Does belief in God make you a better person?

Just throwing it out there. I know there are good atheists and bad Christians. What do you think?

Did Canada Healthcare kill Richardson? follow-up

Tiredofthecrap first brought up the possibility that it was the Canadian National Health Care System that killed Natasha Richards and not the fall.

After doing some online detective work, here is what I found.


http://news-briefs.ew.com/2009/03/natasha-richa-3.html

Entertainment Weekly did report a 45 minute delay because of the drive from Centre Hospitalier Laurentien to Sacre-Coeur Hospital in Montreal

Richardson was later transferred to the Montreal trauma center Hopital du Sacre-Coeur. The ambulance carrying her arrived there less than 45 minutes after leaving the first hospital, at 6:38 p.m. The Globe and Mail reports that a neurologist on duty was overheard saying that Ms. Richardson's pupils were unresponsive, a sign of advanced brain damage. It is possible that had Richardson been transported by medical helicopter sooner, she might have survived.

There appears to be a great deal of discussion among medical personnel as to if her death could have been prevented.


http://nhsblogdoc.blogspot.com/2009/03/natasha-richardson-medical-technology.html

The biggest loss of time was when the initial EMS response was declined, the fact that several hours passed before a CT scan was performed, and the delay before making the decision to transport her to a tertiary care center in Montreal. Those delays could conceivably happen in the United States as well.

There also appears to be a movement to silence discussion of that possibility.


http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2009/03/leave-natasha-richardson-out-of-the-health-care-debate.html

I’m not advocating for or defending Canada’s single-payer health system. Merely, I ask that journalists considering doing this story to ask deeper questions that get beyond the anecdote. Consider asking about the trade-offs that go along with providing seemingly unlimited CT scans and helicopters. Ask what would happen if she were an uninsured U.S. resident.

The answer to the last question is that she would have had the CT Scan and her life might have been saved.

Is it that far fetched?

(2009-03-22) — With the debate over AIG executive bonuses nearly bringing official Washington to a standstill in the past three weeks, the Obama administration today expanded its plan to control Wall Street executive pay, adding provisions to limit compensation for star performers in the National Football League (NFL), National Basketball Association (NBA) and Major League Baseball (MLB).
“Some of these sports stars, like AIG execs, have negotiated sweetheart deals paying them millions of dollars, and yet they lose games,” said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs. “The president shares the outrage of the American people at these obscene salaries and bonuses. There’s nothing that makes the little people feel littler than the thought of these fat cats getting fatter just because that have specialized skills that are in high demand in a free-market economy.”
Indeed, the White House released a recent poll showing that 75 percent of Americans answered ‘Yes’ to the following question: “Do you believe President Obama should personally limit the compensation of anyone who earns a lot more than you do?”
“How hard can it be to show up on Sunday and toss a few passes?” said Mr. Gibbs. “The fact that some people earn a lot more money than others just demonstrates the savage inequalities inherent in a capitalist system, and explains why the president has taken deliberate action to end it.”
Under the terms of the pay-limit plan, the president would appoint a panel of university economists, union leaders, and “ordinary American community organizers” to establish paycheck parity between average hourly-wage workers and the people “who have carved out for themselves an unequal portion of the pie.”
“In America you can dream as big as you want, but everyone agrees we need strict controls on those whose dreams have come true,” Mr. Gibbs said. “The people deserve a system in which there are no limits to your potential, only to your achievements.”
The proposal would exempt most Hollywood stars and popular recording artists, he said, “since much of their money is already returned to the people in the form of contributions to the Democrat party and its candidates.”

Muslims send Obama resumes

According to the Chicago Trib, "In a bid to get more Muslim Americans working in the Obama administration, a book with resumes of 45 of the nation's most qualified - Ivy League grads, Fortune 500 executives and public servants, all carefully vetted - has been submitted to the White House."

Doesn't that make you feel safe?!

I'm only one person. What good can I do?

I’m just one person, what good can I do? Have you ever heard those words expressed? Have you ever spoken them yourself?

A couple of years ago the Congress, President and the news media seemed hell bent on passing legislation, The Kennedy-McCain Immigration bill. When it seemed as if it would be passed and signed by then President Bush, something happened and it fell by the wayside.

