Did anyone else see the TV show "Frontline" last night?

[McDuck]

They showed that Greenspan, Reuben, Summers, Clinton, and current Tres Secr are responsible for toxic assets that brought on our current great recession?

[phil]

There's a good one on Brooksley Born previously, who tried unsuccessfully to regulate the derivatives market. The problem at the time was that both parties had embraced deregulation of the markets. This largely occurred during the Reagan administration, but was continued under both Clinton and the Bushes. However, it seems to me, that with Republican control of the administration and congress for the past 8 years, that something should have been done (Congress for the past 12 years). Unfortunately, like the warning about terrorism, nothing was done. The idea that the free markets will take care of themselves still prevails. That's why President Obama is trying very hard to regulate Wall Street firms. Unfortunately, both parties are unwilling to carry out the necessary reforms in the derivatives market.

Watch your money.


I didn't know Brooksley Born," says former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt, a member of President Clinton's powerful Working Group on Financial Markets. "I was told that she was irascible, difficult, stubborn, unreasonable." Levitt explains how the other principals of the Working Group -- former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin -- convinced him that Born's attempt to regulate the risky derivatives market could lead to financial turmoil, a conclusion he now believes was "clearly a mistake."
Born's battle behind closed doors was epic, Kirk finds. The members of the President's Working Group vehemently opposed regulation -- especially when proposed by a Washington outsider like Born.
"I walk into Brooksley's office one day; the blood has drained from her face," says Michael Greenberger, a former top official at the CFTC who worked closely with Born. "She's hanging up the telephone; she says to me: 'That was [former Assistant Treasury Secretary] Larry Summers. He says, "You're going to cause the worst financial crisis since the end of World War II."... [He says he has] 13 bankers in his office who informed him of this. Stop, right away. No more.'"
Greenspan, Rubin and Summers ultimately prevailed on Congress to stop Born and limit future regulation of derivatives. "Born faced a formidable struggle pushing for regulation at a time when the stock market was booming," Kirk says. "Alan Greenspan was the maestro, and both parties in Washington were united in a belief that the markets would take care of themselves."
Now, with many of the same men who shut down Born in key positions in the Obama administration, The Warning reveals the complicated politics that led to this crisis and what it may say about current attempst to prevent the next one.

[Show-me]

Phil,

Not that it matters to you but I see you use the "both parties" phrase more and more. There lies the the whole problem, both parties. Once elected they seem to become detached from reality and their constituents and are herded like sheep by the lobbyist that are destroying our Country. Always been my argument and always will, that the Republic and the people are good the Democracy part is weak because of the elite few that have total access to the legislator due to their fat wallets. The needs of the many out weight the needs of the few unless campaign dollars out weight the needs of the many.

Good morning and have a wonderful day. :)

[phil]

The question remains not whom to blame, but how to fix it, don't you think? President Obama is trying to fix it, but he's not a dictator. Deregulation of markets has caused the problem, now it's left to the current administration to fix. I just offer background on the issue to explain what needed to be done, and what needs to be done. When a car is broken, you fix it. This car was broken because of a freewheeling ideology. Some people call the solution "socialistic", but it's not. There are clear answers to the problem. It's about a basic ideology of where and when government should step in to resolve a long-term problem. The issues of the financial markets still face us.

[Show-me]

The question remains not whom to blame, but how to fix it, don't you think? President Obama is trying to fix it, but he's not a dictator. Deregulation of markets has caused the problem, now it's left to the current administration to fix. I just offer background on the issue to explain what needed to be done, and what needs to be done. When a car is broken, you fix it. This car was broken because of a freewheeling ideology. Some people call the solution "socialistic", but it's not. There are clear answers to the problem. It's about a basic ideology of where and when government should step in to resolve a long-term problem. The issues of the financial markets still face us.

And, it seems like it is not being addressed as vigorously as it should. I am eager to hear what the "Pay Czar" will come out with.

