Fox News' Cool Tool

Amerika

Fox News has recently added a pretty cool calculator tool to their website. It calculates each citizen’s share of the 3 biggest government spending initiatives in this recession, based on an individual's income. My cost share of these three programs was approximately $6,000. Unfortunately I estimate my benefit share of these three programs at about $100, because occasionally I use a couple of roads that are getting some minimal work done with Stimulus money. And people wonder why the Tea Party has come about.

Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)
http://www.foxnews.com/topics/business/finance/troubled-asset-relief-program.htm

Stimulus
http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/economic-stimulus.htm

Government takeover of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac
http://www.foxnews.com/topics/business/companies/fannie-mae.htm

whatstherush

Do they have a calculator for the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Exile 1798

I wonder, as Fox was a key force in support of George Bush's candidacy and then the two terms of that disastrous Administration - perhaps they should take their share of the blame for the nations enormous troubles. Perhaps they should apologise to the American people?

Amerika

Actually, I think history will be kind to GW Bush’s presidency, and Barack Obama’s presidency will go down in history as one of the worst, with (shudder) 2.5 years yet to go.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-04-12/will-bush-be-the-next-truman/

20Cent

Amerika wrote: »

Fox News has recently added a pretty cool calculator tool to their website. It calculates each citizen’s share of the 3 biggest government spending initiatives in this recession, based on an individual's income. My cost share of these three programs was approximately $6,000. Unfortunately I estimate my benefit share of these three programs at about $100, because occasionally I use a couple of roads that are getting some minimal work done with Stimulus money. And people wonder why the Tea Party has come about.

Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)
http://www.foxnews.com/topics/business/finance/troubled-asset-relief-program.htm

Stimulus
http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/economic-stimulus.htm

Government takeover of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac
http://www.foxnews.com/topics/business/companies/fannie-mae.htm

Tarp October 2008
Freddie and Fanny Sept 2008

Who was President then?


As for the bailout it is investing in the US creating jobs and may have prevented another great depression.

whynotwhycanti

Amerika wrote: »

Actually, I think history will be kind to GW Bush’s presidency, and Barack Obama’s presidency will go down in history as one of the worst, with (shudder) 2.5 years yet to go.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-04-12/will-bush-be-the-next-truman/

Thanks for that, i needed a laugh. I am no fan of Barack Obama, but Bush's legacy is just so bad it is ridiculous. Two wars, oversaw the beginning of the recession. The Iraq war itself, as history has proven has been a disaster for everybody except his buddies who made some serious money with those re-building contracts etc.

I mean at least the money used by Obama is to attempt to stimulate the economy. What about the two wars, do you ever wonder how much or even care how much that has cost you and every other american, not to mention innocent civilians in the countries invaded.

The tea party, if it wasn't full of ignorant uneducated hicks, it might actually have some influence. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the 20% of Americans who cannot locate America on a map are members of the tea party movement. Oh and Sarah Palin as a spokesperson, raking in cash making ridiculous speeches at conventions. Yeah you guys got it going on, best of luck with it. Oh and don't forget, Obama is a socialist and loves communism, and isn't even actually an american, and is probably a closet muslim too.

Amerika

20Cent wrote: »

As for the bailout it is investing in the US creating jobs and may have prevented another great depression.

My turn to say thanks for the laugh. What jobs were created? Any that don’t need to be sustained from additional tax dollars?

20Cent

Amerika wrote: »

My turn to say thanks for the laugh. What jobs were created? Any that don’t need to be sustained from additional tax dollars?

Apologies meant to say the stimulus.

Amerika

20Cent wrote: »

Apologies meant to say the stimulus.

No problemo, I knew what you meant. But my question remains the same.

20Cent

Amerika wrote: »

No problemo, I knew what you meant. But my question remains the same.

Here,
http://www.recovery.gov/

Amerika

20Cent wrote: »

Here,
http://www.recovery.gov/

Cop out! What type of jobs were created?

And from your link, doesn't that come out to about $250,000 per job. Money well spent?

whynotwhycanti

Obama has tried to stabilise the stock markets. It appears that that has worked although i am highly skeptical and believe that they could take another drop and all the money pumped in may have been for nothing. Either way, it takes at least six months for developments in the market to make their way into everyday life, in terms of employment, increased retail spending etc.

So yes, unemployment is still a huge problem in the US and people are wondering, with all the money spent on stimulus how come there are no jobs being created. It is a good question and if unemployment does not decrease, then he will become even more unpopular.

You should be happy though, we have spent more money in this country bailing out our banks than in the US, even though there are approx 250 million in the US compared to approx 4million in Ireland. In the US the majority of bail out money has been paid back. The bail out money here looks like it is disappearing into a black hole.

Amerika

whynotwhycanti wrote: »

You should be happy though, we have spent more money in this country bailing out our banks than in the US, even though there are approx 250 million in the US compared to approx 4million in Ireland. In the US the majority of bail out money has been paid back. The bail out money here looks like it is disappearing into a black hole.

My sincere condolences. Maybe y'all need your own form of Tea Party.

20Cent

Amerika wrote: »

Cop out! What type of jobs were created?

And from your link, doesn't that come out to about $250,000 per job. Money well spent?

Its all on the website. Says 608,317.
How many will need additional funding i don't know!! Doubt anyone does.

Where you get the figure per job from?

whynotwhycanti

Amerika wrote: »

My sincere condolences. Maybe y'all need your own form of Tea Party.

I think we do and i do admire your guys ability to organise such a movement. We are useless in this country at these sort of things and instead just complain amongst oursleves instead of actually doing something about it.

For the record, i am not an Obama fan, nor was i a Bush fan and i do sincerely hope that things in your country improve. The personal debt Obama is placing on the US is absolutely huge, kinda similar to here.

Amerika

20Cent wrote: »

Its all on the website. Says 608,317.
How many will need additional funding i don't know!! Doubt anyone does.

Where you get the figure per job from?

I believe roughly 330,000 of those jobs were school related jobs alone. I shudder to think how many of the jobs are "government jobs" (probably close to the remainder IMO). School related jobs and government jobs are sustained by taxes.

I think we have spent around $169,000,000,000 of the stimulus monies so far. At 608,317 jobs, that comes out to over $275,000 per job.

20Cent

Amerika wrote: »

I believe roughly 330,000 of those jobs were school related jobs alone. I shudder to think how many of the jobs are "government jobs" (probably close to the remainder IMO). School related jobs and government jobs are sustained by taxes.

