Wednesday, December 9, 2009

$140 Billion For Another Stimulus Bill

Let me see if I get what is happening here. Stimulus I was a success according to the Democrats. Even though Stimulus I isn't spent yet we are going to add in a jobs creation Stimulus II. What was the Pork Bill, I mean Stimulus I, suppose to do again? Something doesn't smell right will this one but I'm sure some DemocRats will try and blame Bush or the Republicans for it. That one never gets old. Does heavy wasteful spending really work in creating jobs? If so then prove it. The nice thing is they made Porkulus II vague so they have lots of room to steal more of our money while we do nothing. This is nothing more then embezzlement from we the people. Our government is not above the law and it is high time we do something about it. Take a good look at where the first Porkulus bill went. That first stimulus was suppose to help stimulate jobs growth. It was suppose to be shovel ready and it wasn't. It was suppose to fix unemployment under 8% and we are at over 10%. And the left do have reason to be pissed also. Gitmo,Afghanistan,Iraq,Patriot Act,Lobbiest,Transparency,Greater Deficit Spending and Debt are all subject the left should be pissed about and are. Once the other 47% wake up and take a look around they will bail on the Democratic sinking ship too. I just hope that the left don't blame the color of his skin for being a failure. The do put a lot of stock in the color of ones skin. But I'm sure the majority of liberals view the color of ones skin to be of no consequence just like MLK looked at character over color. What are your thoughts and opinions on this subject?


  1. Funny thing about the stimulus and the economy. You have logical people on both sides of the issue.

    I also found a list of economists who either said the second stimulus was too small and/or said there needed to be a third stimulus.

    So its not as clear as you think.

  2. They're using the New Deal as a guide to believe they can spend their way out of a recession. All the New Deal did was put food on the table via the government. It did absolutely nothing to stimulate the economy. Want to stimulate the economy? Easy. TAX CUTS! If they are willing to spend billions then instead of spending it how about just not collecting it. That could be done via what? TAX CUTS!

  3. Spinsterpov Good points: Libs beleive that Spending is the Answer and in LONG run it will be the Problem! Take the Billions found in TARP program and GIVE the money back to its RIGHTFUL OWNERS the Tax Payers. Politicans say Citizens cannot MAKE right choice with Their OWN money and that they the Politicans can. How is that Working Tax Payers. At least if you Screw up ITS your MONEY, why are The Politicans the only ones that can Screw up with YOUR money,I tell ya it aint FAIR!

  4. Don't forget Obamas own words when it came to the stimulus bill. But the conservatives said that that porkulus bill would do little to creat jobs and it looks like they were right and Obamas team missed the mark by a longshot. That is what happens when you have a community organizer playing President of the the USA. The stimulus did nothing the Obama camp said it would. I think next time people should listen to the conservatives when they say something. I bet that money would have been better used in the pockets of the people instead of payoffs for voting for Obama. Spinsterpov used a great example on how the libs ruined the past doing the same thing. Remember the good old days we just went threw them.

  5. Why did TARP work and the Stimulus Bill not work the way it was supposed to for the most part?

  6. Chris, excellent blog as usual. That graph from your earlier blog in particular should be shoved under Obummer's nose every chance possible. It clearly shows that doing NOTHING would have been far better than wasting all our tax dollars, according to the CBO!!

    Spinsterpov, I have to disagree with you on something. The great socialist FDR actually ordered the destruction of crops and livestock, in order to drive the price of those things up. Meanwhile people in the cities were starving. So the new deal didn't even put food on the tables.

    "FDR s agricultural policies were in a class of genius all their own. Convinced that falling prices were hindering economic recovery, FDR decided that prices were now to be raised by any means necessary. Agriculture Secretary Henry Wallace, as thoroughgoing a Soviet dupe as this country has ever seen, described the wholesale destruction of crops and livestock in which he and FDR engaged in order to boost farm prices as "a cleaning up of the wreckage from the old days of unbalanced production" (as Tindall and Shi quote him, approvingly).

    Wallace, you see, knew precisely what quantity of production would bring things into "balance." What a waste that Wallace should have devoted his omniscience to a matter so mundane when thousands of crimes were doubtless going unsolved at that very moment.

