Jeff, let's not forget that Social Security was formed at a time when the average life expectancy was 57. It was designed with that in mind and that the average person wouldn't last long enough to collect. The average life span now is much higher and many do collect. No wonder it's bankrupt. Medicare loses 60 billion dollars each year. And no bid contracts are still being given out by the anointed one. Let's not forget all the crooks the anointed has appointed to czar postitions.
Seems the cronyism is still going on under this transparent administration. The only thing transparent is they are now doing it in the open and smash it right in our faces.

[Rupert]

Jeff, let's not forget that Social Security was formed at a time when the average life expectancy was 57. It was designed with that in mind and that the average person wouldn't last long enough to collect. The average life span now is much higher and many do collect. No wonder it's bankrupt. Medicare loses 60 billion dollars each year. And no bid contracts are still being given out by the anointed one. Let's not forget all the crooks the anointed has appointed to czar positions.
Seems the cronyism is still going on under this transparent administration. The only thing transparent is they are now doing it in the open and smash it right in our faces.

Yes of course George......you are one of those Conservatives that wants to abolish Social Security. I sure will look forward to your "honest Injun" candidates that just come right out and say that they want to shut down Soc Sec.......I know they will win their elections by a landslide....right? I also look forward to you providing a long list to us here of people you know that no longer want their Soc Sec or Medicare benefits.......if it is so bad, you shouldn't have any problem finding them by the millions......right again George?

So if it is "broke" let's just fix it! Oh, I forgot, it is hard to get anything done in Washington when your "Conservative" buddies only have a one word vocabulary....."NO".
Regards

[jeffkrol]

How could you leave out the Climategate e-mails?

I predict that at some point in the not-too-distant future "Global Warming Denier" will take on an entirely new meaning. It will refer to former Kool-Aid Guzzlers who deny they were ever duped by the hoax.

(Jeff's posts are down to only two colors now? Heck, I might start actually reading them.)

It's CLIMATE CHANGE.. not global warning...
BTW: Got a better way to separate my sentences from others sentences in an easily comprehensible manner?
Sorry if my color uses offends your sensibility though I haven't quite criticized yours yet.

Do I believe we can create climate change? "you betcha".....
There is no doubt in my mind that detonating all the nukes on earth would cause massive climate change. Now scale that back to itty bitty but NUMEROUS little actions.. same results (climate change).
Gotta see if there is something culturally worth saving before tackling THAT issue though.
I would rather be wrong and tackling a problem then wrong by ignoring one...
It's only "stuff" and no reflection on the value of a person...
you may want to browse this but you may find it has too many colors for your refined taste:
BTW it supports your side
http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM150.pdf
http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM600.pdf
I still would not recommend buying property at coastal sea levels for future profits, unless as a fish farm..........
and my side??? Why keep sh$tting on your planet just because you can??????
Everything dies in an overcrowded Petrie dish.....

[jeffkrol]

Jeff, let's not forget that Social Security was formed at a time when the average life expectancy was 57. It was designed with that in mind and that the average person wouldn't last long enough to collect. The average life span now is much higher and many do collect. No wonder it's bankrupt. Medicare loses 60 billion dollars each year. And no bid contracts are still being given out by the anointed one. Let's not forget all the crooks the anointed has appointed to czar postitions.
Seems the cronyism is still going on under this transparent administration. The only thing transparent is they are now doing it in the open and smash it right in our faces.

And your answer to this is???? Pull the rug out now? Privatize SS so it can crash w/ the stock market???
Rely on my work pension? Work till I die?
don't forget that SS was part of a 3 tiered support system.. 2 of which are pretty much extinct now (private savings and work pensions) leaving nada....
Even in my fathers time pensiions were not secure. Companies managed to "wipe them out" in mergers ect... so no security there.

More on the favorite position re: Fannie and Freddie (WARNING COLOR COMING):
House Financial Services Committee


[/COLOWashington, DC - For eight years, President Bush and his Republican allies looked the other way as Wall Street and big banks exploited loopholes, ignored growing problems and, as a result, did not protect America’s families and small businesses. Even today, after millions of Americans have lost their jobs and taxpayers have been forced to bailout Wall Street, Republicans continue to deny that there is a problem. Instead, Republican leader John Boehner, Republican Whip Eric Cantor, and the rest of the Republican Party can be found on Capitol Hill begging Washington lobbyists to kill a bill that would finally bring accountability and integrity back to our financial system.

