San Diego Housing Bubble News and Analysis

If Bush is a moron then what does that make you?

Were you a jet fighter pilot?

Did you go to Harvard?

Have you ever been President?

Have you ever ran a major league baseball team?

What great things have you done to give you the credibility to judge Bush as a moron??

John

It was raining free money during Bush's reign, wasn't it?

My latest favorite of his quotes:

He warned against more drastic steps by the government to intervene.

Speaking to the Economic Club of New York at a midtown Manhattan hotel, Mr. Bush said that the economy was now having “a tough time.”
At the same time, however, he compared the government’s reaction to driving through a “rough patch” of road.
“If you ever get stuck in a situation like that, you know it’s important not to overcorrect,” Mr. Bush said. “If you overcorrect, you end up in a ditch.”

Here is the entire transcipt.

Verbatim: Bush On The Economic Challenges And America's Record Of Resilience
By PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH | Posted Friday, March 14, 2008 4:30 PM PT

Following are excerpts from President Bush's speech made Friday at the Economic Club of New York.

This is not the first time since I've been president that we have faced economic challenges. We inherited a recession. And there were the attacks of September the 11th, 2001, which many of you saw firsthand, and you know full well how that affected our economy.

Then we had corporate scandals. And I made the difficult decisions to confront the terrorists and extremists on two major fronts, Afghanistan and Iraq. We had devastating natural disasters. And the interesting thing, every time, is this economy has bounced back better and stronger than before.

So I'm coming to you as an optimistic fellow. I've seen what happens when America deals with difficulty. I believe that we're a resilient economy, and I believe that the ingenuity and resolve of the American people is what helps us deal with these issues. And it's going to happen again.

Our job in Washington is to foster enterprise and ingenuity so we can ensure our economy is flexible enough to adjust to adversity and strong enough to attract capital. And the challenge is not to do anything foolish in the meantime. In the long run, I'm confident that our economy will continue to grow, because the foundation is solid.

Unemployment is low at 4.8%. Wages have risen, productivity has been strong. Exports are at an all-time high, and the federal deficit as a percentage of our total economy is well below the historic average. But these are tough times. Growth fell to 0.6% in the fourth quarter of last year. It's clearly slow. The economy shed more than 80,000 jobs in two months. Prices are up at the gas pump and in the supermarket. Housing values are down. Hardworking Americans are concerned about their families, and they're concerned about making their bills.

Fortunately, we recognized the slowdown early and took action. And it was decisive action, in the form of policies that will spur growth.

This package is temporary, and it has two key elements. First, the growth package provides incentives for businesses to make investments in new equipment this year. As more businesses take advantage, investment will pick up, and then job creation will follow. The purpose was to stimulate investment. And the signal is clear — once I signed the bill, the signal to folks in businesses large and small know that there's some certainty in the tax code for the remainder of this year.

Secondly, the package will provide tax rebates to more than 130 million households. And the purpose is to boost consumer spending. The purpose is to try to offset the loss of wealth if the value of your home has gone down. The purpose is to buoy the consumer.

* * * *

The Federal Reserve has taken action to bolster the economy. I respect Ben Bernanke. I think he's doing a good job under tough circumstances. The Fed has cut interest rates several times.

This week the Fed also announced a major move to ease stress in the credit markets by adding liquidity. It was strong action by the Fed, and they did so because some financial institutions that borrowed money to buy securities in the housing industry must now repair their balance sheets before they can make further loans. The housing issue has dried up some of the sources of credit that businesses need in our economy to help it grow.

This morning the Federal Reserve, with support of the Treasury Department, took additional actions to mitigate disruptions to our financial markets. Today's events are fast-moving, but the chairman of the Federal Reserve and the secretary of the Treasury are on top of them, and will take the appropriate steps to promote stability in our markets.

Now, a root cause of the economic slowdown has been the downturn in the housing market. After years of steady increases, home values in some parts of the country have declined. At the same time, many homeowners with adjustable rate mortgages have seen their monthly payments increase faster than their ability to pay. As a result, a growing number of people are facing the prospect of foreclosure.