My opinion is they should have let them fail, especially AIG and GM. The will cost the taxpayer billions and it will get worse by reducing pay and compensation. You get the best by paying the best. What kind of CEO will you get for $200k a year. LOL

Letting them fail would have push shareholders into scrutinizing "future" pay and compensation more instead of a "Pay Czar". Now we have a whole new department in Government the tax payers have to fund. Brilliant. The share holders would have done a fine job after the companies failed.

Too big to fail just rewarded failure as everybody got to keep their booty, the executives I mean. History will not condemn the executives the way it should have because of so much Tax Payer intervention. Nobody failed but Lehman and they are doing what they should, cut up the company and selling it off. Instead we, the Government, made huge monster mega banks with our blessing and now if they screw up again the damage will be even more catastrophic.

[Show-me]

The free market should have been allow to be free and all this shady dealings would have lost it luster of fast money. Now all we have done is shown that if you come up with a crooked scheme and it fails we will back stop it and loan you money at 0% interest until you make enough personnel and cost cuts to show profits.

[Show-me]

Some things government should not be involved in no matter how painful it is to the Country as a whole.

[Show-me]

The question remains not whom to blame, but how to fix it, don't you think? President Obama is trying to fix it, but he's not a dictator. Deregulation of markets has caused the problem, now it's left to the current administration to fix. I just offer background on the issue to explain what needed to be done, and what needs to be done. When a car is broken, you fix it. This car was broken because of a freewheeling ideology. Some people call the solution "socialistic", but it's not. There are clear answers to the problem. It's about a basic ideology of where and when government should step in to resolve a long-term problem. The issues of the financial markets still face us.

The clearest answer was to let them fail and the solutions are becoming socialistic because now we have "Nationalized" GM and AIG and now we ARE dictating what the employee's of those companies make in salaries. The pay Czar was not approved by Congress. It was dictated by the President. Yes, no?

Blame Congress for not letting them fail and rewarding failure.

Fannie, Freddie, and Sallie are other examples of socialist mistakes that the tax payer is burdened with.

Just like dictating minimum wage is useless except to make people feel better about their low end jobs. Why? Because employers cut benefits and the number of employee's or raise prices to compensate. You don't really gain anything.

Just like raising taxes on corporations. Why? They pass the cost on to their customer until it no longer becomes financially feasible to produce the product in the USA and move it to a country that has much lower labor, no EPA regulation, or labor laws. Good morning Mexico.

If America was such a bad place, why did we have such a huge illegal immigration problem. If I remember right, the Latin Countries flocked to ours illegally.

Point is that Congress got tons of feed back from the public to NOT to bail out the mega banks, AIG, GM, etc. They, Congress, openly acknowledged it because of the massive amount of opposition from the public. Me for one. And what did they do? Just the opposite of what the public wanted and exactly what the lobbyist for the companies in trouble did wanted. BAIL OUT NATION! FREE MONEY at zero interest for as long as it takes! And, all the people that caused the problems get to keep all of their gains while they cut labor to the bone. If Congress would have let the companies fail those people running the companies would never be able to get jobs again, but nobody failed except Lehman.

The labor market in the USA will never be the same again because this crisis gave every company the window to cut compensation and benefits to all of its laborers. Good bye matching 401k, good bye vacation days, sick days, Holidays, etc.

[phil]

I wasn't sure to which post I should respond.

The clearest answer was to let them fail and the solutions are becoming socialistic because now we have "Nationalized" GM and AIG and now we ARE dictating what the employee's of those companies make in salaries. The pay Czar was not approved by Congress. It was dictated by the President. Yes, no?

No, they've been temporarily nationalized.

Blame Congress for not letting them fail and rewarding failure.
Fannie, Freddie, and Sallie are other examples of socialist mistakes that the tax payer is burdened with.

Fannie, Freddie have been an ongoing institution since the 1930's, and functioned pretty well for about 70 years. The only problem was the housing meltdown.

