Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

I am not in favor of the financial institution bailout either..... sm

Posted By: m on 2008-12-05
In Reply to: I think they have been in trouble for some time (sm) - Just the big bad

I think it was just the first in a long line of folks parading to the White House with their hands out. I think we have opened a huge can of worms by bailing them out and there does not seem to be an end in sight.

I'd sure like to know when MTs are going to get their bailout! I'd probably get in line for that one! LOL


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

You mean the same institution
That literally thousands of people (especially in the Hollywood crowd) say til death do us part and then 2 or 3 months later divorce. Or the same institution in which they say in sickness and in health, and then the wife is sent to the hospital beaten til near death. That institution???

Are your vows to your spouse so "weak" that by letting others marry it's going to affect your personal marriage.

If this issues was not in public you would not know who married who and that's the way it should be.

Let people live their lives how they want to and you and your spouse live your own lives.
A mental institution? Nope.
They're Supreme Court material!
call the institution - they've

jumped the fence again.


 


I know everyone's focus is on the financial...sm
news of the last several days just heard about a special on CNN tomorrow night and Sunday where Colin Powell, Madeline Albright, Henry Kissinger, Jim Baker and Warren Christopher engage in a forum and talk about foreign policy.  I heard a few sound bites and it sounds very interesting.  I am glad to see a forum where respected people from both parties with experience get together and express their views, agree or disagree respectfully.  I will definitely be watching.
A financial attack?
Tell that to the thousands who lost their lives or their loved ones that day. Wow, how cold can you be?
Financial bonuses

Two days ago on C-Span they seemed to congratulate the bigwigs of the financial companies who got BILLIONS in BONUSES. They ran down the list of those that were being questioned and how much they received. It's absolutely sickening. I had to turn it off.


I think most know that Air America has had financial woes.
Once it was learned that they had misappropriated monies which were supposed to have been used for charity, they lost some good backers. I would think it most probably is financial.  There is not a plot behind every business dealing.
mcCain blames financial

crisis on Obama.  Get that man a posey and some Aricept.


 


We have had our financial plan in order

for quite some time for just such a thing. We haven't spent foolishly or lived above our means. New toys and technology don't impress us much. We have been fortunate and blessed.


Well....buck up little soldier. I think the financial...
well being of the country trumps your party. Oh wait...what am I thinking.
I do agree with you about financial irresponsibility
they need to find some sort of middle ground ......
looked at her financial records lately?
she is definitely not a poor girl in my opinion. I think she could afford to buy her own clothes...
Financial crisis meeting;

November 14, 2008
World leaders dine in style as they discuss financial crisis


(CNN) – The global economy may be undergoing a significant downturn, but the White House's dinner budget still appears flush with cash.


After all, world leaders who are in town to discuss the economic crisis are set to dine in style Friday night while sipping wine listed at nearly $500 a bottle.


According to the White House, tonight's dinner to kick off the G-20 summit includes such dishes as "Fruitwood-smoked Quail," "Thyme-roasted Rack of Lamb," and "Tomato, Fennel and Eggplant Fondue Chanterelle Jus."


To wash it all down, world leaders will be served Shafer Cabernet “Hillside Select” 2003, a wine that sells at $499 on Wine.com.


The exceedingly pricey wine may seem a bit peculiar given leaders are in Washington to discuss a possible world financial meltdown, but Sally McDonough, a spokeswoman for Laura Bush, said it "was the most appropriate wine that we had in the White House wine cellar for such a gathering.


McDonough also said the White House purchased the wine at a "significantly lower price" than what it is listed at.


"Of course the White House gets its wine at wholesale prices," she said. "Given the intimate size of the group, it was an appropriate time for The White House to use this stock."


The leaders of the U.K., France, Russia, China, India, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey and 11 developing economies have all come to Washington at the behest of President Bush in an effort to express confidence in the fundamental underpinnings of the world's economy.