    Tindall and Shi assure us that "for a while these farm measures worked." Well, if by "worked" you mean they succeeded in their goal of raising the prices of food and clothing at a time when people were desperately poor, then I suppose they did "work." Slaughtering some six million pigs and engaging in the destruction of enormous supplies of wheat and cotton did tend to increase the prices of these items. Congratulations.

    While this program was under way, the Department of Agriculture released a study regarding the American diet during these lean years. The Department constructed four sample diets: liberal, moderate, minimum, and emergency (below subsistence). Its figures were sobering: America was not producing enough food to sustain its population at the minimum (subsistence) diet."

  7. TARP did nothing but put money back into the hands of the people who screwed up the economy. That is why Hussein wants to 'free-up' TARP money now to get to small banks before they fail to get bad loans to smaller companies so then the government will 'own those loans as well controlling even more private industry.

  8. Great point Christopher and John you always bring it home with your vast knowlege of history.

  9. spinster, if its only "following" the new deal why are a number of economists on record that the stimulus did work and that it should have been larger? Seems that yours, and the other posters here think they have the only correct opinion in the room despite the reality that many serious economsts have endorsed the stimulus and some even call for a third.

  10. Tell Congress to make Wall Street pay its fair share

    A year ago, the U.S. and world economy almost collapsed, thanks to the risky behavior of financial giants who put the pursuit of profits on Wall Street ahead of the protection of people on Main Street. To prevent this catastrophe, Congress and the Administration decided to bailout these mega-institutions using taxpayer dollars.

    Americans have had enough of the U.S. government rescuing reckless big institutions with their tax dollars. Too-big-to-fail is a failed policy and must end.

    Main Street should not have to pay for the risky behavior of corporate giants on Wall Street. For the sake of hardworking Americans and the future of our economy, tell Congress to cut these giants down to size and make them pay their fair share.

  11. But Joe there are still 81.4% that say the stimulus didn't work as told. Why do you only listen to the fringe economists instead of the majority?

  12. Anon
    Prove that number.

    but did the stimulus work???

    Aug. 12 (Bloomberg) — Recovery from the worst recession since the 1930s has begun as President Barack Obama's fiscal stimulus — derided as insufficient and budget-busting months ago — takes effect, a survey of economists indicated.

    The economy will expand 2 percent or more in four straight quarters through June, the first such streak in more than four years, according to the median of 53 forecasts in the monthly Bloomberg News survey. Analysts lifted their estimate for the third quarter by 1.2 percentage points compared with July, the biggest such boost in surveys dating from May 2003.

    "We've averted the worst, and there are clear signs the stimulus is working," said Kenneth Goldstein, an economist at the Conference Board in New York."

    “The signs of the stimulus are there,” said Allen L. Sinai, chief economist at Decision Economics, a forecasting firm in New York. “Government — federal, state and local — is helping take the economy from recession to recovery. I think it’s the primary contributor.”

    By September, the story even appeared (gasp!) under the umbrella of Fox News — under the headline "Global Recession Ending," no less:

    Governments and central banks' drastic fiscal and monetary steps to stimulate the economy, their response to the worst crisis since the Great Depression, now looked increasingly like a "success story."

    But i am just out there on the lunatic fringe huh???

  13. spinster, i wonder about Tax cuts and i found an article that suggests that tax cuts are the most inefficient means to stimulate the economy.

    Moody's offers a handy "bang for the buck" chart showing how much GDP growth is generated per dollar in spending or tax cuts. At the high end are increased food stamps ($1.74 in growth per dollar spent), extended unemployment benefits ($1.61) and infrastructure spending ($1.57). The least efficient investments are in cutting the corporate tax rate (32 cents in stimulus per buck), capital gains tax cuts ($.37), and accelerated depreciation ($.25). The housing tax credit, which Congress just voted to extend, returns $.90 on the dollar.

  14. JoeC it worked but how well. By your standards the write brothers weren't the first to fly either. As many got off the ground and flew just not very far. Obama in his own words said that unemployment would go to 9% or 10% if we didn't pass the porkulus bill and if we did pass it it wouldn't go passed 8%. So in Obamas own word it was as if the stimulus bill wasn't used. Not much bang for all those buck$ if you ask anyone. Joe by the way that is a FACT.