Just recently the Congress passed and the President signed a bill that gave bonuses to people who agreed to come to work for a division of their company, for $1.00 a year, that had lost so much money that it was about to make the whole corporation fail. This was a done deal long before the common people found out about it.

Once the people found out about it, all hell broke loose. All of the sudden the very people (Congress, President and the Treasury Department) who made the bonuses happen, wanted to vilify the people they gave them to.

How was all of this possible? It happened because all of the people who normally would say, "I’m just one person, what good can I do?" stood up and said something.

There is one thing the politicians in Washington and at the State level want, POWER. There is one thing that they fear, UNITED CITIZENS. Show them an angry mob of voters and they will turn tail and run like a frightened deer (not vote for bill) or they will roll over and play dead like a scared opossum, (I didn’t have anything to do with it).

Most people hide behind the "I’m just one person, what good can I do?" because it allows them to bitch and complain when things don’t go the way that they want them to go.

It is my opinion that the Founding Fathers gave a voice to the common citizen not as an option to speak up but as a civic duty. That civic duty begins with registering to vote and then voting your convictions, not your party when the time comes.

It also extends to voicing your concerns and opinions when issues are raised before the governing bodies. That doesn’t mean writing or calling about the issue and ranting away. The louder and harsher your argument becomes, the more chances are that you are loosing debate. The contacts can be short and to the point and still be persuasive.

It only takes a few clicks of the mouse to be able to send your Congressman or Senator an email stressing your concern. Who the representatives are and how to contact them is available at usa.gov.

It may be true that you are only one voice. However, if you write and then encourage two other people to write that makes three. If those two both encourage two people to write that makes seven. If you do the math, you see what a great number of people you will have speaking their minds.

Glenn Beck recently referred to those people as angry town fork chasing Frankenstein with pitchforks and torches. It is that imagery that will rein in the politicians and give the power back to the people where it belongs.

It is good that we share with each other on our blogs or while sharing a beer. It will get more done if we email the politicians too.

Spending $1 billion an hour

Through the first 50 days of the Obama administration (last numbers I had) Congress had voted to spend about 1.2 trillion. Using 24 hour days (not actual working hours) that figures out at approximately $1 billion an hour. Is anyone out there paying attention?

Obama, "We have lost the world's respect"

Obama continuously stressed how Bush had made us outsiders to the world. How we were laughed at and ridiculed. Fast forward 2 months into his Presidency and lets look at how the world views us.

Iran- He reportedly sent a memo articulating his eagerness to talk. Iran snubbed him and told him to get lost.

China- Clinton took a trip to mend fences and told them our "relationship" is more important than freedom and human dignity. China's response, a military confrontation with an unarmed US Navy vessel; a renewed crackdown on dissidents and a call for a new global currency to replace the dollar.

N Korea- Again lets talk. N Korea's response is heightened military response and testing of weapons with the US being told stay out.

Poland, Ukraine and Georgia- Allies in an important part of the world. Obama has said he may back down to a Russian demand that a missile defence system not be built in that part of the world. Poland is counting on it to help protect them from rogue nations. So much for looking out for your friends.

Russia- Once again lets start again. Russia's response: Like China calls for a new global currency, continues helping Iran with it's Nuke program and more saber rattling like the good old days.

Europe- Our allies who always seemed to critize Bush and who fainted at the sight of The One. The EU President said "The US is repeating mistakes from the 1930s, such as wide-ranging stimuluses, protectionist tendencies and appeals to buy American." We are being lectured by France of all countries on how to run our country.

I could go on and on. Has this President done anything worthwhile? How many people who voted for him would like a do over?

Did Canada Healthcare kill Richardson?

Natasha Richarsons death should have been prevented. Richardson died of an epidural hematoma -- a bleeding artery between the skull and brain that compresses and ultimately causes fatal brain damage via pressure buildup. With prompt diagnosis by CT scan, and surgery to drain the blood, most patients survive.

Canadian health care de-emphasizes widespread dissemination of technology like CT scanners. A CT scan would have easily revealed the problem and she could have been saved. Another problem is the lack of medical helicopters. Both of these issues have to do with budgetary problems.