Just like dictating minimum wage is useless except to make people feel better about their low end jobs. Why? Because employers cut benefits and the number of employee's or raise prices to compensate. You don't really gain anything.

Maybe raising the minimum wage is generally a way to make the economy more efficient.


Just like raising taxes on corporations. Why? They pass the cost on to their customer until it no longer becomes financially feasible to produce the product in the USA and move it to a country that has much lower labor, no EPA regulation, or labor laws. Good morning Mexico.

Sounds good. Let's outsource our national security to some other country that can do it much cheaper. Wow, I'm getting some ideas.

If America was such a bad place, why did we have such a huge illegal immigration problem. If I remember right, the Latin Countries flocked to ours illegally.

Yes. Illegal (and legal) immigration remains a big problem. Unfortunately, large business groups (and the CATO institute) has exercised enormous influence on our law.

Point is that Congress got tons of feed back from the public to NOT to bail out the mega banks, AIG, GM, etc. They, Congress, openly acknowledged it because of the massive amount of opposition from the public. Me for one. And what did they do? Just the opposite of what the public wanted and exactly what the lobbyist for the companies in trouble did wanted. BAIL OUT NATION! FREE MONEY at zero interest for as long as it takes! And, all the people that caused the problems get to keep all of their gains while they cut labor to the bone. If Congress would have let the companies fail those people running the companies would never be able to get jobs again, but nobody failed except Lehman.

I won't disagree. The issue is what to do next to make sure that banks don't make the same mistake again. Creating laws, enforcing laws makes it possible to control the financial markets so people don't get taken. You seem to be saying above that you were objecting to the administration limiting bonuses, but here you seem to say the opposite. It appears ambiguous.

The labor market in the USA will never be the same again because this crisis gave every company the window to cut compensation and benefits to all of its laborers. Good bye matching 401k, good bye vacation days, sick days, Holidays, etc.

Yes. Now we should probably start healthcare reform as soon as possible.

[Show-me]

I have a lot in my head and it is all trying to get out while I try to ignore the other voices. I will respond in blue.

I wasn't sure to which post I should respond.

The clearest answer was to let them fail and the solutions are becoming socialistic because now we have "Nationalized" GM and AIG and now we ARE dictating what the employee's of those companies make in salaries. The pay Czar was not approved by Congress. It was dictated by the President. Yes, no?

No, they've been temporarily nationalized.

Temporarily, don't hold your breath. Have you seen a exit plan?

Blame Congress for not letting them fail and rewarding failure.
Fannie, Freddie, and Sallie are other examples of socialist mistakes that the tax payer is burdened with.

Fannie, Freddie have been an ongoing institution since the 1930's, and functioned pretty well for about 70 years. The only problem was the housing meltdown.

Doesn't matter how long it has been around, law can change the intent on the original organization and its purpose. Try Social Security. Washington allowed too many risky loans, sub-prime loans, to be purchased from banks. They knew what was going on for years, bank were cranking out loans to any person with a heartbeat so that they could collect the fee's. That is were the big money is, in the fee's generated. You can not tell me the entire Congress, SEC, FDIC, President's, Chief's of Staff, advisor's, etc. could not see how the banks were gaming the system. They did not care as long as the champaign money kept coming in. It was greed from Congress and the banking industry. They are both gaming the citizens.

More importantly what caused actually cause the housing meltdown? Greedy people that wanted a bigger house than they could afford with a huge balloon payment at the end that they could never afford or a interest rate change tied to the Fed Rate. Greedy bankers, Realtors, appraisers, politicians. The same greedy politicians that changed the rules so that they could pay back the voters that voted them into office by relaxing the standards for loans accepted by FRE and FNM. A vicious circle and all the same players are still in place and any new ones will learn how to game the system given time.

Just like dictating minimum wage is useless except to make people feel better about their low end jobs. Why? Because employers cut benefits and the number of employee's or raise prices to compensate. You don't really gain anything.

