PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

[Guest Paul]

Was delighted to see the President-elect on Meet the Press yesterday. It was actually a bit of a shock seeing a president who thinks and acts and speaks like a mature adult. That's a dismal reality about the past eight disastrous years.

Our country should have been investing in infrastructure, energy, education, etc., for the past thirty years. I predict that historians will call this era the era of American irresponsibility. We have much catching up to do, but fortunately we have an incoming president who seems to understand the gravity of the challenges, and what is needed to meet them.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Was delighted to see the President-elect on Meet the Press yesterday. It was actually a bit of a shock seeing a president who thinks and acts and speaks like a mature adult. That's a dismal reality about the past eight disastrous years.

Our country should have been investing in infrastructure, energy, education, etc., for the past thirty years. I predict that historians will call this era the era of American irresponsibility. We have much catching up to do, but fortunately we have an incoming president who seems to understand the gravity of the challenges, and what is needed to meet them.

Was also delighted to see one of Obama's Chicago cronies, Democratic Governor Blagojavich arrested this morning along with his chief of staff. It seems he was trying to sell Obama's senate seat to the highest bidder. Will be interesting to see if Obama gets implicated in this "business as usual Democratic scheme".

[Guest Loki]

Was delighted to see the President-elect on Meet the Press yesterday. It was actually a bit of a shock seeing a president who thinks and acts and speaks like a mature adult. That's a dismal reality about the past eight disastrous years.

Our country should have been investing in infrastructure, energy, education, etc., for the past thirty years. I predict that historians will call this era the era of American irresponsibility. We have much catching up to do, but fortunately we have an incoming president who seems to understand the gravity of the challenges, and what is needed to meet them.

At what point, in the last 30 years, did we ever spend LESS on the topics you mentioned than the previous year? Sorry Paul, I agree results are lacking, but I'm more concerned with "bang for the buck" than the total number we spend.

The government ALWAYS wants more of our money to "FIX" things, but I fail to see where they are a realistic solution to the problem.

For example, the Community Reinvestment Act, was designed to invest in inner cities in an attempt to revitalize these areas. Great concept, but the results tell a different tale. Out of the CRA, lending rules were loosened, and we started down the road that led to the subprime mortgage mess. (In part, I don't think any ONE thing can be blamed, but many places could be scrutinized.)

We need to move away from throwing government money, translated this means OUR money, at a problem without laying out certain results that we hope to achieve. No matter how often you try, if you throw good money after bad, the good money never comes back.

[Guest Paul]

Was also delighted to see one of Obama's Chicago cronies, Democratic Governor Blagojavich arrested this morning along with his chief of staff. It seems he was trying to sell Obama's senate seat to the highest bidder. Will be interesting to see if Obama gets implicated in this "business as usual Democratic scheme".

Of course you were. You hate democrats. Would be interested to see whether you have a long history of child molestation.

See how easy baseless innuendo is?

[Guest Paul]

At what point, in the last 30 years, did we ever spend LESS on the topics you mentioned than the previous year? Sorry Paul, I agree results are lacking, but I'm more concerned with "bang for the buck" than the total number we spend.

The government ALWAYS wants more of our money to "FIX" things, but I fail to see where they are a realistic solution to the problem.

For example, the Community Reinvestment Act, was designed to invest in inner cities in an attempt to revitalize these areas. Great concept, but the results tell a different tale. Out of the CRA, lending rules were loosened, and we started down the road that led to the subprime mortgage mess. (In part, I don't think any ONE thing can be blamed, but many places could be scrutinized.)

We need to move away from throwing government money, translated this means OUR money, at a problem without laying out certain results that we hope to achieve. No matter how often you try, if you throw good money after bad, the good money never comes back.

You're missing the point. Obama has proposed development of solar and wind technologies, to cite one example. That will require an investment of money, of a kind we have not made previously. I'm not talking about the amount of money, but about the nature of the program. It will also require us to build energy grids to transport the energy from places like North Dakota to places like Chicago. This and other green technology programs will create millions of jobs, re-invigorate our industrial base and provide long-term economic stability because these are jobs that can't be outsourced, and the new technologies will help us get away from our oil addiction. It makes sense all the way around. This is our way out of this crisis, and it's good for us long term in every way. What's needed is a massive infrastructure and technology program, like the highway program of the 1950s. Just throwing money at existing programs isn't the answer, you're right about that, but you don't seem to understand the changes that are needed.