I think we have spent around $169,000,000,000 of the stimulus monies so far. At 608,317 jobs, that comes out to over $275,000 per job.

Don't think its just for jobs. Looking at the recovery website it says 309billion all together. 99b for tax benefits (your for that I presume), 90b for for contracts, grants and loans I suppose thats the job making part.
120b for entitlements (social security type stuff?

So I don't think you can just divide the total by the number of jobs created.
Then there would be all the knock on affects, better infrastructure, getting people off welfare, suppliers etc etc

Amerika

As I recall, president Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (aka the Stimulus Plan) was created in order to save or create 3.5 million jobs over two years. Are you now saying that the creation or saving of jobs is not really what the stimulus was all about? (You got to love revisionist history! )

20Cent

Amerika wrote: »

As I recall, president Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (aka the Stimulus Plan) was created in order to save or create 3.5 million jobs over two years. Are you now saying that the creation or saving of jobs is not really what the stimulus was all about? (You got to love revisionist history! )

Its been 1 year now only a third of it has been spent so far, so its far from finished.

There are many reasons for it besides jobs, infrastructure is a big part of it.
Here he is explaining it

Out of your three "cool Calculators" two were under Bush.

Amerika

20Cent wrote: »

Its been 1 year now only a third of it has been spent so far, so its far from finished.

So, what odds are Paddy Power giving on Obama getting another 2,892,000 jobs created or saved in the next 8 or so months? Want to make a bet?

Out of your three "cool Calculators" two were under Bush.

Let me correct that for you. "two were started under Bush." Bush acted like a democrat when it came to spending. So, in that aspect he was a huge disappointment.

20Cent

Amerika wrote: »

So, what odds are Paddy Power giving on Obama getting another 2,892,000 jobs created or saved in the next 8 or so months? Want to make a bet?



Let me correct that for you. "two were started under Bush." Bush acted like a democrat when it came to spending. So, in that aspect he was a huge disappointment.

It sounds ambitious alright wouldn't make a bet on it!!
Still the new roads, bridges and other infrastructure should come in handy.

A few posts back you said you think history will be kind to Bush. Now you think he's a huge disappointment?

Doubt Obama could have reversed the bailout or tarp once he got in, even if he wanted to which I doubt.

Amerika

20Cent wrote: »

A few posts back you said you think history will be kind to Bush. Now you think he's a huge disappointment?

Every president makes some mistakes. I never said he would be considered a great president, only that I believed history will be kind to him. I still do, even with his unfortunate Democrat-Like spending tendencies.

Doubt Obama could have reversed the bailout or tarp once he got in, even if he wanted to which I doubt.

Money unspent was money unspent! He could have just said no. Instead he spent and wants even more.

20Cent

Amerika wrote: »

Every president makes some mistakes. I never said he would be considered a great president, only that I believed history will be kind to him. I still do, even with his unfortunate Democrat-Like spending tendencies.


Money unspent was money unspent! He could have just said no. Instead he spent and wants even more.

Wasn't he legally bound because Bush had put it into law? I dunno!!
What does get me is how the Republicans are blaming him for the mess which Bush left and now Obama is trying to fix.

You are paying similar taxes as under Reagan, less than under Bush yet Obama is a commie!! Don't get it.

Its cos he's Black I think.
Also Bushes legacy depends on Obama failing.

Amerika

20Cent wrote: »

What does get me is how the Republicans are blaming him for the mess which Bush left and now Obama is trying to fix.

Left by Bush, caused by Democrats. If Obama wasn't up to the job, he should have let Hillary have it.

Its cos he's Black I think.

And there you have it. A liberals last line of defense. So disingenuous on your part.

As a matter of fact, it's becasue he is a hard left liberal, not becasue he's black! But think what you want, and don't let the truth dissuade you. :mad:

20Cent

Amerika wrote: »

Left by Bush, caused by Democrats. If Obama wasn't up to the job, he should have let Hillary have it.

And there you have it. A liberals last line of defense. So disingenuous on your part.

As a matter of fact, it's becasue he is a hard left liberal, not becasue he's black! But think what you want, and don't let the truth dissuade you. :mad:

Aren't the Republicans the ones who are against regulations let the market decide etc? Then the market tanked and they changed their mind and bailed it out? What did Bush do in his 8 years to prevent the crash?

I don't really see any difference between the Republicans and the Democrats tbh. You said yourself Bush spent like a democrat.

What hard left Liberal stuff has Obama done?

I'm not calling you a racist but considering Obama is pretty much the same as the Republicans and he's getting all this vitriol I think race has a lot to do with the hatred aimed at him. Didn't see the whole teabagger movement come out against Bush when he was doing pretty much the same thing, not to mention two wars.

tim_holsters

Amerika wrote: »

Left by Bush, caused by Democrats. If Obama wasn't up to the job, he should have let Hillary have it.

And there you have it. A liberals last line of defense. So disingenuous on your part.

As a matter of fact, it's becasue he is a hard left liberal, not becasue he's black! But think what you want, and don't let the truth dissuade you. :mad:

Obama?

Amerika

20Cent wrote: »

I'm not calling you a racist but considering Obama is pretty much the same as the Republicans and he's getting all this vitriol I think race has a lot to do with the hatred aimed at him. Didn't see the whole teabagger movement come out against Bush when he was doing pretty much the same thing, not to mention two wars.

Isn't that rich, someone accusing others of being racist (I know not me), yet has no problem calling the Tea Party members "teabaggers." I do take offense to the term. (Everyone gets one chance, after that they get reported to the mods.)

tim_holsters wrote: »

Obama?

YUP!!! (well over here anyway).



http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Barack_Obama.htm

20Cent

Amerika wrote: »

Isn't that rich, someone accusing others of being racist (I know not me), yet has no problem calling the Tea Party members "teabaggers." I do take offense to the term. (Everyone gets one chance, after that they get reported to the mods.)

Calling the tea party teabaggers is racist??
Opps did it again but I was asking a question not calling them that so don't report me please!!!

So what are Obama's hard left liberal policies then?

MysNthR0p3

Amerika wrote: »

Bush acted like a democrat when it came to spending. So, in that aspect he was a huge disappointment.

I think you'll find that he was a huge disappointment in many more aspects than just that one.

Amerika wrote: »

Isn't that rich, someone accusing others of being racist (I know not me), yet has no problem calling the Tea Party members "teabaggers." I do take offense to the term. (Everyone gets one chance, after that they get reported to the mods.)

