10 hours ago, DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

Anyone checkout the Elections site Bing has setup for the upcoming U.S. elections? I have to say I find it pretty useful. The charts at the bottom of the home page are pretty interesting.

 

I judge it biased in favor of democrats.  There is no mention of the president refusing to answer questions about the Benghazi attack. Republican media and web sites are talking about this issue incessantly. Yet Bing appears to think it is non existent.

To this day the public does not know if the president knew there had been attacks on the consulate prior to 9/11, if he knew security was withdrawn rather than being increased. We do not know whether the president was told at the time that the consulate was under attack. And we do not know if he knew the Sec of Defense refused to send armed defenders to the attack sites.

To Bing's defense, the Romney camp is not talking about this issue either. Part of him being a centrist, where the reality of people being killed while serving their country is a topic to be avoided. But half the electorate is definitely keyed up about the issue.  Bing should not take sides and ignore them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjrthOPLAKM&feature=youtube_gdata_player

50 minutes ago, dahat wrote

@SteveRichter: I noticed that yesterday as well... But chaulked it up to the news sources selected... Most of which lean left. Daily Kos? Salon? Huffington? Where is something akin to the Daily Caller, Hot Air, or even Weasel Zippers?

They have Daily Caller, NewsMax, Hotair, as sources.I haven't much explored the site, but advertised right there is a "news slider" that lets you choose from left-wing and right-wing sources. If you place it in the middle, you get generally mainstream sites like CNN, Fox, msnbc, NY Times, WSJ.

(Personally I think its awful they're sticking to this format of left vs. right when there's a diverse amount of viewpoints, which though may be categorized as left-right , isn't always the best way to see them).

1 hour ago, brian.​shapiro wrote

*snip*

They have Daily Caller, NewsMax, Hotair, as sources.I haven't much explored the site, but advertised right there is a "news slider" that lets you choose from left-wing and right-wing sources. If you place it in the middle, you get generally mainstream sites like CNN, Fox, msnbc, NY Times, WSJ.

(Personally I think its awful they're sticking to this format of left vs. right when there's a diverse amount of viewpoints, which though may be categorized as left-right , isn't always the best way to see them).

I think the slider is genius. The best part about it is that you can actually move it at will and see one perspective, the other, or both! Wow.

Regarding Benghazi it also doesn't include articles about how the Republicans voted to cut spending on embassy security in the past. Funny how the facts that seem to matter the most never make it to the front page...

6 minutes ago, DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

*snip*

I think the slider is genius. The best part about it is that you can actually move it at will and see one perspective, the other, or both! Wow.

Except there aren't only two perspectives, which is the problem.

29 minutes ago, DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

@brian.shapiro: True dat. It would be nice if the slider had some granularity to it. I guess just like the rest of the media it condones further polarization of the populous and exploitation thereof. "Freedom of Speech" and "Free Markets" have the same problem: they both can be full of fraud.

Regarding polarization, the two parties in the USA used to be regional, not conservative / liberal.

I think the polarization is largely due to the alignment of the parties to the most fundamental differentiation of philosophies - conservative versus liberal.

No one aligns %100 with either party, imho, gratefully.

@DeathByVisualStudio: "Regarding Benghazi"... you just be getting pretty desperate as even the mainstream Democrats have given up on that line of arguing as it is increasingly clear that a giant ball was dropped by State, DOD and the Whitehouse. Attempt to spin all you want... but it does not change the fact that a massive cover up is going on... one that the media would no doubt care about if it wasn't being done to protect the hide of a Democrat President.

57 minutes ago, brian.​shapiro wrote

*snip*

Except there aren't only two perspectives, which is the problem.

+1000000

2 hours ago, DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

Regarding Benghazi it also doesn't include articles about how the Republicans voted to cut spending on embassy security in the past. Funny how the facts that seem to matter the most never make it to the front page...

I have read no assertions by the WH that they left the consulate undefended or did not come to the aid of our people who were under attack because of budget constraints.

1 hour ago, dahat wrote

@DeathByVisualStudio: "Regarding Benghazi"... you just be getting pretty desperate as even the mainstream Democrats have given up on that line of arguing as it is increasingly clear that a giant ball was dropped by State, DOD and the Whitehouse. Attempt to spin all you want... but it does not change the fact that a massive cover up is going on... one that the media would no doubt care about if it wasn't being done to protect the hide of a Democrat President.

I know, sweetie, it's all bronco bama's fault.

3 hours ago, dahat wrote

@brian.shapiro: I was going based on the drop down list of sources on the customize page... which lacks the three sources you mentioned

@DeathByVisualStudio: "Regarding Benghazi"... you just be getting pretty desperate as even the mainstream Democrats have given up on that line of arguing as it is increasingly clear that a giant ball was dropped by State, DOD and the Whitehouse. Attempt to spin all you want... but it does not change the fact that a massive cover up is going on... one that the media would no doubt care about if it wasn't being done to protect the hide of a Democrat President.

I wasn't saying the WH, DOD, etc wasn't blameless. I was underscoring the fact that this information is as non-existent on Bing as the Republican's rants were. You can turn this turd into your favorite talking points if you want. You just make the case of how insanely furiously righteous some people on the right can be... I bet your alias here used to be "Da-Tinfoil-Hat"...

5 hours ago, ScanIAm wrote

*snip*

I know, sweetie, it's all bronco bama's fault.

Good to have a reminder of how seriously you take such serious issues.

4 hours ago, cbae wrote

@dahat: Is the feigned outrage the only schtick you know? You should go on strike with the rest of your "producer" buddies. That'll teach the media for ignoring your feelings.

You must be new... I do not feign anything... I am outraged that not only does the president think an ambassador being murdered by a terrorist attack is a minor thing... but that people like you are so eager to deflect... mmmm.... the desperation is delicious.

3 hours ago, DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

*snip*

I wasn't saying the WH, DOD, etc wasn't blameless. I was underscoring the fact that this information is as non-existent on Bing as the Republican's rants were. You can turn this turd into your favorite talking points if you want. You just make the case of how insanely furiously righteous some people on the right can be... I bet your alias here used to be "Da-Tinfoil-Hat"...

By omission you did by trying to cast blame in a single discredited direction.

Again... the desperation is delicious.

19 minutes ago, dahat wrote

*snip*

You must be new... I do not feign anything... I am outraged that not only does the president think an ambassador being murdered by a terrorist attack is a minor thing...

Then you seriously need to relax before you rupture an artery in your temple. There are far more egregious things in the world to be less outraged by.

You'd be far better served by going off on your merry way doing that "producer" thing.

but that people like you are so eager to deflect... mmmm.... the desperation is delicious.

Desperation? Hardly. Repeating the same bullshit line over and over again doesn't make it anymore so.

This country needs more energy production with less regulation for companies.   This will grow manufacturing because it will be cheaper to build and distribute than anywhere else.   Romney is right about this and it will create 12 million plus jobs.   Try to fly a jet on Solar panels.  President Barack Obama will face voters with the highest unemployment rate of any incumbent since Franklin Roosevelt and slightly higher than the 7.8% when he took office in January 2009.  This country is not Europe.   Europe likes this country to be different from them.  Thats why people keep coming here.  I do not see alot of migration going the opposite direction where people are moving out of the US to other countries.  

If this election goes Obama's way I see alot of small businesses closing and unemployment soaring above 12%.   This will cause social unrest and high crime rates.  If you are from Canada or Europe you might not want to visit here because your safety will be compromised.  Thats the democratic future. 

7 hours ago, TexasToast wrote

President Barack Obama will face voters with the highest unemployment rate of any incumbent since Franklin Roosevelt and slightly higher than the 7.8% when he took office in January 2009.  This country is not Europe.

LMAO! The political blight named Dumbya that your state unleashed on the world was responsible for 750K lost jobs PER MONTH before he left office. Only somebody with the mental capacity of a chimp would think that a new president could have stopped that tsunami of lost jobs dead in its tracks on the day he sets foot in the Oval Office.

7 hours ago, TexasToast wrote

I see alot of people who like Obama, but just think he is too idealistic and not practical enough to get this country moving.  

For me Obama's approach is about building an economy that lasts -- not another bubble like the Republican's build with deregulation, corporate welfare, and a lack of investment in the future for things like education and renewables. Time and time again the Republicans dupe the impatient, small minded Americans into thinking they will provide opportunity for everyone. Instead they give breaks to their wealthy cronies and disguise it in some crumbs they provide the middle class. In the end we end up in another recession, another bailout, and more fraud that goes unpunished because the laws on the books are unenforceable. The divide between the rich and poor grows and the excuse you most commonly hear is that "everyone has the same opportunity". What a load of BS. No thanks. I'll take Obama.

I was so glad to leave the democratic leaning state of Washington.  They support Obama, but I counted 12 GM cars.   All Bmws, mercedes, hondas, toyotas, etc.   If you support Obama who save the auto industry by buying GM trade in your vehicle for a GM.  Make the sacrifice.  The Chevy Volt is waiting for you.   