[Guest Guest]

Was also delighted to see one of Obama's Chicago cronies, Democratic Governor Blagojavich arrested this morning along with his chief of staff. It seems he was trying to sell Obama's senate seat to the highest bidder. Will be interesting to see if Obama gets implicated in this "business as usual Democratic scheme".

So a man was abusing his power to do things he wasn't supposed to do. How did they catch him?

[Bern]

Was also delighted to see one of Obama's Chicago cronies, Democratic Governor Blagojavich arrested this morning along with his chief of staff. It seems he was trying to sell Obama's senate seat to the highest bidder. Will be interesting to see if Obama gets implicated in this "business as usual Democratic scheme".

Don't count on it.

As stated on the Federal complaint

The GOP tried again Tuesday after feds busted Illinois' governor on charges of trying to sell Obama's Senate seat.

The only problem with making it stick is that Obama's advisers blew off Gov. Rod Blagojevich's attempts to get favors in return for giving the President-elect a say on his successor, the federal complaint says.

Right now I'm more interested in Clinton's NY Senate replacement. What will the Kennedy's promise Paterson for Hillary's seat?

Why should it be Caroline Kennedy's seat? Because she's a Kennedy? I would think in the whole state of NY, with millions of capable people we can do better than selecting on some family name.

Our republic seems to be turning into an oligarchy of leading families - the Kennedy's, the Clinton's, the Bush's, with many other minor families in local and state governments. Not an admirable situation..

[Guest Extinguisher]

Was also delighted to see one of Obama's Chicago cronies, Democratic Governor Blagojavich arrested this morning along with his chief of staff. It seems he was trying to sell Obama's senate seat to the highest bidder. Will be interesting to see if Obama gets implicated in this "business as usual Democratic scheme".

You would think that the 'guilt by association" attempts at tarnishing Barack Obama would have ended by now. Quite to the contrary, the President-elect comes off well (much to your Fox News-spin chagrin):

In a sequence of events that neatly captures the contradictions of Barack Obama’s rise through Illinois politics, a phone call he made three months ago to urge passage of a state ethics bill indirectly contributed to the downfall of a fellow Democrat he twice supported, Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich.

Mr. Obama placed the call to his political mentor, Emil Jones Jr., president of the Illinois Senate. Mr. Jones was a critic of the legislation, which sought to curb the influence of money in politics, as was Mr. Blagojevich, who had vetoed it. But after the call from Mr. Obama, the Senate overrode the veto, prompting the governor to press state contractors for campaign contributions before the law’s restrictions could take effect on Jan. 1, prosecutors say.

Tipped off to Mr. Blagojevich’s efforts, federal agents obtained wiretaps for his phones and eventually overheard what they say was scheming by the governor to profit from his appointment of a successor to the United States Senate seat being vacated by President-elect Obama. One official whose name has long been mentioned in Chicago political circles as a potential successor is Mr. Jones, a machine politician who was viewed as a roadblock to ethics reform but is friendly with Mr. Obama.

[Guest Extinguisher]

At what point, in the last 30 years, did we ever spend LESS on the topics you mentioned than the previous year? Sorry Paul, I agree results are lacking, but I'm more concerned with "bang for the buck" than the total number we spend.

The government ALWAYS wants more of our money to "FIX" things, but I fail to see where they are a realistic solution to the problem.

For example, the Community Reinvestment Act, was designed to invest in inner cities in an attempt to revitalize these areas. Great concept, but the results tell a different tale. Out of the CRA, lending rules were loosened, and we started down the road that led to the subprime mortgage mess. (In part, I don't think any ONE thing can be blamed, but many places could be scrutinized.)

We need to move away from throwing government money, translated this means OUR money, at a problem without laying out certain results that we hope to achieve. No matter how often you try, if you throw good money after bad, the good money never comes back.

The bulk of the sub-prime loans were issued by lenders that were not subject to the Community Reinvestment Act such as Countrywide. The crisis was generated by carefree 'the market knows best' approach to Wall Street financing. Sub-prime lending was fueled by easy money raised through the sale of bonds backed by sub-primes mortgage loans; as soon as the sub-prime loan was issued to the homebuyer, the loan was sold and re-packaged by Wall Street with other sub-primes into bonds sold to investors; the proceeds from the sale of those bonds to buyers were used (after paying every financial institution in the daisy chain its "earned fees") to make more subprime loans. It was a vicious cycle that created an unsustainable real estate bubble.

