President Bush plan for helping those Americans in danger of losing their homes is to make it easier for those people to refinance their homes. How nice for the banks. We wouldn't want the troubles of average Joe's and Jane's interfering with a banks profits. These same banks and credit card companies can legally charge up to 33% interest along with the other penalties they charge the consumers.
Is Bush the only person that doesnt realize the No Child Left Behind act isn't working and it will never work.
And was it just me or did Obama seem to be umm...slyly giving Bush the one finger salute. Damn I like him!
But on a positive note parts of the (un)Patriot Act expire on Friday. Hopefully Congress will do what we elected them to and not renew it.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 75
It wouldn't surprise me if Obama did; most of us want to. I thought it was fun that he was sitting next to Teddy Kennedy.
You noticed that he was once again promoting the governmental subsidy for private and faith based schools. Instead of fixing the public schools to that the buildings are safe, they have enough books, updated technical support--if the playing field was equal instead of the most public schools falling to pieces due to lack of support, then no child would be left behind.
Kathy it was tough to watch.
Diane you didnt miss anything.
Kathleen me to.
Bob maybe they will grow a ball or two.
If true he gained a lot of my respect.
Theresa it couldnt hurt.
i know he didn't say squat about anything that would really be helpful, it's bush for you afterall.
I thought Hillary's facial expressions were priceless though, she really looked like she was in pain.
It reminds me of some of my college classes where I knew the prof was a boob and couldn't stomach sitting through an hour and 15 minute lecture....
Bush tried to help people stay in their homes and you say it's for the sake of big business. Lori, can the man do anything that you people don't piss on?
What's your take on Kennedy backing Obama. Remember, Kennedy was one of the most, if not the most, adamant pusher of amnesty for all illegals.
HG I dont really care about Teddy. The fact of the matter is that the president has less to do with amnesty then does Congress and the Attorney general. I really dont see 15 million illegals getting amnesty.
That's true. I just thought it odd that Obama would link up with the likes of T.K.
All you create, when you remove private sector business from the private sector, is a welfare state.
It's not working so well for people who live like that - Cuba, China, and so on - so why would you want it here?
I loved the speech - no surprise there - but the reason I loved it was not about the President, not about partisan politics, it was about a leader knowing that the best people to handle the affairs of this great country are not the isolated politicians in Washington, but the men and women out there working every day to put food on the table, a roof over their heads, and provide a decent education for their kids.
There will always be needy, and there will always be a need for some governmental programs to address that, but when we all beging to look to the government to solve our problems we begin a slide down a very slippery slope.
* believes the Federal government is the answer to their prayers.
* wants to remove private sector business
* wants to recreate Cuba here
* believes our leader knows the best people to handle the affairs of this great country
* no one looks for government to solve their problems, government has been hijacked by corporate and foreign interests and is the cause of many problem.
American just want their govenrment back, and they are tired of hearing stale worn out slogans from the Reagan years like yours CA.
I am neither Democrat nor Republican. I am a Federalist.
I haven't watched the speeches since Ronnie's term
Chandra I knew you would like it. I wonder what bush is going to do once he gets back into the private sector.
Good eyes Tom. The income gap has been widening for some time.
"The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans." NY Times, March 2oo7
This should tell you something about what average means! Average income doesn't help (which is why he used them), Modal figures would have more significance. Most people can't differentiate between 'average' and 'median', assuming them to be synonymous. They're NOT.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
"Some in Washington argue that letting tax cuts expire is not a tax increase."...
because it's the dumbest sentence in a dumb speech. Full of contradictions and half truths. ooh, evil Washington, den of iniquity. Washington wants to steal your money, be very afraid.
No, actually Washington, in the form of George W. Bush who has lived in Washington the past seven years let's remember, wants to give you 140 billion of funny money and is promising you that you do not have to pay for it later.
George, budget deficits are real and have real consequences. In one sentence you promise to fix the budget deficit, after seven years of spending like a drunken sailor, and in the next sentence you promise to add 140 billion to it and beg for permanent tax cuts so that your successor will never be able to stop the bleeding.
It is amazing to me that the man managed to get C grades at Yale. Yale must not be what it once was, or they were grading the Bush kid on a curve. Because he really cannot handle elementary school math.
get more internal payoff, ie. it is funner for you to be aloof
and outside the poltical process that it is to exercise the
small amount of power you are have as a voter ... like
2.8x10^-7% of the electorate of 350million.
This is a valid mathematical choice of course, and explains
why few people really take elections seriously, it is
more fun to make the election about themselves, ie.
call themselves a Federalist, or Libertarian and get
people to give them attention and engage in interesting
arguments.
The point is that the other side of this is how does a
political party get mass effective action. The Republicans
are great at this. They make it fun to be Republicans.
They have simple one liners like less government, government
is the problem, democrats are effeminate, they prey on
all the human facets, pride, bullying, superiority, and
the Democrats do not have all these fun things.
Obama is considered fun right now so lots of people
are jumping on the bandwagon ... a bandwagon
heading towards a loss if what I'm afraid of.