How is that racist? I'm sorry, its about as racist as calling Republicans inbred, hick, gun-toting, psycho, nutjobs or calling Democrats pinko, commie, tree-hugging, abortion-loving, liberals. Its derogatory yes, but its not racist. Its a sardonic pun on an political organisation not a slur on an ethnic culture.

Amerika

MysNthR0p3 wrote: »

IHow is that racist? I'm sorry, its about as racist as calling Republicans inbred, hick, gun-toting, psycho, nutjobs or calling Democrats pinko, commie, tree-hugging, abortion-loving, liberals. Its derogatory yes, but its not racist. Its a sardonic pun on an political organisation not a slur on an ethnic culture.

My comment was not meant to confer it as a racial slur. Just found it sad and ironic that someone has the gall to call other racists, yet has no problem following it up with tagging a group of concerned citizens with the offensive term for the act of a man placing private parts in the mouth of a sexual partner.

MysNthR0p3

Amerika wrote: »

My comment was not meant to confer it as a racial slur. Just found it sad and ironic that someone has the gall to call other racists, yet has no problem following it up with tagging a group of concerned citizens with the offensive term for the act of a man placing private parts in the mouth of a sexual partner.

Ahhh, misread, apologies.

20Cent

Amerika wrote: »

My comment was not meant to confer it as a racial slur. Just found it sad and ironic that someone has the gall to call other racists, yet has no problem following it up with tagging a group of concerned citizens with the offensive term for the act of a man placing private parts in the mouth of a sexual partner.

I just happen to think that a large part of your concerned citizens "concern" is founded on race. For the reasons I mentioned above.

Calling them teabaggers is a cheap shot I know (But I find it hilarious also).

Scofflaw

20Cent wrote: »

I just happen to think that a large part of your concerned citizens "concern" is founded on race. For the reasons I mentioned above.

Calling them teabaggers is a cheap shot I know (But I find it hilarious also).

However hilarious you find it, it's not acceptable, because the people on the receiving end of it find it offensive, and it doesn't bear any relation to the truth. Further use of the term (even "in jest") will be penalised.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Exile 1798

Amerika wrote: »

Actually, I think history will be kind to GW Bush’s presidency, and Barack Obama’s presidency will go down in history as one of the worst, with (shudder) 2.5 years yet to go.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-04-12/will-bush-be-the-next-truman/

Again, consciously or not, you find yourself repeating a laughable Republican-Fox News talking point. Do you realise you are doing this? Do you understand that many people will assume you're not a thinking person, or even a dumb person when you do this?

Closing The Book On The Bush Legacy

Thursday's annual Census Bureau report on income, poverty and access to health care-the Bureau's principal report card on the well-being of average Americans-closes the books on the economic record of George W. Bush.

It's not a record many Republicans are likely to point to with pride.

On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially.

The Census' final report card on Bush's record presents an intriguing backdrop to today's economic debate. Bush built his economic strategy around tax cuts, passing large reductions both in 2001 and 2003. Congressional Republicans are insisting that a similar agenda focused on tax cuts offers better prospects of reviving the economy than President Obama's combination of some tax cuts with heavy government spending. But the bleak economic results from Bush's two terms, tarnish, to put it mildly, the idea that tax cuts represent an economic silver bullet.

Economists would cite many reasons why presidential terms are an imperfect frame for tracking economic trends. The business cycle doesn't always follow the electoral cycle. A president's economic record is heavily influenced by factors out of his control. Timing matters and so does good fortune.

But few would argue that national economic policy is irrelevant to economic outcomes. And rightly or wrongly, voters still judge presidents and their parties largely by the economy's performance during their watch. In that assessment, few measures do more than the Census data to answer the threshold question of whether a president left the day to day economic conditions of average Americans better than he found it.

If that's the test, today's report shows that Bush flunked on every relevant dimension-and not just because of the severe downturn that began last year.

Consider first the median income. When Bill Clinton left office after 2000, the median income-the income line around which half of households come in above, and half fall below-stood at $52,500 (measured in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars). When Bush left office after 2008, the median income had fallen to $50,303. That's a decline of 4.2 per cent.

That leaves Bush with the dubious distinction of becoming the only president in recent history to preside over an income decline through two presidential terms, notes Lawrence Mishel, president of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. The median household income increased during the two terms of Clinton (by 14 per cent, as we'll see in more detail below), Ronald Reagan (8.1 per cent), and Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford (3.9 per cent). As Mishel notes, although the global recession decidedly deepened the hole-the percentage decline in the median income from 2007 to 2008 is the largest single year fall on record-average families were already worse off in 2007 than they were in 2000, a remarkable result through an entire business expansion. "What is phenomenal about the years under Bush is that through the entire business cycle from 2000 through 2007, even before this recession...working families were worse off at the end of the recovery, in the best of times during that period, than they were in 2000 before he took office," Mishel says.

Bush's record on poverty is equally bleak. When Clinton left office in 2000, the Census counted almost 31.6 million Americans living in poverty. When Bush left office in 2008, the number of poor Americans had jumped to 39.8 million (the largest number in absolute terms since 1960.) Under Bush, the number of people in poverty increased by over 8.2 million, or 26.1 per cent. Over two-thirds of that increase occurred before the economic collapse of 2008.

The trends were comparably daunting for children in poverty. When Clinton left office nearly 11.6 million children lived in poverty, according to the Census. When Bush left office that number had swelled to just under 14.1 million, an increase of more than 21 per cent.

The story is similar again for access to health care. When Clinton left office, the number of uninsured Americans stood at 38.4 million. By the time Bush left office that number had grown to just over 46.3 million, an increase of nearly 8 million or 20.6 per cent.

The trends look the same when examining shares of the population that are poor or uninsured, rather than the absolute numbers in those groups. When Clinton left office in 2000 13.7 per cent of Americans were uninsured; when Bush left that number stood at 15.4 per cent. (Under Bush, the share of Americans who received health insurance through their employer declined every year of his presidency-from 64.2 per cent in 2000 to 58.5 per cent in 2008.)

When Clinton left the number of Americans in poverty stood at 11.3 per cent; when Bush left that had increased to 13.2 per cent. The poverty rate for children jumped from 16.2 per cent when Clinton left office to 19 per cent when Bush stepped down.

