While you're all outraged about the bailout...
...Congress is weighing the merits of the "GIVE Act." Google it.
Then tell yourself that everything is going to be okay.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h2857/show
See if you can find the horrible badfun part. And no, I don't mean all the "priorities for leadership shall be given to disadvantaged youth" bits. No, there's something REALLY funny in there. Give it a read.
ACORN's got to get it's piece of the pie somehow.
I'm feeling lazy. Why not just point it out, so we can be immediately amused, as you say.
I'm feeling lazy. Why not just point it out, so we can be immediately amused, as you say.
Screw you, hippie. If you want first rate horror/mirth, you're going to have to work for it. You know, actually READ the damn thing.
But what the hell. It's only your future.
TGRR, are you a medium height white guy, medium weight, with brown hair and hazel eyes? If so, I want you. Srsly, I am consumed with lust right now, no joke.
ACORN's got to get it's piece of the pie somehow.
Naw. The whole bill isn't shown. Now take a look at the full text:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&dbname=cp110&sid=cp1106kaUp&refer=&r_n=hr539.110&item=&sel=TOC_64232&
(5) The effect on the Nation, on those who serve, and on the families of those who serve, if all individuals in the United States were expected to perform national service or were required to perform a certain amount of national service.
(6) Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.
Are your annoyed by this... uh, these... bailout(s).
Then don't click on this
link.
Seriously, don't do it.
Don't even think about reading this Rolling Stone article.
At least without taking your blood pressure and anti-depression meds.
You don't even want to know about;
The global economic crisis isn't about money - it's about power. How Wall Street insiders are using the bailout to stage a revolution
or
The reason the number has dropped to nothing is that the Fed had simply stopped using relatively transparent devices like repurchase agreements to pump its money into the hands of private companies. By early 2009, a whole series of new government operations had been invented to inject cash into the economy, most all of them completely secretive and with names you've never heard of. There is the Term Auction Facility, the Term Securities Lending Facility, the Primary Dealer Credit Facility, the Commercial Paper Funding Facility and a monster called the Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility (boasting the chat-room horror-show acronym ABCPMMMFLF). For good measure, there's also something called a Money Market Investor Funding Facility, plus three facilities called Maiden Lane I, II and III to aid bailout recipients like Bear Stearns and AIG.
While the rest of America, and most of Congress, have been bugging out about the $700 billion bailout program called TARP, all of these newly created organisms in the Federal Reserve zoo have quietly been pumping not billions but trillions of dollars into the hands of private companies (at least $3 trillion so far in loans, with as much as $5.7 trillion more in guarantees of private investments). Although this technically isn't taxpayer money, it still affects taxpayers directly, because the activities of the Fed impact the economy as a whole. And this new, secretive activity by the Fed completely eclipses the TARP program in terms of its influence on the economy.
No one knows who's getting that money or exactly how much of it is disappearing through these new holes in the hull of America's credit rating. Moreover, no one can really be sure if these new institutions are even temporary at all — or whether they are being set up as permanent, state-aided crutches to Wall Street, designed to systematically suck bad investments off the ledgers of irresponsible lenders.
Believe me, you don't want to know. :headshake
Well so much for Redux's trumpeting of transparency.
Well so much for Redux's trumpeting of transparency.
Transparency is relative, dont you think?
There is more transparency in the ERRA (Obama's stimulus bill) than the EESA (Bush's bank bail-out bill)
There is more transparency in Congress now as a result of the Democrats ethics/lobbying reform in 07 than previously existed.
There is more transparency in the executive branch now than existed in the Bush administration as a result of Obama's FOIA guidelines
My opinion would be:
Transparency is relative, dont you think?
Quite.
There is more transparency in the ERRA (Obama's stimulus bill) than the EESA (Bush's bank bail-out bill)
False. Not the way it was ram-rodded through the Congress.
There is more transparency in Congress now as a result of the Democrats ethics/lobbying reform in 07 than previously existed.
False. There are just as many behind the closed door deals with Pelosi and Reid.
There is more transparency in the executive branch now than existed in the Bush administration as a result of Obama's FOIA guidelines
That remains to be seen.
False. Not the way it was ram-rodded through the Congress.
I consider this provision in ARRA, among several provisions that require greater oversight and reporting on the use of stimulus funds, to provide some level of transparency and accountability:
[INDENT]The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the stimulus bill) included several provisions to strengthen executive compensation restrictions on recipients of financial assistance from the U.S. Treasury, such as:
* Restricting bonuses for executives that take excessive risks that threaten the company's value;
* Prohibiting any golden parachutes for up to the top 10 senior executives of a company;
* Prohibiting compensation practices that encourage earnings manipulation, or "cooking of the books";
* Restricting all bonuses for most senior executives, with the number of those covered varying on the basis of the amount of assistance received, certifying compliance with these requirements,
* Instituting a company-wide policy on luxury expenses; and
* Allowing for shareholders to vote on approval of executive compensation packages.[/INDENT]
IMO, that, along with provisions requiring on oversight board and provisions requiring whistleblower protection provides some level of transparency and accountability.
Obviously, you dont agree but that doesnt make it false.
False. There are just as many behind the closed door deals with Pelosi and Reid.
I consider the
Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 to provide greater transparency in the legislative process than previously existed.
Obviously, you dont agree and that doesnt make this one false either.
That remains to be seen.
Yep....but there is no doubt that the Obama FOIA guidelines represents a reversal and far more transparent to start with than the Bush FOIA guidelines.
[INDENT]Attorney General Eric Holder issued comprehensive new Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) guidelines today that direct all executive branch departments and agencies to apply a presumption of openness when administering the FOIA....
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2009/March/09-ag-253.html[/INDENT]
As I said, none of these are perfect nor go far enough, IMO ...but its hard to make a case that there is not more transparency than existed under Bush and the Republican Congress.
BUt suit yourself.
its hard to make a case that there is not more transparency than existed under Bush and the Republican Congress.
Exactly how does one know what one isn't seeing? How can you determine the transparency if things are not known?
Exactly how does one know what one isn't seeing? How can you determine the transparency if things are not known?
As I said, transparency is relative.
And, IMO, the examples I cited above provide some greater level of accountability that could or should result in more transparency.
Would you prefer that the compensation restrictions/oversight panel/whistleblower protection provisions cited NOt be included in the stimulus bill (as they werent in the banking bailout bill that Bush would not have signed if such provisions were included) or that new, more open FOIA guidelines NOT be issued, or new ethics/lobbying requirements NOT be adopted by Congress?
We can either continue under the old ways or adopted policies and include provisions in legislation that MAY make a difference.