Foreclosure places a terrible burden on our families. Foreclosure disrupts communities. And so the question is, what do you do about it in a way that allows the market to work, and at the same time helps people?

The temptation is for people, in their attempt to limit the number of foreclosures, to put bad law in place. And so I want to talk about some of that. First of all, the temptation of Washington is to say that anything short of a massive government intervention in the housing market amounts to inaction. I strongly disagree with that sentiment.

I believe there ought to be action, but I'm deeply concerned about law and regulation that will make it harder for the markets to recover — and when they recover, make it harder for this economy to be robust. And so we must be careful and mindful that any time the government intervenes in the market, it must do so with clear purpose and great care. Government actions have far-reaching and unintended consequences.

I want to talk to you about a couple of ideas that I strongly reject. First, one bill in Congress would provide $4 billion for state and local governments to buy up abandoned and foreclosed homes. I guess this sounds like a good idea to some, but if your goal is to help Americans keep their homes, it doesn't make any sense to spend billions of dollars buying up homes that are already empty.

As a matter of fact, when you buy up empty homes you're only helping the lenders, or the speculators. The purpose of government ought to be to help the individuals, not those who speculated in homes. This bill sends the wrong signal to the market.

Second, some have suggested we change the bankruptcy courts, the bankruptcy code, to give bankruptcy judges the authority to reduce mortgage debts by judicial decree. I think that sends the wrong message. It would be unfair to millions of homeowners who have made the hard spending choices necessary to pay their mortgages on time.

It would further rattle credit markets. It would actually cause interest rates to go up. If banks think that judges might step in and write down the value of home loans, they're going to charge higher interest rates to cover that risk. This idea would make it harder for responsible first-time home buyers to be able to afford a home.

There are some in Washington who say we ought to artificially prop up home prices. It sounds reasonable in a speech, but it's not going to help first-time homebuyers, for example. A lot of people have been priced out of the market right now because of decisions made by others. The market is in the process of correcting itself; markets must have time to correct. Delaying that correction would only prolong the problem.

* * * *

We've taken three key steps. First, we launched a new program at the Federal Housing Administration called FHA Secure. It's given FHA greater flexibility to offer refinancing for struggling homeowners with otherwise good credit. In other words, we're saying to people, we want to help you refinance your notes.

Over the past six months this program has helped about 120,000 families stay in their homes by refinancing about $17 billion of mortgages, and by the end of the year we expect this program to have reached 300,000 families.

I'm old enough to remember savings and loans, and remember who my savings and loan officer was, who loaned me my first money to buy a house. And had I gotten in a bind, I could have walked across the street in Midland, Texas, and said, "I need a little help; can you help me readjust my note so I can stay in my house?" There are no such things as that type of deal anymore. As a matter of fact, my mortgage could be owned by somebody in a foreign country, which makes it hard to renegotiate the note.

So we're dealing in a difficult environment, to get the word to people there's help for you to refinance your homes. And so Hank Paulson put together what's called the Hope Now Alliance to try to bring some reality to the situation, to focus on helping creditworthy people refinance rather than pass a law that will make it harder for the market to adjust. This Hope Now Alliance is made up of investors and service managers and mortgage counselors and lenders. And they set industrywide standards to streamline the process for refinancing and modifying certain mortgages.

Last month Hope Now created a new program called Project Lifeline, which offers some homeowners facing imminent foreclosure a 30-day extension. The whole purpose is to help people stay in their houses. During this time they can work with their lender. And this grace period has made a difference to a lot of folks.

An interesting statistic has just been released: Members of the Alliance report that the number of homeowners working out their mortgages is now rising faster than the number entering foreclosure. The program is beginning to work, it's beginning to help.