Over 3 hours after the fall she was still conscious but having some difficuties. Because the hospital in the resort town did not have a CT scan or access to a helicopter she took an ambulance to the nearest center and by then it was too late.

This is not an isolated case. These stories happen all the time in a government run health care system.

Senate tackling important issues!

Terrorists trying to kill us. The economy a mess. Government taking over our lives and the Senate still has time to come to our rescue on even more important matters.

How to decide the college football champ!!!

"The current system "leaves nearly half of all the teams in college football at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to qualifying for the millions of dollars paid out every year," the Senate Judiciary's subcommittee on antitrust, competition policy and consumer rights said in a statement Wednesday announcing the hearings." Senator Orrin Hatch from Utah said in a statement that the BCS system "has proven itself to be inadequate, not only for those of us who are fans of college football, but for anyone who believes that competition and fair play should have a role in collegiate sports."

Now if they would get to that other critical matter. Square or V grooves on a golf club we could all sleep at night.

No wonder McCain lost

Sorry guys it's one of those days where everywhere I turn there is something that strikes a nerve.

Steve Schmidt, chief strategist for U.S. Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) presidential campaign, came out in favor of marriage rights for same-sex couples in an interview with the Blade last week while urging the Republican Party to be more inclusive of gays and lesbians.

At a US-Mexico Congressional symposium Nancy Pelosi slammed ICE agents once again for doing their job. Pelosi stated that work raids by investigators probing fraudulent document rings are “just not the American way. It must stop:” Seated next to her was McCain open-borders Hispanic outreach advisor Juan Hernandez.

If the Republican party is to get back to it's roots it needs to have advisers that follow the Conservative party line. No gay marriage and pro immigration crack downs and No John McCain.

Obama's bipartisanship

When campaigning Pres Obama told us continuously he would include the Republicans in all discussions and not practice the policy's of division like his predecessor. Now after ramming spending bill after spending bill down the Republicans throats comes another possible bill designed to further increase Washington's hold on it's citizens.

Harry Reid has said he is open to fast tracking health care legislation. Why do they continue to do this? Number one is because they don't have the votes to go the conventional route and two because they can. The media is so far up Obama's backside that they can't or won't call him on the carpet. This administration demonstrates day after day a total disregard for all the things that have made this country great. Let your voices be heard. Elections matter!

Who is ACORN and why should we care?

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) had it's start in the 60's as the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO). NWRO believed they could use poor unwed mothers to start a revolution. The NWRO campaigned for unlimited welfare benefits for those mothers and persuaded many urban politicians to loosen welfare eligibility requirements. This led to a more-than doubling of the welfare roles and strained local budgets. In the 70's NWRO expanded as a community organization. It was during this time that billions of dollars in federal and state aid was streaming to these local groups. In 1977 the Community Reinvestment Act passed pushing for banks to lend to low income communities. To avoid the possibility of a denied or delayed application, lending institutions had an incentive to make formal agreements with community organizations. ACORN has a budget of 35+ million and touts such agendas as a "living wage", increases in welfare roles and deregulating voter requirements. By any standard these are left wing agenda's. Pres. Obama was a part of this group in Chicago.

Now enter the 2010 Census which is supposed to be a non-partisan process. ACORN is participating in a big way. Doubts are already being raised about the accuracy of the count with ACORN involved. Remember this is the group which has repeatedly been brought up on charges for voter fraud all across the nation. In what world does this make sense? To top it off they are part of the stimulus package receiving 20 times the money that the AIG exec's got. So why no uproar about this? And how does 3-4 billion to a partisan group stimulate anything but the Democratic party? This is a corrupt left wing activist group that is now going to help decide where and to who our tax dollars go.

For all the talk about morals and ethics this administration has already surpassed in 2 months what it took Clinton 8 years to do. Elections matter!

Abortion Pride?

Another sign of the Apocalypse.