Every one of those measurements had moved in a positive direction under Clinton. The median income increased from $46,603 when George H.W. Bush left office in 1992 to $52,500 when Clinton left in 2000-an increase of 14 per cent. The number of Americans in poverty declined from 38 million when the elder Bush left office in 1992 to 31.6 million when Clinton stepped down-a decline of 6.4 million or 16.9 per cent. Not since the go-go years of the John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson administrations during the 1960s, which coincided with the launch of the Great Society, had the number of poor Americans declined as much over two presidential terms.

The number of children in poverty plummeted from 15.3 million when H.W. Bush left office in 1992 to 11.6 million when Clinton stepped down in 2000-a stunning decline of 24 per cent. (That was partly because welfare reform forced single mothers into the workforce at the precise moment they could take advantage of a growing economy. The percentage of female-headed households in poverty stunningly dropped from 39 per cent in 1992 to 28.5 per cent in 2000, still the lowest level for that group the Census has ever recorded. That number has now drifted back up to over 31 per cent.) The number of Americans without health insurance remained essentially stable during Clinton's tenure, declining from 38.6 million when the elder Bush stepped down in 1992 to 38.4 million in 2000.

Looking at the trends by shares of the population, rather than absolute numbers, reinforces the story: The overall poverty rate and the poverty rate among children both declined sharply under Clinton, and the share of Americans without health insurance fell more modestly.

So the summary page on the economic experience of average Americans under the past two presidents would look like this:
Under Clinton, the median income increased 14 per cent. Under Bush it declined 4.2 per cent.

Under Clinton the total number of Americans in poverty declined 16.9 per cent; under Bush it increased 26.1 per cent.

Under Clinton the number of children in poverty declined 24.2 per cent; under Bush it increased by 21.4 per cent.

Under Clinton, the number of Americans without health insurance, remained essentially even (down six-tenths of one per cent); under Bush it increased by 20.6 per cent.

Adding Ronald Reagan's record to the comparison fills in the picture from another angle.

Under Reagan, the median income grew, in contrast to both Bush the younger and Bush the elder. (The median income declined 3.2 per cent during the elder Bush's single term.) When Reagan was done, the median income stood at $47, 614 (again in constant 2008 dollars), 8.1 per cent higher than when Jimmy Carter left office in 1980.

But despite that income growth, both overall and childhood poverty were higher when Reagan rode off into the sunset than when he arrived. The number of poor Americans increased from 29.3 million in 1980 to 31.7 million in 1988, an increase of 8.4 per cent. The number of children in poverty trended up from 11.5 million when Carter left to 12.5 million when Reagan stepped down, a comparable increase of 7.9 per cent. The total share of Americans in poverty didn't change over Reagan's eight years (at 13 per cent), but the share of children in poverty actually increased (from 18.3 to 19.5 per cent) despite the median income gains.
The past rarely settles debates about the future.

The fact that the economy performed significantly better for average families under Clinton than under the elder or younger Bush or Ronald Reagan doesn't conclusively answer how the country should proceed now. Obama isn't replicating the Clinton economic strategy (which increased federal spending in areas like education and research much more modestly, and placed greater emphasis on deficit reduction-to the point of increasing taxes in his first term). Nor has anyone suggested that it would make sense to reprise that approach in today's conditions. But at the least, the wretched two-term record compiled by the younger Bush on income, poverty and access to health care should compel Republicans to answer a straightforward question: if tax cuts are truly the best means to stimulate broadly shared prosperity, why did the Bush years yield such disastrous results for American families on these core measures of economic well being?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/09/closing-the-book-on-the-bush-legacy/26402/

The First Draft of History Looks a Bit Rough on Bush

By Kenneth T. Walsh
Posted April 11, 2008

President Bush often argues that history will vindicate him. So he can't be pleased with an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted by the History News. It found that 98 percent of them believe that Bush's presidency has been a failure, while only about 2 percent see it as a success. Not only that, more than 61 percent of the historians say the current presidency is the worst in American history. In 2004, only 11.6 percent of the historians rated Bush's presidency in last place. Among the reasons given for his low ratings: invading Iraq, "tax breaks for the rich," and alienating many nations around the world.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/politics/2008/04/11/the-first-draft-of-history-looks-a-bit-rough-on-bush.html

This is the legacy Fox News should accept partial responsibility for, given that they acted as George Bush's election agent and propaganda outlet for nearly a decade. Republicans should also be expected to completely repudiate and denounce this shameful, pathetic, failed Administration before they are to be taken seriously.

No, you can't have your county back, because you ****ed it up. It's time for you to stand aside and let smart and decent Americans have a go at running the country and repairing the damage you caused.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5sqvmsKd_M&feature=player_embedded

Amerika

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Again, consciously or not, you find yourself repeating a laughable Republican-Fox News talking point. Do you realise you are doing this? Do you understand that many people will assume you're not a thinking person, or even a dumb person when you do this?

This is the legacy Fox News should accept partial responsibility for, given that they acted as George Bush's election agent and propaganda outlet for nearly a decade. Republicans should also be expected to completely repudiate and denounce this shameful, pathetic, failed Administration before they are to be taken seriously.

No, you can't have your county back, because you ****ed it up. It's time for you to stand aside and let smart and decent Americans have a go at running the country and repairing the damage you caused.

Oh bother!

First off I doubt I can change your mind so I won’t even try. But I will try to educate you on some history. The sub-prime mortgage crisis was the catalyst of the recent economic crisis. It is easy to completely blame the former Bush administration by the intellectually dishonest or intellectually ignorant. Now I admit Bush does share some of the blame for a failure to enact legislation and regulation that they had been pushing for since 2001. But the mess goes back to the Carter administration and the democrat party. Under Carter the Community Reinvestment Act was enacted. In essence, the bill forced banks to make loans in low income areas where they take individuals deposits, because banks were not lending in these areas. The bill forced banks into providing loans to people with bad credit. If banks refused to provide these type of loans (sub-prime) they were subject to protests by ACORN and penalties by the US government. Can you say “the beginning of the end” for these banks? This demand by the Democrats (and admittedly greed by corporations for higher profits) for easier credit was directly responsible for the subprime mess we have experienced.

Do a little research on the matter if you don’t believe me. And if you would rather watch than read, please enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4

A little more history on who tried to regulate and who blocked regulation
http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?p=democrats+subprime+regulation&n=21&ei=utf-8&fr=yfp-t-701&fr2=tab-web&tnr=21&vid=0001636811466

As far as I know Fox News had nothing to do with the making of these videos.

