yyz28

Yup.

"If we pass this stimulus, unemployment will not get above 8%!" ...but we shouldn't hold him accountable for his policies not working. Strategery.

You must not have read what he actually said. ...and this didn't all happen in 8 years guys... ...its fun to point a finger at Bush (because it seems thats the only debate skill the folks who think more regulation is the answer), but these lending practices that have being pushed by the Government have been going on for 30+ years, under congresses of different parties and presidents of different parties. Its not like Bush got into office and changed all the regulations, or eliminated ones that were in place. ...and The Dems have had control of congress since 2006, why didn't they jump up and start slapping the panic button to try and stop the crisis if they knew there was not enough regulation on the banking industry? ...see you can't have it both ways.

This happened for two reasons - 1. Bad ratings. ...and... 2. Bad ratings. It seems here at the end they actually got some folks on who were entertaining, though left leaning, and not just angry liberals like the network was always had historically, but I guess it was too little too late.

This is a great day for anyone who believes in free speech. Contributions should be unlimited, and the records of who gives what remain totally transparent. That is the ONLY solution that abides by the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment. No limits on political spending and contributions, full transparency.

Well, the rhetoric doesn't really mean that's what they are going to do. It's easy (and probably prudent) for them to beat their chest and act like this is no big deal. Their actions, not their words, will tell the truth about what they really think the impact of this is on them.

It's a good question. I don't know that the bulk of the folks who are paying attention are welling to be told how to think by their respective networks. The bigger issue is if a compromise is possible, as the left isn't going to want to bend on the public option in some way shape or form. If the plan doesn't include more people recieving healhcare at the taxpayer's dime, the left will reject it. That's the real sticking point that will make compromise difficult.

Eagle, There has been a good deal of data posted on the net and reported on that back up what EE has said. ...but now, I won't argue with what you posted either. ...that's the point I'm trying to make here and in the other posts. We can't lay this squarely at the feet of any one person, company or institution, governemnt or private. Even in your point here, Mark to Market rules (mandated by our friends at the federal government) allowed these guys to manipulate this situation to their advantage. ...perhaps mark to market was put in place with the best intentions, but there you go, the end result is here for everyone to see.

Are you seriously that obtuse? Let me break it down for you - Here I am, obviouslly talking about government policy... ...and now here I am compaining that the party in power isn't doing anything to resolve the problems with Government Policy. My entire RANT was about the GOVERNMENT. You can try and get me to eat my own words, but I didn't say that Government wasn't engaged in trying to demonize the private sector. Not one time. Even the words you are trying to get me to eat CLEARLY are related specifically to Government policy and action. ...and they HAVE done NOTHING to look into that issue. I'll say it again. NO INQUIRIES, NO COMMITTEE MEETINGS, NO LEGISLATION, NO NOTHING!!! The banking CEO's didn't point the finger at the Government? REALLY? You mean they didn't sit in congress and attack the group that regulates them? Wow, so that must mean there was nothing wrong with what the government was doing then, and the regulation and rules and pressure placed on lenders by government funded groups and the fed are all just perfect. I'm glad you cleared that up. So, let me recap, so there isn't confusion. I do not think the banks were perfect. I do think greed is a big part of what happened there. I also think the government including members of congress charged with regulating our financial system have blood on their hands too. I KNOW that bankers have been hauled in front of congress and attacked. I KNOW that there has been NO inquiry into what the GOVERNMENT did wrong and who's hands were in the cookie jar. I hope that is clear enough for everyone to understand. ...by the way, I work in the technology industry, but it doesn't make me a walking, talking, breathing expert on all things technology, any more than you being in the financial industry makes you an expert on this financial crisis or qualifies you to exempt the government from some fault in this mess.

What does this mean? ...ask me again in a month. The ball has just been volleyed back to Democrats - it is SQUARELY in their court. This will go one of two ways: 1. They have the ability now to back off, open up the process and spend the next few months leading up to the election trying to work on issues including Healthcare with the Republicans and could come out of this looking like they got the message and while I think no matter WHAT happens they lose some seats in the mid terms, it may not be as big a turn around as it could be. ...small enough a loss that it wouldn't really change their ability to govern as compared to what it will be once Brown is seated. or 2. They go all out, full steam ahead, including trying some back door way to get this through despite the filibuster, and keep pushing forward with a VERY unpopular agenda because they know this may be the last chance they have in a while with as one sided a government in place. Making these moves will cause a turnover in congress that will make 1994 look like a blip on the radar. When you consider the recent history of the actions of Obama, Peolsi and Reid, (especially since Reid is dead in the water, he WILL lose his seat) I would expect to see number two. I belive these people are willing to lose in the short term to get policy on the books today that will encrease their power base down the road. Make more people dependant on the Government for their well being, and the left party will gain power over time. The real question is how many of their party are willing to lose and throw themselves on the fire for long-term party gains. Like I say, you'll have to ask me in a month. Nobody really knows what this means until we see the Democrat's reaction to this. The lipservice so far makes me feel that #2 is the more likely scenario, but cooler heads may yet prevail. Either way, this is a big deal, and last night was a historically significant event.

that is exactly what I mean.