Maybe raising the minimum wage is generally a way to make the economy more efficient.

Or as employers find it harder to find employee's they offer higher wages and benefit's. Benefit's will be a thing of the past under BHO ideals of sharing the wealth. Why offer more money when the .gov will dictate how much I pay and if they don't the States will because the voters want it. Why not let Congress vote for their own raises too. ;) Benefits, why? The .gov will dictate that too, so why offer benefits. As a business owner I will recoup my money by taking back sick, holidays, and vacations.


Just like raising taxes on corporations. Why? They pass the cost on to their customer until it no longer becomes financially feasible to produce the product in the USA and move it to a country that has much lower labor, no EPA regulation, or labor laws. Good morning Mexico.


Sounds good. Let's outsource our national security to some other country that can do it much cheaper. Wow, I'm getting some ideas.

I was never for outsourcing anything pertaining to combat. I saw that scam for what it was. A way to reward corp. and a way to avoid a draft. My philosophy while radical is that only Veteran's, land owners, and business owners can vote in any election. I could be convince to allow anyone that can prove they paid more than 5% or 10% of their income in taxes. Better yet I like to abolish the IRS and have just a National Sales tax system like the FairTax system. Point is only people that have served or pay taxes should have a voice in how their tax money is spent or if taxes need to be raised.

If America was such a bad place, why did we have such a huge illegal immigration problem. If I remember right, the Latin Countries flocked to ours illegally.

Yes. Illegal (and legal) immigration remains a big problem. Unfortunately, large business groups (and the CATO institute) has exercised enormous influence on our law.

Influenced who................Congress? Common denominator for our problems, Congress and lobbyist. Hum.

Point is that Congress got tons of feed back from the public to NOT to bail out the mega banks, AIG, GM, etc. They, Congress, openly acknowledged it because of the massive amount of opposition from the public. Me for one. And what did they do? Just the opposite of what the public wanted and exactly what the lobbyist for the companies in trouble did wanted. BAIL OUT NATION! FREE MONEY at zero interest for as long as it takes! And, all the people that caused the problems get to keep all of their gains while they cut labor to the bone. If Congress would have let the companies fail those people running the companies would never be able to get jobs again, but nobody failed except Lehman.

I won't disagree. The issue is what to do next to make sure that banks don't make the same mistake again. Creating laws, enforcing laws makes it possible to control the financial markets so people don't get taken. You seem to be saying above that you were objecting to the administration limiting bonuses, but here you seem to say the opposite. It appears ambiguous.

I'll try to make it more clear. Let them fail, after they do hang the people at the top in the town square. After a fair a speedy trial of course. After they fail no investor with a lick of sense will go near those people and if someone does. You can't cure stupid.

The labor market in the USA will never be the same again because this crisis gave every company the window to cut compensation and benefits to all of its laborers. Good bye matching 401k, good bye vacation days, sick days, Holidays, etc.


Yes. Now we should probably start healthcare reform as soon as possible.

I agree that there is a need, but fix the quick and easy things first. Tort reform, eliminate unnecessary test and procedure because Dr. are afraid of being sued to death. Competition across State lines. Get rid of the lobbyist. Make the Fed and State .govs pay their bills to medical professionals in a timely manner, not in 6 to 12 months or longer. Do like James suggested, put 1000 kid through medical school on each coast with the stipulation you have to serve the public health clinics for so many years or loose you license to practice.

I yeild the floor to make dinner for my family. :D

[Viva La Migra]

I wasn't sure to which post I should respond.

The clearest answer was to let them fail and the solutions are becoming socialistic because now we have "Nationalized" GM and AIG and now we ARE dictating what the employee's of those companies make in salaries. The pay Czar was not approved by Congress. It was dictated by the President. Yes, no?

No, they've been temporarily nationalized.

