Alex Chilton, 1950-2010
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
Alex Chilton, 1950-2010
Alex Chilton was a god of power pop. He never had a big hit after a couple of chart-toppers with The Box Tops in Memphis in the late 1960s (including "The Letter," the shortest No. 1 song of the rock era....look it up!), but his influence loomed over modern music until the day he died, which was yesterday of a heart attack at age 59. If you don't believe me, just do a Google blog search this morning on the phrase "children by the millions" (from the remarkable tribute song "Alex Chilton" by the Replacements.) His best music was so ahead of its time that it didn't get the radio play or sales it deserved -- especially with the group Big Star in the early 1970s. Listen to "September Gurls" (at bottom) and see what I mean.
And have a good weekend, which will be longer than usual for me because of one of my final book research junkets. I can't imagine anything important will happen this weekend :-) -- but if it does, you can talk about it here:
Comments (260)
gotta get me ticket for an airplane-- aint got time to tkae no fast train...lonely days are gone,, I'm going home...my baby.. she wrote me a letter— bensalemite- Please, I beg you to cite the "massive deregulation" that led to higher leverage ratios. A handful of banks got SEC approval to ease up on the net capital rules when the real estate bubble had already started inflating. That does not count as "massive deregulation".— RG
- "You can't see what Bush's policies had to do with the country's debt?" We've been talking about bank leverage, stay on topic. "And you have "no idea" what connection there is between the deregulation of leveraging and depository requirements had to to with massive indebtedness by commercial and investment banks?" No, GLB and CMFA had nothing to do with leverage ratios, so once again your argument fails. Seems to me you are saying that firms took on too much debt, which is an issue with cheap credit/low interest rates. And I've been saying that all along.— RG
- TAke this political talk somewhere else, please?— bensalemite
- "But yeah - the massive shift from regulated companies with depository requirements" Except for Citi, which merged before GLB, these were investment banks and an insurer that failed, not depository ones. My goodness.— RG
- "And yeah, his policies weren't responsible - oh, except for maybe massive tax cuts contemporaneous with massive increases in spending." What does this have to do with bank leverage, which you claimed caused the recession? Can you try to put together a coherent point? First it was GLB, than the CFMA, than bank leverage, than Bush's policies. Yikes.— RG
- ---}}} I have no idea on what connection you are trying to draw between the debt and GLB or Bush's "policies". {{{--- Wow. You've really gone off the planet now, RG. You can't see what Bush's policies had to do with the country's debt? And you have "no idea" what connection there is between the deregulation of leveraging and depository requirements had to to with massive indebtedness by commercial and investment banks? OK, RG, you win. LOL!— Talking point sleuth
- "But yeah, the collapse of that debt had nothing to do with the financial crisis." I've said all along debt was the issue,thanks for proving my point. I have no idea on what connection you are trying to draw between the debt and GLB or Bush's "policies". And neither do you, but keep going, it is entertaining.— RG
- ---}}} These seven entities [F & F, Bear Sterns, Lehman, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley] were highly leveraged and had $9 trillion in debt or guarantee obligations, an enormous concentration of risk; yet they were not subject to the same regulation as depository banks. {{{--- But yeah - the massive shift from regulated companies with depository requirements that limited leverage had nothing to do with the financial crisis. LOL! As hard as it is to believe, RG, your jokes get funnier with each post.— Talking point sleuth
- "The dot com bubble was in the mid 90s." Late 90's, popped in early 2000's. Rates were kept at near historic lows to avoid the pain of a recession. Made housing look more affordable, which lead to the real estate boom. Also, made leveraging more attractive to banks, since the cost of capital was so low. If you can borrow at 2% and invest at 5%, you can make a killing, thats why Wall St saw record profits. However, after awhile the projects you look to generate those returns get worse and worse. Eventually, too much debt builds up.— RG
- ---}}} You claim Bush was irresponsible, but can't point to one single law he signed that led to the recession. {{{--- More hilarity. The fact is that poor economic factors were exacerbated and accelerated during his administration. And yeah, his policies weren't responsible - oh, except for maybe massive tax cuts contemporaneous with massive increases in spending. LOL!— Talking point sleuth
- --snip-- From 2004-07, the top five U.S. investment banks each significantly increased their financial leverage which increased their vulnerability to a financial shock. These five institutions reported over $4.1 trillion in debt for fiscal year 2007, about 30% of USA nominal GDP for 2007. --snip-- These banks had debt equaling 30% of the GDP. But yeah, the collapse of that debt had nothing to do with the financial crisis. RG, you get funnier and funnier by the day.— Talking point sleuth
- "Seriously, how anyone can compare the economies under those two administrations and not recognize that fact is" What "fact"? You claim Bush was irresponsible, but can't point to one single law he signed that led to the recession. Not one. Therefore, opinion not fact.— RG
Right, setting interest rates too low after 9/11? The dot com bubble was in the mid 90s. So you are saying that the effect of the mid -90s caused the Bush recession? Can you explain that for all of us non-libertarians?— Les Ismore- "But your argument that the Canadian economy was equally affected as the American economy is one of your most laughable arguments yet" Tell the 8.2% of Candians unemployed that one of their banks is 5th largest. They'll make 'em feel better about their banking laws.— RG
- ---}}} I've asked how GLB caused the issue and you've provided nothing of value, {{{--- It is very simple, RG. The repeal of Glass-Steagall, along with more importantly, the CFMA changed the investment behavior of the financial market sector. It is simply laughable that you need to believe that wasn't the case.— Talking point sleuth
- "What monetary policy, can you explain?" Low interest rates. After the dot com bubble and 9/11, interest rates were set way too low. Lending stadards detriorate and bad projects get funded. The projects aren't profitable, or can't be completed and the loans default.— RG
