A Matter Of Opinion

Monday’s Loose Thread

Posted by Gary at 9:30 a.m. on October 26 Comments (97)

Green Bluff. Pumpkin doughnuts. Get on it.

What’s on your mind today (other than a Carpenters’ song)

97 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

Arch_Druid on October 26 at 10:37 a.m.
The Jonah Goldberg column of this morning concerning incivility. No, he says that's democracy in action. Point 1. When did guys like him start believing in democracy? Point 2. Why wasn't it also democratic when the opposition expressed incivility toward GW during his administration?

Politics, the new hypocrisy r us.

Flag as inappropriate
omaha on October 26 at 10:49 a.m.
AD: Hypocrisy is a double-edged sword. I seem to recall that a couple of years ago “dissent is patriotic” was the motto of the left. I don't hear that too much these days, in fact these days the left sounds a lot like the Republicans did a few years ago.

It is all politics, which happens to be loud and messy.

Flag as inappropriate
omaha on October 26 at 10:52 a.m.
Hey Gary, I was was reading the newspaper circulation statistics in Editor & Publisher at http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ean…

What are the numbers for the Spokesman-Review?

Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on October 26 at 10:58 a.m.
That would be entirely correct. This country is built entirely on dissent, no matter who becomes the majority party; there is going to be a political opposition. I do not and will not disagree with legitimate dissent. If the GOP have a legitimate dissent about Democratic majorities (and they did at one time) then they had as much right to voice their views about what they deemed wrong about that party. However, when the GOP were no longer a minority party and largely followed the same language, the same tactics and the same conclusions of the party they had constantly maligned; they also lost a degree of credibility by their doing so.

Not so long ago, this was a Republic to guys like Jonah Goldberg. Now it is a democracy when those of my ilk are no longer in power and seeking to regain it.

Wrong, it is a Republic with an institutionalized representative democracy.

Flag as inappropriate
Lewis on October 26 at 11:30 a.m.
You know everything is going to hell when.

. Do you have kids? Have you ever went through the I want the front seat! Well now days in our governments wisdom the kids can’t sit in the front seat. So what does a mom do when the kids are screaming front seat front seat and they are already running late. So you put both of them in the front, and drive them to school only to discover this is the day the cops are waiting on the sidewalk as you pull up at school. $1500 dollar fine means no food, clothes, books, health care and shelter for a month.

Come on, sidewalk patrols, school seat belt patrols. What am I paying them a hundred grand a year for I could hire a coupe 20 year olds to do that job. Where is the big gang problem they keep complaining about?

If they have their way they will be inspecting our hands to make sure we washed after going to the toilet.

Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on October 26 at 11:34 a.m.
Omaha,

It's like my investments. Don't have the courage to look.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/a…

Flag as inappropriate
Cindy H on October 26 at 1:01 p.m.
I believe we already discussed possible solutions to boost newspaper circulation. They involved, birds, fresh fish and kidnapping.
Let's get busy folks.
*Who knew the Carpenters recorded a song about pumpkin donuts?*

Flag as inappropriate
richard on October 26 at 1:35 p.m.
In July the administration predicted there would be 160 million doses of H1N1 vacination by the time the flu season began (mid-October to mid-November).

In the meantime we have become accustomed to government officials at the White House or the CDC, etc telling us that this is a very serious pandemic that is developing.

We then learned - if we dug deep enough in the right places - that we will only have 40 million doses available when the season begins.

In the last couple of weeks the vacine was distributed to localities across the country and people began to make plans to get the shot.

Then we heard - but usually only through local news speaking only about the local situatuion, that there were not enough doses to cover everyone and that you can't get the shots (except for only a few exceptions) at your doctor's office or a hospital, but that you to stand in line for hours in cool, damp weather to be able to get the shot.

On Friday, Obama tells us the Swine Flu has created a “national emergency, ” urging people that they must get vacinatied.

In dribs and drabs, we learned that there really was only 28 million doses of the vacine; and then we heard that the “actual” number of doses available was 11 million.

So for the past few months we have been confronted with a growing concern on the part of the CDC that there will be a major outbreak of Swine flu and that certain people are at higher risk than others. We are told not to be concerned because there will be 160 million doses byt the time flu season begins. It then became 40 million doses, then 28 million and now 11 million.

In some communities there is not enough for the high risk population, including pregnant women and there is much confusion about what people really should be doing to get vacinated … and now the flu season is upon us and we witnesses people standing in long lines out side over the weekend.

Does anyone see a pattern here?

Serious health care issue - - - government. Government - - - serious health care issue.

No matter how well intentioned the federal government is … it is notorious for screwing things up. And now there are milluions of people who still want to turn the entire health care system over to government . . .

Why is that some people just cannot understand what happens when huge bureacracies with huge amounts of our tax money try toi tackle serious and large problems … that it is just a disaster waiting to take shape? Not because they are bad people or they have bad intentions … it is just the nature of the beast.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on October 26 at 2:58 p.m.
Omaha,

According to ABC, the S-R's circ (daily & Sunday) was 107,295 as of March, 2009.

http://abcas3.accessabc.com/ecirc/new…

I believe it was 120,000 only 2 years ago, but I don't have a source for that.

Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on October 26 at 3:49 p.m.
Those numbers look rosy. That 120k would have to be Sunday only.

Don't have latest, though I'm told we're down 11 percent from this time last year.

We have as many or more readers than ever. Just as the music industry has as many listeners than ever.

The dropoff is in paying customers and advertisers.

Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on October 26 at 3:57 p.m.
<<*Who knew the Carpenters recorded a song about pumpkin donuts?*>

Hangin around, nothing to do but chow
Rainy Days and Mondays always get me down.

Flag as inappropriate
richard on October 26 at 7:09 p.m.
Gary, is that “down 11%” in readership, or 11% in revenues? I guess I didn't realize things wre that bad.

I am disheartened by that. I had no idea the losses were accrueing that rapidly.

Flag as inappropriate
Lewis on October 26 at 8:05 p.m.
Written by Robert A. Hall is a Marine Vietnam veteran who served five terms in the Massachusetts state senate. He blogs at www.tartanmarine.blogspot.com

I’ll be 63 soon. Except for one semester in college when jobs were scarce, and a six-month period when I was between jobs but job-hunting every day, I’ve worked hard since I was 18. Despite some health challenges, I still put in 50-hour weeks and haven’t called in sick in seven or eight years. I make a good salary, but I didn’t inherit my job or my income, and I worked to get where I am. Given the economy, there’s no retirement in sight, and I’m tired. Very tired.

I’m tired of being told that I have to “spread the wealth around” to people who don’t have my work ethic. I’m tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy or stupid to earn it.

I’m tired of being told that I have to pay more taxes to “keep people in their homes.” Sure, if they lost their jobs or got sick, I’m willing to help. But if they bought McMansions at three times the price of our paid-off, $250,000 condo, on one-third of my salary, then let the leftwing Congress critters who passed Fannie and Freddie and the Community Reinvestment Act that created the bubble help them—with their own money.

I’m tired of being told how bad America is by leftwing millionaires like Michael Moore, George Soros and Hollywood entertainers who live in luxury because of the opportunities America offers. In thirty years, if they get their way, the United States will have the religious freedom of Iran, the economy of Zimbabwe, the freedom of the press of China, the crime and violence of Mexico, and the freedom of speech of Venezuela. Won’t multiculturalism be wonderful?

I’m tired of being told that Islam is a “Religion of Peace,” when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family “honor;” of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren’t “believers;” of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death for “adultery;” of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur’an and Shari's law tells them to.

I believe “a man should be judged by the content of his character, not by the color of his skin.” I’m tired of being told that “race doesn’t matter” in the post-racial world of President Obama, when it’s all that matters in affirmative action jobs, lower college admission and graduation standards for minorities (harming them the most), government contract set-asides, tolerance for the ghetto culture of violence and fatherless children that hurts minorities more than anyone, and in the appointment of U.S. Senators from Illinois. I think it’s very cool that we have a black president and that a black child is doing her homework at the desk where Lincoln wrote the emancipation proclamation. I just wish the black president was Condi Rice, Alan Keys, or someone who believes more in freedom and the individual and less in an all-knowing government. I believe the arrogance of refusing to produce a valid birth certificate is beyond reprehensible and criminal

I’m tired of a news media that thinks Bush’s fundraising and inaugural expenses were obscene, but that think Obama’s, at triple the cost, were wonderful. That thinks Bush exercising daily was a waste of presidential time, but Obama exercising is a great example for the public to control weight and stress; that picked over every line of Bush’s military records, but never demanded that Kerry release his; that slammed Palin with two years as governor for being too inexperienced for VP, but touted Obama with three years as senator as potentially the best president ever.

Flag as inappropriate
Lewis on October 26 at 8:07 p.m.
Continued

Wonder why people are dropping their newspaper subscriptions or switching to Fox News? Get a clue.

I’m tired of being told that out of “tolerance for other cultures” we must let Saudi Arabia use our oil money to fund mosques and madrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in America, while no American group is allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia to teach love and tolerance.

