Nice of ya to catch up with the rest of us!

[MaggieMae]

If Obama had not won the nomination, I would agree with you that he had only one vote, but he was the leader of the Democratic Party and the Dems held a clear majority in the House, so when the leader of the party put his credibility as a leader on the line in the middle of a presidential campaign by supporting TARP, the House Dems were not going to oppose him. On the other hand, had Obama opposed it, it unlikely enough Dems in the House would have passed it. At that time Obama's support for TARP held much more weight in Congress and with the public than Bush's support for it did, so to say Obama's responsibility for TARP's passage was only his one vote is just nonsense. The Bush administration's TARP proposal was dramatically rewritten by the Dems in Congress and even that Dem bill would not have passed if Obama had opposed it.

The policies that caused the financial meltdown, the deregulation of derivatives passed in 1999 when the Dems controlled the House and the WH and the Fed and FDIC policy of allowing banks to keep these derivatives as capital reserves were inherited by Bush from the Clinton administration, but I agree Bush can be blamed for not fixing this mess he inherited, but so can the Dems and Republicans in Congress for never addressing these policies everyone knew about.

The reason no one, Dem or Republican, tried to change these policies was that everyone understood that without all the credit these policies created our economy would not have been able to grow out the economic slowdown that followed the tech bubble bust and 9/11. The danger now is that Obama's policies that have not sufficiently recapitalized the banks to finance a recovery from the recession and that his financial regulations aimed at preventing another financial crisis might further prevent the financial system from creating enough capital for future growth. In fact, Obama has inherited the same problems Bush did, and it is not clear that he has any better ideas of what to do about it than Bush or Clinton did.

Good post.

A couple of things though. First, it was McCain who suspended his campaign to work on the TARP legislation but yes, Obama supported TARP but he wasn't driving the car or really giving orders. His support was more pedestrian than anything. Also, had Queen Nan not shot off her mouth TARP was going to be a piece of bipartisan legislation. She just had to talk shit and the republicans in Congress didn't vote for it out of spite towards her.

It sucks that the problem wasn't addressed by anybody until it was too late ... I'm not even sure it's being addressed now. At the time though it seemed like we were in the middle of an economic orgy. We were hearing about record setting closes of the DOW, housing was booming, and everyone's 401k was as sexy as a centerfold. It was too good to be true but all along we were hearing all about how strong the Bush economy was from pundits on the right. Now that it went to hell and times are bad they are desperately trying to sluff it off on Obama. That's just not gonna fly right now.

In your last paragraph you allude to fears that we wont have enough capital to allow for future growth. Are you suggesting that we give banks more money?

We can give the banks enough money to keep them, most of them, from failing, but we can't give them enough money to allow them to adequately finance a recovery from the recession or finance future growth. I believe Geithner said at one point that about 50% of the credit our economy was functioning on was raised by securitized debt, and now that these derivatives are considered "toxic" by so many, there is no longer much of a market for them. Obama-Geithner's efforts to revive those markets have so far failed to produce and significant results, and if we can't revive these markets or find new ways for our financial system to raise a great deal more capital, we are likely to have a very slow recovery from the recession and very slow future growth.

On the other hand, there is an understandable desire to have regulations to keep things from getting out of hand again, but we don't want these regulations to stifle the creation of new capital in the financial system.

The best idea I've heard for reviving the markets for financial products came from some House Republicans during the TARP debate, but it was shot down by Paulson because he thought it wouldn't work as quickly as his TARP proposal. (Ha!) The proposal was that the government would set up an insurance fund through which holders of these "toxic assets" could insure part or all of what they believed the value at maturity of these derivative would be, and the premiums they would pay would be based on an assessment of risk at that value. In theory, this would allow the banks to sell these insured derivatives to private buyers instead of having to hold them or sell them to the government, never a practical idea, and this mechanism might also serve to help financial institutions to sell new derivatives, thus enabling them to raise new capital.

From what I've read, there seems to be no clear agreement on how much new regulation we need or how much new regulation would be too much regulation.

The problem with the insurance for toxic assets proposed by Republicans is that these banks had no idea, none at all, the extent of the bad assets. So how could they possibly insure their value when they didn't even know what or where they were?