- Once again, hilarious, RG. Of course Canada was affected by a global recession. The US takes 80% of Canada's exports - so a recession that affects the US will obviously impact employment in Canada. But your argument that the Canadian economy was equally affected as the American economy is one of your most laughable arguments yet, RG. Just one example: --snip-- The Toronto Dominion Bank, for example, was the 15th-largest bank in North America one year ago. Now it is the fifth-largest. It hasn't grown in size; the others have all shrunk. --snip-- And once again, RG, I've said all along that Clinton and the deregulation that took place under his administration were partially to blame. But clearly, the irresponsibility of the Bush administration exacerbated and accelerated the problems. Seriously, how anyone can compare the economies under those two administrations and not recognize that fact is, well, hilarious.— Talking point sleuth
- "actually believe that there is no evidence that commercial banks invested heavily in higher-risk investments with higher leveraging to do so." Strawman. I've asked how GLB caused the issue and you've provided nothing of value, except to claim that you read some bankers quotes. Great job.— RG
- RG What monetary policy, can you explain? Thats a pretty broad brush you are painting with there.— Les Ismore
- "So, RG, why dont you tell us what caused the Bush recession?" Cheap credit, basically poor monetary policy.— RG
- This guy is a genius a messiah even and Pelosi is doing a GREAT JOB!....."The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 29% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -12................ The final numbers for Congress before passing the health care proposal showed that just 11% believe the legislature is doing a good or an excellent job. Sixty-four percent (64%) say Congress is doing a poor job.— Manny Trillo
- "The recession wasn't "caused" by Bush, but his policies certainly contributed." You're all over the place. First it was GLB and CFMA , which were signed by Clinton. Now, you're claiming it was Bush's policies. "Check out what the banks did in Canada," And yet they still had a recession. Unemployments at 8.2% So your claim that irresponsible leverage caused the recession is wrong, since Canada's banks did not leverage. Thanks for coming out.— RG
- ---}}} When you have no actual proof, just insinuate. {{{--- Hilarious. You actually believe that there is no evidence that commercial banks invested heavily in higher-risk investments with higher leveraging to do so. Too funny, RG, just too funny.— Talking point sleuth
- Here's what's hilarious, Les - RG actually believes that the following information isn't relevant to why we had a financial crisis. LOL! --snip-- In the years leading up to the crisis, the top four U.S. depository banks moved an estimated $5.2 trillion in assets and liabilities off-balance sheet into special purpose vehicles or other entities in the shadow banking system. This enabled them to essentially bypass existing regulations regarding minimum capital ratios, thereby increasing leverage and profits during the boom but increasing losses during the crisis. --snip--— Talking point sleuth
- Can you answer that simple question? How did the recession that started during the Cheney admin start?— Les Ismore
- No but our economy going into the ditch will exascerbate conditions in Greece, much like they have done elsewhere in the world. So, RG, why dont you tell us what caused the Bush recession?— Les Ismore
- ---}}} So I'll ask again, if Bush's policies caused the recession, as you claim, why is it global? {{{--- The recession wasn't "caused" by Bush, but his policies certainly contributed. It was caused, primarilyi, by massive banks irresponsibly investing massive amounts of money, and leveraging themselves irresponsibly to do so. And that was a global phenomenon - hence a global recession. Check out what the banks did in Canada, RG, and how deeply they were affected by the recession. --snip-- Canadian banks have not gone shaky like their American counterparts, economists and other experts said. There is no subprime mortgage or home foreclosure mess. And while the United States fears a prolonged recession, Canadians have remained relatively sanguine, convinced that they are in a good position to weather the economic tsunami from the south. "We will be pulled down," said Michael Gregory, chief economist at BMO Nesbitt Burns, an investment firm. "Not as deep, not as long." The main reason for optimism here is the banking system. Experts here note that Canadian banks are more tightly regulated, more liquid and less highly leveraged. Instead of being highflying investment banks, they tend to operate in a more traditional manner, with large numbers of loyal depositors and a more solid base of capital. "I think the regulatory framework in Canada is a little more stringent," Gregory said, "and Canadian banks are a little more conservative in terms of lending." The World Economic Forum this month rated Canada's banks as the world's soundest, ahead of banks in Sweden and Luxembourg. --snip-- Just blows your entire world view, doesn't it, RG? LOL! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/15/AR2008101503321.html— Talking point sleuth
- "Do you think the largest economy in the world (that would be us)" So passing Medicare D and cutting taxes here, makes someone in Greece lose their job?— RG
- Do you think the largest economy in the world (that would be us) would have any effect on the rest of the world? Or is that beyond your libertarian sensibilities to think beyond our borders.— Les Ismore
- "No wonder you need to ignore what bankers say about how the investment environment shifted" Oh, now GLB indirectly shifted the investment environment. Gotcha. When you have no actual proof, just insinuate.— RG
- There is overwhelming evidence of how the repeal of Glass-Steagall had an indirect, but very real role in changing the environment and leading to commercial banks becoming high-risk ventures. The massive leveraging and risk taking lead to the financial crisis - and was enabled by the repeal of Glass-Steagall as well as the CFMA. No wonder you need to ignore what bankers say about how the investment environment shifted - it just blows your entire world view, doesn't it, RG? Dems and Repubs, acting on the mantra that "all deregulation is good" were both responsible. Keep sticking your head in the sand, RG. LOL!— Talking point sleuth
- Ooooh, look, Big Pharma and their lobby love the bill. I thought Obama was fighting against special interests. Anyone care to guess if the drug industry's profit margins are higher or lower than the insurance industry? http://www.phrma.org/news/news/phrma_statement_health_care_reform— RG
