jackson33

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California A brief history of the ongoing issue in California. Click on Prop 22, well down the article under referendum, which was the Prop 8, in the 2000 California Election....

Separating Fiscal and Social Conservatism are non negotiable. I would say, Religious Conservatism is, but meaningless in the US, where 50% on of either the first two are connected to the last. Socialism is the ownership of part to the entire National Business structure and very much anti-American tradition. Again in the US, all State Constitutions and the Federal currently do NOT allow ownership of business or regulation beyond State/Federal National Interest. This is where the trouble will come from...the interpretation of National Security. "Wait and see", is fine, until what you see has gone beyond the point of no return and not very far from what now is considered acceptable. The US by nature is based on State/Federal Rights with regards to Social Issues, which originally was 99% State rights for any meaningful legislation or enforcement. If you have followed my points, our governments (State/Federal) have a combination of effects on Social/Fiscal policy, that should remain separate, you will see how close we are already to having NO CHOICE, but allowing the Federal to gain and maintain authority over an ever increasing number of social issues.... Cuba is the accepted 'most socialized' Society on the planet today and the US one of if not most democratic (understanding Union) Capitalist (non socialistic) Nations. In Cuba tax rates on individuals range 10-50%, with a corporate tax rate of 30% on anything not already owned by their Federal. In the US, we have to consider both State/Federal Tax, in this cases not even counting the numerous secondary taxes. In the US Individuals are Taxed 15-51% and Corporations 35-45.3%, based on profits and/or adjusted gross incomes, many cases a person is involved with both. The only thing different, at this time, is ownership of some to all business by sector or what the Cuban or potentially the US Federal consider in the National Interest and my opinion we are closing in on many sectors (energy/certain manufacturing/utilities/anything seen as environmental, plus others as being in that perceived National Interest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world As I have indicated, it is my hope is for the people of this Nation to enjoy what I and many generations of American's have, however conceived by todays youth, in the near and far future. What is being accepted by both Conservatives and/or liberals or any other group in the middle is being muddied by personal interest and a lack of understanding of how we have achieved the near impossible from the Nations founding...

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar/20040305.html This article IMO, gives a perspective to both sides the California dilemma. The question is whether the general rights 'to be recognized' is inherent or requires Constitutional clarification. Remember the SF mayor, accepted a Court decision, assuming then the authority to over ride what law already existed. If that is true, the decision made on a presumption of power, there were no rights given to begin with to be removed. Any person can go to a number of Indian Reservations or specific Churches, get married to their limits (same sex, multiple wifes etc) but recognition.rights cannot be transfered to their home States or in fact the State the reservation is in... Prop 8, in my opinion holds no more weight than the SF mayor to alter law itself, or their Constitution. The SC is expected to uphold Prop 8, making a California amendment, almost a requirement for the State Legislature to move on, one way or another. While Arnold has said he would support an amendment in EITHER direction feeling it's their duty to act, this would be a good time for them to act. IMO, they are hoping the SC will rule against up holding Prop 8, allowing them to legislate w/o consequences...

Actually, none of us had free week-ends...They and I were on 24/7 call and frankly from about 1949 to 2003, I worked at least 99% of them. As a child it was the only time I could get any hours in (work) and the obvious as management. Child Labor; The 1926 Child Labor Amendment to the US Constitution and often referred to, was never ratified (currently 28 States have). However most States have enacted law... http://www.law.emory.edu/law-library/research/ready-reference/us-federal-law-and-documents/historical-documents-constitution-of-the-united-states/amendments-never-ratified.html My arguments are the trending of government; I suggest until the early 20th Century regulations were minimal, increasing slowly until the mid-60's and now under full blown assault on the very principles that gave individuals the potential to actually achieve. Aside from this, have you considered efforts by Corporations or small business which employs 70% of the workforce, today is subject to public opinion when offering a product or service. Wasn't it Henry Ford (1903) who paid workers a wage that allowed them to purchase the vehicles they produced or agreements by any number of small operation with workforces of 2 to 100, rarely covered that have managed to keep them operational, even today. Well Granddad, sold the products as well, not only grew the raw material. He paid the consequences however, his mother in law (born 1848) and wife, consuming all that second hand smoke for most his 78 years (life expectancy in the 60's was 65) lived to 103 and 105, but the ML also smoked cigars and drank a daily shot or two on the day she died at 105. Me, well after smoking 60 years, looks like I'll go out having suffered to much sunlight...The issue to me is just another invasion of public opinion (something to blame for an inevitability), picked up by government (for taxing) and the control over human behavior, not to mentions to many trial lawers...Another thread maybe...