I also can mention here that banks are definitely lending again. I take care of the books and legal records for my condominium's homeowners association, and had to go to our bank (subsidiary of New Hampshire Thrift Bancshares, Inc., a publicly-traded holding company found on NASDAQ) to apply for an emergency $5,000 loan because a 100-foot pine tree fell causing damage to two units. Although they both have private property insurance, by the time the insurance companies figure out which "part" to cover for each resident, in the meantime the tree had to be removed by professionals and the roofs patched temporarily. The Association just didn't have that kind of money. No problem. I applied for the loan last Friday and the loan was approved on Wednesday.

 

[MaggieMae]

Yo, Maggie! You up to speed yet?

I'm still drinking coffee at 5:45 AM. I do have a real life: Working part-time four hours a day (2 in the morning, 2 in the afternoon), dinner, a little TV, a little reading plucked from my 3-foot stack, and 7-8 hours sleep. Sorry.

 

[MaggieMae]

It's true that many hopefuls, like me, are becoming more and more concerned about the potential deficit. This is the perfect opportunity for Republicans to improve upon their 26% approval rating (shown here), the lowest in history, and finally come up with an alternative solution to the economic woes instead of announcing position papers that include no numbers.

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/WSJ-NBC_Poll090617.pdf

YEP... The GOP is suffering the lowest poll ratings in their history, as are the democrats AND THE LEGISLATURE on the whole...

This a result of the absence of American leadership and having allowed themselves to depart from common sense and succumb to the irrational feminization of the culture, through the advocacy of left-think.

Of course CONSERVATIVES have always had a solution to the problem... which is CONSERVATISM ON THE WHOLE...

Reduce the size and scope of government
Roll back the massive manipulative government hinderances to the economy
Set high cultural standards and enforce them


Presto... all fixed.

In other words, start from scratch. But what do you do with all the dead bodies?

 

[MaggieMae]

At least part of the reason Bush continues to be blamed for the economic mess, as shown in this graphic, is because under his watch the public lost $5 trillion in retirement savings, credit card companies were allowed to loaded up traps for the consumer, and no one was paying any attention to the PEOPLE it affected until it was too late.

Yeah those DAMN CONTRACTS! If we could JUST GET AMERICANS TO SET ASIDE THEIR AGREEMENTS... and all that 'high standards' crap... where people agree to do something then fail to perform... which only gets worse when the penalties to which they agreed kick in... everything would be all better...

BRILLIANT!

AGAIN... this is why leftists should be ignored and ostrocized... and never let within 10 miles of a voting booth.

Oh please. Those "DAMNED CONTRACTS" are designed to screw the consumer and you know it. The average one is 30 pages long in normal font, reduced to about 8 pages in teensy print, which takes a CPA to understand. They have acted no better than the scam artists from Nigeria.

 

[MaggieMae]

AGAIN... this is why leftists should be ignored and ostrocized... and never let within 10 miles of a voting booth.

This so-called "American" would prefer a dictatorship.

 

[MaggieMae]

Solving the problems stemming from the REAL estate mess is fairly simple.

Make the banks hold the mortgages in their own portfolios.

Bankers aren't completely nuts.

If they're going to be taking the risks, they'll get real smart about who is a good credit risk real fast.

Problem solved.

ROFLMNAO... Of course, all those 'rules' were just standards which THE LEFT determined were in the way of 'fairness'... preventing the 'less fortunate' from aquiring mortgages... to which they ARE ENTITLED! But let's not consider the SOURCE... it's so HATEFUL!

Yes, and of course the Bush Administration has no culpability at all in that endeavor, even though he signed an executive order for minority homeownership in 2003 which encouraged NO DOWN PAYMENT and in fact subsidies for low-income people, along with terms that would not be as stringent as conventional mortgages. Sure, it's all the fault of those evil lefties.

 

[DamnYankee]

It's true that many hopefuls, like me, are becoming more and more concerned about the potential deficit. This is the perfect opportunity for Republicans to improve upon their 26% approval rating (shown here), the lowest in history, and finally come up with an alternative solution to the economic woes instead of announcing position papers that include no numbers.