That's funny because I can hardly get out of my neighborhood because the street is blocked with so may Chevy Tahoe's & Suburban's, Dodge Charger wagons. Ford Flex's, etc. And yes I live in Washington State.

On another subject,  there is a big push for recycling and there were 3 different garbage slots for your different types of waste.   I watched with amusement on how everyone just was confused and mixed up all the items.   Nice idea but poor implementation.  

Maybe you lived in neighborhood of Texan transplants. We used to have 3 bins: paper, plastic, and glass. I never saw people screw it up as broadly as you describe. Of course we're all about progress here in the Northwest (rather than being a bunch of whiners & quitters) so now we have a giant can for all recyclables except glass and a bin for the glass. My regular garbage can is dwarfed by my recycle can. I never have a problem with the regular trash can being too full and I always seem to find a way to fill the recycle.

I'm bettering that in the next 30-50 years the Northwest will have renewables & recyclables all figured out making blowhards like you look like fools. Bye-bye big oil...

This country needs more energy production with less regulation for companies.   This will grow manufacturing because it will be cheaper to build and distribute than anywhere else.  

Sorry I don't want to be like China -- both in pollution and jobs where people want to kill themselves because of working conditions.

Romney is right about this and it will create 12 million plus jobs.  

You really need to do some research rather than accept Romney's talking points straight out of his mouth.

"But Moody's Analytics, in an August forecast, predicts 12 million jobs will be created by 2016, no matter who is president."

Try to fly a jet on Solar panels.  President Barack Obama will face voters with the highest unemployment rate of any incumbent since Franklin Roosevelt and slightly higher than the 7.8% when he took office in January 2009.  This country is not Europe.   Europe likes this country to be different from them.  Thats why people keep coming here.  I do not see alot of migration going the opposite direction where people are moving out of the US to other countries.  

A solar jet? Where the hell did you pull that out of? Oh wait...

No matter who was president this past four years they would have faced the same historic recession that Obama faced and in only four years time would be lucky to have come as far as Obama has taken us. Out of one side of their mouths Republicans say stuff like you did and out of the other side of their mouths they say stuff like "people come here for the free services and handouts". So which is it? Jobs or Handouts?

As for Europe I'd hope we would learn from both their mistakes and their successes and not just color things as "bad" because some country in Europe does it that way. The latter is all about control -- label something in an easy to swallow hate pill and the American public will pop them like candy and as a result hand their will over to you. Seik heil!

If this election goes Obama's way I see alot of small businesses closing and unemployment soaring above 12%.   This will cause social unrest and high crime rates.  If you are from Canada or Europe you might not want to visit here because your safety will be compromised.  Thats the democratic future. 

This sounds a lot like the Bush era tactics he used to get re-elected for his second term. Replace "social unrest" with "terrorism" and it's the same old Republican shtick.

No doubt the unemployment rate won't improve until the Republican lead House (and possible Senate this next term) is willing to come to the table and work out a balanced approach with the Democrats. It was clear this past term their sole mission was to oust Obama and do absolutely nothing for the economy. If they continue to let their puppet master, the Tea Party, control them we will see no progress. Maybe this term they'll actually try and pass some legislation about the economy instead of wasting time and taxpayer money trying to repeal Obamacare fully knowing such efforts were futile and nothing more than political posturing.

18 hours ago, dahat wrote

By omission you did by trying to cast blame in a single discredited direction.

Again... the desperation is delicious.

Following your "logic" then by omission the other party I was responding to was equally trying to cast blame in a single discredited direction. It's pretty simple Da, the other party mentioned one side of the argument and I mentioned the other. No need to get your undies in a bunch.

BTW, Nice copy/paste job. You sound pretty desperate yourself (over and over again).

1 day ago, JohnAskew wrote

*snip*

Regarding polarization, the two parties in the USA used to be regional, not conservative / liberal.

I think the polarization is largely due to the alignment of the parties to the most fundamental differentiation of philosophies - conservative versus liberal.

No one aligns %100 with either party, imho, gratefully.

Well they were regional, but also ideological at the same time. If you're talking about pre-Civil War, Southerners were more against a powerful federal government, Northerners were more in favor of it. And it wasn't just on the slavery issue. Even far before slavery as an issue started boiling over, they were fighting about the National Bank. Southerners tended to hate the bank because they were farmers (along Jefferson's yeoman farmer idea) and thought of themselves as independent and didn't like banks controlling inflation, while Northerners liked banks because the North was industry-oriented. They had different ideologies because they had different living conditions. You had people that were more agrarian and people who were more urban.

But even then you had Northern Whigs and Southern Whigs, and Northern Democrats and Southern Democrats, and that made politics national. There were even big third party constituencies that varied from region to region. On the eve of when the Civil War erupted the national Whig and Democrat coalitions fell apart, and that's when it became region vs. region.

Modern conservative/liberal politics likewise has followed regional lines for a long time.

But that isn't really the issue. The real point is that politics a long time ago was less institutional. Parties and coalitions could rise and fall. We had three party systems in the 19th century. In the 20th century we had one. When the media feeds into the perception of polarization it ends up creating it, and that just gives power to party bosses and institutional politics. 

9 hours ago, TexasToast wrote

I see alot of people who like Obama, but just think he is too idealistic and not practical enough to get this country moving. 

On policy issues, I agree with Obama on some issues and agree with Romney on others. What I've always disliked about Obama is that he came in pretending that he was more idealistic and pure than the average politician, and that he was riding in on a white horse to solve all of our problems, and he never was. He's a machine politician just like most of the other people in Washington, and just as partisan; it was a big lie just to sell his candidacy. And I think he's been an extremely divisive leader -- everything Democrats accused Bush of.

I'm not excited about Romney as a replacement, though. As much as both Obama and Romney like to feed into this idea, it's not the Presidents job to "fix the economy" so his acumen as a business leader doesn't impress me. It's not even the President's job to write laws, much less fix the economy, that's the Congress' job.  Romney, too, like Obama, he's a machine politician, who likes to pretend he's an "outsider" because he was an insider in Boston politics, and not in D.C. politics. What's the difference?

"For me Obama's approach is about building an economy that lasts -- not another bubble like the Republican's build with deregulation, corporate welfare, and a lack of investment in the future for things like education and renewables.

Hey I like that someone can be idealistic like you.     Have you ever owned and run a business?   Try to put up a building and deal with local government regulations on top of all the other crap from the feds for hiring etc.   We need deregulation badly before it chokes this country to death.   Obama is hiring more regulators and making more government to kill private industry jobs.  Thats not a long term approach for me. 

13 minutes ago, TexasToast wrote

@DeathByVisualStudio:

"For me Obama's approach is about building an economy that lasts -- not another bubble like the Republican's build with deregulation, corporate welfare, and a lack of investment in the future for things like education and renewables.

Hey I like that someone can be idealistic like you.     Have you ever owned and run a business?   Try to put up a building and deal with local government regulations on top of all the other crap from the feds for hiring etc.   We need deregulation badly before it chokes this country to death.   Obama is hiring more regulators and making more government to kill private industry jobs.  Thats not a long term approach for me. 

There are countless number business that are very successful under the current regulatory conditions. If you're a whiny little b1tch about regulations being the cause of your business being a failure, you don't have what it takes to be in business at all. Shut down your business and form yourself a knitting club. The business world has no place for you.

2 minutes ago, TexasToast wrote

@DeathByVisualStudio:

"For me Obama's approach is about building an economy that lasts -- not another bubble like the Republican's build with deregulation, corporate welfare, and a lack of investment in the future for things like education and renewables.

Hey I like that someone can be idealistic like you.     Have you ever owned and run a business?   Try to put up a building and deal with local government regulations on top of all the other crap from the feds for hiring etc.   We need deregulation badly before it chokes this country to death.   Obama is hiring more regulators and making more government to kill private industry jobs.  Thats not a long term approach for me. 

That's funny because I thought the recession was caused in part by deregulation. Yeah that's what we need, less regulation...

As long as businesses have to pay a dime in taxes or be held accountable to a single regulation they will complain. My boss is a fantastic person to work for and is very kind and generous person. He's a part owner in the company I work for. He just built a swanky new house in a upscale part of town, bought a hopped up $60K Dodge truck, paid a boatload of money for interior decorators to design and decorate our main conference room and entryway, and is paying for his two kids' college tuition. Our company has less than 80 employees so it's not huge. And yes he complains about regulations and taxes. It's funny how they don't seem to be killing his income or the health of our company.

And corporate profits are at a 30 year all-time high. Take a look at the first chart of this article from the Motley Fool. The article actually voices concerns the idea that profits have peeked -- there's no room left for growth. With that said I think I'd long over due to change the game.

So while I don't own a business I'm certainly not going to take a business owner's word for it (or a politician's) that taxes and over-regulation is killing business. Surely ever system isn't perfect and could use some housecleaning but this idea that American business are over-regulated is just another Republican talking point.