As Rush himself would say, this is all so silly... Limbaugh is "A conservative, who HAPPENS to vote republican". That is he feels at home in that party, not an advocate for their platform in total or any particular movement with in the party. His show is based on and with the motive to increase understand of what he feels are 'Conservative Values'...Forget the pay cut, Rush knows exactly what any reaction would be if he ran for 'Dog Catcher' in West Palm Beach, much less any Federal Position. I seem to recall, Obama threw Ayers and Wright under the bus and ACORN is fighting court actions in several States today. Limbaugh on the subject, simply has said the man is an idiot, empty suit and has no business running this country. Jindal, Palin are potential candidates in the future, as are Gingrich, Romney and a host of Governors, the only one out is McCain....Steele was elected to manage the RNC affairs, a National spokesperson, not necessarily become a candidate and has shown no signs of wanting to be... iNow has said there is a 'vacuum', is correct and there is currently NO recognized leader in the Republican party...

Mokele; I am not going to apologize for being a Free Market Capitalist, or giving credit to this system I have enjoyed in my lifetime. In fact on the very lowest levels, I practiced the principles, owning, operating a good many and in different fields. I have watched government get involved since the late 50's, recall stories from my Dad who ran a couple GM plants and my Grandfather who worked for RJ Reynolds and grew tobacco dating back to the turn of the centuries. As both of them and my contemporaries, we joined the service and rarely questioned government decisions. I just wrote a post to Dudde on another thread, admitting your generation has a distinct view opposite mine, feel it's incorrect, but the many generations that have preceded your have maintained you right to voice what you please. My concerns are for the Nation itself, not so much what you or any one person thinks and for what they will lose, if in any way I am correct on my assessments of Obama, Socialism or the trend in the US Federal Government and from BOTH current major political parties. In response to iNow as well;, Many items in the 'Stimulus Bill' the SCHIP's Program proposed actions in the near future and the $3.7 Trillion Budget are signs of increased Federal Governments involvement in your daily life or the loss of State Rights in the process. If Government was some sort of realistic remedy for any problem, operated under some understandable efficiency or had the interest of all people in mind, why are their today any poor people, any pregnant teenagers, drug addicts, uneducated graduates at any level or in fact one person living on the street. Federal Government has always been it's own worst enemy, tangled in bureaucratic red tape, incapable of moving in one direction and the last place social issues concerning the hundreds of social/domestic problems which effect each person in a different ways and where no conceivable solution fits all concerned, changing only the order of who are the self perceived disenfranchised...

Dudde; Your coming across quite clearly, are very polite, have many of the same opinions of the average/majority , 20-35 yo person today. Using your analogy of a parents responsibility for providing for the children they bring into this world; Democratic Governments have no means to make money or they would be socialistic, owning business. The founders of the US took this one step further, making the Federal Government of 13 -now 50-was designed to govern by representation of the total on interest that concerned the total. Said another way and in my opinion, States are perfectly in their right to cater to social needs and do today in different degrees. We are talking about the Federal...If your Dad, had refused to give you five bucks for say a CD, do you think it would be proper to ask a neighbor or maybe some one from another State. If it's something every parent should provide, a shelter or a daily diet, your health care or an education, the then responsibility lies to the City, County orState, not the Federal. As for blaming any entity for this current 'so called crisis' (I am not convinced the entire crisis couldn't have been prevented) no single issue can be pin pointed for the condition that made business/people lose confidence in the system. Surely it was a combination, later in your lifetime will be argued no less than the cause of the Great Depression is argued today. I used Microsoft as an example of continued growth, surviving the Tech Bubble Burst along with a host of problems. Frankly I prefer their operating systems and won't buy another, but there is no doubt in my mind they were the bully on the block, during their growth. On COO, CEO and CFO's pay scales or the duties any executive is by job description is required to perform and their relative pay (with/without bailout money) can only be addressed correctly by their board of directors. Wagner, head of GM, is paid $1.00 per year, as was Henry Ford IV former head of Ford Motors and Lee Iaccoca the man who took a bailout loan and pulled Chrysler out of bankruptcy years ago. However if a Corporate Board, the Stock holders, feels the person in charge is better than and of the MAYBE 500 qualified people in the entire world and yet somehow unemployed (not likely) they are duty bound to maintain the requested pay scale. No doubt there are examples of just plain poor management, but in most cases it's not the underlying problem of most major concerns.

