Quote :

"We've been around this block. Back in the 50s and 60s "atomic power" was going to change our lives and make energy practically free."

I dunno about you, but I wasn't born until 1980.

2/24/2009 1:46:06 PM

Quote :

"Spent nuclear fuel is not leaky stuff. Imagine a ceramic plate, and you're getting close to an idea of how difficult it is to manage. Think about archeological sites. How well has the condition of ceramic items held up?"

I agree with you to a point, but you're missing some vital issues here. If you have water infiltration, this becomes an issue with highly soluble components. Not so much an issue with vitrified (glass) wastes, but still an issue over hundreds or thousands of years - i.e., in an oxidizing environment, eventually you may see some leakage. Water creeps in, it corrodes, it saps out solutes - Cesium in the short term, Neptunium in the long term.

Then again, how bad is the problem? It's still not "that bad" compared to the natural background radiation dose. But it's enough that we can't simply dismiss it as trivial - a lot of work goes into calculating what kind of groundwater transport would occur under a water infiltration scenario.

This of course is why we need to reprocess spent fuel and just throw away the "really" bad stuff...

Quote :

"The only reason nuclear waste is a problem is because people keep telling themselves it is. The truth is that it is a invaluable energy resource for the future and questions of its safety in dry storage are plain idiocy. Nuclear waste is pretty much a big hot rock. After 50 years it's not even that hot, more like a lukewarm rock."

Yes and no. As long as you keep water out and everything safely contained inside that hot concrete block, you're absolutely right. The issue is keeping water out over thousands of years - much tougher. But otherwise, over the 50-100 year time frame, you're absolutely correct.

And you're absolutely right - on an order-of-magnitude scale, it doesn't even compare to other problems. However, the long-term issue of managing waste is again yet another reason why we need to start actually implementing reprocessing now...

2/24/2009 2:42:41 PM

Quote :

" If any video game had an impact, I would say SimCity more than Civilization"

True. After all, it didn't stop me from ending every game with a massive nuclear holocaust.

2/24/2009 3:31:37 PM

^^ Question: Does it does not matter how old the spent fuel is when it comes to reprocessing?

2/24/2009 3:48:56 PM

Quote :

"Does it does not matter how old the spent fuel is when it comes to reprocessing?"

Older is generally better - you leave more time for the short-lifetime isotopes to decay away and have much less hazard in what you're dealing with. Much like what mrfrog already brought up.

I think at a minimum they propose a 10-year cooling time, possibly longer.

2/24/2009 3:51:54 PM

2/24/2009 6:36:07 PM

^The problem is a lot of Mexicans have taken over the construction industry. I don't see how this bill will help people who are out of a job. People who work on road constrction crews already have a job. This won't help the store managers of Circuit City who lost their job and can't find another one. They are out looking for jobs that don't involve road construction.

2/24/2009 6:51:40 PM

i don't care who builds the roads and fixes the bridges

they could be green with blue stripes

just fix it

i'm posting WPA stuff for my own amusement because i was doing some research for some projects i'm working on... god knows it'll fall through the cracks in between the mary sunshines or paranoid freak-o's in this thread

speaking of roads...we were supposed to have flying cars by now

but it's okay

I BLAME CARTER FOR THAT

[Edited on February 24, 2009 at 7:56 PM. Reason : +]

2/24/2009 7:48:59 PM

congrats on 65K, marko!!! OMG!!!

Quote :

"I'm not convinced the non-existence of Fannie/Freddie would have prevented this. From what I understand, the investors' computer models based on data up to the late 90s had sub-prime loans classed to be fairly reliable. And using this data, the predicted more sub-prime loans would continue to be reliable. But they didn't factor in that the previous sub-prime loans weren't made willy-nilly and sometimes dishonestly, the way many of the "toxic" loans we now are having problems with were made."