BTW, Nice touch with the bold. It's like Romney in the last debate; "I'm going to do exactly what Obama did but much better -- because I said so." Reminds me of another "I'm the Decider"...

12 minutes ago, DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

*snip*

That's funny because I thought the recession was caused in part by deregulation. Yeah that's what we need, less regulation...

It was caused in part by deregulation (less rules for banks), and in part by regulations that existed (pressure on banks to do subprime loans). That's what allows both sides to blame the other. If only we didn't deregulate !  If only we didn't have those regulations !

Then, the whole thing was made worse than it was by politics, and politicians on both sides with doom and gloom rhetoric saying the world was coming to an end, and they needed our votes to prevent it. (Obama played a role in that. Romney is doing the same thing. Credit to McCain for not doing it).

As far as deregulation and it causing the recession,  I wish cbae could get that through his head and stop blaming Bush for the downturn.    It was deregulation, however with help from Fannie and Freddie.   If the government was not involved the downturn would not have happened because nobody would be backing the loans.   You will see this replay when the education loan crisis comes and nobody has the money to pay back the government.   Government involvement is what causes problems like rising tuition,  jobs going overseas,  gas over 3 dollars a gallon, drug wars, and poverty.  When the government is doing more and growing you eventually end up with socialism.   Do you want bus drivers to be paid the same as doctors?   People who work harder, take risks, deserve their fruits and should not have the government trying to play robin hood.  Seems like taxing the rich is resonating with alot of people because of class envy and will be the major reason for Obama to get re-elected if he wins Tuesday.

6 hours ago, brian.​shapiro wrote

*snip*

It was caused in part by deregulation (less rules for banks), and in part by regulations that existed (pressure on banks to do subprime loans).

This fallacy has been debunked so many * times, it's getting tiresome. The only pressure applied to banks was pressure from their own greed. They wanted in on the MBS action, so they created their own CDOs from loans originated by non-banks like Countrywide. As entities like Countrywide are not regulated as banks, they weren't compelled by any law to originate loans from low-income homeowners, if that's this "pressure" that you're referring to. In fact, these loans were way more risky than the FHA loans that the GSEs originated and securitized,

However, around the time the * hit the fan, the GSEs did start lowering their origination standards--not because of some government mandate, but because they wanted to regain market share of the MBS market that they lost to the investment banks creating CDOs from portfolios of subprime loans. Again, greed is solely responsible. You have to remember that GSEs are NOT some sort of government agencies. They are true private sector companies that were traded on the NYSE.

Pretty sad dude...

@cbae: Again, greed is solely responsible not Bush.  You said it now go away to your basement and play some Xbox.    Yes now we have stupid government greed and it is getting worse.   I will do fine either way but I worry about how people have become brain washed in believing a government can fix education, energy, and greed.  It starts with all the teachers belonging to the democratic party and filling young minds with crap.

43 minutes ago, TexasToast wrote

@DeathByVisualStudio: Your sad and you have come down to name calling.

*snip*

You're clearly a product of Don McLeroy's Texas educational system.

I guess you need that education money but it will not improve on born stupidity.

*snip*

And your posts show the sophistication of an offensive tackle engorging himself at the Longhorns training table.

@cbae: Again, greed is solely responsible not Bush. You said it now go away to your basement and play some Xbox. *snip*

Nice extrapolation. I said greed is solely responsible for the banks' desire to get into subprime loans. This does not acquit Dumbya. He's responsible for fomenting a climate of hypergreed with his economic policy, and another Texas imbecile is responsible for dismantling Glass-Steagall.

1 day ago, dahat wrote

You must be new... I do not feign anything... I am outraged that not only does the president think an ambassador being murdered by a terrorist attack is a minor thing... but that people like you are so eager to deflect... mmmm.... the desperation is delicious.

Do people really have such short memories?

Obama is getting beat up now about failing to keep an Ambassador and a bunch of CIA folks in a warzone safe.

Bush failed to keep a whole ton of Americans citizens in New York safe. He blamed it on Iraq (not Saudi Arabia) and started a war that killed millions of Iraqis and thousands of American troops, and crippled the US economy.

The democrats might have screwed up the Benghazi embassy, but it is nothing to how GWB screwed up the USA.

8 hours ago, cbae wrote

*snip*

This fallacy has been debunked so many * times, it's getting tiresome. The only pressure applied to banks was pressure from their own greed. They wanted in on the MBS action, so they created their own CDOs from loans originated by non-banks like Countrywide. As entities like Countrywide are not regulated as banks, they weren't compelled by any law to originate loans from low-income homeowners, if that's this "pressure" that you're referring to. In fact, these loans were way more risky than the FHA loans that the GSEs originated and securitized,

However, around the time the * hit the fan, the GSEs did start lowering their origination standards--not because of some government mandate, but because they wanted to regain market share of the MBS market that they lost to the investment banks creating CDOs from portfolios of subprime loans. Again, greed is solely responsible. You have to remember that GSEs are NOT some sort of government agencies. They are true private sector companies that were traded on the NYSE.

"As entities like Countrywide are not regulated as banks."

Yea, which also means Countrywide wasn't regulated under Glass-Steagall or other laws in the first place, so I could use Countrywide's example to argue all of the deregulation that happened in the 90s can't be blamed for the subprime crisis either. Or Bear-Stearns', or Merill Lynch's, or other financial groups. We're talking about factors tangentially affecting the collapse here.

The mortgage-backed security market in the first place didn't exist because of greed, and lax lending standards were encouraged by the government in the 90s through legal measures. Countrywide and other financial companies weren't particularly greedy in following the lead of lending standards that were being done everywhere else. Maybe they should have known better, but that's a different issue than whether they were greedy.

As for GSEs, they have heavy government oversight and support and encouragement. Often their decisions are political, not financial. And while Republicans fought to deregulate the private market, they were also fighting to tighten regulations GSEs, which the federal government has special authority to do. Democrats were often doing the opposite. While Republicans like deregulation on the private market, they happen to like regulation of publicly sponsored entities.

Anyway, its hard to disentangle either the market side or the regulatory side from the end result, and blame one over the other.

9 minutes ago, brian.​shapiro wrote

Anyway, its hard to disentangle either the market side or the regulatory side from the end result, and blame one over the other.

I don't see why the government has to be involved in regulating any banks or lending companies. If the goverment offers deposit insurance it should do so after the bank first buys private insurance. I would not keep money in a bank that was not certified as sound by a reputable bank examiner. This business in the US of banks being too big to fail is nonsense. In a free market, if banks get too big and unstable, their stock price will suffer and their shareholders will move to break them up.

21 minutes ago, brian.​shapiro wrote

*snip*

"As entities like Countrywide are not regulated as banks."

Yea, which also means Countrywide wasn't regulated under Glass-Steagall or other laws in the first place, so I could use Countrywide's example to argue all of the deregulation that happened in the 90s can't be blamed for the subprime crisis either. Or Bear-Stearns', or Merill Lynch's, or other investment banks. We're talking about factors tangentially affecting the collapse here.

You're conflating two completely different things: loan origination and mortgage securitization.

The right wing talking point is to blame the government for encouraging forcing banks to ORIGINATE loans for low-income borrowers. I'm sure you've heard of ACORN. In Right Wing, Looney Bin World, uttering the word "ACORN" has the same potential for causing a conniption as saying "Planned Parenthood" or "equal pay". As a non-bank, the Countrywides of the world were not mandated to offer any such loans. Regardless, ACORN loans are far less risky than the subprime crap issued by Countrywide. Countrywide issued these subprime loans based on its own initiative--not the government's.

As a non-bank, Glass-Steagall doesn't apply to Countrywide either. What Glass-Steagall does apply to are the investment banks that SECURITIZED the subprime loans. Because of the repeal of Glass-Steagall, these investment banks were allowed to merge with large commercial banks, and when these investment banks started buying up all the subprime mortgages issued by Countrywide, they put the entire commercial banking industry at risk.

25 minutes ago, SteveRichter wrote

*snip*

In a free market, if banks get too big and unstable, their stock price will suffer and their shareholders will move to break them up.

If you believe that, I have some ENE and WCOM stock to sell to you.

2 minutes ago, cbae wrote

*snip*

If you believe that, I have some ENE and WCOM stock to sell to you.

I am not saying there will not be any criminal activity. But the fact that there were criminal prosecutions at those companies is plenty of deterent.  And prudent investors in those companies could have done due dilligence and gotten clues the companies were shifty and pulled their money out. The point is the free market of investors is better at sending and receiving signals of poorly run companies than the government.  And in the examples you cited, investors did not have to be covered by the government.

2 minutes ago, cbae wrote

*snip*

As a non-bank, Glass-Steagall doesn't apply to Countrywide either. What Glass-Steagall does apply to are the investment banks that SECURITIZED the subprime loans. Because of the repeal of Glass-Steagall, these investment banks were allowed to merge with large commercial banks, and when these investment banks started buying up all the subprime mortgages issued by Countrywide, they put the entire commercial banking industry at risk.