And as I further said....none of these are perfect nor go far enough for me.....but IMO, are certainly better than the recent past.
none of these are perfect nor go far enough for me.....but MAY be better ... we'll see... maybe
And, IMO, the examples I cited above provide some greater level of accountability that could or should result in more transparency.
But there is actually no proff that they will.
Obviously, you dont agree but that doesnt make it false.
Nor does it really prove your point. There is no proof that this will change things. We already have numerous examples of Pelosi and Reid ramrodding legislation and keeping details of impending bills secret to the last minute before voting. That dog won't hunt.
To Do My Part - Read This:
First I was afraid
I was petrified
Kept thinking I could never live
without you by my side
But I spent so many nights
thinking how you did me wrong
I grew strong
I learned how to carry on
and so you're back
from outer space
I just walked in to find you here
with that sad look upon your face
I should have changed my stupid lock
I should have made you leave your key
If I had known for just one second
you'd be back to bother me
Go on now go walk out the door
just turn around now
'cause you're not welcome anymore
weren't you the one who tried to hurt me with goodbye
you think I'd crumble
you think I'd lay down and die
Oh no, not I
I will survive
as long as i know how to love
I know I will stay alive
I've got all my life to live
I've got all my love to give
and I'll survive
I will survive
It took all the strength I had
not to fall apart
kept trying hard to mend
the pieces of my broken heart
and I spent oh so many nights
just feeling sorry for myself
I used to cry
Now I hold my head up high
and you see me
somebody new
I'm not that chained up little person
still in love with you
and so you felt like dropping in
and just expect me to be free
now I'm saving all my loving
for someone who's loving me
Nor does it really prove your point. There is no proof that this will change things. We already have numerous examples of Pelosi and Reid ramrodding legislation and keeping details of impending bills secret to the last minute before voting. That dog won't hunt.
We do? Some examples of secrecy, please?
We already have numerous examples of Pelosi and Reid ramrodding legislation and keeping details of impending bills secret to the last minute before voting. That dog won't hunt.
If true, then Congress is still doing what did not happen until wacko extremists started doing some 12 years ago.
Whether these bills finally bring responsibility back to America has yet to be seen. But what we do know is the agenda is not to work for America - not for a wacko extremist agenda that - well George Jr signed more than twice as many secret findings as all other presidents combined. This was called transparency to wacko extremists. We now has the secrecy and extremist perversion that is slowly being eliminated. If Pelosi and Reid are ramrodding, then wacko extremist Republicans were raping. Finally, even science is being encouraged again. May we never again see another Terry Schiavo incident because wacko extremists had power.
[COLOR="White"]NSFW[/COLOR]
Flint - you are looking oooollllllddddd brother - looks like you need a vacation :right:
If true, then Congress is still doing what did not happen until wacko extremists started doing some 12 years ago.
Mommy, Billy did it - why can't I?? What kind of excuse it that?
But what we do know is the agenda is not to work for America
Uh, I think you got a typo in there?!?!?! Freudian slip perhaps?
If Pelosi and Reid are ramrodding, then wacko extremist Republicans were raping.
So that makes it ok? Uh, no.
I don't think it would be such a bad thing to require young adults to serve, in some capacity, for a couple of years. It might actually instill some good qualities, instead of laziness and greed.
I don't think it would be such a bad thing to require young adults to serve, in some capacity, for a couple of years. It might actually instill some good qualities, instead of laziness and greed.
The federal government is not empowered to compel any service beyond the military.
The federal government is not empowered to compel any service beyond the military.
Does that apply to prisoners who are required to work in near-sweatshop conditions? Seems to me they are being compelled to do so by the government, or in the case of privately run prisons, by the government's proxy.
Mind you, I reckon it probably does 'em some good. Just askin, thats all.
Does that apply to prisoners who are required to work in near-sweatshop conditions?
Nope. Those citizens have been convicted in a court of law. Apples and oranges.
The federal government is not empowered to compel any service beyond the military.
Why?
Why?
Because that's the only compulsory service the constitution authorizes, and amendment X forbids them from doing anything they are not specifically empowered to do.
Pelosi to ramrod 634 billion dollar funding through House for funding for health care over 10 years.
Pelosi defended a drive by House Democrats to put health- care legislation on a fast track under a budget proposal announced this week.
Legislative Maneuvers
A draft of the House tax-and-spending blueprint calls for using “reconciliation” procedures, a maneuver that would allow a health-care overhaul to move through the Senate with a requirement for a simple majority of 51 votes. Under normal Senate debate rules, 60 votes are needed to keep opponents from blocking legislation.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=axI6NVjq8cfI&refer=worldwide
Transparency. Not.
Amazing! Requiring only 51 votes to pass? It's like we're living ten years in the past!
Amazing! Requiring only 51 votes to pass? It's like we're living ten years in the past!
You're right! With the even less tranparency than under Bush!
How do filibusters affect transparency?
The filibuster that would have otherwise caused it to take 60 votes.
Laws are supposed to take 51 votes to pass. It's only the ridiculous overuse of the filibuster that has made 60 votes a de facto requirement.
The filibuster that would have otherwise caused it to take 60 votes.
Laws are supposed to take 51 votes to pass.
Not for things that cost 600 billion dollars and radically change the way business is done in this country.
It's only the ridiculous overuse of the filibuster that has made 60 votes a de facto requirement.
Your opinion.
Pelosi to ramrod 634 billion dollar funding through House for funding for health care over 10 years.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=axI6NVjq8cfI&refer=worldwide
Transparency. Not.
There is no transparency issue.
Obama's 2010 budget proposal, which includes the health care reform initiative, has been on the
WH website since he sent it to Congress several weeks ago.
The budget proposal is being debated in various committees in both the House and Senate and the Republicans are not excluded from the debate nor from offering amendments.
The Democrats are considering using a parliamentary procedure that was used by Republicans in the past to prevent the Senate from forcing a 60 vote threshold.
It may not represent "change" but the hypocrisy is the Republicans bitching about a procedure they used themselves (mostly notably to get Bush's tax cuts enacted)
Not for things that cost 600 billion dollars and radically change the way business is done in this country.
Cite.
The budget proposal does not "ramrod 634 billion dollar funding through House for funding for health care over 10 years."
It proposes a $650b reserve fund over 10 years (half through anticipated savings in the outyears) and both the House and Senate have seen the proposal, will debate it and have opportunities to offer amendments.
So where is the ramrod?
It may not represent "change" but the hypocrisy is the Republicans bitching about a procedure they used themselves (mostly notably to get Bush's tax cuts enacted)
It was termed "the
nuclear option" and they used it on Republican judicial nominees, but not on the tax cuts.
It was termed "the nuclear option" and they used it on Republican judicial nominees, not on the tax cuts.
Nope...its not the same thing as the so called "nuclear option"
The Republicans in 2003 used the "reconciliation" procedure to avoid the 60 vote threshold.