I’m tired of being told I must lower my living standard to fight global warming, which no one is allowed to debate. My wife and I live in a two-bedroom apartment and carpool together five miles to our jobs. We also own a three-bedroom condo where our daughter and granddaughter live. Our carbon footprint is about 5% of Al Gore’s, and if you’re greener than Gore, you’re green enough.

I’m tired of being told that drug addicts have a disease, and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up their noses while they tried to fight it off? I don’t think homosexual people choose to be homosexual, but I damn sure think druggies chose to take drugs.

I’m tired of illegal aliens being called “undocumented workers,” especially the ones who aren’t working, but are living on welfare or crime. What’s next? Calling drug dealers “undocumented pharmacists?” And, no, I’m not against Hispanics. Most of them are Catholic and it’s been a few hundred years since Catholics wanted to kill me for my religion. I’m willing to fast-track citizenship for any Hispanic person who can speak English, doesn’t have a criminal record and who is self-supporting without family on welfare, or who serves honorably for three years in our military. Those are the citizens we need.

I’m tired of latte liberals and journalists, who would never wear the uniform of the Republic themselves, or let their entitlement-handicapped kids near a recruiting station, trashing our military. They and their kids can sit at home, never having to make split-second decisions under life and death circumstances, and bad mouth better people than themselves. Do bad things happen in war? You bet. Do our troops sometimes misbehave? Sure. Does this compare with the atrocities that were the policy of our enemies for the last 50 years — and still are? Not even close.

So here’s the deal. I’ll let myself be subjected to all the humiliation and abuse that was heaped on terrorists at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, and the critics can let themselves be subject to captivity by the Muslims who tortured and beheaded Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, or the Muslims who tortured and murdered Marine Lt. Col. William Higgins in Lebanon, or the Muslims who ran the blood-spattered Al Qaeda torture rooms our troops found in Iraq, or the Muslims who cut off the heads of schoolgirls in Indonesia because the girls were Christian. Then we’ll compare notes. British and American soldiers are the only troops in history that civilians came to for help and handouts, instead of hiding from in fear.

I’m tired of people telling me that their party has a corner on virtue and the other party has a corner on corruption. Read the papers — bums are bipartisan. And I’m tired of people telling me we need bipartisanship. I live in Illinois, where the “Illinois Combine” of Democrats and Republicans has worked together harmoniously to loot the public for years. And I notice that the tax cheats in Obama’s cabinet are bipartisan as well.

I’m tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians of both parties talking about innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was getting caught.

I’m tired of people with a sense of entitlement, rich or poor.

Flag as inappropriate
Lewis on October 26 at 8:08 p.m.
continued

Speaking of poor, I’m tired of hearing people with air-conditioned homes, color TVs and two cars called poor. The majority of Americans didn’t have that in 1970, but we didn’t know we were “poor.” The poverty pimps have to keep changing the definition of poor to keep the dollars flowing.

I’m real tired of people who don’t take responsibility for their lives and actions. I’m tired of hearing them blame the government, or discrimination, or big-whatever for their problems.

Yes, I’m damn tired. But I’m also glad to be 63. Because, mostly, I’m not going to get to see the world these people are making. I’m just sorry for my granddaughter.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on October 26 at 8:20 p.m.
People don't appreciate the extent to which newspapers are the front-line fact-gatherers. Their predicament parallels, as Gary C suggests, that of the music industry. Once the facts of a story are gathered, then bloggers and other online messengers can disseminate it, just as they can distribute music once it is produced. But unless there is someone sitting in on City Council meetings, Park Board meetings, County Commissioner meetings, attending sessions of the legislature, listening to police and fire radio chatter, keeping tabs on economic activities, following candidates around during campaigns, and so on, there will be no news for the bloggers to repeat – at least, no news reported by persons trained as observers, interviewers, or investigators. News becomes indistinguishable from gossip.

I'm sure there remains a market for a competently produced news product, but it is probably not a mass market. That means it cannot rely primarily on advertising revenues to cover its costs. Newspapers will have to find their market niche, discover what subscribers are willing to pay for, and then charge them accordingly. They'll also have to emulate the music and film industries and vigorously defend their copyrights.

Flag as inappropriate
spokelooneh on October 27 at 12:29 a.m.
“People don't appreciate the extent to which newspapers are the front-line fact-gatherers. Their predicament parallels, as Gary C suggests, that of the music industry. Once the facts of a story are gathered, then bloggers and other online messengers can disseminate it, just as they can distribute music once it is produced. But unless there is someone sitting in on City Council meetings, Park Board meetings, County Commissioner meetings, attending sessions of the legislature, listening to police and fire radio chatter, keeping tabs on economic activities, following candidates around during campaigns, and so on, there will be no news for the bloggers to repeat – at least, no news reported by persons trained as observers, interviewers, or investigators. News becomes indistinguishable from gossip.”

Agreed, and well said. The watch-dog function of the news media has largely been eliminated or supplanted. The average American would rather consume a vapid, scripted “Reality Show” than talk to their neighbor, let alone go to a City Council meeting and speak their piece of mind.

So that kind of puts a dent in Newspapers' “attractiveness” in today's market. The masses have chosen, unfortunately, but chosen they have, to spend their precious dollar and attention on meaningless TV shows rather than local civic news events the beat reporters that USED TO be around covered.

Could be apathy, could be ignorance; take your pick.

Flag as inappropriate
spoketucky on October 27 at 9:31 a.m.
richie: I agree the government screws up everything it touches. Just look at Iraq and Afghanistan if you want prime examples. In the case of Afghanistan, however, there are more private contractor's “boots” on the ground than there are military personnel. It seems it takes a whole host of specialists to remotely control drones being used to assassinate lower level Al Qaeda henchmen, in clear violation of congressional edicts and international law. It seems the Obama administration prefers that type of sanitized murder as they've authorized more drone strikes in the last four months than the Bush administration did in its final three years. Of course that is also my idea of national sacrifice during wartime, where my hands don't get dirty, I don't have to send my children off to fight unless they want to and my taxes go down. Now that's how you fight a war!

I have an idea for the newspaper business that might work. All the remaining daily papers should combine into a half dozen uber news conglomerations and then float the idea that they are “too big to fail.” Then they can line up for a trip on the gravy train.

Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on October 27 at 10:21 a.m.
Gmorton and spoklooneh,

Can't add much to what you've said. I joined in 1997, and we had twice as many journalists. Think it will be a case of “don't what you've got till it's gone.”

Richard, the 11 percent figure is paid circulation. Don't know the revenue number, but you can extrapolate from the layoffs that it isn't upbeat.

Lewis,

Believe it or not, but most people aren't as animated by politics as you are. Newspapers have been in decline for the 26 years I've been in the business. First, it was TV. Now, it's the Internet.

The ones you might consider politically proper or journalistically sound haven't haven't figured out how to monetize the Web either.

When people expect free, then it's tough. It's not like we can tour like a band to make up the difference.

Gmorton may be on to something, though I wonder if each community has enough people that would support such a niche product via subscriptions. It would be difficult to sustain, I would think, while paying a decent salary to the contributors.

But maybe it could work. I'm hardly an expert.

Appreciate the thoughts of everyone on this topic.

Flag as inappropriate
Lulubelle on October 27 at 1:35 p.m.
As much as I like to cruise around online for my news & views, I will never give up my morning 'hands on” newspaper. I regret what cut backs have done to investigative journalism and the newspaper business in general, but think that the newsprint & ink version of news and information is an important part of the fabric of our lives and can never be replaced. Although I must admit I cancelled my subscription for a few months after both of the Bush endorsements.

Flag as inappropriate
richard on October 27 at 1:41 p.m.
Glad to see that we can agree on something, Spoke. (Although I doubt that was the purpose of your posting.

I really wasn't talking about the military when I made reference to government FUBAR's. One really can't equate the dalliances of bureacrats in the education or health care realms with decisions and actions made by military personnel defending this nation and its interests and people.

War is hell! isn't just a catchy phrase; it is an absolute. There is nothing positive in having to fight and kill … beyond the obvious purposes to defend and protect.

Government taking over health care - as we are currently seeing with Swine flu - can be quite entertaining because it is so frought with “stupid mimicing dumb” decisions and actions. if it wasn't such a serious issue, it would be as humorous as watching the Keystone Cops.

The bigger the agency, the silly things get.

But hey, I am just a knucklehead right-winger who has worked intimately for decades with bureacracies; what could I possibly know.

Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on October 27 at 1:44 p.m.
Veterans are “saddled” with government care. Better to hand them a voucher and see what kind of deal they can get with private insurance?

Those pre-existing conditions might be a hurdle.

Flag as inappropriate
richard on October 27 at 7:04 p.m.
You really must stop repeating that canard that the Veterans Administration is giving good helath care to our veterans.

The true story is much less harmonious than the one you and much of media put out there. Ask the veterans. I know many veterans and while some are more satisfied in the recent years with the Spokane facility, that has to do with a relatively new administrator - not the bureaucracy.