Blame Congress for not letting them fail and rewarding failure.
Fannie, Freddie, and Sallie are other examples of socialist mistakes that the tax payer is burdened with.

Fannie, Freddie have been an ongoing institution since the 1930's, and functioned pretty well for about 70 years. The only problem was the housing meltdown.

Just like dictating minimum wage is useless except to make people feel better about their low end jobs. Why? Because employers cut benefits and the number of employee's or raise prices to compensate. You don't really gain anything.

Maybe raising the minimum wage is generally a way to make the economy more efficient.


Just like raising taxes on corporations. Why? They pass the cost on to their customer until it no longer becomes financially feasible to produce the product in the USA and move it to a country that has much lower labor, no EPA regulation, or labor laws. Good morning Mexico.

Sounds good. Let's outsource our national security to some other country that can do it much cheaper. Wow, I'm getting some ideas.

If America was such a bad place, why did we have such a huge illegal immigration problem. If I remember right, the Latin Countries flocked to ours illegally.

Yes. Illegal (and legal) immigration remains a big problem. Unfortunately, large business groups (and the CATO institute) has exercised enormous influence on our law.

Point is that Congress got tons of feed back from the public to NOT to bail out the mega banks, AIG, GM, etc. They, Congress, openly acknowledged it because of the massive amount of opposition from the public. Me for one. And what did they do? Just the opposite of what the public wanted and exactly what the lobbyist for the companies in trouble did wanted. BAIL OUT NATION! FREE MONEY at zero interest for as long as it takes! And, all the people that caused the problems get to keep all of their gains while they cut labor to the bone. If Congress would have let the companies fail those people running the companies would never be able to get jobs again, but nobody failed except Lehman.

I won't disagree. The issue is what to do next to make sure that banks don't make the same mistake again. Creating laws, enforcing laws makes it possible to control the financial markets so people don't get taken. You seem to be saying above that you were objecting to the administration limiting bonuses, but here you seem to say the opposite. It appears ambiguous.

The labor market in the USA will never be the same again because this crisis gave every company the window to cut compensation and benefits to all of its laborers. Good bye matching 401k, good bye vacation days, sick days, Holidays, etc.

Yes. Now we should probably start healthcare reform as soon as possible.
GM, AIG, and the others should have been allowed to fail. Bush should not have asked to bail out any companies and the Democrat Congress should not have been so willing to "help." I don't want the government to nationalize private industry, even if it is "temporary." BTW, when will the government turn those industries back over to shareholders? Truth is they won't. Ever.

I'm surprised that you see legal immigration as a problem. I don't and I'm a fairly conservative guy. What's your answer to the illegal immigrant problem?

Outsourcing national security? I've disagreed with a lot of your statements, and you've offended me more than once, but this is about the most moronic statement I think you've ever made! I can only think you are taking a page from Rush Limbaugh and pointing out the ridiculous by being ridiculous. You can't possibly think this is a good idea, do you?

Bank issue: Banks weren't the entire problem. Congress caused a significant part of the problem by encouraging banks to lend money to people who couldn't afford the loans, all in an effort to give everyone "the American Dream" of home ownership. More Congressional mandates won't help the problem. They tend to make things worse.

Healthcare doesn't need to be reformed. It just needs to be tweaked a little. Let insurance companies sell across state lines, provide tort reform, and require hospitals to treat illegal immigrant patients only enough to stabilize them and get them back to their home countries. That will go a long way to reducing medical costs. Oh, I wouldn't mind it if there was a tax credit that allowed people to get their own healthcare insurance and write off most, if not all, of the premiums. That way people aren't dependent on the employer for their healthcare insurance.

[Show-me]

Oh, I wouldn't mind it if there was a tax credit that allowed people to get their own healthcare insurance and write off most, if not all, of the premiums. That way people aren't dependent on the employer for their healthcare insurance.

That was my other one, you must let them write off all of the medical expenses. ALL, not just anything over 7.5% of your AGI if you itemize. All, no matter what. That is a very SIMPLE CHANGE! Congress can do it because they are too busy.