You are quite right, but what you fail to include is that Fannie and Freddie spurred selling of the "willy-nilly" toxic loans. How? Because sheister companies made these bad loans and then sold them to Fannie and Freddie, who were more than happy to buy them up, because they had the backing of the government to "enable more home-ownership." Thus, Fannie and Freddie took risks that other sensible companies would not have taken. What ends up happening is Fannie and Freddie initially make a killing, luring other companies to buy from these sheister companies, and greed and such take their course. Then, Fannie and Freddie start to take a hit when the foreclosures happen, but they hide it, with help of the government, luring still more previously responsible companies to buy from Fannie and Freddie and the other sheisters.

What happens without the government backing? First, Fannie and Freddie don't have a massive advantage to begin with, so they have to compete with everyone else fair-and-square. This more than likely makes them far more skeptical of the sheister companies to begin with. They get burnt by a couple sheister loans, and then Fannie and Freddie quit buying from them. Sheister companies go out of business, and we are good to go.

2/24/2009 8:22:54 PM

[Edited on February 24, 2009 at 8:29 PM. Reason : double post, sorry]

2/24/2009 8:29:30 PM

Less than a fourth of subprime loans were backed by Fannie and Freddie.

That quarter is doing rather well, compared to the privately-backed loans.

Banks would've gone for subprime loans with or without government involvement.

Stop listening to talk radio, plz.

2/24/2009 9:44:56 PM

Quote :

"That quarter is doing rather well, compared to the privately-backed loans. Banks would've gone for subprime loans with or without government involvement."

So why were Fannie and Freddie some of the first to go belly-up, might one ask? They were one of the first MBS-buying institutions to fail. So why would that be, if the loans they were purchasing were so rock-solid?

2/24/2009 10:08:08 PM

They didn't go "belly-up" in the sense that other banking institutions have.

The gov't takeover was preemptive.

This has already been explained in the SB, directly to you, by someone who knows more about the subject than I do.


Regardless, no argument over the timing of things doesn't affect the fact that F-M's loans are in fact doing much better than private loans. F-M loaning standards never dropped like the private sector's did.

2/24/2009 10:20:30 PM

Is that why there was such a big scandal at F&F that was swept under the rug? If those loans were doing so well, then why did they feel the need to hide things in their accounting matters? Moreover, if they were doing so well, then why the need to do even a pre-emptive takeover? What are you "pre-empting?"

SO yes, they didn't go "belly up" in the sense that other banks did, but only because the gov't came through on its implicit backing.

2/24/2009 10:37:58 PM

"well" is a relative term.

Compared to the liar's loans the private section issued with zero urging from the gov't, F-M's loans are doing "well."

2/24/2009 10:50:29 PM

Quote :

" F-M's loans are in fact doing much better than private loans."

Source? Might be correct, I'd just like to see the numbers please.

2/24/2009 10:58:30 PM

So I was googling a little to get the source.

Check this gem out from 1999:

Quote :

"In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260

HAH! So burro, the gov't was pressing the private sector to ease lending standards? Seems like it was the other way around


Here's the top 15 subprime lenders:



Odd-- no gov't agencies are on the list.


And here's what you asked for:

Quote :

"Federal Reserve Governor Randall Kroszner, says the CRA isn't to blame for the subprime mess: "First, only a small portion of subprime mortgage originations are related to the CRA. Second, CRA-related loans appear to perform comparably to other types of subprime loans. Taken together… we believe that the available evidence runs counter to the contention that the CRA contributed in any substantive way to the current mortgage crisis." Kroszner added: "Only 6% of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas, the local geographies that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation purposes."[131]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#Government_policies

2/24/2009 11:10:45 PM

Quote :

"They didn't go "belly-up" in the sense that other banking institutions have. The gov't takeover was preemptive."

I seem to recall a massive hole in their balance sheet and a government bailout. Forgive me for finding this to be virtually indistinguishable from say, other banking institution failures which have been foisted upon the taxpayer's dime.

Quote :

"This has already been explained in the SB, directly to you, by someone who knows more about the subject than I do."

