Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 129 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Buying America one free speech at a time
Published Friday, February 19, 2010
In a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, on a 5-4 conservative vote, the court reversed more than 100 years of precedent and reached far beyond the case in review to declare that corporations and unions have the right of free speech by the use of money in political campaigns.
The court has made two assertions that fall so far beyond reason as to be incomprehensible; first, that corporations are individuals with the same inherent free speech rights as you and I; second, that money is speech.
Neither claim is valid.
The logic of the court in terms of the rights of corporations would allow GE to run for office, as a corporation, if extended to its logical conclusion.
Yet GE is only marginally an American company in the new world of internationalism. It conducts business across the globe and has investments and income far beyond the reaches of the U.S. tax code.
Therefore the interests of GE, as a corporation, are not even exclusively American interests…yet the Court would grant this corporation the rights of an individual American citizen.
But perhaps more dangerous is the argument advanced by the five Justices that money is speech. If money is speech, then you and I should simply withdraw from voting, because the corruption of the big banks now has far more free speech than you or I can ever attain. And Exxon has about as much free speech as 50 million of the rest of us.
The decision of the court has been soundly rejected by the American people according to a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Almost 80 percent of Americans disagree with the ruling, including broad majorities of Republicans, Democrats and Independents.
While our nation is currently too politicized to agree that the sun comes up every day, we virtually all agree that this ruling is wrong for the nation and wrong for our future.
But we should have known this court would rule this way.
While Americans were distracted by the usual abortion issues when Roberts and Alito were nominated to the court, the real issue of concern was seen by very few.
It was not a question of abortion. It was the issue of their voting records that evidenced a blind support for the strong against the weak, the powerful against the powerless.
In opposing both Roberts and Alito, Barack Obama pointed out this very concern. In the opposition to Roberts as Chief Justice Obama said Roberts “far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak.”
In a speech on the Senate floor in late 2008 Obama cited Alito’s habit of siding with big business and big government against plaintiffs and workers.
Obama was right.
If corporations have all the rights of voters, then their power is going to change American democracy into a corporate nation where individual voters matter little.
And if money is speech, than those with the most money are those with the most speech, meaning the American middle class can be silenced forever.
Sen. Schumer of New York is leading the Senate effort to construct a sound constitutional basis to reverse the recent Supreme Court decision in its effectiveness.
But it will not be easily accomplished because Washington Republicans, unlike their constitutients, see a political advantage in the ruling. They will not easily vote to save the nation.
Eighty percent of Americans reject the ruling by a court now owned by “Big Government” and “Big Business.” Write your congressmen and woman.
This is a battle for America.
Jim Crawford is a contributing columnist for The Tribune and a former educator at Ohio University Southern.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 19, 2010 at 11:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
More Crawford lies... I guess that he's the only one that didn't know that Tillman wasn't overturned. You are still prohibited from making monetary contributions to politicians.
And why is Crawfod's knowledge about the constitution so scarce? What part of:
Congress shall make no laws... abridging freedom of speech...
Doesn't he understand?
And why is Crawford so scared of Freedom of Speech by anybody?
Do you really think that a commercial is going to be the determining factor on who you vote for?
Posted by gkhan (anonymous) on February 19, 2010 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Jim once more you have read into something that is not there. What the bill says is they can pay for advertisements for candidates and laws, it does not say the corporatons can run for public office it does not even infer that.Also it does not put a limit on contributions which I am totally against.
Maybe Jim you should read the requirements for running for a public office and quit stiring the pot.One more thing Jimbo would you care to say if it is ok for unions to support there democratic candidates like they do,they have been breaking this law forever with call banks and such seems to me this makes a level playing field which I know democrats do not like.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 19, 2010 at 11:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh and Crawford... Here was the Poll question:
Do you support or oppose the recent ruling by the Supreme Court that says corporations and unions can spend as much money as they want to help political candidates win elections?
-------------------------------------------
Well, isn't that a lie??? Per the poll question... it sounds like If I was Exxon, I could give $10 gazillion to my favorite republican's campaign...
All this ruling did was make company's views heard. They have to state who is paying for the ad. You can't donate money to a candidate nor can you coordinate your ads with the campaign.
Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 19, 2010 at 4:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh, bull. Money doesn't have the right to bear arms, or vote, or choose its own religion, etc. Yet somehow it has the right to free speech. This supreme court ALWAYS rules in favor of corporations and the government, and against human beings. This is going to be way more troublesome than those judicial activists on the court thought it would. We're fed up with this stuff.
Posted by gkhan (anonymous) on February 19, 2010 at 4:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
keta that is not true I can quote you case after case where they have ruled against business.So it is better to be quiet and be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Posted by mikehaney (anonymous) on February 19, 2010 at 8:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Free speech-------Good.
Ignorant voters------Bad
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 19, 2010 at 8:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This supreme court ALWAYS rules in favor of corporations and the government, and against human beings.
-----------------------------------------
ALWAYS Keta??? I seem to remember that the Supreme Court ruled against the corporations when they ruled that CO2 can be considered a pollutant.
As usual, you don't know what you are talking about.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 19, 2010 at 8:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is going to be way more troublesome than those judicial activists on the court thought it would.
----------------------------------
Only fruitcake liberals think that by following the Constitution you should be called a judicial activist.
Posted by mikehaney (anonymous) on February 19, 2010 at 8:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Of course Obama didn't like this ruling. He tried his best to shut out fox news and lost. Whether you like fox news or not,Obama was acting just like Chavez, but to his regret, in the wrong country.
Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on February 19, 2010 at 8:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm sorry, but I really don't understand why so many people are so upset with this ruling. Advertising is advertising regardless of where the money is coming from. The American voter has a God given intelligence and the responsibility to use this intelligence to form an educated and fair minded conclusion in determining who to cast their vote for. The money spent on advertising helps contribute to the well being of the economy for the betterment of all of us. I hope they keep spending. It is our responsibility to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 12:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Only fruitcake liberals think that by following the constitution
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only brainless wingnuts could delude themselves that the framers would favor an arrangement that allows citizens to donate $2300 to the candidates they choose, while corporations (or foreign governments, hidden behind corporate treasuries) can dump millions into our electoral campaigns.
gkhan, there's a zero percent chance that you're an expert on the Roberts court, which is setting precedents that should scare the pants off everybody. They not only rule against private citizens with depressing regularity, they've made it nearly impossible for citizens to even be heard. If you're interfering with a large corporation's right to operate without restriction, if you're an investor who's been misled or defrauded, or you're an injured worker, or you've experienced pay discrimination, forget it. That's why Alito and Roberts are there, duh, not to protect the unborn or promote truth and justice, or any of the happy horsesh*t that gets shoveled at us when there's a vacancy on the court. My fervent prayer is that a couple of those extreme right-wing geezers will be replaced soon. Say, within the next three years.