All of the investment banks that first collapsed ; Bear Stearns, Merill Lynch, Lehmann Brothers, etc never merged with commercial banks. Countrywide would have been able to make the loans without any bank mergers, because there were plenty of investment firms ready to securitize them. Just like they made the loans without the government on their back. Which is why I said we're discussing more tangential factors in the market.

35 minutes ago, brian.​shapiro wrote

*snip*

All of the investment banks that first collapsed ; Bear Stearns, Merill Lynch, Lehmann Brothers, etc never merged with commercial banks. Countrywide would have been able to make the loans without any bank mergers, because there were plenty of investment firms ready to securitize them. Just like they made the loans without the government on their back. Which is why I said we're discussing more tangential factors in the market.

Those investment banks weren't the reason for TARP now, were they? Banks like BofA, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase were, and they all have investment banking arms. Nice try though.

And Countrywide doesn't belong in a conversation about Glass-Steagall. Countrywide was neither a bank nor an investment bank. Countrywide was a loan originator, and its part in the financial crisis debunks the myth that government mandate to issue loans to low-income borrowers was the cause of the crisis.

Again, you're conflating two completely separate things.

1 minute ago, cbae wrote

*snip*

Those investment banks weren't the reason for TARP now, were they? Banks like BofA, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase were, and they all have investment banking arms. Nice try though.

TARP funds included entities like AIG that weren't commercial banks, and Bank of America took over Countrywide's assets, and JP Morgan Chase took over Bear-Stearns' assets when the market was already failing, much of TARP funds did end up dealing with those assets. TARP funds also went to auto companies. At any rate, the market would have been hit hard even with Glass-Steagall.

1 hour ago, brian.​shapiro wrote

*snip*

TARP funds included entities like AIG that weren't commercial banks, and Bank of America took over Countrywide's assets, and JP Morgan Chase took over Bear-Stearns' assets when the market was already failing, much of TARP funds did end up dealing with those assets. TARP funds also went to auto companies. At any rate, the market would have been hit hard even with Glass-Steagall.

AIG issued credit default swaps to insure securities issued by investment banks owned by commercial banks. With Glass-Steagall in place, investment banks would have lacked the leverage to do what they did to the level they did. In short, there's no need to speculate how hard the market still would have been hit with Glass-Steagall, because the scenario that played out simply wouldn't have played out.

a moment ago, cbae wrote

*snip*

AIG issued credit default swaps to insure securities issued by investment banks owned by commercial banks. With Glass-Steagall in place, investment banks would have lacked the leverage to do what they did to the level they did. In short, there's no need to speculate how hard the market still would have been hit with Glass-Steagall, because the scenario that played out simply wouldn't have played out.

AIG only insured investment banks owned by commercial banks? They insured investment banks which had at the time no connection to commercial banks.

And if Bank of America didn't buy Countrywide and Merill Lynch and JP Chase Morgan didn't buy Bear-Stearns they probably wouldn't have needed TARP funds and would have weathered the problems on their own without government help.

1 hour ago, brian.​shapiro wrote

*snip*

AIG only insured investment banks owned by commercial banks? They insured investment banks which had at the time no connection to commercial banks.

And if Bank of America didn't buy Countrywide and Merill Lynch and JP Chase Morgan didn't buy Bear-Stearns they probably wouldn't have needed TARP funds and would have weathered the problems on their own without government help.

Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase had huge investment banking arms well before the financial crisis. What do you think the "JPMorgan" part of "JPMorgan Chase" does? Why do you think "group" part of "Citigroup" does?

57 minutes ago, cbae wrote

*snip*

Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase had huge investment banking arms well before the financial crisis. What do you think the "JPMorgan" part of "JPMorgan Chase" does? Why do you think "group" part of "Citigroup" does?

Yes, and JP Morgan Chase was still in relatively good financial shape compared to the other firms. People will argue they still never really needed a bailout. With Citigroup you have a point.

20 hours ago, SteveRichter wrote

*snip*

I don't see why the government has to be involved in regulating any banks or lending companies. If the goverment offers deposit insurance it should do so after the bank first buys private insurance. I would not keep money in a bank that was not certified as sound by a reputable bank examiner. This business in the US of banks being too big to fail is nonsense. In a free market, if banks get too big and unstable, their stock price will suffer and their shareholders will move to break them up.

Ah, yes, the 'shareholders are totally in charge' fallacy. 

Have you ever actually owned a stock? 

If so, do you vote at the yearly board meetings?

If so, did you have enough shares to make your needs felt?

Starting from the last question to the first, I guarantee that at least on of those answers is 'No'.

Publicly traded companies are never governed by the majority of shareholders, they are governed by the shareholders with a majority of shares.  And those folks don't have the same interests as you do.

Banks were forced to grant mortgages to the non credit worthy because of the community reinvestment act. That's what started this ball rolling back in 1992. Not because of the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999.

Stop conjuring up this red herring, it does not exist. 

33 seconds ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

You can never ever prove Glass-Steagall would have prevented the crisis, never. You can only look at the factors that created the crisis.

Banks were forced to grant mortgages to the non credit worthy because of the community reinvestment act. That's what started this ball rolling back in 1992. Not because of the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999.

Stop conjuring up this red herring, it does not exist. 

Yes, I can.  There was more to the 'crisis' than just the big banks' potiential to fail.  Here is a list of bank failures since 2008:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bank_failures_in_the_United_States_(2008%E2%80%93present)

Banks fail every year, but there was an excess of this happening during the recession because these banks were able to do things that weren't legal in Glass Steagall.

2 minutes ago, ScanIAm wrote

Publicly traded companies are never governed by the majority of shareholders, they are governed by the shareholders with a majority of shares.  And those folks don't have the same interests as you do.

Wait,.... What?

The people that own the biggest part of the bank, have the largest influence?

And that's bad?

What do you propose?

14 minutes ago, ScanIAm wrote

*snip*

Yes, I can.

Causation does not equal correlation.

A lot has changed since 1999, by that logic I could blame any number of new or discontinued regulation as the cause.

Again, it's a red herring. The crisis would have happened regardless of it.

And you say you can, let's get concrete then, how much percent less crisis would we have if the Glass-Steagall would be in place?

11 minutes ago, Proton2 wrote

http://twitter.com/SheilaGunnReid/status/265218281001086976/photo/1/large

 

comparing  Canada's economy to any other makes no sense. Canada get a tremendous amount of revenue from selling its ( or should we say the Eskimo's ? ) natural resources to foreign countries.

1 hour ago, ScanIAm wrote

Publicly traded companies are never governed by the majority of shareholders, they are governed by the shareholders with a majority of shares.  And those folks don't have the same interests as you do.

 

Companies are governed by their share price. If the government repealed too big to fail the share price of large banks would fall, which would cause those companies to break themselves into more manageable pieces. Even Microsoft will be forced by its investors to change it ways if it does not start earning Apple sized money soon.

12 minutes ago, SteveRichter wrote

comparing  Canada's economy to any other makes no sense. Canada get a tremendous amount of revenue from selling its ( or should we say the Eskimo's ? ) natural resources to foreign countries.

And the US for some reason cannot sell it's own natural resources?

Curious,...

6 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

And the US for some reason cannot sell it's own natural resources?

Curious,...

I do not know the numbers, but Canada's government spending budget is likely 20% of the US. But what it gets for selling its timber and hydro, minerals and oil is likely equal to what the US receives. Just guessing, but it makes sense that Canada gets a much higher percentage of its government revenue from its sale of natural resources than the US does.

5 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

Causation does not equal correlation.

From you, that's hilarious.

A lot has changed since 1999, by that logic I could blame any number of new or discontinued regulation as the cause.

The period from about 2003 to 2008 was when these problems occurred; we just saw the meltdown in 2008.  If you wish to put your fingers in your ears and sing 'la la la la la', that's your business, but anyone with a brain would notice that the first economic downturn that could have resulted was:

1) a result of many, many banks merging their savings & loan functions with their speculation functions which is specifically blocked by G-S

2) this VERY FIRST DOWNTURN was damn near as large as the economic downturn that G-S was designed to prevent.

Again, it's a red herring. The crisis would have happened regardless of it.

And you say you can, let's get concrete then, how much percent less crisis would we have if the Glass-Steagall would be in place?

How exactly do you measure crisis percentage?  That's a stupid query on your part.

I do know that every bank that a) failed and b) mixed their S&L with their speculation wouldn't have had those losses to worry about.

4 hours ago, SteveRichter wrote

*snip*

Companies are governed by their share price.

Nope.  The fact that you think this means that you've likely never owned an actual stock.  Or at least never paid attention to the shareholder meeting info that comes out every year.

If the government repealed too big to fail the share price of large banks would fall, which would cause those companies to break themselves into more manageable pieces.

...or fail.  Kind of a bad thing during a recession.

Even Microsoft will be forced by its investors to change it ways if it does not start earning Apple sized money soon.