  15. More Latest NewsHouse panel passes college football playoff billSupermodel Bundchen and QB Tom Brady have baby boyIraqi man, lucky dog reunite after Baghdad blastEx-state Sen. Kasim Reed elected Atlanta mayorPettitte, Yankees agree at $11.75MMore Latest NewsCOPENHAGEN (AP) — A leaked Danish document at the U.N. climate conference provoked angry criticism Tuesday from developing countries and activists who feared it would shift more of the burden to curb greenhouse gases on poorer countries.

    Negotiators, meanwhile, displayed charts of data that said the current decade is on track to be the hottest on record for planet Earth.

    At the heart of Tuesday's clash — stemming from draft texts attributed to Denmark and China — is the determination by the more impoverished states to bear a lesser burden than wealthy, more industrialized countries in the effort to slow global warming.

    Diplomats from developing countries and climate activists also complained the Danish hosts had pre-empted the negotiations with their draft proposal, prepared before the two-week conference began.

    "The behind-the-scenes negotiation tactics under the Danish presidency have been focusing on pleasing the rich and powerful countries rather than serving the majority of states who are demanding a fair and ambitious solution," said Kim Carstensen, head of the climate initiative for the environmental group WWF.

    The Danish draft proposal circulating at the 192-nation conference chips away at the wall between what developed and developing nations can be expected to do to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The Danish proposal would allow rich countries to cut fewer emissions while poorer nations would face tougher limits on greenhouse gases and more conditions on money available to adapt.

    A sketchy counterproposal attributed to China would extend the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which required 37 industrial nations to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for global warming by an average 5 percent by 2012, compared with 1990 levels.

    The Chinese text would incorporate specific new, deeper targets for the industrialized world for a further five to eight years. Developing countries, on the other hand, including China, would be covered by a separate agreement that envisions their taking actions to control emissions, but not in the same legally binding way. No targets would be specified for them.

  16. Poorer nations believe the two-track approach would best preserve the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" recognized by the Kyoto Protocol.

    Such draft ideas are usual grist early in such long, difficult international talks. These two proposals were not yet even recorded as official conference documents.

    "It has no validity," key European Union negotiator Artur Runge-Metzger said, speaking specifically of the Danish proposal. "It's only a piece of paper. The only texts that have validity here are those which people negotiated."

    Earlier Tuesday, the U.N.'s weather agency boosted the sense of urgency surrounding the conference with data showing this decade is on track to be the hottest since records began in 1850, with 2009 the fifth-warmest year ever. The second warmest decade was the 1990s.

    Only the United States and Canada experienced cooler conditions than average, the World Meteorological Organization said, though Alaska had the second-warmest July on record. In central Africa and southern Asia, this will probably be the warmest year, but overall, 2009 will "be about the fifth-warmest year on record," said Michel Jarraud, secretary-general of the Swiss-based agency.

    The last few decades are the warmest period in at least 400 years and probably 1,000 years, based on evidence from tree rings, retreating glaciers and other scientific methods to track climate before record-keeping, according to a 2006 report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

    Although temperatures have fluctuated, the causes were natural. The difference now is that they are being driven up by human activity, that modern civilization has many more coastal cities and needs to feed far more people, and that scientists believe humans can head off such dangerous warming.

    Without a global deal stopping climate change, the planet's average temperatures will rise by more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees F) "well before the end of the century," Jarraud said.

    "What we want is to provide the best possible data for negotiators," said Jarraud, who called the WMO data evidence "this is indeed globally the warmest period for more than 2,000 years."

  17. The current decade has been marked by dramatic effects of warming.

    In 2007-2009, the summer melt reduced the Arctic Ocean ice cap to its smallest extent ever recorded. In the 2007-2009 International Polar Year, researchers found that Antarctica is warming more than previously believed. Almost all glaciers worldwide are retreating.

    Destructive species such as jellyfish and bark-eating beetles are moving northward out of normal ranges, and seas expanding from warmth and glacier melt are encroaching on low-lying island states.

    Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and his colleagues defended climate research amid an uproar over a cache of e-mails stolen from a British university that global warming skeptics say show scientists conspired to hide evidence that doesn't fit their theories.