Posted by APEppink (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 12:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"I'm sorry, but I really don't understand why so many people are so upset with this ruling"
I don't either Mr. Akers. Corp., Union and other public input are obviously reqd. Indeed it was just more politicking by the supreme ct that it was previously proscribed. People s/b able to figure things out w good leadership, the critical ingredient - a concept anathema to libs (and pretty obviously to the ed's of this paper as well. Libmedia. Get pretty tiresome) to whom 'The masses are morons who have to be kept strictly under control (and eventually enslaved - just ask the commies.) Hard to believe anyone's dumb enough to fall for that sort of thing anymore)...though people fell for Obamanomics - communism/socialism.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 5:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Only brainless wingnuts could delude themselves that the framers would favor an arrangement that allows citizens to donate $2300 to the candidates they choose, while corporations (or foreign governments, hidden behind corporate treasuries) can dump millions into our electoral campaigns.
----------------------------------------
Keta, it's sooooo simple I really don't understand why you don't get it. The "framers" said plain and simple:
Congress shall make no laws... abridging the freedom of speech.
They didn't put in any qualifiers... ZERO, none, nada!
"No Laws" means, no laws...
And to your silly argument that the constitution doesn't apply to corporations... then what gives Congress the right to tax them?
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 6:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm sorry, but I really don't understand why so many people are so upset with this ruling.
-----------------------------
That's an easy one to answer Mick. Supposedly, who are the businesses going to favor when they make these ads? That's right, those evil republicans!!! That's why democrats are so upset.
Posted by gkhan (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Keta how do you know what I am an expert in? I probably know more about the supreme court and it's rulings than you. And I am 100% sure I know more then you do, spouting off on here like your an expert on civil liberties and such been taken away.
And as for your response maybe they rule for the companies because the plaintiffs case is weak? what does investors been misled or defrauded have to do with the supreme court?would not that be the SEC? an injured woker goes through workers comp and pay discrimination goes through EEOC first and to get to the supreme court you would have had to lose anywhere from 5-8 times in previouse courts.So your case would probably have no merit anyway.
Keta this lesson is free you will get a bill for my next one.You bleeding heart liberal.
Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 11:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Just a few words to the liberals here and their disdain for corporations. First off, corporations do not pay taxes. Buyers of their product do. So there. If you do not like corporations, do not buy their product. That is your freedom of speech. But god forbid, you do not buy a product that is union made. The unions may come after you.
Posted by AlisonMiller (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 11:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I would like to know where certain companies really stand politically.
As it is now, companies lobby behind closed doors to effect the political process. The best example off the top of my head is the creation of NCLB.
Posted by AlisonMiller (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 12:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I would like to commend Mr. Crawford for using GE as his example though--a company that is always attacked on here for being liberal. GE's agenda IS liberal---blowing the "only Republicans would benefit from this" theory out of the water
Posted by AlisonMiller (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 12:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't know if he did that on purpose though, lol.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 12:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Alison, I agree that there are liberal companies plus, the unions would be able to purchase ads. But on the whole, companies that favor the free market i.e. republicans would benefit more than democrats. That is why democrats are upset.
Besides, certain liberal companies were already providing free political advertising for candidates right before election. Which companies? New York Times, Washington Post, NBC (which is owned by G.E.), CBS, ABC, and most other major news outlets. If the Washington Post can give it's endorsement to a candidate right before an election, why can't the NRA or other organizations give their support?
Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 1:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
would that not be the sec?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts like the one above disqualifies you from giving legal advice, gkhan. All these tired arguments are what one of the dissenting justices called a rejection of our common sense. Corporations aren't patriots, and they aren't philanthropists. Their objective is to make their shareholders wealthy, no matter what. It's to their advantage to ship jobs overseas to be performed by children or slave labor, so that's what they do, regardless of the consequences. It's to their advantage to hide their profits overseas, so that's what they do. It's dumb to imagine that corporate goals and interests are the same as those of citizens in America in 2010 - they clearly aren't, even if you like to imagine yourself a business-savvy corporatist. Grow up.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 1:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Keta: All these tired arguments are what one of the dissenting justices called a rejection of our common sense.
-------------------------------------------------
And that's why we call those liberal losers activist judges. Just because it's liberal "common sense" doesn't make it so.
Take for example Lilly Ledbetter, the person who had a pay discrimination case. The law gave her 180 days for her to file from the time that the act occurred. She found out about the pay discrimination right before she was to retire.
Should a person be able to go back years when there may not be records, when the people performing the action may have forgotten about it, moved on with different companies?
No, the law says 180 days. Conservative judges say that there is nothing unconstitutional with the law and let it stand. Activist judges on the other hand feel sorry for the lady and want to ignore the law.
If the law is wrong, then it's up to Congress to change it, not the activist judges.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's to their advantage to hide their profits overseas, so that's what they do.
-------------------------
The US is virtually alone among nations in taxing the overseas profits of its domestic corporations.
Keta, why do you want foreign corporations to have an unfair advantage over our own companies?
Why do you hate U.S. companies?
Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 3:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
taxing the overseas profits
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's why they call those low-tax countries "havens" : American corporations can permanently defer taxes on the profits earned there, and increase the profits of shareholders instead. Sweet. Corporations don't have a conscience, you see, and don't give a flip about lost revenue due to massive unemployment, collapsing infrastructure, all that pesky stuff. That's for citizens to worry about. Oh wait, corporations ARE citizens now. Really, really bad citizens.
Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on February 20, 2010 at 4:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
keta; Your comment concerning corporations "Their objective is to make their shareholders wealthy, no matter what". I am afraid, but I hope I am wrong, you are correct in your observation. Also, your comment, "It's to their advantage (corporations) to ship jobs overseas to be performed by children or slave labor, so that's what they do, regardless of the consequences", is right on the money and to the point. There should be profit for services rendered and effort put forth, BUT, excessive profit at the expense and detriment of others is unjust and immoral. My compliments keta for your thought provoking insight. My intention is not to pass judgement on corporations. By their actions, let them be known!.
Posted by gkhan (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 4:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Keta alittle FYI I have a degree in business and I would consider myself business savy but thanks for the feedback.Also you should probably take a step back I believe it was the great Bill Clinton who passed NAFTA,and GATT which really pushed jobs and money oveseas or was that the supreme court to brain surgeon.
One more thing the great Obama man gave a bank bailout to these same banks who have there business overseas to avoid paying taxes or was that the supreme court to?oh no it was Bushs fault, brain surgeon.
Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 5:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Good article Jim.
What most of you are missing is that 80% of America, ALL INCLUSIVE, thinks this is a bad idea
That includes like 75 or 76% of republicans. It'll be hard for the party of no to pull this one off.....
Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 5:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I will never figure you liberals out. You rail on corporations wanting to make profit so that their shareholders also make a profit. Think about it for one minute. What if there were no corporations in this country at all? Do you think you would enjoy the standard of living you do today? And if any of you have a 401k or government/union retirement plan, you better pull your money out now. A lot of your money is invested in corporations and I bet they are hoping that said corporations make a profit. If they do, you do. If they don't, you don't. I don't even want to imagine your thought process. I don't think I have that darkness within me.
Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 5:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This isn't a liberal issue 79, this is an AMERICAN issue. 80%....of EVERYBODY.
and Noesis, you can try all you want to question the integrity of the poll question, but even if it had been worded some other way, the results would be the same. You think that if republicans and independents were in favor of this, they would answer any differently if it were worded otherwise? No. America has spoken. Deal with it
Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 5:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jon
I haven't seen the poll showing that but I can guarantee the pollsters tweaked the question to make it sound like those big bad corporations are going to take your vote away. Pathetic.
Posted by gkhan (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 6:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Keta I really do not want to spar with you your mind is made up and it can not be changed.Big business is bad,although it seems both sides take the lobbiest money which basically comes from big business.At least most people on here be it a democrat or a republican will have an open mind and can see things fom both sides.Not you,yours is I am right you are wrong that is it.Besides I make it a policy not to argue with stupid people, sometimes other people can not tell the difference.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 6:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Here's why they call those low-tax countries "havens" : American corporations can permanently defer taxes on the profits earned there, and increase the profits of shareholders instead. Sweet.
-----------------------------
Per American law that goes waaaay back, American Corporations don't have to pay taxes on overseas profits UNTIL it's brought back into the United States. What liberals won't tell you is that the oversea profits have already been taxed... by the overseas country the profit was made in. Say that your corporation made a profit in England. They tax you at a 30% tax rate. Now, when you bring that money into the U.S., it gets taxed again. The US is virtually alone among nations in taxing the overseas profits of its domestic corporations. And the reason why is, they have already paid one tax. And you wonder why those corporations use "offshore tax havens"?
Hey Keta, how would you like to go work in Canada temporarily this summer to teach history to Summer students, have your pay taxed at the Canadian 45% tax rate and then come back to the U.S. and have to pay 30% of your gross income on the amount you made?
What do you mean it wouldn't be fair to be taxed twice?
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 6:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
79Tiger, yes the poll question was very misleading. It asked:Do you support or oppose the recent ruling by the Supreme Court that says corporations and unions can spend as much money as they want to help political candidates win elections?.
----------------------
Sounds like per this poll, G.E. can give $5 billion to Obama's 2012 campaign... but, that's not what the ruling stated.
And Jon, you don't like that corporations can make ads? Then change the Constitution.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 6:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jonferguson:"...but even if it had been worded some other way, the results would be the same. You think that if republicans and independents were in favor of this, they would answer any differently if it were worded otherwise? No. America has spoken. Deal with it"
---------------------------
Yes Jon, if the question was: Should American companies enjoy the same freedom of expression that the media has to voice their opinion on who should be elected President. I'm sure that 80% would agree with the poll.
And actually I'm dealing with ruling very well, it's you nutcase liberals who aren't dealing with it.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 6:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's to their advantage to ship jobs overseas to be performed by children or slave labor, so that's what they do, regardless of the consequences.
------------------------
So Keta, when Nike was discovered to be using sweatshops, they just ignored the public outcry and continued using sweatshops?
Whoops, there goes that argument.
And mickakers, It's the American public that forces a lot of companies to go overseas to compete. American consumers don't look at where it was made, they look at costs.
If you have a Korean furniture maker who pays his people $4/hr versus an American furniture maker who pays his workers $25/hr, the Korean bedroom set that you are looking at is going to be several hundred dollars lower than the identical set made in America. Should the American manufacture go out of business and close all his showrooms because he can't compete with the Korean prices or, should he have the furniture made in Indonesia where he can get it made at the same price?
Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 7:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just look for the union label. Oh, thats right. It's not there anymore because they forced their own employers to relocate overseas. Great job unions! You have outlived your usefulness to the american worker by about 60 years. And don't get me started on government unions. How pathetic. Taxpayer funded unions. How in the world did that ever happen in America?
Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 7:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
In fact, Nike DOES still use sweatshops. Capitalism works great in the total absence of democracy, when you don't have to consider anything except how quickly you can make the most money possible. Everybody already knows why foreign products are cheaper, and everybody buys them. The problem is that an economy that doesn't make things and sell them, especially overseas, can't thrive. We're the mouth of the world at this point, and it makes us vulnerable and stupid. The supreme court ruling gives a huge, disproportionate voice to corporations that have proven again and again that short term gains and happy shareholders are their only concern. Citizens, on the other hand, care about employment, the security of their families, the quality of the air their grandchildren will breathe, and a hundred other things trans-national corporations simply couldn't care less about. Corporate billions would buy the most important thing to candidates for public office - familiarity. It costs a fortune to make someone a familiar face. Five hundred million dollars worth of familiarity would be a petty cash item for Pfizer and Exxon. Alito and Roberts, and three of the justices who were happy to force Florida poll workers to stop counting votes and appoint a new president who planned to "run America like a corporation" probably aren't going to have the last word on this. The fact that that new president ran America like Enron damaged the court's credibility in ways that are really helpful. Nobody regards them with awe anymore - they're partisan hacks, the judicial equivalent of Mitch McConnell.
Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 8:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Keta,
You are an absolute riot!
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 8:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No Keta, Nike doesn't open any manufacturing plants. It buys it's shoes from companies that produce them.
And Keta, what did you want the Supreme court to do, ignore the Constitution? Just because you don't like what it says?
Keta, I don't remember you whining about Obama getting loads of more money than McCain. Obama initially agreed with McCain that they would accept only public financing. That would have kept the money spent low and the "exposure" even.
Roberts forced the Florida poll workers to stop the recount? How did he do that when he wasn't even on the bench until 2005?
Even if Gore got the recount he wanted, he still would have lost:
The National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, sponsored by a consortium of major U.S. news organizations, conducted a Florida Ballot Project comprehensive review of all ballots uncounted (by machine) in the Florida 2000 presidential election, both undervotes and overvotes, with the main research aim being to report how different ballot layouts correlate with voter mistakes.