– CNN's Becky Brittain contributed to this report


With the looming financial situation...... sm
I don't think Obama's current "plan" will hold much water. A plan is just that....a plan, and we know what John Steinbeck had to say about that. Even if he could tax the upper crust enough to cover the financial crisis, his redistribution of wealth would be moot point because there would likely be nothing left to distribute.

Whether Obama or McCain were elected would make no appreciabe difference in our tax situation because this huge bailout has to be recouped in some fashion and it will be off the backs of ALL Americans.....at least the ones who pay taxes.
No, unions DO put them in a financial hole.
nm
Right back at ya...with the addition of financial ruin...
if Obama and Biden are "hired."
Financial crisis a democratic scandal....sm


http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/09/16/financial-crisis-a-democrat-scandal/

Read all the comments underneath this, if you have time.




financial disaster, war, health care
You decide what is most important to think about. 
How The Democrats Created The Financial Crisis....sm

How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis: Kevin Hassett

Commentary by Kevin Hassett



Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The financial crisis of the past year has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story.

Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems so complex.

But really, it isn't. Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.

Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.

In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn't make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.

The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.

Turning Point

Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it's hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.

It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.

Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.

Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.

Greenspan's Warning

The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''

What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.

Different World

If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.

But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''

Mounds of Materials

Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.

But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.

Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.

Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.

There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.

Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.









http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_hassett&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0
Actually, McCain was in financial meetings all morning....sm
and what I read on CNN is that McCain wasn't told of the content of Obama's first call. I can't find the link to it now, because their news keeps changing.

I believe McCain decided this on his own, without any input from Obama, or even knowing about the call.


I'm willing to bet that he won't give a darn if he loses the debate if he doesn't show up, as it sounds as if Obama refuses to cancel the debate to another time.


Just proves to me that McCain does, indeed, put the country first. He's acting like a true leader.










Okay....let's see...McCain picked the financial meltdown...
as the #1 issue. OBama picked his run for the Presidency. Meaning he is always going to put Barack first. McCain put his country first. End of story.
25 people to blame for the financial crisis

You can vote on each of these.


http://www.time.com/time/specials/


Do yourself a favor
don't ever get a job as a seer...because you're totally off base with your analogy.
All in favor, say "I"
Give it a rest. We got more important fish to fry.
I'm sorry, you are aware of what caused the financial crisis aren't you?
or you will just blame BUSH BUSH BUSH/CHENEY.

Please, do some research.

If my memory serves me, it started going downhill when a democratic congress took over.

Not only that, this MORTGAGE crisis was set into effect by the CLINTON administration and helped by a DEMOCRATIC congress.

Now let me be clear, I do not think Bush was a great president and he made mistakes, but DO NOT tell me that this financial crisis was his doing. I know you are going to flame me, but don't ignore the facts! Actually, that's what liberals do so nevermind, go ahead anyway.
I'm just more likely to get upset when it's not in my favor :)...sm
If it's not an honest mistake, it's shameful either way.
Who all is in favor of a polygraph?

I personally think that all candidates should be subjected to a polygraph.  This way we won't have to dig through all the BS all the politicians give us and we know whether they are lying or not.  LOL!  Kind of like our own political BS detector.



Is anyone actually in favor of the bail out?

I personally think that we should just let the banks fail and not save their greedy banker butts.  It seems like that's the way a lot of other people feel too.  I haven't heard one person say let's save their greedy banker butts.  However, I'm pretty sure that congress will bail them out.  If I could vote on this, I would definitely say no, no matter what consequence to myself (drop in stock, retirement and possibly the value of my home, no loan for college next semester). 


Are there any average Americans out there that are for this?


I'm in favor of choice
So, yes, I want the deck stacked on my side, lol! If you aren't in favor of an abortion, then please don't have one. You can make that choice all by yourself.
Do us all a favor. Go look up the definitions of tax cut
The only way anybody gets money back more than what they pay in is if they earn very low wages and have many children. The income bracket they are in refunds all revenues back to them that they paid in. In addition, they get a tax CREDIT only if they qualify for earned income tax credit or child tax credit. For example, lowest bracket tops out at $7825. Their tax rate is 10%. Whatever they have paid in over $782.50, they get back and ONLY what they have paid over that amount, because this is based on the tax rate. They get more back only if they have qualified for EIC or CTC.