Yes, I am aware of the many law suits against Microsoft in Europe based on their corporate laws. China, I believe it's more a restriction of content, much as with Google. Nevertheless, Microsoft Software remains the biggest seller in all those places and the point of my argument. Your entering an area where the US Federal Government has no business being in with suggestion/control/management of public operated business. It's the reason, I don't support bailouts in the first place. Executive salary is determined by a persons previous experience or if you prefer a performance record. A board of directors, with the approval of the owners (stock holders) determines their value, not the Federal Government. What my main concern on this topic are the obvious expertise of ANY politician, over those of proved executives of very complicated Corporations, many of which are international conglomerates, dealing with dozens of legal systems...

You know I don't like references or sites to confirm an opinion. I can find thousands of articles confirming my opinion or my opponents in a debate the same number of opposing viewpoints. I consider my own viewpoints based on my understanding of multiply readings, as I do yours. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/dominic_lawson/article5733858.ece I offer this one, but can supply any number, from either economist or more applicable market analyst dating back to the first mentioned 'Obama Policy' or if you like his voting record in the Illinois Congress. The man is simply a Socialist, with some vendetta against 'Traditional American Values', above all the the 'Capitalist/Free Market' principles that made this Country what I consider the greatest Nation ever to exist on this planet...

At anytime there are going to be sectors of the market in trouble and other thriving. GM/Ford in the US (North American Operations) have not done well for years, even as GDP rose from around 8T (1998) to todays 15T. K Mart Sears and other retailers have gone under or been bought out (Sears Holding Company) and Home Builders have come and gone in areas where new homes were not practical. All this is Capitalism in motion. What's different today from most recent times, including recession in 2000, 1989 and the late 70's IMO is an overwhelming lack of confidence in US policy, not only from Americans but investors around the world. Bush certainly created the problem, whether through policy or simple statements on the pending financial problem. I don't KNOW why, suspect it was a political maneuver that backfired but he will get the credit regardless. "In part", yes the campaign added to a lack of confidence and yes Obama's messages on future policy played a roll, but all campaigns are based on blaming the current administration on some issue or another, rarely if ever effecting an overall attitude/confidence. Myself, I got out of the markets shortly after the Election of a Democratic Congress, thinking if Bush couldn't control a Republican Congress for 6 years, we had some serious problems coming, for whatever thats worth. No one knows what exactly caused the entire problem and certainly I won't pretend to. I do have thoughts on many single issues, temporarily decreasing regulation (auto/energy exploration/development and others) to stimulate over massive spending or grants, but it's purely subjective and speculative, no more or less than I feel the current administration is accepting from a group of subjective (card in the result) advisor's. I have offered my opinions on the 'Housing Bubble' itself and don't believe there is or ever was an over abundance of available home, prior to the contraction of personal wealth and that same old confidence theory. What's available is in the right places and that remains the hardest hit today, is exactly where people want to go, on retirement, for vacation home or for a future use of a current investment. Yes in Detroit or many urban areas there is an over supply of home/duplex/apartments, but there was before and will be after the current problems are solved...IMO.

Where have I said it was Obama the person....Obama policy since shortly after election day has worried the business community IMO and a great deal of others. The idea is not mine, or in fact FNC. Economist have been projecting results if policy was enacted as presented from the start of campaigning, increasing to after the election and now to the policy itself. Again, markets in general reflect what is expected from 6 months to a year in advance. Daily accounts are meaningless and your analogy to the Titanic, Victory Day or more currently quarterly reports are called trading on the news, when a peak is perceived again for a period of time out. Trends; Get your facts in order...The DOW was 875 1/1/1980 when Reagan began running for President, was 962 when elected Nov. 1980 and by March Th 1981 was 1004. On 1/1/ 2008 the DOW was 12266, on election day 2008, 8829 and currently 6627. Both Reagan and Obama had distressed economies to deal with. In fact Reagan with extreme figures to deal with, offered a message quite different from Obama. http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.aspx?PT=8&compsyms=&CA=1&D4=1&DD=1&D5=0&DCS=2&MA0=0&MA1=0&CP=1&C5=1&C5D=1&C6=1980&C7=3&C7D=6&C8=2009&C9=2&CF=1&DB=1&DC=1&D7=&D6=&showchartbt=Redraw+chart&symbol=%24INDU&nocookie=1&SZ=0