This appears to be true. What's the difference?
There is no doubt about it. This is how you ramrod legislation.
The shortcut, known as "budget reconciliation," would allow Obama's health and energy proposals to be rolled into a bill that cannot be filibustered, meaning Democrats could push it through the Senate with 51 votes, instead of the usual 60. Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton both used the tactic to win deficit-reduction packages, while George W. Bush used it to push through his signature tax cuts.
With 58 Senate seats, Democrats need the support of at least two Republicans to block a filibuster. But they could pass a reconciliation bill without any Republican votes -- and without the support of troublesome moderates in their own party.
Some moderate Democrats are arguing that reconciliation would empower their party's liberal wing while undermining a critical aspect of Obama's popular appeal -- his promise to work across the aisle.
Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) said reconciliation would send the opposite message, creating "kind of a divisive atmosphere." Lincoln, a member of the Senate Finance Committee who has been working for months with GOP colleagues to lay the foundation for health-care reform, said circumventing that painstaking process "would just be sticking them in the eye."
Lincoln is one of seven Democrats who last week joined 21 Republican senators in declaring their opposition to using reconciliation to expedite Obama's plan to auction off permits for the release of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, a proposal known as cap and trade.That legislation "is likely to influence nearly every feature of the U.S. economy," letter says, adding that any move to put it on a fast track or to limit debate "would be inconsistent with the administration's stated goals of bipartisanship, cooperation, and openness."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/17/AR2009031703798.html"Reconciliation" is a parliamentary procedure in the House and Senate rules, primarily used to get quick passage of a budget when necessary to keep the govt running....its been used (abused?) by most recent Congresses at one point or another for other purposes.
Under the administration of President George W. Bush Congress used reconciliation to enact three major tax cuts.
The "nuclear option" is not a rule or procedure, but was a way to fudge the Senate rules by having a simple majority (51) agree to change the Senate rules regarding approval of judicial nominees.
If any of that makes sense...lol.
So you don't agree with Sen. Lincoln and you support the Democrats abuse of it in this care to pass legislation that "is likely to influence nearly every feature of the U.S. economy"?
So you don't agree with Sen. Lincoln and you support the Democrats abuse of it in this care to pass legislation that "is likely to influence nearly every feature of the U.S. economy"?
In the same manner that the Bush tax cuts amounting to over
$1.5 trillion were "ramrodded" through with this procedure?
In fact, I agree with Lincoln to some extent (I think even Robert Byrd opposes using the procedure) that it is not the best way to proceed.....but at the same time, the filibuster/cloture vote procedure should not be used (abused) as much as the Republicans have since 2007..far more often than the minority party in any time in recent history.
In the same manner that the Bush tax cuts amounting to over $1.5 trillion were "ramrodded" through with this procedure?
In fact, I agree with Lincoln to some extent (I think even Robert Byrd opposes using the procedure) that it is not the best way to proceed.....but at the same time, the filibuster/cloture vote procedure should not be used (abused) as much as the Republicans have since 2007..far more often than the minority party in any time in recent history.
But over here you state:
There is no transparency issue.
Obama's 2010 budget proposal, which includes the health care reform initiative, has been on the WH website since he sent it to Congress several weeks ago.
The budget proposal is being debated in various committees in both the House and Senate and the Republicans are not excluded from the debate nor from offering amendments.
The Democrats are considering using a parliamentary procedure that was used by Republicans in the past to prevent the Senate from forcing a 60 vote threshold.
It may not represent "change" but the hypocrisy is the Republicans bitching about a procedure they used themselves (mostly notably to get Bush's tax cuts enacted)
When in fact there is a huge transparency issue when debate is stiffled and limited options are available for any elected official to influence what the US public will ultimately pay for. And yet you bitch that they are only doing what the Republicans did for tax breaks? Double Standard much?
But over here you state:
When in fact there is a huge transparency issue when debate is stiffled and limited options are available for any elected official to influence what the US public will ultimately pay for. And yet you bitch that they are only doing what the Republicans did for tax breaks? Double Standard much?
The budget proposal has been publicly available for weeks...debate is not stifled....hearings are being held...amendments in committee and the floor of the Senate are allowed.... it is not done in secret.
The procedure just allows for a simple majority rather than a super majority.
There is no transparency issue.
I said I dont think it is the best way to proceed...but it may be the last way to proceed if the Repubs are not willing to negotiate.
The "double standard" applies both ways.
So you don't agree with Sen. Lincoln and you support the Democrats abuse of it in this care to pass legislation that "is likely to influence nearly every feature of the U.S. economy"?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
Transparency. Not.
If it's not transparent, how do you, and I, and every media outlet know about it?
If you don't like the way they're doing it just say so, but stop lying about transparency.
If it's not transparent, how do you, and I, and every media outlet know about it?
If you don't like the way they're doing it just say so, but stop lying about transparency.
Why would you consider it "lying"? When the hell does my assessment of what they are doing become a lie to you? I think it is pretty obvious my feelings otherwise, so why do you call it a lie?
Because you're lying about the process not being transparent. You may not like it but it is transparent. Everybody and their fucking brother knows what is going on, and you can't get more transparent than that.
Because you're lying about the process not being transparent. You may not like it but it is transparent. Everybody and their fucking brother knows what is going on, and you can't get more transparent than that.
Your charaterization is bull shit.
Your characterization is bull shit.
I honestly just cant see how any objective person can characterize the threat of the Dems to use the "reconciliation" procedure as an issue of transparency.
The budget deliberation process since Obama sent his budget proposal to Congress two weeks ago has been completely transparent by any meaning of the word. To suggest otherwise is what is bullshit.
IMO, the Dems are using the procedure as a bargaining chip.
Its clear that the Dems intend is to begin the process of enacting serious health care reform in this session of Congress. If the Repubs want to play ball and participate in the process, they can.....much like the deliberations on the stimulus bill.
According to the latest report I read, the crafting of the legislative health care reform proposal will take place over the course of the next six months:
Republicans and some interest groups also protested a decision in the House to use a procedural maneuver known as reconciliation that would make it easier to pass comprehensive health legislation in the Senate.
In its version of a budget blueprint approved in committee Thursday, the House added language that sets a mid-September deadline for enacting health reform. If lawmakers do not act by then, a bill could be attached to the final budget, which would require 51 votes in the Senate, a much easier threshold than the 60 needed to defeat a filibuster.
More Support for Health Care Fix
But if like the stimulus bill, all they want to do is bitch and whine and walk away from the table because they dont get everything or even most of what they want in a health care reform package, then the Dems are not going to let them block it with a Senate filibuster.
The Republicans are the minority....everyone understand what that means but them.
They had their chance to take the lead on health care reform for six years and did nothing.