It you get a tax rate cut, you cannot benefit from it if you do not earn wages. These guys also will not get any additional refundable tax CREDIT as that is paid against tax liabilty. If you take issue with this, show me how I am wrong here.
Well, I'm not in favor of bailing out
people who bit off more mortgage than they can chew.  Assuming they could read, they should have read the fine print.  If they agreed to buy a house for a price, then they owe that amount of money plus interest.  That's the way it's always been.  I think the governmennt is focusing on these "bad loans" to take the spotlight off the real people...those who bought a house they could afford, have made their payments and now many are faced with losing their homes because of losing their jobs.  Those are the ones who get my sympathy.
So you're in favor of this?
You actually think that this bloated thing they're calling a stimulus plan ought to be passed in the House version? Do you really believe that this is the time and place to push through every piece of pork and catering to special interest groups and call it stimulus? Why not just call it the liberal Democrat wish list and let it go as that? This not the time to cater to special interests when our country is sinking economically. I had every hope that Obama would come up with a legitimate stimulus plan, but this is a tragic joke.
I agree. I am helping the victims with all the financial support I can spare BUT
if we don't ask the question what happened to the levees, what can we do to make sure this doesn't happen again, where did the funding go? then we will find ourselves in the same position again. We can not afford to be policing other countries when the funding is bankrupt for our own needs. That's just the truth.

Best friend to Hillary, a democratic supporter and financial contributer,
a member of the DNC's (Democrat) platform committee has decided to endorse John McCain.  Lynn DE Rothchild is best friends of Hillary and gave her 100,000 for Hillary compaign.  She had not even spoke to Hillary yet about her news, but Lynn announced on CNN today that she was resigning the DNC and voting for McCain.  Lynn stated that our country is divided due to the Democrats and Congress.  She also stated that we need to vote only for the president who will get us through what is going on with our country (which is a lot of things currently) and she stated the only one would be McCain and Palin.  She stated, "I care more about my country right now than I do my democratic party."  Wolf Blitzer stated to Lynn "You know you are are going to get a lot of flack from this?"  Lynn stated that she knew this and just cares more about our country.  Even Joe Lieberman endorses McCain who used to be AL Gore's running mate.  I am sorry, but I agree that our country is divided.     
He does favor sex education for kindergartners...
ABC News' Teddy Davis and Lindsey Ellerson Report: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told Planned Parenthood Tuesday that sex education for kindergarteners, as long as it is "age-appropriate," is "the right thing to do."
My question is, what part of sex education is age-appropriate for a 5-year-old? Can't we just let them be kids? Sigh.

And if the lipstick pig thing is a joke...it is in poor taste. In all honesty, I don't believe he actually meant to compare Sarah Palin to a pig. However, it was a poor choice of words. And if you look at the crowd he was talking to, THEY thought he was talking about Sarah Palin. That is why they stood up and had a big laugh over it.

In politics, sadly, perception is everything...and most people perceive he was taking a low blow shot at Palin.
I would favor a federal sales tax if

there were no exemptions whatsoever.  If, say you earned a dollar, you owed a dime.  No exceptions regarding where the money comes from.  Tax welfare benefits too.  Social Security is already taxed for some recipients.  Those of us who receive Social Security and have enough income to pay taxes on 85% (maximum) of it ALL had the opportunity for a better life.  Some took advantage of that and some didn't.  Young people today have little hope of receiving Social Security and they also have little hope of being able to live while saving for their future.


In my usual long-winded way, t hat's what I think.