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/WSJ-NBC_Poll090617.pdf

More words, Maggie? Do you really not pay attention, or do you believe that no one else does?

Boehner Opening Statement: GOP Working Group Hearing on Economic Solutions | Republican Leader John Boehner
#####

Now, from Eric Cantor's website (above)

$375 Billion in Taxpayer Savings
Posted by Whip Team :: Thursday June 4, 2009
House Republicans sent a proposal to President Obama outlining $375 billion in taxpayer savings over the next five years.

The proposal follows a meeting at the White House on April 24, during which Republican Whip Cantor brought up the President’s request to Cabinet secretaries to find $100 million in savings, noting that much more could be done on behalf of taxpayers. In response, President Obama asked House Republicans to develop of list of areas where the federal government could save more money.

Click here to read more information on the taxpayer savings.
http://republicanwhip.house.gov/new...billion-in-common-sense-taxpayer-savings.html

Nice, but where's the beef? With the exception of insurance pools, their "revised" proposal is a rewrite of every other proposal they've come up with (a total of five between the House and Senate).

Senate committee debates health care reform
Measure includes a government-funded health insurance option opposed by GOP
Mandates for individual and employer-sponsored health coverage also at issue

House Republicans unveil a competing plan they say will cost less

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Congress launched a formal debate on reforming the ailing U.S. health care system Wednesday with a Senate committee considering a comprehensive bill backed by Democrats and the Obama administration.

The measure before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee includes a government-funded health insurance option opposed by Republicans, along with mandates for individual and employer-sponsored health coverage.

Also Wednesday, House Republicans unveiled the outline of a competing plan that offers refundable tax credits to lower-income Americans to help them afford private health insurance.

At issue is how to reduce the costs and increase the reach of the current health care system, which officials say is increasingly draining the federal budget but leaving 46 million Americans without health insurance.

Obama has made the issue a top priority of his young administration, warning that failure to act now will bring far worse economic difficulties in the future than the costs of plans under discussion.

Republican opponents complain that the government and the Democratic leadership are moving too fast, noting that preliminary cost estimates for the bill are incomplete.

The Senate hearing Wednesday started 15 minutes late because of the lack of a quorum, and Republican members immediately questioned the wisdom of debating and amending the bill without having full cost estimates.

Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Connecticut, the acting committee chairman in the absence of ailing Democratic colleague Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, said it was important to start the hearing on what he called "historic" legislation that will affect every American.

The bill submitted in Kennedy's name proposes "building on what works and fixing what's broken in our health care system," a Democratic mantra for the issue.

A summary of the measure guarantees people can keep their current health insurance if they want while offering government-funded coverage for those without insurance or who are unable to afford full coverage.

Dodd noted that efforts to reform health care date back 60 years and called it a moral imperative to provide proper health care for all citizens regardless of circumstances.

"The status quo is unacceptable, and it is unsustainable," Dodd said, adding that former opponents of reform now are taking part in the effort. He cited main elements of the measure, including a government-funded option, an emphasis on preventive care to reduce costs and a halt to pre-existing medical conditions making coverage unavailable.

Republicans complained the bill before them would fail to achieve those goals.

"This bill costs too much, covers too few and will force about 10 million people to have to lose their employer-provided coverage," said Sen. Michael Enzi of Wyoming, the ranking Republican on the committee. He blamed what he called the rushed timetable for considering the bill on a need to address how spiraling health care costs were harming the economy, but said the proposal drafted by Democrats alone would increase costs.

"We need a bill that won't destroy the economy," Enzi said.

Meanwhile, the House Republican plan by ranking Ways and Means member Dave Camp of Michigan calls for refundable tax credits for lower-income Americans. But Camp and Republicans have not yet determined key details, including the amount of those tax credits or who precisely could be eligible.

"We're going to provide a dollar amount to people who want to buy insurance," Camp told CNN Radio on Tuesday. "The numbers are going to depend on how (the ideas) are scored."

Scoring is the process for determining how much a proposal could cost. Camp and Republicans are waiting to see the relative expense of different proposals before committing to specifics.

"That will come later," Camp said, insisting the Republican bill will be "much less costly than the Democratic bills."