    Panel members noted Tuesday that their authoritative reports, representing the work of some 2,500 international climate experts, included specific papers referenced in the e-mails, such as research into tree rings in Siberia that were discussed at length and had accompanying figures.

    "Our processes are so robust, and the manner in which we function is so inclusive, that there is absolutely no question" about the integrity of research, Pachauri said. "They were clearly private communications. And if they express a level of passion all of us are guilty of at times, I think we should leave it well enough alone."

    He said the IPCC has begun looking into the matter, but stopped short of launching a full investigation. "From what we've done so far, on a preliminary basis, we are completely satisfied that the IPCC procedures have not in any way excluded any material that's been peer-reviewed."

    Carbon dioxide concentrations are expected to peak next year at a record high above 390 parts per million, up from 315 ppm when the first such measurements were taken a half-century ago.

    "We are really on the higher end, at the pessimistic part of these ranges," Jarraud said. "So if nothing is done, we are going for much more than 2 degrees."

  18. Swiss climatologist Thomas Stocker of the University of Bern noted that carbon dioxide levels are "higher than ever in the last 800,000 years," based on comparisons with ancient pockets of carbon dioxide trapped in polar ice core samples.

    He said the C02 atmospheric concentrations have risen at a rate at least 10 times faster than ever before seen in paleoclimatic history.

    The WMO also noted an extreme heat wave in India in May and a heat wave in northern China in June. It said parts of China experienced their warmest year on record, and that Australia so far has had its third-warmest year. Extremely warm weather was also more frequent and intense in southern South America.

    According to the U.S. space agency NASA, the other warmest years since 1850 have been 2005, 1998, 2007 and 2006. NASA says the differences in readings among these years are so small as to be statistically insignificant.

    The U.N. agency reported that the global combined sea surface and land surface temperature for the January-October 2009 period is estimated at 0.44 degrees C (0.79 degrees F) above the 1961-1990 annual average of 14.00 degrees C (57.2 degrees F), with a margin of error of plus or minus 0.11 degrees C. Final data will be released early in 2010.

  19. Job proposals from Democrats could add $300 billion in new federal spending
    By Walter Alarkon - 12/03/09 06:00 AM ET
    The cost of a new jobs bill Democrats hope to move early next year runs to nearly $300 billion when major proposals under serious consideration are added up.
    Lawmakers are calling for extending aid to the unemployed, infrastructure spending, a hiring tax credit and increased small business loans.
    A number of the jobs proposals backed by Democrats make up a $230 billion package proposed by Mark Zandi of Moody's, who made a presentation to Senate Democrats Wednesday. The provisions supported by Zandi along with new spending on infrastructure, a favored approach of top House Democrats, would cost between $291 billion and $299 billion, according to estimates by lawmakers and economists
    Aides cautioned that Democratic leaders in both chambers are just beginning to consider what will go into the bill, and that estimates based on standalone bills may not mesh with the final jobs legislation.
    But $300 billion would appear to represent an outlier of the cost of a new jobs bill. It would follow the $787 billion economic stimulus package approved earlier this year, which Democrats credit with saving jobs but Republicans criticize for failing to stem unemployment, which now stands at 10.2 percent.
    The Hill arrived at the $300 billion figure by adding up the following provisions:
    Lawmakers are looking to extend unemployment insurance and COBRA healthcare benefits for the unemployed through 2010 at a cost of $100 billion alone, according to the sponsor of House legislation, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.).
    House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.) and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) pushed Wednesday for $69 billion for highway and transit projects that could be started almost immediately with funding. Oberstar had criticized the earlier stimulus bill for not including enough infrastructure spending, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) and Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) have voiced support for more infrastructure spending to create jobs.
    Democrats would also increase loans from the Small Business Administration (SBA) at a cost of $20 billion, according to Zandi.
    He called for raising limits for the SBA loans, removing the interest rate cap on them in order to allow credit to be given more freely and using leftover bank bailout money as small-business credit.
    Tax credits for businesses that hire new full-time workers would cost about $27 billion under a proposal by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning policy group. A new hiring tax credit has received extensive discussion and is under consideration by President Barack Obama, according to his economic team.
    Providing more aid to states, a move to stem further job losses, also has support among lawmakers, The New Republic reported Tuesday. Zandi, noting that the state governments will have a $150 billion budget shortfall in fiscal 2011, has called for $75 billion in federal aid for states.
    A federal work-share program backed by Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and four other Democrats would cost about $600 million.
    The total cost of all of those proposals would be $291.6 billion.
    Zandi has called for a $230 billion job-creation package that includes the small-business loans, state fiscal aid, hiring tax credit, work-share program, unemployment and COBRA insurance and state fiscal aid. His cost estimates for most of the programs are similar to those given by lawmakers.
    Adding the Oberstar-DeFazio infrastructure proposal to that sum would bring the total to $299 billion.