But to return to the point, Republicans use this
fun-ness as a payoff, it is just that Republicans are
too thoughtless to realize that for a moment of
fun and superiority they are selling out their country.
Laughing with Rush Limbaugh, or bullying with
Ann Coulter are exactly that, forgetting the country
in favor of a fleeting moment of belonging to a
group.
This says that many Americans lives are so
desolate they are so willing to grasp any emotional
payoff for the moment because the alternatives
they have they do not see.
We seem to be willing to believe things like you
stated:
* believes the Federal government is the answer to their prayers.
* wants to remove private sector business
* wants to recreate Cuba here
* believes our leader knows the best people to handle the affairs of this great country
* no one looks for government to solve their problems, government has been hijacked by corporate and foreign interests and is the cause of many problem.
but the reasons are not because this stuff makes
sense or will help the country run.
If nobody looks to the government to solve problems, perhaps you could inform me why the very first response in this thread was someone asking what the government was going to do about people who cannot afford housing?
People DO look to the government to solve their problems. Whether they should or not is a completely different issue, but to claim that nobody wants the government to "fix" the "wrongs" in their life is just blatant denial of the truth.
"If nobody looks to the government to solve problems, perhaps you could inform me why the very first response in this thread was someone asking what the government was going to do about people who cannot afford housing?"
Maybe because a Government by and for the people should be just that? Would you like the homeless sleeping on the sidewalk in front of your house?
"People DO look to the government to solve their problems."
Yeah . . . like those nasty fires that happen from time to time . . . people think they should be put out EVEN when the homeowner isn't home! Go Figure!
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Hopefully arrest and trial then a looong prison term.
> If nobody looks to the government to solve
> problems, perhaps you could inform me why
> the very first response in this thread was
> someone asking what the government was
> going to do about people who cannot afford
> housing?
No one = no serious political constituency that needs addressing.
I do not know what the first poster had in mind, but I seriously
do not think they expect government to give everyone a house,
at least not in the current universe.
This arguments takes someone's exaggerated statement that
probably does have an acceptable canonical presentation, like
what is government's responsibility for homeless people, and
attacks the questioner just for asking it - thus shutting off
one groups political right to be heard and considered, but never
shutting off their own.
Democracy and maybe civilization itself depends on people
being somewhat polite and reasonable to each other, ie.
we are a nation and we do cooperate to some extent, that
extent being a dynamic expression of political forces.
To remove political power from a group by repressing it
by villianizing it with misrepresentation is par for the course
of American dirty politics, perhaps that is why you missed it,
it is like the air we breathe, all around and invisible.
When you look for it and start to see it you can then figure
out how to interpret it and think for yourself.
As demonstrated by the political necessity of the "stimulas package" the current regime cannot exercise the myth of free market in a Democratic society. The founders understood that commerce shall be regulated, not may, can, might, or should. Instead of regulation the current answer is to throw money and debt and keep looting till electorally ejected. Political conservatism is a crime against the nation.
I fully approved of his executive order for agencies to ignore any earmark that is not in a bill voted on by congress. Apparently they've been slipping them into reports and stuff too. I keep hearing people defending pork. If it's such a good thing and there is nothing but good intentions, then why is congress so dead set about identifying who proposed it, how much it costs, and who benefits? Why not post all of that on a website weeks in advance of the vote.
Yeah . . . like those nasty fires that happen from time to time . . . people think they should be put out EVEN when the homeowner isn't home! Go Figure!"
It depends on what you feel the scope of government should be. Personally I don't feel like government should step in just because someone can't pay their bills. I've been in over my head before and sometimes you have to tighten your belt and find ways to make things work. People do it, successfully, all the time. While it's certainly not major in comparison, I'm currently living off of broadcast TV because I had to cut expenses and decided I could live without cableTV/Satellite.
As for the burning houses comparison, yes, there you are paying for a service. You are paying through your property taxes. I fail to see how paying for a service can even remotely be compared to the government bailing you out if you can't pay your bills, but if it makes you sleep better at night, go for it.
Bruce: "This arguments takes someone's exaggerated statement that probably does have an acceptable canonical presentation, like what is government's responsibility for homeless people, and attacks the questioner just for asking it - thus shutting off one groups political right to be heard and considered, but never shutting off their own."
This arguement takes a valid counter argument, turns it into a fictional personal attack, and then completely avoids making any response whatsoever. A great tactic.
What you may call "no serious political constituency", many people consider a major economic factor in our nation. Foreclosures are wreaking havok with the economy right now, and were the government to suddenly bail all those people out, you can bet your house that it would create a serious political constituency very very quickly.
You're still welcome to answer the question, though.
> What you may call "no serious political constituency",
> many people consider a major economic factor in our nation.
I do not think the government should pay people's bills, but
that is not really the question is it? That is the straw man
question you want to use because you do not feel you can
have a real discussion about this, because to have a discussion
about economic justice forms a center point for admitting
there is such a thing. I believe there is such a thing.