Fair questions; First Prop 8, for or against is misleading to Same Sex Marriage or it's acceptance. The fact doG, questioned an earlier statement made 'For' meaning opposed to SSM needed. Second, During the 1990's Kenneth Star was THE polarizing figure during the investigations against Clinton and the eventual Impeachment, linking him now to an issue with no less interest on this forum (not really addressed elsewhere) was interesting. As for 'picking on' it's of no importance to me...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Starr iNow; I sincerely hope members of this forum note, your post is a self analysis, certainly not mine or the intended point of my comments. Since Star was not mentioned, it was intended to be news or an added bit of information to your post. Frankly I rather liked Clinton, feel those investigations were too extensive/expensive for the intended purpose and the only relevant fact produced would have come out anyway. I strongly oppose 'Impeachment' of any President, feeling self imposed exile (Nixon) would serve the purpose.

Think you know, but for Prop 8 or opposed to recognition. I brought this up, because Kenneth Star, the lead attorney 'For' headed the Special Investigation into the Clinton's, which can't be popular around here. As for tyrants, I assume your talking about the 52.2% that voted for prop 8 or oppose recognition. Ironically only 52.8% voted for Obama/Biden in California. So yes he represents them... As an agnostic, I suppose my stance is a little different and well expressed way back on this thread. If legally done, not imposed on the majority or a purpose of milking the public for benefits I see so reason why any/all states or the US Constitution should not be amended to recognize. The problem is this is a 80% plus religious Nation and it's not likely to happen anytime soon. The rush to be heard IMO, will defeat the issue for the entire group, for some time if the Supreme Court is forced to address and/or then Congress. This is NOW in progress, with at least three cases... http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ei=p6KxScDzI5mktQP2jqB8&resnum=1&q=same+sex+couple+sues+federal+government&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=sKKxSdDlLomQtQOgqal7&sa=X&oi=news_result&resnum=1&ct=title

"whatever you consider consider the elite rich"...Tax policy under Obama and as it was the last hour, are people REPORTING adjusted income of 210k or more (2nd bracket low). Most in this category or the highest represent a good share of the business that employ up to 70% of Americans or have the potential to employ more (showing a profit). These people, whether on a farm you local independent grocer or the plumber you call, in most cases work just as hard as anyone, with added obligation of all self employed. I don't think pandering is required, but eliminating their incentive to FURTHER achieve will benefit no one. NO SIR, investors are very much concerned with government policy. I'll agree the party is of no concern. For one thing their not going to invest in the first place, risking the total for the potential of reduced profits (Capital Gains). If a sector is seen being penalized (oil/natural gas) those stocks will be sold off, along with others that rely on then or the various funds/mutuals that specialize in the area. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/obamas-budget-a.html Read through the increased targets under the proposed tax increases. Think you'll find there are plenty...to say nothing of what Corporation always do with added taxes or expenses, passing onto the consumer. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged The mild recession GWB inherited was a result of the Tech Bubble, over speculation of Y2K and the collapse of an obvious bubble in the Nasdaq values, which lead to a drop in the DOW called 'in sympathy'. Yes the current down turn started the day Bush/Paulson their infamous panic declarations, but IMO no vote of confidence has been awarded the Obama Administration, who effectually have enhanced what Paulson advocated. The markets were not happy with Paulson and are showing no signs of embracing Obama policy. You might want to consider who won Congress in 2006, before blaming to much on Bush policy. If your inclined to blame the previous Republican Congress(s) and the executives inability to VETO spending bills, I WOULD AGREE. However adding to this error with additional spending or increasing government (size) hardly seems a remedy.

No, Clinton's recession leading into Bush's administration began with the Tech Bubble... http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.aspx?D4=1&ViewType=0&D5=0&CP=0&PT=8&CE=0&D3=0&&ShowChtBt=Refresh+Chart&DateRangeForm=1&PeriodType=8&Symbol=%24COMPX&C9=2&DisplayForm=1&ComparisonsForm=1 Compare your delayed DOW to the NASDAQ, noting the DOW dropped occurred after 9/11.... As for economy policy, GDP grew from 2000 10T to 15T by year end 2008. Hardly reflecting failure... I'll grant you policy generally requires time to evaluate and Obama's should be granted more time. I am illustrating only that the markets have not waited for a time and made a decision, which for lack of intelligent design, I AGREE with.