Comment removed.- "I forgot, facts are something you and Fox News dont traffic in." Ohh a Fox News comment! Her'es a newsflash, Les. I'm a libertarian, not a Republican. And it says alot about your intellect that you can't distinguish between fact and opinion. So I'll ask again, if Bush's policies caused the recession, as you claim, why is it global? Please try to answer this one simple question.— RG
- RG - I forgot, facts are something you and Fox News dont traffic in. I have to say, I am just loving the fact that the Regressives and TeabaKKKers are just at wit's end. They lost and they know that they jumped the shark. Now over the next couple of months, the now disgraced teabaKKKers, Rush (who is already walking back his promise to leave America for a country with REAL socialized medicine...hahaha he was too stupid to understand that one), Beck and Bohner et al will try to run (or keep their ratings up) on a platform of repealing HCR. This is just so rich! Bring. It. On!— Les Ismore
- "But, typically, you dismiss the relevance of those statements out of hand" Because they are opinion not fact. The facts I see are that GLB allowed investment and commerical banks to merge. AIG, Lehman, Bear Stearns, Goldman, etc were not merged banks. Only citi was and they did so before GLB passed. The Glass Steagal firewall does not exist for most of Europe, yet the crisis did not originate there. So I'm sorry if a couple of quotes doesn't persuade me.— RG
- ---}}} Wow, bankers quotes, irrefutable proof! {{{--- LOL! Bankers who spoke about how, from their direct experience, the repeal of Glass-Steagall affected how business was conducted. But, typically, you dismiss the relevance of those statements out of hand - because you can't reconcile them with your fanaticism. It's exactly that kind of fanaticism that undermines legitimate concerns about government debt.— Talking point sleuth
- Les, I'm really not interested in who feeds you your talking points.— RG
- Read and discuss http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/22/frum-health-our-waterloo/— Les Ismore
- "some of them including quotes from bankers themselves." Wow, bankers quotes, irrefutable proof! Since most of Europe never had the investnment/commercial bank firewall, why didn't the crisis originate there earlier? Hmmmm.— RG
- "hahaha. nice try, go back and reread the posts," At 11:40 am, you said the recession started because of Bush's polices, at 11:44 am, you named four, including tax cuts and Medicare D. Now recently, you are blaming the housing crisis, which kicked off the recession on the private sector. I've read your posts and its fairly clear you have no idea what you are talking about.— RG
- ---}}} Nice try, GLB basically let commercial and investment banks merge. {{{--- I've given you links before about how GLB contributed in ways that went beyond specific mergers with specific banks - some of them including quotes from bankers themselves. But keep choosing to ignore anything that doesn't fit into your lockstep fanaticism, RG.— Talking point sleuth
- No it was Obama RG...hahaha. nice try, go back and reread the posts, moron.— Les Ismore
- "GLB was part of what created the massive shift in the financial sector towards profiting from selling bad debt and turning a blind eye to the risks." Nice try, GLB basically let commercial and investment banks merge. F&F are neither. Keep screaming deregulation.— RG
I bet you could have cleaned up in Vegas that a blog on Alex Chilton's death would get over 200 post to it.— bird11- I fully agree that the Democratic Party policies of deregulation was part of the problem, RG. I'm only laughing at your notion that Republican Party deregulation somehow wasn't.— Talking point sleuth
- ---}}} GLB did nothing to affect Fannie and Freddie, so try again. {{{--- Also wrong. GLB was part of what created the massive shift in the financial sector towards profiting from selling bad debt and turning a blind eye to the risks. F & F were part of that trend along with everyone else. They shouldn't be absolved from responsibility - but the role of F & F should be viewed in proper perspective. But in your blind stupor and binary thinking mentality, the only information you can absorb is information that supports your obsessive need to prove your preconception that government is the root of all evil. BTW, RG, Google Wendy Gramm while you're at it. LOL!— Talking point sleuth
- "the Republican Party has been the party of "fiscal conservatism" any more than the Democratic Party. There is massive evidence that proves otherwise. For example --snip-- --snip--" Mommy, mommy, they did it first. Hypocritical fraud.— RG
- RG, I had many problems with the bailout (the parts under Bush as well as Obama) - the lack of oversight in particular - but agree with many (probably most) economists that not doing anything would have been worse in the long run. I have said over and over that the massive debt is a problem, despite your binary-thinking mentality that causes you to claim that I have said anything approaching that. I just don't believe your revisionist Shanrgi-La thinking that deregulation wasn't part of the problem, or turn a blind eye to the obvious role of massively irresponsible leveraging. I think the HCR bill was pretty bad in lots of ways - not the least was that it doesn't allow for competition that would reduce the cost of medications. But that doesn't therefore mean that I don't think that imperfect HCR is better than the status quo or the alternatives offered by Republicans. I just laugh at the ridiculous notion that somehow the Republican Party has been the party of "fiscal conservatism" any more than the Democratic Party. There is massive evidence that proves otherwise. For example --snip-- --snip-- While defense contracting almost doubled in the Bush years, the Center declared this week, Pentagon investigators referred 76 percent fewer fraud and corruption cases to the Justice Department for prosecution than were sent during the Clinton administration. --snip--— Talking point sleuth
- "it was the private sector that caused our banking crisis," I thought it was Medicare D and tax cuts? Keep focused, Les.— RG
- "Fannie and Freddie are a small percentage of the problem." Really? We've spent over $112 billion on them so far.— RG
- TPS - Thought you mike like this. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason/2010/03/22/frum/index.html— Les Ismore
- Fannie and Freddie are a small percentage of the problem. Thats what you Regressives dont understand...it was the private sector that caused our banking crisis, not mortgages from FannieMae and FreddieMac.— Les Ismore