  20. Nobama said he is ready for Fiscal Responsibility and to do this he wants to spend HOW many more Billions? Good example of what he SAYS and what he DOES are two completely DIFFERENT Things so where is the TRANSPARENTSY and MOST Importantly where is the HONESTY?

  21. Spinsterpov JoeC and Moody's is right. The next stimulus should incorporate a big infusion of food stamps and unemployment benefits. Nothing will get people off their asses and working like food stamps and getting paid to not work. While we're at it let's get some more infrastructure jobs going. Let's get more workers on the government dole, building roads and bridges that states will then have to pay out money to maintain. Then the feds can come to our rescue again some time in the future. Not just bridges to nowhere, the feds will build you 6-lane highways to nowhere as well. Let's do anything except give money to businesses to actually expand their businesses and make more jobs. It's food stamps that will put people to work.

    JoeC, are these the same economists that were warning us all along about the dangers of the laws that BWARNEY FWANK and the rest of those losers were putting through, to make it easier for low-income people to own homes, etc? I thought so. You follow your prophets, I'll stick with what works, and that is having more $$ in my pocket. If I don't have it, I can't spend it m'man.

  22. Matthew,
    lucky for you Moodys has economic theory to back them up and you have, well you have your opinion for whatever thats worth. Atleast your opinions make you happy not matter how unrealistic they are.

    As for the bit about homes, if the right knew the bubble was coming why did they continue the alleged course of the Democrats?

    The American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) was signed into law on December 16, 2003. The American Dream Downpayment Assistance Act authorizes up to $200 million annually for fiscal years 2004 - 2007.
    ADDI will provide downpayment, closing costs, and rehabilitation assistance to eligible individuals.

    here's the GOP 2004 platform
    The most significant barrier to homeownership is the down payment. We support efforts to reduce that barrier, like the American Dream Downpayment Act and Zero Downpayment Mortgages.

    Then the Bush admin pushed for 0 down FHA loans.

    BUSH ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCES NEW HUD "ZERO DOWN PAYMENT" MORTGAGE Initiative Aimed at Removing Major Barrier to Homeownership LAS VEGAS - As part of President Bush's ongoing effort to help American families achieve the dream of homeownership, Federal Housing Commissioner John C. Weicher today announced that HUD is proposing to offer a "zero down payment" mortgage, the most significant initiative by the Federal Housing Administration in over a decade. This action would help remove the greatest barrier facing first-time homebuyers - the lack of funds for a down payment on a mortgage. Speaking at the National Association of Home Builders' annual convention, Commissioner Weicher indicated that the proposal, part of HUD's Fiscal Year 2005 budget request, would eliminate the statutory requirement of a minimum three percent down payment for FHA-insured single-family mortgages for first-time homebuyers.

    So once again you get caught up in your idealogy which doesn't match reality. Put down Coulter, turn off Rush and realize what is actually happening around you. You can't revise history to match you opnions.

  23. Its not the Zero Down its the Ability to pay MONTHLY Payments and thats where the FEEL good started! Getting into a HOME and then Paying for it were and are two different things and thats where Joe!that FEEL GOOD started cause the people were HELPED! Hows that feel good FEEL now! Some body is do REVISIONING I wonder WHO Joe! That Rear view Mirror things MAY be Closer than they APPEAR!

  24. A pro-life group warns that Senate Democrats are attempting to use the end of the year omnibus funding bill to "smuggle" in the removal of three longstanding bans on government-funded abortion.

    Democrats are considering attaching to the omnibus bill provisions that would drop the ban on government-funded abortion in Washington, DC, and also in the insurance plans that cover members of Congress themselves. They are also hoping to include a provision that would even prevent any future president from curbing U.S. funding of organizations that promote abortion overseas through the foreign aid program.