Your charaterization is bull shit.
No, your accusations are. If they weren't being transparent, they'd be covering this up. They aren't. They're just strong-arming the minority party. Don't like it? Win an election.
Get used to it. You have at least 20 more months of it.
Why would you consider it "lying"? When the hell does my assessment of what they are doing become a lie to you? I think it is pretty obvious my feelings otherwise, so why do you call it a lie?
Because it isn't true.
The Republicans are the minority....everyone understand what that means but them.
It's about time the damn dems figured it out. I thought those morons would NEVER catch on.
Now I'm gonna put some popcorn on and watch the GOP howl on CSPAN.
It's about time the damn dems figured it out. I thought those morons would NEVER catch on.
Now I'm gonna put some popcorn on and watch the GOP howl on CSPAN.
Nothing wrong with trying for a little consensus building and bi-partisanship as a first step.
But when the Repubs take consensus building and bi-partisanship to mean they should have an equal voice rather than just a seat at the table and the opportunity to have their voice heard and then walk away in a huff when they dont get everything they want....then its time to play hard ball.
Let them filibuster. I don't think the public will find it very impressive behavior.
Fox News will play them as heroes and their base will cheer wildly. :rolleyes:
Well they'll do that regardless.
It's interesting, because the GOP is still looking for some way to insist that they have principles that the voters can believe in. It'll be important for them to take it all the way on some issue in the next two years, and then give in before appearing to be simply naysayers.
Maybe that's why the Ds put health care into the budget. Let them filibuster for two weeks, then say, OK, we'll take health care out and make that a separate bill, now either allow the vote or use reconciliation to get the rest of the budget passed. Then when health care is separate, if they filibuster again they'll look bad.
Sounds like a good plan. :thumb:
So you don't agree with Sen. Lincoln and you support the Democrats abuse of it in this care to pass legislation that "is likely to influence nearly every feature of the U.S. economy"?
How is it
abuse when republicans are the ones who've used it the most? My god, buncha babies, whine when the other side wants to use the same tactics they themselves used. Not to mention, the way fillibusters are used today is not how they were meant to be used. If one side or the other wants to fillibuster, they should have to stand up and make endless speeches, not just go straight to a vote.
It's about time the damn dems figured it out. I thought those morons would NEVER catch on.
Now I'm gonna put some popcorn on and watch the GOP howl on CSPAN.
hear hear. I'm SO glad they are doing it this way.
heh. btw did you see the budget the republicans put out? With no numbers in it? bwaaahahahahahahahahaaaa [COLOR="Purple"]A budget with no numbers!!![/COLOR] :sweat:
Because you're lying about the process not being transparent. You may not like it but it is transparent. Everybody and their fucking brother knows what is going on, and you can't get more transparent than that.
Merc's got his own definition of "transparent" that I'm pretty sure he's not going to let any of us know.
Oh, I'm sure most of us have figured it out already. He's replaced goddammit, sonuvabitch, and all other expletives at unwelcome news with, "where's the transparency".
Oh, I'm sure most of us have figured it out already. He's replaced goddammit, sonuvabitch, and all other expletives at unwelcome news with, "where's the transparency".
Whatever you say there Boss. You are the mind reader around here, not me.
Check out HR1444, kiddies! Wheeeeeeeeee!
hear hear. I'm SO glad they are doing it this way.
heh. btw did you see the budget the republicans put out? With no numbers in it? bwaaahahahahahahahahaaaa [COLOR="Purple"]A budget with no numbers!!![/COLOR] :sweat:
Depends ... is infinity a number?
A budget with no numbers? Is that anything like Mendelssohn's Song Without Words?
Check out HR1444, kiddies! Wheeeeeeeeee!
It does nothing more than establish a Commission to study methods of improving and promoting volunteerism and national service.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1444I'd consider our children doing something like for two years after high school as a good idea. I don't get mandatory volunteering, but the concept overall seems to have some merit.
It does nothing more than establish a Commission to study methods of improving and promoting volunteerism and national service.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1444
You forgot the mandatory part.
5) The effect on the Nation, on those who serve, and on the families of those who serve, if all individuals in the United States were expected to perform national service or were required to perform a certain amount of national service.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(6) Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.
I'd consider our children doing something like for two years after high school as a good idea. I don't get mandatory volunteering, but the concept overall seems to have some merit.
Sure. We'll teach the little bastards what "volunteering" is all about. The best part about "mandatory volunteering" is that, by definition, you aren't "volunteering" for something you personally believe in.
Please note that the GIVE Act allows "volunteering" to include "assisting law enforcement". Also that there is no language banning political or semi-political activities. Now make it mandatory. HAW HAW!
We'll teach the little bastards what "volunteering" is all about.
No, teach them what
service is all about.
And while we're at it, give them firearms training like Israel. :rattat:
No, teach them what service is all about.
And while we're at it, give them firearms training like Israel. :rattat:
No, teach them what
SLAVERY is all about.
As if people in America don't know what slavery is. Most Americans ARE slaves, in one respect or another.
As if people in America don't know what slavery is. Most Americans ARE slaves, in one respect or another.
Try telling them that.
As if people in America don't know what slavery is. Most Americans ARE slaves, in one respect or another.
C'mon, a couple of silk scarves, maybe a little spanky, what the hell. ;)
Obama Wants to Control the Banks
There's a reason he refuses to accept repayment of TARP money.
By STUART VARNEY
I must be naive. I really thought the administration would welcome the return of bank bailout money. Some $340 million in TARP cash flowed back this week from four small banks in Louisiana, New York, Indiana and California. This isn't much when we routinely talk in trillions, but clearly that money has not been wasted or otherwise sunk down Wall Street's black hole. So why no cheering as the cash comes back?
My answer: The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control. And for this intensely political president, mere influence is not enough. The White House wants to tell 'em what to do. Control. Direct. Command.
It is not for nothing that rage has been turned on those wicked financiers. The banks are at the core of the administration's thrust: By managing the money, government can steer the whole economy even more firmly down the left fork in the road.
If the banks are forced to keep TARP cash -- which was often forced on them in the first place -- the Obama team can work its will on the financial system to unprecedented degree. That's what's happening right now.
Under the Bush team a prominent and profitable bank, under threat of a damaging public audit, was forced to accept less than $1 billion of TARP money. The government insisted on buying a new class of preferred stock which gave it a tiny, minority position. The money flowed to the bank.
Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He's been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists. That's politics talking, not economics.
Think about it: If Rick Wagoner can be fired and compact cars can be mandated, why can't a bank with a vault full of TARP money be told where to lend? And since politics drives this administration, why can't special loans and terms be offered to favored constituents, favored industries, or even favored regions? Our prosperity has never been based on the political allocation of credit -- until now.