Your argument doesn't work, Loki, because it would also mean that we should not have poured billions of "OUR money" into Bear Stearns, AIG, Citibank, Fannie and Freddie and numerous other financial institutions. Following your reasoning, you would have let all of them fail and go bankrupt? That would mean a a severe financial crisis and economic depression that would make our current state of affairs look pretty good. You believe in the market that much??

[Guest Loki]

The bulk of the sub-prime loans were issued by lenders that were not subject to the Community Reinvestment Act such as Countrywide. The crisis was generated by carefree 'the market knows best' approach to Wall Street financing. Sub-prime lending was fueled by easy money raised through the sale of bonds backed by sub-primes mortgage loans; as soon as the sub-prime loan was issued to the homebuyer, the loan was sold and re-packaged by Wall Street with other sub-primes into bonds sold to investors; the proceeds from the sale of those bonds to buyers were used (after paying every financial institution in the daisy chain its "earned fees") to make more subprime loans. It was a vicious cycle that created an unsustainable real estate bubble.

Your argument doesn't work, Loki, because it would also mean that we should not have poured billions of "OUR money" into Bear Stearns, AIG, Citibank, Fannie and Freddie and numerous other financial institutions. Following your reasoning, you would have let all of them fail and go bankrupt? That would mean a a severe financial crisis and economic depression that would make our current state of affairs look pretty good. You believe in the market that much??

I believe in the market more than the wisdom of our Washington "elite." As for the first point, what I mean is that people who wouldn't get loans, were magically approved. Part of the American Dream is home ownership, but you have to qualify. Don't you find it unusual that local banks, that maintained 20% down or private mortgage insurance required, are not in this fix; namely banks like Kearny Federal and Schuyler Savings. Simply they maintained their business principals while others did not.

Had we heeded the impending problems at Fannie/Freddie, and ignored the assurances of Barney Frank, some of the other institutions might have reigned in their reckless greed. There is no other word. But why was only Lehman Brothers allowed to fail?

I will reiterate, from earlier posts, the Federal government is currently responsible for Medicare and Social Security, both on the verge of insolvency; do you really want them with their hands in the banking industry?? I don't.

[Guest Paul]

I believe in the market more than the wisdom of our Washington "elite." As for the first point, what I mean is that people who wouldn't get loans, were magically approved. Part of the American Dream is home ownership, but you have to qualify. Don't you find it unusual that local banks, that maintained 20% down or private mortgage insurance required, are not in this fix; namely banks like Kearny Federal and Schuyler Savings. Simply they maintained their business principals while others did not.

Had we heeded the impending problems at Fannie/Freddie, and ignored the assurances of Barney Frank, some of the other institutions might have reigned in their reckless greed. There is no other word. But why was only Lehman Brothers allowed to fail?

I will reiterate, from earlier posts, the Federal government is currently responsible for Medicare and Social Security, both on the verge of insolvency; do you really want them with their hands in the banking industry?? I don't.

You're saying two completely contradictory things. The problem with Freddie and Fannie is that they were too little regulated. It makes no sense to complain about too little regulation and then say that you believe more in the market than in the government. Fact is, we need both. We live in neither a pure capitalist nor a pure socialist economy. We live in a mixed economy, and that's the way it will continue to be. There is no other way to sustain a healthy economy in the developed world today.

You're also reinventing reality. If you had lived when there was no Social Security or Medicare, you would not want to return to that situation. It's interesting how people assume that all the benefits of government programs would continue without the programs. Without Social Security and Medicare, old folks would be destitute and dying. It's very popular to criticize government, but without these programs we would be worse off.

Fact is, there is no such thing as a healthy economy in the developed world without a strong government regulating the major institutions. Prove me wrong. Name one.

[Guest Guest]

You're saying two completely contradictory things. The problem with Freddie and Fannie is that they were too little regulated. It makes no sense to complain about too little regulation and then say that you believe more in the market than in the government. Fact is, we need both. We live in neither a pure capitalist nor a pure socialist economy. We live in a mixed economy, and that's the way it will continue to be. There is no other way to sustain a healthy economy in the developed world today.

You're also reinventing reality. If you had lived when there was no Social Security or Medicare, you would not want to return to that situation. It's interesting how people assume that all the benefits of government programs would continue without the programs. Without Social Security and Medicare, old folks would be destitute and dying. It's very popular to criticize government, but without these programs we would be worse off.