    According to Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee, Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill are using the omnibus legislation as camouflage for the pro-abortion provisions. "They're...trying to smuggle through some changes in law that would remove some longstanding pro-life policies," he explains. "They're trying to do this through an end-of-the-session catchall funding bill, which is being cooked up behind closed doors."

    Johnson says proponents of the changes are trying to get them approved while not many members are focused on it. And none of the provisions being pushed were considered by the full Senate, he adds.

    "What the congressional Democratic leaders are considering doing is taking a single appropriations bill that's just supposed to cover a couple of departments and just stapling a bunch of other bills to it that were never even taken up by the Senate," Johnson explains. "And these bills contain three different pro-abortion provisions. So, they want to ram these through under a fast-track procedure where the Senate would never have even debated or had a chance to vote on these measures."

    Johnson is convinced that if the pro-abortion measures are attached, they will threaten passage of an appropriations bill that must be approved for the government to continue operating after December 18.

    Thirty-five senators led by Republican Jim DeMint of South Carolina have sent a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada), warning him that if the three pro-abortion provisions are included in the omnibus bill, they will use all procedures at their disposal to block its passage. The pro-abortion measures are being pushed by the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, Dick Durbin of Illinois, and New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg.

    On Tuesday, the Senate rejected the Nelson-Hatch amendment, which would have removed abortion funding from the healthcare reform bill. In taking the action, the Senate also voted to subsidize private insurance plans that cover abortion on demand. Johnson explains what happens next.

    "So now the upcoming vote on cloture on the bill itself will become the key vote on whether to put the federal government into the abortion business," he offers. "We oppose cloture on this bill, which would require 60 affirmative votes -- and in addition, a number of pro-life Democrats in the House who supported passage of healthcare legislation last month will not vote for the Senate bill in its current form. So this thing is a long way from over."

    Cloture means getting 60 votes to end debate. The vote killing the pro-life amendment was 54-45.

  25. Joey did you forget that Bush tryed to stop the housing bubble but the Democrats and some RINO's put an end to that? Do you remember the liberals crying?And saying the Republicans were taking away housing from the poor? You dumbass liberals pushed for this housing bubble and you got it to burst.And now the Democrats are doing it again with the FHA loans.

  26. Al, is English your second language? Not only does your post not make sense, like most of them, but the stupid capitalization thing is ignorant and your punctuation sucks.

    The reality is that despite the deceptions here on this blog, the Bush admin was encouraging risky mortgages. No that's not right, they were demanding more risky mortgages, not trying to cut back on them.

    If you choose to blame Fannie, Freddie, Clinton, Frank and others you must blame the Bush admin as well.

  27. Anon, No he didn't. Did you look at my post? He helped encourage the bubble with the republican congress support.

    But i like how you ask a question with no supporting evidence. I love the op-ed bombing too. Can't think for yourself can ya?

  28. JoeC would you make fun of a studderer? Why would you make fun of AL for the way he writes? You are an ugly man with childish ways and I feel sorry for you. I think you could use some love in your heart this Lent.

  29. This video shows that President George Bush tried to warn Congress starting in 2001 that this economic crisis was coming, if something was not done. But congress refused to listen, along with Barney Frank. This video says it all.
    The liberal AMERICAN media did not want this video on You Tube, so they had Time Warner threaten a law suit (proprietary rights) if it was not taken off. This link is of the same video but is routed through Canada . Everyone in America needs to see this!;=1

    Pay CLOSE attention to the timeline!!

  30. JoeC whats eating you today? Is it the cold snowy wind or just the buffoons in the Democratic party? You have to be more tolerant of people. You liberals are an intolerant group to those not like you.

  31. Joey, what's up with attacking people for capitalizing? If you know of another way to EMPHASIZE your words we're all ears. Or eyes. Or whatever. If you can't understand it, why even comment? Or maybe you DO understand, and your only rebuttal is to insult someone? Chris is right, you are acting like it's that time of month with you.

    Joey, also why don't you ever post a link to your information? Where is this Moody's study, I would be interested in seeing it. Are you saying, as Matthew indicated, that Moody's is suggesting that the biggest bang for your buck can be had via FOOD STAMPS?!