Jacob Appel, bioethicist and author holding degress from Brown, Columbia. Harvard and NY University says "that the moment is ripe—more than ripe—for an Abortion Pride Movement". He goes on to say "In contrast to women who have foregone abortion, women who have chosen to terminate their pregnancies are rarely encouraged to take pride in their decisions. That is unfortunate. In the current political climate, deciding not to bring a fetus to term, if a woman is unready to parent, or if that fetus is likely to lead a life of great physical suffering, is a courageous and noble moral choice. Recognizing that thirteen or fourteen years old is rarely a wise age to embark on the process of parenting takes personal insight—but it also requires wisdom, at that young age, to terminate a pregnancy and so spare a child from growing up with another child for a parent. In short, women should not merely have the right to end unwanted pregnancies, they should have the right to be proud of having done so. Surely, there is enough suffering in this world already without adding infants with Tay-Sachs disease and Lesch-Nyhan syndrome to the mix. Women who step up to the ethical plate and have the strength to say, “This is the wrong time,” or “This is the wrong fetus,” should hold their heads high in the streets".

Is this what this country is coming to?

Obama Admin. asks for more power

From the Washington Post

"The Obama administration is considering asking Congress to give the Treasury secretary unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy, according to an administration document. The government also would assume the authority to seize such firms if they totter toward failure."

If they continue their power grab how long will it be before any company is fair game? If they can limit bonus's already committed to and put a max. on CEO salary's how long before they can tell everyone what they can make? Elections do matter!!!

More about national health care

Have you ever wondered why Liberals, known for their concern for the Environment, Over Population and Social Security also support a national health care system similar to Canada or England’s?

The time spent waiting for tests and procedures under governmental one payer health care can run from weeks, into months into longer than the rest of your life. Cancer that could have been cured with timely treatment kills up to 10,000 people in England every year.

Is it any wonder the Liberals support it. That’s 10,000 less people with a carbon footprint on the Environment. That’s 10,000 less in the world’s population or creating new people adding to the Over Population. That’s 10,000 less people collecting Social Security.

You may be lucky and only have to wait the average 3.8 weeks to obtain your ultrasound, 4.3 weeks for a CT or 10.3 weeks for a MRI. Now 10,000 may not sound like a large number unless you are among one of the numbered.

Data provided by Walter E. Williams article Do We Want Socialized Medicine? walterewilliams.com

I wrote about the failings of Nationalize Health Care for several reasons. I have always empathized with anyone who had a problem and I would try to find a solution to it. Then, as I get older, I see the possibility of these failures effecting me or someone I loved.

When you are young, you may not think that you will live forever but old age is so very far off. If you have had healthy parents then you may not have seen the ravages that age and age related illness can bring on.

Rheumatoid Arthritis is not the result of abusing your body. It is the luck of the draw. This disease can take normal hands and feet and distort them in size and shape where walking and working is impossible. There are other age-related illnesses that cause similar problems.
I heard too many stories about people from Canada coming to the US and paying for tests that were weeks or months away in Canada. There are too many stories of where the person had a tumor and would have died if he or she had waited.

There are stories of people being denied treatment because they have passed a maximum age and then they are no longer able to get the life saving treatment. In England, there is a disease of the eye that caused blindness. It is expensive. It was being denied until the person went blind in one eye. Then they would treat the other.

These stories are just urban legend until you can find documented proof that they occurred. This link will take you to a sight with actual newspaper articles telling some of the horror stories confronted by people living in countries with National Health care.

http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/socialized.html#britain

These problems may not effect you today but they will effect your loved one sometime in the near future if we are forced into Nationalize Health Care.

A Grouchy Old Man

Obama Fumblerooski

Back in the day the fumblerooski was a play made famous by the University of Nebraska against Miami in the 1984 Orange Bowl. Basically the quarterback deliberately places the ball on the ground, technically fumbling it. He then fakes like he is handing off to a back who will run to the right, and the right guard will pick up the ball and run to the left. It's misdirection at it's best.

Obama's attack on the AIG bonus's is his version of the fumblerooski. While he acts indignant and says they had no idea this was going on he is going for the real score in the other direction. This "change" we were supposed to have gotten has been more of the same but worse. "No earmarks" was his cry but 9000 went through. Now he says there won't be any more. "Bipartisan" was his promise to the republicans who voted for him but he has just pushed through the largest spending program ever without discussion or a vote. He beat up McCain for saying the fundamentals of the economy were strong. Obama said he had no economic sense but now Obama himself is saying the fundamentals are strong. His cohort Pelosi just had a meeting with illegals telling them that enforcement of existing immigration laws, as currently practiced, is "un-American." Government funded stem cell research, financing abortions overseas and a proposal to cut Veterans health benefits are all part of his change.