As far as the foreclosure problem I do not believe in
theory that the solution is to pay people's loans or
prevail upon taxpayers to pay or guarantee loans
because the two groups I see as having failed are
buyers who got into something they did not understand,
and loan agents who have a responsibility to lend out
people's investment money wisely. I would like to
see the agents identifed and punished in some way.
The problem then becomes a national problem that if enough
houses go on the market the prices collapse, because of a
failure of the free market causing problems that can spiral
out of control conceivably into recession, depression or even
war. This is the function of government so there is a national
security element to this that I am not prepared to evaluate
in a Gather comment, but I do not rule out government
action in all cases based on dogma, or on the possibility
that I could gain from catastrophe in the market because
I am well-off and solvent. All Republicans have recognized
that the failure of a large company or sector of the
economy can have fatal effects, so why do you just
glibly dismiss it?
I do notice you are giving fast simple party-line
answers to these questions, where I am taking a bit
more time to think. So, unless you show an ability
to have an intelligent discussion I am going to assume
you are just paying around and not bother to continue
this discussion
One small consolation: It was his last.
Here's one for the conspiracy theorists: G.W. has had the lowest approval ratings and the worst 8-years as a president in American history. (Even Lincoln faired better, and he dealt with the Civil War.) And yet, amazingly enough, no real assasination attempts. Well, okay, other than the whole trying to fly a plane into the White House thing. Does this mean he was the best protected president ever?
Throughout the writer's strike we've all become sick to death of the re-runs and the "reality" shows. It's time for a few new "game" programs.
Here's my TV guide for the White House games and hosts:
Richard Nixon "To Tell the Truth"
Bill Clinton "The Price is Right"
GWB will be the new Merv Griffin with several game shows to take to his credit:
"Let's Make a Deal" (Contestants must be VERY large corporations)
"Name That Tune" (Viewers, be prepared to hear many, many, many same old songs"
"Beat the Clock" (Participants must be Republican members of the GWB fan club. The object of the game is to see how much damage can be done to any country in 8 years)
Then we'll have my personal favorite sit-com: The new edition of "Gilligan's Island" ~ starring George Bush as the Skipper - a rather bumbling fool that runs his ship onto the beach. Dick Cheney as the Millionaire - a guy that really knows how to make a lot of money with little or no regard for his compatriots. Condie Rice as Mary Ann - a cute little thing that sacrificed her talents and charm to the Skipper and the Millionaire. The role of Gilligan will be played by "guest Democrats"; a new face each episode to - be given the opportunity to make a difference on the island, but fails to take serious action. (Nancy Pelosi will have a recurring guest spot.)
Keep watching, everyone.
Teresa: The Democrats have offered their ideas over and over again. Before they were the majority Mr. Bush and the Republicans just ignored them. After they took over Mr. Bush just vetoed their ideas. Wonder how you missed that?
The problem is that America runs such an "unfriendly" economy
for Americans. By nature we cannot all be experts in laws or
investing. Many of us still want to have homes though.
Instead of supporting people in order to stabilize and support
homeowners by regulating the industry so people are not
put in situations where they are going to fail, we allow in
almost all areas of the economy an unregulated pack of wolves
to tear through ripping people off and often affecting the rest
of us with things like this housing crisis.
Those wolves have ammassed so much money that they can
influence the government not only to not prosecute them, and
the media to not draw attention to them, but the country to
actually think that this is good.
If I were in a situation where I was afraid I might lose
my home, or lose my job and then lose my home, first I
would check that out. How much would it be to rent?
Can I sell my home for a profit right now. I would weight
the alternatives and propabilities and the results and
then take a sensible action.
The problem is that many people do not know how to
do this, and to find someone who can help without
themselves charging too much is really difficult.
When our country depends on being almost expert in
finances, but does not teach citizens, support them or
regulate abuses, the government itself is complicit in
these frauds, like the Dot Com bubble.
Americans should be thinking about this because each
and every one of us needs to in some way save and
invest for the future, and the experts on ripping off
are experts and finding and exploiting wealth in an
economy that is not strongly protected.
The sub-prime issue is a little more ominous than the raw numbers. As the most recent economic data demonstrates in the last quarter the economy in general stagnated and despite billions of borrowed Federal money poured into the finance market for "liquidity" without accountability. As home values drop the heavy debt load of Americans becomes insolvent as their equity disappears. Then all those things purchased against that equity, like cars, 2nd homes, and credit card refinance, become part of the default. It is a classic speculative bubble that creates shockwaves throughout the economy. The drop of interest rates 1.5 points does not replace lost speculative equity and only protects financial institution for GOOD investments.
This is a mess and it will get worse.
*ROFLOL* are you sure you aren't ROTFFATM ...
... rolling on the floor foaming at the mouth ...
or ROTFFATMIASJ - the same in a straight jacket?
that's pretty ridiculous.
As for the Soros comment....what can I say. I cannot imagine anyone that out of touch with reality so I can't really respond. The frothing hatred of Mrs. Clinton pretty much says it all. I don't trust many of the Republican candidates but I'm not so rabid I would call them names. Besides, doing that just makes you look foolish and people don't listen past the first sneer.