Bailout bill fails; Dow plunges

[KazooSkinsFan]

The point: is this different than 1929 (that is, "can't step in the same river twice).

Yes.

We were the largest exporter of maufactured goods and of energy. Largest creditor.

Now largest importer of manufactured goods and oil. Largest debtor.

Whatever happened in 1929 is past, and won't be much guidance to the future.

Are you trying to say largest "net" importer? That's a totally different point then largest importer. Why do you only include manufacturing? And again, does measuring trade deficits as a percent of GDP have ANY meaning to you since you keep ignoring it? And why are you only looking at "manufactured" goods? What's the difference to the economy if it's a toaster versus a service? We were a manufacturing economy in 1929 and we are a service economy today. Higher end, higher margin, how is it bad?

On the "creditor" you are ONLY including the US government, why? Why don't all the American's loaning money to, investing in and operating businesses IN foreign countries matter? Why are we only concerned that the US government is a net creditor? And again, consider as a PERCENT OF GDP!!!!! How is that changing? What does it mean in REAL terms, not MARGINAL measures?

The article only talks about GDP in terms of financial services and manufacturing as a percent of GDP. It doesn't talk about the other measures.

[Redskin in Canada]

Highest budget deficit ever

Red ink hits $454.8 billion in 2008, more than double that of 2007; economists say bailout to weigh on next year.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The federal budget deficit soared to $454.8 billion in 2008 as a housing collapse and efforts to combat the economic slowdown pushed the tide of government red ink to the highest level in history.

The Bush administration said Tuesday the deficit for the budget year that ended Sept. 30 was more than double the $161.5 billion recorded in 2007.

It surpassed the previous record of $413 billion set in 2004. Economists predicted a far worse number next year as the costs of the government's rescue of the financial system and the economic hard times hit the government's balance sheet.

Some analysts believe that next year's deficit could easily top $700 billion, giving the next president a formidable challenge.

A litany of economic woes

The administration blamed this year's record deficit on a litany of economic woes. The prolonged housing slump sharply reduced economic growth and has sent the unemployment rate rising, developments that reduce tax revenues.

...

http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/14/news/ec ... 2008101416

[KazooSkinsFan]

Highest budget deficit ever

Red ink hits $454.8 billion in 2008, more than double that of 2007; economists say bailout to weigh on next year.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The federal budget deficit soared to $454.8 billion in 2008 as a housing collapse and efforts to combat the economic slowdown pushed the tide of government red ink to the highest level in history.

The Bush administration said Tuesday the deficit for the budget year that ended Sept. 30 was more than double the $161.5 billion recorded in 2007.

It surpassed the previous record of $413 billion set in 2004. Economists predicted a far worse number next year as the costs of the government's rescue of the financial system and the economic hard times hit the government's balance sheet.

Some analysts believe that next year's deficit could easily top $700 billion, giving the next president a formidable challenge.

A litany of economic woes

The administration blamed this year's record deficit on a litany of economic woes. The prolonged housing slump sharply reduced economic growth and has sent the unemployment rate rising, developments that reduce tax revenues.

...

http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/14/news/ec ... 2008101416

You're still not grooving with the GDP thing, are you? What difference does the largest NOMINAL budget deficit make? Here's a hint. In 1990 I made 43K a year and bought my first house. I had debt of about 150K. Today I have several times the debt, but it's not an issue. In fact, I'm far more secure then I was then. Can you guess why? Can you guess what's changed a lot since 1990 that makes my higher debt in fact less of an issue for me? Hint, if you solve the riddle, GDP would the National equivalent to the answer. Cue the jeopardy music. What do you think it is that makes my higher debt less of an issue then my lower debt in 1990?

[Redskin in Canada]

What do you think it is that makes my higher debt less of an issue then my lower debt in 1990?

The expectation of bankruptcy and having full-time to post from your jail cell? Just guessing.

[VetSkinsFan]

What do you think it is that makes my higher debt less of an issue then my lower debt in 1990?

The expectation of bankruptcy and having full-time to post from your jail cell? Just guessing.

[KazooSkinsFan]

What do you think it is that makes my higher debt less of an issue then my lower debt in 1990?