Eagle - it's the typical name calling instead of actual debate that "we all expect" from our far left "GoMeanGreen rabble-rousers". Glenn Beck sucks. I didn't say there were no investigations of the banking industry. I didn't say there wasn't any committee meetings on what the private sector did wrong. You don't NEED research to know that has been going on and isn't in the least what I "spouted off" about. Before you attack, it is a good idea to know what someone is actually arguing. Grilling bank execs to score political points is not in the least what I was asking for or expecting our government to do in order to avoid this mess in the future. I'm looking for investigation into the government's handling of the banking, financial and mortgage industries and an assessment of what current policies and regulations worked and which ones didn't and why. I'd like someone other than the people who were in charge of these regulations (showing me an article about Chris Dodd conducting a serious investigation of this issue and then attacking me for not doing any research was about the funniest thing I've seen on this board since TY Sports was still funny) conducting these investigations and hearings. We need real answers about what our government and our leaders knew about what was going on in the mortgage industry and when they knew it, and we need to understand what went wrong, or else this will happen again and again and again, no matter how much you beat on banks and try and pass the next package of reform without bothering to figure out what in the last package of reforms didn't work. All this government has done is conduct show trials and tried to point the finger at everyone else instead of taking a good look at what THEY were doing right AND wrong. ...and I'm SURE there are a good number of guilty Republicans who were at least asleep at the swtich. Everything wrong with this country is NOT in the private sector.

Wow...

That's right, blame Bush, and way to dodge the actual issue. Why did Bush and the Republicans not do anything about it while they had control? Well, I'm not a shill, so I'm happy to admit when politics are politics. I think they didn't do it for two reasons. 1. it wasn't a crisis yet (2006 was really the first time that there was any sign to anyone outside of FMFM that there was a big problem within.) and 2. Politics. It isn't good politics, especially when you're already unpoplular, to stand up and say "Hey, this is bad, we need to quit giving these people with bad credit (which accounts for a HUGE part of the voting block) loans to get houses." ...it's the same problem the Democrats have right now. You're right, the policy you suggested would keep the problem from happening again, but it would destroy a huge portion of your party's base, which is why your party will place blame on everyone else (even though it is their policies that caused the problem in the first place) but do nothing to fix it. No inquiries. No committee meetings. No legilsation. No NOTHING. Do you HONESTLY believe that if they could legitimately pin this on Republicans and their policies and that it wouldn't end up with egg on their faces that we wouldn't have the investigation of a lifetime on CSPAN 24x7 right now? You and I both really know the answer to that in today's environment. The lack of hearings is proof enough that the party in power has as much to lose if not more than they party they would try and take down. I find it amusing that you attack Republicans for not doing something about it, but you give a pass to the people who put the problem in motion in the first place. It sort of takes away your ability to play the Shill card.

I'm all for it. ...now, do you ACTUALLY THINK that the people who are in power now would ACTUALLY push for that type of regulation? Do you think they would push for regulation that would impact the lower middle class, poor, and the minorities the hardest? I'd like to see the Democrats do that. Let's see how long LULAC, NAACP and every other minority group is up in ARMS calling racisim and everything else, making it virtually impossible for those who haven't "won life's lottery" (their words, not mine) to get a home? You ARE Revisionist if you're going to argue that there was no enfluence by all levels of government and the fed that led to the policies that led to the housing disaster. ...you're either revisionist or you don't know the facts. I'm not going to sit here and pretend that wallstreet was clean, but to pretend that the fannie and freddie mess wan't coming years ago, and that Republicans including Bush and McCain tried to get congress to do something about it while the Democrats (Dodd and Frank most specifically) did nothing about it simply IS revisionist history. To pretend that all levels of government and pac meddling isn't what led to the bad policy being set in the first place IS revisionist history. Even to secure competitive rates from the Fed banks had to have a certain precentage of specific types of loans, which is a big part of what led to all of this. Now, does that mean I think it should be a free for all for the banks? Not at all... ...but it IS government policy that was put in place with, I'm sure, the best intentions that caused this collapse in the first place. I applaud your willingness to cost your party its base to put in regulation that might actually help stop another crisis. ...but your party certainly isn't going to suggest any such policy.

No, he's not kidding. This has been covered in about 600 threads in this forum, and I'm not inclined to rehash it now. ...but let me ask you a question - a REAL SERIOUS QUESTION. What type of regulation do you suggest the Government put in place to keep this type of thing from happening again. I'm very anxious to know.

That's certainly how I see it. I don't think this is really what Sullenburger wanted.

LOL!!! Great Pic!

THANK YOU!!! WE MUST STOP SPENDING MONEY HAND OVER FIST!!!

I'm in on that. I'm not a Beck fan in the least. It was a lame question to start with.

I'd really like to see an expansion of the 3 second section of these broadcasts...

Yeah, that was a nice move too, but the dumbassery of someone who's trying to call someone else a dumbass is just priceless.

His point was that the money being spent by the Government ($100 Millon) to relieve haiti via the taxpayers (that's a donation from all of us, not our benevolant government, lest we forget) will be spent far less efficiently than the money being donated to private charity groups like the Red Cross. I think that point is pretty clear even without the whole context of his entire statement. ...and let's not forget the proposal by this administration to drop the tax breaks for charitable donations, making it harder for you and I to give to this relief effort, but I guess I can't beat on someone too hard for something they haven't pushed for, only suggested, so I digress... ...and regards to the second part, here's an AP article that came out this morning already comparing the response to Katrina to the response to Haiti. Analysis: Obama Heeding Lessons Of Katrina Huge Contrasts Between Katrina, Haiti Quake But Comparisons Inevitable

Sorry, I messed up the embedding... Fixed.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=" name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src=" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Morning Joe Sarah Palin Clip During Morning Joe on MSNBC, Mika Brzezinski first ridicules Sarah Palin for a part of (not in context) of her answer to Glenn Beck's question "Who is your Favorite Founding Father?" ...after Mina gets done making fun of and ridiculing the Governor for her answer, she proceeds to pick 'Lincoln' As Her Favorite Founding Father. ...for Context, Sarah Palin's complete answer. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=" name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src=" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Glenn Beck's full question and Sarah Palin's full answer on Fox News ...I mean, you may not like or agree with her, but at least don't come off like a total uneducated nimrod when doing so. Just try.