Fact is, there is no such thing as a healthy economy in the developed world without a strong government regulating the major institutions. Prove me wrong. Name one.

Name a few government programs that do work as originally intended. Social Security as originally implemented was never meant to do what it does today.

[Guest Guest]

I believe in the market more than the wisdom of our Washington "elite." As for the first point, what I mean is that people who wouldn't get loans, were magically approved. Part of the American Dream is home ownership, but you have to qualify. Don't you find it unusual that local banks, that maintained 20% down or private mortgage insurance required, are not in this fix; namely banks like Kearny Federal and Schuyler Savings. Simply they maintained their business principals while others did not.

Had we heeded the impending problems at Fannie/Freddie, and ignored the assurances of Barney Frank, some of the other institutions might have reigned in their reckless greed. There is no other word. But why was only Lehman Brothers allowed to fail?

I will reiterate, from earlier posts, the Federal government is currently responsible for Medicare and Social Security, both on the verge of insolvency; do you really want them with their hands in the banking industry?? I don't.

You're not making any sense. You're just looking at all the good parts of the things you like and all the bad parts of the things you don't like, and ignoring everything else. The real world doesn't work that way. Every institution, every industry and every program has good points and bad points.

Originally you were responding to this:

QUOTE (Paul @ Dec 8 2008, 10:21 PM)

Our country should have been investing in infrastructure, energy, education, etc., for the past thirty years. I predict that historians will call this era the era of American irresponsibility. We have much catching up to do, but fortunately we have an incoming president who seems to understand the gravity of the challenges, and what is needed to meet them.

Apparently you didn't like that because it calls for more government, but there is no good alternative. Think it through.

What do you propose on infrastructure? Should we privatize the bridges and roads? What makes you think that a private company would take that on, or that it's even a workable idea? Or should we just let them collapse? Or should we ignore the need for more modern and efficient energy grids? Do you want companies competing to supply energy? That's not workable. So how do you propose to structure a system that works? I say government has to be involved and that we have to spend money.

Take energy. The choice is not between government-funded research and privately-funded research. If that was true, we would have solar, wind and geothermal developed by now. The actual choice is between government-funded research and no research. The reason is that the existing energy companies don't want alternative sources because they won't be as profitable for private companies, even though they will be better for the people; and the start-up costs are so large that no one else is willing to take on the project. This is one of those massive projects that only government can do, like the space program in the 1960s, which ran very well. NASA is a federal program, which has always run very well. But with energy, once the technology is in place, private companies can use it.

If we're going to make sense out of government and the economy, we have to get past the "Me Tarzan, You Jane" way of thinking. We have to think beyond black-and-white rigid ideologies and think about what is actually going on.

[Guest Extinguisher]

I believe in the market more than the wisdom of our Washington "elite." As for the first point, what I mean is that people who wouldn't get loans, were magically approved. Part of the American Dream is home ownership, but you have to qualify. Don't you find it unusual that local banks, that maintained 20% down or private mortgage insurance required, are not in this fix; namely banks like Kearny Federal and Schuyler Savings. Simply they maintained their business principals while others did not.

Had we heeded the impending problems at Fannie/Freddie, and ignored the assurances of Barney Frank, some of the other institutions might have reigned in their reckless greed. There is no other word. But why was only Lehman Brothers allowed to fail?

I will reiterate, from earlier posts, the Federal government is currently responsible for Medicare and Social Security, both on the verge of insolvency; do you really want them with their hands in the banking industry?? I don't.

You didn't answer my question -- would your free market princples have allowed all those institutions to fail?? That would be a disaster. To answer your question to me, I think Bush and Paulson made a mistake in allowing Lehman to fail. They quickly changed course when the consequences of that failure became apparent.

I agree, getting a mortgage loan should require a down payment and a very good credit history. But it wasn't the Community Reinvestment Act that led to that state of affairs. Rather, it was "free market" greed by investment banks, Fannie/Freddie and the rating agencies; Wall Street made the same argument you're making to avoid regulation repeatedly.

Medicare and Social Security have been remarkable American success stories. When the "free market" handled healthcare and senior citizens, poverty and health levels were woeful. They're not on the "verge" of insolvency but both programs need adjustments within the next 5 years (such as increasing the retirement age for Social Security) and higher (yes, higher) payroll taxes. It worked when Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill did it in the early 1980s.