The expectation of bankruptcy and having full-time to post from your jail cell? Just guessing.

Um...yeah, that would make me less worried today. I guess it's French logic. Don't bother explaining, I'll never get it. Anyway, here's another poser. The nominal value of the deficit is far higher today then say 1943. The real deficit was far higher in 1943. What are your thoughts on that? What does it mean? What conclusions can we draw from it?

Another question, in America the President can't spend any money, how can he create deficits? We have a Democratic controlled congress passing all this largesse. So how is it just Bush? A congress who considers a slight decrease in the rate of increase of a budget to be a catestrophic cut that will leave people starving in the street. A Democratic Congress that believes in a bill to save the American people from a catestrophic Wall Street meltdown(:roll:), we need to subsidize wooden arrows. I'm not sure why you think the American President can cause deficits when I happen to know the Canadian PM can't either. I have to admit I don't know much about Quebec's government, mostly because Quebec's full of French people who have no idea what they're talking about and delight in demonstrating that.

[Deadskins]

The problem with your scale model, Kazoo, is that although you have this long-term debt, you are making payments against the principle every month, and you're not deficit spending at the same time, but only occasionally on big-ticket items. Also, your loans are on a strict payback schedule, and if you default, you will lose your property.

[Cappster]

Here is a nice little archive:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... nted=print

September 30, 1999
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.

Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.

In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.

Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.

The writing was on the wall. Lets lend to people, minorities and low income families in particular, who have bad credit, because they aren't white and need to catch up to Whitey or they are poor and we want them to catch up to "The Man." In the end we will screw the middle class again, because it was too hard for the have nots to become middle class and afford to buy a house.

[Redskin in Canada]

Don't bother explaining, I'll never get it.

If the prospect of a record $700 billion 2009 annual deficit does not bother you, nothing will indeed. No amount of universal logic can help either.

Another question, in America the President can't spend any money, how can he create deficits? We have a Democratic controlled congress passing all this largesse. So how is it just Bush?

Good question. Traditionally, Republicans -used- to call themselves fiscally responsible. Interestingly, the Clinton administration had GREAT economic numbers compared to the irresponsible behaviour of this GW administration. The fiscally-responsible wing of the Republican Party lost control to the fanatical Religious/Evangelical right wing.

But you ask what could a President do? Does economic and political leadership sound too antiquated? Does effective military and anti-terrorist spending sound like a too outrageous a concept? Do responsible Executive Branch Bills for approval in Congress remain out of reach? Can irresponsible Bills be vetoed still by the President?

I'm not sure why you think the American President can cause deficits when I happen to know the Canadian PM can't either.

I happen to believe that any National Leader can have a significant impact on the way the economies are run through their policies.

I have to admit I don't know much about Quebec's government, mostly because Quebec's full of French people who have no idea what they're talking about and delight in demonstrating that.

Poor Quebecois. So maligned at no fault of their own. I happen to speak French fluently with two different accents and my favourite team are the Montreal Canadiens, which have defined Excellence throughout their long prestigious history. But I am not a French Canadian. Do not blame our disagreement on them. I have equal respect for English and French Canadians, regardless of their ethnic background, religious orientation and all other differences.

Do not assume to know -anything- about me. I can speak a few other languages, some also with different accents. So, please do not even try to bring prejudice into the discussion. It only serves as a distraction.

[Redskin in Canada]

The writing was on the wall. Lets lend to people, minorities and low income families in particular, who have bad credit, because they aren't white and need to catch up to Whitey or they are poor and we want them to catch up to "The Man." In the end we will screw the middle class again, because it was too hard for the have nots to become middle class and afford to buy a house.

A crisis brings the best and the worst on people. So, now the economic crisis is a White man's middle class problem brought on them at no fault of their own by Black, Hispanic, Chinese and other non-white minorities. The crowds in government, Wall Street and many irresponsible financial institutions are at no fault, right?

This is either a repugnant and unproven philosophy or just a lazy attempt to find a scapegoat. Let's lynch somebody, preferably somebody poor and black. You should be ashamed of yourself creating such abominable racial tensions with this provocation.