One question, if all these indices in your post under Obama prove out to be even worse than GW Bush in the future, do we blame Obama completely?

Exile 1798

Amerika wrote: »

Oh bother!

First off I doubt I can change your mind so I won’t even try. But I will try to educate you on some history. The sub-prime mortgage crisis was the catalyst of the recent economic crisis. It is easy to completely blame the former Bush administration by the intellectually dishonest or intellectually ignorant. Now I admit Bush does share some of the blame for a failure to enact legislation and regulation that they had been pushing for since 2001.

But the mess goes back to the Carter administration and the democrat party. Under Carter the Community Reinvestment Act was enacted. In essence, the bill forced banks to make loans in low income areas where they take individuals deposits, because banks were not lending in these areas. The bill forced banks into providing loans to people with bad credit. If banks refused to provide these type of loans (sub-prime) they were subject to protests by ACORN and penalties by the US government. Can you say “the beginning of the end” for these banks? This demand by the Democrats (and admittedly greed by corporations for higher profits) for easier credit was directly responsible for the subprime mess we have experienced.

This is another talking point Fox-Rush Talking point. Do you realize this?

Do you realize that this talking point is based on a bold faced lie? Do you realize that there is no respected economist who blames the Global Financial Crisis on the the Community Reinvestment Act or ACORN? Don't you think it's strange the only people who are claiming this are Right Wing radio hosts and the only people believing it are Conservative Republicans?

Do you even realize that there is no such thing as "the democrat party"? Do you realize that calling the Democratic Party the Democrat Party is a propaganda technique pioneered by Rush Limbaugh and picked up by the rest of the Conservative entertainment industry?

Do you realize how foolish it is to rely on that entertainment industry for your information? Let alone the crazy conspiracy websites and youtube propaganda you post here.

Wouldn't it make sense to rely on the views of Economists on the cause of an economic disaster?

Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis

Posted by: Aaron Pressman on September 29, 2008

The idea started on the outer precincts of the right. Thomas DiLorenzo, an economist who calls Ron Paul "the Jefferson of our time," wrote in September that the housing crisis is "the direct result of thirty years of government policy that has forced banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers." The policy DiLorenzo decries is the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, which requires banks to lend throughout the communities they serve.

The Blame-CRA theme bounced around the right-wing Freerepublic.com. In January it figured in a Washington Times column. In February, a Cato Institute affiliate named Stan Liebowitz picked up the critique in a New York Post op-ed headlined "The Real Scandal: How the Feds Invented the Mortgage Mess." On The National Review's blog, The Corner, John Derbyshire channeled Liebowitz: "The folk losing their homes? are victims not of 'predatory lenders,' but of government-sponsored -- in fact government-mandated -- political correctness."

Last week, a more careful expression of the idea hit The Washington Post, in an article on former Sen. Phil Gramm's influence over John McCain. While two progressive economists were quoted criticizing Gramm's insistent opposition to government regulation, the Brookings Institution's Robert Litan offered an opposing perspective. Litan suggested that the 1990s enhancement of CRA, which was achieved over Gramm's fierce opposition, may have contributed to the current crisis. "If the CRA had not been so aggressively pushed," Litan said, "it is conceivable things would not be quite as bad. People have to be honest about that."

This is classic rhetoric of conservative reaction. (For fans of welfare policy, it is Charles Murray meets the mortgage mess.) Most analysts see the sub-prime crisis as a market failure. Believing the bubble would never pop, lenders approved risky adjustable-rate mortgages, often without considering whether borrowers could afford them; families took on those loans; investors bought them in securitized form; and, all the while, regulators sat on their hands.

The revisionists say the problem wasn't too little regulation; but too much, via CRA. The law was enacted in response to both intentional redlining and structural barriers to credit for low-income communities. CRA applies only to banks and thrifts that are federally insured; it's conceived as a quid pro quo for that privilege, among others. This means the law doesn't apply to independent mortgage companies (or payday lenders, check-cashers, etc.)
The law imposes on the covered depositories an affirmative duty to lend throughout the areas from which they take deposits, including poor neighborhoods. The law has teeth because regulators' ratings of banks' CRA performance become public and inform important decisions, notably merger approvals. Studies by the Federal Reserve and Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies, among others, have shown that CRA increased lending and homeownership in poor communities without undermining banks' profitability.

But CRA has always had critics, and they now suggest that the law went too far in encouraging banks to lend in struggling communities. Rhetoric aside, the argument turns on a simple question: In the current mortgage meltdown, did lenders approve bad loans to comply with CRA, or to make money?

The evidence strongly suggests the latter. First, consider timing. CRA was enacted in 1977. The sub-prime lending at the heart of the current crisis exploded a full quarter century later. In the mid-1990s, new CRA regulations and a wave of mergers led to a flurry of CRA activity, but, as noted by the New America Foundation's Ellen Seidman (and by Harvard's Joint Center), that activity "largely came to an end by 2001." In late 2004, the Bush administration announced plans to sharply weaken CRA regulations, pulling small and mid-sized banks out from under the law's toughest standards. Yet sub-prime lending continued, and even intensified -- at the very time when activity under CRA had slowed and the law had weakened.

Second, it is hard to blame CRA for the mortgage meltdown when CRA doesn't even apply to most of the loans that are behind it. As the University of Michigan's Michael Barr points out, half of sub-prime loans came from those mortgage companies beyond the reach of CRA. A further 25 to 30 percent came from bank subsidiaries and affiliates, which come under CRA to varying degrees but not as fully as banks themselves. (With affiliates, banks can choose whether to count the loans.) Perhaps one in four sub-prime loans were made by the institutions fully governed by CRA.
Most important, the lenders subject to CRA have engaged in less, not more, of the most dangerous lending. Janet Yellen, president of the San Francisco Federal Reserve, offers the killer statistic: Independent mortgage companies, which are not covered by CRA, made high-priced loans at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts. With this in mind, Yellen specifically rejects the "tendency to conflate the current problems in the sub-prime market with CRA-motivated lending.? CRA, Yellen says, "has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households."

Yellen is hardly alone in concluding that the real problems came from the institutions beyond the reach of CRA. One of the only regulators who long ago saw the current crisis coming was the late Ned Gramlich, a former Fed governor. While Alan Greenspan was cheering the sub-prime boom, Gramlich warned of its risks and unsuccessfully pushed for greater supervision of bank affiliates. But Gramlich praised CRA, saying last year, "banks have made many low- and moderate-income mortgages to fulfill their CRA obligations, they have found default rates pleasantly low, and they generally charge low mortgages rates. Thirty years later, CRA has become very good business."