Yes, I know, MSFT is struggling under the weight of not making any money, year after year after year.

If only they had a viable business model.

Federal Government Finances

Each year, the federal government collects and spends hundreds of billions of dollars. In the fiscal year 2007/2008, federal revenue totaled over $250 billion (Statistics Canada, June 25). By far, the largest portion stems from income taxes, which accounted for approximately 67 percent of federal revenues. Other important sources of income include consumption taxes (such as the Goods and Services Tax), contributions to social security plans and investment income. The following table provides an overview of key sources of federal government revenue.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/federal-government-canada-organization-institutions-issues

15 hours ago, SteveRichter wrote

I do not know the numbers, but Canada's government spending budget is likely 20% of the US. But what it gets for selling its timber and hydro, minerals and oil is likely equal to what the US receives. Just guessing, but it makes sense that Canada gets a much higher percentage of its government revenue from its sale of natural resources than the US does.

Since when is Canadian government selling timber, hydro, minerals or oil? Private companies do that.

12 hours ago, ScanIAm wrote

From you, that's hilarious.

Sticks and stones, you can't seem to post without them,.. pity,..

The period from about 2003 to 2008 was when these problems occurred; we just saw the meltdown in 2008.  If you wish to put your fingers in your ears and sing 'la la la la la', that's your business, but anyone with a brain would notice that the first economic downturn that could have resulted was:

1) a result of many, many banks merging their savings & loan functions with their speculation functions which is specifically blocked by G-S

2) this VERY FIRST DOWNTURN was damn near as large as the economic downturn that G-S was designed to prevent.

Problems started long before 2003-2008. Nothing wrong with economic downturn, stuff happens, markets fail,. It's a part of life. What the problem is, is that everyone put their money on growth. When that didn't happen, people lost. Now, in a grownup world people take their losses. But people like yourself, who believe that government should protect it's citizens from any harm, feel the government should step in. So they did, making problems even more worse. It's the same old story we've seen in many crisis, the cure is worse then the pain. We should go back to a less regulated world, where people can make a buck the honest way. Instead of doing this dance with government and it's regulations. 

How exactly do you measure crisis percentage?  That's a stupid query on your part.

Oh that's the easy part. You just look at the stock prices. You can easily see how much money the economy has lost. You can also look at GDP, but that is a very grey number, since government can manipulate it.

You said you knew for certain that Glass-Steagall would have made the crisis less, I just asked the simple question by how much. My point is, you can't answer that question, no one can. So it's a fallacy to conclude that Glass-Steagall would have prevented the deep crisis.

We do know that nearly half of all mortgages in the US were junk. And that the US government actively sought to loan money to lesser incomes. Driving the net worth for these non credit worthy people up, while they had no real net worth. When this bubble burst, the crisis began and the dominos began to fall. The fuse was the economic downturn, the barrel was the CRA, everything else is just small potatoes.

I do know that every bank that a) failed and b) mixed their S&L with their speculation wouldn't have had those losses to worry about.

S&L and all other banks were compelled to buy up sub prime due to the CRA. So they would have failed regardless. It's the CRA that created the bubble, not a repeal of Glass-Steagall.

9 hours ago, Proton2 wrote

Resources in Canada belong to the provinces and not to the federal government. The federal government does not get its revenue from resources. It gets its revenue from:

I can't see a government passing on taxing the sale of the natural resources of the country. Royalties, special tax rates on the companies, property taxes.  Austrailia is another country that does not appear to have a big industrial private sector yet is still wealthy.  Just my opinion. I don't have any facts.

7 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

You said you knew for certain that Glass-Steagall would have made the crisis less, I just asked the simple question by how much. My point is, you can't answer that question, no one can. So it's a fallacy to conclude that Glass-Steagall would have prevented the deep crisis.

I think we should cut all of the police and military because you never know if people will just start being good and moral citizens all of a sudden. You know it's like the Republican's say over here "We Americans take care of each other."

14 minutes ago, DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

I think we should cut all of the police and military because you never know if people will just start being good and moral citizens all of a sudden. You know it's like the Republican's say over here "We Americans take care of each other."

I'm fully in favor of a police, military and a court system.

Like I've stated a gazillion times.

6 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

Problems started long before 2003-2008. Nothing wrong with economic downturn, stuff happens, markets fail,. It's a part of life. What the problem is, is that everyone put their money on growth. When that didn't happen, people lost. Now, in a grownup world people take their losses. But people like yourself, who believe that government should protect it's citizens from any harm, feel the government should step in. So they did, making problems even more worse. It's the same old story we've seen in many crisis, the cure is worse then the pain. We should go back to a less regulated world, where people can make a buck the honest way. Instead of doing this dance with government and it's regulations. 

You are arguing that we should return to the policies and practices that resulted in an economic downturn. 

Perhaps we should return to unregulated healthcare, food production, and get rid of traffic laws while we are at it.

I'm sorry, but you are just wrong, here.  The banking industry has proven repeatedly that it cannot function ethically without regulations and oversight.

Oh that's the easy part. You just look at the stock prices. You can easily see how much money the economy has lost. You can also look at GDP, but that is a very grey number, since government can manipulate it.

Well, there you go.  You point out how to do it and then immediately start wiggling out of the definition.  I'm not going to do busywork for you because you've proven repeatedly that you don't listen to anything anyone says and you are a troll.

You said you knew for certain that Glass-Steagall would have made the crisis less, I just asked the simple question by how much. My point is, you can't answer that question, no one can. So it's a fallacy to conclude that Glass-Steagall would have prevented the deep crisis.

And you've proven my previous point.  I told you exactly how I knew G-S would have made the crisis less damaging and you ignored it.

We do know that nearly half of all mortgages in the US were junk. And that the US government actively sought to loan money to lesser incomes. Driving the net worth for these non credit worthy people up, while they had no real net worth. When this bubble burst, the crisis began and the dominos began to fall. The fuse was the economic downturn, the barrel was the CRA, everything else is just small potatoes.

S&L and all other banks were compelled to buy up sub prime due to the CRA. So they would have failed regardless. It's the CRA that created the bubble, not a repeal of Glass-Steagall.

No bank out there was forced to loan money to people who weren't qualified.  They did so because they knew they could sell the loan off and keep the fees involved in processing those loans. 

There is no, I repeat NO evidence that banks were forced to give loans to people who weren't qualified.

Repeating that myth doesn't make it true.

7 minutes ago, Proton2 wrote

U.S. slips out of top 10 most prosperous countries, while Canada stays at No. 6 natpo.st/SPL5DF

Is that the Canuck version of the Daily Mail?

23 minutes ago, ScanIAm wrote

*snip*

Is that the Canuck version of the Daily Mail?

It's ranked 38th in North America, keep in mind Canada has 1 / 10 th the population of USA.

http://www.4imn.com/topNorth-America/

I am not familiar with the Daily Mail. I like the Telegraph , especially this writer :

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/jamesdelingpole/

15 minutes ago, ScanIAm wrote

Perhaps we should return to unregulated healthcare, food production, and get rid of traffic laws while we are at it.

YES, YES, YES!

I'm sorry, but you are just wrong, here.  The banking industry has proven repeatedly that it cannot function ethically without regulations and oversight.

Why not? Because of some bad banks, all banks should be treated equally bad? Guilty until proven innocent and then still being treated as guilty? That doesn't sound right.

And you think government has a better track record then banks? Curious,..

Where does this trust in government come from? They are the same people,.

Well, there you go.  You point out how to do it and then immediately start wiggling out of the definition.  I'm not going to do busywork for you because you've proven repeatedly that you don't listen to anything anyone says and you are a troll.

Stick and stones,...

And you've proven my previous point.  I told you exactly how I knew G-S would have made the crisis less damaging and you ignored it.

I understand your argument on the how, I just asked you by how much?

If you can claim it would have done less damage, this should be an easy question, as you have obviously already done the research.

No bank out there was forced to loan money to people who weren't qualified.  They did so because they knew they could sell the loan off and keep the fees involved in processing those loans. 

Yes they were. The CRA was specifically designed for this purpose. A certain percentage of your securities has to be backed by loans to people that do not make a lot of money. This started a run on these types of loans and created a bubble, that burst. This is well documented, it's just not the political correct version that you get served in the media. Government good! Wallstreet bad!

There is no, I repeat NO evidence that banks were forced to give loans to people who weren't qualified.

Repeating that myth doesn't make it true.

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

The law is not evidence enough?

You think Freddie and Fannie wanted to go out of business? That their CEO's wanted to give up their jobs willingly? That they set out to screw their fellow banks and the entire world, on purpose, for money? And that somehow more regulations is going to create a healthy system?

You think that's air you are breathing?

source;

http://regdata.mercatus.org/query/graph/titles/general/all

29 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

But obviously we need to stop this trend of deregulation!

Finally, regardless that I take you out of context, we agree.

Maddus you're an anarchist ~ the OCD variety. Glad you're over there.

1 hour ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

I'm fully in favor of a police, military and a court system.