Now, the Republicans have offered a substitute bill, an alternative to H.R. 4173 that does virtually nothing to address the causes leading to last year’s financial crisis. In fact, the Republican “alternative” wholly rejects the notion that Wall Street should be held accountable or that consumers need more protections from deceptive banks and greedy lenders. If the Republican plan passes, it will mean business as usual on Wall Street, and it will increase the likelihood of more taxpayer bailouts.

Summary of the Republican Substitute to H.R. 4173, the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

This amendment strikes H.R. 4173 in its entirety and substitutes it with eight titles, each described below, which do little or nothing to bring increased accountability and responsibility to Wall Street. The GOP fails to respond to the significant need for consumer protection and financial reform made clear by the current financial crisis. Significantly, the substitute is completely silent on reform to the largest contributor to the crisis: mortgage origination, including no provisions on mortgage reform and predatory lending. It leaves open the hedge fund loophole. It leaves Main Street America vulnerable.

No More Bailouts Act

Amends the bankruptcy code to resolve insolvent non-bank institutions. Amends the Federal Reserve Act to restrict the Fed’s ability to use its emergency authorities under Section 13(3), requires the Treasury Secretary to approve such authority while giving Congress the power to terminate assistance through a joint resolution of disapproval, and requires disclosure of expenditures through the Department of the Treasury.

Democratic Analysis: The name of this title should be changed to “Even More Bailouts Act” as it is not structured to prevent the past from happening again. The steepest plunge in financial markets last year was set off by the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers. The chaos that followed convinced Republicans such as Ben Bernanke, Henry Paulson, and President Bush that the government had to come to the rescue. Title I of H.R. 4173 will prevent the need for future taxpayer-funded bailouts by providing a set of tools to ensure that no critical financial firm grows to the point that it threatens the financial system, the economy, and American jobs. This title also creates an orderly process in the event that a large interconnected firm actually fails. By shutting down the firm, wiping out shareholders, forcing creditors to take a significant hit, this title prevents any failure from endangering the financial system and the overall economy.

Title I of the Republican substitute offers an empty tool box to prevent failures, and it ensures that any failure goes through the same bankruptcy process that showed us the danger of financial contagion last year. If the Republicans are so intent on repeating the mistakes of the past, America should be prepared for even more expensive bailouts.

Financial Institutions Consumer Protection and Examination Council

Establishes a Council of Federal and state regulatory authorities to issue uniform consumer protection rules and examination practices to be adopted and enforced by prudential regulators. State regulators enforce rules on state-regulated institutions. A consumer complaint telephone hotline is created for referral and remedy of consumer complaints. Adds consumer protection to the mission statement of each banking regulator.

Democratic Analysis: After ignoring the problems of predatory lending and problems in the mortgage origination process for years, Republicans want to make sure the same regulators that ignored the same problems continue to do so. For example, Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan ignored the will of Congress and never implemented the Home Owners Equity Protection Act signed into law in 1994, which would have provided protection from subprime lending. House Republicans never said a word about the Fed’s inaction. After all we have been through with the problems that surfaced in the mortgage origination process and unscrupulous lenders taking advantage of borrowers with no money, income, or collateral, it is hard to believe that Republicans are so intent on repeating the mistakes of the past.

And what happened in May when the House passed the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act to end these abuses and require responsible lending? 114 House Republicans lined up to vote against it.

Anti-Fraud Provisions

Attempts to strengthen anti-fraud enforcement by increasing civil and criminal money penalties, maximizing restitution for victims of fraud, improving surveillance of bad actors, and allowing regulators to share information with foreign regulators and enforcement agencies.