Highlights of Camp's measure include letting states, small businesses and other group pool together to offer lower-cost health care plans and allowing Medicaid users to take the value of their Medicaid benefit and transfer or apply that to a private health care plan instead.

It also calls for limiting malpractice lawsuits to drive down the costs of "defensive" health care, in which unnecessary tests and services are prescribed to avoid possible malpractice liability.

Find this article at:
Senate committee debates health care reform - CNN.com

First you claimed there were "no numbers". Now, apparently, you're claiming there's "no beef". Based on the fact that, in fact, there were numbers, I expect that a more objective inspection of the product will reveal that it isn't lacking. Perhaps you're unable to see it unless the entire side is laid out in front of you -- whole?

 

[DamnYankee]

Solving the problems stemming from the REAL estate mess is fairly simple.

Make the banks hold the mortgages in their own portfolios.

Bankers aren't completely nuts.

If they're going to be taking the risks, they'll get real smart about who is a good credit risk real fast.

Problem solved.

ROFLMNAO... Of course, all those 'rules' were just standards which THE LEFT determined were in the way of 'fairness'... preventing the 'less fortunate' from aquiring mortgages... to which they ARE ENTITLED! But let's not consider the SOURCE... it's so HATEFUL!

Yes, and of course the Bush Administration has no culpability at all in that endeavor, even though he signed an executive order for minority homeownership in 2003 which encouraged NO DOWN PAYMENT and in fact subsidies for low-income people, along with terms that would not be as stringent as conventional mortgages. Sure, it's all the fault of those evil lefties.

Hmmm..... That would have been Clinton -- back in 1999. You remember, don't you? Freddie and Fannie?

 

[Oddball]

First you claimed there were "no numbers". Now, apparently, you're claiming there's "no beef". Based on the fact that, in fact, there were numbers, I expect that a more objective inspection of the product will reveal that it isn't lacking. Perhaps you're unable to see it unless the entire side is laid out in front of you -- whole?

I guess that all depends upon your meaning of the word "numbers".

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

It's true that many hopefuls, like me, are becoming more and more concerned about the potential deficit. This is the perfect opportunity for Republicans to improve upon their 26% approval rating (shown here), the lowest in history, and finally come up with an alternative solution to the economic woes instead of announcing position papers that include no numbers.

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/WSJ-NBC_Poll090617.pdf

YEP... The GOP is suffering the lowest poll ratings in their history, as are the democrats AND THE LEGISLATURE on the whole...

This a result of the absence of American leadership and having allowed themselves to depart from common sense and succumb to the irrational feminization of the culture, through the advocacy of left-think.

Of course CONSERVATIVES have always had a solution to the problem... which is CONSERVATISM ON THE WHOLE...

Reduce the size and scope of government
Roll back the massive manipulative government hinderances to the economy
Set high cultural standards and enforce them


Presto... all fixed.

In other words, start from scratch. But what do you do with all the dead bodies?

No sis... Start by simply returning to the RULES on which our culture rests...

And what bodies are these to which you speak?

Is this some attempt to project the notion that the US will STOP DEATH, through Universal Healthcare...

ROFLMNAO... Believe it or not friends... these people actually believe this...

They all believe that Universal Healthcare is going to provide them with zero deductible SOLID GOLD Health care; which will somehow STOP DEATH.

Which in truth will be something on the order of the worst HMO you can imagine; as there will be no alternative; thus no competition and where competition is lacking, you can rest assured that performance will be on a steady decline... and where the issue is healthcare absent competition... that can ONLY result in the GREATER levels of premature death.

Ironic ONLY due to the stated goal being precisely the opposite... which is TYPICAL of the left and their incessant policy failures.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Where did I say the deficit is a good thing? That's why I think you have a comprehension problem, my friend.

Bush never included the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in the annual budget, which exploded his deficit to $1.2 trillion (not including the ongoing care our wounded veterans will need far into the future). Add to this, the interest needed to cover the money for those wars, and the $1.2 trillion is realistically even higher.

Until the economy rights itself, which will not happen until the financial markets are running as properly leveraged institutions, the money repaid into TARP will stay there. For simplicity sake, call it an escrow fund.