Like I've stated a gazillion times.

Yet you don't want them to have any laws to enforce and suggest that as such we'd never know the outcome if such laws were on the books anyway.

18 minutes ago, DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

*snip*

Yet you don't want them to have any laws to enforce and suggest that as such we'd never know the outcome if such laws were on the books anyway.

But they would be armed and do Maddus' bidding... surely that fixes everything.

3 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

YES, YES, YES!

You are just being silly, now.  The idea that we should roll the dice on healthcare, food or traffic safety is just rediculous.

Why not? Because of some bad banks, all banks should be treated equally bad? Guilty until proven innocent and then still being treated as guilty? That doesn't sound right.

The alternative is what we just had and the result is what just occured in the early to mid 2000s.  The only reason you are still arguing this is a good thing is that you've backed yourself into a corner and have no way to get out of the argument.

 

And you think government has a better track record then banks? Curious,..

Where does this trust in government come from? They are the same people,.

The population can vote for (and therefor out) their government.  They cannot vote out business critters who cheat. 

Stick and stones,...

Stop trolling. 

I understand your argument on the how, I just asked you by how much?

If you can claim it would have done less damage, this should be an easy question, as you have obviously already done the research.

You have your answer.  If you wish to ignore it in favor of 'how much' then you can continue to argue with yourself on that.  I won't argue the color of the sky with a blind man.

Yes they were. The CRA was specifically designed for this purpose. A certain percentage of your securities has to be backed by loans to people that do not make a lot of money. This started a run on these types of loans and created a bubble, that burst. This is well documented, it's just not the political correct version that you get served in the media. Government good! Wallstreet bad!

*snip*

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

The law is not evidence enough?

You think Freddie and Fannie wanted to go out of business? That their CEO's wanted to give up their jobs willingly? That they set out to screw their fellow banks and the entire world, on purpose, for money? And that somehow more regulations is going to create a healthy system?

You think that's air you are breathing?

I don't know if english is your first, second, or third language, but when you get around to fully comprehending it, go back and actually read what the CRA does and show me where it said that banks were forced to give bad loans to unqualified applicants.

3 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

But obviously we need to stop this trend of deregulation!

source;

http://regdata.mercatus.org/query/graph/titles/general/all

From the 'methodologies' section on that site:

"It is constructed by searching for a set of phrases that may indicate that the CFR title is targeting a specific industry"

Honestly, it's a f*cking word count.

Go away, troll.

3 hours ago, ScanIAm wrote

You are just being silly, now.  The idea that we should roll the dice on healthcare, food or traffic safety is just rediculous.

I'm being drop dead serious.

Healthcare costs in Holland are through the roof! There is no incentive to make healthcare cheaper, because there is no competition. Competition can only exist in a free market.

Food subsidies is keeping Africa poor.

I do agree with traffic laws, but I've seen crossings in India that made me think twice about the absolute necessity.

The alternative is what we just had and the result is what just occured in the early to mid 2000s.  The only reason you are still arguing this is a good thing is that you've backed yourself into a corner and have no way to get out of the argument.

You confuse cause and effect. The cause is the regulation, the effect is a crisis. I'm not saying without regulations there will be no crisis, they will be just more manageable.

The population can vote for (and therefor out) their government.  They cannot vote out business critters who cheat. 

Yes you can, you can stop buying their products. You get to vote with each dollar you spend! I'll guarantee you they will shape up faster then any politician. We are stuck with those for the entire term.

Stop trolling. 

Stick and stones.

You have your answer.  If you wish to ignore it in favor of 'how much' then you can continue to argue with yourself on that.  I won't argue the color of the sky with a blind man.

If you cannot provide a number, you cannot argue the principle. Either back it up with data or stop using the fallacy. Sure some things wouldn't be legal under SG, but that wouldn't mean that the entire crisis would be averted, even less damaging. The damages now just landed in a different place, you can argue that it's not fair, but not that the crisis would be less damaging.

I don't know if english is your first, second, or third language, but when you get around to fully comprehending it, go back and actually read what the CRA does and show me where it said that banks were forced to give bad loans to unqualified applicants.

Again, sticks and stones.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

3 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

I do agree with traffic laws, but I've seen crossings in India that made me think twice about the absolute necessity.

Wait, you're using India as an example of why we shouldn't have traffic laws? A country that is notorious for its extremely dangerous driving conditions?

2 hours ago, Proton2 wrote

Speaking of the Daily Mail, I rather enjoyed this article:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

Yeah, too bad it's bunk, and the authors of the article knew it was bunk, because they published the same article based on the same data back in January and the Met Office debunked it back then too.

Here's what the Met Office (who released the charts that this article is drawing erroneous conclusions from) has to say about it (including a conversation with the author of the article from before the article was published): http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/

And here's the original rebuttal from back in January: http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/

4 hours ago, Sven Groot wrote

*snip*

Yeah, too bad it's bunk, and the authors of the article knew it was bunk, because they published the same article based on the same data back in January and the Met Office debunked it back then too.

Here's what the Met Office (who released the charts that this article is drawing erroneous conclusions from) has to say about it (including a conversation with the author of the article from before the article was published): http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/

And here's the original rebuttal from back in January: http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/

The Met Office now confirms on its climate blog that no significant warming has occurred recently: 'We agree with Mr Rose that there has only been a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century.'

See the full article with Q&A here

----------

Update and confirmation of 'Global warming stopped 16 years ago' aka 'the pause'

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/21/update-and-confirmation-of-global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago/

40 minutes ago, Proton2 wrote

*snip*

The Met Office now confirms on its climate blog that no significant warming has occurred recently: 'We agree with Mr Rose that there has only been a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century.'

Way to take that out of context.

See the full article with Q&A here

----------

Update and confirmation of 'Global warming stopped 16 years ago' aka 'the pause'

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/21/update-and-confirmation-of-global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago/

So another Daily Mail article, and an article from a known climate change denier site that has a long history of not properly checking their sources. Got any scientific source? Of course you don't.

Herbie

Just trying to provide facts.

@ Herbie: Obama won, I'm Canadian. I don't have to live with the consequences.

@Sven: You use the term denier. You really shouldn't, we are Climate Rebels.

@Herbie: What was the popular vote by the way?

3 hours ago, Proton2 wrote

Professor Curry, a former US National Research Council Climate Research  Committee member and the author of more than 190 peer-reviewed papers,  responded: 'A note to defenders of the idea that the planet has been warming for  the past 16 years. Raise the level of your game. Nothing in the Met Office's  statement .  .  . effectively refutes Mr. Rose's argument that there has been no  increase in the global average surface temperature for the past  16 years.

This is what's called an argument from authority. The fact that the guy who said it wrote so many papers means nothing. You know that Newton believed in alchemy? That Einstein didn't believe quantum mechanics could be true? Just because a very smart or influential person believes something doesn't make it true.

No, the idea itself is what must be published in a peer-reviewed scientific paper and afterwards gain acceptance in the scientific community.

Also, the fact that there has been little warming (note: not no warming) in the last decade isn't in dispute. The fact that that implies that climate change isn't happening at all, is.

4 hours ago, Proton2 wrote

Professor Curry, a former US National Research Council Climate Research  Committee member and the author of more than 190 peer-reviewed papers,  responded: 'A note to defenders of the idea that the planet has been warming for  the past 16 years. Raise the level of your game. Nothing in the Met Office's  statement .  .  . effectively refutes Mr. Rose's argument that there has been no  increase in the global average surface temperature for the past  16 years.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220722/Global-warming-The-Mail-Sunday-answers-world-warming-not.html#ixzz2BWgtW61S
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

Just trying to provide facts.

@ Herbie: Obama won, I'm Canadian. I don't have to live with the consequences.

@Sven: You use the term denier. You really shouldn't, we are Climate Rebels.

 

@Herbie: What was the popular vote by the way?

Obama most likely won the popular vote, just like Gore did vs. GW Bush. Why do you ask?

Herbie

Herbie

10 minutes ago, spivonious wrote

Can anyone find a breakdown of the popular vote among all candidates? All I can find is that PA gave Gary Johnson 0.8%. I'm curious what he got nationally.

~about %1, not much detail...

http://www.favstocks.com/gary-johnson-gets-about-1-of-the-vote/07917190/

15 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

Healthcare costs in Holland are through the roof! There is no incentive to make healthcare cheaper, because there is no competition. Competition can only exist in a free market.

Rank	Country	Total health expenditure per capita PPP Int.$	Total health expenditure % of GDP
1	United States	7,164	15.2
2	Monaco	5,996	3.6
3	Luxembourg	5,750	6.8
4	Norway	5,207	8.5
5	Switzerland	4,815	10.7
6	Netherlands	4,283	9.9

The Netherlands spends less per capita, and less per GDP on healthcare than the US does (these are 2008 figures - so pre-Obamacare figures).

It also has a higher life-expectancy, lower infant mortality and a higher general approval rating of their healthcare system than the US.