It's telling that, amid all the recent recriminations, even lenders have not fingered CRA. That's because CRA didn't bring about the reckless lending at the heart of the crisis. Just as sub-prime lending was exploding, CRA was losing force and relevance. And the worst offenders, the independent mortgage companies, were never subject to CRA -- or any federal regulator. Law didn't make them lend. The profit motive did.
And that is not political correctness. It is correctness.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=did_liberals_cause_the_subprime_crisis

Amerika

I'll see your Aaron Pressman article, and raise you articles by Howard Husock (http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html), John H. cushman Jr. (http://www.nytimes.com/1993/03/10/business/clinton-plan-would-soften-banking-rules.html?pagewanted=1), AND Jeffrey A. Miron (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/index.html). Non of which is through Fox News or by Rush.

Memnoch

Exile - you are never going to convince anyone who is willing to believe a word of what Fox news says. Doesn't matter how strong the evidence you present is.

Fox News propaganda is so out there that a person has to be either completely misinformed or have extremely strong prejudice towards what they are being told and the likes of Fox and Rush simply re-enforce this. (ignoring those who have something to gain)

The only way someone like this is going to come out of the cloak of ignorance is through self-enlightenment.

I'm all for reasonable debate and building a consensus, but it's impossible to do that with people who don't realise how corrupt and lacking in integrity fox are.

Amerika

Yet a Public Policy Polling nationwide survey of 1,151 registered voters Jan. 18-19 of this year found that 49 percent of Americans trusted Fox News, 10 percentage points more than any other network.

• 49% said they trusted the Fox New Channel – 10 percentage points more than any other network
• 39% said they trusted CNN
• 35% said they trusted NBC and sister cable network MSNBC
• 32% said they trusted CBS
• 31% said they trusted ABC

http://www.mrc.org/press/releases/2010/20100127013023.aspx

IT JUST CAN'T BE!!!

Overheal

Im not saying people out there Don't trust Fox.

I'm just saying that as a rule of thumb, I do not.

Memnoch

Amerika wrote: »

Yet a Public Policy Polling nationwide survey of 1,151 registered voters Jan. 18-19 of this year found that 49 percent of Americans trusted Fox News, 10 percentage points more than any other network.


http://www.mrc.org/press/releases/2010/20100127013023.aspx

IT JUST CAN'T BE!!!

I can't believe I'm just going to do what I advised Exile not to... but here goes anyway. This is going to be my final attempt to engage Amerika on the issue of Fox News.

Firstly, I'm delighted you posted that poll, as it is one I have constantly referenced in recent posts on the forum as well.

Here is a link to the Public Policy Polling blog that actually conducted the poll: http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/01/fox-leads-for-trust.html

Fox leads for trust

Americans do not trust the major tv news operations in the country- except for Fox News.

Our newest survey looking at perceptions of ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Fox News, and NBC News finds Fox as the only one that more people say they trust than distrust. 49% say they trust it to 37% who do not.

CNN does next best at a 39/41 spread, followed by NBC at 35/44, CBS at 32/46, and ABC at 31/46.

Predictably there is a lot of political polarization in which outlets people trust. 74% of Republicans trust Fox News, but no more than 23% trust any of the other four sources. We already knew that conservatives don't trust the mainstream media but this data is a good prism into just how deep that distrust runs.

I think the part I've bolded above is the most telling. What this shows is that republicans and conservatives are in a very large majority placing their trust in fox and not trusting anyone else.

While democrats trust ABC, CBS, CNN, NBS about equally while not trusting Fox.

Also, Indepdents seem to trust or distrust everyone equally.

Now, I don't know if you haven't looked at the full data carefully enough Amerika, or if you are simply being disingenuous.

What I infer is happening here is that the very strong prejudice of conservative opinion in favour of fox and against everyone else, is skewing the overall picture to give the appearance that Fox are somehow more trusted than they actually are. Because independents and liberals aren't biased or captivated by a single network as conservatives are.

This post is a perfect example of the kind of intellectual gymnastics that Fox regularly engage in to paint a skewed perspective rather than placing data and information within the full context to allow proper understanding of the issues (that's when they're not just lying outright).

But the biggest revelation that these figures show me is that the conservative base, does indeed seem to not be willing to be open minded. The fact that they've somehow concluded that they can only trust fox, and everyone else, is decietful, shows that they are buying into fox's "fair and balanced," mantra and falling for Fox's assertions of the "liberal media conspiracy," using fear to stop people from listening to anyone but them.

But the above is just my opinion. Why do I distrust Fox so much?

What follows is a CLEAR example of why NO ONE should trust fox news OR rely on them for information.

Here is a link to a (what I feel very important) study conducted by the University of Maryland in 2003 about American Public perception on the Iraq war.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqMedia_Oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf

The text I'm quoting comes from the following blog summary

http://docbug.com/blog/archives/000047.html

The PIPA study tested American knowledge about the Iraq war by asking them 3 basic questions about it.

At the heart of the PIPA study are three questions:

Is it your impression that the US has or has not found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization?

Since the war with Iraq ended, is it your impression that the US has or has not found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?

Thinking about how all the people in the world feel about the US having gone to war with Iraq, do you think the majority of people favor the US having gone to war?

The answers, by the way, are "no clear evidence has been found," "no weapons of mass destruction have been found," and "the majority of people in the world do not favor the US having gone to war." If you got at least one wrong don't feel too bad: only 30% of people surveyed in three polls (June, July, and August-September) got all three correct.

Basic facts that everyone should really know... the findings?

Only 20% of Fox news viewers held none of the three misperceptions about these basic facts. Compared to 45% of CNN/NBC viewers 53% of print media and 77% NPR/PBS.

80% of Fox viewers held at least 1 misperception about the war compared to 55% of CNN/NBC and only 23% of NPR/PBS.

SIGNIFICANTLY...

A WHOPPING 45% of those who relied on Fox News held three or more misperceptions about basic facts of the iraq war compared to only 13% of CNN and 12% of NBC viewers and only 4% of NPR/PBS.

Misperceptions are widely-held. To quote a few numbers, 48% believe the US has found clear evidence that Saddam was working with al Qaeda, 22% believe Iraq was directly involved in carrying out the September 11th attacks, 22% believe the US has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, 20% think Iraq actually used chemical or biological weapons in the war that just ended, and 25% believe the majority of world opinion is in favor of the US having gone to war.