And yet here we are today, no better off. Fannie and Freddie with huge loads of bad loans turning up as the first wave of failing MBS-owners.

Again - if they're performing above the pack, why exactly were they the first ones to need a bailout? Sweep the question aside all you want, this seems pretty relevant, if you ask me. Awfully hard to just take your word for it that they're doing spectacular compared to the rest of the market when they're the first ones getting a bailout.

Quote :

"Regardless, no argument over the timing of things doesn't affect the fact that F-M's loans are in fact doing much better than private loans. F-M loaning standards never dropped like the private sector's did."

Because... they didn't make loans. They bought home loans from banks. That was their chartered purpose. They were one of the original mortgage securities dealers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae

Quote :

"Fannie Mae buys loans from approved mortgage sellers, either for cash or in exchange for a mortgage-backed security that comprises those loans and that now, for a fee, carries Fannie Mae's guaranty of timely payment of interest and principal. The mortgage seller may hold that security or sell it. Fannie Mae may also securitize mortgages from its own loan portfolio and sell the resultant mortgage-backed security to investors in the secondary mortgage market, again with a guarantee that the stated principal and interest payments will be timely passed through to the investor."

2/24/2009 11:19:12 PM

Quote :

"Again - if they're performing above the pack, why exactly were they the first ones to need a bailout?"

I think that's pretty self-evident. They backed a quarter of subprime loans. Any shakiness on their part would've been catastrophic.

Again-- chronological order has no correlation with culpability, as is evident from my last post.

2/24/2009 11:22:41 PM

Quote :

"I think that's pretty self-evident. They backed a quarter of subprime loans. Any shakiness on their part would've been catastrophic."

Which are miraculously performing above the market average. So... why were they tottering on the brink of failure when they were performing above the pack? And, given that not every bank out there is failing, it stands to reason that other banks were certainly doing a better job with lending than Fannie Mae. Certainly not every bank, no doubt - the banks you list are evidence of that. But it's awfully hard to take your claim on face given the fact that they were outperforming the market given the fact that we still bailed them out. Before everybody else at that.

Not to mention that their stock is now nearly worthless, compared to a year ago:

http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:FNM

So, why exactly are we to believe their loans were performing "above the pack" when they're pretty much collapsed? Especially given that other banks that made loans have not collapsed?

Quote :

"Again-- chronological order has no correlation with culpability, as is evident from my last post."

And based upon what, other than your assertion, should we base this? It hardly speaks to their viability if they were doing as poorly as they were, as early on as they were.

And again, if they were performing "above the pack," why in the world did they need a bailout at all?

2/24/2009 11:30:23 PM

Quote :

"tottering on the brink of failure"

You're still not accepting that the F-M bailout was different than private bailouts. This is obvious.

Quote :

"Not to mention that their stock is now nearly worthless, compared to a year ago:"

Nationalization will do that. The gov't directly owns 80% of the stock, now. I doubt stock price has anything to do with the value of their loans.


Your argument is incredibly specious-- F-M isn't doing better than average because there are private banks that are doing better (maybe?)? How many of these unnamed banks are doing better? What share of the subprime market do they hold?

You're have to answer these questions before your argument starts making any sense at all.

Quote :

"why in the world did they need a bailout at all?"

Did they need one? You haven't established that, yet. We bailed them out because they might've, maybe needed a bailout to survive. At some point in the future. Maybe.

That certainly hasn't been the standard for the private banks.

[Edited on February 24, 2009 at 11:50 PM. Reason : ]

2/24/2009 11:48:15 PM

Quote :

"You're still not accepting that the F-M bailout was different than private bailouts. This is obvious."

And you have yet to demonstrate the effective difference.

Why, this whole argument looks an awful lot like a circle!

Quote :

"Your argument is incredibly specious-- F-M isn't doing better than average because there are private banks that are doing better (maybe?)? How many of these unnamed banks are doing better? What share of the subprime market do they hold?"

This "specious argument" directly follows from your own logic.