Over-the-Counter Derivative Markets

Does not require clearing, or trading on exchange or trade execution platform, for any swaps or security-based swaps. Requires the reporting of uncleared swaps and securities-based swaps to trade repositories or the CFTC or SEC, as appropriate. The repository shall make information available to regulators and disclose swap-related information to the public on an aggregate basis. Directs regulators to impose margin for swap and security-based swap transactions between swap dealers, security-based swap dealers, major swap participants and major security-based swap participants. Also provides for the segregation of margin. Regulators are to take the swap and security-based swap positions into consideration when determining capital levels for the entities they regulate. After one year, the regulator shall report to Congress on the swap and security-based swap market and make recommendations if they jointly find further regulation of the market is required.

Democratic Analysis: Where real reform and regulation are needed to limit potential systemic risk from the $600 trillion swap market, the Republicans offer simple window dressing. Rather than requiring centralized clearing and exchange trading for standardized swaps in order to minimize risk to the financial system, the Republicans would simply have market participants “report” their positions. At the same time, they would pay lip service to clearing by directing the regulators to “set targets” in this area and kick the can down the road by requiring a report back to Congress a year after enactment on the need for further swap market regulation. The Republican substitute would do nothing to prevent another AIG from threatening the financial systems or guard against the chaos in the markets that could follow the bankruptcy of a heavily intertwined swap counterparty like Lehman Brothers.

Corporate and Financial Institution Compensation Fairness

While similar to executive compensation provisions in H.R. 4173, the substitute provides for a non-binding shareholder “say on pay” vote only once every three years rather than annually and allows shareholders to vote to opt out of ongoing “say on pay” vote requirements. Further, the substitute allows state laws to preempt the independence requirements it establishes for compensation committees of public companies. Finally, the substitute is markedly dissimilar from the executive compensation provisions in H.R. 4173 in that the substitute includes no provisions to address excessively risky, incentive-based compensation structures that could threaten the safety and soundness of financial institutions and have adverse effects on overall financial stability.

Democratic Analysis: The Republicans should be given some credit here for agreeing with Democrats. Three years ago, they flatly rejected Democratic requests to hold hearings on the issue of abuses in excessive executive compensation. Now they agree with Democrats. First, they agree with President Obama that compensation committees should be independent. Second, they adopt Barney Frank’s “say on pay” provisions by requiring a shareholder vote on executive compensation.

But Republicans leave shareholders holding the bag if and when an executive is hired, given the opportunity to pile on all sorts of short-term risk, make hundreds of millions of dollars, and then leave the company two and half-years later and avoid any responsibility or accountability to the owners of the company.

Credit Rating Agencies

Changes the name/meaning of a NRSRO from “Nationally Recognized Statistical Ratings Organization” to “Nationally Registered Statistical Rating Organizations” and removes all references to ratings in Federal law/regulation. Includes none of the improvements in supervision included in H.R. 4173.

Democratic Analysis: The fact the credit rating agencies gave out Triple-A ratings to every security or bond that walked in is lost on the Republicans. The poor performance of these entities and their contribution to the crisis mandates the need for tougher regulations to protect America.

Government-Sponsored Enterprises Reform

Phases out taxpayer subsidies of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and privatizes the entities over a number of years. Sunsets the current conservatorships and places both institutions in receivership if they are not financially viable. If they are viable, requires wind down of agencies if their charters are not renewed in three years. Requires reductions in the portfolios of the two companies, emphasizes the promotion of housing affordability, and requires SEC registration as well as reverses all tax exemptions. Lowers conforming loan limit in high cost areas and prohibits GSEs from buying any loan that is above the area median home price in its area - effectively lowering conforming loan limits in much of the country.

Democratic Analysis: Let’s review the pitiful record of Republicans and the GSE. First they ignored the problem for years, having never passed reform legislation for the first 10 years (1995-2005) of Republican rule in the House of Representatives. Second, the only Republican reform bill to ever get a vote in Congress was opposed by a Republican President. Third, President Bush, over the objections of House Democrats, pushed Fannie and Freddie into riskier and riskier mortgages with a philosophy of homeownership at any cost. And finally, President Bush bails them out. When Democrats took over in 2007, Barney Frank worked with the Bush Administration and over the objections of most Republicans in the House passed Fannie and Freddie reform within 5 months of taking over the majority. The only Fannie and Freddie reform bill signed by President Bush was authored by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

Republicans want you to believe that they are serious about the problems associated with Fannie and Freddie, but it is smoke and mirrors. House Democrats are committed to addressing the Fannie and Freddie issues with substantive, thoughtful reform when Congress convenes next year.

