You know perfectly well that 'GWB & the Replicans' (not a bad name for a grunge band, BTW) proposed permitting people the choice of investing in the market up to 5% of their social security contributions.  That is hardly 'privatizing social security' as you've characterized it.  And again, even a rational person can't change the fact that the sources you cite discuss completely privatizing social security, not the proposal put forth by 'GWB & the Replicans.'

I'm not wasting time attempting to prove the obvious & well-known to you.  You completely mischaracterize what actually happened, then use articles having only a tangential & hypothetical relationship to actual events & call that 'proof.'

To paraphrase, 'I expected this sort of ... response from you.'

Pointless Daiwa. You are ignoring the fatal flaws of the Bush Inc proposals for Social Security which would have created a true dismantling of Social Security, the beginnings of turning over Social Security Trust funds to the private sector and would shortly lead to the eventual bankrupting of the Social Security Trust Fund.

Once again no corroboration from you.  Just ridicule.

Why isn't what happened with credit default swaps and the Commodities Modernization Legislation that permitted them enough evidence for you to begin to question if in fact the Social Security Trust fund would also be pillaged by private industry for the wealth of the few at the expense of the many?

An interesting email. Something to think about.



Pull out of Iraq ?!

Perhaps the U.S. should pull out of Chicago ?





Body count:

In the last six months:

292 killed (murdered) in Chicago ;

221 killed in Iraq .

Chicago.... Who Runs it:

Senators: Barack Obama & [censored] Durbin

Rep: Jesse Jackson Jr.,

Illinois Gov: Rod Blogojevich,

Illinois House leader Mike Madigan,

Illinois Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan (daughter of Mike),

Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley (son of Mayor Richard J. Daley)

.....our leadership in Illinois .....all Democrats.



Thank you for the combat zone in Chicago .

Of course, they're all blaming each other!



Can't blame Republicans; they're aren't any!



State pension fund $44 Billion in debt, worst in country.

2nd highest taxed state in the U.S.

Cook County ( Chicago ) sales tax 10.25% highest in country. (Look 'em up if you want).

Chicago school system rated one of the worst in the country.

This is the political culture that Obama comes from in Illinois . And he's gonna 'fix' Washington politics for us?

_________

and all the finger pointing at GWB for the current mortgage (fannie mae - freedie mac) financial situation should be at Barney Franks and his Boyfriend

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/easescredit.asp

Thus is factually incorrect. Bush's tax cuts dramatically INCREASED government revenues.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/81xx/doc8116/05-18-TaxRevenues.pdf

Sorry there Lantec the article you posted asks us to believe that all Mortgage foreclosures are in the sub-prime market - reality not hardly.  It also ignores the much larger problem of credit default swaps which in fact did bring down the entire banking industry on a global scale - not just the US, globally.  This is why all of the world is calling for financial industry regulatory reform.

Why do you keep pointing to Barney Franks and continue to ignore quite literally the multi-trillion dollar problem of credit default swaps?

It's because I'm close minded and refuse to believe anything could be the fault of a republican

Yes indeedy!

Maybe because Franks also chose to ignore all the negative issues developing when he insisted that Fannie was just fine and said that his biggest fear was that more regulations would only reduce mortgage availability to the poor.

If I understand the document from the Congressional Budget Office correctly the net effect of changes in tax legislation resulted in a net decrease in tax revenues across the board (all tax sources) of 0.2% of GDP.  At least that is what the document says.  It also doesn't attribute any increase in total tax revenues due to tax cuts but rather structural changes especially in more taxable income being reported by corporations and more individuals realizing capital gains.

Still isn't the cause of the banking freeze, the government bailout, the demize of wall street and now the collapse of the auto industry.  As I pointed out credit default swaps led to global financial market de-stabilization and now global recession.

True with that comparison.

Obama's own words on redistribution of wealth in the US.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

I'd qualify that slightly to wit our problem is the same as with the financial markets: Not supervising our Government enough.

Which, therefore I agree with. The question is HOW CAN WE SUPERVISE THEM ADEQUATELY? How can we get the transparency needed to keep the politicians (of BOTH parties) under adequate surveillance?

Your statement is true....but how is that put at the feet of the current administration? The only part of the whole thing tied to government is fannie mae/freddie mac which precipitated the whole mess. The credit default betting was not regulated or created by our government. Since it's a process common to all world financial institutions how does that make the US responsible?

Why is government to blame when people or companies bet on performance and end up loosing money? Is the government to blame when someone bets their life savings that the sky will turn green? Should we adopt laws to make sure that idiots don't bet the sky turns green? Maybe we should just collect all their earnings and provide for them as we see fit........

Personally, I believe in individual responsibility. If I make a bad choice in getting a sub-prime mortgage I can't afford..how is that YOUR problem......

Wow, I have to say ID, you definitely ruffled up some feathers with this article of yours. There's that saying, "the truth hurts" and most people don't complain unless the truth is not something they like.

Now, like ID, I am a Conservative and will not be voting for Obama. Why? Simple, I am not going to mindlessly vote for a guy just because he's no Bush. Now, I am not a McCain fan, the guy lacks balls in a way to me. However I do find it ironic that while Obama screams change, McCain seems to be the one less like your usual politician. He has avoided every oportunity to take Obama and grind him down, instead he has let Obama (who claimed would not do thinsg business as usual) put out so many ads about him and Palin that TV stations should be making a fortune thanks to him.

Anyways, at this point McCain is least likely to do any more harm since we are already in a lot of trouble, but it's my opinion that Obama's plans will only make things worse at a time when things are already bad. But I am not so much concerned with Obama's policies as I am about how people are blindly voting for him just because he is not Bush. I mean, if Obama was winning because people actually understood what he plans on doing and totally agreed with his policies, then I would have no choice but to accpet him winning. But to think that Obama is winning, not because he's better, but because he is not Bush is a very scary concept. At this point, the Democrats could have put Jesse ventura to run and would probably be having similar numbers considering people just don't wan't Bush.

I would much rather vote for a third party at this point, but then I would simply be doing that which I am currently criticizing, voting out of ignorance.

At this point in time Obama's got victory in his pocket. Everything that could have gone wrong for McCain has and at this point only 1 of 2 things can save him:

1) a Miracle, some weird reason that he would somehow pull this off, maybe the polls were wrong or maybe the Midea was so biased that they never truly showed McCains real numbers.

2) That at the last minute people will think before chosing and wonder if Obama truly is the right choice and possible change their minds because, again, ignorance and pressure will take control.

I don't expect much from 1 though it wouldn't surprise me one bit. On 2, in a way I would hope, but then, again, I would be going against my criticism of voting thru ignorance.