What happens to returned TARP money? - By Christopher Beam - Slate Magazine

You defended the spending on TARP and the stimulus, so it makes no sense to say you oppose the deficit that made that spending possible. If you support the spending, you support the deficit that made it possible. Your logic lacks, well, logic. There are millions of government funded items that account for deficit spending. There always has been and there always will be.

Bush's deficit was not $1.2 trillion dollars unless you assign responsibility for TARP to him, but the TARP bill that passed was written by the Dems in Congress, not by Bush, and that Dem bill would not have passed if not for Obama's support for it. Do you really imagine the Dems in Congress would have undercut Obama's credibility as a leader in the middle of a presidential election by opposing the bill when Obama supported it? Would they have undercut his credibility as a leader by supporting the bill if he had opposed it? It is clear that even if Bush had opposed the final bill, it would have passed through Congress because of Obama's support for it. It was Obama's TARP bill that Bush finally signed, and this is why when Obama whines that he inherited the deficit from Bush, he is clearly lying.

Okay, sick of arguing. You believe TARP was a waste, and most economists would say you are dead wrong. So let's hear how YOU would have saved the financial institutions, if at all.

Normal businesses that used bad business practices which allowed them to go under SHOULD have to take their own lickings, but as dirty as the deals were that caused the gigantic banks to fail, they could not be allowed to take the rest of the country down with them.

The issue was how much responsibility for the deficit created by TARP Obama bears. I take it that your insistence on defending TARP means you agree that Obama bears major responsibility for that part of the deficit, and since he clearly bears full responsibility for the deficit created by his stimulus plan, there can be no question but that he is lying when he says he inherited the deficit.

 

[DamnYankee]

Under normal circumstances (in the absence of a major economic downturn nationwide), a government sponsored health care bill would not be considered irresponsible. Accept that fact because eventually it WILL happen.

That's what was said when Clinton was President, and he almost had a shot at it, but f*ked it up. Now what makes you think that Obama, who hasn't a clue, and seems to be doing everything in his power to f*k it up even worse, is going to make it happen?

 

[Soaring]

Would someone please explain to me how one person, the president, is able to control the economy of our country?

 

[DamnYankee]

First you claimed there were "no numbers". Now, apparently, you're claiming there's "no beef". Based on the fact that, in fact, there were numbers, I expect that a more objective inspection of the product will reveal that it isn't lacking. Perhaps you're unable to see it unless the entire side is laid out in front of you -- whole?

I guess that all depends upon your meaning of the word "numbers".

Or "beef"..... <chuckle>

 

[toomuchtime_]

Most of your other points are assumptions. There is NO health bill, yet. There is NO energy bill, yet. There is NO education bill, yet. The next few months will be crucial in deciding where and what and how much to eliminate in order to reduce the size of the deficit. So until that happens, it's fruitless to keep on trying to scare everyone to death with numbers plucked from every wild scenario every naysayer in the business comes up with confident that THEY know what WILL happen. Because they don't.

Nobody knows what will finally pass, but we do know that Obama's health insurance proposal during his campaign was estimated to cost between $1.4 trillion and $1.8 trillion and that the CBO has estimated the Kennedy-Dodd bill to cost $1 trillion and the Senate Finance committee's bill to cost $1.6 trillion. However, I do agree with you that Congress may yet come to its senses and rein in Obama's reckless and irresponsible spending spree.

Under normal circumstances (in the absence of a major economic downturn nationwide), a government sponsored health care bill would not be considered irresponsible. Accept that fact because eventually it WILL happen.

Yet again, you appear to be deeply confused about this issue. The amounts referred to have nothing to do with creating a public plan. These huge amounts of money would go to provide subsidies to middle class people who already have health insurance and to a lesser extent to provide insurance to some of the uninsured poor. It appears clear now that a public plan will not pass the Senate, but there appears to be bipartisan support for developing co-ops, a better option than a government run plan in every way.

What is reckless and irresponsible about Obama is that he is proposing spending trillions of dollars we don't have at a time when how long the recession will last is a matter of speculation and when most economists expect the recovery from this recession to be very slow. Every trillion of dollars of new debt Obama creates will obligate US taxpayers to pay between $30 billion and $50 billion in interest every year forever. Since much of this debt will be owned by foreign investors and countries like China, Japan, Arab oil countries, this is $30 billion to $50 billion that will leave the US economy every year forever never to return.