-FMC is doing great - above the market
-Yet we had to bail them out due to spectacular losses posted on their balance sheets
-But they're still performing above the market. ("Mission accomplished! Heck've job, Brownie!")

This isn't speciousness - this is the same nonsense you've predicated your argument upon. In essence, we have two contradictory premises:

-The loans FMC backed were performing above the market averages
-The loans FMC backed necessitated a pre-emtive de facto nationalization

So... which is it? If their loan portfolio was performing "above the market", why then was a pre-emptive bailout necessary? Why was their balance sheet that bad? Because not every bank out there is failing. And it stands to reason that other banks made home loans, therefore the made loans which caused them not to be failing.

So... how exactly is an institution whose loan portfolio is outperforming the market average the first in line for a bailout?

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/treasury-set-bail-out-fannie/story.aspx?guid{46D1439E-A2C4-418C-9BE0-09BE0B9EE60D}&dist=msr_7

Quote :

"Did they need one? You haven't established that, yet. We bailed them out because they might've, maybe needed a bailout to survive. At some point in the future. Maybe."

Are you seriously making the argument that FMC didn't need a sudden cash infusion to prevent its imminent failure? Really? We decided to pump billions of dollars into them at a very rapid pace because they "might" need it, some rainy day?

Quote :

"The bailout involves total assets that would dwarf the savings and loan rescue in the 1980s that shook the banking sector to its core. Fannie and Freddie hold roughly $1.5 trillion in direct debt, guarantees on what could be as large as $5 trillion and possibly off-balance sheet obligations that could reach $3 trillion, according to recent estimates from Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. Word of the Treasury Department takeover first came out late Friday, and sent the shares of both companies plunging in after-hours trading, with Fannie Mae giving up 25% of its value and Freddie Mac falling by about 20%. Those losses only added to the misery that has already wiped out approximately 80% of the companies' share values this year. And the proposed takeover plans, while leaving Fannie and Freddie able to continue operating, would reportedly leave the remaining shareholders with nearly nothing, diluting the companies' common stock but not wiping it out. Fannie Mae's market cap stands at $7.5 billion and Freddie Mac's is about $3.3 billion. Some reports estimate the government's cash injection ultimately could be between $15 billion and $20 billion. "

Really?

[Edited on February 25, 2009 at 12:08 AM. Reason : Really?]

2/24/2009 11:56:24 PM

I love how some people are so caught up in partisan politics that they have pretty much become delusional.

The current recession and mortgage crisis was not a collection of failed polices, lack of foresight, and greed from both sides.

The real reason that aaronburro has been so kind to inform us of is because the LIBERAL DID IT!!! They hate your money, your retirement plan, and your BMW. Bill Clinton from day 1 had this all planned out with F&F being one of his cats pawls to unravel the master liberal plan to trick the nation into succumbing to socialist policies after all the banks fail.

On a serious note i like how Citi is having all these financial problems yet they somehow manage to send me and likely 10 million other americans a credit card application every week in the mail.

[Edited on February 24, 2009 at 11:59 PM. Reason : l]

2/24/2009 11:57:46 PM

Quote :

"The current recession and mortgage crisis was not a collection of failed polices, lack of foresight, and greed from both sides."

Actually, I don't recall saying that. In fact, I think FMC was simply an enabler; they were a mechanism that allowed for banks to offer bad loans, who could then fob off liability through MBS instruments. It was moral hazard all around - banks had a moral hazard to lend irresponsible, FMC operated on a moral hazard of an implicit government guarantee.

But whatever floats your boat, there.

2/25/2009 12:03:26 AM

Quote :

"-The loans FMC backed were performing above the market averages -The loans FMC backed necessitated a pre-emtive de factor nationalization"

These are not contradictory statements.

They are doing better than average. The guy from the Federal Reserve Board said so. You've not cited anything, nor have you made a sound argument for why they aren't. The fact that there are still-extant subprime lenders doesn't mean anything.

There are many better basketball teams than Duke. Does that mean they're not performing better than average?