While Obama fakes the handoff and has everyone looking at the running back the real play is going the other way and no one seems to care. Where are the Conservatives!!!!!!!????????

OK, let's bring out in the open

We've been dancing around the religion subject in dozens of posts. It seems no one wants to step into that realm but here goes.

If you're a non-believer than looking to God or the Bible for answers doesn't make sense. If you're a believer than the Bible is your handbook and you try to follow it's guide. Many of the issues the US has have to do with whether you believe in God or not. So I think it would be a good idea to have an open discussion of things religious. Things like:

Is there a God? If so is there only one.
Evolution vs Creation
Is Jesus the Son of God?
Is the Bible true?
Is there a heaven and hell?
If so is there only one way to heaven?

For myself I was taught Darwin so I lean that way but have never really taken the time to look at anything else. I do think there is someone or something more powerful than myself but not quite sure how it all works in the big picture. Have a hard time with the truth of the Bible. Parting of seas and floods are hard to believe. Have a hard time also with the one way to heaven (if there is one). Doesn't seem right for the people who are raised in a different religion. And how do we know Christianity is the one way?

Just some thoughts. Would love to hear some logic on this subject.

Deregulation is the answer to everything (NOT)

Can someone give me example of when Deregulation has worked over time cuz I keep thinking of ..

- Enron (Energy Trading Deregulation)
- Global Crossing (SEC Deregulation)
- Big Banks(Financial Services Deregulation)
- AIG (Investment insurance Deregulation)
- Housing ( savings and loan Deregulation)


Found this on Google...
An agreement between the Clinton administration and congressional Republicans, reached during all-night negotiations which concluded in the early hours of October 22, sets the stage for passage of the most sweeping banking deregulation bill in American history, lifting virtually all restraints on the operation of the giant monopolies which dominate the financial system.

The proposed Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 would do away with restrictions on the integration of banking, insurance and stock trading imposed by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, one of the central pillars of Roosevelt's New Deal. Under the old law, banks, brokerages and insurance companies were effectively barred from entering each others' industries, and investment banking and commercial banking were separated.

The certain result of repeal of Glass-Steagall will be a wave of mergers surpassing even the colossal combinations of the past several years. The Wall Street Journal wrote, "With the stroke of the president's pen, investment firms like Merrill Lynch & Co. and banks like Bank of America Corp., are expected to be on the prowl for acquisitions." The financial press predicted that the most likely mergers would come from big banks acquiring insurance companies, with John Hancock, Prudential and The Hartford all expected to be targeted.

Kenneth Guenther, executive vice president of Independent Community Bankers of America, an association of small rural banks which opposed the bill, warned, "This is going to begin a wave of major mergers and acquisitions in the financial-services industry. We're moving to an oligopolistic situation."

One such merger was already carried out well before the passage of the legislation, the $72 billion deal which brought together Citibank, the biggest New York bank, and Travelers Group Inc., the huge insurance and financial services conglomerate, which owns Salomon Smith Barney, a major brokerage. That merger was negotiated despite the fact that the merged company, Citigroup, was in violation of the Glass-Steagall Act, because billionaire Travelers boss Sanford Weill and Citibank CEO John Reed were confident of bipartisan support for repeal of the 60-year-old law.

Campaign of influence-buying

They had good reason, to be sure. The banking, insurance and brokerage industry lobbyists have combined their forces over the last five years to mount the best-financed campaign of influence-buying ever seen in Washington. In 1997 and 1998 alone, the three industries spent over $300 million on the effort: $58 million in campaign contributions to Democratic and Republican candidates, $87 million in "soft money" contributions to the Democratic and Republican parties, and $163 million on lobbying of elected officials.

The chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Texas Republican Phil Gramm, himself collected more than $1.5 million in cash from the three industries during the last five years: $496,610 from the insurance industry, $760,404 from the securities industry and $407,956 from banks.