[phil]

GM, AIG, and the others should have been allowed to fail. Bush should not have asked to bail out any companies and the Democrat Congress should not have been so willing to "help." I don't want the government to nationalize private industry, even if it is "temporary." BTW, when will the government turn those industries back over to shareholders? Truth is they won't. Ever.

I think they really have to. I'm willing to take bets on it.

I'm surprised that you see legal immigration as a problem. I don't and I'm a fairly conservative guy. What's your answer to the illegal immigrant problem?

Simple answer is to change the current law. There's no constitutional issue. Just change the law to cease follow to join status.


Outsourcing national security? I've disagreed with a lot of your statements, and you've offended me more than once, but this is about the most moronic statement I think you've ever made! I can only think you are taking a page from Rush Limbaugh and pointing out the ridiculous by being ridiculous. You can't possibly think this is a good idea, do you?

Yep. The way we dealt with Al-Qaeda was that our CIA hired the warlords and the northern alliance, and were moving on Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. We outsourced about 80% of killing off Al-Qaeda. All that was really needed was a lean force and some bombers. No highly expensive tank forces/long logistical chain were necessary. The other simple answer is to simply stop fighting unnecessary wars. Iraq comes to mind.

Bank issue: Banks weren't the entire problem. Congress caused a significant part of the problem by encouraging banks to lend money to people who couldn't afford the loans, all in an effort to give everyone "the American Dream" of home ownership. More Congressional mandates won't help the problem. They tend to make things worse.

I disagree here. The problem largely was in the derivatives market and the financial instruments that became very popular in the past 15 years.

Healthcare doesn't need to be reformed. It just needs to be tweaked a little. Let insurance companies sell across state lines, provide tort reform, and require hospitals to treat illegal immigrant patients only enough to stabilize them and get them back to their home countries. That will go a long way to reducing medical costs. Oh, I wouldn't mind it if there was a tax credit that allowed people to get their own healthcare insurance and write off most, if not all, of the premiums. That way people aren't dependent on the employer for their healthcare insurance.

I believe in nationalized healthcare. It works very well in other countries. Their economies are very vibrant, particularly the up and coming economies around the world.

[Viva La Migra]

GM, AIG, and the others should have been allowed to fail. Bush should not have asked to bail out any companies and the Democrat Congress should not have been so willing to "help." I don't want the government to nationalize private industry, even if it is "temporary." BTW, when will the government turn those industries back over to shareholders? Truth is they won't. Ever.

I think they really have to. I'm willing to take bets on it.

I'm surprised that you see legal immigration as a problem. I don't and I'm a fairly conservative guy. What's your answer to the illegal immigrant problem?

Simple answer is to change the current law. There's no constitutional issue. Just change the law to cease follow to join status.


Outsourcing national security? I've disagreed with a lot of your statements, and you've offended me more than once, but this is about the most moronic statement I think you've ever made! I can only think you are taking a page from Rush Limbaugh and pointing out the ridiculous by being ridiculous. You can't possibly think this is a good idea, do you?

Yep. The way we dealt with Al-Qaeda was that our CIA hired the warlords and the northern alliance, and were moving on Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. We outsourced about 80% of killing off Al-Qaeda. All that was really needed was a lean force and some bombers. No highly expensive tank forces/long logistical chain were necessary. The other simple answer is to simply stop fighting unnecessary wars. Iraq comes to mind.

Bank issue: Banks weren't the entire problem. Congress caused a significant part of the problem by encouraging banks to lend money to people who couldn't afford the loans, all in an effort to give everyone "the American Dream" of home ownership. More Congressional mandates won't help the problem. They tend to make things worse.

I disagree here. The problem largely was in the derivatives market and the financial instruments that became very popular in the past 15 years.