Have you talked with veterans? Or are you merely relying on reports of new computer systems that make it more efficient (which humans then turn inefficient).

And when you talk to them and ask if they are satisfied with the care, be sure to ask … compared to what? Having to pay for the treatments out of their own pockets? Well, of course they are going to say it is “great.”

This is a circular argument because it is the premises where the disagreements emerge. It is the differing philosophies that are non-compromising.

gmorton defined it succinctly in another thread; there are the passive-statists and there are the free-marketers, and I am afraid that gap will not be bridged by “persuasive” arguments.

There is a war out there and the cynical pleadings for “civility” only serve the interests of the passive statists at this juncture. those pleadings certainly fell on deaf-ears over much of the past 8 years and well beyond that, as aptly clarified by Jonah Goldberg.

i will await for continuing commentary on civility with the exposure of Allen Grayson saying Republicans want to “kill you' and calling a female lobbyist a “K-street whore.”

But I won't hold my breath!

May truth prevail in the current and future battles over the integrity and future of this nation.

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on October 28 at 3:47 a.m.
From The American Journal of Managed Care:

–— Performance improvement and achievement have similarly occurred in the areas of disease treatment encompassed by more than 20 clinical practice guidelines such as coronary artery disease, heart failure, diabetes, and major depressive disorder. Increasingly, VA performance compares favorably with the best performers in areas where performance is, in fact, measured and performance data are available (Table 2).

Veterans are increasingly satisfied by changes in the VA health system. On the American Customer Satisfaction Index, the VA bested the private sector's mean healthcare score of 68 on a 100-point scale, with scores of 80 for ambulatory care, 81 for inpatient care, and 83 for pharmacy services for the past 3 years. Similar improvements have been achieved in each value domain. –—

http://www.ajmc.com/issue/managed-car…

Flag as inappropriate
spoketucky on October 28 at 7:48 a.m.
richard: I used the VA for my health care services while completing a B.A. and M.A.E. and received nothing but efficient and thoughtful care. I was very impressed with their organization and professionalism.

Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on October 28 at 9:04 a.m.
I disregard Lewis' cut and paste of the dissatisfied Marine for a reason. The dude put on a uniform to defend this country. Excuse me, not selective members of this country, the people he happens to agree with, but rather the nation. After all, when I put on a uniform, it was at a time when book burning was in vogue. Yet, defending their right to deny freedoms to others had to be included in why I joined the U.S. Army. There were after all, worse threats out there.

So, why did the guy join the Marines if he ultimately hates at least half of his fellow citizens?

As for “Richard's” rants about screwed up gvt provided health care—The Swine Flu had been floating around for better than a year, Tammiflu (sic) was still in its development stages while GW was still in office and the fear of a pandemic was around long before GW would ultimately be replaced by Obama. Given the fact that the gvt itself doesn't provide flu vaccines and instead contracts with private enterprise for these vaccines—the blame for the slow pace of the availability for the vaccine can be more correctly placed with the private contractors among big pharma than with the gvt itself. Which also argues that probably you can't trust the “free market” to be the end all and be all of health care cures. After all, Reagan's foaming over cost over-runs charged to the gvt by private military contractors… Not much difference between then and now.

Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on October 28 at 10:07 a.m.
Richard,

Why aren't conservatives clamoring to get vets into private insurance? Don't they care about their well-being? Don't they deserve it?

What does the swine flu shortage tell us? That if we did it like Europe, we'd wouldn't be in this mess. Instead, the feds have given into the fearmongering and irrational complaints about vaccination.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001…

Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on October 28 at 10:09 a.m.
Oops. Wrong link. That one is why Fox News is different. You should read that, too.

Here is the link on swine flu.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001…

Flag as inappropriate
richard on October 28 at 1:00 p.m.
<<Instead, the feds have given into the fearmongering and irrational complaints about vaccination.>>

That is your defense of the manner which government handled the outbreak? They were “snookered” into being cautious?

Well, why did they do that? It seems only reasonable that we should follow Europe.

I have to believe that some of the so-called “fearmongering” had to come from the scientific community and policy-makers within the CDC.

But, I stand corrected in that there seems to be valid reasons why a shortage of the vacine developed; but why were we not notified of that? Instead, over the past couple of weeks, we were told to get the shots immediately, only to find out from our doctors that they don't have it and from local officials that we will need to go stand in line.

There are some similarities in this gvt response and that of when Katrina hit. But when New Orleans was devestated, we heard that Bush was a racist when, I suppose, he and Laura put on scuba equipment and set off explosive devices to blow up the levy so it would devestate the 9th ward thus killing blacks!

i mean … really?

We have had 1000 deaths from the flu, but no one is bursting their spleen saying Obama doesn't care that people are dieing.

It kind of goes back to the “civility” thing.

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on October 28 at 1:12 p.m.
AD,

–— Given the fact that the gvt itself doesn't provide flu vaccines and instead contracts with private enterprise for these vaccines—the blame for the slow pace of the availability for the vaccine can be more correctly placed with the private contractors among big pharma than with the gvt itself.–—

Interesting. So could it be said that if the government failed in this instance, it was a failure to adequately monitor (one is tempted to say 'regulate') the behavior of the private sector?

“Damned if they do. Damned if they don't”?

Flag as inappropriate
richard on October 28 at 3:52 p.m.
No, Jeff … you are once again fialing to focus on the question at hand and instead, taking it to some other place of your own design.

I am quite sure there are regulations for the pharaceuticals who make vacines. that isn't the point.

The point is, regardless of who makes the vacine, it is the delivery system (government) which has failed. In this case, we were made promises by government … and they failed to deliver. And they did so without keeping the public aware of the timelines involved and the numbers of doses becoming available, and when!.

From what I gather, local officials were not even made aware of the snafu, and they fell victim to the feds promises as well.

It is called transparency on the part of the federal government; something that was supposed to be corrected with the inauguration of Barack Obama.

<<Damned if they do. Damned if they don't>>

Not quite, I don't think there would be any issue if the 160 million doses as promised, were actually delivered as promised … or even the 40 million doses.

And i don't blame Obama … it is just the nature of huge government, and why I am always concerned when government says it will “fix the problem;” whatever that problem may be.

Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on October 28 at 4:37 p.m.
If the vaccine isn't ready in time, then it isn't ready in time. The government was preparing for a bird flu pandemic, not this. No government predicted this.

It's as if Katrina landed in California instead.

A correct prediction — based on what the five labs said — wouldn't have gotten the vaccine here sooner, unless we took Euro-type shortcuts, which would've set off a different set of complaints.

It's the nature of vaccine production.

Government has to fix this. No other entity can. Same with health care, because the private sector will not take on so many people with chronic conditions and pre-existing conditions.

Government is more involved in health care in other countries. And the delivery of HC is more efficient. More value for the buck.

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on October 28 at 4:53 p.m.
–— The point is, regardless of who makes the vaccine, it is the delivery system (government) which has failed. –—

How can the government fail to deliver something that doesn't exist?

Richard, it's the same point I've made several times now. I agree that there were significant failures by Big Government in this whole debacle. “The Rock imperiling from the left.”

But you are so clearly determined to steer clear of that perceived danger that you seem hell bent determined to run us aground on the “The Hard Place imperiling us from the right”: Big Business.

Flag as inappropriate
richard on October 28 at 6:59 p.m.
Jeff; I have a difficult time understanding some of your analogies, especially the, “Hard place imperiling us from the right.”

What are you trying to say? It is much easier to understand - without misconstuing - when you speak directly. I get the drift of what you are saying, but I don't know what the “Hard Place” is, and I sure don't understand where we have been “imperilled.”

Take the left and right out; big organizations, be it government, corporations, etc. are mostly, by nature, lumbering, bureaucratic (inefficient), arrogant, impervious to all but its own agenda.

And both you and Gary excused government officials in the vacine debacle, because, as you say, it was the fault of the pharmicuetical companies for not delivering it on time. But you both fail to understand that it was the CDC, or other government officials, who directed the vacine makers to not take the Euro-shortcuts and not the other way around.

Besides, if government would have just let the nation, the people and the local officials know months ago that wouldn't make their production quotas, we would not have had millions of people nation-wide expecting to get vacinated this past week only to be told (many while standing in lines in October) there was a “shortage.”

There was no shortage (which seems to infer that some unavoidable problem cause the shortfall), someone knew - or should have known - months ago that they weren't going to be delivering in mid-October what they had previously promised.

It is silly - if not disengenuous - to deflect the cause of this to some pharmaceutical company whose only function was to provide what the government ordered. I haven't heard anyone say that they missed production quotas.

Come on, man-up here. This is another in the long and winding road of government screw-ups. They get some things right now and then, but not as a rule.

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on October 29 at 4:19 a.m.
Richard,

I stand by my prior comment.

Yes, the government fouled up. I freely admit it. The plain facts make any other conclusion absurd upon its face. But see, I can say, “Yes they fouled up so no they aren't perfect. But they don't have to be perfect. They just have to correct the mistake and do better next time.”

Now can you admit that Big Business fouled up just as badly and bears just as much blame for this mess?