The problem we have is a lot of folks aren't responding to over a million letters sent out to offer them assistance and mortgage counseling. So one of the tasks we have is to continue to urge our citizens to respond to the help, to pay attention to the notices they get describing how they can find help in refinancing their homes. We've got toll-free numbers and Web sites and mailings.

We've also taken some other steps that will bring some credibility and confidence to the market. HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson is proposing a rule that requires lenders to provide a standard, easy-to-read summary statement explaining the key elements of mortgage agreements.

These mortgage agreements can be pretty frightening. There's a lot of tiny print. And I don't know how many people understood they were buying resets or not. But one thing is certain: There needs to be complete transparency. And to the extent that these contracts are too complex, and people made decisions that they just weren't sure they were making, we need to do something about it. We need better confidence among those who are purchasing loans.

And secondly, Hank Paulson announced new recommendations yesterday to strengthen oversight of the mortgage industry, improve the way the credit ratings are determined for securities and ensure proper risk management at financial institutions.

* * * *

There are some further things we can do, by the way, on the housing market that I call upon Congress to do. Congress did pass a good bill that creates a three-year window for American families to refinance their homes without paying taxes on any debt forgiveness they receive. The tax code creates disincentives for people to refinance their homes, and we took care of that for a three-year period. And they need to move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages.

Congress can also take other steps to help us during a period of uncertainty — and these are uncertain times. A major source of uncertainty is that the tax relief we passed in 2001 and 2003 is set to expire. If Congress doesn't act, 116 million American households will see their taxes rise by an average of $1,800. If Congress doesn't act, capital gains and dividends are going to be taxed at a higher rate. If Congress doesn't make the tax relief permanent, they will create additional uncertainty during uncertain times.

A lot of folks are waiting to see what Congress intends to do. One thing that's certain that Congress will do is waste some of your money. So I've challenged members of Congress to cut the cost of earmarks in half. I issued an executive order that directs federal agencies to ignore any future earmark that is not voted on by the Congress.

* * * *

I sent Congress a budget that meets our priorities. There is no greater priority than to make sure our troops in harm's way have all they need to do their job. That should be a priority of any president and any Congress.

And beyond that, we've held spending at below rates of inflation on nonsecurity spending, discretionary spending; we've held the line. We've submitted a budget that's in balance by 2012 — without raising your taxes.

If the Congress truly wants to send a message that will calm people's nerves, they'll adopt the budget I submitted and make it clear they're not going to run up the taxes on the working people, and on small businesses, and on capital gains, and on dividends, and on the estate tax.

* * * *

I believe strongly it's in our nation's interest to open up markets for U.S. goods and services. I believe strongly that NAFTA has been positive for the United States of America, like it's been positive for our trading partners in Mexico and Canada.

I believe it is dangerous for this country to become isolationist and protectionist. I believe it shows a lack of confidence in our capacity to compete. And I know it would harm our economic future if we allow those who believe that walling off America from trade to have their way in Congress.

We expect for Congress to move forward on the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. It's important for our national security interests, and it's important for our economic interests.

Most Americans don't understand that most goods and services from Colombia come into the United States duty-free. Most of our goods and services are taxed at about a 35% rate heading into Colombia. Doesn't it make sense to have our goods and services treated like those from Colombia? I think it does. I think our farmers and ranchers and small-business owners must understand that with the government finding new markets for them, it will help them prosper.

If Congress were to reject the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, it would send a terrible signal in our own neighborhood; it would bolster the voices of false populism. It would say to young democracies, "America's word can't be trusted." It would be devastating for our national security interests if this United States Congress turns its back on Colombia and a free trade agreement with Colombia. Once they pass the Colombia (pact), they can pass Panama and South Korea as well.

Let me talk about another aspect of keeping markets open. A confident nation accepts capital from overseas. We can protect our people against investments that jeopardize our national security, but it makes no sense to deny capital, including sovereign wealth funds, from access to the U.S. markets. It's our money to begin with. It seems like we ought to let it back.

