'd done yet. The two items I can foresee where that may happen are Afghanistan and the Economy.

I don't need to see an exit strategy in Afghanistan... but I do need to see a winning strategy articulated. As it stands, I can't see anything on the horizon where the US wins there. And if Obama can't explain to me how that's going to happen, then I can't support an ongoing military effort there. If we're going to lose then why drag it out for years to come? A clean break is still going to hurt, but it will hurt less. But I'm not at that point where I'm opposing the Afghanistan effort, yet.

On the economy:

Who is pushing for Big government? Is asking for a bit of more
involvement so things can stay on the right path and so that the rug is
not pulled from under us, a cause for eventual Tyrrany and
gov-dependent society?

I've been a Libertarian since I first developed any recognizable political views. That's about 20 years, give or take. I don't know if Kaveh is Libertarian or not, but on the issue of Big Government = Intrusive Government, he certainly sounds it. And I agree with him 100% on that. Government should be as small and as weak as it can possibly be, and still function. Our founding fathers wrote at great length about the dangers they saw in a powerful central government, and about why they thought that was an unacceptable approach for the US, and I won't try to paraphrase them here. Suffice it to say that for as long as I've been around, the democrats have always wanted bigger government (no matter how big it already was) and the Republicans have always wanted smaller government. That'sactually the main reason I usually vote Republican, because there are many issues where I tend towards the left and not the right, but they aren't as important. My "big"issues are individual rights and freedoms. And big government is anathema to rights and freedoms.

Is not any other than The US Congress? Are they not actually Private servants dressed as working for the people?

Supposedly! We are about to find out if that's true or not! I just heard on the news today a lot of Congressmen and Senators are reporting they are catching flak from the folks back home about health care. We'll see if they listen, or if they ram it down people's throats anyway.

And no, I'm not trying to defend Republicans. The Republican party of the last 8 years is nearly unrecognizable to me. When they return (and they will, these things always run in cycles) I hope they have rediscovered their core principles.

Kaveh

You are going overboard with your sense of creativity with words and ideas. LOL Maybe you should be next to Mr. aslan On mecca.com. He can run the site using your wonderfully creative style of writing. I don't know... call it Meccaagaintsdemocrats.com or something like that.

Obama's presidency is Bogus? Okayyy! You just would not want to admit this would you? You know what Bogus is? It is when someone with a snobbishly maverik attitude takes control and either single-handedly and in some cases in conjunction with others, manage to screw every thing from top to the bottom, both in private and the public sectors.

Who is pushing for Big government? Is asking for a bit of more involvement so things can stay on the right path and so that the rug is not pulled from under us, a cause for eventual Tyrrany and gov-dependent society? talk about exaggerations. I think you are at a point where you have realized absolutely that the private sector can not do it alone, Yet you are like a bache lajbaz dragging your feet and refuse to admit that letting system from which the entire private sector was borne out of, take charge and set things in a different way.

I have never been against profit per se all my life, but i do have an immense problem when i see some make abnormally and unfairly huge amount of profits while most others have to suffer and settle for the minimum as hard as they try in their jobs and even taking on more than one job. That is a real crock of shit to me kaveh and if someone steps in, with new ideas trying to change the system a little bit, i have absolutey no problem with that whatsoever. No political parties in this country could ever be against profit and Personal success, as hard as they may try, but to regulate that and make sure that some will not get more than they share by ripping others off, next to national security, is the second most important issue a government needs to be concerned about.

I know what Private sector consists of! But i guess a little reminder from K. nouraee always comes handy:) I did not mention the raggedy-ass example to send off the path that you seem to be on. You totally miss the point. Dont give him money or cloth or don't even YOU offer him a job with all the benefits that everyone else gets. BUt do Step aside and let the Gov. Offer Insurance and Job training at least. Do you even see that as Chavism and excessive socialism and Gov. Involvement??? Like i said, he may not be as smart as you  and have as high an IQ that you do, But he does live here and he IS as american as you are... well, You are american - iranian, But you catch my drift ?:)) Besides, who the heck do you think will go over Obama's health care plan in order to finalize it? Is not any other than The US Congress? Are they not actually Private servants dressed as working for the people?

As for GM and chrysler, You can not be serious! You have had a bunch of Hotshots, top graduates of the best schools in the world, coming in as CEO's and CFO's and board memebers and who have made decisions that let to this disaster, all in the name of Profits,  which was in the works, way before obama takes over, and now all of a sudden a FORCED bail out is His fault and he is to blame for the shares being rendered worthless? What about those who were at the helm and made the day to day decisions as to how to run the company and manage it???

on Afghanistan. Obama basically Inherited the mess bush left behind. Yes this was what Bush left behind, because he was the one who made the decision, the final call. Obama and others as senators may have voted in favor of such an attack, but BUSH was the one with the final call and he did what he felt he had to do,. Now, As Ananymous Fish also said we have no choice but to take care of this business. Is obama creating a bigger mess by not wanting to leave aafghanistan in a state of disarray, which happened as a result of Bush's series of bad moves? How can he come up with an exit plan?

Bullshit artist or not, he had already done so much and has made many changes.  Remember, It was under bush that this whole idea of Stimulus package came about. So, We go back to square Numero Uno.

Whatever, freak

Plain nuts?

How dare you call me "plain"? I'm anything but plain.

Yes, America is what it is, and you are what you are.

A virgin whose hand falls asleep while you spank the monkey.

Hey, does your other hand know that you're cheating on it?