It is reckless and irresponsible of Obama to demand that this be done quickly instead of carefully, especially at a time when we have no idea if we will be able to afford these enormous costs any time in the near future. Obama says that if this isn't done now, it will never be done, just more Obama fear mongering, but he is correct that the longer voters think about the cost of enormous amount of debt he wants to create, the less likely it is they will approve of it.

 

[MaggieMae]

More words, Maggie? Do you really not pay attention, or do you believe that no one else does?

Boehner Opening Statement: GOP Working Group Hearing on Economic Solutions | Republican Leader John Boehner
#####

Now, from Eric Cantor's website (above)

$375 Billion in Taxpayer Savings
Posted by Whip Team :: Thursday June 4, 2009
House Republicans sent a proposal to President Obama outlining $375 billion in taxpayer savings over the next five years.

The proposal follows a meeting at the White House on April 24, during which Republican Whip Cantor brought up the President’s request to Cabinet secretaries to find $100 million in savings, noting that much more could be done on behalf of taxpayers. In response, President Obama asked House Republicans to develop of list of areas where the federal government could save more money.

Click here to read more information on the taxpayer savings.
http://republicanwhip.house.gov/new...billion-in-common-sense-taxpayer-savings.html

Nice, but where's the beef? With the exception of insurance pools, their "revised" proposal is a rewrite of every other proposal they've come up with (a total of five between the House and Senate).

Senate committee debates health care reform
Measure includes a government-funded health insurance option opposed by GOP
Mandates for individual and employer-sponsored health coverage also at issue

House Republicans unveil a competing plan they say will cost less

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Congress launched a formal debate on reforming the ailing U.S. health care system Wednesday with a Senate committee considering a comprehensive bill backed by Democrats and the Obama administration.

The measure before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee includes a government-funded health insurance option opposed by Republicans, along with mandates for individual and employer-sponsored health coverage.

Also Wednesday, House Republicans unveiled the outline of a competing plan that offers refundable tax credits to lower-income Americans to help them afford private health insurance.

At issue is how to reduce the costs and increase the reach of the current health care system, which officials say is increasingly draining the federal budget but leaving 46 million Americans without health insurance.

Obama has made the issue a top priority of his young administration, warning that failure to act now will bring far worse economic difficulties in the future than the costs of plans under discussion.

Republican opponents complain that the government and the Democratic leadership are moving too fast, noting that preliminary cost estimates for the bill are incomplete.

The Senate hearing Wednesday started 15 minutes late because of the lack of a quorum, and Republican members immediately questioned the wisdom of debating and amending the bill without having full cost estimates.

Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Connecticut, the acting committee chairman in the absence of ailing Democratic colleague Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, said it was important to start the hearing on what he called "historic" legislation that will affect every American.

The bill submitted in Kennedy's name proposes "building on what works and fixing what's broken in our health care system," a Democratic mantra for the issue.

A summary of the measure guarantees people can keep their current health insurance if they want while offering government-funded coverage for those without insurance or who are unable to afford full coverage.

Dodd noted that efforts to reform health care date back 60 years and called it a moral imperative to provide proper health care for all citizens regardless of circumstances.

"The status quo is unacceptable, and it is unsustainable," Dodd said, adding that former opponents of reform now are taking part in the effort. He cited main elements of the measure, including a government-funded option, an emphasis on preventive care to reduce costs and a halt to pre-existing medical conditions making coverage unavailable.

Republicans complained the bill before them would fail to achieve those goals.

"This bill costs too much, covers too few and will force about 10 million people to have to lose their employer-provided coverage," said Sen. Michael Enzi of Wyoming, the ranking Republican on the committee. He blamed what he called the rushed timetable for considering the bill on a need to address how spiraling health care costs were harming the economy, but said the proposal drafted by Democrats alone would increase costs.

"We need a bill that won't destroy the economy," Enzi said.

Meanwhile, the House Republican plan by ranking Ways and Means member Dave Camp of Michigan calls for refundable tax credits for lower-income Americans. But Camp and Republicans have not yet determined key details, including the amount of those tax credits or who precisely could be eligible.