* * * *

We're going to deal with the issues as we see them. We're not afraid to make decisions. This administration is not afraid to act. We saw a problem coming and we acted quickly, with the help of Democrats and Republicans in the Congress. We're not afraid to take on issues. But we will do so in a way that respects the ingenuity of the American people, that bolsters the entrepreneurial spirit and that ensures when we make it through this rough patch, our driving is going to be more smooth.

Bush is a stupid war hungry moron! Just wait until the bill is due for all the money that moron wasted.

Republican Bush Presidency: 2001 - 2009
Republican Majority in Congress: 1994 - 2006

Biggest Housing Bubble in US History: 2000-2006
Biggest Budget Deficits in US History: 2003 and 2004

Now - how is it that some folks on this board insinuate that the Dems are the ones who will mismanage the economy and housing situation and spend like drunken sailors?

I just don't understand.

John your comments gave me a good laugh. You are right. I am shamed.

The country is doing fabulous under his leadership.

What was I thinking?

SD Realtor

you guys might get a kick out of this...

http://www.monkeydyne.com/bushresume/ear...

Blah blah blah. Both Dems and Repubs are fundamentally flawed in their assesment of the US economy. They all assume that we have a "free" market. There is no such thing as a "free" market. Especially not here, not now.

If Bush is a moron then what does that make you?

Smarter than him.

Were you a jet fighter pilot?

No, but apparently neither was he. At least I have an eye disorder since birth that disqualifies me. If I could, I would want to fly.

Did you go to Harvard?

No, I didn't have a rich daddy to buy my way into Yale and Havard.

I did get into Cornell on my own merit though, and graduated with a 3.8 in engineering (electrical). He apparently barely graduated with a 2.35 in humanities.

Have you ever been President?

Nope, like I said, I didnt have a rich daddy to buy my way in.

Have you ever ran a major league baseball team?

Nope... I keep telling you. I didn't have a rich sugar daddy to buy my way in...

What great things have you done to give you the credibility to judge Bush as a moron??

I didn't send thousands of people into a place that I can't even pronounce the capital on a wild goosechase.

Plus I have no criminal record.

selfportrait

----- Sour grapes for everyone!

I would guess that you were thinking as well as you could.

John

You verified my picture of you in that you have done nothing of note yet have many excuses as to why you haven't.

The clue was that people who have done great things don't call others idiots or morons.

John

SDR was just calling "a spade, a spade".

You know.................It takes a real smart guy to lie to the American people about WMD so he can start a war that has needlessly killed over 4000 of our soldiers and costs over $100 billion per year, doesn't it. I think he's a moron too. SDR said it correctly.

(and this post is coming to you from a Vietnam veteran retired CEO and former, dyed in the wool Republican for 35 years)

Are you saying he is not a moron? How could someone who took a budget surplus, turned it into huge deficits while his own party was in control of Congress, and meanwhile turned the currency into the equivalent of toilet paper not be referred as a moron. If he is not a moron then he is a very smart person seeking to destroy the financial health of the entire country. Referring to him as a moron is letting him off easy.

My father served with Bush. Its public record he was a fighter pilot. For him to deny that is just plain nutty.

Just like its ridiculous to blame his failure to do great things on not having a "rich daddy".

John

Like I said John, if you think he is doing a great job then so be it. I do not. I think he is a moron. I voted for him in both terms.

It is not inconceivable to me that in 50 years historians will look back on his tenure and confirm that he caused more damage to the foreign policy of our country then all of the previous presidents combined. Under his tenure oil companies have made more money then they have ever made
IN ALL OF HISTORY. We have had cataclysmic white collar crime. We have seen an epic period of greed now followed by a record crash in the housing market. Is all this his fault? Of course not. Did it happen on his watch? Absolutely. We had a great form of detente in the middle east and in one fell swoop he crushed it and now instead of Saddam holding off the far more dangerous Iran, WE are doing it. To say that this country is safer now then it was when he took office is about as much as a lie as Yun sitting on the throne at NAR telling me to go buy a home.