[Guest Loki]

You're saying two completely contradictory things. The problem with Freddie and Fannie is that they were too little regulated. It makes no sense to complain about too little regulation and then say that you believe more in the market than in the government. Fact is, we need both. We live in neither a pure capitalist nor a pure socialist economy. We live in a mixed economy, and that's the way it will continue to be. There is no other way to sustain a healthy economy in the developed world today.

You're also reinventing reality. If you had lived when there was no Social Security or Medicare, you would not want to return to that situation. It's interesting how people assume that all the benefits of government programs would continue without the programs. Without Social Security and Medicare, old folks would be destitute and dying. It's very popular to criticize government, but without these programs we would be worse off.

Fact is, there is no such thing as a healthy economy in the developed world without a strong government regulating the major institutions. Prove me wrong. Name one.

Paul, I want regulation, but I want it based on sound BUSINESS practices, not government intervention. If the businesses had followed responsible lending practices, they would not be in this situation. Self regulation, not government.

I am not against Soc. Security or Medicare. I do, however, take exception to the fact that large tax dollars under government care are not keeping pace. Politicians of every flavor "borrow", quotations added because we know the intent is never to replace it, from these areas. My distrust in government is bipartisan, yours extends to those with an "R" next to their name. I don't care which party they come from, only that they forgot, long ago, that they work for US.

There is also no country that taxed its way to prosperity. It has to be a blend, and I believe the integrity of our government officials is what is lacking, not the system.

[Guest Guest]

Paul, I want regulation, but I want it based on sound BUSINESS practices, not government intervention. If the businesses had followed responsible lending practices, they would not be in this situation. Self regulation, not government.

I am not against Soc. Security or Medicare. I do, however, take exception to the fact that large tax dollars under government care are not keeping pace. Politicians of every flavor "borrow", quotations added because we know the intent is never to replace it, from these areas. My distrust in government is bipartisan, yours extends to those with an "R" next to their name. I don't care which party they come from, only that they forgot, long ago, that they work for US.

There is also no country that taxed its way to prosperity. It has to be a blend, and I believe the integrity of our government officials is what is lacking, not the system.

So you want huge businesses to regulate themselves. Yeah, great, so do I. I also want criminals to regulate themselves from committing crimes, but they don't. That's why we have government do it.

And you don't mind Social Security and Medicare as long as you don't have to pay for them. Of course you're paying more for SS and M, the population is getting older.

And of course you neglect to mention that there isn't a single developed country on earth whose citizens aren't taxed. Without those taxes, those countries wouldn't be prosperous. So when you say that no country has ever taxed its way to prosperity, that's completely meaningless. No country has ever become prosperous without taxes. It's not a popular thing to say, but it's true.

In short, you want things but have no idea how to make them happen.

[Guest Paul]

Name a few government programs that do work as originally intended. Social Security as originally implemented was never meant to do what it does today.

So what? Programs change to meet changing needs. What matters is that the program is beneficial and is working as best as is possible. Perhaps no program works as well as it could, but then no human being is everything she or he could be either. That doesn't mean we should eliminate human beings, or government programs.

[Guest Paul]

Paul, I want regulation, but I want it based on sound BUSINESS practices, not government intervention. If the businesses had followed responsible lending practices, they would not be in this situation. Self regulation, not government.

I am not against Soc. Security or Medicare. I do, however, take exception to the fact that large tax dollars under government care are not keeping pace. Politicians of every flavor "borrow", quotations added because we know the intent is never to replace it, from these areas. My distrust in government is bipartisan, yours extends to those with an "R" next to their name. I don't care which party they come from, only that they forgot, long ago, that they work for US.

There is also no country that taxed its way to prosperity. It has to be a blend, and I believe the integrity of our government officials is what is lacking, not the system.

With all due respect, you're not looking at the whole picture. Sure, if businesses acted in the public interest we wouldn't have to regulate them, but they don't, so we do. Sure, you can complain about social security and Medicare, but what is your proposal for change? Sure, you can complain about taxes, but have you ever actually considered what would happen without them? The economy would completely fall apart. If you want lower taxes, then tell us what you propose to cut, and don't just say you want to cut waste and abuse. Be specific. No one would deny your point about integrity, but what do you propose to do about it?

I don't see how you're adding anything by just complaining. We all know those things. The question is what to do about it. What do you propose to do?

[Guest Extinguisher]

Loki, you still haven't answered my earlier question to you:

Your argument doesn't work, Loki, because it would also mean that we should not have poured billions of "OUR money" into Bear Stearns, AIG, Citibank, Fannie and Freddie and numerous other financial institutions. Following your reasoning, you would have let all of them fail and go bankrupt?