"We're going to provide a dollar amount to people who want to buy insurance," Camp told CNN Radio on Tuesday. "The numbers are going to depend on how (the ideas) are scored."

Scoring is the process for determining how much a proposal could cost. Camp and Republicans are waiting to see the relative expense of different proposals before committing to specifics.

"That will come later," Camp said, insisting the Republican bill will be "much less costly than the Democratic bills."

Highlights of Camp's measure include letting states, small businesses and other group pool together to offer lower-cost health care plans and allowing Medicaid users to take the value of their Medicaid benefit and transfer or apply that to a private health care plan instead.

It also calls for limiting malpractice lawsuits to drive down the costs of "defensive" health care, in which unnecessary tests and services are prescribed to avoid possible malpractice liability.

Find this article at:
Senate committee debates health care reform - CNN.com

First you claimed there were "no numbers". Now, apparently, you're claiming there's "no beef". Based on the fact that, in fact, there were numbers, I expect that a more objective inspection of the product will reveal that it isn't lacking. Perhaps you're unable to see it unless the entire side is laid out in front of you -- whole?

Do you READ?

 

[MaggieMae]

ROFLMNAO... Of course, all those 'rules' were just standards which THE LEFT determined were in the way of 'fairness'... preventing the 'less fortunate' from aquiring mortgages... to which they ARE ENTITLED! But let's not consider the SOURCE... it's so HATEFUL!

Yes, and of course the Bush Administration has no culpability at all in that endeavor, even though he signed an executive order for minority homeownership in 2003 which encouraged NO DOWN PAYMENT and in fact subsidies for low-income people, along with terms that would not be as stringent as conventional mortgages. Sure, it's all the fault of those evil lefties.

Hmmm..... That would have been Clinton -- back in 1999. You remember, don't you? Freddie and Fannie?

Fannie & Freddie were a drop in the bucket, compared to what Bush unleashed.

Expanding Home Ownership

Issues

"This Administration will constantly strive to promote an ownership society in America. We want more people owning their own home. It is in our national interest that more people own their own home. After all, if you own your own home, you have a vital stake in the future of our country."

- President George W. Bush, December 16, 2003

The Accomplishments
Increasing Homeownership

The US homeownership rate reached a record 69.2 percent in the second quarter of 2004. The number of homeowners in the United States reached 73.4 million, the most ever. And for the first time, the majority of minority Americans own their own homes.

The President set a goal to increase the number of minority homeowners by 5.5 million families by the end of the decade. Through his homeownership challenge, the President called on the private sector to help in this effort. More than two dozen companies and organizations have made commitments to increase minority homeownership - including pledges to provide more than $1.1 trillion in mortgage purchases for minority homebuyers this decade.

President Bush signed the $200 million-per-year American Dream Downpayment Act which will help approximately 40,000 families each year with their downpayment and closing costs.

The Administration proposed the Zero-Downpayment Initiative to allow the Federal Housing Administration to insure mortgages for first-time homebuyers without a downpayment. Projections indicate this could generate over 150,000 new homeowners in the first year alone.

President Bush proposed a new Single Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit to increase the supply of affordable homes.

The President has proposed to more than double funding for the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP), where government and non-profit organizations work closely together to increase homeownership opportunities.

The President proposed $2.7 billion in USDA home loan guarantees to support rural homeownership and $1.1 billion in direct loans for low-income borrowers unable to secure a mortgage through a conventional lender. These loans are expected to provide 42,800 homeownership opportunities to rural families across America.

 

[MaggieMae]

You defended the spending on TARP and the stimulus, so it makes no sense to say you oppose the deficit that made that spending possible. If you support the spending, you support the deficit that made it possible. Your logic lacks, well, logic. There are millions of government funded items that account for deficit spending. There always has been and there always will be.