During the final hours of negotiations between the House-Senate conference committee and White House and Treasury officials, dozens of well-heeled lobbyists crowded the corridors outside the room where the final deal-making was going on. Edward Yingling, chief lobbyist for the American Bankers Association, told the New York Times, "If I had to guess, I would say it's probably the most heavily lobbied, most expensive issue" in a generation.

While Democratic and Republican congressmen and industry lobbyists claimed that deregulation would spark competition and improve services to consumers, the same claims have proven bogus in the case of telecommunications, airlines and other industries freed from federal regulations. Consumer groups noted that since the passage of a 1994 banking deregulation bill which permitted bank holding companies to operate in more than one state, both checking fees and ATM fees have risen sharply.

Differing versions of financial services deregulation passed the House and Senate earlier this year, and the conference committee was called to work out a consensus bill and avert a White House veto. The principal bone of contention in the last few days before the agreement had nothing to do with the central thrust of the bill, on which there was near-unanimous bipartisan support.

The sticking point was the effort by Gramm to gut the Community Reinvestment Act, a 1977 anti-redlining law which requires that banks make a certain proportion of their loans in minority and poor neighborhoods. Gramm blocked passage of a similar deregulation bill last year over demands to cripple the CRA, and bank lobbyists were in a panic, during the week before the deal was made, that the dispute would once again prevent any bill from being adopted.

Gramm and other extreme-right Republicans saw the opportunity to damage their political opponents among minority businessmen and community groups, who generally support the Democratic Party. Gramm succeeded in inserting two provisions to weaken the CRA, one reducing the frequency of examinations for CRA compliance to once every five years for smaller banks, the other compelling public disclosure of loans made under the program.

The latter provision was particularly offensive to black and other minority business and community groups, who have used the CRA provisions as a lever by threatening to challenge mergers and other bank operations which require government approval. In most such cases, the banks have offered loans to businessmen or outright grants to community groups in return for dropping their legal actions. These petty-bourgeois elements have been able to posture as defenders of the black or Hispanic community, while pocketing what are essentially payoffs from finance capital and concealing from the public the details of this relationship.

The banks and other financial institutions did not themselves oppose continuation of the CRA, which they have treated as nothing more than a cost of doing a highly profitable business in minority areas. Loans tied to the CRA average a 20 percent rate of return. Financial industry lobbyists complained that they were being caught in a crossfire between the Republicans and Democrats which was unrelated to the main purpose of the bill.

The Clinton White House threatened to veto the bill if CRA provisions were substantially weakened, in response to heavy pressure from the Congressional Black Caucus and the Reverend Jesse Jackson, whose Operation PUSH has made extensive use of CRA in its campaigns to pressure corporations and banks for more opportunities for black businessmen. But eventually the White House caved in to Gramm, accepting his amendments so long as the program remained formally in place.

The White House similarly retreated on pledges that consumer privacy would be protected in the legislation. Consumer groups pointed to the potential for abuse of financial information once giant conglomerates were created which would handle loans, investments and insurance at the same time. For example: a bank could refuse to give a 30-year mortgage to a customer whose medical records, filed with the bank's insurance subsidiary, revealed a fatal disease.

The final draft of the bill contains a consumer privacy protection clause, but it is extremely weak, applying only to the transfer of information outside of a financial conglomerate, not within it. Thus Citigroup will be able to pass on financial information about its bank depositors to Travelers Insurance, but not to an outside company like Prudential. Even that limitation would be breached if there was a contractual relationship with the outside company, as in the case of a telemarketer which did work for Citigroup and was given private information about Citigroup depositors to aid in its telephone solicitations.

Threat to financial stability

The proposed deregulation will increase the degree of monopolization in finance and worsen the position of consumers in relation to creditors. Even more significant is its impact on the overall stability of US and world capitalism. The bill ties the banking system and the insurance industry even more directly to the volatile US stock market, virtually guaranteeing that any significant plunge on Wall Street will have an immediate and catastrophic impact throughout the US financial system.

The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which the deregulation bill would repeal, was not adopted to protect consumers, although one of its most celebrated provisions was the establishment of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which guarantees bank deposits of up to $100,000. The law was enacted during the first 100 days of the Roosevelt administration to rescue a banking system which had collapsed, wiping out the life savings of millions of working people, and threatening to bring the profit system to a complete standstill.