[Cappster]

The writing was on the wall. Lets lend to people, minorities and low income families in particular, who have bad credit, because they aren't white and need to catch up to Whitey or they are poor and we want them to catch up to "The Man." In the end we will screw the middle class again, because it was too hard for the have nots to become middle class and afford to buy a house.

A crisis brings the best and the worst on people. So, now the economic crisis is a White man's middle class problem brought on them at no fault of their own by Black, Hispanic, Chinese and other non-white minorities. The crowds in government, Wall Street and many irresponsible financial institutions are at no fault, right?

This is either a repugnant and unproven philosophy or just a lazy attempt to find a scapegoat. Let's lynch somebody, preferably somebody poor and black. You should be ashamed of yourself creating such abominable racial tensions with this provocation.

I never said it was a white man's middle class problem. I just stated a couple of examples that led to the crisis. Greed by financial institutions was the root of the problem that was backed by the idea that the "have nots" should be provided the same things that the "haves" do at the expensive of the "sort of haves" that can make a house payment and have good credit.

What I typed in the previous post may seem like I was just targeting minorities, but the wasn't my intention. The situation in the article does tend to lend itself to Affirmative Action for housing, but it also seems to me that they wanted to give homes to people that were just flat out poor and had bad credit in the name of GREED and EQUALITY.

On a side note, I actually like minorities a lot. I personally know one that makes 5 times as much as I do and that is my girlfriend's Mom. I like minorities so much that I am the father of a half black half white child. So when I talk along racial lines, I am doing so on the from the view of a non-racist person that just looks at the facts and opines on a situation.

[Irn-Bru]

Another question, in America the President can't spend any money, how can he create deficits? We have a Democratic controlled congress passing all this largesse. So how is it just Bush?

The Congress passes the budget but who proposes it? Bush could have done a lot of damage to big government during his tenure had he wanted to. How much control does the President have? Not "total", but I reject the dichotomy you present here which suggests he "can't spend any money."

(Not to mention unilaterally ending the wars in the Middle East, which have been the single greatest contributor to big government in the last eight years. That's something Bush has a hell of a lot of control over!)

[Redskin in Canada]

What I typed in the previous post may seem like I was just targeting minorities, but the wasn't my intention.

We are good brother. Thanks for the clarification.

The situation in the article does tend to lend itself to Affirmative Action for housing, but it also seems to me that they wanted to give homes to people that were just flat out poor and had bad credit in the name of GREED and EQUALITY.

I think that it had to do more with GREED than with EQUALITY. But I will back this assertion with numbers later on. Thanks.

[Redskin in Canada]

Red on Wall Street
Stocks retreat as as recession fears resurface.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Stocks tumbled Wednesday afternoon as recession fears resurfaced following a weaker-than-expected retail sales report and dour comments on the economy from Ben Bernanke and another Federal Reserve official.

The credit market showed some signs of easing, as a key overnight bank lending rate fell. But the improvement was slowgoing and failed to reassure investors. Global markets were mostly lower.

The Dow Jones industrial average (INDU) fell as much as 515 points before pulling back a bit. The decline was equal to around 6.4%. The Standard & Poor's 500 (SPX) index lost 5.8% and the Nasdaq composite (COMP) lost 5.5%.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/15/markets ... 2008101510

[KazooSkinsFan]

The problem with your scale model, Kazoo, is that although you have this long-term debt, you are making payments against the principle every month, and you're not deficit spending at the same time, but only occasionally on big-ticket items. Also, your loans are on a strict payback schedule, and if you default, you will lose your property.

My point is that my debt payments today are a smaller fraction of my INCOME then when I bought my first house. Higher debt payments are more affordable to me. Then as now my only debt was my house. The only exception is when I take zero interest loans, but I could pay them off if I wanted to, it's just free money when it's something I would have bought anyway. Economists consider GDP the nations equivalent of income. That is except French economists, but unlike French women, French men have PMS all month. French Canadians are worse because they have inferiority complexes over the French men in France as well as the English men in Canada. Quebec is the armpit of Canada and like a French armpit it's unshaved and unbathed.