- "undoing of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 Gramm-Leach-Bliley" GLB did nothing to affect Fannie and Freddie, so try again. If deregulation were the key, then it should explain F&F. It doesn't nor does it explain why uits a global crisis, not just a US one. But then again, you beleive Medicare D and tax cuts caused a global recession and unemployment.— RG
- RG - Like every good Regressive, you expect everyone else to do the work for you. Undoing undoing of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act I wont give you the links though...I have to do some work while you google them.— Les Ismore
- "I never said that government leverage is "OK."" You continue to support a president who is running record deficits. You support the bailouts and other programs that add to the deficit. So you can post the part of fiscal hawk, but you are a deficit spender and a hyprocrite on top of that. Whining about leverage out of one side of your mouth and cheering on spendthrift government out of the other.— RG
- I've given you tons o' evidence of how the Glass-Steagall repeal was part of the problem - some of them from bankers themselves who spoke about things changed pre and post. And the CFA was an even bigger part of the problem. You just want to stick you head in the sand and ignore any information that contradicts your Shangri-La libertarian stupor that government is the root of all evil. Same old, same old.— Talking point sleuth
- ---}}} TPS, please, please, please explain your cognitive dissonance in which government leverage is ok, {{{--- LOL! RG, despite you delusions, I never said that government leverage is "OK." You seem to have me confused with Dick "deficits don't matter" Cheney.— Talking point sleuth
- "Of course leveraging and deregulation affected them" What deregulation? Its fun to shout thatword over and over again, but you really don't seem to be able to point out any specific laws or regs. GLB certainly didn't affect Fannie and Freddie. And they weren't subject to the net capital rules that others were.— RG
- ??? Of course leveraging and deregulation affected them. I've posted criticisms many times about Obama's connections to Wall Street and the financial sector, RG. He tapped Wall Street sycophants to design his financial policy - some of them who were proven to be instrumental in the deregulation and other mistakes that helped cause the problems (Summers). But it's hilarious that you don't think that McCain was just as much in bed with Wall Street as Obama (Google Phil Gramm), if not more so. McCain's been an advocate of deregulation, at the behest of Wall Street, for decades. LOL!— Talking point sleuth
- "I never said that Fannie and Freddie weren't part of the problem" Then explain how leveraging and deregulation affected them. What laws or deregulation led to their issues? Cuz from my standpoint, its funny you voted for the guy who a) received more Wall St money and b) whose admin has numerous connections to Fannie and Freddie over the guy who got fairly little from Wall St and pushed for stronger regs on F&F. My bet would be you're simply a toady.— RG
- Better links: http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/mon-march-15-2010-michael-lewis {{{---}}} http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-march-4-2010/scott-patterson— Talking point sleuth
- TPS, please, please, please explain your cognitive dissonance in which government leverage is ok, but bank leverage is not. You don;t see any irony in the largest debtor in world history attempting to regulate corporate debt?— RG
- LOL! I never said that Fannie and Freddie weren't part of the problem, RG.— Talking point sleuth
- ---}}} Yet somehow, you think chronic borrowing in the form of deficit spending is sound fiscal policy. {{{--- RG - when you need to completely fabricate arguments and attribute them to someone else in order to make your opinion work, it should help you to realize just how vacuous your position is.— Talking point sleuth
- "They fell over themselves to stand in line to buy the bad debt." so did Fannie and Freddie. Leveraged themsleves much more than 30 to 1. Didn't even have to go to the SEC for a net capital waiver. Leveraging magnified the issue, but the root cause was still bad debt, which was my point before your attmepts to distort it. And I'll ask again, where was the risk for the majority of banks and CEOs? They got bonuses and continue to operate. No risk there.— RG
- Two interviews for you to watch, RG. http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/mon-march-15-2010-michael-lewis {{{---}}} http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-march-4-2010-scott-patterson— Talking point sleuth
- ---}}} Banks leveraging did not create the terrible debt, it already existed and was going to go bad regardless of who borrowed what to buy it. {{{--- LOL! They fell over themselves to stand in line to buy the bad debt. And they leveraged themselves 30 times to buy the bad dept - in other words, they magnified the impact of the loan defaults by a factor of 30. It's hilarious that you have so much trouble understanding such an incredibly simple concept.— Talking point sleuth
- "Congratulations to President Obama and the members of the House and Senate who are on the right side of history....again." Where they on the right side of history when they extended the Patriot Act with no further checks or balances? When they kept Gitmo open?— RG
- "I think he cant even understand the basic financial interactions between the largest economy in the world becoming the largest debtor in the world." Oh, this is priceless. The "economy" is not the largest debtor in the world, the US government is. And they guy you support just borrowed $1.2 trillion more for 2010. But according to you this is fine, because when you don't have any money the correct thing to do is ramp up spending. Thanks for the crack economic analysis, Les.— RG
- Seven Presidents have tried and failed to pass HCR. Congratulations to President Obama and the members of the House and Senate who are on the right side of history....again.— Les Ismore
- "Borrowing 30 times more than what you have in order to invest 30 times" Lemme get this straight, you chastise corporations for borrowing more than they have, and call it risky even though they never were punished for their mistakes. Yet somehow, you think chronic borrowing in the form of deficit spending is sound fiscal policy. Brilliant!— RG
- TPS - Agreed, RG is rolling himself up into fetal position at this point and whining with his questions. I think he cant even understand the basic financial interactions between the largest economy in the world becoming the largest debtor in the world. RG-Can you explain why we are in a financial crisis that began before the Obama administration? Also, if you have your Google warmed up, can you explain the role of China and the US moving to the largest debtor nation in the world has to do with our current crisis?— Les Ismore