Or have you passed the point where you can see more than one side to the issue and more than one villain who has to be made to bear all the blame for all this nation's problems ?

The 'commentators' you routinely parrot can't. Their agenda is far too entrenched and far too simplistically black and white to allow anything more than shrill screams of 'It's all *THEIR* fault!!'

Can you rise above that?

Frankly, I'm betting the answer is 'no.' So here's a golden opportunity to prove me wrong.

Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on October 29 at 6:50 a.m.
If the gvt were currently being run by McCain, there is no greater a likelihood that the vaccines would have gotten here on time either. Or even in the available doses. And I am sure that McCain would have been making a whole lot of excuses for big pharma that didn't deliver even as he would have cut funding for the CDC.

So? Would “Richard” have shrugged his shoulders at a GOP over seen gvt screw up?

Flag as inappropriate
richard on October 29 at 12:57 p.m.

I don’t care for big business anymore than big government … but big business doesn’t intrude into my life unless I allow it. You can’t say that about big government.

There is blame all around in this screw-up (I never said there wasn’t), but business was only doing the bidding of government, which set the rules, the timelines, the quantities, the formulas … and it was government who told us collectively … “there is a national emergency and you could die, but not to worry because WE (big government) have resolved the problem and all you have to do is show up at your doctor or a clinic and get a shot.”

Wrong!

And just who are these commentators you say I parrot? And just what is their “agenda,” as you so casually allege? Bet you can’t – or won’t – answer that.

Don’t get so excited; my whole point was to demonstrate another example of how big government usually intrudes into our lives with promises of making it better – and raising our taxes accordingly – often times making things worse and wasting billions of dollars.

Of course government does good and it gets things right … but not when it fundamentally alters society with its social engineering while wasting billions of dollars.

No one should ever forget the utter devastation caused to the “Black family” by the Great Society programs of LBJ. It destroyed the essence of the black family and the generational damage is still adversely affecting blacks some 60 years later.

But you don’t even want to consider that it is the same forces of paternalism which created the disastrous “War on Poverty,” which are also present in the health care grab by big government.

That is your choice – but don’t tell me I am wrong because I try to offer a warning. I am just amessenger.

And no, Druid … I wouldn't shrug my shoulders if there was a big government screw up, no matter whyo was president.

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on October 29 at 2:11 p.m.
I didn't think so.

Flag as inappropriate
richard on November 02 at 11:22 p.m.
So sorry, Jeff … don't you just hate it when people don't behave like you want them to … or when they give a response you don't like and you have no response to.

And you didn't identify the commentators I “parrot” - just as I predicted.

Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on November 05 at 7:06 p.m.
“Richard,” the very fact that you are on-line suggests that big business must have intruded somewhere. You had to turn to them to get the old pc or laptop and then turn to them again to get the DSL, broadband or dialup. You also have to turn to big business to put groceries in your house. Big business to buy your house. Big business to buy your property. And big business intruded to shut down Napster and force that “free music download” .com to make people pay for the tunes. Or it was piracy.

Have you any idea just how much you went off the deep end on this? OK!?! That was the funniest post you have put out to date.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 05 at 10:11 p.m.
Arch_druid wrote,

““Richard,” the very fact that you are on-line suggests that big business must have intruded somewhere.”

Hmmm. Apparently you don't know what “intruded” means, either. If Richard asks Comcast to supply him with broadband, Comcast has not “intruded” into his life. It has been invited. Government intrudes into his life, however, when it tacks $10/month onto his bill in order to subsidize broadband connections for some of Al Gore's former constituents. The government and those free lunchers have *not* been invited. They have *intruded” into a transaction where they were not invited and are not welcome. By force.

Get it?

Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on November 06 at 7:54 p.m.
And a credit card company that uses gvt to sue an account holder for not paying their bills doesn't “intrude” I suppose, GMorton? Musicians that are part of the music industry don't “intrude” to shut down Napster because they didn't get major profits from freely shared music? Comcast fighting with satellite companies as to what they can or can not broadcast doesn't “intrude” into what you can or can not watch as part of a package deal? WalMart doesn't “intrude” that shuts down mom and pop stores where ever it builds and under cuts their profits by cheaper (so-called) goods?

If you find yourself a monopoly situation where only a few conglomerates provide all the services, there is indeed considerable intrusion. So excuse me.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 07 at 3:16 p.m.
Arch_druid wrote,

“And a credit card company that uses gvt to sue an account holder for not paying their bills doesn't “intrude” I suppose, GMorton?”

No, Arch. That is what the courts are for – to enable citizens to enforce contracts and recover damages for injuries. As long as you honor your contracts and do not injure others, government will not intrude into your life (in a free society).

“Musicians that are part of the music industry don't “intrude” to shut down Napster because they didn't get major profits from freely shared music?”

No, Arch. The music Napster distributed was not “freely shared.” It was stolen from the artists who created it. If you intrude into someone else's life by stealing their property, you can expect the government to intrude into yours. Assuming there is a rule of law.

“WalMart doesn't “intrude” that shuts down mom and pop stores where ever it builds and under cuts their profits by cheaper (so-called) goods?”

Er, no, Arch. Walmart has never shut down a single Mom & Pop store. Their owners have shut them down after their customers opted to shop at Walmart, because selection was better and prices were lower. Every one of those transactions is voluntary; no one has “intruded” into any one else's affairs, no one has exerted force against anyone else. An “intrusion” does not occur until some of those Mom & Pop proprietors persuade the gummint to prevent Walmart – by force – from building a store, thereby preventing those customers – by force – from shopping where they prefer to shop.

You really don't understand what “intrude” means, do you?

No one has any duty to do business with you, Arch. You have no duty to do business with anyone else. In a free society anyone may do business with any other willing person. An *intruder* is someone who interferes, by force, with those voluntary relationships. It is not the person who engages in them.

Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on November 08 at 7:41 a.m.
That was one hilarious and off the wall post, GMorton. You have a very limited view of “intrusion” that is; how it “harms you,” then you engage in hilarious and liberal excuse making when it comes to other people.

Excuse me, but define “stealing.” Once music has been on air for more than a few months then there comes a point when it drops off the charts. Napster when it shared music by musicians that had been out for a while certainly revived interest in both the music and the artists. The artists not being satisfied with that, then complained of “stealing” and demanded royalty payments for music that was then being downloaded for free. At what point does music enter the public domain? I have music which I have bought that was copied over and over and over again from a great many artists and distributed on tape or CD that was fairly cheap. If “royalty demands” such as were favored by current artists had applied to those cheap CDs, the CDs would then have cost what, 60 or 70 dollars?

WalMart does intrude, GMorton by having a so-called lower cost and “greater selection” that makes it impossible for many mom and pop stores to compete in your beloved “free market” society. If intrusion is to cause injury then injury IS caused by reduced competition. WalMart then becomes the only place where people CAN do business after most competition has ceased to exist. But that doesn't mean that WalMart has BETTER selections than might have been found anywhere else. Nor are they LOWER COST comparable to say Safeway, Albertsons, Super One, or Fred Meyers. But then, I look at the ads.

And would I find at WalMart specialty items that I might have instead found at mom and pop stores that ultimately went out of business? Not necessarily. Would I have quality products from WalMart that I might get from mom and pop stores before they went out of business? Not necessarily. And where WalMart entertains “religious objections” to stocking certain items and those are in fact the items I am in fact seeking, then I'd have a problem shopping in WalMart, where it in fact was the only viable game in town. I'd be out of luck getting the product I desired.

If “intrusion” harms, GMorton, get with the program, there are many forms of “intrusion” that does in fact harm.

And by the way, I am no longer doing business with certain companies beyond settling original debt.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 08 at 1:59 p.m.
Arch_druid wrote,

“Excuse me, but define “stealing.””

Do I really have to do that? You don't know what that term means?

“At what point does music enter the public domain? ”

For works created after 1/1/1978: life of the longest surviving author plus 70 years.

For works registered before 1/1/1978: 95 years from the date copyright was secured.

No music published after 1923 is yet in the public domain, unless the artist has released the copyright.

http://www.pdinfo.com/copyrt.php

You seem to think music enters the public domain once it is “off the charts.” That has nothing to do with it, Arch.

Music is the product of someone's labor, just as is a house, a painting, or a piano. When you buy a music CD you are not buying the music; you are buying a license to listen to it, just as you do when you buy a ticket to a concert. That license conveys no rights to copy or redistribute it. If you are doing either of those with it, you are stealing.

I guess I do have to define “stealing.” Stealing: taking the property of another without the owner's permission. If you are taking music written and performed by someone else without those artists' permission, you are stealing their property, the products of their labor. If you are in possession of music stolen by someone else, you are in possession of stolen property.

“WalMart does intrude, GMorton by having a so-called lower cost and “greater selection” that makes it impossible for many mom and pop stores to compete in your beloved “free market” society.”