But I digress. The term "record" deficit is only a nominal measurement, it is irrelevant. My apologies if you know this, not trying to insult your knowledge, I just don't know if you know this or not, but you have to compare nominal to real dollars.

A nominal dollar is a dollar. A dollar in 1943 bought a lot more then it does today, but a dollar bill from 1943 is still one dollar today.

A real dollar is the BUYING power of a dollar. I don't know the exact figure, but say for example a dollar in 1943 bought the equivalent of $10 in goods and services today. Then the real value today of a 1943 dollar is 10 cents today.

RIC's trumpeting the "record" deficit. But it's only a record in NOMINAL dollars. Our deficits have been running in the 2-3 percent range, maybe they'll go up to 4 percent this year. In real dollars, which economists measure deficits as a percent of GDP, we have exceeded that quite a few times in history and in fact they peaked at about 15% in WWII. So our deficits now are under 1/3 the "record" deficits today. It's just a meaningless stat.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Don't bother explaining, I'll never get it.

If the prospect of a record $700 billion 2009 annual deficit does not bother you, nothing will indeed. No amount of universal logic can help either.

And yet, I never said a $700 billion deficit didn't bother me. See, a liberal thing is to be totally on one side and against the other. Once you pick a side, everything that supports your position is a "fact" even if it's not true and everything that counters it is a "lie" even if it is true. I pointed out that your trumpeting a "record" is meaningless because it's only a record in nominal dollars. So you assume that I follow liberal logic and that means I am OK with the deficit because I am like a liberal, I have chosen a side and will therefore present only one sided arguments on that behalf.

I'm a libertarian, of course I'm against budget deficits. I wasn't arguing ideology when I pointed out your article trumpeting "record" deficits was irrelevant, I was arguing you were using a meaningless measure of a "record." I meant what I said.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Another question, in America the President can't spend any money, how can he create deficits? We have a Democratic controlled congress passing all this largesse. So how is it just Bush?

The Congress passes the budget but who proposes it?

Bush proposes "A" budget, which bears some resembelence to the one he ultimately signs. If you read on even in my quote you left in, I say Congress must pass it, so how is it "just" Bush? I don't say Bush has nothing to do with spending. I do say he cannot spend money on his own, the Democratic Congress must pass it. And then I don't say how is it Bush, I say how is it "just" Bush. I don't really get your point here.

Bush could have done a lot of damage to big government during his tenure had he wanted to

Amen, clearly he didn't.

How much control does the President have? Not "total", but I reject the dichotomy you present here which suggests he "can't spend any money."

The President cannot spend any money without Congress passing it. If you're aware of a way he can spend money and rack up deficits without Congress passing it you're going to have to enlighten me.

(Not to mention unilaterally ending the wars in the Middle East, which have been the single greatest contributor to big government in the last eight years. That's something Bush has a hell of a lot of control over!)

Again, those funds were authorized by congress. Again I didn't say what does Bush have to do with deficits. I said Congress must pass the spending, so how is it "just" Bush?

[Irn-Bru]

I don't think anybody is claiming that it's just Bush, well except for you (and then you deny it). That's precisely what I was objecting to.

[KazooSkinsFan]

I don't think anybody is claiming that it's just Bush, well except for you (and then you deny it). That's precisely what I was objecting to.

Mahoney was just councelling the young ladies, Sandy Berger wasn't stuffing secret documents down his pants he was just "sloppy" and sloppy people stuff papers down their pants, Rangle reasonably thought 80K in income didn't need to be declared and it was an innocent mistake not worth following up on even though he's head of the tax writing committee, Kerry having 3 purple hearts without missing a day of service wasn't worth following up and being hated by his Nam brothren can be dismissed out of hand while Bush being honorably discharged and Rather's documents proven to be forgeries is no excuse for not relentlessly trying to figure out if he showed up for work on Friday afternoons when Nam was winding down and the military wished they wouldn't, Bush's DUI 20+ years before an election was an issue and Kennedy's murder 30+ years before an election wasn't, when Democratic staffers get an internal Republican memo on politicizing Schivo it's completely reasonable to ask how Republicans can politicize an issue and when Republican staffers get an internal Democratic memo on politicizing judicial nominees it's completely reasonable to ask how the Republicans got the memo, when Newt banged a chick decades before he resigned it's an issue and when John Edwards banged a chick between Presidential campaigns it's old news. I could go on a LONG time, I got bored. But we have identified a failure to identify liberal agenda. Promise me if I'm ever accused of a crime you'll be on the jury. I in turn promise not to confess so you can let me off.