Which brings me to the Pay for Performance Act, just passed by the House. This is an outstanding example of class warfare. I'm an Englishman. We invented class warfare, and I know it when I see it. This legislation allows the administration to dictate pay for anyone working in any company that takes a dime of TARP money. This is a whip with which to thrash the unpopular bankers, a tool to advance the Obama administration's goal of controlling the financial system.
After 35 years in America, I never thought I would see this. I still can't quite believe we will sit by as this crisis is used to hand control of our economy over to government. But here we are, on the brink. Clearly, I have been naive.
Just an opinion piece, but an interesting one.
Quite interesting. The failure of the administration to allow banks to repay the taxpayers is very telling about the intentions of the the Obama Administration. It is all about power. Here we have a perfect example of those financial institutions trying to do the right thing and help out the taxpayers. And they won't let them.
Quite interesting. The failure of the administration to allow banks to repay the taxpayers is very telling about the intentions of the the Obama Administration. It is all about power. Here we have a perfect example of those financial institutions trying to do the right thing and help out the taxpayers. And they won't let them.
I would like to see more than just this editorial (opinion) before jumping to conclusions.
As I understand it, banks that agreed to take TARP money agreed to a two year (I think) period before they can return the funds w/o Dept of Treasury approval.
The primary purpose being to provide greater assurances that the bank will have adequate capital after repayments.
A secondary reason why some bankers may want to repay early is to avoid potential limitations on executive compensation that may be legislated while they still have TARP funds.
I dont want a bank paying funds back early w/o adequate capital reserves in place or a bank paying back funds and then implementing lending policies that are so tight they restrict the reasonable and necessary flow of credit to consumers and small businesses ....in order to play the "good guy" when it fact, it could be irresponsible and based solely on that banker's desire for no limits on his compensation.
In fact, as the editorial notes, four banks that were deemed to be "well capitalized" were granted waivers to repay TARP funds early.
I certainly dont believe the editorial presents a full and balanced picture in order to draw an objective conclusion about "the intentions of the Obama administration"...or that it represents a "perfect example of the those institutions trying to do the right thing."
Thats all well and good, but why should the banks that didn't want nor need the TARP money have to deal with all this "after the fact" legislation? They were told initially that they were to take money even thought they didn't need it so that those banks who did need the money would not be, in effect, singled out.
Now that the "healthy" backs have taken the money the administration is adding further stipulations and exerting additional control over them when it wasn't needed in the first place.
If they don't need it - let them give it back - seems logical.
If they don't need it - let them give it back - seems logical.
Do they not need it, or are the executives willing to risk the bank's stability in order to get themselves bonuses?
In fact, as the editorial notes, four banks that were deemed to be "well capitalized" were granted waivers to repay TARP funds early.
Thats all well and good, but why should the banks that didn't want nor need the TARP money have to deal with all this "after the fact" legislation? They were told initially that they were to take money even thought they didn't need it so that those banks who did need the money would not be, in effect, singled out.
Now that the "healthy" backs have taken the money the administration is adding further stipulations and exerting additional control over them when it wasn't needed in the first place.
If they don't need it - let them give it back - seems logical.
I dont think it is that simple.
Many of the banks that took TARP money but didnt need it to stay afloat have said the that those funds gave them additional capital to make loans they would not have otherwise made in a recessionary economy.
You want banks making as many "good" loans as possible to consumers and small businesses to get money flowing back into the economy, particularly when jobs are being lost at such staggering rates as we have seen in the last 18 months.
And unfortunately, the "after the fact" legislation is a result primarily of the public outcry hyped by the rhetoric that cant distinguish between banks and other financial institutions (like AIG).
Do they not need it, or are the executives willing to risk the bank's stability in order to get themselves bonuses?
lol - you are more pessimistic than me. Many did not need it and only took the money because they were literally forced to by the administration.
I dont think it is that simple.
Many of the banks that took TARP money but didnt need it to stay afloat have said the that those funds gave them additional capitol to make loans they would not have otherwise made in a recessionary economy.
Some - not sure if it many though. Either way it doesn't matter - those that no longer want it and have not used it, as in the real life example above, should be able to give it back.
Additionally I would think that the administration would want to get their money back as soon as prudently possible. As a taxpayer I recognize that getting the money that is not needed back sooner saves not only that money, but the interest on it as well.
And unfortunately, the "after the fact" legislation is a result primarily of the public outcry that cant distinguish between banks and other financial institutions (like AIG).
Since you brought it up, while everyone is bitching and complaining about AIG, Fannie and Freddie paid out more than 200 million in bonuses. Why was that not splashed all over the media for weeks on end? Where is all the outrage from Congress? Where are the special hearings and and and and? Why no outcry over them?
...
Some - not sure if it many though. Either way it doesn't matter - those that no longer want it and have not used it, as in the real life example above, should be able to give it back.
Additionally I would think that the administration would want to get their money back as soon as prudently possible. As a taxpayer I recognize that getting the money that is not needed back sooner saves not only that money, but the interest on it as well.
As to the real life example above, a "prominent and profitable bank" (
unnamed....."the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation"...lol, nice touch )....what is the bank's current capital reserve? Is it still profitable? What is its lending policy? Will that policy change if it gives back the TARP funds and sits on its money until the economy improves rather than make more responsible loans and contribute to the flow of credit now?
Too many unanswered questions about this real life example to make such sweeping generalizations about the "intent of the Obama administration" or it being a "perfect example of the those institutions trying to do the right thing." as the editorial (and Merc) suggest.
BTW, the editorial also completely misrepresents the Pay for Performance Act by suggesting that it would apply to all employees of such institutions.
Even under the good intentions by the bank to take the money to prop them up in difficult times I don't think it is a good idea to make it punitive if they want to return the money provided the banks can maintain good financial standing.
Even under the good intentions by the bank to take the money to prop them up in difficult times I don't think it is a good idea to make it punitive if they want to return the money provided the banks can maintain good financial standing.
You have four banks in Louisiana, New York, Indiana and California (named in other articles and deemed by the regulatory agencies to be "well capitalized" enough to receive waivers and approval to repay the funds now).
And you have one unnamed bank with
"the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation" that is supposedly a better "real life example" of the intentions of the Obama administration?
Uh....not for me. Show me the money!
Glad you finally read the link there Redux. Does that change the situation at all. Hypothetically then, Why should they be penalized if they didn't want the money in the first place and are now being threatened if they try to pay it back? Is that money considered a liability? If so, It makes it even that much more obvious that they should be able to pay it back. This makes ZERO logical sense. Zero.... unless this is about politics and control.
Oh and don't forget this part....
a prominent and profitable bank,
If the banks are forced to keep TARP cash - which was often forced on them in the first place - the Obama team can work its will on the financial system to unprecedented degree.