So much of the discussion on todays economy is based on the premise, everything Obama has planned is acceptable by some majority. In my little world, markets are the precursor to what will be in 6-12 months and thats not looking so good. http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.aspx?PT=4&compsyms=&CA=1&D4=1&DD=1&D5=0&DCS=2&MA0=0&MA1=0&CP=1&C5=11&C5D=1&C6=2008&C7=3&C7D=5&C8=2009&C9=0&CF=1&DB=1&DC=1&D7=&D6=&showchartbt=Redraw+chart&symbol=%24INDU&nocookie=1&SZ=0 Forget the DOW was at 14,000, when it became apparent Obama was going to defeat Ms. Clinton, but was down to 9625 (election day) as polls continually project him the next President or had dropped to 8228 by his nomination, or that it has 6594 as of today, isn't/shouldn't there be some concern??? Alienating that 2-5 or whatever percentage you personally consider the elite rich, out of touch, no nothing Corporate World, may not be such a good thing.

Over speculation and bad investments are created by the investors and no amount of regulation will control this. Bubbles are in general a result of the first two. Might add the price is paid by those investors or speculators, not the consumer or should IMO should they be bailed out by Government (were not). What would be applicable and is, would be regulation to control market manipulation, if that would be possible. We have all kinds of checks on this, from quarterly reports to reporting insider trading, reporting of large transfers of stocks (hedge funds etc), rating a companies financial status or a hundred other requirements under Corporate Regulation. I could list 100 examples where growth was unhampered through history, some old examples ongoing to this day, but not in the US. GM/Ford are doing very well in China/Russia/India, even with Toyota or TaTa Motors as competitors. They produce openly a product the others are not. In the US, under CAFE Rules, all produced products are treated as one, under regulation and simply not applicable for growth. Then there was Microsoft and Wal Mart, which grew for years at 20% or more in many years and are increasingly under attack for some business policy, in the US, but not outside. Google, todays best example, remained a private company for years, trying to keep from regulation mandated by trading rules/law, became public after establishment (foundation built) and has grown since. Gore/Tiger Woods were two of their investors. To the thread and you notion regulation could prevent bubbles; Explain to me how regulations could have been applied to 'Building Homes' which is the thought villain in this so called crisis. They were selling subdivisions of homes in all the places I have mentioned, before ground was broken. They were not all flippers (investors) or nothing would have developed from 'again said' over building of new homes. Factually, the flippers and buyers of those yet to be built homes (tens of thousand/maybe a million) simply lost their down payments and moved on. Again the builders (a business) took the brunt and all publicly owned are worth a small fraction of their peak values or have gone under... Then going into qualifications of public servants over business in the first place, when they have 'Board of directors', Stock Holders both preferred and regular, countless creditors and the consumer him/herself holding them accountable, seem a stupid idea.

Oh my....and who is defending the people??? http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/12/kenneth-w-starr.html It's going to be a long 90 days...

Regulations in short are rules or directives issued by administrative Agencies, in this case Congress to business...They can be restrictive to the operation or how the operation MUST operate. To the Auto Industry, it was what can be sold (CAFE Rules), disregarding what they were set up to produce and the Fannie/Freddy they limited requirements for acceptance...Since AIG, was involved in buying/selling (AND Insuring) government back Mortgages, over leveraging came as a result of regulation, while evaluating values drove their probable legally required backing (NOT Cash, but liquid assets) below the requirement and no means to recover. As an example, NO BANK or financial institution, is required to maintain anything close to what's being held for their clientel or customer base, in either liquid asset or cash...only assets, which can be their own loans. Markets establish values, not Congress, AIG or any Bank, no less than any single item. In all cases these values are what the consumer will pay, at a given time. If inflated price occurs on the values of homes, it was because that consumer base refused to pay the current price. What I am contending and will argue, is that sudden refusal to pay or increase the then current values was a manipulation of the consumer attitude. iNow, Yes I have been detecting your sarcasm for a couple plus years now. I think it's disingenuous to suggest it's based in total, on my understanding of the economy, but rather personal for some unknown reason. Never the less, I feel your not being objective on this issue (and others) to the actual arguments. I enjoy a good debate on issues that interest me, but would rather leave the personalities out of the discussion. What FOX has to do with anything, I don't understand, since I have been in politics and/or political science long before Roger Ailes, FNC or Rush Limbaugh were household names. FDR to JFK and maybe Paul Harvey, would be more likely...