I am not in favor of a federal sales tax....
as much as I am in favor of a flat percentage income tax. For the sake of argument...let's say 10%. No deductions, no nothing. Flat 10%. I don't care if you make a dollar or 10 million dollars. Everyone pays the same amount. Cut back the IRS because if you pay a flat tax you don't need them and the incessant forms and reams of laws. Cutting back on the IRS would save millions in and of itself. Then every American pays the same tax. THAT is equality. Everyone gets the same shake. You make less, you pay less. You make more, you pay more. They should also abolish the death tax. IF the feds have already taxed all your money, they should not tax it AGAIN just because you die. That is unfair to the heirs you worked to provide for. Just my opinion.
DO OUR COUNTRY A FAVOR, show the BC!!!

A ? for those in favor of national healthcare
What is your rationale for wanting government in charge of your healthcare? You have to know that if this happens, healthcare in this country IS going to be rationed, the same as it's been rationed in Great Britain, Sweden, and Canada. There will be long waits for procedures that we now take for granted being done in a very short time. I know Obama promised the same healthcare as he now has in the senate...do you believe him?
Doesn't look like ALL the people are in favor of it. sm
Not even all Dems support it and looks like their support is dropping as well.


The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 37% favor the legislation, 43% are opposed, and 20% are not sure.

Two weeks ago, 45% supported the plan. Last week, 42% supported it.

Opposition has grown from 34% two weeks ago to 39% last week and 43% today.

Sixty-four percent (64%) of Democrats still support the plan. That figure is down from 74% a week ago. Just 13% of Republicans and 27% of those not affiliated with either major party agree.

Seventy-two percent (72%) of Republicans oppose the plan along with 50% of unaffiliated voters and 16% of Democrats.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/economic_stimulus_package/support_for_stimulus_package_falls_to_37
war, depression, recession, collapse of financial system, people losing

homes, natural disasters unattended to, collapsing bridges, earmark bridges. Address those first, save flag for later.


 


Total climbing in favor of impeachment sm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/
The bully thing would argue in favor of
nm
Bottom line...are you in favor of infanticide? nm
nm
Oh well. Looks like libs have fallen back into favor.
is how we stage our revolutions. This one is long overdue and while lamenting this cruel turn of events, you might want to ask yourself why all this is happening. Could it be that W, his cronies and right-wing fringers have overplayed their hand and the voters are fed up with lies, deception, misinformation, politics of fear, division and the culture war, and yet the McCain camp keeps right on keepin' on. When you do a poor job, you get fired. That's the way it works. Change is what they want and change is what they are going to get. We are getting ready to write a new chapter in our history that will move us far beyond that mentality and will thrust us onto the threshold of the post post-911 era. I can't wait to get started and thank God I have managed to live long enough to watch it all unfold.
Undecided voter score of 98% in favor of
x
One more reason why I favor federal sales tax....sm
Our retirees are being taxed on money on which they have already paid taxes.

And yes, there should be no exemptions. People are going to buy cars, appliances, take vacations, remodel their homes, etc., so the federal sales tax should apply to everything. Food.....I'm still not too sure about that as I believe that food is a basic necessity of life.
The conservative way....but that's fallen out of favor this cycle....you'd all rather pay out

EPA slants analysis to favor Bush's agenda

Report Accuses EPA of Slanting Analysis
Hill
Researchers Say Agency Fixed Pollution Study to Favor Bush's 'Clear
Skies'



By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday,
December 3, 2005; A08


The Bush administration skewed its analysis of pending legislation on air
pollution to favor its bill over two competing proposals, according to a new
report by the Congressional Research Service.


The Environmental Protection Agency's Oct. 27 analysis of its plan -- along
with those of Sens. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.) and James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.) --
exaggerated the costs and underestimated the benefits of imposing more stringent
pollution curbs, the independent, nonpartisan congressional researchers wrote in
a Nov. 23 report. The EPA issued its analysis -- which Carper had demanded this
spring, threatening to hold up the nomination of EPA Administrator Stephen L.
Johnson -- in part to revive its proposal, which is stalled in the Senate.


The administration's Clear Skies legislation aims to achieve a 70 percent cut
in emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide after 2018, while Carper's and
Jeffords's bills demand steeper and faster cuts and would also reduce emissions
of carbon dioxide, which are linked to global warming. The Bush plan would also
cut emissions of neurotoxic mercury by 70 percent, while Jeffords's bill reduces
them by 90 percent.