Misperceptions are strongly correlated with support for the war. Both pre- and post-war, support for the war is much higher among those who are wrong about the facts. For example, 86% of those who incorrectly answered all three questions listed above were in favor of the war, compared to 23% of those who had no misperceptions. Of course, we can't know for certain whether people are basing their support for the war on incorrect information, or if they are instead making up their minds and then choosing to believe rumors and insinuations that support their already-formed opinions. However, this is still a good indication that these misperceptions had a real effect on public support for the war.

Misperceptions correlate strongly with media source. People who watch Fox News as their primary news source were much more likely to be incorrect on the questions of links to al Qaeda, WMD and world opinion than those who watched any other source. People who got their primary news from television were more likely to have misperceptions than people who got their news from print media, and NPR/PBS viewers were the best informed on these subjects.

But maybe it's all down to demographics and not the news channel in question?

The data also show that these differences aren't explained by different viewer demographics. For example, the average incorrect answer rate was 54% for Republican Fox viewers, but only 32% for Republicans who get their news from PBS-NPR. Viewer education levels also don't account for the differences between the media sources. The amount of attention people pay to the news has little effect on the results, except in the case of print media and to some extent CNN, where more attention results in being better informed, and Fox News, where paying more attention to the news actually increases the likelihood of being misinformed.

This is not just bias, this is outright misleading and propaganda reportage. Because of the lies perpetrated by the Bush administration and as I've shown, SUPPORTED by Fox News, they were able to hold public support for the war. And we've all seen the results of that.

Maybe if more republican voters had taken the bother to actually educate themselves of the facts, the tragedy that is the Iraq war could have been avoided.

The fact that 70% of conservatives trust fox scares the sh*te out of me. Because they are going to vote based on these misinformed opinions, just like they did with the Iraq war, and more people will continue to be hurt because of this.

Seriously... stop listening to what Fox News are saying, they are liars, and damn liars.

Amerika

I’m confused. Are you saying that Fox News is merely an entity that reinforces many people’s preconceived tendencies, or is it an “outright misleading and propaganda reportage" entity which shapes peoples views? You seem to be arguing both. Personally I tend to agree with the former. I think most concerned citizens get their information from other sources than television, and tune into the political programs more for the reinforcement of personal views and entertainment value.

As to the personal assaults against me, I consider myself quite well informed, enlightened and educated on the local, national, and international matters – Thank You Very Much. And right back at you I will quote Sir Winston Churchill (which I consider one of the best and honest quotes of all time) "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains." FYI, for political and national information, when I can on weekdays, I watch Bill O’Reilly and Shep Smith on Fox News (Right). I watch Morning Joe and sometimes tune into Olbermann and Maddow on MSNBC (Left). On weekends I prefer CNN and CSPAN (Neutral). As for political information on websites, I check out on a daily basis DrudgeReport.com and Newsmax.com (Right), Politico.com and TheDailyBeast.com (Left), and CNN.com and RealClearPolitics.com (Neutral). I have a dual master’s degree, and most would consider me quite sensible and sane (except maybe for my constant futile undertaking of arguing with Liberals). Pretty well rounded base of information if I might say so myself. So spare me the insipid claims that if I educate myself to the matters I will become enlightened.

America is primarily a center right country. Whenever we have taken a lurch to the Left, a self correcting force goes into place to bring us back to right center. This is what we are currently experiencing. Barack Obama wisely decided to move to the center in the last few months of the 2008 election. This and the economy is what won him the election. But once he came into office his true colors came out. I have never seen so much regret in my lifetime as I am now seeing from people who voted for him. I think the midterms in November will see the Senate and maybe even House to go back to Republican majority. Here, this video is what I consider now representative of some Democrats and many Independents:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=662R2awSwPQ&feature=player_embedded

- - - - - - -
And oh yeah - the Iraq war. Funny how hindsight is always 20/20, and how history seems to have been forgotten so much. You can find numerous websites dedicated to Bush Lied, and Weapons Of Mass Destruction As The Reason For Going To War, but try and find Bush’s speech in March 2003 war ultimatum speech. You can find it, but it’s rather tough.

The President doesn't declare war - Congress is the only branch that has that authority. British intelligence and other nation’s intelligence coincided with ours. Congress saw the intelligence (regardless of the convenient political misrepresentations some now claim) and produced the following in 2002:

The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 [1], Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution (i.e., a law) passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War.

Here is a transcript of George W. Bush's war ultimatum speech from the Cross Hall in the White House in March of 2003. As you can plainly see, it was not all about weapons of mass destruction. To this day, I stand by our reasoning to go to war. Sorry if it offends.

My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned.

The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again -- because we are not dealing with peaceful men.

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.

The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.
The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me, as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep.

Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq. America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. We believe in the mission of the United Nations. One reason the UN was founded after the second world war was to confront aggressive dictators, actively and early, before they can attack the innocent and destroy the peace.

In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act, in the early 1990s. Under Resolutions 678 and 687 - both still in effect - the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority, it is a question of will.
Last September, I went to the U.N. General Assembly and urged the nations of the world to unite and bring an end to this danger. On November 8, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations, and vowing serious consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm.

Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. For the last four-and-a-half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council's long-standing demands. Yet, some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it. Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world. The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours.

In recent days, some governments in the Middle East have been doing their part. They have delivered public and private messages urging the dictator to leave Iraq, so that disarmament can proceed peacefully. He has thus far refused. All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing. For their own safety, all foreign nationals - including journalists and inspectors - should leave Iraq immediately.

Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.

It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not too late for the Iraqi military to act with honor and protect your country by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Our forces will give Iraqi military units clear instructions on actions they can take to avoid being attacked and destroyed. I urge every member of the Iraqi military and intelligence services, if war comes, do not fight for a dying regime that is not worth your own life.

And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning. In any conflict, your fate will depend on your action. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say, "I was just following orders."

Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it. Americans understand the costs of conflict because we have paid them in the past. War has no certainty, except the certainty of sacrifice.

Yet, the only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is to apply the full force and might of our military, and we are prepared to do so. If Saddam Hussein attempts to cling to power, he will remain a deadly foe until the end. In desperation, he and terrorists groups might try to conduct terrorist operations against the American people and our friends. These attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible. And this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under the threat of blackmail. The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed.