The media companies involved were:
* Associated Press
* The New York Times
* The Wall Street Journal
* CNN
* St. Petersburg Times
* The Palm Beach Post
* The Washington Post
* Tribune Company
o Los Angeles Times
o Chicago Tribune
o Orlando Sentinel
o The Baltimore Sun
The media reported the results of the study during the week after November 12, 2001. The results of the study showed that had the limited county by county recounts requested by the Gore team been completed, Bush would still have been the winner of the election.
Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 8:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
keta,
At no time in the Florida count the whole evening of the election or the recounts thereafter was Al Gore ever ahead. The media goofed and they know it.
Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 9 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Nike doesn't open any manufacturing plants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's why I said they "use" sweatshops. Which they do.
How could he do that when he wasn't even on the bench
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sigh. Touch each word as you read. "Alito and Roberts (comma) and three of the justices who.....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factcheck.org and just about everybody else agree that a statewide recount would have resulted in a Gore victory. Gore didn't ask for a statewide recount, so statements like the one in your cut & paste ("had the limited county by county recounts been completed...) always refer only to the recounts in progress when the court shut them down. Geez - Bush v. Gore. Must be time to wrap it up.
Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on February 20, 2010 at 9:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
keta; I rather enjoyed your description and analysis of Sen. Mitch McConnell (partisan hack). God help the Commonwealth of Kentucky!
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 9:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sigh. Touch each word as you read. "Alito and Roberts (comma) and three of the justices who.....
--------------------------
The Florida recount was in 2000. Roberts didn't get onto the court until 2005. How did Roberts impact the ruling again?
And you're right, Gore never asked for a statewide recount so, the point is moot.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 9:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Keta, elections have consequences. Maybe if the American public would elect more democratic presidents, you could have more judicial activists sitting on the bench.
Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 9:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's a long sentence, but you could understand it if you'd concentrate. Alito and Roberts.....and three of the justices who were happy to force Florida poll workers to stop counting votes and appoint a president who planned to "run America like a corporation"..........probably aren't going to have the last word on this. Alito and Roberts and the three old justices make five, the majority, referred to as "woohoo!" in corporate boardrooms.
Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 9:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Woohoo! is right. I don't care what you liberals think. For the life of me I cannot understand why none of you have fled to Canada. Your socialist utopia is but a half a day drive north of here. What are you waiting for?
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 9:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OK, I understand your "Alito and Roberts..."
But, now can you explain to me how even if the Supreme Court allowed Gore his recount of democratic areas, how would he have won?
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 9:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Your socialist utopia is but a half a day drive north of here. What are you waiting for?
----------------------
They don't like the tax rate ;)
Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 9:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What are you waiting for?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A medical emergency.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 9:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
A medical emergency? Is that why Canadian Premier Danny Williams, of Newfoundland and Labrador came to the United States to get his heart surgery?
Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 9:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
keta,
You just put your foot in your mouth on that one. A medical emergency in Canada means about only a six week wait. Good luck there eh?
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 9:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
A medical emergency.
---------------------------
Keta: Honey, I'm having a heart attack! Please drive me up to Canada!
Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 10:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe he thought that since it costs three times as much, he'd be three times as likely to survive. You get what you pay for, eh?
Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 10:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
keta,
There is your problem. You think Canadian health care is free. It is not. They are taxed to death for it, alas, they do get what they are taxed for. Please try to be more of a challenge.
Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 10:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, there's another theory shot all to pieces:
In 2007, the Commonwealth Fund released a report that compared U.S. health care against several other countries based on a variety of benchmarks. The data were principally derived from statistically random surveys of adult residents and primary care physicians from 2004 to 2006, in the following countries: United States, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Germany, and the Netherlands. This is what the researchers found:
* Canada had the highest percentage of patients (36%) who had to wait six days or more for an appointment with a doctor, but the United States had the second highest percentage (23%) who reported that they had to wait at least this long. New Zealand, Australia, Germany, and the U.K. all had substantially smaller numbers of people reporting waits of 6 days or longer. Canada and the United States, in that order, also had the lowest percentage of persons who said they could get an appointment with a doctor the same or next day.
* The United States had the largest percentage of persons (61%) who said that getting care on nights, weekends, or holidays, without going to the emergency room, was “very” or “somewhat” difficult. In Canada, it was 54%, and in the U.K, 38%. Germany did the best, with only 22% saying that it was difficult to get after-hours care.
* The United States, though, scored well on physicians’ perceptions of how many patients experience long waits for diagnostic tests. 57% of physicians in the U.K, and 51% of Canadian physicians reported that their patients experienced long waits for diagnostic tests, compared to only 9% of U.S. physicians who reported the same.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, those "government ran" health care systems are so much worse on wait times than ours.......please.....just more conservative slant.
Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 10:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jon,
Then why do Canadians keep coming here for their health care? I don't see Americans flocking to Canada for theirs.
Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 10:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
name two.
Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 10:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This from a Canadien:
A quick Google search came up with this:
“The only quantitative study on the issue (of Canadians seeking health care in the U.S.) was conducted in the late-1990s by the journal Health Affairs.
“Several sources of evidence from Canada reinforce the notion that Canadians seeking care in the United States were relatively rare during the study period. Only 90 of 18,000 respondents to the 1996 Canadian National Population Health Survey indicated that they had received health care in the United States during the previous twelve months, and only twenty indicated that they had gone to the United States expressly for the purpose of getting that care.”
Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 11:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"I don't see Americans flocking to Canada for theirs"
Really?
TORONTO, Dec. 19— Lacking a national health care system of their own, thousands of Americans are tapping into Canada's -- illegally.
"It's not an epidemic in any one person's practice," said Keith MacLeod, an obstetrician in Windsor, Ontario, across from Detroit, "but I would estimate that from 12 to 20 of my patients at any one time are ineligible Americans. And I'm just one of 520 doctors in Windsor, 23,000 in Ontario."
Dr. MacLeod, former president of the Essex County Medical Society, delivers about 400 babies a year.
A report prepared for Ontario's Health Minister indicated that from August 1992 to February 1993, 60,000 medical claims had been made on behalf of patients who held American drivers' licenses. The total number of improper claims in Ontario was estimated at 600,000.
Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 11:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Move Jon! Move while you can. I swear all you liberals do is lie. Babs and Alec Baldwin and other Hollywood libs swore they would leave the country if Bush were elected but the never did. They lied. You praise Canada for their health care but you remain in the U.S. If you are worried about the cold weather in Canada, then you must not believe Al Gore and his AGW idiocy. Otherwise, you would know that the southern part of Canada will soon have the same climate as the southern part of the U.S. Call me heartless all you want but better than to be brainless.
Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 11:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Gee, now that so many are without health care coverage, I wonder what their numbers of illegal americans is now?
Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 11:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No, I'll call you brainless. All you can do in the face of the facts is say "Move!" How about YOU move. Some of us are trying to IMPROVE our country.
Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 11:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wise saying:
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 11:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So, since you can't win with the healthcare argument, we're going to switch to global warming?
Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 11:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
we're going to switch to global warming?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He gets mixed up.
The World Health Organization ranks our health care system 37th in the world. France is first. Canada is 30th. Costa Rica is 36th. Eat our dust, Costa Rica!
Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 11:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm not trying to destroy our country, Jon. Unlike you and Obama.
Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 11:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The WHO is a uber liberal organization. Of course they are going to bash the U.S. Par for the course for liberals. That is why you liberals have to keep changing your moniler.
Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 11:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"The WHO is a uber liberal organization"
Wow! Now I've heard it all! The entire WORLD makes up LIES about the health care of ALL THE COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD!
I'm going to bed....the amount of dumb wafting around here is giving me a head ache.
Maybe I'll run to Canada to get some cheaper Migraine medicine.
Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 11:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
That is why you liberals have to keep changing your moniler
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jonferguson, do you happen to know what a moniler is? Is it something you and Obama and the elites at the WHO are using to destroy our country? :)
Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on February 20, 2010 at 11:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Good for you Jon. Goodnight. Dream your liberal dreams.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 21, 2010 at 6:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The World Health Organization ranks our health care system 37th in the world.
--------------
That's right and included in that ranking is how much does it cost for health insurance (doesn't look at a person's tax rate to pay for it). "Free" health care moves you up the list. Also according to the rankings is longevity. Drive-by shootings, murders, car accident that result in death, heart attacks etc.... things that have nothing to do with health care affect the ranking.
Now when you look at just the treatment once you are in the hospital, we rise to the top of the list. We have one of the highest cancer survival rates in the world.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 21, 2010 at 6:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You want to see what Canadians really think of their health care system?
Read the comments about the story of: Stronach went to U.S. for cancer treatment. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/st...
Here are just a few of the numerous comments:
If I had her money, I'd receive my primary care in the States too. We have been saddled with a Stalinist, second-rate system.
The best physicians and the best equipment are in the U.S.
------
I had cancer and am now 'cured'... and thankful for the treatment I received in Toronto.
But going through the system here in Canada is quite the ordeal; no treatment for the 'whole person.'
Perhaps having had a taste of this, Ms. Stronach decided to go elsewhere, and hopefully will present some ideas for improvements when she returns to public life.
----
She joins a lengthy list of Canadians, including politicians who go to the United States to get treated.Unfortunately, the mythology that state run medicine is superior to that of the private sector, takes precedent over the health of the individual Canadian.
Best wishes Belinda.
-----
Why are we giving Stronach such a tough time here? The real problem is that private healthcare cannot be sought in Canada. Two-tier health care makes sense, and would best serve the needs of Canadians.
----
The story here isn't about those who get treatment in the states. It's about a liberal politician that is part of a political party that espoused the Canadian public system and vowed to ensure that no private health care was ever going to uspurp the current system. She is an MP for the party that relentlessly attacked the conservatives for their "hidden agenda" to privatize health care.
The irony and hypocracy is the story here. The rich get health care, the rest of use wait in line. All because of liberal fearmongering that does not allow for a real debate on the state of the health care system in Canada.
----
While living in the USA several years ago I found a lump in my breast. I went to the doctor the next day, she had me in for a ultrasound and mam the very next day. We are now living in Canada again, this time my doctor here found a lump, she sent me to a specialist ( 10 1/2 weeks it took), still haven't had a mam. This Canadian system is scary, and needs to be fixed! I too if I had the money would seek treatment in the USA.
---
It's sort of been alluded to.. but I hope everyone reading this story realizes that in fact, *gasp*, we DO have a two-tiered health care system.. we have public care in Canada, and for those with LOTS of cash, we have private care in the U.S., which is quicker, and in many cases, better.
Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 21, 2010 at 9:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Canadian health care has an 80% approval. Similar to the percentage of people who dislike the supreme court ruling, which is what this article is about.
Noesis...longevity? Would you please look at the average life spans in say, Africa, and then compare that against...oh...say......YOUR age....?????
The life expectancy at birth of the world is 67.2 years (65.0 years for males and 69.5 years for females) for 2005-2010 according to United Nations World Population Prospects 2006 Revision and 66.57 years (64.52 years for males and 68.76 years for females) for 2009 according to CIA World Factbook 2009.
U.S. life expectancy: 78.2 overall
Males: 75.6
Females: 80.8
Another theory blown up.
Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 21, 2010 at 9:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"jonferguson, do you happen to know what a moniler is?"
Keta,
I guess I need to go to a tea bagger party. I'm not hip to the jargon :)
Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 21, 2010 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I bet someone will say that the U.N. is just a big uber-liberal organization, trying to destroy the U.S. as we know it!
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 21, 2010 at 10:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Jonferguson, A survey conducted jointly by the Kaiser Family Foundation, ABC News and USA Today, released in October 2006, found that 89 percent of Americans were satisfied with their own personal medical care.
And about that Canadian poll... it had to do with their primary care doctor. When it came to something other than rountine, the numbers sharply dropped:
A May 2008 survey by Harris/Decima TeleVox asked Canadians the same questions that appeared in the Kaiser/ABC News/USA Today survey two years earlier. In most comparisons, Canadians were more satisfied than uninsured Americans, but just barely, (wow Jon, Canadians were as satisfied as Americans WITHOUT insurance) and they were nowhere as satisfied as insured Americans. Canadians are most similar to insured Americans in terms of their happiness with their ability "to get non-emergency care without having to wait." While 77 percent of insured Americans and 41 percent of uninsured Americans were satisfied with timely non-emergency care, the figure for all Canadians was 60 percent.
Among the biggest differences between percentage of Canadians and insured Americans who were satisfied were the "ability to see top-quality medical specialists, if you ever need one" (26 percentage points difference) and the "ability to get emergency care" (24 percentage points difference).
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 21, 2010 at 10:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Noesis...longevity? Would you please look at the average life spans in say, Africa, and then compare that against...oh...say......YOUR age....?????
--------------------
And where do those African countries fall in the ranking?
Another Jonferguson theory totally destroyed.
I see you still aren't taking any smart pills.
Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on February 21, 2010 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
jon,
If the U.S. stopped its' funding of the U.N. and kicked it out of this country, it would crumble and fail miserably. Every country knows exactly what the U.N. is. A global organization that can only survive by suckling the teet of the United States. Once we are gone, the others will be gone as well. My My you liberals are such suckers.
Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on February 21, 2010 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Okay I had a typo. I meant moniker. You keep changing yourselves from progressives to moderates to liberals to moderates and now back to progressives. We know who you are so why do you keep changing? A conservative is a conservative and always has been. You are like chameleons. You think we can't see you for what you are but we do. And Americans do not approve of liberals, no matter what rock, leaf or tree you try to hide on or under.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 21, 2010 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
U.S. life expectancy: 78.2 overall
--------------------------------------
OK, lets see what the life expectancy is of the top ranked health care countries:
WHO Health care ranking: #1 France 80.7 years
#2 Italy 80.5
#3 San Marino 81.97
#4 Andorra 82.51
#5 Malta 79.44
#6 Singapore 81.98
#7 Spain 80.05
Where does the U.S. rank in terms of longevity? #38
Where does the WHO rank us for health care? #37
And then there's this:
... The WHO ranking was ambitious in its scope, grading each nation's health care on five factors. Two of these were relatively uncontroversial: health level, which is roughly the average healthy lifespan of a nation's residents; and responsiveness, which is a sort of customer-service rating encompassing factors such as the system's speed, choice and quality of amenities. The other three measure inequality in health-care outcomes; responsiveness; and individual spending.
----
Hey Jon, did you catch: "health level, which is roughly the average healthy lifespan of a nation's residents"
So, once again Jon, you absolutely are clueless in what you are talking about.
Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 21, 2010 at 3:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm clueless? We rank 37th, and you guys still think we have the best health care in the world. Ha! Clueless huh?
And tigger, your analogy is correct. We have the ability to change....you conservatives on the other hand, are completely stuck in the past, with no ability to change at all. THAT is the definition of clueless. (to me any way)
Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 21, 2010 at 4:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, Lets see:
Tanzania: 52.5
Uganda : 51.5
Cameroon: 50.4
South Africa: 49.3
So, I assume there's is lower than what it should be for some unchallenged reason?
The point is, every country has reasons why their life expectancy will drop. If you try to eliminate all the variables, the study is useless. If you ruled out AIDS and Malaria in Africa, their LE would probably be in the 80's too. So your idea that drive by shootings and murders somehow skews the numbers is just ludicrous at best
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 21, 2010 at 4:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes Jon, we have the best health care in the world. There is numerous reasons why our longevity isn't higher and none of it has to do with health care. The United States has a higher prevalence than Europe of the major adult diseases, including cancer, heart disease, and diabetes. Then there's smoking, obesity, high blood pressure, more auto related deaths than any other country, murder rate especially gang related violence...
And the WHO doesn't do that study anymore... the reason why, they said that there were to many variables.
If our health care system is so bad, why do we have some of the best cancer survival rates in the world?
Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 21, 2010 at 4:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Americans do not approve of liberals
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sigh. Many Americans ARE liberals, and proud of it. When you say "Americans" you mean "conservatives". Conservatives do not approve of liberals. Bear in mind that many of them have no idea what "liberal" really means. Conservatives have worked hard to make "liberal" a bad word. When our liberal president was elected, many of them were flabbergasted. Didn't everyone get the memo about how terrible liberals are? How could this happen?
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 21, 2010 at 4:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Liberalism is a mental disease. And... it's a bad word.
Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 21, 2010 at 5:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
conservatism is a debilitating mental condition. It should be treated like Schizophrenia.....lots of drugs to keep you drooling...most people wouldn't notice a difference.
Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 21, 2010 at 5:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Yes Jon, we have the best health care in the world. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I rest my case....stupid is as stupid BELIEVES
Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on February 21, 2010 at 5:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jon,
You missed my point. You keep changing your your tune but it is the same old song. You are intentent on destroying capitalism and in turn destroying America. A liberal is a liberal is a liberal, no matter what mask you are wearing or moniker you are using at a particular point in time.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 21, 2010 at 6:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Liberals believe in taking money to those that earned it and give it to those who didn't.
How's that working out in Cuba and Venezuela?
Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 21, 2010 at 6:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Conservatives believe that the wealthiest people in the world will somehow decide to give us some of their excess wealth....how's that working out at Enron and Fannie and Freddie?
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 21, 2010 at 6:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Jon, have you ever heard of any American politician who goes to Canada for treatment? Why do Canadian officials come to America for their treatment? Because of our poor health care?
Posted by gkhan (anonymous) on February 21, 2010 at 7:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jon i believe at the time dems and liberals were in charge of fannie and freddie.The Dems covered this up, can you say Barney Frank and Maxine Waters for starters even though Bush and Cheney warned them over and over they still tried to cover this up until the balloon broke.
Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on February 21, 2010 at 7:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The United States does not have the best Health Care over all in the world, that is quite obvious from the various polls. We are more proficient and successful in particular fields, Cancer as an example, than other countries, but they are more successful and proficient in various other fields according to the polls. A significant number of Americans purchase their Rx drugs from Canada. People have become more educated and health wise and therefore shop around for the best service pertaining to their particular illness (that is the ones with sufficient capital). It is a luxury to be able to afford a second opinion. The vast majority of Americans cannot afford these Health helpful luxuries. Therefore it is common sense that the United States needs a One Payer Health Care System to benefit all the citizens of this country.
Posted by sugar08 (anonymous) on February 21, 2010 at 7:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My relative died in Canada because of the long wait for tests and treatment. I'll take what we have here , thank you.
Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on February 21, 2010 at 9:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Noesis & 79Tiger; You both continue to comment and put forth your point of view, that Americans don't like Liberals (Democrats) and prefer Conservatives (Republicans). If that is the case, why do we have a Democratic President and a Democratic controlled Congress? I presume this being the fact of the matter, the American public prefers the Liberal point of view. I don't understand your logic.
Posted by gkhan (anonymous) on February 21, 2010 at 10:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
mickakers for now that is true but the grass is always greener on the other side.After 2010-2012 things will be set right again.
Posted by bluemule (anonymous) on February 22, 2010 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"After 2010-2012 things will be set right again." Really? Oh boy, I just can't wait! Pardon my excitement! Yeah, right. I so yearn for the way things were back between 2000-2008. I read an interview with Pawlenty recently, he stated that in 2008 "we got fired". About that, he was right! Not that Obama has gotten the job done, so far a miserable job performance too. He and Congress may well "get fired" in 2010 and 2012. But for things to be set right, Americans will continue to fire these guys till someone or group gets it right. The search continues.....
