ho, ho...if you are referring to Barney Frank while the repugs had control of both houses and the presidency, you must debate only with your self or a self absorbed group of wingnuts ...nothing to do with credit default swaps, or that Wells Fargo and others had Wall Street accept their risk..and then in turn we had to bail them out or have the credit markets lock? Zippy, you had better return to the economic romper room, you are out of your league if you want to debate why and what happened in the fall of 2008. ....rule one, no making crap up, rule 2, all aspects are considered, not just cherry picked ones...I will even give you that Clinton signed the repeal of Glass Steagall just to give you leg up.
On Mar 17, 2:41 pm, Zebnick <zebn...@gmail.com> wrote: > The US economy is suffering because of liberal government intervention > into the banking system, specifically in mortgage guidelines. And that >is beyond debate. > > On Mar 17, 12:30 pm, Biff <jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > Vastly more accurate than the corporate whore voodoo economists the > > wingnuts produce. Free market fundamentalism is a bust and the entire > > US economy and millions are still suffering for it. Even Greenspan > > admitted that. Using facts and figures to demonstrate what hypocrites > > the republofascists are instead of a lot of made up rhetorical crap > > with a big helping of faux patriotism slavered on top.....way to go > > Paul!. Keep up the good work. > > > On Mar 15, 11:13 pm, Sage2 <wisdom...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Paul Krugman is the most unreliable source in the > > > business. He is simply a hack for the NYT"s , nothing more, nothing > > > less ! > > > > ****************************************************************************************** > > > > On Mar 15, 11:46 pm, Biff <jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > “Don’t cut Medicare. The reform bills passed by the House and Senate > > > > cut Medicare by approximately $500 billion. This is wrong.” So > > > > declared Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, in a recent > > > > op-ed article written with John Goodman, the president of the National > > > > Center for Policy Analysis. > > > > > And irony died. > > > > > Now, Mr. Gingrich was just repeating the current party line. Furious > > > > denunciations of any effort to seek cost savings in Medicare — death > > > > panels! — have been central to Republican efforts to demonize health > > > > reform. What’s amazing, however, is that they’re getting away with it. > > > > > Why is this amazing? It’s not just the fact that Republicans are now > > > > posing as staunch defenders of a program they have hated ever since > > > > the days when Ronald Reagan warned that Medicare would destroy > > > > America’s freedom. Nor is it even the fact that, as House speaker, Mr. > > > > Gingrich personally tried to ram through deep cuts in Medicare — and, > > > > in 1995, went so far as to shut down the federal government in an > > > > attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting those cuts. > > > > > After all, you could explain this about-face by supposing that > > > > Republicans have had a change of heart, that they have finally > > > > realized just how much good Medicare does. And if you believe that, > > > > I’ve got some mortgage-backed securities you might want to buy. > > > > > No, what’s truly mind-boggling is this: Even as Republicans denounce > > > > modest proposals to rein in Medicare’s rising costs, they are, > > > > themselves, seeking to dismantle the whole program. And the process of > > > > dismantling would begin with spending cuts of about $650 billion over > > > > the next decade. Math is hard, but I do believe that’s more than the > > > > roughly $400 billion (not $500 billion) in Medicare savings projected > > > > for the Democratic health bills. > > > > > What I’m talking about here is the “Roadmap for America’s Future,” the > > > > budget plan recently released by Representative Paul Ryan, the ranking > > > > Republican member of the House Budget Committee. Other leading > > > > Republicans have been bobbing and weaving on the official status of > > > > this proposal, but it’s pretty clear that Mr. Ryan’s vision does, in > > > > fact, represent what the G.O.P. would try to do if it returns to > > > > power. > > > > > The broad picture that emerges from the “roadmap” is of an economic > > > > agenda that hasn’t changed one iota in response to the economic > > > > failures of the Bush years. In particular, Mr. Ryan offers a plan for > > > > Social Security privatization that is basically identical to the Bush > > > > proposals of five years ago. > > > > > But what’s really worth noting, given the way the G.O.P. has > > > > campaigned against health care reform, is what Mr. Ryan proposes doing > > > > with and to Medicare. > > > > > In the Ryan proposal, nobody currently under the age of 55 would be > > > > covered by Medicare as it now exists. Instead, people would receive > > > > vouchers and be told to buy their own insurance. And even this new, > > > > privatized version of Medicare would erode over time because the value > > > > of these vouchers would almost surely lag ever further behind the > > > > actual cost of health insurance. By the time Americans now in their > > > > 20s or 30s reached the age of eligibility, there wouldn’t be much of a > > > > Medicare program left. > > > > > But what about those who already are covered by Medicare, or will > > > > enter the program over the next decade? You’re safe, says the roadmap; > > > > you’ll still be eligible for traditional Medicare. Except, that is, > > > > for the fact that the plan “strengthens the current program with > > > > changes such as income-relating drug benefit premiums to ensure long- > > > > term sustainability.” > > > > > If this sounds like deliberately confusing gobbledygook, that’s > > > > because it is. Fortunately, the Congressional Budget Office, which has > > > > done an evaluation of the roadmap, offers a translation: “Some higher- > > > > income enrollees would pay higher premiums, and some program payments > > > > would be reduced.” In short, there would be Medicare cuts. > > > > > And it’s possible to back out the size of those cuts from the budget > > > > office analysis, which compares the Ryan proposal with a “baseline” > > > > representing current policy. As I’ve already said, the total over the > > > > next decade comes to about $650 billion — substantially bigger than > > > > the Medicare savings in the Democratic bills. > > > > > The bottom line, then, is that the crusade against health reform has > > > > relied, crucially, on utter hypocrisy: Republicans who hate Medicare, > > > > tried to slash Medicare in the past, and still aim to dismantle the > > > > program over time, have been scoring political points by denouncing > > > > proposals for modest cost savings — savings that are substantially > > > > smaller than the spending cuts buried in their own proposals." > > > > > Paul Krugman > > > > > On Mar 15, 4:47 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2010&mo...text > > > > > - > > > > > - Show quoted text - -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