Glad you finally read the link there Redux. Does that change the situation at all. Hypothetically then, Why should they be penalized if they didn't want the money in the first place and are now being threatened if they try to pay it back? Is that money considered a liability? If so, It makes it even that more obvious that they should be able to pay it back. This makes ZERO logical sense. Zero.... unless this is about politics and control.
I would suggest it is about policies with an intent to maximize the flow of capital into a troubled economy, particularly to consumers and small businesses...not politics (whose? Bush or Obama or both?) or control.
If they can meet the same test as those four banks that were deemed to be "well capitalized" and they can demonstrate adequate lending policies...then by all means, grant it a waiver.
But
"show me the money" in this unnamed bank.
I'll take all that as a long winded - yes. Was that really so hard?
No harder than debunking generalizations (scare tactics?) about Obama's intent, based on no documented (with names) data to back it up.
On a more personal level, would you put your savings in an "unnamed" bank based solely on the word of a FOX news person that it was "prominent and profitable" last year?
Not me.
I don't see it as a "scare tactic", but a mere attempt to ensure that the current Administration is up front about their intentions when it comes to this environment of ever growing governmental regulation and control.
I don't see it as a "scare tactic", but a mere attempt to ensure that the current Administration is up front about their intentions when it comes to this environment of ever growing governmental regulation and control.
I see it as the latest version of the "Obama = Socialism" fear mongering based on innuendo, misrepresentations and undocumented and unnamed sources.
IMO, you don't ensure that "the Administration is up front about its intentions" by spreading and perpetuating false or incomplete information.....what you do is appeal to those with pre-conceived opinions.
I see it as the latest version of the "Obama = Socialism" fear mongering based on innuendo, misrepresentations and undocumented and unnamed sources.
IMO, you don't ensure that "the Administration is up front about its intentions" by spreading and perpetuating false or incomplete information.....what you do is appeal to those with pre-conceived opinions.
Much the same can be said about you. "Obama = "God like", Savior, the answer to all our worldly problems all based on innuendo, misrepresentations, attempts at strong arm legislation practices, the attempt to describe acts as greater "transparency" when in fact there is nothing of the kind.
IMO, you ensure that the propaganda of the current administration is perpetuated and repeated enough that you hope people will begin to belive it. I don't.
Much the same can be said about you. "Obama = "God like", Savior, the answer to all our worldly problems all based on innuendo, misrepresentations, attempts at strong arm legislation practices, the attempt to describe acts as greater "transparency" when in fact there is nothing of the kind.
IMO, you ensure that the propaganda of the current administration is perpetuated and repeated enough that you hope people will begin to belive it. I don't.
LOL....OK
Please
cite any post of mine where I referred to Obama as God Like or a Savior or the answer to all our wordly problems.
(Why is it that the people who raise the Obama -> God like -> Savior specter are, for the most part, those predisposed to disagree with his policies...hmmmm?)
I think I have said I believe a different approach from the last eight years that is more progressive in nature is one that I generally support, while questioning specific policies and/or actions.
And I have tried to support my position, when requested, with facts and not editorials. Can you say the same?
(how about that transparency that was in the budget bill that you refused to see...or your implication that the lack of millions of jobs created in 60 days as somehow a failure of the stimulus bill...or the foreign policy role of Congress that you refuse to acknowledge, ...the list is endless, dude)
You never let the facts get in the way of your talking points.
I really didnt expect you to acknowledge that an editorial making sweeping generalizations based on one unnamed bank while ignoring the facts regarding four less briefly mentioned banks was a bit dishonest, to say the least.
No harder than debunking generalizations (scare tactics?) about Obama's intent, based on no documented (with names) data to back it up.
You mean the scare tactics like when the 2nd TARP was passed? No time to read 10,000 pages. No need We got it all covered... Reality was that the only reason it "had to be done" was so Nancy could go on her trip abroad.
The D's are using as many scare and strong arm tactics as the R's ever did. Doesn't make it right though. Just a little harder for those who agree with them to see it.
You mean the scare tactics like when the 2nd TARP was passed? No time to read 10,000 pages. No need We got it all covered... Reality was that the only reason it "had to be done" was so Nancy could go on her trip abroad.
The D's are using as many scare and strong arm tactics as the R's ever did. Doesn't make it right though. Just a little harder for those who agree with them to see it.
The rules of the House under Pelosi are more open than under the previous Republican majority Congress...that is a fact. (see the Hastert rule)
Lobbying/earmark/ethics is more open as a result of the Democratic reform (not enough for me) than the previous Republican majority Congress..that is a fact.
But whats the point of arguing this.
I dont disagree that both parties are far from perfect when use the majority position to their advantage.
But just as is the case with Merc, I guess I cant expect you either to acknowledge that an editorial making sweeping generalizations based on one unnamed bank while ignoring the facts regarding four less briefly mentioned banks was a bit dishonest, to say the least.
Its really not that hard.
The rules of the House under Pelosi are more open than under the previous Republican majority Congress
Diversion #1
Lobbying/earmark/ethics is more open as a result of the Democratic reform (not enough for me) than the previous Republican majority Congress
Diversion #2
But whats the point of arguing this.
Hedge #1
I dont disagree that both parties are far from perfect when use the majority position to their advantage.
Hedge #2
But just as is the case with Merc, I guess I cant expect you either to acknowledge that an editorial making sweeping generalizations based on one unnamed bank while ignoring the facts regarding four less briefly mentioned banks was a bit dishonest, to say the least.
Insult #1
Its really not that hard.
Insult #2
None of that changes the FACT that the D's are using scare tactics just like the R's. That is the real fact.
If you want insult...keep pushing me to the TW mode :)
And yet, you still cant acknowledge that your editorial, the basis for this most recent exchange today, was dishonest.
Well, honestly - nothing you said had anything to do with the fact I stated. You went off in 6 different directions with very typical liberal talking points. I didn't dispute any of them because they had nothing to do with my point which you quoted. Its like a computer generated response. OR even better when a politician is asked a direct question - and goes off on a tangent not germane to the actual subject at hand.
Hey..Merc (with his bullshit and baseless references to me representing Obama as God like or a Savior), then you (with your Tarp II and D strong arm tactics) were the ones who went off on tangents away from your editorial...I just responded.
And yet, you still cant acknowledge that the editorial, the basis for this most recent exchange today, was dishonest.
Neither one of you guys can take that one small step...its kinda funny.
Yet, I acknowledge that with more information on that unnamed bank (the point I made repeatedly only to be ignored by you guys), I would have no problem with a waiver if it met the capital/lending standards... and you call me long-winded (hmmmm...insult?) ....go figure.