Don't try to pull some lame card saying what have I done compared to the president. Like I said, my friend that is laughable. History will not judge how the president of a past superpower did to compare against SD Realtor. History will judge his performance on the status of his country on the domestic, international, and economic fronts. As someone who voted I have the right to pass judgement on him and on all the other candidates, NONE of who I like.

So please take your pedantic holier then all the rest of us and be honest with yourself. The fact is the man was born into money and without it, he would more then likely be working in the mailroom at my company. However if you are trying to come up with a resume of greatness for him then I have to agree to disagreee with you.

Yes I do think he is an idiot. I stand by it.

SD Realtor

Now I am fully convinced that Bush is not just a moron. He is the king of morons.

History will judge Bush as a great President. He inherited a mess left a predecessor who will be judged as probably the most incompetent, inept, dishonest president we ever had.

I have two pet peeves. One is bullies and the other is about the "little people" who unduly criticize people who are doing a job that they couldn't begin to do themselves.

Here is an article I came across today that may be of interest to you. Its a little off topic but worth reading since everyone wants to talk about the war that never should have happened had Clinton done his job.

John

Subject: This is sobering. Needs to be read by both Democrats and Republicans alike!
This one is from the guy who had his finger on the nuclear trigger for three years as head of our defense and response complex buried under Cheyenne Mountain at Colorado Springs . He was the only person who could initiate a nuclear attack after advising the sitting president of a missile launch by our enemies and our need to respond. No political or civilian type in the US had more knowledge about day to day military actions around the world. Everyone should find quiet time to read this. John R. (Jack) Farrington Major General, USAF (Retired)

_________________________________________

Middle East Imperative

I re cently wrote about the war in Iraq and the larger war against radical Islam, eliciting a number of responses. Let me try and put this conflict in proper perspective. Understand, the current battle we are engaged in is much bigger than just Iraq . What happens in the next year will affect this country and how our kids and grandkids live throughout their lifetime, and beyond.. Radical Islam has been attacking the West since the seventh century. They have been defeated in the past and decimated to the point of taking hundreds of years to recover. But they can never be totally defeated. Their birth rates are so far beyond civilized world rates that in time they recover and attempt to dominate again.

There are eight terror-sponsoring countries that make up the grand threat to the West. Two , Saudi Arabia and Pakistan , just need firm pressure from the West to make major reforms. They need to decide who they are really going to support and c o mmit to that support. That answer is simple. They both will support who they ?think will hang in there until the end, and win. We are not sending very good signals in that direction right now, thanks to the Democrats.

The other six, Afghanistan , Iraq , Iran , Syria , North Korea and Libya will require regime change or a major policy shift. Now, let's look more closely.

Afghanistan and Iraq have both had regime changes, but are being fueled by outsiders from Syria and Iran . We have scared Gaddafi's pants off, and he has given up his quest for nuclear weapons, so I don't think Libya is now a threat.

North Korea (the non-Islamic threat) can be handled diplomatically by buying them off. They are starving. That leaves Syria and Iran . Syria is like a frightened puppy. Without the support of Iran they will join the stronger side. So where does that leave us? Sooner, or later, we are going to be forced to confront Iran, and i t better be before they gain nuclear capability.

In 1989 I served as a Command Director inside the Cheyenne Mountain complex located in Colorado Springs , Colorado for almost three years. My job there was to observe (through classified means) every missile shot anywhere in the world and assess if it was a threat to the US or Canada . If any shot was threatening to either nation I had only minutes to advise the President, as he had only minutes to respond.

I watched Iran and Iraq shoot missiles at each other every day, and all day long, for months. They killed hundreds of thousands of their people. Know why? They were fighting for control of the Middle East and that enormous oil supply.