- "on terrible debt, wasn't what caused the banks problems." Terrible debt, key word. Banks leveraging did not create the terrible debt, it already existed and was going to go bad regardless of who borrowed what to buy it. Simple concept.— RG
- ---}}} Or its called root cause. Leverage to purchase the CDO's did not cause the crisis. {{{--- LOL! Right. Borrowing 30 times more than what you have in order to invest 30 times more than what you have, on terrible debt, wasn't what caused the banks problems. Too funny, RG, too funny.— Talking point sleuth
- Since you are a virtual genius, Les, if the financial crisis is solely Bush's fault can you explain why it went global? I mean he wasn't the president of the whole world, was he? Did he deregulate the UK? Spain? Greece? Or maybe, just maybe, there's just a ton of bad debt out there?— RG
- "Can you tell us what percentage of our current crisis is being blamed on mortgage defaults?" Ummm, isn't this subjective? Past that, you are right, I guess defaults on mortgages and the resulting foreclosures are no big deal. Thats why Obama passed HAMP.— RG
- Wrong again RG "People who couldn't pay back their oversized mortgages did." Can you tell us what percentage of our current crisis is being blamed on mortgage defaults? We are anxious to hear. And then I will give you the real numbers from CBO.— Les Ismore
- And how did they undervalue risk? The execs who made those decisions still got their bonuses and their companies are still operating. So where was the risk for them again? Seems like everything turned out fine for them, despite your bleatings. Little thing called moral hazard.— RG
- "A "personal responsibility" guy makes excuses for executives that systematically undervalued risk and made horrible decisions on that basis." Or its called root cause. Leverage to purchase the CDO's did not cause the crisis. People who couldn't pay back their oversized mortgages did.— RG
- ---}}} So try explaining to me what law lowered lending standards. {{{--- Classic. A "personal responsibility" guy makes excuses for executives that systematically undervalued risk and made horrible decisions on that basis. Right. Someone comes up to you, RG, and offers to bring you a great return if you leverage yourself 30 to 1 to invest in a pet project of theirs - and you leverage yourself 30 to 1 to give them more money than you actually have, and then BLAME THEM because their pet project is completely unsustainable. LOL!— Talking point sleuth
- "leveraging their companies 30 to 1 to buy bad debt". Gee, if the debt were bad, than I'd say it had alot to do with lending standards. So try explaining to me what law lowered lending standards.— RG
- "RG is at the point where he repeats a point and asks another dumb question." Dumb questions you can't answer. Once again, explain how tax cuts cause recessions and unemployment. Please, we're all dying to be enlightened.— RG
- Thanks TPS... It is a great day for America, isnt it? RG is at the point where he repeats a point and asks another dumb question. The Regressives and teabaqqers have nothing. Nothing. It is at the point where they are asking to explain how the economy works...hahaha...— Les Ismore
- "according to RG, financial executives leveraging their companies 30 to 1 to buy bad debt had no role to play in the financial crisis." Non starter. Explain the change in law that allowed this.— RG
- Les - according to RG, financial executives leveraging their companies 30 to 1 to buy bad debt had no role to play in the financial crisis. LOL!— Talking point sleuth
- Ten years of taxes, six years of benefits, thats all you need to know. If Dems were worried about people dying from lack of insurance, benefits would kick in immediately. Instead they'll allow 120k people to die to game the CBO score.— RG
- CBO scoring is a laugh. Look at all the CBO caveats and qualifiers. The CBO is like a computer,garbage in, garbage out. Do you really think the unions will let their cadillac plans be taxed beginning in 2018? Yeah, right. And it you believe that and that Medicare docs will take a 21% cut in reimbursements, I have a bridge to sell you that you'll just love.— pj katauskas
- Oh, and if everything is "paid for", please explain the $400 billion deficit in February alone, not to mention the record $1.2 tril annual deficit. That one month deficit is basically the same as the worst annual deficit under Bush.— RG
- "HCR is paid for. Tax cuts werent, Part D werent, and the wars werent." You still haven't explained how not funding (ie taxing for) Medicare or the wars cause unemployment and recession. Nor have you explained what regulations were removed that caused the financial crisis. Basically, the sum of your enlightened argument is that Bush is bad.— RG
- Okay, now you are playing "why Daddy" game. Sorry but you bring nothing to this debate. Any moron, well maybe not Swifty McVeteran, understands the difference between HCR and Part D and all of Cheney's proposals with no funding. HCR is paid for. Tax cuts werent, Part D werent, and the wars werent. If you want to end the war, vote for a Democrat in November.— Les Ismore
- "One big fat one: Tax Cuts in time of war 2nd big fat one: Unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan 3rd big fat one: Unfunded Medicare part D" Cutting taxes and passing health care causes unemployment and recession? Why has Obama done both then? Fighting wars causes unemployment? Why doesn't Obama end them? Why did UE drop when we fought WW2? You've got to be pulling my leg with this stuff right?— RG
- One big fat one: Tax Cuts in time of war 2nd big fat one: Unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan 3rd big fat one: Unfunded Medicare part D You can find the rest of them.— Les Ismore
- "and if you recall, the recession started as a result of Bush's policies..." Sure, just name the specific policies and/or laws.— RG
- RG...Yes, I have seen the unemployment rate and if you recall, the recession started as a result of Bush's policies...Are you going to deny that? I mean really, can you deny that Bush was the worst thing to happen to our economy and our nation as a whole in the last 150 years or so?— Les Ismore
- Watching RG kick Les Ismoron's a-s around these pages would be so much more enjoyable if it weren't such a sad sad day for America. It is still kind of fun though— Chief Instigator
- "pushing a job killing, revenue destroying budget" Job killing? Have you seen the unemployment rate lately? Oh wait, thats Bush's fault.— RG