I posted the link and then when you finally read it, I commented. Don't say that I ignored you. I didn't, not at all.
Glad you finally read the link there Redux. Does that change the situation at all. Hypothetically then, ...
You just continued on your editorial of talking points which had nothing to do with the discussion at hand. You brought up transparency, the rules of the house, Lobbying/earmark/ethics, sweeping generalizations and more.
I addressed each of your points - none of which were relevant to the topic.
No, I do not think the editorial was dishonest, I think it was one mans opinion, no different than anything here actually. I didn't mean to insult with the "long winded" reference. If I did, I apologize. I have actually rather enjoyed debating topics and discussing things with you. You have a very fresh and cohesive approach.
If you have issues with Merc, thats fine - take them up with him. Leave me out of it.
I posted the link and then when you finally read it, I commented. Don't say that I ignored you. I didn't, not at all.
For the record, in my
first post on the editorial (after reading it), I wrote that "I would like to see more than just this editorial (opinion) before jumping to conclusions."
But that is what some editorials do...jump to conclusions, w/o having all the facts, with the hope that it will be widely circulated and perpetuated and suddenly believed to be completely factual.
No, I do not think the editorial was dishonest, I think it was one mans opinion, no different than anything here actually. I didn't mean to insult with the "long winded" reference. If I did, I apologize. I have actually rather enjoyed debating topics and discussing things with you. You have a very fresh and cohesive approach.
My issue is when the (or any) opinion is presented as more than what it is (not you).
No apology necessary.
And no, I am not the "fresh" prince, just an old policy wonk..and cant claim to always be "cohesive" (unless you know washington double speak)
If you have issues with Merc, thats fine - take them up with him. Leave me out of it.
I aspire to Merc's ignore list (j/k)..he threatened but came up short on the follow through.
Excellent - now, hypothetically speaking...
Hey..Merc (with his bullshit and baseless references to me representing Obama as God like or a Savior), then you (with your Tarp II and D strong arm tactics) were the ones who went off on tangents away from your editorial...I just responded.
And I responded in kind to your baseless bullshit that you assigned to me. Sounds like you can't take it.
And yet, you still cant acknowledge that the editorial, the basis for this most recent exchange today, was dishonest.
It wasn't dishonest at all. You ignore his credentials because he is an occassional Fox contributor. He has more credentials than a nameless faceless self aclaimed "Washington Insider".
Neither one of you guys can take that one small step...its kinda funny.
No small step required. The opinion piece was published in the WSJ and seemed to make some really good points about where Obama is taking us with his plans to control banks.
Yet, I acknowledge that with more information on that unnamed bank (the point I made repeatedly only to be ignored by you guys), I would have no problem with a waiver if it met the capital/lending standards.
I don't see a problem there.
LOL....OK.
You are a first rate apologist and propagandist for the Obama Administration.
Merc....the facts of our exchange are here for others to judge for themselves...and that is fine with me.
You are a first rate apologist and propagandist for the Obama Administration.
LOL. You're the exact same, for the GOP.
Both of you need to learn to stop enjoying being fucked over by the party of your choice.
Both of you need to learn to stop enjoying being fucked over by the party of your choice.
Help me , Obiwan....you are my only hope.
then you are in deep do do.
are we still outraged?
It's exhausting.
Help me , Obiwan....you are my only hope.
Fuck that. I'm too busy with some three-titted woman I found in the Mos Eisley Cantina.
Obiwan,
Pimp.
Obama Wants to Control the Banks
There's a reason he refuses to accept repayment of TARP money.
Just an opinion piece, but an interesting one.
The government had said over and over that they will take the money back, IF the banks are solvent and there is no danger of a future catastrophe. that makes sense to me. They are in the process of doing "stress tests" on the banks. After those are over, I imagine they will be taking some money back.
I was on the phone with BoA the other day and the girl I was speaking with said they have started repaying the money. I wonder if that was true.
Did you read the actual link and the rest of the conversation sugar?
I read the article on another forum, and yes, I did read all the responses from the past few days about this.
#1, Rick Wagoner should have been fired ages ago. The fact that GM came grovelling to Washington for taxpayers to bail them out made Washington in effect the BOD. The board has the power to fire someone who is ineffectual, which is what happened here, and IMO should happen at some banks as well. If GM had not confiscated and crushed all the electric cars they made back in the 90s, they might be on top right now. But no, they made stupid decisions and inferior cars, and now they are in trouble. As for cars, fuel efficient cars should be mandated, for health reasons, and for national security reasons. Anyone who doesn't get that is just stupid.
#2, something needs to be done about executive pay. We have been needing this for a very, very long time. I am hoping they extend it to all companies, not just those taking TARP money.
#3, Class warfare was declared on the middle class years ago. It's time the middle class got someone in their corner fighting back for them, since they really have no power to do it themselves, other than taking up arms and fighting a bloody revolution against corporations and government, for not looking out for their interests.
#4, it is friggin' ridiculous to think Obama actually wants to control banks. IMO he isn't going far enough. If the people in charge had been doing their jobs this crisis would not have happened. So, if capitalism loses ground to socialism, they can only blame themselves. And hip hip hooray.
Then you know the Gov't REFUSED to take the money back in this case, right?
No I don't. I don't know what the circumstances were, because the writer did not tell us. the writer did not even tell us which bank it was. If the government is not taking the money back right now, when they are taking from other banks, there must be a reason.
Oh, and since the bank was threatened with an audit if they didn't take the money, and that's why they took the money (because they didn't want an audit), it makes me wonder what they were hiding.
This is the most laughable idea I've seen in a while. I have a friend who teaches at an inner city public school and she can't even get her students to do homework. The teachers don't even bother assigning it because they basically get the middle finger because the students know that they can't do anything except fail them for the assignment...which they don't care about anyway. There is no physical way for the government to force all young people everywhere in this country to do anything. One of the students in her class spelled the word energy as ANOGEY. It took us about 10 minutes to figure out what the hell it was supposed to be because they don't even write in complete sentences. I am horrified that there are people in this country with inadequate education who can barely read who will be one day expected to become decision making adults and contributors to society in a positive way. We aren't adequately addressing the most basic problems that our country is dealing with right now, so who gives a damn about "baby boomers" volunteering?
I agree. The schools are a mess. Teachers have no power. It really is ridiculous, what it's come to. I think they should just expel all the ones who aren't there to learn.
There are some schools over here considering bringing back corporal punishment.
I think this is a good idea, but then, I also have been known to give my kids a smack when they're being naughty.
Maybe it's time that no child has a behind left.
I agree. The schools are a mess. Teachers have no power. It really is ridiculous, what it's come to. I think they should just expel all the ones who aren't there to learn.
Eh, the will just be on the streets a few years earlier...