At that time, they were preoccupied with their internal problems and could care less about toppling the west. Oil prices were fairly stable and we could not see an immediate threat. Well, the worst part of what we have done as a nation in Ir aq is to do away with the military capability of one of those nations. Now, Iran has a clear field to dominate the Middle East, since Iraq is no longer a threat to them. They have turned their attention to the only other threat to their dominance, they are convinced they will win, because the US is so divided, and the Democrat s (who now control Congress and may control the Presidency in 2008) have openly said we are pulling out.

Do you have any idea what will happen if the entire Middle East turns their support to Iran , which they will obviously do if we pull out? It is not the price of oil we will have to worry about. ?Oil WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE to this country at any price. I personally would vote for any presidential candidate who did what JFK did with the space program---declare a goal to bring this country to total energy independence in a decade.

Yes, it is about oil. The economy in this country will totally die if that Mid dle East supply is cut off right now. It will not be a recession. It will be a depression that will make 1929 look like the 'good-old-days'. The bottom line here is simple. If Iran is forced to fall in line, the fighting in Iraq will end over night, and the nightmare will be over.

One way or another, Iran must be forced to join modern times and the global community. It may mean a real war---if so, now is the time, before we face a nuclear Iran with the capacity to destroy Israel and begin a new ice age.

I urge you to read the book 'END GAME' by two of our best Middle East experts, true American patriots and retired military generals, Paul Vallely and Tom McInerney. They are our finest, and totally honest in their assessment of why victory in the Middle East is so important, and how it can be won. Proceeds for the book go directly to memorial fund for our fallen soldiers who served the country during the war on terror. You can find tha t book by going to the internet through Stand-up America at http://www.ospreyradio.us/ or http://www.rightalk.com/.

On the other hand, we have several very angry retired generals today, who evidently have not achieved their lofty goals, and insist on ranting and raving about the war. They are wrong, and doing the country great harm by giving a certain political party reason to use them as experts to back their anti-war claims.

You may be one of those who believe nothing could ever be terrible enough to support our going to war. If that is the case I should stop here, as that level of thinking approaches mental disability in this day and age. It is right up the re w ith alien abductions and high altitude seeding through government aircraft contrails. I helped produced those contrails for almost 30 years, and I can assure you we were not seeding the atmosphere.. The human race is a war-like population, and if a country is not willing to protect itself, it deserves the consequences. Nuff-said!!!

Now, my last comments will get to the nerve. They will be on politics.. I am not a Republican. And, George Bush has made enough mistakes as President to insure my feelings about that for the rest of my life. However, the Democratic Party has moved so far left, they have made me support those farther to the right. I am a ?conservative who totally supports the Constitution of this country. The only difference between the United States and the South American, third world, dictator infested and ever-changing South American governments, is our US Constitution.

This Republic (note I did not say Democracy ) is the longest standing the world has ever known, but it is vulnerable. It would take so little to change it through economic upheaval. There was a time when politicians could disagree, but still work together. We are past that time, and that is the initial step toward the downfall of our form of government. ?I think that many view Bush-hating as payback time. The Republicans hated the Clinton 's and now the Democrats hate Bush. So, both parties are putting their hate toward willingness to do anything for political dominance to include lying and always taking the opposite stand just for the sake of being opposed.

JUST HOW GOOD IS THAT FOR OUR COUNTRY?

In my lifetime, after serving in uniform for President's Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Bush I have a pretty good feel for which party supported our military, and what military life was like under each of their terms. And, let me assure you that times were b est u nder the Republicans. Service under Jimmy Carter was devastating for all branches of the military. And, Ronald Regan was truly a salvation. You can choose to listen to enriched newscasters, and foolish people like John Murtha (he is no war hero), Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Michael Moore, Jane Fonda , Harry Reid, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and on-and-on to include the true fools in Hollywood if you like. If you do, your conclusions will be totally wrong.

The reason that I write, appear on radio talk shows, and do everything I can to denounce those people is simple. THEY ARE PUTTING THEIR THIRST FOR POLITICAL POWER AND QUEST FOR VICTORY IN 2008 ABOVE WHAT IS BEST FOR THIS COUNTRY. I cannot abide that. ?Pelosi clearly defied the Logan Act by going to Syria , which should have lead to imprisonment of three years and a heavy fine.