As a recent history of that era notes: "The more than five thousand bank failures between the Crash and the New Deal's rescue operation in March 1933 wiped out some $7 billion in depositors' money. Accelerating foreclosures on defaulted home mortgages—150,000 homeowners lost their property in 1930, 200,000 in 1931, 250,000 in 1932—stripped millions of people of both shelter and life savings at a single stroke and menaced the balance sheets of thousands of surviving banks" (David Kennedy, Freedom from Fear, Oxford University Press, 1999, pp. 162-63).

The separation of banking and the stock exchange was ordered in response to revelations of the gross corruption and manipulation of the market by giant banking houses, above all the House of Morgan, which organized huge corporate mergers for its own profit and awarded preferential access to share issues to favored politicians and businessmen. Such insider trading played a major role in the speculative boom which preceded the 1929 crash.

Over the past 20 years the restrictions imposed by Glass-Steagall have been gradually relaxed under pressure from the banks, which sought more profitable outlets for their capital, especially in the booming stock market, and which complained that foreign competitors suffered no such limitations to their financial operations. In 1990 the Federal Reserve Board first permitted a bank (J.P. Morgan) to sell stock through a subsidiary, although stock market operations were limited to 10 percent of the company's total revenue. In 1996 this ceiling was lifted to 25 percent. Now it will be abolished.

The Wall Street Journal celebrated the agreement to end such restrictions with an editorial declaring that the banks had been unfairly scapegoated for the Great Depression. The headline of one Journal article detailing the impact of the proposed law declared, "Finally, 1929 Begins to Fade."

This comment underscores the greatest irony in the banking deregulation bill. Legislation first adopted to save American capitalism from the consequences of the 1929 Wall Street Crash is being abolished just at the point where the conditions are emerging for an even greater speculative financial collapse. The enormous volatility in the stock exchange in recent months has been accompanied by repeated warnings that stocks are grossly overvalued, with some computer and Internet stocks selling at prices 100 times earnings or even greater.

And there is a much more recent experience than 1929 to serve as a cautionary tale. A financial deregulation bill was passed in the early 1980s under the Reagan administration, lifting many restrictions on the activities of savings and loan associations, which had previously been limited primarily to the home-loan market. The result was an orgy of speculation, profiteering and outright plundering of assets, culminating in collapse and the biggest financial bailout in US history, costing the federal government more than $500 billion. The repetition of such events in the much larger banking and securities markets would be beyond the scope of any federal bailout.

No More Earmarks?

I can criticize Pres. Obama all I want but I want to make sure that my criticism holds true for Republicans as well. I have ripped Obama for his spending during this recession and his recent budget is no different.

“The truth is, our earmark system in Washington is fraught with abuse. It badly needs reform — which is why I didn't request a single earmark last year, why I've released all my previous requests for the public to see and why I've pledged to slash earmarks by more than half when I am president of the United States of America." Barack Obama, September 22, 2008.

From the Heritage Foundation…“The omnibus bill spends $12.8 billion on 9,287 earmarks. When combined with the early 2009 spending bills ($16.1 billion spent on 2,627 earmarks), the 2009 total comes to 11,914 earmarks at a cost of $28.9 billion. This represents the second most earmarks—and the second highest cost—in American history.”

It doesn’t surprise me in the least that Obama has again “lied” to his voters and the American public, however, what surprises me is that 6 of the top 10 spenders in the senate were republicans. From what I can see, the 2nd biggest earmark spender was Mitch McConnell, who has also criticized Obama for his spending.

As Republicans, in this recession, how can you continue these earmarks? I find it a bit hypocritical on the Republicans part to say so much about how in debt we are going to be but continue the, everyone else is spending so why can’t I, mentality.

Now, maybe some of this money is needed, who knows, but I don’t think in this time that you need to be putting you name out there for how much you’ve won for your state. And Obama, you said that you would cut the earmarks in half…well, so much for that. Anyone remember “Read my lips, no new taxes?”

Some reading that supported this post:

http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/wm2318.cfm
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/republican_earmarks_pork.html

No-wonder-the-rich-give-so-much-to-charity

No-wonder-the-rich-give-so-much-to-charity

Other Sites

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/

http://www.politico.com/

http://www.drudgereport.com/