Healthcare doesn't need to be reformed. It just needs to be tweaked a little. Let insurance companies sell across state lines, provide tort reform, and require hospitals to treat illegal immigrant patients only enough to stabilize them and get them back to their home countries. That will go a long way to reducing medical costs. Oh, I wouldn't mind it if there was a tax credit that allowed people to get their own healthcare insurance and write off most, if not all, of the premiums. That way people aren't dependent on the employer for their healthcare insurance.

I believe in nationalized healthcare. It works very well in other countries. Their economies are very vibrant, particularly the up and coming economies around the world.
I have to say I like this response. I don't agree with a lot of it, but this was one of your better responses.

I hope you're right on the nationalization of GM, AIG, and others, but I fear the government will not let go of these industries readily. It will take a conservative Congress and White House to make it happen, I think.

I can agree with you on the immigration issue, but I would take a step further and not provide amnesty for those illegally present in the country and I would deny their offspring born on our soil U.S. citizen status. I would also make it a crime to hire illegal immigrants. That's current law you say, WRONG! It is a crime to "knowingly" hire illegal immigrants. Businesses are held accountable for paying their taxes, whether the business owner prepared the tax forms or had an accountant do it for them. The same should apply to hiring illegals. You can bet businesses will do more to prevent hiring illegals if the laws were enforced the same way as the tax code.

Still disagree with you on outsourcing national security. I wouldn't recommend hiring the Mexican military to patrol our border, for example. Not a good idea. If you're advocating letting the CIA hire assassins to take out a few of our more troublesome world leaders (Hugo Chavez for one), I might think about it.:D

Let's say the recession was caused by the perfect storm of greed, too much government manipulation of the markets, and greed!:blink: Government was a huge factor in the cause of the problems. Personally, I'd like them to stay out of the way and let the market find the solutions.

I'm not with you on nationalized healthcare. About the only positive thing I can say about nationalized healthcare, is that China came up with the vasectomy procedure I underwent after my second son was born, and it was much simpler, less painful (so I was told) than the previous procedure. The only difference is, I chose to undergo the procedure, whereas many chinese men HAD to undergo the procedure!

[phil]

I have to say I like this response. I don't agree with a lot of it, but this was one of your better responses.

Thanks.

I hope you're right on the nationalization of GM, AIG, and others, but I fear the government will not let go of these industries readily. It will take a conservative Congress and White House to make it happen, I think.

No. I think they'll be back, at least GM. AIG may get a federally arranged buyout, like Merrill.

I can agree with you on the immigration issue, but I would take a step further and not provide amnesty for those illegally present in the country and I would deny their offspring born on our soil U.S. citizen status. I would also make it a crime to hire illegal immigrants. That's current law you say, WRONG! It is a crime to "knowingly" hire illegal immigrants. Businesses are held accountable for paying their taxes, whether the business owner prepared the tax forms or had an accountant do it for them. The same should apply to hiring illegals. You can bet businesses will do more to prevent hiring illegals if the laws were enforced the same way as the tax code.

I never talked about the labor aspect of current employment law. I said to change the current law to eliminate follow to join status in immigration law. The immigration chain is way too long.

Still disagree with you on outsourcing national security. I wouldn't recommend hiring the Mexican military to patrol our border, for example. Not a good idea. If you're advocating letting the CIA hire assassins to take out a few of our more troublesome world leaders (Hugo Chavez for one), I might think about it.:D

Okay. No, I'm not advocating eliminating people. The Afghanistan operation was an exception. It was very cost effective, compared to what we're spending now. Actually, I was grateful for the Mexican military coming in to help after Katrina. They did a good job.

Let's say the recession was caused by the perfect storm of greed, too much government manipulation of the markets, and greed!:blink: Government was a huge factor in the cause of the problems. Personally, I'd like them to stay out of the way and let the market find the solutions.

That's what got us here in the first place, and why people are bitterly complaining. Madoff got away for years because of lack of government intervention in the market.