Bush's deficit was not $1.2 trillion dollars unless you assign responsibility for TARP to him, but the TARP bill that passed was written by the Dems in Congress, not by Bush, and that Dem bill would not have passed if not for Obama's support for it. Do you really imagine the Dems in Congress would have undercut Obama's credibility as a leader in the middle of a presidential election by opposing the bill when Obama supported it? Would they have undercut his credibility as a leader by supporting the bill if he had opposed it? It is clear that even if Bush had opposed the final bill, it would have passed through Congress because of Obama's support for it. It was Obama's TARP bill that Bush finally signed, and this is why when Obama whines that he inherited the deficit from Bush, he is clearly lying.

Okay, sick of arguing. You believe TARP was a waste, and most economists would say you are dead wrong. So let's hear how YOU would have saved the financial institutions, if at all.

Normal businesses that used bad business practices which allowed them to go under SHOULD have to take their own lickings, but as dirty as the deals were that caused the gigantic banks to fail, they could not be allowed to take the rest of the country down with them.

The issue was how much responsibility for the deficit created by TARP Obama bears. I take it that your insistence on defending TARP means you agree that Obama bears major responsibility for that part of the deficit, and since he clearly bears full responsibility for the deficit created by his stimulus plan, there can be no question but that he is lying when he says he inherited the deficit.

I do defend the TARP money, and I do defend the stimulus plan. I never claimed that Obama held no responsibility for adding to the deficit by his own complicity. That, however, was NOT the way you initially phrased it.

 

[MaggieMae]

Under normal circumstances (in the absence of a major economic downturn nationwide), a government sponsored health care bill would not be considered irresponsible. Accept that fact because eventually it WILL happen.

That's what was said when Clinton was President, and he almost had a shot at it, but f*ked it up. Now what makes you think that Obama, who hasn't a clue, and seems to be doing everything in his power to f*k it up even worse, is going to make it happen?

Um, because he DOES "have a clue"?? Health care reform may well be put on the back burner once again, but the focus today is far more intense than it was when the Clintons were trying to do it.

 

[MaggieMae]

Nobody knows what will finally pass, but we do know that Obama's health insurance proposal during his campaign was estimated to cost between $1.4 trillion and $1.8 trillion and that the CBO has estimated the Kennedy-Dodd bill to cost $1 trillion and the Senate Finance committee's bill to cost $1.6 trillion. However, I do agree with you that Congress may yet come to its senses and rein in Obama's reckless and irresponsible spending spree.

Under normal circumstances (in the absence of a major economic downturn nationwide), a government sponsored health care bill would not be considered irresponsible. Accept that fact because eventually it WILL happen.

Yet again, you appear to be deeply confused about this issue. The amounts referred to have nothing to do with creating a public plan. These huge amounts of money would go to provide subsidies to middle class people who already have health insurance and to a lesser extent to provide insurance to some of the uninsured poor. It appears clear now that a public plan will not pass the Senate, but there appears to be bipartisan support for developing co-ops, a better option than a government run plan in every way.

What is reckless and irresponsible about Obama is that he is proposing spending trillions of dollars we don't have at a time when how long the recession will last is a matter of speculation and when most economists expect the recovery from this recession to be very slow. Every trillion of dollars of new debt Obama creates will obligate US taxpayers to pay between $30 billion and $50 billion in interest every year forever. Since much of this debt will be owned by foreign investors and countries like China, Japan, Arab oil countries, this is $30 billion to $50 billion that will leave the US economy every year forever never to return.

It is reckless and irresponsible of Obama to demand that this be done quickly instead of carefully, especially at a time when we have no idea if we will be able to afford these enormous costs any time in the near future. Obama says that if this isn't done now, it will never be done, just more Obama fear mongering, but he is correct that the longer voters think about the cost of enormous amount of debt he wants to create, the less likely it is they will approve of it.

I'm not "confused" about anything. First off, we STILL don't know what any health care reform program would even look like yet, so all the assumptions being batted around are basically moot at this point.

Second, I've said a few times I think right in this thread that I think health care reform WILL NOT pass this year BECAUSE OF it's enormous startup cost in the face of an already deteriorating economy. That does NOT, however, preclude me from believing that one is absolutely, positively necessary or we will soon see millionnaires pissing and moaning over the skyrocketing cost of their OWN premiums. It is that out of control.

Perhaps it is you who needs to actually read up on some statistics rather than picking your argument based solely on opinion pages.