  32. JoeC Sometimes English IS my Second Language BUT Common Sense is always MY GUIDE and I feel you are like all LIBS,TRUTH hurts and you have NO answers other than to LASH out but Hey Joe I can Handle it!

    Joe Unless Bush was a LIB then YOU be Wrong! Zero down Joe is nothing NEW, I bought my first HOUSE with VA and Zip down BUT and this is the Part you skip over I COULD Afford it JOE and there LIEs the LIB. Being able to Afford it SHOULD not MATTER in YOUR EYES!

    Hope you can READ this JOE dont want that Fine tuned BRAIN of your to OVERHEAT,now you can go back into the DARK cause thats how you THINK!

    Rewriting History MUST be a Burden on YOUY!

  33. BWAAAAAHAHAHA... Al lays the smack down on Joey again! Joey, why don't you head on over to DemocRATic Underground for your next talking point/rebuttal. Maybe you can try attacking somebody's spelling, or the color of their skin or their sexual preference... you know, just like a typical Hypocrat, attack anything but the ARGUMENT or the FACTS!


  34. No Joey gets his orders from the UAW.

  35. What planet are you guys on?

    John, he didn't smack shit down cept the shift bar at irregular intervals. Set your hatred for me aside and borrow some common sense from Al. wait never mind, he doesn't have much.

    Sue, Nice straw man. Al, doesn't have a physical handicap, he does that stupid stuff on purpose.

    Al, common sense? What common sense? You can't even make a complete sentence let alone show common sense. The reality of the housing bubble is that conservatives like Bush encouraged risky lending like i showed long after the supposed warnings. You and i both know that conservative banking policy on loans such as mortgages typically invovles downpayments and that the larger the downpayment the less likely to default. No sense denying the obvious (some common sense that is)and suggesting that encouraging zero down on short term ARMs to low credit score applicants is anything but risky. Perhaps you did pay off your loan, but the reality is that many did not, thus the foreclosure issue.

    Strange that here i take the fiscal conservative side of things and acknowledge that lending policy should be much more restrained while you guys go all liberal.

    The reality is that Bush encouraged both private and semi-private (fannie/freddie) to take on more risky mortgages instead of less. Its out there in his words and press releases. Let go of your partisanship and come clean.

    Anon, lol...funny.

  36. JOEC Common Sense Sees that For TWO years Franks was the CHAIRMAN of the Oversight Commitee making sure that Fanny May stayed Solvent and he WAS warned of PROBLEMS by Both Parties Joe and he basicly said there is NO NO NO problem! Howd that work out JOEC! Common Sense is Basiclly Truth JOE and you have neither. I know my Adverbs Adjetives Pronouns and spelling is lousy BUT no matter HOW its Written its still the TRUTH!

    Joe go through MY post Never said this WHOLE mess was one Parties Fault Joe YOU do! Until you get over 2000 Election you will always be in the Past and this is NOT good Joe!

    Gotta watch TV to see Nobama Except the Peace Prize after Ordering 30,000 more TROOPS into Afganistan,the RIGHT WAR,his words not MINE!

  37. Joe did you watch this. You must have missed it from my earlier post. Now that you know the TRUTH about Bush and the Republicans trying to stop the housing bubble you can stop spreading the lies that Bush didn't try to stop the housing bubble.;=1

    Pay CLOSE attention to the timeline!!

  38. Idiot Joey, you have the handicap, and that is your hatred of people. I don't hate anyone, that is a lieberal Hypocrat thing. I never said Al had a handicap, again that is something that YOU said. I said "Joey, what's up with attacking people for capitalizing? If you know of another way to EMPHASIZE your words we're all ears." and then I said "Maybe you can try attacking somebody's spelling, or the color of their skin or their sexual preference... you know, just like a typical Hypocrat, attack anything but the ARGUMENT or the FACTS!". See Joey, nothing about handicaps until YOU said it. Joey, why don't you come on back when you learn to read and comprehend what other people write?