Jane Fonda did more to prolong the Vietnam war longer than any other human be ing (a s acknowledged by Ho Chi Minh in his writing before he died). She truly should have been indicted for treason, along with her radical husband, Tom Hayden, and forced to pay the consequences.

This country has started to soften by not enforcing its laws, which is another indication of a Republic about to fall. All Democrats, along with the Hollywood elite, are sending us headlong into a total defeat in the Middle East, which will finally give Iran total dominance in the region. A lack of oil in the near future will be the final straw that dooms this Republic. However, if we refuse to let this happen and really get serious about an energy self-sufficiency program, this can be avoided. I am afraid, however, that we are going in the opposite direction.

If we elect Hillary Clinton and a Democrat-controlled congress, and they carry through with allowing Iran to take control of the Middle East, continue to refuse development of nuclear energy, refuse to allow drilling for new oil, and continue to do nothing but oppose everything Bush, it will be over in terms of what we view as the good life in the USA .

Now, do I think that all who do not support the war are un-American -- of course not. They just do not understand the importance of total victory in that region.

Another failure of George Bush is his inability to explain to the American people why we are there, and why we MUST win. By the way, it is not a war. It is martial law that is under attack by Iranian and Syrian outside influences, and there is a difference.

So, what do I believe? What is the bottom line? I will simply say that the Democratic Party has fielded the foulest, power hungry, anti-country, self absorbed group of individuals that I have observed in my lifetime. Our educational system is partially to blame for allowing the mass of America to be taken in by this group.

To win wars, you m ust put boots on the ground. When you put boots on the ground, soldiers are going to die. A President must make the war decision wisely, and insure that the cause is right before using his last political option. However, CONTROLLING IRAN AND DEMOCRATIZING THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE ONLY CHOICE IF WE ARE HELL-BENT ON DEPENDING ON THEM FOR OUR FUTURE ENERGY NEEDS.

'I'll tell you what war is all about, you've got to kill people, and when you've killed enough they stop fighting.' Gen. Curtis LeMay

Interesting John. Actually I 100% agree with the above post. Furthermore it seems to me from the above post that Iran is clearly, and VERY CLEARLY the largest threat of today.

In fact lets review the text again...

"At that time, they were preoccupied with their internal problems and could care less about toppling the west. Oil prices were fairly stable and we could not see an immediate threat. Well, the worst part of what we have done as a nation in Iraq is to do away with the military capability of one of those nations. Now, Iran has a clear field to dominate the Middle East, since Iraq is no longer a threat to them."

Hmmm... so who was it that decided to change that detente that I mentioned? Who had that bright idea?

Again, I have to say I 100% agree with what you just posted. Could not agree more. My thoughts on Bush remain the same. Also if you really think you are going to democratize the entire middle east then... well... I have a great home in Eastlake for you to buy as well.

SD Realtor

Ok, sorry to come down on you so hard. I shouldn't take some things that don't involve me as personally as I do. However like I said I hate bullies and the other side of that is I tend to take up for people who don't have the opportunity to so for themselves. Actually, I don't think Bush cares what either of us thinks about him which, quite frankly, is one of the things that I admire about him

Unfortunately the Internet brings out the worst in people especially when politics is involved. I think that was the case today.

If I decide to buy a home here I will certainly come to you. I am would like to think that we could be good friends.

Again, sorry I gave you a hard time.

Take care,

John

PS As far as the democratization of the middle east, either we do it or we are doomed.

Is not our future worth the effort to at least try as hard as we can to achieve democratization?

The generations to come will judge us harshly if we don't meet this challenge.

John, are you serving in the military?

No. I have never served. I admire those that have though.

John

I did get into Cornell on my own merit though, and graduated with a 3.8 in engineering (electrical). He apparently barely graduated with a 2.35 in humanities.