Inner city kids will listen to teachers that they respect (like non-inner city kids :eek:). But that category fits so few it really causes problems.
Well, in Savannah the kids do not listen to any teachers, for the most part. It is a small minority causing the problems though. Those kids should be kicked out, or they should have "boot camp" classes for the troublemakers, or something. It isn't fair to the rest of the kids.
Well, in Savannah the kids do not listen to any teachers, for the most part. It is a small minority causing the problems though. Those kids should be kicked out, or they should have "boot camp" classes for the troublemakers, or something. It isn't fair to the rest of the kids.
Can you imagine the liberal outcry? The parents of those kids would claim racism.
They're just misunderstood Merc. :eyebrow:
So what? If they're causing trouble they're causing trouble. I don't care what color their skin is. As long as the rules are applied fairly across the board, no one can bitch about anything. Make sure the rules are understood every year beforehand. It might not be such a bad idea to put cameras in the classrooms either, for proof of misbehavior.
So what? If they're causing trouble they're causing trouble. I don't care what color their skin is.
Thats the second or third time you brought race into a conversation when it was never brought up before. Where is that comin from?
So what? If they're causing trouble they're causing trouble. I don't care what color their skin is. As long as the rules are applied fairly across the board, no one can bitch about anything. Make sure the rules are understood every year beforehand. It might not be such a bad idea to put cameras in the classrooms either, for proof of misbehavior.
You know as well as I do that the Demoncrats in this city would never see it that way.
Thats the second or third time you brought race into a conversation when it was never brought up before. Where is that comin from?
My dear classicman, I was replying to THE FOLLOWING POST when I said that, so ask Merc why he brought race into, 'K?
Can you imagine the liberal outcry? The parents of those kids would claim racism.
You know as well as I do that the Demoncrats in this city would never see it that way.
Good thing you're not a fanatic, or anything. :3eye:
My dear classicman, I was replying to THE FOLLOWING POST when I said that, so ask Merc why he brought race into, 'K?
Because you know as well as I do that any attempt to remove the "troublemakers" would hit the black kids at a much higher rate than the minority white kids.
My dear classicman, I was replying to THE FOLLOWING POST when I said that, so ask Merc why he brought race into, 'K?
Yup - I missed that - Merc WTF?
Because you know as well as I do that any attempt to remove the "troublemakers" would hit the black kids at a much higher rate than the minority white kids.
WHOEVER is causing trouble should be put in special classes or expelled. It should not matter what color they are. And if the majority of them are black, then so be it. They can't really scream racism because we have elected two black mayors, back to back. So it isn't a racist issue. And I'm pretty sure the mayor would get behind it. He is a pretty cool guy, from what I understand.
I suggested cameras in the classroom for this very reason. You can't really whine if you're caught on tape.
WHOEVER is causing trouble should be put in special classes or expelled. It should not matter what color they are. And if the majority of them are black, then so be it.
Oh I don't disagree with you at all.
They can't really scream racism because we have elected two black mayors, back to back. So it isn't a racist issue.
Sure they can.
And I'm pretty sure the mayor would get behind it. He is a pretty cool guy, from what I understand.
I have no opinion other than stuff I have read about him in the paper he really does not have much effect on my life.
Michael has met him numerous times and talked with him. He really likes him.
^^^ Wow, just wow. ^^^
Look classic, I understand where Merc is coming from. There is still a lot of racism here, on both sides. Blacks are just as guilty of it as whites are. It was something I had to adapt to when coming back here after living in Los Angeles for 10 years, because I dont't feel that way myself.
I know someone who substitute teaches here in high school. From what she has told me, and she teaches all over in every public school, there really is a serious problem with the students. It is a small number of them, and while I don't know what the actual percentage is, she has said many of the people causing problems are black. There are actually two kids in 7th grade, one who is 17 and one who is 16. Those people should not be in school anymore if they can't get past the 7th grade at those ages. And Mary is not a racist.
My ex worked for a sound company that works all over. He worked the graduations in Macon GA for the past two years. There is one school there that is so bad, he was afraid to leave the sound booth. And he said it was the parents acting up as much as the students. That was a black school. There was only one white student in the graduating class.
When someone like Bill Cosby comes out and say things about how many people in the black community are raising their kids, people need to pay attention. It isn't about the whole community, it is about part of it. People like Jesse Jackson don't help the issue. And white (trash) people are just as bad now. Just look at Britney Spears. :eek:
Democratic Senator's husband's firm cashes in on crisis
On the day the new Congress convened this year, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to route $25 billion in taxpayer money to a government agency that had just awarded her husband's real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms.
Mrs. Feinstein's intervention on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was unusual: the California Democrat isn't a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with jurisdiction over FDIC; and the agency is supposed to operate from money it raises from bank-paid insurance payments - not direct federal dollars.
Documents reviewed by The Washington Times show Mrs. Feinstein first offered Oct. 30 to help the FDIC secure money for its effort to stem the rise of home foreclosures. Her letter was sent just days before the agency determined that CB Richard Ellis Group (CBRE) - the commercial real estate firm that her husband Richard Blum heads as board chairman - had won the competitive bidding for a contract to sell foreclosed properties that FDIC had inherited from failed banks.
About the same time of the contract award, Mr. Blum's private investment firm reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission that it and related affiliates had purchased more than 10 million new shares in CBRE. The shares were purchased for the going price of $3.77; CBRE's stock closed Monday at $5.14.
Spokesmen for the FDIC, Mrs. Feinstein and Mr. Blum's firm told The Times that there was no connection between the legislation and the contract signed Nov. 13, and that the couple didn't even know about CBRE's business with FDIC until after it was awarded.
Yeh sure... :eyebrow:
When someone like Bill Cosby comes out and say things about how many people in the black community are raising their kids, people need to pay attention. It isn't about the whole community, it is about part of it. People like Jesse Jackson don't help the issue. And white (trash) people are just as bad now. Just look at Britney Spears. :eek:
Wait you mean a parent shoulders responsibility for raising their child, and can be held accountable to a significant degree if that kid grows up a detriment to society (disabilities not included)?! I'm shocked, shocked i tell you. I try not to be a know-it-all 22 year old, but its pretty easy to see that shouldering personal responsibility and accountability is central in raising a child, let alone the path you lead your own life down.
I mean that a significant number of parents are doing lousy jobs raising their kids, and that goes for black, white, latino, all races.
Wait you mean a parent shoulders responsibility for raising their child, and can be held accountable to a significant degree if that kid grows up a detriment to society (disabilities not included)?! I'm shocked, shocked i tell you.
As well you should be by such nonsense.
She (We never thought of ourselves)
is leaving (Never a thought for ourselves)
home (We struggled hard all our lives to get by)
She's leaving home after living alone
For so many years. Bye, bye