I'm not with you on nationalized healthcare. About the only positive thing I can say about nationalized healthcare, is that China came up with the vasectomy procedure I underwent after my second son was born, and it was much simpler, less painful (so I was told) than the previous procedure. The only difference is, I chose to undergo the procedure, whereas many chinese men HAD to undergo the procedure!

Quite a number of drugs, treatments and medical procedures have come in from abroad, specifically from nations with socialized medicine.

[Viva La Migra]

I have to say I like this response. I don't agree with a lot of it, but this was one of your better responses.

Thanks.

You're welcome.

I hope you're right on the nationalization of GM, AIG, and others, but I fear the government will not let go of these industries readily. It will take a conservative Congress and White House to make it happen, I think.

No. I think they'll be back, at least GM. AIG may get a federally arranged buyout, like Merrill.

It will be interesting to see what actually happens. The sooner those companies return to the private sector, the better.

I can agree with you on the immigration issue, but I would take a step further and not provide amnesty for those illegally present in the country and I would deny their offspring born on our soil U.S. citizen status. I would also make it a crime to hire illegal immigrants. That's current law you say, WRONG! It is a crime to "knowingly" hire illegal immigrants. Businesses are held accountable for paying their taxes, whether the business owner prepared the tax forms or had an accountant do it for them. The same should apply to hiring illegals. You can bet businesses will do more to prevent hiring illegals if the laws were enforced the same way as the tax code.

I never talked about the labor aspect of current employment law. I said to change the current law to eliminate follow to join status in immigration law. The immigration chain is way too long.

I know you didn't, which is why I said I would take it a step further.;)

Still disagree with you on outsourcing national security. I wouldn't recommend hiring the Mexican military to patrol our border, for example. Not a good idea. If you're advocating letting the CIA hire assassins to take out a few of our more troublesome world leaders (Hugo Chavez for one), I might think about it.:D

Okay. No, I'm not advocating eliminating people. The Afghanistan operation was an exception. It was very cost effective, compared to what we're spending now. Actually, I was grateful for the Mexican military coming in to help after Katrina. They did a good job.

Can't speak to that one. I wasn't there. I wouldn't trust the Mexican military to patrol our border, though. To be honest, I wouldn't want the Canadians to do it either. I just feel safer if we have U.S. citizens patrolling our borders, and a big, triple fence along both the northern and southern borders. Keeps honest people honest.

Let's say the recession was caused by the perfect storm of greed, too much government manipulation of the markets, and greed!:blink: Government was a huge factor in the cause of the problems. Personally, I'd like them to stay out of the way and let the market find the solutions.

That's what got us here in the first place, and why people are bitterly complaining. Madoff got away for years because of lack of government intervention in the market.

Some things they should get involved in quicker. The Madoff situation being the most glaring example. There's current law for that, if they'd enforce it. In other areas, like failing businesses GM and AIG, they should let them fail and let the market evolve. IMHO.

I'm not with you on nationalized healthcare. About the only positive thing I can say about nationalized healthcare, is that China came up with the vasectomy procedure I underwent after my second son was born, and it was much simpler, less painful (so I was told) than the previous procedure. The only difference is, I chose to undergo the procedure, whereas many chinese men HAD to undergo the procedure!

Quite a number of drugs, treatments and medical procedures have come in from abroad, specifically from nations with socialized medicine.

Agreed, but I believe the overwhelming number of new drugs, treatments, and medical procedures still originate in the U.S. I think two thirds of the top revenue producing pharmaceutical companies are in the U.S. Why is that? Producing drugs that work is a risk and a huge expense, but the potential for reward in profits make the risk worthwhile. In socialized healthcare, treating patients is expensive for the state and it is much easier to simply prescribe pain meds and let the patient die. The motivation to cure just isn't there, IMO. The current system isn't perfect, but I like it better than the proposed options.

Great debate. Your points were well articulated. It seems we can agree in a few areas, but we'll probably have to agree to disagree at others. Good job.