- "Removing the unrealistic annual Medicare savings ($463 billion) and the stolen annual revenues from Social Security and long-term care insurance ($123 billion), and adding in the annual spending that so far is not accounted for ($114 billion) quickly generates additional deficits of $562 billion in the first 10 years. And the nation would be on the hook for two more entitlement programs rapidly expanding as far as the eye can see." Former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21holtz-eakin.html— RG
- "You are quoting hypotheticals" Wrong, the Dems are goign to go ahead and pass the doc fix, otherwise, thousands of Medicare patients won't have doctors. And when they do so, the net effect is higher deficits.— RG
- RG - took all of 15 seconds to find the flaws in your argument...You are quoting hypotheticals posed by Regressive Ryan who is pushing a job killing, revenue destroying budget as the Regressive alternative to sound fiscal policy. The CBO thoroughly repudiated all of his assumptions....but they were nice about it.— Les Ismore
- Oh, and the CLASS act part? Long term deficit driver. "After 2030, however, the program will likely begin losing money, Douglass Elmendorf, director of the CBO, suggested. The sum of benefit payments and administrative costs would probably exceed premium income and savings to the Medicaid program, according to Elmendorf's letter to Rep. George Miller (D-CA), who requested the analysis. In succeeding decades, the program would add to the federal deficit “by amounts on the order of tens of billions of dollars for each 10-year period,” Elmendorf said" http://www.mcknights.com/cbo-class-act-could-eventually-contribute-to-deficit/article/158706/— RG
- "Yes, the exact same bankers need to be re-regulated." What regulations were taken away and how did they cause the crisis? Can't wait for these talking points.— RG
- Here's the gimmick, after they pass the Medicare Physician's act, commonly known as the doc fix, we go right back to having deficits. Hope. Change. Insolvency. "You asked about the total budgetary impact of enacting the reconciliation proposal (the amendment to H.R. 4872), the Senate-passed health bill (H.R. 3590), and the Medicare Physicians Payment Reform Act of 2009 (H.R. 3961). CBO estimates that enacting all three pieces of legislation would add $59 billion to budget deficits over the 2010–2019 period." http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11376/RyanLtrhr4872.pdf— RG
- yep, the ones that took the money that President Cheney said had to be done unless we wanted to risk global economic collapse. Remember, even John McCain put his campaign on hold for that. Even Sarah Palin was for that if you recall and I know that as the Oracle of Facebook goes, so go the Regressives and TeabaKKKers. Yes, the exact same bankers need to be re-regulated.— Les Ismore
- "Heck, I wanted financial reform last year!" Of course you did, those mean bankers whom Obama voted to give taxpayer money to.— RG
- hahaha..there are tons of things we need to do by November or even better yet, by July or even next month. Heck, I wanted financial reform last year! Heed David Frums words wisely my friend, it is the Regressive Waterloo. And watch how the teabaKKKers are treated now after they jumped the shark on this also.— Les Ismore
- "What a great comeback" They take from one group to give to another. Typically they target high earners. Its more commonly known as stealing.— RG
- "Definitely not afraid of November." Then why are you pushing for finance reform by then? Methinks you may be fibbing.— RG
- "Democrats do things differently. Yeah, they steal from the rich." What a great comeback... I mean that could be on Sarah Palins Facebook page it is so snarky.— Les Ismore
- Definitely not afraid of November. We need more to show America that in spite of the lies, deceptions and pathetic hatred of a small group of regressives, the will of the American people prevails. And RG, did you know that when people understand that there are no death panels and they wont lose their insurance and fully understand what is in the bill, approval jumps into the high 60%...You see, the thing that I love about this country is that good hardworking Americans can figure out when Regressives are playing them for fools. As David Frum said, HCR is a Waterloo, but unfortunately it was a Republican Waterloo.— Les Ismore
- Oh, and a "give it up dude" hardly counts for an intelligent rebuttal to the point that both the CBO and DHHS have forecast a rise in premiums, or that empircal evidence has shown that premiums go up when coverage is expanded.— RG
- "You see, hardworking Americans, you know the ones that read, think and are the back bone of this country are seeing the teabaqqers for what they are" "Lets get this done before November." If America won, then why are you afraid of November? Why would Dems get voted out if America wanted this bill? Guess you can't reconcile that incovienent thought.— RG
- RG: Give it up dude. America wins. Boehner, Palin, Beck, Swifty McVeteran all lose. The people who told lies to the American people like Boehner, Inhoffe, and the rest of the Regressive Hate Pack all lost. You see, hardworking Americans, you know the ones that read, think and are the back bone of this country are seeing the teabaqqers for what they are. Afraid, lonely and desparate to stop anything the black guy does because there is no other rational explanation for the lies they told during this debate. Get. Over. It. Next up: Financial reform! Lets get this done before November. If you think Bohner went to the wall against HCR, wait to you see how shrill he gets in support of Wall Street greed.— Les Ismore
- Congress writes the appropriations.— RG
- Even a branch of the Department of Health and Human Services sees the reform bill raising costs. http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=155168— RG
- Actually the Executive branch writes the budget, Congress passes it.— Les Ismore
- "Last I looked we didnt pass RomneyCare." Way to deflect. Its awfully close, but the results will be the same, higher costs across the board. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703298004574455560453947646.html— RG
- Last I looked we didnt pass RomneyCare.— Les Ismore
- You can also ask Massachusetts how they like RomneyCare. That "investment" has already led to increased premiums.— RG
- "Democrats do things differently." Yeah, they steal from the rich. "Since we are the only party that has ever balanced a budget and actually shrunk the size of government in the last 50 years" Really? Government is shrinking and our budget is balanced? Or are you talking about the 90's? You do realize that Repyublicans controlled Congress, where budgets are actually written, don't you?— RG