So I don't buy your argument that making the Netherlands have healthcare like the US did in 2008 would be cheaper or better.

12 minutes ago, JohnAskew wrote

*snip*

~about %1, not much detail...

http://www.favstocks.com/gary-johnson-gets-about-1-of-the-vote/07917190/

I averaged out all of the states and got mean 1.22%, median 1.08%.

Highest percentages in New Mexico (3.54%), Montana (2.89%), and Alaska (2.51%).

Lowest in Florida (0.52%), Mississippi (0.53%), and New Jersey (0.58%).

3 hours ago, Sven Groot wrote

Also, the fact that there has been little warming (note: not no warming) in the last decade isn't in dispute. The fact that that implies that climate change isn't happening at all, is.

Also, here's a fun experiment:  Measure the temperature of a glass of icewater throughout the process of the ice melting...

a moment ago, ScanIAm wrote

*snip*

Also, here's a fun experiment:  Measure the temperature of a glass of icewater throughout the process of the ice melting...

Dammit, nevermind.  Keep your climate change conspiracies to climate change threads.

1. Climate change is caused by human-produced pollution and is affecting the climate.
2. The earth is warming, but it's a natural cycle. We should prepare for change rather than try to stop the change from happening.
3. Climate change is a myth propogated by liberals in order to get more money for their "green" operations and/or line their pockets.

Did I hit all of them? Personally I'm #2.


Anyway, I saw Gary Johnson's campaign announced a 1.3% national vote on a campaign budget of $3000. That's pretty incredible. It just shows how powerful social media has become in grassroots campaigning.

in a nutshell

- republican / conservative / republican mentioned 3 times

- most annoying interviewer EVER

- "lean left social right financial"  ... why wasnt it left social  right sociopathic

- IT IS PLAYING AFTER ELECTION - nonstop

This is what you get from a salesguy running your company. A new UI made of spreadsheet BOXES and references to most corp party in commercials - while you try to sell a product designed to compete with the young urban poster child  

You do know most college students and young people "LEAN" left

VERY VERY disappointed in ad

FARCE  DISGUST  BULLSH_T

ps - and i like bing in metro - too bad i dont bother to use it (rocket dock / Shell Manager startbar)

EPIC EPIC FAIL

Bad MS

First, costs per capita and percentage of GDP tells you nothing about the quality of care.

Second, Holland's GDP is that high because we are a trade port for the EU and we have a huge natural gas reserve, so that figure is misleading.

Third, costs per capita is low, because all costs in Holland are a lot less. Wages are a whole lot less then in the US. A more accurate indicator would be what percentage of income the healthcare costs and what quality of care is delivered.

So I reject the graph as proof that Holland has cheaper healthcare then the US.

What I do agree on is that healthcare is cheaper in Holland then in the US. Because in the US the risk of being sued for malpractice is so high, that insurance premiums for physicians is ultra high. That, coupled with that if you have a sprained ankle you get sent in for an MRI and all sorts of test, is what driving the costs in the US up. So the low cost is not in anyway a feat the government can take credit for.

In Holland you cannot sue the physician for malpractice. Even if he chops of the wrong leg, he will never ever admit it. You have to fight government institutions for years to even get recognition that the wrong leg has been chopped off. Then you have to fight the system for years more to get compensation. Meanwhile the physician can continue to chop off wrong legs for many years. The system lacks an incentive for correction. That incentive can only come from a free market.

Government insurance is not going to bring down costs. It's just going to create a politicized healthcare system, where business decisions are made on what 'feels' right instead of what is right. In the end driving the costs up. How to bring costs down in the US? I have no alternative as of yet.

4. Greenhouse theory is a flawed theory

6 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

What I do agree on is that healthcare is cheaper in Holland then in the US. Because in the US the risk of being sued for malpractice is so high, that insurance premiums for physicians is ultra high. That, coupled with that if you have a sprained ankle you get sent in for an MRI and all sorts of test, is what driving the costs in the US up. So the low cost is not in anyway a feat the government can take credit for.

That is what Obama should do with the healthcare here.   Malpractice is driving huge costs here.  It is making unnecessary procedures to cover your butt.    I don't think Obama will do it unless he proves me wrong and he really is a good human being.     I expect costs to go on an exponential rise here in the US.  

6 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

First, costs per capita and percentage of GDP tells you nothing about the quality of care.

Second, Holland's GDP is that high ... so that figure is misleading.

Third, costs per capita is low, .... A more accurate indicator would be what percentage of income the healthcare costs and what quality of care is delivered.

So I reject the graph as proof that Holland has cheaper healthcare then the US.

Really you're just rejecting the data because you don't like the data, and since you believe you are right, you ignore all evidence to the contrary (rather than using contradicting evidence to inform and fine-tune your opinions like, say, a normal person).

Healthcare costs per capita and per percentage GDP are internationally used figures (e.g. by the WHO) because they take into the economic pain of the healthcare. Total healthcare costs per GDP per person is a percentage of income that the healthcare costs - but it ignores whether that cost comes from taxes or from direct payments. That's why I quoted the numbers.

What I do agree on is that healthcare is cheaper in Holland then in the US. Because in the US the risk of being sued for malpractice is so high, that insurance premiums for physicians is ultra high. 

Those insurances are private sector for the most part. Remember that I'm quoting pre-Obamacare figures. No government insurance there.

In Holland you cannot sue the physician for malpractice. Even if he chops of the wrong leg, he will never ever admit it. You have to fight government institutions for years to even get recognition that the wrong leg has been chopped off. Then you have to fight the system for years more to get compensation. Meanwhile the physician can continue to chop off wrong legs for many years. The system lacks an incentive for correction. That incentive can only come from a free market.

That's just BS. Of course you can sue for malpractice in the Netherlands. You seem to keep flip-flopping to change the facts to suit your own arguments.

I gave you data that contradicts you, and rather than posting your own sensible data you just say "I KNOW BEST and your data disagrees with me and THEREFORE MUST BE WRONG".

Instead, post your own data to back up your assertions. If you can't back up your opinions with recognised data and research, you're probably wrong.

51 minutes ago, evildictait​or wrote

Really you're just rejecting the data because you don't like the data, and since you believe you are right, you ignore all evidence to the contrary (rather than using contradicting evidence to inform and fine-tune your opinions like, say, a normal person).

Don't twist my words. I'm rejecting the data, because I do not think these figures can be compared across countries in such a simplistic way.

Healthcare costs per capita and per percentage GDP are internationally used figures (e.g. by the WHO) because they take into the economic pain of the healthcare. Total healthcare costs per GDP per person is a percentage of income that the healthcare costs - but it ignores whether that cost comes from taxes or from direct payments. That's why I quoted the numbers.

Argument from authority. I don't care who uses them, I reject them on the basis that I don't think they provide a realistic picture. Disposable income in nearly twice that in the USA compared to the Netherlands. Then 4000 sounds like a lot all of a sudden!

Those insurances are private sector for the most part. Remember that I'm quoting pre-Obamacare figures. No government insurance there.

How can increasing the bureaucracy lead to a reduction in costs? It's physically impossible. You are going to have to pay the middle man as well, so cost will increase by definition. As a capitalist, you should know that.

That's just BS. Of course you can sue for malpractice in the Netherlands. You seem to keep flip-flopping to change the facts to suit your own arguments.

I sure hope you never ever get a malpractice in our hospitals,. The examples are numerous,.

I gave you data that contradicts you, and rather than posting your own sensible data you just say "I KNOW BEST and your data disagrees with me and THEREFORE MUST BE WRONG".

Instead, post your own data to back up your assertions. If you can't back up your opinions with recognised data and research, you're probably wrong.

Thank you for the data, but I do not agree that it disproves my point or proves yours.

Let's go on this Obamacare trip and see what happens,..

1 hour ago, TexasToast wrote

@Maddus Mattus:

*snip*

That is what Obama should do with the healthcare here.   Malpractice is driving huge costs here.  It is making unnecessary procedures to cover your butt.    I don't think Obama will do it unless he proves me wrong and he really is a good human being.     I expect costs to go on an exponential rise here in the US.  

More FUD from the master FUDer. Obama is trying to drive down healthcare costs that were on an exponential rise long before Obamacare was enacted. If the Republicans put their money where their mouth was they'd stop trying to kill Obamacare and start trying to improve it by adding the tort reform piece that is so desperately missing from it.

1 hour ago, TexasToast wrote

@DeathByVisualStudio: I like to buy my healthcare and not line up for crappy care.  Looks like the stock market loves him too I see.   Biggest drop all year.    When are the pink slips coming.  Texas might have to go it on it's own.   Republic of Texas.  Jeb Bush 2016!

And you still can buy your own healthcare. More FUD.

Yeah that's what we need another Bush failure of a president. What, third time is the charm?

1 hour ago, TexasToast wrote

@DeathByVisualStudio: I like to buy my healthcare and not line up for crappy care.  Looks like the stock market loves him too I see.   Biggest drop all year.    When are the pink slips coming.  Texas might have to go it on it's own.   Republic of Texas.  Jeb Bush 2016!