Your only other argument involves chronology, which is faulty. F-M insured 1/4 of all loans. They couldn't be viewed as even mildly-shaky and they were already government agencies, so they were taken over.

[Edited on February 25, 2009 at 12:17 AM. Reason : ]

2/25/2009 12:10:27 AM

Quote :

"I think FMC was simply an enabler; "

i can agree to this.

Fact is there is plenty of blame pie for everyone

2/25/2009 12:10:36 AM

Quote :

"They are doing better than average. The guy from the Federal Reserve Board said so. You've not cited anything, nor have you made a sound argument for why they aren't. The fact that there are still-extant subprime lenders doesn't mean anything."

Uh, the fact that there are other lenders who haven't required us to bail them out due to loan defaults seems to speak volumes. The fact that they had massive holes in their balance sheet would seem to indicate a problem.

Again, very simple question which you have proven positively incapable of answering. If their loans were doing so well, why was their balance sheet so poor?

Quote :

"There are many better basketball teams than Duke. Does that mean they're not performing better than average?"

When Duke is 1-14 for the season, it's awfully hard to argue they're "better than average."

Quote :

"Your only other argument involves chronology, which is faulty. F-M insured 1/4 of all loans. They couldn't be viewed as even mildly-shaky, so they were taken over, thus giving them rock-solid stability."

Uh, they were more than "a little shaky." Despite your refusal to acknowledge this fact, things were a little less sanguine than you would like to portray them.

2/25/2009 12:16:38 AM

Quote :

"When Duke is 1-14 for the season, it's awfully hard to argue they're "better than average.""

Well there's my basketball knowledge for you. Just insert "#5 team in the nation" for Duke. You get the point. I imagine you've already gotten the point, though, and you're just ignoring it.

You've yet to cite a shred of evidence explaining why they're doing worse than average. I have.


But hey, we nationalized a quasi-governmental agency before we went for private institutions. Clearly the only factor we considered was their balance sheets.

[Edited on February 25, 2009 at 12:26 AM. Reason : ]

2/25/2009 12:25:42 AM

Quote :

"Well there's my basketball knowledge for you. Just insert "#5 team in the nation" for Duke. You get the point. I imagine you've already gotten the point, though, and you're just ignoring it."

I'm not quoting their specific record - I'm carrying your analogy forth to the situation. Hell if I know Duke's real record this season.

Quote :

"You've yet to cite a shred of evidence explaining why they're doing worse than average. I have."

The fact that we're on the hook several dozen billion dollars in liabilities seems to be a strong argument against the "above average" argument.

Frankly, it seems like you're conflating two often-heard arguments regarding this. That is,

-CRA loans have out-performed other subprime (and even prime) loans in the same category (which is true, and argument against CRA as the promixate cause of the situation)
-FMC subprime loans have out-performed the market.

The first one is supported, the second one doesn't exactly stand up to scrutiny of basic logic. Again - if they were out-performing the market, then why was FMC is so much serious financial trouble? If FMC's loans were out-performing the market, it stands to reason then that... FMC should be out-performing the market. Which they, uh, were not.

Because, as should be obvious by now, clearly not every loan FMC held was a CRA-based loan. Therefore, simply because one class of loan outperformed the market, it does not stand to reason that FMC's entire portfolio did so.

Quote :

"But hey, we nationalized a quasi-governmental agency before we went for private institutions. Clearly the only factor we considered was their balance sheets."

They were quasi-governmental in the sense that they were a GSE. They issued private stock and paid dividends. They were also the first to show signs of serious financial weakness.

Clearly this has nothing to do with it, though.

[Edited on February 25, 2009 at 12:39 AM. Reason : .]

2/25/2009 12:37:34 AM

Quote :

"Eighty-two percent of speech-watchers said they support the economic plan Obama outlined in his prime time address, with 17 percent opposing the proposal."

2/25/2009 8:14:55 AM

lol

Quote :

"Eighty-two percent of basketball game-watchers said they supported either Duke or Carolina at the Duke vs Carolina game, with 17 percent being State fans and just tuned in to hate."