- If you recall, the last Medicare legislation was passed by the Cheney administration and was unfunded. Democrats do things differently. Since we are the only party that has ever balanced a budget and actually shrunk the size of government in the last 50 years, we have experience in funding our mandates. I hope the Regressives are taking notes.— Les Ismore
- "However, if you buy new windows and insulate your home (an expense), over 5, 10, or 20 years you will be spending less." Really? Then why does the CBO, your favorite source, project premiums to go up? Next, didn't we "invest" in the future with Medicare and SS, two programs with massive unfunded liabilities? Thirdly, being $14 tril in hock, I don't want the government doing any investing, especially after buying those two lemons, GM ad Chrysler.— RG
- RG, Lets see if we can make this easy enough for you to understand. If your home has drafty windows; you are paying alot of money for heat. However, if you buy new windows and insulate your home (an expense), over 5, 10, or 20 years you will be spending less. Now you could do nothing and heat the neighborhood or you can invest (new word) in the future. This is how the economy works. Understand. Oh and here are some of Swifty McVeterans friends trying to explain why they dont like HCR...Its a riot!!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pilG7PCV448&feature=player_embedded— Les Ismore
- Les, would it be fair to say that this is your understanding of the reform bill? http://www.coordinationproblem.org/2010/03/health-care-reform-imitates-south-park.html— RG
- "help to make this the biggest deficit reduction bill in American" Spending a trillion dollars reduces deficits? Who woulda thunk it? Well, even if we suspend disbelief, that would simply mean we'd be reducing the deficit from $1.3 trillin to the level it was at during the Bush years, when the Dems whined about it incessantly. I guess this is was counts for success nowadays, retuening the deficit to Dubya levels.— RG
- One small step for man, one large step toward insolvency. The bond market now finds it safer to lend to Lowes, Proctor and Gamble, Warren Buffet, etc that the US government. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aYUeBnitz7nU— RG
- ocjones: a handful? Go onto youtube and you can find more than a handful. Go to one of those teabaqqer rallys and you will see thousands, yes thousands of signs indicating a hatred for our duly elected President. The teabaqqers are an embarrassment to America. I think now more people realize that since they have shown their true colors.— Les Ismore
- Hey Swifty McVeteran: Sure if you rip out the guts of the bill, add in some pork for John Bohner, ignore what is laid out in the law, then add money for more bridges to nowhere, John Bohners tanning booths and Newt Gingrichs alimony payments, the bill will be a deficit buster. Thankfully, what you call "gimmicks" help to make this the biggest deficit reduction bill in American....no make that WORLD history. This is a great day for America!— Les Ismore
- Say, sloboat - just curious. How many times did you post on these threads that there would be no HCR bill passed?— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
How dishonest to condemn a peaceful group of thousands of Americans based on the actions of a very few. You lefties should be ashamed to do such a thing, but my guess is that shame is not an emotion with which you're familiar.— ocjones- C'mon, Les. The tea partiers were only spitting on people and shouting epithets because they care so much about what the founding fathers would have wanted. Just ask RG. LOL!— Talking point sleuth
- How ironic that batboy was on here with a "Democratic" and ranting about Dems lying - when it turns out that the memo was being sent around by REPUBLICANS who never bothered to confirm its authenticity. Hmmmm. Republicans not bother to fact check before politicizing an important issue. Never seen that before.— Talking point sleuth
- I wonder how many of you will still identify with the teabaqqers after this weekend's disgusting display of their real feelings about America and Americans. Racial epiteths and profanity was all they had to offer, especially towards members of the Black Caucus. Real classy bunch of folks you got there. At least they finally displayed what every thinking person could see in the last 9 months; a disgusting racism just lightly fogged over with claims of constitutional issues in hopes of some last grasp at deniability. How about teabaKKKers?— Les Ismore
- I wonder how many of you will still identify with the teabaqqers after this weekend's disgusting display of their real feelings about America and Americans. Racial epiteths and profanity was all they had to offer, especially towards members of the Black Caucus. Real classy bunch of folks you got there. At least they finally displayed what every thinking person could see in the last 9 months; a disgusting racism just lightly fogged over with claims of constitutional issues in hopes of some last grasp at deniability. How about teabaKKKers?— Les Ismore
Bird isnt that the war the libs told us was lost the past seven years ? is that the war where the libs have been constantly accusing our troops of commiting war crimes ? is that the war the libs told us the surge would fail ? that war ?. The same libs that are now telling us the health care bill will save money , those libs ? and they wonder why people treat them with contempt.— PAEnglish- Obama is a genius..............Saturday, March 20...... "The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that 23% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-four percent (44%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -21. That matches the lowest Approval Index rating yet recorded for this President..................... Each time the President leads a big push for his health care plan, his job approval ratings suffer. While some portions of the plan are popular, others are not. Most voters oppose the proposed Medicare savings and the taxes involved."— Manny Trillo
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Great...a chain smoker is pushing health care reform. The CBO data shows this bill will increase the deficit without its massive tax increase. How about spending better? Let small businesses pool their coverage and this nonsense disappears. What will this reform get us? How will additional coverage help those that call 911 for a bloody nose? Will poor, fat smokers become nutritionally aware on Monday morning? This bill is a waste. The Empty Suit needs to spend more time on ESPN with his baracketology...leave the big things to the adults...what an empty suit.— Joe Funk
- Comment removed.