Posted by gkhan (anonymous) on February 22, 2010 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Bluemule nice retort,and by the way there were a heck of a lot more people with jobs 2000-2008 notice all the layoffs started coming after 2008 election whats the corrolation?But I do agree with you we will eventually find somebody.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 22, 2010 at 11:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
gkhan, I believe it was democrats who brought our economy down because of their feel good program of helping the poor get homes. Freddie and Fannie relaxed the lending rules to the point that there was no down-payments and even those with bad credit could get loans. This created an unstainable housing boom. Also, unknown to the industry Freddie and Fannie were purchasing high risk loans and then selling the to financial institutions and banks as AAA rated loans. Since F&F were mandated by democrats that 50-60% of their loans go to low income families, the whole financial system was flooded with these risky loans. When we had a slight downturn in the economy, the failure rates of the loans increased causing the housing bubble to crash. Housing prices tumbled. Banks and financial institutions lost and ran out of money. They stopped lending... the economy crashed.
Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 22, 2010 at 2:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh Lord. There should be a Fannie and Freddie drinking game where everybody chugs one when Noesis mentions their names. Traditional old Fannie and Freddie aren't the culprits here. A very non-traditional banking sector eagerly took on the risky assets and paid out huge profits that didn't exist anywhere but on paper. Pick another Bush-era screwup to rewrite - that one's had too much publicity.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 22, 2010 at 4:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Keta, how about we have a drinking game for every time you make something up? Of course, we'd be drunk all the time.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 22, 2010 at 4:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I presume this being the fact of the matter, the American public prefers the Liberal point of view. I don't understand your logic.
-------------
Because poll after poll show that majority of the American people hold conservative views. 71% of republicans are conservative, 21% of democrats are conservative and 35% of independents have conservative views. Liberals on the other hand don't fair so well. Republicans are 4% liberal, moderates are 18% and even among democrats they are only 38%. http://www.gallup.com/poll/124958/Conser...
And a lot of democrats (not Obama) that were elected came from red states and they mostly either fiscal conservatives or moderates... not liberals.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 22, 2010 at 4:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
A very non-traditional banking sector eagerly took on the risky assets and paid out huge profits that didn't exist anywhere but on paper.
-----------------
Risky assets? They didn't know that they were risky. Why not? Freddie and Fannie were cooking the books:
New research by Edward Pinto, a former chief credit officer for Fannie Mae and a housing expert, has found that from the time Fannie and Freddie began buying risky loans as early as 1993, they routinely misrepresented the mortgages they were acquiring, reporting them as prime when they had characteristics that made them clearly subprime or Alt-A.
Market observers, rating agencies and investors were unaware of the number of subprime and Alt-A mortgages infecting the financial system in late 2006 and early 2007.
Because of Fannie and Freddie's mislabeling, there were millions more high-risk loans outstanding. That meant default rates as well as the actual losses after foreclosure were going to be outside all prior experience. When these rates began to show up early in 2007, it was apparent something was seriously wrong with assumptions on which AAA ratings had been based.
Losses, it was now certain, would invade the AAA tranches of the mortgage-backed securities outstanding. Investors, having lost confidence in the ratings, fled the MBS market and ultimately the market for all asset-backed securities. They have not yet returned.
By the end of 2007, the MBS market collapsed entirely. Assets once carried at par on financial institutions' balance sheets could not be sold except at distress prices. This raised questions about the stability and even the solvency of most of the world's largest financial institutions.
The first major victim was Bear Stearns, the smallest of the five major Wall Street investment banks but one invested heavily in risky MBS. The government rescue of Bear Stearns in March 2008 signaled that the U.S. government, and perhaps others, would stand behind other large financial institutions.
All market participants now realized they had to know the true financial condition of their counterparties. The result was a freeze-up in interbank lending.
For most people, that freeze-up is the beginning of the financial crisis. But its roots go back to 1993, when Fannie and Freddie began stocking up on subprime and other risky loans while reporting them as prime.
Posted by BigBob (anonymous) on February 22, 2010 at 6:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Y'all don't worry about the Commonwealth. We're just fine over here south of the river with 2 Republican Senators representing us. You better worry yourselves about that leftist piece of dog excrement known as Sherrod Brown. He'll have out grandchildren's grandchildren in debt if he has his way.
And I'm with you, noesis, on how amazing it is that a perfesser like Jimbo Crawford can't understand a simple bit of English that says Congress shall make no laws... abridging freedom of speech. He idiocy reminds one of the incompetence of the supposed highly intelligent perfesser that was going to bring hope and change to the political scene in DC. Still waiting.
Posted by PEJ (anonymous) on February 22, 2010 at 7:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How many corporations are foreign owned but occupy their base in the United States...anyone thinking that elections cannot be bought should just read the comic pages. How many people voted for Obama because of his race? How many people voted for Obama because it was a band wagon and they wanted to ride. The TV networks rode the band wagon. Now some are reconsidering their stance.
Our country is headed down the drain by both parties.
How many on the surpreme court were appointed by republicans and how many by democrats? There is your answer as to which way the next election will go, especially now. Money talks and you know what the other does..plain and simple!
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 22, 2010 at 7:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
PEJ, do you really think that if corporations had donated $100 million or even $200 million that McCain would have beaten Obama? Of course not.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 22, 2010 at 7:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's really scary what liberals are trying to do to this country by making it into a nanny state. They want to regulate everything to make us safe... We aren't as bad as England yet but move closer every day.
Over in England they have a tradition called pancake day... something to do with lent on this day, they have pancake races. Pancake races are held all over England. The object of the race is to get to the finishing line first whilst flipping a pancake in a frying pan a pre-decided number of times. The skill lies not so much in the running of the race but in flipping and catching the pancake, which must be intact when the finishing line is reached.
In one of the towns everyone was excited, but the jolly mood turned sour when a new health and safety rule was announced moments before the start - no running.
You see, it had started raining and the health and safety officer was scared that somebody would slip and fall.
A number of runners were disqualified for running...
And you wonder why liberals scare the h*ll out of most sane people?
Posted by PEJ (anonymous) on February 22, 2010 at 7:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
People believe what is pounded into their heads day after day...commercials...Yes I do believe that if McCain had the money that Obama had he would have been elected. He could have hired ACORN!
ANYTHING can be bought with the right amount of money..in reason mind you and an election is within reason.
Have you ever met a poor republican? Honestly poor? Never. Republicans are not poor people.
Again the surpreme court is 6 republicans and 3 democrats!
What does that tell you?
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 22, 2010 at 8:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I thought the Supreme Court was 5 conservatives and 4 activist judges.
And no, I doubt if the minorities would have voted against Obama no matter how much was spent on advertising.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 22, 2010 at 8:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Have you ever met a poor republican? Honestly poor? Never.