[Guest Loki]

Loki, you still haven't answered my earlier question to you:

Your argument doesn't work, Loki, because it would also mean that we should not have poured billions of "OUR money" into Bear Stearns, AIG, Citibank, Fannie and Freddie and numerous other financial institutions. Following your reasoning, you would have let all of them fail and go bankrupt?

Without the increase in lending to unqualified borrowers, it is entirely possible they don't need to get bailed out. Do I feel that we should bail out firms who have succumbed to their own greed . . . . . . HMMM?

Unfortunately, the pain would be felt more by the citizens than the executives that drove these firms into the ground, so we didn't have a choice.

[Guest Loki]

So you want huge businesses to regulate themselves. Yeah, great, so do I. I also want criminals to regulate themselves from committing crimes, but they don't. That's why we have government do it.

And you don't mind Social Security and Medicare as long as you don't have to pay for them. Of course you're paying more for SS and M, the population is getting older.

And of course you neglect to mention that there isn't a single developed country on earth whose citizens aren't taxed. Without those taxes, those countries wouldn't be prosperous. So when you say that no country has ever taxed its way to prosperity, that's completely meaningless. No country has ever become prosperous without taxes. It's not a popular thing to say, but it's true.

In short, you want things but have no idea how to make them happen.

You say I want things without knowing how to make them happen; me and others on this board. But, it's not like I've asked for your vote.

[Guest Guest]

You say I want things without knowing how to make them happen; me and others on this board. But, it's not like I've asked for your vote.

You have made demands that people solve problems, which you don't know how to solve yourself. If they are to be criticized, then so are you.

[Guest Paul]

You say I want things without knowing how to make them happen; me and others on this board. But, it's not like I've asked for your vote.

The problem, as I've told you before, is that you're asking for contradictory things. You want regulation but only if businesses do it themselves. That's not regulation. Same with all your arguments. You "have no problem" with government programs as long as government doesn't run them.

Tell you what, I'd like a mansion next to a private lake and I don't want to pay anything for it, oh and no taxes either. And while you're at it, I'd like to live to be 1,000 and never get sick. That's the problem with what you keep writing. It's as though you still believe in fairies who are going to make things happen magically. So when you're asked "how can this be done," that's why. You're asking for things that don't make any sense.

So why is that my business, right? It's my business because you vote. We all need our fellow citizens to think realistically about these issues, but I see more and more fantasizing as things get tougher. That's not a way out of our problems. It's a way deeper in.

I can't force you to think about these issues any differently, but as long as you're willing to post here I will try to persuade you that what you're saying doesn't make any sense. If you wish to persuade me to your point of view, then you must do more than merely complain and reflexively oppose anything done by government. So far that's all I see you doing.

[Guest Extinguisher]

Without the increase in lending to unqualified borrowers, it is entirely possible they don't need to get bailed out. Do I feel that we should bail out firms who have succumbed to their own greed . . . . . . HMMM?

Unfortunately, the pain would be felt more by the citizens than the executives that drove these firms into the ground, so we didn't have a choice.

Finally, an answer.

So following your argument, it's okay to bail out the financial industry with a $1 trillion dollar bailout to date, but not okay to spend more money on Medicare and Social Security? What makes bankers more worthy of my tax dollar than the elderly?

Loki, you're also stuck on blaming the small borrower for the current financial mess. You won't accept that Wall Street's decade-long excesses in selling bonds backed by sub-prime mortgage loans is the reason for the financial distress (pick up the business section of any newspaper). Do you think that the "masters of the universe" at Goldman, Merrill, Bear Stearns, Moody's and S&P were forced to buy/sell/rate mortgage-backed bonds? Or course not. They did it solely out of profit motivation (pure greed).

If it was just the bad credit home owner that's the cause of the financial crisis, why are Goldman, Lehman, Merrill, Bear Stearns in trouble? (they didn't make the loans to the bad credit home buyers).

[Guest Guest]

So what? Programs change to meet changing needs. What matters is that the program is beneficial and is working as best as is possible. Perhaps no program works as well as it could, but then no human being is everything she or he could be either. That doesn't mean we should eliminate human beings, or government programs.

That's the problem. Programs are often morph into something they were never menat to be. Are you saying that SS, Unemployment, Medicare, Medicaid, and Welfare are working as best as possible?