- More interesting watching. A Republican makes a false claim with no sourcing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvCiICpaGkY&feature=player_embedded That Republican gets punked: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NMqAVJNxco&feature=player_embedded— Talking point sleuth
- Les - in case you missed it: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/36006_Video-_Jon_Stewart_As_Glenn_Becks_Evil_Twin and http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/36005_Video-_Colbert_Investigates_Social_Justice— Talking point sleuth
- I smell a whole bunch of mommy mommy posts.— RG
- Aw, what the hey. Why not yet another re-post? This factoid is just too good: --snip-- While defense contracting almost doubled in the Bush years, the Center declared this week, Pentagon investigators referred 76 percent fewer fraud and corruption cases to the Justice Department for prosecution than were sent during the Clinton administration. --snip--— Talking point sleuth
- Sorry - I'm afraid I was a bit too quick with my snip there. Allow me to re-post. And, of course, this little factoid bears repeating anyway (because it exposes the pure fraudytood of our beloved ARts). --snip-- While defense contracting almost doubled in the Bush years, the Center declared this week, Pentagon investigators referred 76 percent fewer fraud and corruption cases to the Justice Department for prosecution than were sent during the Clinton administration. The reasons cited: relaxed regulations and declining investigative man-power and "expertise." --snip-- Wow! It really is hilarious that anyone who votes Republican, who voted for Bush. Twice. Can, with a straight face, call themselves a "fiscal conservative" who is "outraged" by waste.— Talking point sleuth
- Hmmmm. From April of 2009: --snip-- Now comes a pair of reports that make it clear that (1) defense spending, particularly on weapons systems, has exploded in recent years beyond any reasonable reckoning for inflation, and (2) serious policing of Pentagon contracting has virtually vanished. The spike in development costs for major weapons systems is "staggering," driven mostly by overruns beyond original contract prices, the Government Accountability Office reported this week. Costs have been rising steadily, the GAO found; last year alone they were 42 percent above original estimates. A prime example is the Air Force's vaunted F-22A air superiority fighter, a weapon, as critics see it, for a Cold War adversary that no longer exists. Costs, GAO said, have ballooned 195 percent and forced the Air Force to cut its order from 648 planes to 184. The GAO found the Pentagon procurement process essentially broken. In some cases, weapons development begins even before the technology needed has been perfected. Too often, Pentagon planning starts from what GAO analyst Michael Sullivan called an "unrealistic baseline." Even as defense costs are escalating, oversight has taken a holiday, according to the Center for Public Integrity, a non-partisan digital news organization specializing in investigative journalism. While defense contracting almost doubled in the Bush years, the Center declared this week, Pentagon investigators referred 76 percent fewer fraud and corruption cases to the Justice Department for prosecution than were sent during the Clinton administration. The reasons cited: relaxed regulations and declining investigative Nice factoid there, isn't it.— Talking point sleuth
- More evidence of the selective budgetary "outrage" of Republicans. Take a guess, folks, at how much money the Pentagon can't account for. From 2003 --snip-- A study by the Defense Department's inspector general found that the Pentagon couldn't properly account for more than a trillion dollars in monies spent. A GAO report found Defense inventory systems so lax that the U.S. Army lost track of 56 airplanes, 32 tanks, and 36 Javelin missile command launch-units. And before the Iraq war, when military leaders were scrambling to find enough chemical and biological warfare suits to protect U.S. troops, the department was caught selling these suits as surplus on the Internet "for pennies on the dollar," a GAO official said. --snip-- I don't think that Attytood was around in 2003, but if it were, I'm sure that thread after thread would have been filled with "fiscal conservatives" absolutely "outraged" about the waste in military spending. LOL!— Talking point sleuth
- Gotta say, ARts are world class whiners. For years when the CBO reported about the budgetary waste and largess of the Bush administration, they ignored each and every report and kept falling in line to vote Republican nonetheless; re-electing Bush after unprecedented growth in debt (along with his buddy, Dick "deficits don't matter" Cheney). Then all of a sudden, once Obama was elected, they were constantly with the "The CBO says X" and "The CBO says Y." Now that the CBO has made a report that they don't like, they want to take their ball and go home again. "Mommy, mommy, the CBO won't report the way we want them to report. It's so unfaaaaaaaaair mommy. Make them report the way we waaaaaaaaaaaaaaant them to." LOL! What an incredible bunch o' whiners.— Talking point sleuth
- OOPS - "ARE" serving— bird11
- Surprisingly no one remarked that today is the 7th Anniversary of the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom. THANK YOU!!! from bird11 to all the men and woman who served and ARE serving our country in Iraq and around the world.— bird11
- Surprisingly no one remarked that today is the 7th Anniversary of the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom. THANK YOU!!! from bird11 to all the men and woman who served and our serving our country in Iraq and around the world.— bird11
- Comment removed.
- Les; Don't you know by now that Swifty is beyond help? At least you have the abilty to be compassionate which is admirable.— James TL
- Batty, they have to pass the doc fix, or else doctors will flee medicare in droves. The Dems know this and thats why they pulled the doc fix from the current bill. It eliminates all of the predicted savings from reform.— RG
- Comment removed.
- bil atk. as TPS would say - "you're surprised that politicians lie, all politicians lie"— bird11
- Comment removed.
/// Try proofreading your posts before hitting submit. Moron.//// Seriously, Les, this is coming from you, the serial absentee apostrophe writer? Glass houses, Les. Glass houses...- The man was responsible for some really beautiful music. He inspired many in a good way. You can't say that of alot of people.— Tkat
- MSL - I'm pretty sure the Dems already have the deadbeat vote cornered.— bird11
- "I believe the thinking behind the current penalty amount is that it's equivalent to the average person's cost to society of being uninsured and not paying their bills." Well, in that case the cost is pretty low, I believe the fines are $695 or 2% of income. So in other words, the uninsured currently don't cost society much money, which goes against what the Dems have been screaming.— RG
- "Like I have said over and over again, no one is taking your insurance, no one is making you change doctors" Really? Companies won't drop coverage for their employees and simply pay the fine? That would probably lead to a change in doctors. So would piling on an excise tax for Cadillac plans.— RG
- Mirror: You know, I often bristle when wingnuts and teabaqqers speak with such disdain for people who work for the government, you know the names "bureaucrats" and worse. Insinuating that every government worker is a lazy, stupid oaf who cant cut it in the private sector. But I have to say, reading your last post, I think there are stupid people working for government after all. Like I have said over and over again, no one is taking your insurance, no one is making you change doctors, and there are no death panels other than the ones your insurance company already has. Sheesh!!!— Les Ismore
"Its going to lead to adverse selection, where the insurance pools will be full of sick people and the young and healthy will simply pay the fine, since it's lower than premiums." . . . . . . I believe the thinking behind the current penalty amount is that it's equivalent to the average person's cost to society of being uninsured and not paying their bills. Anyway, it wasn't that long ago that the Right was scaring folks into believing they'd end up in prison. I suppose arguing that they can instead game the system will win over the deadbeat vote.- Swifty McVeteran: Have you contacted a professional to discuss your issues? I am not being snarky but dude, you have some real issues you should address immediately. I dont want to see you on the breaking news section of CNN as the lastest wingnut to go on a rampage of hate. Get. Help. Now.— Les Ismore
- pjsz1261 - I thought the extra "s" was for "Sarah".— bird11
- the superfluous s is for "savings" right Les?— pjsz1261
- Did anyone notice that Les is more is an anogram for lies more with one extraneous s? You do lie Les. The benefits DO NOT kick in immediately.