Assuming the 'Home Mortgage Bubble' is a result of poor folks in general, IMO is a very poor premise. Urban areas traditionally have devalued, allowing poor folks to obtain housing, not the reverse... Then as mentioned, California (Inland Valley Orange/LA Counties), Las Vegas Nevada, Arizona primarily Phoenix and Florida, top the current list for defaults or pending defaults. None are noted for high numbers of poor. During the past 5 years, hunfreds of thousand of retired people have moved into these hot spots, buying homes, taking out mortgages for the entire estimated value to as much as 125% of that estimate, while on fixed incomes. Taxes, Insurance, utility cost, cost of maintenance and other obligations involved with home ownership have risen, whether part of the mortgage payment or not. Said another way, all it cost to maintain a 2-3 or 400,000 $ home are then to maintain a home perceived to have half the value, in many cases. Since down payments have been very low (if any) the cost to simply vacate or default would seem to the average person, the best option. IMO, regulation forced on Financial Institutions, has greatly increased the problem, for what poor is involved, then primarily immigrants, legal or not. Fannie/Freddy would accept loans made by regional banks, w/o SS numbers, mention of a job, any ability to make the payments or in fact whether the person was a US citizen. http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2008/oct/illegal-immigrants-hold-5-million-fraudulent-mortgages

Regulation hinders growth by limiting competition, establishing limits and the natural flow/operation of any business. Congressional regulation, in particular with Fannie/Freddy leading to the Banking/Financial Institutions IMO created the problems of today. Unchecked, it's not likely Sub-prime would have ever been established, prime rates held at 1% over an unacceptable time and loans would have been made based on actual values and qualifications. If you understand the problem today, it's that Banks have gone back to traditional lending, those that are now qualified are not borrowing. I wouldn't either, with all the uncertainty. http://www.econweekly.com/2008/03/spains-mortgage-funding-is-different.html No, defaulting rates are not an international problem. The US traditionally has always had a high default rate (2-3%) by comparison. Much of the US today is still around that 2-3 % and I have listed the highest locations. What is NOW a worldwide problem is the US (largest consumer of product/service) has shut down and our banks are connected (selling bundled notes) many are hurting, then add the confidence levels. Yes, I credit the political campaign in part to the problem. Media/Obama/Clinton and the DNC claiming the economy was the worst since the Great Depression, before any problem existed. Bush (possibly for political reason) calling in McCain/Obama for a conference on a pending problem, then the Paulson affair, followed by more doom and gloom scenarios, it's a wonder folks weren't jumping out of building or off bridges. Then Madoff and the rest, Hedge Fund Schemes, political figures being indited by the gross (both parties) and now the Tax Evasion.

Probably should have used 'comparatively' rather than 'virtually no', so yes under todays terminology, I suppose the S&L Bailout (end cost to taxpayers 124.6 B) would count as stimulus. Tax cuts, technically are pure stimulus, in my belief, but are also costly with no recorded results. To my point, under the cuts by JFK, Reagan and Bush, those results have been established. I'll add, there were near 500 S&L's involved and the Federal could have been liable for a great deal more. By comparison AIG (alone) has now received 180B, for it's single business plan. iNow; If you think I supported Bush/Paulson for propping up, whatever they thought was being propped up, you would be wrong. I have argued, they may have known things not mentionable (political year or from China) and could not impose additional tax cuts, late in his term, but w/o clarification (never given if known) seems a waste of tax payers money. Yes, I do personally think deregulation and tax cuts could have solved the current economical problems. Bush or more likely Congress (some cases both), could have lifted Federal restriction on Gas/Oil/Nuclear exploration/development, anytime in the long line to increased imports, eliminating the eventual hidden tax (export $). They could have temporarily deregulated the auto industry (CAFE standards) anytime since 1996-8, when the big three first showed signs of failure, they could have stopped mandating State requirements on a host of issues, including all forms of welfare and they could have stayed out of the Medical system all together. What we have done is quite the opposite and the potential results may not be correctable. I have addressed the Housing Bubble, several times. Originally and to degree today remains an area problem, not national. California, Arizona, LV, Florida, all of which were simple demand didn't keep up with supply. Detroit, also was involved, but because demand dropped below existing properties (people moved out). Most areas, even in the States listed remained around 1-2% default rates, well into 2008. Government IMO, exaggerated all the problems, with an added influence of the political campaign rhetoric, followed by actual and needless actions by government. I don't care how good things may be over all, there are going to be segments of industry that will suffer. If my post bother you (grammar/spelling/content), please report them to the proper authority, am aware you know how. However using this for an argument against content, should be beneath your intellectual level. Factually you and I have very different opinions on social/economical/political issue and any discussion could be beneficial to the forum, if restricted to content....IMO.