I only have a 3.7 and am still angry about that. You went to a better school too.

Does Bush really have a criminal record? I'm not up on this stuff like I should be, it's time for me to change that. John, seriously, how can you make excuses for someone like Bush?? He never, ever should have been president. The people wanted Gore, Bush only got in by virtue of the electoral college. Crooked set-up, imo.

>> No. I have never served. I admire those that have though.

That's big of you.

Why don't you enlist?

We are a Republic and not a Democracy. The electoral college is the vehicle through which the president is elected.

As far as a crooked set up you would have to acknowledge that it was pretty crooked of Gore to want to only recount the democratic votes. Had Gore insisted to begin with to recount the entire state it would have been ok but then again he didn't because it was not to his advantage.

Ironically Clinton is trying to circumvent the protocols the democrats set up to elect its nominee by using the same tactics and rhetoric that Gore used against Bush which was to claim that the popular vote should matter and not the delegate vote.

Read what Pelosi said about that.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/s...

"But what if one candidate has won the popular vote and the other candidate has won the delegates?" asked Stephanopoulos.

"But it's a delegate race," Pelosi replied. "The way the system works is that the delegates choose the nominee."

Well Nancy, that is the way the president is elected too. She can't have it both ways.

John

PS Bush got a dui while in college during a summer visit at his home in Maine which accounts for his "criminal record".

I am 53 now and too old but I didn't earlier because I didn't want to serve the country that way.

Are you in the military?

John

Sorry, I think that the enlisted military and the commissioned alike are mostly inadvertent "heroes". Except for the few exceptional ones, they are mostly there for the job. And they are just as lazy as other public employees.

But back to the bailout plans and Bush. I think that Bush mostly wants bailouts without accountability for this buddies on Wall Street. I'm sorry but if the financial industry wants a bail-out, they are going to go have to give up some independence in terms of regulations. I would like a take-over by the government.

The repeal of Glass-Steagall is part of what led to this mess.

Did you guys know that most mortgage companies/brokers are excempt from regulations and can charge whatever they want?

Usury laws should be re-introduced and enforced. Banks should only be allowed to charge x% above an index. All mortgages should require 20% down. This will make us a more financially responsible, less prone to speculate, country.

It's pretty clear to me that the Average Joe can't be allowed to borrow willy nilly. And Wall Street can't be allowed to make a fortune on the back of the ignorant masses then demand a bail-out.

PS: I'm a libertarian (lower-case l).

patientlywaiting, I am curious about what constitutes your employment? Maybe you have said and I missed. If you prefer not to divulge, I understand. I'll just be frank, I hope you don't blog like you do on other peoples money. Not that it bothers me if other people do ...just if you do.

Why do you think Bush has any buddies on Wall Street? He was the Texas Governor before he ran for President and before that he ran the Texas Rangers.

I hate banks too but this article will explain that we have no choice but to do what we can to make sure the financial industry remains intact.

Most people have no idea what this could turn into.

John

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/de...

PS I am a Libertarian. If left up to me we would get rid of the entire federal government except that pertaining to defense, the criminal system and maybe a few other things. Let the states handle it everything else which is the eay it was intended. We are not called the United States of America without a good reason. If California wants pot sold on the corner then great, if they want gays to get married, great etc

I'm with you John.

And I agree that we should let the States handle most everything. If people don't like conservative states where abortion is outlawed, let them walk with their feel and move where they'll feel more comfortable. If people don't like gay marriage, they can move over to some conservative county in a conservative state.

I also agree we (the taxpayers) have no choice but to stabilize the financial system.

I didn't mean to say that there should be a big government bureaucracy. But if we are to have a massive bail-out, I'd rather see an RTC#2 where the gov't acts as a corporate raider that takes over failed companies, fires all the incompetent managers, cleans them up and resells them to the highest bidder.

Rustico, I'm semi-retired.

I don't quite understand your post. Other people's money??

I'd rather have us swallow the bitter medicine today so we're better off tomorrow.