“So-called” lower costs? The lower costs are easily documented, Arch. The adjective is gratuitous. And no doubt they do make it impossible for some Mom & Pop stores to compete. So what? You seem to assume that their customers have some duty to continue to patronize them, in order to keep them in business. Those customers have no duty whatsoever to keep Mom & Pop in business. They previously patronized Mom & Pop because it was the most satisfactory arrangement for them, not because they had any duties to Mom & Pop. It was a mutually beneficial arrangement freely entered into by both parties. Both parties were free to end it at any time – whenever a more rewarding arrangement presented itself. Now you want to prevent those customers from taking advantage of a more rewarding arrangement, by force. How do you justify that?

I suspect you have succumbed to the “organic fallacy” – the notion that civilized societies are tribes, or “big happy families,” all of whose members share common interests and are pursuing common goals, and who are bound together in some kind of “all for one, one for all” pact. That is simply not the case. You have a demonstrably erroneous understanding of the structure of modern societies.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 08 at 2:13 p.m.
Arch_druid wrote,

“And would I find at WalMart specialty items that I might have instead found at mom and pop stores that ultimately went out of business? Not necessarily.”

Walmart (or any other merchant) has no duty to stock any particular items, Arch. They will stock what they think they can sell. If they do not stock some item you desire, then there is an opportunity for someone else to do so. You can launch a specialty shop to supply those neglected items. Unless Walmart summons state goons to keep you out of the market by force, of course.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 08 at 5:19 p.m.
Arch_druid wrote,

“You have a very limited view of “intrusion” . . .”

Yes, I do, Arch. It is limited to the understood (dictionary) meaning of the word, i.e., ” to thrust oneself in without invitation, permission, or welcome.”

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictio…

Walmart intrudes upon no one when they build a store. No customer of Mom & Pop is prevented from continuing to shop there. If Mom & Pop go out of business, it is because some of those customers freely decided to switch to Walmart. Which they are perfectly entitled to do.

Your definition of “intrusion” is Newspeak – a redefinition of a term contrived to render some specious political doctrine plausible. It is a favorite tactic of the Left.

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 09 at 9:12 a.m.
“…Newspeak – a redefinition [or in some cases the pure invention] of a term contrived to render some specious political doctrine plausible.”

What's the old addage? “We most abhor in others the faults we least recognize in ourselves.”

Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on November 09 at 10:44 a.m.
That housing bubble/Wall Street meltdown intruded into everyone's life. Many people did not invite it.

Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on November 09 at 10:51 a.m.
http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/ma…

Alan Greenspan and Brooksley Born, then head of Commodity and Futures Trade Commission:

“Well, Brooksley, I guess you and I will never agree about fraud,” Born, in a recent interview, remembers Greenspan saying.

“What is there not to agree on?” Born says she replied.

“Well, you probably will always believe there should be laws against fraud, and I don’t think there is any need for a law against fraud,” she recalls. Greenspan, Born says, believed the market would take care of itself.

For the incoming regulator, the meeting was a wake-up call. “That underscored to me how absolutist Alan was in his opposition to any regulation,” she said in the interview.

Whew! Good thing the government didn't intrude. Might've hindered the economic meltdown.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 09 at 2:40 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote.

“What's the old addage? “We most abhor in others the faults we least recognize in ourselves.””

Did you have an example, Jeffrey?

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 09 at 3:25 p.m.
Gary Crooks wrote,

“That housing bubble/Wall Street meltdown intruded into everyone's life. Many people did not invite it.”

It sure did. And where do you think that housing bubble came from? Who decided housing should be made “affordable” to persons with poor credit and in sufficient incomes to service market-rate mortgages? Who invented subprime loans and provided a secondary market for them? Who commanded banks to make those “affordable” loans? Who purchased hundreds of $billion worth of those shoddy mortgages on orders from HUD? Who financed outfits like ACORN, who beat the bushes to find customers for those loans, and even acted as mortgage lenders themselves, using money extorted from banks?

I.e., who intruded into the housing finance market and set that whole fiasco in motion?

Have you read the new “affordable” (read, “free lunch”) scheme just passed by the House? It also contains generous handouts for all the little ACORN clones around the country, so they can make sure no free-luncher fails to get to the polls to vote for the pols who butter their bread.

Now that the government has trashed the housing market, it is chomping at the bit to lay waste to everything still standing in the health care market. But unlike the housing market intrusion, which home buyers could ignore (except for paying for it, of course) the government will force you to buy its health insurance product at gunpoint. “Sign up and pay up, or off to the Gulag with you!”

And thus does the “Land of the Free” recede further into history.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 09 at 3:47 p.m.
Gary Crooks wrote,

“For the incoming regulator, the meeting was a wake-up call. “That underscored to me how absolutist Alan was in his opposition to any regulation,” she said in the interview.”

I suspect there is some context there which the writer did not plumb or chose to ignore. But if Greenspan indeed believes there is no need for laws against fraud, he is mistaken.

Fraud, however, was not the culprit in the meltdown. There is a certain amount of fraud in every market. But markets don't collapse because of fraud. They collapse because there is a fundamental mismatch between supply and demand. In this case it was the artificial demand created by the government's scheme to make housing “affordable” to persons who had no business in that market.

“Whew! Good thing the government didn't intrude. Might've hindered the economic meltdown.”

You are kidding, right?

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 09 at 4:13 p.m.
Examples?

“Public goods” versus “private goods”

“Statist”

“Free lunch” (As some kind of statement of dogma versus a common aphorism.)

“Organic Fallacy”

That's right off the top of my head. Shall I go looking for more? Or is that enough of a basis your inevitable dissertation on why all those are anything but “… a redefinition [or in some cases the pure invention] of a term contrived to render some specious political doctrine plausible.”

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 09 at 4:22 p.m.
–Fraud, however, was not the culprit in the meltdown.–

Utter nonsense.

Uninformed consumers who leaped before they looked were indeed partly to blame for the whole disaster.

But the unscrupulous financial institutions who engaged in a massive scheme of deceptive practices all designed to lead those benighted consumers up to the brink of the precipice and then shove them over were *every bit as much at fault.*

And all the clever “newspeak” and all the agenda-serving empty rationalizations in the world can't change that.

Flag as inappropriate
ilk_of_gmorton on November 09 at 4:39 p.m.
Hey look it's Arch_Druid posing as someone named Jeffery_Grey.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 09 at 4:51 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

“Public goods” versus “private goods””

Hmm. Apparently you never did look up the term “public goods.” It is well-defined in economics. I used it strictly in accord with that definition.

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

“Statist.”

Also used strictly in accord with the dictionary definition.

http://dictionary.infoplease.com/statism

“'Free lunch'” (As some kind of statement of dogma versus a common aphorism.)

“Free lunch” is not a statement at all. It is a colloquial term with a well-understood meaning.

http://dictionary.infoplease.com/free…

“Organic fallacy” cannot be a Newspeak term, because it is a coined term with no publicly understood and accepted meaning (which is why I define it each time I use it).

Sounds like you don't understand what “Newspeak” refers to. It refers to a *redefinition* of a term with an accepted meaning, so that it can be applied to things to which its ordinary meaning does not include, or which contradicts the ordinary meaning.

I used all of the terms you cited with their ordinary meanings. You're blowing smoke, Jeffrey.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 09 at 4:58 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

“But the unscrupulous financial institutions who engaged in a massive scheme of deceptive practices all designed to lead those benighted consumers up to the brink of the precipice and then shove them over were *every bit as much at fault.*”

You are speaking of Fannie and Freddie? They invented those mortgage products, you know. They also invented MBS's, created a market for them, and hounded private lenders to write them.

You know all that, don't you?

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 09 at 5:09 p.m.
BTW, Jeffrey, if you want a fuller explanation of the “Organic Fallacy,” try this:

http://www.freespokane.net/?page_id=33

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 09 at 5:29 p.m.
–I used all of the terms you cited with their ordinary meanings.–

The fact that 'ordinary meanings' fit your dogma doesn't make them any more or less objectively true. The fact that they make sense to you doesn't mean they're any more or less right than the words and ideas Arch Druid uses to dispute you.

–You're blowing smoke, Jeffrey.–

One of us sure is.

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 09 at 5:39 p.m.
– You are speaking of Fannie and Freddie? –

No, and *you* know I'm not. You know there were a lot more 'players' involved, though the empty rationalizations and 'devil made me do it' finger pointing always start (and hopefully for the agenda's sake) end there.

gmorton, I admit you sometimes have a pretty good sounding pitch. And sometimes you even make a good point - especially when you manage to distance yourself from all the bizarre libertarian screed. But this whole 'There was no fraud involved…' That's nothing more than laughable and painfully transparent. Pinning all this on Fannie and Freddie because that's the only even barely plausible way to try and spin an anti-regulation argument is like pointing to the 2000-pound elephant's tail and yelling, 'Snake!' You can try and sell that if you like. But I assure you nobody but the genuine zealots are ever going to buy it.

And I'm CERTAINLY not.

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 09 at 5:41 p.m.
–— Hey look it's Arch_Druid posing as someone named Jeffery_Grey. –—

Start an argument about the First Amendment's Freedom of Religion clause between AD and me and see how long that fiction holds up.