As mentioned, I'd rather leave cause to other threads, but since YOU, I will respond off topic. What caused this particular 'SAID' crisis, was a combination of regulation and manipulation by Congress over Freddy and Fannie, dating back to 1978/79, when in fact Fanny was part of the Congressional Budget. They privatized Fanny and established Freddy, under their control. My objective in comparing other recessions to this and the decrease over time to National/International GDP, has nothing to do with cause, but rather US standards of living and John's worry. But since you; When GWB and/or Paulson approached the general public and Congress, this was the first time in history where a setting President or any administration declared an emergency on a future economy. I feel, there may have been a reason but rather extensive to explain. The point is Obama or his advisor's picked up on this taking it to the limits, also for reason. There was nothing in the housing bubble or impending bank failures, that needed pre-empting, for the sake of argument IMO. Further IMO, most (95%) of public concern or the lack of confidence, the markets reacted, followed by consumer and business withdrawal from the consuming arena and the now problem with NO CONFIDENCE in any pending plan to correct.

Arguments on most any economic issue of today, here or anyplace, is what process to use to recover from this recession. Common sense, valid or not, tells you we will recover, but under what economical system will we be using there after. Since the thirties each recession has used virtually no government stimulus, only the relaxing of regulation and/or taxes and Free Market/ Capitalism the motor. "Piece of the pie", good point, but under Capitalism and the World Community, high tide indeed raises all ships. In 2000, the US and World Markets suffered from the burst of the Tech Bubble, some estimating up to 10 Trillion worldwide just gone from values of portfolios to values in thousands of high tech companies, a great deal of which was never recovered. The point; World GDP in 2000 31.5 Trillion, of which the US held 31% with 9.8T, yet by 2008 was only 20% of the Worlds 70.7T GDP. China on the other hand held 3% in 2000, with 1T GDP and by 2008 had 7.8T of the 70.7T world GDP or 11%. Rather than breaking down per capita figures by country the World Population in 2000 was 6 Billion compared to 6.6 B in 2008, meaning on the World stage every persons share doubled, Chinese folks (1.6B) probably the most, but the US (300M) not far behind percentage wise. The US and China Ranked 1-2 in 2008 GDP (Wikipedia)... Leaving the arguments on HOW we end this cycle to other threads, if it was to follow the 2000 or the 1991 or the 1979-82 recessions, recovery itself to Americans would be as great or better than most all other Nations. This should be the least of your worries...IMO.

While any person is a potential threat to society, terrorist or criminal, with in one country, local/State/Federal law enforcement is capable of handling. When you have an organized group with a designed intent to disrupt society anyplace on the planet for specific reasons, involvement of all involved and all the agencies involved are required. I would suggest most the cost are to this end. The 'Source' today comes from an ideology which dates back to 1927 and the 'Islamic Brotherhood', originally a non violent group opposed to Western Cultural influence. Enhance during WWII (Sided with Germany) and the formation of Israel by the United Nations. While I agree the 1.6 Billion Muslims are not all terrorist or in fact agree with those fears of Western Culture, they do in many cases live under Muslim law where their Clergy, predominantly agree with the IB, even to the extent of al-Quaeda and/or their so called franchised extensions. Then, as you say, any smart terrorist is going to attack (place not important) when circumstances are right for success. Probably more than thought, a great deal of preparation is pure talk...and most know that no amount of preparation can prevent all potential threats. As for cost/effective attitudes for lives concerned, the issue is based on not preserving a few or many lives, but the disruption of all lives. After 9/11 and for a year or more most every American and in turn many around the world, suffered some effects of that one series of attacks, many still suffering and those that died were from around the world.... CaptainPanic, Google *List of Terrorist Attacks*, go to the Info please site or punch in http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0884893.html, for a list of about 50 attacks credited to al-Qaeda, note the the problems in Russia, India and Africa, since the end of WWII with 'Extremism'. I think you'll find many societies have been disrupted or died in the process trying to cope with this one issue.