Although it represents a step toward understanding the impacts of legislative
options, EPA's analysis is not as useful as one could hope, the Research Service
report said. The result is an analysis that some will argue is no longer
sufficiently up-to-date to contribute substantially to congressional debate.


The congressional report, which was not commissioned by a lawmaker as is
customary, said the EPA analysis boosted its own proposal by overestimating the
cost of controlling mercury and playing down the economic benefits of reducing
premature deaths and illnesses linked to air pollution.


EPA estimated the administration's plan would cost coal-fired power plants as
much as $6 billion annually, compared with up to $10 billion in Carper's measure
and as much as $51 billion for Jeffords's. It calculated that Bush's proposal
would produce $143 billion a year in health benefits while Carper's would
generate $161 billion and Jeffords would yield $211 billion. Carper's measure
would achieve most of its reductions by 2013, while Jeffords's bill would enact
even more ambitious pollution cuts by 2010.


EPA spokeswoman Eryn Witcher said the agency based its cost estimates on
mercury controls by gathering comments from boilermaker workers, power companies
and emission control companies, whereas the Research Service used a single study
to reach its conclusions on mercury.


Clear Skies delivers dramatic health benefits across the nation without
raising energy costs and does it with certainty and simplicity, instead of
regulation and litigation, Witcher said. Because of our commitment to see this
become a reality, EPA went above and beyond to provide the most comprehensive
legislative analysis of air ever prepared by the agency, so it does a real
disservice to this discussion to have a report that largely ignores and
misinterprets our analysis.


But aides to Carper and Jeffords said they felt vindicated by the
congressional study.


The CRS report backs up a lot of what we initially said about EPA's latest
analysis, that it overstated the costs of controlling mercury and understated
the overall health benefits of Senator Carper's legislation, said Carper
spokesman Bill Ghent. The report clearly states that there's no reason to settle
for the president's Clear Skies plan because the legislation doesn't clean the
air much better than current law.


© 2005 The Washington Post
Company

Iraqi Soldiers Speak Out in Favor of Murtha

On January 5, 2006, Congressman Murtha held a town hall meeting with Cong. Jim Moran (D-VA 08).


The soldier who asked the first question served in Afghanistan and said that morale among troops is high and that he would gladly serve in Iraq today. His comment was the only one replayed by Fox News the next day.

But the majority of soldiers in attendance spoke out against the current policy. Fox News did not broadcast their remarks.


Here are some excerpts.


John Brumes, Infantry Sgt. US Army:


Everything that the Bush Adminstration told us about that mission in Iraq is absolutely incorrect. Furthermore, I'd like to say ... I came home to no job, no health insurance. Until we take care of this war, we can't take care of the problems that matter like health care.

I've witnessed both ends... Congressman Murtha, I implore you to keep doing what you're doing.



John Powers, Capt. 1st Armored Division, served 12 months in Iraq:


The thing that hits me the most is the accountability. ... Where is the accountability for those men [who took us to war], as well as where is the accountability for Paul Bremmer, who misplaced millions of dollars and claims to keep accountability in the war zone?... I know that if we lost $500 we would be court marshaled. So where is the accountability for this leadership?

Garin Reppenhagen, served as a sniper in Iraq for a year in the First Infantry Division:


My question is also about accountability. The soldiers that you see, Congressman Murtha, at the hospitals... those are my friends. After coming back, being a veteran, my question is why? Why did we go to this war, why the hell did it happen, why are we in this condition. A lot of soldiers are debating whether this war was fraudulent to begin with. And there doesn't seem to be a clear answer. A lot of Americans now are debating the fact over whether or not the war was fraudulent in the first place. How come there hasn't been an investigation on the fraudulent lead up to the war by this Administration?

C-SPAN has the full broadcast here.



 

Poll MSNBC 87% in favor of impeachment for Bush.sm

Really popular guy - 283,513 polled 87% said yes.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/