Yes of course George......you are one of those Conservatives that wants to abolish Social Security. I sure will look forward to your "honest Injun" candidates that just come right out and say that they want to shut down Soc Sec.......I know they will win their elections by a landslide....right? I also look forward to you providing a long list to us here of people you know that no longer want their Soc Sec or Medicare benefits.......if it is so bad, you shouldn't have any problem finding them by the millions......right again George?

So if it is "broke" let's just fix it! Oh, I forgot, it is hard to get anything done in Washington when your "Conservative" buddies only have a one word vocabulary....."NO".
Regards

Seems that the party of "No" lately was the Libs don'tcha know. After all they have been in control since 2006

[Rupert]

So how is their bungling combined with that of your "Conservative" buddies working out for you George? You seem proud that Washington is failing us all....or maybe you have unlimited resources for your Healthcare needs....if you don't, you had better get them, because you are soon to get the big shaft, along with most everyone else. Proud of that?
Regards!

[Mike Cash]

It's CLIMATE CHANGE.. not global warning...

An even more convenient title for the hoax, as it allows anything and everything to used as evidence of it. No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.

BTW: Got a better way to separate my sentences from others sentences in an easily comprehensible manner?
Sorry if my color uses offends your sensibility though I haven't quite criticized yours yet.

It's a character flaw on my part; I recognize and admit it. I think I picked it up from my high school English teacher, Mrs. Carter. She had a firm policy of not reading any paper not submitted in black ink and would in fact throw into the trash unread any work written in any other color, including something so seemingly unoffensive as blue, a extraordinarily common ink color for ballpoints in America.

When I see posts written in multiple colors or with some (to my eyes) odd font specified I tend to skip right over them.

As I said, the flaw is on my part.

As a little side note to Rupert, whose words I see only as quoted text in the posts of others:

I don't throw into my Ignore list all people I don't agree with; just the buffoons. Politically, at least, I don't agree with Jeff or with Wheatfield, for example, but they are not among those I block. They (and a great many others) present their ideas in a coherent and largely civil fashion. It is those who rant, sputter, and lack the ability to present their strongly-held beliefs in a forceful manner without having to buttress the same through gratuitous ad hominems ("Jesus George" for instance) who I choose not to bother with. It is a matter of exercising my freedom of association combined with my other lifelong character flaw of being incapable of suffering fools gladly.

---

Last edited by Mike Cash; 02-23-2010 at 05:11 PM.

[deadwolfbones]

Questions for those who believe global warming/climate change (of the manmade variety) is a hoax:

1. Do you believe that man has had no site-specific impacts on local environments? (Smog, water pollution, ground pollution, trash floating in the oceans, etc.)
2. Do you believe that it's a bad idea to legislate environmental protections to help prevent such site-specific impacts?
3. Do you believe it's a bad idea to research alternative/renewable fuel sources?

I can understand the confusion over the manmade global warming/climate change question, but I don't see how anyone in their right mind can be against a cleaner planet that's a more pleasant place in which to exist.

[Jasvox]

Questions for those who believe global warming/climate change (of the manmade variety) is a hoax:

1. Do you believe that man has had no site-specific impacts on local environments? (Smog, water pollution, ground pollution, trash floating in the oceans, etc.)
2. Do you believe that it's a bad idea to legislate environmental protections to help prevent such site-specific impacts?
3. Do you believe it's a bad idea to research alternative/renewable fuel sources?

I can understand the confusion over the manmade global warming/climate change question, but I don't see how anyone in their right mind can be against a cleaner planet that's a more pleasant place in which to exist.

That is because every dickhead who believes his political view is better than the next guy's and can use this topic as some sort of leverage made it a political issue. Me first, **** the rest mentality is what makes this so amazingly stupid to argue against....then in the same breath we all talk about "family values" and the "future of the country" etc. Man will eventually evolve into a 2 headed contradiction machine that will only utter words he or she has seen on cnn and fox, at the same time.