[Edited on February 25, 2009 at 9:21 AM. Reason : the choir loved the preacher]

2/25/2009 9:19:41 AM

I can't believe there are still people misinformed about Fannie and Freddie.

2/25/2009 9:31:52 AM

Of course there are still people misinformed about them. The victors have not written the history yet. Give it time; eventually it will have been Fannie and Freddie died fighting to protect the people against evil jew bankers.

2/25/2009 9:41:09 AM

Nah, I think it will be "Fannie and Freddie were clueless idiots that got lost in the sea of capitalist fantasies, were late to the game, and a made a scapegoat by all right wing talk radio boobs everywhere"

2/25/2009 10:00:53 AM

Ron Paul talking now. I love this guy on economics

Can't reinflate the bubble by creating credit out of thin air and calling it capital
Can't repair a failed system
Have a misunderstanding of credit and capital
Capital has to come from saving, work hard, live within our means, what is left is capital
The idea that we can create capital by the printing presses is a fallacy

Worldwide central banks are moving to internationalize printing presses and give up on the dollar

etc

2/25/2009 10:15:40 AM

Quote :

" against evil jew bankers. "

Citi and BAC get 0 sympathy in my book.

In my opinion the difference between these guys and a loan shark, when it comes to consumer banking/loans is that one is traded publicly.

2/25/2009 10:35:00 AM

Quote :

"how Citi is having all these financial problems yet they somehow manage to send me and likely 10 million other americans a credit card application every week in the mail. "

I know. But that's their business these days, selling credit. They need consumers to keep buying credit from them. Obama is kind of doing the same thing..buying billions of dollars of gov't projects on credit in the hopes of sparking up the economy.

And thanks for the info Boone.

2/25/2009 11:10:10 AM

well after i threw my first 30 offers away; what are the chances i'm going to be like. Oh maybe i will get this credit card this week.

2/25/2009 11:55:16 AM

Quote :

"Older is generally better - you leave more time for the short-lifetime isotopes to decay away and have much less hazard in what you're dealing with. Much like what mrfrog already brought up. I think at a minimum they propose a 10-year cooling time, possibly longer."

Well now I'm not an expert but...

I have heard mention that the French program aims to reprocess fuel as quick as possible after being discharged, relating to obtaining a certain Plutonium isotope that will decay away. I'm not sure of the details, but suffice it to say that Plutonium does have some problems with decaying away, evidenced by the fact that it's not a natural element. Or maybe the problem was some fission product buildup - I don't remember well.

So, like many nuclear engineering problems, you have seemingly contradictory objectives. You want a long sitting time so that it's easier to handle, but you might also want to process it soon for the type of fuel cycle that France strives for, but if you process it soon then you create many transportation issues and also complicate the reprocessing cycle due to safeguards for hotter radioisotopes.

However, it's still possible to reuse fuel that's been sitting for eons. You CAN get energy out of most all transuranic elements. I mean, the entire deal with them is that they're too big to stably exist in this universe. Minor Actinides, for instance, are one of the biggest long-term challenges for a repository but can be burnt in a burner. A burner is less efficient in terms of neutron utilization, but that doesn't mean that the isotopes aren't producing energy. The reality is that all heavy (enough) elements will eventually burn if you put them in a big pot.

And the spent fuel out there right now could be put straight into a CANDU reactor without doing ANYTHING to them. It's not difficult to manage something, but the current Plutonium-Uranium recycle strategy finds hot and fresh LWR fuel to be the most tasty.

2/25/2009 12:10:17 PM

Quote :

"So you ask, will we get any stimulative effect? I would answer: Just one. Obama and Congress will now shut the hell up trying to panic everyone into battening down the hatches for the worst economy in history, and folks can get a bit of breathing space to look around them and see that business opportunity is still there. This is $800 billion in hush money, a bribe we are paying Obama and Pelosi in the form of passing a lot of their pent up leftish wish list, in return for them taking some ownership interest in real economic health."