But, OK, I made the wild leap that liberals trashing the United States for "record" nominal dollar deficits are blaming it on Bush. Ignoring that welch's article actually did blame it on Bush, it was based on that every liberal I have EVER heard bring it up was blaming it on Bush and obsolving Congress. But let's ignore that and RIC, who's taken the torch. RIC, Irn-Bru and I BOTH blame Bush, you don't have to sell us on that. How do you blame Democrats for this given that Irn-Bru's already set you up with the knowledge of the point of the question? Tell us how you hate Democrats for this like Bush and what a bunch of irresponsible, government loving spendthrifts of other people's money Democrats are for recklessly confiscating the money from people who earned it for the subjegation of people who didn't and running up US deficits they are.

OK, I'll go on some more. Al Gore's lies like how he was outraged when he ran against W that HW hadn't invaded Iraq in GWI were belied by his statements at the time wasn't interesting, that Al Gore made dufus statements was a harmless personality quirk while Dan Quayle's dufus statements were scary he was a heart beat from the presidency, Bill Clinton having sex with an intern in the white house was a private matter but Foley writing e-mails and not having sex was unforgivable while Mahoney hiring staffers he was screwing wasn't a big deal, Clinton really was trying to remember when he asked his secretary if he had been alone with the woman giving him blow jobs and when you commit purgery over sex it isn't a big deal, Democrat Anita accusing Republican Clarance of sexual harassment is proof positive while Democrat Kathleen Wiley accusing Democrat Bill Clinton of sexual harassment can be ignored as the crap it is. It's just endless, but the media's not liberal unless they ADMIT they are liberal.

[Deadskins]

The problem with your scale model, Kazoo, is that although you have this long-term debt, you are making payments against the principle every month, and you're not deficit spending at the same time, but only occasionally on big-ticket items. Also, your loans are on a strict payback schedule, and if you default, you will lose your property.

My point is that my debt payments today are a smaller fraction of my INCOME then when I bought my first house. Higher debt payments are more affordable to me. Then as now my only debt was my house. The only exception is when I take zero interest loans, but I could pay them off if I wanted to, it's just free money when it's something I would have bought anyway. Economists consider GDP the nations equivalent of income. That is except French economists, but unlike French women, French men have PMS all month. French Canadians are worse because they have inferiority complexes over the French men in France as well as the English men in Canada. Quebec is the armpit of Canada and like a French armpit it's unshaved and unbathed.

But I digress. The term "record" deficit is only a nominal measurement, it is irrelevant. My apologies if you know this, not trying to insult your knowledge, I just don't know if you know this or not, but you have to compare nominal to real dollars.

A nominal dollar is a dollar. A dollar in 1943 bought a lot more then it does today, but a dollar bill from 1943 is still one dollar today.

A real dollar is the BUYING power of a dollar. I don't know the exact figure, but say for example a dollar in 1943 bought the equivalent of $10 in goods and services today. Then the real value today of a 1943 dollar is 10 cents today.

RIC's trumpeting the "record" deficit. But it's only a record in NOMINAL dollars. Our deficits have been running in the 2-3 percent range, maybe they'll go up to 4 percent this year. In real dollars, which economists measure deficits as a percent of GDP, we have exceeded that quite a few times in history and in fact they peaked at about 15% in WWII. So our deficits now are under 1/3 the "record" deficits today. It's just a meaningless stat.

I understood your point, but I don't think you got mine. Yes the ratio of deficit to GDP has remained steady, but the national debt has not. That is the credit card account where this deficit spending ends up. We are not paying down the principal, and eventually the bank is going to send the repo man around to collect our stuff.

[Irn-Bru]

I don't think anybody is claiming that it's just Bush, well except for you (and then you deny it). That's precisely what I was objecting to.