Flag as inappropriate
spokelooneh on November 09 at 5:59 p.m.
Repeating a lie over and over, gmorton, does not make it true.

“As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail.

Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.

Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.

Federal Reserve Board data show that:

* More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

* Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

* Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.
…
Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.

During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.
…
Fannie and Freddie, however, didn't pressure lenders to sell them more loans; they struggled to keep pace with their private sector competitors. In fact, their regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, imposed new restrictions in 2006 that led to Fannie and Freddie losing even more market share in the booming subprime market.
…
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/v…

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 09 at 6:46 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

“The fact that 'ordinary meanings' fit your dogma doesn't make them any more or less objectively true.”

Words and their meanings are neither true nor false, Jeffrey, “objectively” or otherwise. What is true or false are the propositions in which the terms occur. “Newspeak” is a strategy for changing the meanings of certain terms so as to render true propositions which would be false using the ordinary meanings.

The propositions I've asserted using those terms involved no changes in their meanings. Hence I have not indulged in “Newspeak.”

If you demand that someone else pay for a portion of your health care costs, then you are demanding a free lunch, per the ordinary meaning of that term, for that portion. That term accurately denotes the subsidy you seek. The subsidy fits the definition.

Sorry.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 09 at 6:58 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

“But this whole 'There was no fraud involved…' That's nothing more than laughable and painfully transparent.”

Geez, Jeffrey, you even put that in quotes – and I never said any such thing. I said that fraud was not the culprit in the meltdown. Taking on a mortgage you cannot afford to service is not fraud; offering one to someone who cannot afford it is not fraud either. Neither is selling those mortgages to Freddie, Fannie, and thousands of other investors who failed to do their due diligence. Those are all just cases of opportunism and stupidity, not fraud.

“… . because that's the only even barely plausible way to try and spin an anti-regulation argument . . .”

I've never made an argument against regulation to prevent fraud. I've only made arguments against regulations whose purpose is to deliver free lunches.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 09 at 7:17 p.m.
Spokalooneh wrote,

“Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent . . .”

Yes, competitors did indeed enter the market. They began to offer products which had been pioneered by Fannie and Freddie, with the latter's encouragement. (Fannie's CEO once described Countrywide Mortgage, from whom it bought $billions of subprime mortgages, as “a paragon of affordable housing lending”). The private lenders structured mortgage-backed securities similar to those offered by F & F, and received the same AAA ratings from the ratings agencies. And when the market collapsed, F & F went into receivership, just like the private investors who emulated them.

You missed the point, Looneh. Subprime loans and MBS's would not exist but for Fannie and Freddie. F & F would not have ventured into that realm but for mandates from HUD.

It all began as another nitwit government scheme to supply some voters with a free lunch.

Look for the latest scam, in healthcare, to suffer a similar fate in a few years.

Flag as inappropriate
spokelooneh on November 09 at 11:43 p.m.
“Yes, competitors did indeed enter the market. They began to offer products which had been pioneered by Fannie and Freddie”
-gmorton

Laughably ignorant.

The sub prime market began after financial deregulation in 1980 and despite major turmoil in that market, remained on both the underwriting and securitization side in largely PRIVATE financial firms hands.

Fannie and Freddie didn't get into subprime until long after the private banksters appeared to be making big bucks there.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 10 at 1:14 a.m.
Spokalooneh wrote,

“Fannie and Freddie didn't get into subprime until long after the private banksters appeared to be making big bucks there.”

“In 1995, the GSEs like Fannie Mae began receiving government tax incentives for purchasing mortgage backed securities which included loans to low income borrowers. Thus began the involvement of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with the subprime market. In 1996, HUD set a goal for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that at least 42% of the mortgages they purchase be issued to borrowers whose household income was below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005. From 2002 to 2006, as the U.S. subprime market grew 292% over previous years, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac combined purchases of subprime securities rose from $38 billion to around $175 billion per year before dropping to $90 billion per year, which included $350 billion of Alt-A securities. Fannie Mae had stopped buying Alt-A products in the early 1990s because of the high risk of default. By 2008, the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac owned, either directly or through mortgage pools they sponsored, $5.1 trillion in residential mortgages, about half the total U.S. mortgage market. The GSE have always been highly leveraged, their net worth as of 30 June 2008 being a mere US$114 billion. When concerns arose in September 2008 regarding the ability of the GSE to make good on their guarantees, the Federal government was forced to place the companies into a conservatorship, effectively nationalizing them at the taxpayers' expense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime…

Also see:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/…

Subprimes became legally possible in 1986. But they amounted to less than 10% of mortgage originations in 1995. After 1995, when the GSE's began buying them, their share of the market climbed to 25% (2006). MBS's with “government guarantees” issued by Fannie and Freddie allowed those bonds to receive AAA rating, vastly expanding the secondary market for those crappy loans.

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 10 at 3:42 a.m.
–Taking on a mortgage you cannot afford to service is not fraud;–

Perhaps not fraud, but certainly foolish and arguably greedy. So yes, foolishness and greed on the part of the borrowers was one driving factor. You have at least that much of it right.

– … offering one to someone who cannot afford it is not fraud either.–

Knowingly committing you to a debt that I know you can't ultimately service in order to reap a 'damn the consequences tomorrow, money for me today' profit is not fraud?

Then nothing is.

And the fact that there are hundreds of other unscrupulous people out there doing the same thing only makes the guilt greater - not less.

No, gmorton. You can try to build all sorts of semantical thickets to hide within but I'm not buying it. Not this time. All fraud is based on “cases of opportunism and stupidity.”

What happened here was nothing less than fraud on a massive scale. Nothing less.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 10 at 4:00 a.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

“Knowingly committing you to a debt that I know you can't ultimately service in order to reap a 'damn the consequences tomorrow, money for me today' profit is not fraud?

“Then nothing is.”

Tsk. Indulging in a bit of Newspeak of your own, eh?

“Fraud: 1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.”

http://dictionary.infoplease.com/fraud

Unless you sold me on the debt using deceit, trickery, “sharp practice,” or breach of confidence, you have not committed fraud. You are not my mother, and have no obligation to do my thinking for me. If I'm a legal adult eligible to enter into contracts, you are entitled to assume that I am capable of looking out for my own interests.

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 10 at 4:13 a.m.
“Free lunch”

If you drive on the highways that I don't use but that are nevertheless paid for with a protion of my tax dollars, is that a 'free lunch' for you?

If I have no children but you do, is their education paid in part by my tax dollars a 'free lunch'?

If your house catches fire and the fire department responds, is that that a 'free lunch'?

'Why no. Those things aren't a free lunch because…' And then we get a long dissertation about 'public goods' and how they operate in some utopia where up is down and chocolate is vanilla and impossible things are possible because for the fantasy to be plausible they have to be.

You're right. Words take their meaning from what they stand for. So perhaps I stand corrected if 'newspeak' means changing the meaning of word and stating it to mean something that it doesn't stand for.

But my original point remains. If the words don't have any meaning in the first place, playing the role of Alice's Catepillar and asserting that they mean whatever you say they mean and they mean is the indisputable truth, otherwise you wouldn't use them…

You can build a hovel out of garbage if you want. Just don't expect it to become a shining palace just because you proclaim it to be one.

–The Duchess: Be what you would seem to be — or, if you'd like it put more simply — Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise.
Alice: I think I should understand that better, if I had it written down: but I can't quite follow it as you say it. – “Alice In Wonderland” by Lewis Carrol.

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 10 at 4:36 a.m.
Oh! Okay. I get it now! 'Newspeak' is any assertion that contradicts your firmly held beliefs.

– Unless you sold me on the debt using deceit, trickery, “sharp practice,” or breach of confidence, you have not committed fraud. –

So if there wasn't any deceit, trickery or “sharp practice”, how were the debts sold? How were admittedly gullible people cheated out of their money? The lenders were just standing there minding their own business and all these people suddenly came rushing up out of nowhere and demanded to be granted loans they couldn't afford, and the lenders knew they couldn't afford, and that's why the lenders never offered or aggressively advertised them in the first place?

– If I'm a legal adult eligible to enter into contracts, you are entitled to assume that I am capable of looking out for my own interests.–

So it's always the victim's fault in that they always should have known better - and therefore by definition there therefore isn't and can never be any such thing as fraud?

Sure, maybe you can start from the assumption that I'm an adult and I can look out for my own interests. But when you inquire into the matter and come to realize that I'm not looking out for my own interests - to say nothing of when you knowingly arrange things to make it hard for me to look out for my own interests - and you then exploit the situation for your own gain…

That's *fraud*.

And to claim it isn't… now that's 'newspeak'.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 10 at 3:12 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

“If you drive on the highways that I don't use but that are nevertheless paid for with a protion of my tax dollars, is that a 'free lunch' for you?”

Yes. Fortunately, you do not pay for federal highways unless you use them (they are paid for with fuel taxes). That is largely true of state highways also. City streets are paid for with general taxes, but they are used by everyone.

“If I have no children but you do, is their education paid in part by my tax dollars a 'free lunch'?”

Unquestionably.