    And speaking of straw men as you do, I have never seen anybody attack everything EXCEPT an argument like you do. You are the one that brought up your problem with Al capitalizing. You are the one that brought up your problem with "BWAAAAHAHAHA". Nobody brings up any of that shit with you Joey, although I have seen plenty of spelling errors on your part WE DON'T CARE and we don't have to lower ourselves to that level of discourse. We want to have intelligent discussions about the issues, not about something so PETTY as somebody CAPITALIZING their WORDS for EMPHASIS.

    So grow up Joey and why don't you come back when you get a chance to mature a little. Oh, and when a 19-year old woman shows far and away more maturity and common sense that you, you might want to step back and examine yourself a little. As I recall you went after her for her age, real mature Joey.

  39. Chris, your using a edited piece off of youtube to support your theory?

    here's an excerpt of a 2002 bush speech.

    ... And let me talk about some of the progress which we have made to date, as an example for others to follow. First of all, government sponsored corporations that help create our mortgage system -- I introduced two of the leaders here today -- they call those people Fannie May and Freddie Mac, as well as the federal home loan banks, will increase their commitment to minority markets by more than $440 billion. (Applause.) I want to thank Leland and Franklin for that commitment. It's a commitment that conforms to their charters, as well, and also conforms to their hearts.

    This means they will purchase more loans made by banks after Americans, Hispanics and other minorities, which will encourage homeownership. Freddie Mac will launch 25 initiatives to eliminate homeownership barriers. Under one of these, consumers with poor credit will be able to get a mortgage with an interest rate that automatically goes down after a period of consistent payments.

    And lets be honest about who killed what? Legislation to reform Fannie/Freddie was killed in congress by a republican controlled congress, not a democrat controlled one.

    Al, i'm not attacking your spelling. God knows everyone makes typo's. You started on me not the other way around. I pointed out to matthew the flaw in his post and you challenged me.

  40. JoeC NEVER said it was one Parties Fault YOU did. Last two years of Bush Administration I thought Democrats Controlled Congress and All I ask is WHY did not those People in Charge DO the Right thing cause you may not or just DONT want to remember they WERE Warned,nothing Personnel just the WAY it OCCURRED!

  41. John,
    Wow. Are you the pot or the kettle today?

    1. You constantly talk about how "I" go after people, yet "YOU" have called Bruce a pussy, among other things, my son gay, a dipshit and other remarks about him. Hmmm your alittle to high on the "attack side" to question who or what i go after.

    2. I never said mentioned you and handicap together in any post, till now. I did however mention handicaps right after the name "SUE," perhaps i could past it here for you to help clear it up... "Sue, Nice straw man. Al, doesn't have a physical handicap, he does that stupid stuff on purpose."

    3. Your like a child. You do everything you accuse everyone else of doing and then act like your the choir boy here, which is a complete crock of shit. Look at how you named your blog.

    Al, no i did not. Here's my post...

    "As for the bit about homes, if the right knew the bubble was coming why did they continue the alleged course of the Democrats?"

    thats what i posted to Matthew when you jumped on me. that doesn't say its all the republicans fault.

  42. Joe there are the raw footage on youtube also so look them up. They actualy happened but on the tv networks you watch they demonize the Republicans and Bush.

  43. Joe, I NEVER said I was perfect. If you have evidence to the contrary let's see it.

    You go after someone because of their spelling and CAPITALIZATION of all things, not to mention going after a woman because of her age (and I have to agree with Chris, because she's a woman, but that is just our opinions). That's just lame. If you have a difference of opinion with someone, post it. But it is pretty lame when all you can do is go after someone's spelling. For instance I could point out where you said "Your like a child" when it should be "you're". But that's how you get off, not me.

    I absolutely call Bruce stupid and an idiot, because he has proven time and again that he is. And your kid does look like a dipshit, but that's just my opinion. You put him out there as your picture ID, that's your choice. But you go after hannityinaskirt or whatever he name is, calling her diapers, so you are saying you're better than that? And I never said your kid was gay. Never did. I said you should support him if he was. That's when you got all pissed off, even though you supposedly love the gays (not in that way obviously). Then you insinuated that all gays are child molesters. That was over the line in my book.

    So, in summary, I'm not perfect and never claimed to be. However I do stick to arguments, and leave the petty bullshit about spelling and grammar to people who don't have any other argument to make.


Please keep it clean and nice. Thank you for taking the time to post you thought. It means a lot to me that you do this.