2/25/2009 4:38:36 PM

George Dubya fear mongered that the turrists were going to blow up grandma's house to pass his legislation

Obama and Pelosi are fear mongering that we are going to Great Depression part 2 if we don't pass their legislation

go figure...

2/25/2009 5:25:51 PM

Quote :

"With the exception of three senators, every Republican member of Congress voted unanimously against the economic stimulus package, claiming they were not included in the process and that their ideas were ignored. In the epitome of political chutzpah, more than 20 House Republican members issued press releases announcing how the stimulus package would help their districts"

Quote :

"The omnibus spending bill recently passed by the House of Representatives met strong Republican opposition, especially over the issue of Congressionally designated projects, or “earmarks.” The only reason the debate over earmarks can take place is because the Democratic Congress changed the rules from the days when Republicans controlled Congress. The new rules require that earmarks be publicly disclosed and that members of Congress be held accountable for sponsoring them. It is also worth noting that while the Republican members of Congress protest this bill as “wasteful,” approximately 40 percent of the spending on earmarks went to projects requested by the Republicans. And when Republicans controlled Congress, they got 60% of the earmarks (as is traditional for the party in power), and kept those earmarks secret. You don’t hear them talking about that today."

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/04/hypocrisy-that-could-embarrass-even-a-rod/

More LIES from the liberal media trying to justify the porkulus bill. AM I RITE?

Quote :

"ure, Rush has 20 million listeners a day. Ann Coulter is on many best-seller lists, and for that matter, I’m sure Larry Flynt sells a lot of magazines, too. What does it all prove? That there’s always a market for pandering to some people’s base instincts. Exploitation, fear, prejudice and vulgarity unite these people"

Is not this the truth

Someone woman even commented....

Sandra:

Quote :

"Republicans are looking out for the working class, that’s why they voted against it. There is way too much Pelosi pork in it. Democrats are and seemingly will always be tax and spend"

She is obviously very uninformed. As the "working class" is not going to be paying for this pork and they will likely see a large proportion of the benefits. The middle and upper class will be stuck footing the bill. I supposed Sandra would rather her meager 2-6% nominal tax Federal Income tax rate be used to give big contracts to halliburton, drop bombs in Iraq, or pay for more DEA agents to bust that kid on the corner that has a 2 oz bag of pot. Instead of paying for social programs that goes to her hypothetical sister, who is whining that her $300 in foodstamps every month is not enough for her to sit at home watching Ricki Lake all day instead of working.

[Edited on March 4, 2009 at 5:49 PM. Reason : d]

3/4/2009 5:41:22 PM

The Senate is voting now on a proposed amendment to remove $10 million in Democratic earmarks going to clients of a lobbying firm whose offices were raided by the FBI for illegal campaign contributions not long ago, every Dem so far has voted against it surprise surprise

3/4/2009 6:01:43 PM

I dont know about you guys, but that extra $15 in my paycheck today was VERY stimulating.

3/13/2009 4:54:59 PM

bump by request

6/19/2009 5:17:53 PM

fuck, I still haven't seen the extra money in my paycheck. But I did see more taken out for medicare... what was that about not raising taxes on anyone making less than 250000, Mr Change?

btw, i didn't ask for this to be bttted.

6/19/2009 6:24:54 PM

but he's created/saved 6 million jobs with our monies!!

6/20/2009 1:10:17 AM

Quote :

"To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble."

Paul Krugman in 2002 (Nobel in economics, 2008)
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html

Good thing Obama is listening to Paul Krugman on these matters; he seems to really know what needs to be done in these situations.

[Edited on June 21, 2009 at 5:58 PM. Reason : lnk]

6/21/2009 5:58:29 PM

i know, right? Clearly the best way to solve the problem of a bursting bubble is to create another bubble and expect that one not to burst

6/23/2009 6:57:16 PM

bump by request

7/10/2010 2:42:46 AM