“If your house catches fire and the fire department responds, is that that a 'free lunch'?”

Not if I have paid my share of costs for the fire department, based on the value of the property protected. Which is largely the case.

“And then we get a long dissertation about 'public goods' and how they operate in some utopia where up is down . . .”

Hmmm. You didn't understand the definition of “public goods”? You think it is some kind of gobbledygook?

Or are you just dismissing any argument that cannot be stated in a sound bite?

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 10 at 3:41 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

“So if there wasn't any deceit, trickery or “sharp practice”, how were the debts sold? How were admittedly gullible people cheated out of their money?”

You're begging the question. If there was no fraud, they were not “cheated.” And you have yet to establish that there was fraud.

(To repeat what I said earlier, I'm not denying that there was some fraud. There is some fraud in every realm of business, and in every other realm of human interaction. What I said was that “fraud” was not the chief cause, or even an important cause, of the financial collapse).

“The lenders were just standing there minding their own business and all these people suddenly came rushing up out of nowhere and demanded to be granted loans they couldn't afford, and the lenders knew they couldn't afford, and that's why the lenders never offered or aggressively advertised them in the first place?”

That's actually quite close to the truth. The feds awarded grants to ACORN and numerous similar outfits to beat the bushes for customers for these “affordable” mortgage loans. Some of the larger ones, including ACORN, were even granted loan approval power by banks, in exchange for these NGO's promises not to file CRA complaints. But many lenders not covered by CRA participated too, because they could readily sell those crappy loans on the secondary market –- mainly, to Fannie and Freddie, which were commanded by HUD to make sure “affordable” mortgages made up 50% of their portfolios.

So the quick-buck artists crawled out of the woodwork, wrote the risky loans, immediately peddled them to the secondary market, which packaged them in bonds which received AAA ratings because they had “government guarantees,” which were snapped up by investors who relied on those ratings.

The quick-buck artists were praised by the feds for financing “affordable housing.”

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 10 at 3:58 p.m.
“You didn't understand the definition of “public goods”? You think it is some kind of gobbledygook?”

Yes. And reading your answers to the questions presented above, I'm quite confident it's the right definition.

I don't pay for Federal highways unless I use them and pay fuel taxes for them? Not quite.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinforma…

Fuel taxes do pay a large portion of the costs. But local taxes also contriubte substantially. So even if I don't drive on the Interstate, if I'm a property owner, I pay for it. That would be a free lunch for everyone else, wouldn't it?

And if I pay for your childrens' education, you're getting a free lunch from me? It's odd, but even a greedy free-loader like me realizes that since I live in a society of more than just one person - me - I derive a benefit by having well-educated citizens around me. But hey, you say it's a free lunch and you have a much better grasp on all this arcanum. I only know sound bites and simplistic concepts. So I guess this 'public goods' thing must say that sharing the costs of educating this nation's youth is not good policy.

That seems very short-sighted and very ego-centric to me.

And with respect to the fire department… What's this 'share of the costs' thing? Since when did 'shares' enter into this? I mean, all along I've been saying that with respect to health care reform, all I want is a chance to pay my fair share of my medical costs provided I get to spread the risk out over time and over a larger pool of contributors. But that inevitably gets me branded as a free-luncher. Yet when it's you and the costs of responding to your burning house, then it's 'I paid my fair share so I get what I need.'

Let me guess… This is where the whole 'public goods' concept steps in and shows how black isn't black and up isn't up and words mean what they need to mean to make the whole thing sound plausible?

'Gobbledygook'… Yeah. I'm pretty sure I've got it right all right.

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 10 at 4:12 p.m.
– If there was no fraud, they were not “cheated.” And you have yet to establish that there was fraud. –

It's hard to know where to even begin.

–— Just the Facts: The Latest Mortgage Fraud Statistics

Estimated Annual Losses*: $4 billion to $6 billion

Total Mortgage Fraud Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) in Fiscal Year 2008: 63,173, with more than $1.5 billion in losses
- So far in fiscal year 2009 (through 4/30/09): 40,901

Total FBI Mortgage Fraud Task Forces/Working Groups: 65

Pending FBI Mortgage Fraud Investigations (through 4/30/09): 2,440

Cases opened in Fiscal Year 2009 (through 4/30/09): 965 (compared to 136 in all of Fiscal Year 2004)

Successes in Fiscal Year 2008: 574 indictments/informations; 354 convictions

States with Significant Mortgage Fraud problems in 2008**: 1. Rhode Island 2. Florida 3. Illinois 4. Georgia 5. Maryland 6. New York 7. Michigan 8. California 9. Missouri 10. Colorado
–—
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/mortgage_fraud.htm

And you want to claim that's all ACORN and Fannie and Freddie's handiwork? That everyone else involved was just an innocent by-stander or that they desperately wanted to resist the temptation for a quick buck but the Devil made them do it?

“Blowing smoke” and “begging questions”? Oh yes. Yes indeed. And every so transparently so.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 10 at 4:50 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

[Re: public goods “gobbledygook”]:

“Yes. And reading your answers to the questions presented above, I'm quite confident it's the right definition.”

Hmmm. Could you amplify on your reasons for thinking so? Is the definition not clear? Self-contradictory? Not cognitive (there is no empirical way to distinguish public goods from private goods)?

Do you take all economic concepts to be gobbledygook?

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 10 at 9:01 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

“I don't pay for Federal highways unless I use them and pay fuel taxes for them? Not quite.”

Your table confirms what I said. All federal highway revenues are raised from user fees, except “earmarks” (“pork”). Those are not shown in the table, BTW. The “investment income” represents interest earned on revenues invested short-term before being disbursed. For states, $60,724 million is used “for highway purposes,” of which $60,589 million is collected from users.

City streets are funded with general revenues, but they are used for many things besides auto traffic.

“So I guess this 'public goods' thing must say that sharing the costs of educating this nation's youth is not good policy.”

No, the “public goods thing” has nothing to say about policy. It just says what are and what are not public goods, and explains the difference. Education is clearly a private good, of course. Whether compelling some persons to provide private goods to other persons is good policy depends upon one's criteria for good policy.

“And with respect to the fire department… What's this 'share of the costs' thing? Since when did 'shares' enter into this? I mean, all along I've been saying that with respect to health care reform, all I want is a chance to pay my fair share of my medical costs provided I get to spread the risk out over time and over a larger pool of contributors.”

We've already covered this ground. You don't want to pay your “fair share,” which is a share based on the loss risk you present. Instead, you want to pay a share equal to everyone else's shares, even though your loss risk is not equal to theirs. I.e., you want to pay the same premium to insure your $1 million house as the person with the $200K house.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 10 at 9:15 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

“Estimated Annual Losses*: $4 billion to $6 billion.”

I'll take your word for the figures. I said fraud was not an important factor.

“Taken together, these losses total a staggering $8.3 trillion.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime…

Blaming that kind of market collapse on “fraud” is just about as silly as blaming health care costs on insurance company “profiteering.” Those kinds of losses (and the cost increases in health care over the last 30 years or so) can only occur when there is a *fundamental distortion in the supply/demand curves*.

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 11 at 4:54 a.m.
Public good as 'gobbledygook' - the inconsistency of result demonstrated by your answers is more than sufficient proof of my contention. You don't see it, perhaps. To me it's painfully obvious. Let others judge for themselves.

I say let others judge because there's no point in debating this further with me. There's no point because ultimately, it boils down to this:

– You don't want to pay your “fair share,” which is a share based on the loss risk you present. Instead, you want to pay a share equal to everyone else's shares, even though your loss risk is not equal to theirs. –

How do you know what share I want to pay? I've never quantified it.

You see, gmorton, early on I figured out that for your 'free lunch' dogma to have any traction at all, you must a priori assume that any claim that doesn't pass your muster is disproportionate and thus unfair.

In the end it's a mind-reading trick - a flawed, biased assumption. And this whole arcane 'public goods' doctrine is the magician's distraction that attempts to dress a bald assumption up as an objective fact. The problem for you is that I'm simply not falling for it.

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 11 at 5:02 a.m.
Regarding the sub-prime mortgage debacle.

'Only' 4 to 6 billion annually? Not a major factor?

If you say so.

And blaming it all on fraud is error? Funny… You seem very quick and willing to heap the blame on ACORN and Fannie and Freddie and point to their fraud as the root of all evil. Is that how this works? When you can point to regulatory failure and the fraud and incompetence of someone with governmental ties - regulation and governmental authority being anathema to your cherished dogma - then that's significant. But if it's an excess of your cherished free market… 'Not a major factor.'

Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on November 11 at 8:07 a.m.
GMorton's fallacy. The artist such as a musician who's music is the product of his labor. Yes. GMorton forgets, the musician puts the product of his labor up for sale. When Napster began freely sharing the music that had originally been put up for sale by the musicians, they demanded ROYALTY payments for the use of the music. GMorton, the musicians themselves relinquished “property” the moment they put the fruits of their labor up for sale. Napster in freely sharing music by these artists was then sued for not making the people downloading the music pay for the music. Therefore, the artists weren't getting ROYALTY payments for the use of the music.