They tried that under Lincoln. Didn't work out so well for Texas.

Argument from authority. I don't care who uses them, I reject them on the basis that I don't think they provide a realistic picture. Disposable income in nearly twice that in the USA compared to the Netherlands. Then 4000 sounds like a lot all of a sudden!

Actually the claim to Authority is that you're rejecting the data because you think you know better than people like the WHO who actually do this kind of comparison day-in, day-out for a living.

You're just a failed FUD artist who can't see that rational argument comes from debating facts, not just shouting opinions.

Come up with some data to say you're right, otherwise you're just wrong.

If everyone is disagreeing with you, and there's no data to backup your half-hearted assertions, then chances are it's because you're wrong, rather than a global conspiracy to hide the evidence of your idiotic opinions.

How can increasing the bureaucracy lead to a reduction in costs? It's physically impossible. You are going to have to pay the middle man as well, so cost will increase by definition. As a capitalist, you should know that.

Bigger purchase orders = lower costs. That's why the NHS outperforms and under-costs the US private healthcare system for the last fifty years. Go private sector!

In the UK we don't have to pay the middle-man. We pay the NHS, not our insurance company. That's why we're cheaper than the US.

I sure hope you never ever get a malpractice in our hospitals,. The examples are numerous,.

Numerous in America too. That's why insurance is so expensive over there.

Herbie

34 minutes ago, Dr Herbie wrote

@evildictaitor: Plus insurance works out better when you have more people invested -- which is why a national health insurance is the most efficient in terms of insurance costs.

Herbie

Yes sir.

Jeb Bush will run in 4 years and try to win hispanic votes, he is married to a hispanic woman in FL. It won't work unless Republicans learn to respect women, and that's more than they can ever do.

Jeb Bush as President of the USA would be more of the same spend-spend loot-loot that we've witnessed our entire lives, along with the song of how Democrats are the big spenders. Democrats seem to spend to clean up the mess Republicans leave behind, at least since 1961 they have done so.

9 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

I don't care who uses them, I reject them on the basis that I don't think they provide a realistic picture.

You're still not providing a counter argument, just rejecting his argument.

The question you should be answering is: what figures do you think provide a realistic picture? And why do they convince you that the US model of healthcare works better than the Dutch model? You must have seen such figures (or if number don't do it, an in-depth impartial comparative study or something similar), otherwise you wouldn't hold such a position, right? So why not share that with us instead of just saying that the data he's basing his view on is wrong without explanation?

I would like to see costs set out against income. And I would like a quality measurement (deaths, complications, malpractices, etc.).

Then you can judge if what people are paying as a percentage of income and what quality care they are getting in return. Then you would be able to judge if people are paying a fair price for the services they receive. Just comparing money is way to simplistic for me to go by.

A good indication of quality care is maternal mortality. In a high quality care environment this should be a low figure;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/12/maternal-mortality-rates-millennium-development-goals

Then you would have a broad figure on which system provides the best care for the best price.

@evildictaitor:

'We just do it this way' is another argument from authority.

For the rest, see my reply to Sven.

While I see your point about me spreading FUD, because I don't have any data to back it up. It's just my belief that government cannot plan resources efficiently, because they lack the incentive to compete. So they will drive costs up by definition. While buying in bulk reduces costs, NHS is a monopoly and will only drive costs up, because it lacks competition.

Healthcare wasn't always this expensive. In the good old days you could get a years worth of healthcare for days wage. Ever since government got involved, those days have increased to weeks. It was the physicians in cahoots with government that drove up the cost, because it's a hard nut to swallow as a physician that you are at the whim of these pesky patients.

Now of course you can play your Zimbabwe card again, but also consider other goods and services. The car was is a product of the free market. The innovation in the free market has made this method of transportation available for everybody. As a result life expectancy leaped forward, increasing the quality of all humans. Look at Windows, also a feat of the free market, increased the quality of our lives as well. No government program has ever increased the quality of our lives, it's all a product of the free market. People pursuing their individual interests and as a result creating a better society.

Given the reputation of government and the reputation of the free market, how in the world can you opt for more government control? It's beyond me.

3 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@Sven Groot: Fair enough.

I would like to see costs set out against income. And I would like a quality measurement (deaths, complications, malpractices, etc.).

I'm not asking what you would like to see, I'm asking what information you did see that made you decide that the US model of health care is better than the Dutch model.

A good indication of quality care is maternal mortality. In a high quality care environment this should be a low figure;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/12/maternal-mortality-rates-millennium-development-goals

Which clearly shows that the Netherlands is amongst the lowest in the world, and clearly superior to the US. In fact, most of the countries at the top of that list have some form of socialized health care. So this obviously wasn't the thing that made you decide that socialized health care is bad. So what was it?

10 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

Healthcare wasn't always this expensive. In the good old days you could get a years worth of healthcare for days wage. 

*snip*

Seriously?  You're using "the good old days" as a yardstick? Which "good old days" was this?  The good old days when medicine was very cheap and not very effective? When mortality rates were pretty high?  When the used leeches? Prior to the invention of anesthesia? Prior to cancer care?  Prior to vaccinations? Prior to MRI-scans? Prior to transplants?  When surgery was still carried out by barbers? When chewing willow bark was the pinnacle of pharmacology?

Again, if you're going to state something as fact, you're going to need evidence of some sort, not some rose-tinted view of "the good old days".

Herbie

16 minutes ago, Sven Groot wrote

I'm not asking what you would like to see, I'm asking what information you did see that made you decide that the US model of health care is better than the Dutch model.

An eye opener for me was when I compared the Belgium system compared to the Dutch system.

In Belgium physicians have to negotiate contracts with the insurance companies, making them compete with one another. While the system is still a form of social healthcare (premiums are deducted from wage and are compulsory), it's a step in the right direction. That's why a lot of Belgian hospitals treat many Dutch patients. Healthcare is more accessible and generally of good quality. This is a prime indicator that the Belgian care is better then the Dutch care.

Hard data is hard to come by, because organizations that measure these figures are so hell bent on GDP and income per capita. I've made up my mind based on the many things I've read and my personal experiences with our system over the years.

Which clearly shows that the Netherlands is amongst the lowest in the world, and clearly superior to the US. In fact, most of the countries at the top of that list have some form of socialized health care. So this obviously wasn't the thing that made you decide that socialized health care is bad. So what was it?

It was an example of a quality measurement, if you want to see it as proof of a working social healthcare system, one should also compare it to costs as a percentage of income. Then you could judge at what cost you are saving those lives. Then one could make an objective observation of which system is the best solution.

The reason I came to the conclusion that our healthcare system is worse, is because we are struggling to pay for it all. There are talks of increasing our contributions to the healthcare, while they are already at a large sum of our income.

48 minutes ago, Dr Herbie wrote

Seriously?  You're using "the good old days" as a yardstick? Which "good old days" was this?  The good old days when medicine was very cheap and not very effective? When mortality rates were pretty high?  When the used leeches? Prior to the invention of anesthesia? Prior to cancer care?  Prior to vaccinations? Prior to MRI-scans? Prior to transplants?  When surgery was still carried out by barbers? When chewing willow bark was the pinnacle of pharmacology?

Again, if you're going to state something as fact, you're going to need evidence of some sort, not some rose-tinted view of "the good old days".

Herbie

Yes seriously.

Costs of nearly everything has gone down since the 'good old days' as compared to a percentage of income. The car went from a commodity used only by the super wealthy, to a method of transportation for all. Free markets and innovation drove costs down and quality up.

Why should medical care be any different?

3 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

Yes seriously.

Costs of nearly everything has gone down since the 'good old days' as compared to a percentage of income. The car went from a commodity used only by the super wealthy, to a method of transportation for all. Free markets and innovation drove costs down and quality up.

Why should medical care be any different?

Maybe medical technology is not stagnant, consider that possibility?

What is the price of new technology? Negligible?

Medical care is very, very different, which is a good thing if you need help assessing the difference.

Pringles potato chips stack nicely, too.

4 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

Costs of nearly everything has gone down since the 'good old days' as compared to a percentage of income. The car went from a commodity used only by the super wealthy, to a method of transportation for all.

Actually, the real-terms price of a car now is the same as it was 50 years ago.

And the real-terms cost of a reasonably high end tower PC is the same as it was ten years ago.

And the real-terms cost of a house now is markedly higher than it was 50 or 10 years ago.

And the real-terms cost of a mid-range phone is higher than it was 10 years ago.

So no. The "good old days" and "your gut feeling" about them is just the BS of an old man who regrets the fact that his shouty opinions don't matter in this world anymore.

Healthcare costs more now because we're treating more complex things later in life. Fifty years ago, you were old if you were 70. Now, you're old if you're 90. Those twenty extra years of life are due to the extra spending on medical care.

And I would be astonished if the real-terms cost of healthcare for a 20-30 year old healthy adult is any different to what it was twenty, thirty or fifty years ago.