------------------
Then why is it that the Ironton area always votes mainly republican? Are you saying that the bad economy down there is greatly exaggerated? That the majority of the people are rich?
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 22, 2010 at 8:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
PEJ, what is "Honestly poor"? Is that living in a cardboard box poor or living in a trailer poor? Sort of reminds me of the story I heard about the "Grapes Of Wrath"... It was banned in Russia because it showed that even the poorest American could afford a car when in Russia, only the rich could afford a car. Even the Russian "middle class? was poorer than our poor.
Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 22, 2010 at 9:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Edward Pinto
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, geez. Add his name to the drinking game. His theories have been discredited and called myths, Noesis. Nobody forced Wall Street to bet on securitized mortgage messes. The Wall Street Journal publishes his op-ed pieces about how Fannie and Freddie are to blame, shocker. They also publish op-eds about how greed is good, and Sarah Palin would make a fine president.
Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on February 22, 2010 at 9:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
PEJ 7:31 pm
That is the stupidest thing I believe I have ever seen posted here.
Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on February 22, 2010 at 9:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
BigBob
Are you the drummer? Just curious.
Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 23, 2010 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Noesis' poll numbers most likely come from a question like:
"Do you consider yourself a moonbat, baby killing, god hating liberal?"
Then his other poll question: Do you consider yourself fiscally conservative? Yeah, I'm sure lots of people are going to think "Heck no! I spend money like a CHAMP!"
If you want to discredit the poll that started this whole convo....
Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 23, 2010 at 9:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If you actually look at the question asked, and the difference between 2000 and 2009, you see two things:
The number of people identifying themselves as "Very Conservative, Conservative, or Moderate" have decreased.
The number of people identifying themselves as "Liberal, or Very Liberal" have increased.
Go figure.
Posted by swimmingupstream (anonymous) on February 23, 2010 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I wonder what this conversation would be like if the court had ruled that neither corporations or UNIONS could spend money promoting candidates and issues at election time? Seems the court merely equalized the playing field allowing ALL nameless, faceless entities to spend money supporting NBC.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 23, 2010 at 11:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
His theories have been discredited and called myths
-----------------
Only from liberals afraid to face the truth.
And how about we play the drinking game where if you can't refute the truth, you attempt to smear the messenger?
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 23, 2010 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Noesis' poll numbers most likely come from a question like:
"Do you consider yourself a moonbat, baby killing, god hating liberal?"
------------------
Well Jon, I guess you answered your own question didn't you:
The number of people identifying themselves as "Very Conservative, Conservative, or Moderate" have decreased.
------
Yep, must have been a very misleading question...
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 23, 2010 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by jonferguson
If you actually look at the question asked, and the difference between 2000 and 2009, you see two things:
The number of people identifying themselves as "Very Conservative, Conservative, or Moderate" have decreased. The number of people identifying themselves as "Liberal, or Very Liberal" have increased. Go figure.
---------------------------
Seriously Jon, you need to slow down and read.
What were you reading about? They were talking about the democratic block getting less conservative amd more liberal:
Democrats Grow Increasingly "Liberal"
Similar to the increased conservatism among Republicans, there was a gradual increase in the last decade in "liberal" identification among Democrats, from 29% in 2002 to 38% in 2007, and it has since remained at about that level.
The effect of this shift among Democrats is most apparent when one reviews the trend in their ideological profile over the past decade. Whereas moderates constituted the largest bloc of Democrats in 2000, today they are about tied with liberals as twin leaders, and the proportion of conservatives has declined.
------------------
What you should have been looking at is the overall trend:
Trends of the Past Decade
Just looking at the decade that ended in 2009, Gallup's annual political ideology trends document a slight dip in the percentage of Americans calling themselves moderate (from 40% in 2000 to 36% in 2009), while, at the same time, the ranks of both liberals and conservatives expanded slightly.
Gallup measures political ideology by asking Americans to indicate whether their political views are very conservative, conservative, moderate, liberal, or very liberal. The detailed responses show a slight increase between 2000 and 2009 in the percentage of Americans calling themselves "very conservative" (from 6% to 9%) and less change in the percentage calling themselves "very liberal" (from 4% to 5%).
So republicans made more gains than liberals... go figure...
Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 23, 2010 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No corporation should be given the rights of individuals. Period. And 80% of America, ALL INCLUSIVE, agrees with that.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 23, 2010 at 4:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Np Jonferguson 80% of Americans believe that you shouldn't be able to give unlimited support to candidates. Making ads is not unlimited support.
It's funny that you claim you don't like biased poll questions but, you'll use one in a heartbeat.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 23, 2010 at 4:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No corporation should be given the rights of individuals.
--------------------
Oh, so you are saying that you want to muzzle the news media? The news media was specifically exempted from the previous law.
Now, all corporations are treated equally...
Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 23, 2010 at 4:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
WalMart is a person now. Let's call him Bob.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 23, 2010 at 5:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No, I think we should give Wal-mart a first name... How about Sam?
Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on February 23, 2010 at 7:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think, maybe, "Sam" would be disappointed in the present management, philosophy and makeup of present day Wal-Mart.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 24, 2010 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The first stores
It was here that Walton pioneered many concepts that would prove to be crucial to his success. Walton made sure the shelves were consistently stocked with a wide range of goods at low prices. He also pioneered the practice of discount merchandising by buying wholesale goods from the lowest priced supplier. This allowed him to pass on savings to his customers, which drove up his sales volume. Higher volumes allowed him to negotiate even lower purchase prices with the wholesaler on subsequent purchases. Walton's store led in sales and profits in the Butler Brothers' six-state region. One factor that made this store successful was its central location, making it accessible to a wide range of customers. In an attempt to limit the expansion of his main competitor, the Sterling Store, Walton leased a nearby Kroger store and opened it in 1950 as the "Eagle" department store.
----------------------
And todays Walmarts are different how mick?
Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 24, 2010 at 6:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Geez, Noesis is even going to argue that "Bob" isn't a first name! Man, that's taking partisanship to a whole new level. Got any whippety articles to back that claim Noesis? LOL
Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on February 24, 2010 at 7:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Noesis; In answer to your question, "And todays Walmarts are different how mick?" "shelves were consistently stocked", not so today! "wide range of goods", not so today! Choices, selections and varieties are limited in an attempt to dictate the customers choice to the preference of excessive profit. In other words, the customer does not come first. This is a misnomer on the part of Wal-Mart and is misleading. Walmarts current primary concern and interest is to do away with competition not interest and concern for their customers, also, there is the question concerning the just and fair treatment of their employees.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)