Our government is on heightened watch against these dangers. Just as we are preparing to ensure victory in Iraq, we are taking further actions to protect our homeland. In recent days, American authorities have expelled from the country certain individuals with ties to Iraqi intelligence services. Among other measures, I have directed additional security of our airports, and increased Coast Guard patrols of major seaports. The Department of Homeland Security is working closely with the nation's governors to increase armed security at critical facilities across America.

Should enemies strike our country, they would be attempting to shift our attention with panic and weaken our morale with fear. In this, they would fail. No act of theirs can alter the course or shake the resolve of this country. We are a peaceful people - yet we're not a fragile people, and we will not be intimidated by thugs and killers. If our enemies dare to strike us, they and all who have aided them, will face fearful consequences.

We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over. With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities.

The cause of peace requires all free nations to recognize new and undeniable realities. In the 20th century, some chose to appease murderous dictators, whose threats were allowed to grow into genocide and global war. In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth.

Terrorists and terror states do not reveal these threats with fair notice, in formal declarations - and responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide. The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.

As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor the deepest commitments of our country. Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty. And when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation.

The United States, with other countries, will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land. And the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace.

That is the future we choose. Free nations have a duty to defend our people by uniting against the violent. And tonight, as we have done before, America and our allies accept that responsibility.

Good night, and may God continue to bless America.

Lets face it, you won't change my mind, and I won't change yours. But it's all good.

Exile 1798

Amerika wrote: »

As to the personal assaults against me, I consider myself quite well informed, enlightened and educated on the local, national, and international matters – Thank You Very Much. And right back at you I will quote Sir Winston Churchill (which I consider one of the best and honest quotes of all time) "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains." FYI, for political and national information, when I can on weekdays, I watch Bill O’Reilly and Shep Smith on Fox News (Right). I watch Morning Joe and sometimes tune into Olbermann and Maddow on MSNBC (Left). On weekends I prefer CNN and CSPAN (Neutral). As for political information on websites, I check out on a daily basis DrudgeReport.com and Newsmax.com (Right), Politico.com and TheDailyBeast.com (Left), and CNN.com and RealClearPolitics.com (Neutral). I have a dual master’s degree, and most would consider me quite sensible and sane (except maybe for my constant futile undertaking of arguing with Liberals). Pretty well rounded base of information if I might say so myself. So spare me the insipid claims that if I educate myself to the matters I will become enlightened.

I didn't say you were dumb. I said you will likely appear foolish to people when you post laughable talking points that any informed person knows are based on out right falsehoods.

I don't know why you've claimed, unprompted, that you have a Dual Master's Degree.

That Churchill quote is a very well known one, and very popular with self described Conservatives in America. Not so well known is this one, which was said in 1942, long after Churchill had ditched Liberalism for Conservatism.

The discoveries of healing science must be the inheritance of all. That is clear. Disease must be attacked, whether it occurs in the poorest or the richest man or woman simply on the ground that it is the enemy; and it must be attacked just in the same way as the fire brigade will give its full assistance to the humblest cottage as readily as to the most important mansion. Our policy is to create a national health service in order to ensure that everybody in the country, irrespective of means, age, sex, or occupation, shall have equal opportunities to benefit from the best and most up-to-date medical and allied services available.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason/2009/08/14/healthcare

I think it's pretty plain that Conservatism meant something entirely different to Churchill then what it does to the modern American Right.

Amerika

One point I failed to mention is a genius tactic utilized by Fox News, and one of the main reasons why they are considered the most trusted news program IMO. They consistently report on subjects the left leaning news media refuses to report on because of apparent ideological reasons. And Fox News keenly claims “you won’t see this reported elsewhere.” Most often when you go to the other news channels - they in fact don’t report on the issues in question. This leads one to assume Fox News can be more trusted to report on all subjects, and other news agencies are ideologically inclined to only report on subjects they deem worthy and tend not to report on subjects which might show liberals and selected democrats in a bad light. Also Fox News usually tends to report on a subject from both sides of the political spectrum, but admittedly with a higher conservative slant.

And I put the schooling info in my rant to show my supposed “non-enlightenment” was not due to a lack of education on my part.

Exile 1798

I don't know, or care, what your educational background is. As it is I don't believe your claim, but it doesn't really matter.

It's not your "schooling" that jumps out at me, but your lack of logical thinking and knowledge on the subjects you choose to discuss. That's on display here for all to see.

Amerika

Sticks and stones brother, sticks and stones.

20Cent

Amerika wrote: »

One point I failed to mention is a genius tactic utilized by Fox News, and one of the main reasons why they are considered the most trusted news program IMO. They consistently report on subjects the left leaning news media refuses to report on because of apparent ideological reasons. And Fox News keenly claims “you won’t see this reported elsewhere.” Most often when you go to the other news channels - they in fact don’t report on the issues in question. This leads one to assume Fox News can be more trusted to report on all subjects, and other news agencies are ideologically inclined to only report on subjects they deem worthy and tend not to report on subjects which might show liberals and selected democrats in a bad light. Also Fox News usually tends to report on a subject from both sides of the political spectrum, but admittedly with a higher conservative slant.

And I put the schooling info in my rant to show my supposed “non-enlightenment” was not due to a lack of education on my part.

What subjects do Fox cover that no one else does?

Overheal

Not that im a fan of Fox News but they cover Quite a bit actually, that others don't or fail to either deliberately or otherwise. And it varies depending on this and that. Specific examples escape me but I can vouch for it. Hence as much as I dislike the personalities I still tend to tune in once in a while.

Amerika

Just a couple jump out at me off hand. GE subsidy dealings with terrorist states. Sarah Palin and the Tea Party protests presented in a non-condescending manner. Other topics the mainstream media wouldn’t cover until the stories reported by Fox News got legs and were forced to report on: Obama relationships with Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, and the John Edwards affair. And also what this topic was originally all about – your individual share of huge government spending initiatives.

Fuhrer

Amerika wrote: »

Just a couple jump out at me off hand. GE subsidy dealings with terrorist states. Sarah Palin and the Tea Party protests presented in a non-condescending manner. Other topics the mainstream media wouldn’t cover until the stories reported by Fox News got legs and were forced to report on: Obama relationships with Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, and the John Edwards affair. And also what this topic was originally all about – your individual share of huge government spending initiatives.

Good lord.

Amerika

Fuhrer wrote: »

Good lord.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that one - the good Lord! Thanks