On the other hand, if I entered your house and took your stereo, “property” that you bought and paid for; then that would be stealing.

As for Ilk of GMorton; dude, Jeff Grey and I are entirely two different people. You are too funny.

Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on November 11 at 8:39 a.m.
Loved your dissertations, Jeff Grey over what brought about the financial collapse in the last year. Yeah, and I would also have to argue that there are a great many ways in which fraud can occur. Say, that Capital One (and this is a fact) doesn't credit a payment to the account because it arrived 2 days late. But, it takes a member of Capital One's Executive Response Team 2 years and 10 months to admit that because the payment arrived 2 days late, that it wasn't credited. However, what this person did not admit, was that it was never credited. The letter on this missing payment that I got at the time (2007) was that it would be credited by the (March) billing cycle. It wasn't. The letter by October 2009, claimed “combined payments” by the March billing cycle… Which never did show up up the actual statement. Which is why I wrote them asking why they didn't do as they had promised and show BOTH payments on the March billing statement. And I got the answer that it takes a week for a CHECK to clear the bank!?! I hadn't sent checks. And by April, when they still hadn't issued a correction, I simply started settling original debt on the account even as they used the missing payment (they did get it by the way) to keep “charging” me for that payment over and over and over again even as they kept heaping more and more and more fees onto the card. Plus, of course the current “payment.” That's fraud. And Capital One having breached contract (not delivering on their advertised claims nor upholding good banking policies) then saw me deliver the LAST payment by October 2009 and send the next bill on the same account back to them. They were paid in full in accordance to the original credit line and in accordance with the original charges I had placed upon the card. They most certainly and legally are not owed anything else. Just try suing me! It doesn't take much to prove fraud.

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 11 at 9:05 a.m.
AD,

– As for Ilk of GMorton; dude, Jeff Grey and I are entirely two different people. You are too funny. –

I must say that one cracked me up as well. If Ilk thinks you and I are ideologically joined at the hip, he (or she) needs to go back into the archives and study some of our debates on the Freedom of Religion clause or on pro-life versus pro-choice.

Once again I see it as a manifestation of the whole partisan 'us right-thinkers versus the rest of the world's wrong-thinkers' bunker mentality.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 11 at 2:07 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

“Public good as 'gobbledygook' - the inconsistency of result demonstrated by your answers is more than sufficient proof of my contention.”

It would be helpful if you could spell out the “inconsistency.”

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 11 at 2:12 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

“How do you know what share I want to pay? I've never quantified it.”

OK. So here's your opportunity to quantify it. Are you prepared to pay premiums proportionate to the loss risk you present, or not?

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 11 at 2:24 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

“'Only' 4 to 6 billion annually? Not a major factor?”

Out of a total loss of $8.3 trillion? Certainly not. The (estimated) loss from fraud represents 0.05% of the total losses. You might as well blame the termites who weakened a porch support post for the loss of a house flattened by a tornado.

“You seem very quick and willing to heap the blame on ACORN and Fannie and Freddie and point to their fraud as the root of all evil.”

Nope. Never accused either ACORN, Fannie, or Freddie of fraud. They did what the law allowed or commanded. There was (as far as I know) no deceit, trickery, etc. (Remember the definition of “fraud”).

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 11 at 2:43 p.m.
Arch_druid wrote,

“GMorton, the musicians themselves relinquished “property” the moment they put the fruits of their labor up for sale.”

You really do have a reading problem, Arch. As I mentioned earlier, the artists did NOT sell the rights to their music, or offer to sell them. It sold LICENSES to listen to the music. That is all they sold. Every CD sold carries a copyright notice, which informs the buyer that the artist RETAINS the right to copy and distribute the music. The buyer purchases a right-to-use only.

You are trying to re-write those licenses after the fact, Arch. If you rent a car from Avis, you buy a right to USE that car for a specified period of time. You do not buy the right to give it to your daughter in Texas, or sell it on Craigslist.

Ah, the siren song of the free lunch. Free health care, free music, etc., etc. The rationalizations, metaphors, re-definitions, and other verbal acrobatics it inspires are a wonder in themselves.

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 11 at 2:44 p.m.
“OK. So here's your opportunity to quantify it. Are you prepared to pay premiums proportionate to the loss risk you present, or not?”

How many times have I said it now? All I'm asking for is a chance at affordable health care insurance. I have pre-existing conditions. My insurance is going to cost more than someone in perfect health. I've never questioned that. I have no problem with that. But health care insurance that I can't afford is of no value to me and it's of no value to the rest of my community that someday will have to pay the medical expenses that I can't, should disaster strike.

All this 'public goods' nonsense doesn't address those realities. They are not cured much less even meaningfully addressed in this strange, fantasy utopia you intend to build.

As I've said, several times now, it's all a mind-reading trick to support some fringe social experiment dressed up to look like some kind of plausible social policy.

I've said that several times now.

And frankly, it's the last time I care to say it.

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 11 at 2:49 p.m.
– The (estimated) loss from fraud represents 0.05% of the total losses.–

Your authority for that claim? And what accounts for the other 99.95%?

– Nope. Never accused either ACORN, Fannie, or Freddie of fraud. They did what the law allowed or commanded. There was (as far as I know) no deceit, trickery, etc. (Remember the definition of “fraud”). –

So ACORN did nothing wrong? Fannie and Freddie did nothing wrong? You sure you want to go with that?

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 11 at 2:59 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

[gmorton]: “OK. So here's your opportunity to quantify it. Are you prepared to pay premiums proportionate to the loss risk you present, or not?”

[JG]: How many times have I said it now? All I'm asking for is a chance at affordable health care insurance.

It is a “yes” or “no” question, Jeffrey. You didn't answer it.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 11 at 3:20 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

“Your authority for that claim? And what accounts for the other 99.95%?”

I gave the source in a previous post. I also explained the other 99.95% in various previous posts. There was an $8 trillion loss because there had been an artificially inflated demand. I.e., $8 trillion worth of real estate had been built and sold to persons who did not have the money to buy it, or the means to earn it. That phenomena occurred because the gummint decided it would promote “affordable housing” by encouraging (and even requiring) lenders to make loans to persons not qualified for them, creating a secondary market for those flaky mortgages, and peddling bonds derived from them to investors on the strength of AAA ratings awarded because the bonds had “government guarantees.”

Whenever you have economic dislocations of that magnitude, Jeffrey, you have to look at the supply/demand fundamentals. Fraud, “profiteering,” “greed,” etc., just don't have the power to produce them. They are just termites in a shoddily built house which will eventually collapse under its own weight.

Flag as inappropriate
Morton_Pool_Salt on November 11 at 4:44 p.m.
Firing my man servant gave me an extra boost of energy. So I'll try this thread.

Jeffery_grey said- “All I'm asking for is a chance at affordable health care insurance.”

My real life response to this claim is a simple question. What does affordable mean? Then I ask how big is your TV? Then I say do you have cable? Then I say I guess watching sports on a high def TV is more important then health care.

Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on November 11 at 5:03 p.m.
Either/or, eh?

Let's say cable is $720 a year. And the TV cost $1,200. That's $1,920 for that year. Then $720 thereafter, with price bumps.

Let's say I dump that and go shopping for a health-care plan for a family of four. Got one in mind? The current average is about $12,000 a year, provided family members don't have pre-existing conditions.

Comcast and Huppins will not turn me away. This is why we have universal coverage with televisions.

Flag as inappropriate
Morton_Pool_Salt on November 11 at 6:32 p.m.
I am kind of a glass half full guy so it looks to me like you have two months worth of coverage. Not to mention plenty of free time to exercise and spend reading books you got at the library or talking with those three other family members. Or you could go over the budget and find other areas you can start trimming.

The point is, if you want it it's affordable. America could use a serious dose of reality in this area. Why should I subsidize health care when it's really just allowing you to watch cable on a HD TV. As for being turned away… well you're just taking one for the team. Thank you.

Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on December 04 at 7:16 a.m.
Morton, that was an LOL! Maybe I want health care, but I couldn't afford coverage if I am working really part time at no more right now than a two day week. And this is the holiday season. When you get off the ideological band wagon you might want to discuss matters with real people.

Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on December 04 at 7:39 a.m.
First GMorton seems to have a problem, I buy a radio and tune in to a local station. I do not buy the music that travels over the airwaves only the means to listen to it. Am I “stealing” from the artist because I download their music over my radio?

Next, GMorton's argument about the definition of fraud. Breach of confidence, sharp practice, deception and etc. Capital One would in their business practices from 2007 to the present where my experience with them is concerned have in their entirety have committed fraud as a part of their interpretations of company policy. If they can fallaciously declare to collection agencies that I “owe them” over 2,800 on an account NOW paid in full as of October 2009 as though they NEVER DID receive the over 2,000 in total payments in the last 2 years and 10 months, that is no less than fraud. How would Morton like to explain to such agencies about debt not owed because of deceptive practices committed by a bank or other lending agency? Because of Capital One's fraud I only settle what remains of original and undisputed debt.

Flag as inappropriate