Jason

[Das Boot]

I heard this somewhere, but can't really remember right now. It's so very true:

"It's been the coldest winter in 30 years" - global warming
"It's been the warmest winter in 27 years" - global warming
"It's been the most active hurricane season in decades." - global warming
"It's been the least active hurricane season in recorded history" - global warming
"It's been the driest summer since the 40's" - global warming
"It's been the wetest summer ever known to man" - global warming

[areidjr]

Questions for those who believe global warming/climate change (of the manmade variety) is a hoax:

1. Do you believe that man has had no site-specific impacts on local environments? (Smog, water pollution, ground pollution, trash floating in the oceans, etc.)

Yes and, for the most part, the environment is cleaner than it has been in 50 years. I live in an area that was one the steel capital of the world. In the 50's there was so much pollution that it was sometimes almost dark in the middle of the day. Today there is virtually no signs of that activity. Unfortunately, the industry is gone as well.

2. Do you believe that it's a bad idea to legislate environmental protections to help prevent such site-specific impacts?

I think legislation is good as long as it makes sense, is scientifically valid and doesn't go too far.

3. Do you believe it's a bad idea to research alternative/renewable fuel sources?

It's never a bad idea to support basic scientific research. However, there has to be a market for it and it has to eventually become viable at a price point that makes it competitive with other established forms of energy.

I can understand the confusion over the manmade global warming/climate change question, but I don't see how anyone in their right mind can be against a cleaner planet that's a more pleasant place in which to exist.

The problem is that, starting with the infamous hockey stick curve, the science has been fudged and manipulated in such a way that it no longer represents basic science, but a political agenda.

When Mann decided to substitute or add in, the actual temperatures for the ones in the proxy data in order to hide the decline, it showed that this was not about science. If the proxy data is moving in one direction while the "measured" data is moving in the other direction, science would dictate that the disparity be investigated and understood rather than hidden. There are then two possible problems with the graph and the data. One is that the "Measured" temperatures have been so massaged and manipulated that they do not represent actual temperatures. The other possibility is that the proxy data is not reliable and that the historical temperatures are not indicative of the actual temperatures. Being that they have diverged from measured temperatures once in the recent past, how can one rely on them in the long term? This issue should have been thoroughly investigated rather than hidden by the "trick."

This is just one case where the science was disregarded in order to make the data fit the theory. As has been seen in the lest several months, that science is riddled with errors; errors that all made the "problem" look worse. I don't think that was a coincidence.

So, while we should be good stewards of our environment, there is no need for mass hysteria over climate change, something that has been with this planet from day one.

[Ratmagiclady]

More denier crap? It's actually not hard to see that it's the campaign of *denial* that's the very profitable hoax. And all the 'debate' is just repeating easily-debunked nonsense to pretend there *is* a debate. Cause the delay is very profitable. And confusion is cheap.

[deadwolfbones]

Seems to me that the majority of people who have been getting on the hoax bandwagon are people who were too lazy, or too selfish, to change their habits 10 years ago, and are now looking to justify their behavior and hoping that they can convince people that they had the foresight to "see past the lies" all along.

But that's just one man's opinion.

Truth is, "to believe" in global warming or not is a misnomer. Laypeople can't really know if it's real or not (because it doesn't manifest itself in small enough increments to be directly observable). I'm not making a claim one way or the other, because on an objective level I have no clue whatsoever. The real problem is that nearly all of the discourse is informed by media personalities that are just as unqualified to make any claims about authenticity.

[deadwolfbones]

Interesting article here by David Brin, with further interesting discussion in the comments (a rarity!): Contrary Brin: Perspectives on Climate Change - and Denial

More denier crap? It's actually not hard to see that it's the campaign of *denial* that's the very profitable hoax. And all the 'debate' is just repeating easily-debunked nonsense to pretend there *is* a debate. Cause the delay is very profitable. And confusion is cheap.

Well you have your deniers, you have your liars and you have those of us who don't deny the globe is warming at all. And we don't deny that it will eventually cool again. I am a truther. You seem to fall under the liar category