Mahoney was just councelling the young ladies, Sandy Berger wasn't stuffing secret documents down his pants he was just "sloppy" and sloppy people stuff papers down their pants, Rangle reasonably thought 80K in income didn't need to be declared and it was an innocent mistake not worth following up on even though he's head of the tax writing committee, Kerry having 3 purple hearts without missing a day of service wasn't worth following up and being hated by his Nam brothren can be dismissed out of hand while Bush being honorably discharged and Rather's documents proven to be forgeries is no excuse for not relentlessly trying to figure out if he showed up for work on Friday afternoons when Nam was winding down and the military wished they wouldn't, Bush's DUI 20+ years before an election was an issue and Kennedy's murder 30+ years before an election wasn't, when Democratic staffers get an internal Republican memo on politicizing Schivo it's completely reasonable to ask how Republicans can politicize an issue and when Republican staffers get an internal Democratic memo on politicizing judicial nominees it's completely reasonable to ask how the Republicans got the memo, when Newt banged a chick decades before he resigned it's an issue and when John Edwards banged a chick between Presidential campaigns it's old news. I could go on a LONG time, I got bored. But we have identified a failure to identify liberal agenda. Promise me if I'm ever accused of a crime you'll be on the jury. I in turn promise not to confess so you can let me off.

But, OK, I made the wild leap that liberals trashing the United States for "record" nominal dollar deficits are blaming it on Bush. Ignoring that welch's article actually did blame it on Bush, it was based on that every liberal I have EVER heard bring it up was blaming it on Bush and obsolving Congress. But let's ignore that and RIC, who's taken the torch. RIC, Irn-Bru and I BOTH blame Bush, you don't have to sell us on that. How do you blame Democrats for this given that Irn-Bru's already set you up with the knowledge of the point of the question? Tell us how you hate Democrats for this like Bush and what a bunch of irresponsible, government loving spendthrifts of other people's money Democrats are for recklessly confiscating the money from people who earned it for the subjegation of people who didn't and running up US deficits they are.

OK, I'll go on some more. Al Gore's lies like how he was outraged when he ran against W that HW hadn't invaded Iraq in GWI were belied by his statements at the time wasn't interesting, that Al Gore made dufus statements was a harmless personality quirk while Dan Quayle's dufus statements were scary he was a heart beat from the presidency, Bill Clinton having sex with an intern in the white house was a private matter but Foley writing e-mails and not having sex was unforgivable while Mahoney hiring staffers he was screwing wasn't a big deal, Clinton really was trying to remember when he asked his secretary if he had been alone with the woman giving him blow jobs and when you commit purgery over sex it isn't a big deal, Democrat Anita accusing Republican Clarance of sexual harassment is proof positive while Democrat Kathleen Wiley accusing Democrat Bill Clinton of sexual harassment can be ignored as the crap it is. It's just endless, but the media's not liberal unless they ADMIT they are liberal.

Uh. . .what? I promise I'll try to respond, but I think I'm going to need a summary or thesis statement, or something. I have no idea what's going on here.

[Cappster]

I know sometimes I just cannot read all of a Kazooskins post, because he gets rather long winded.

[Deadskins]

He's angry because the liberal media quickly persecutes Republicans while giving a free pass to Democrats who commit similar, or even worse transgressions. He also blames the Democratic Congress for Bush's budget deficits.

[Countertrey]

He's angry because the liberal media quickly persecutes Republicans while giving a free pass to Democrats who commit similar, or even worse transgressions.

You don't agree that the 2 paragraphs of rant in his post are an impressive list of 1 for 1 comparisons? That doesn't at least peak your curiosity? You can just dismiss that list? I, personally, think it is an outstanding demonstration of the political hypocrisy of the press.

He also blames the Democratic Congress for Bush's budget deficits.

No president, no matter how powerful, can authorize a budget. All he can do is propose (no matter how stupid).

Congress, no matter how you cut it, owns the budget (no matter how stupid).

[Deadskins]

Well, I don't agree with his assessment of how each of those incidents were handled by the press, but I was not commenting on his post, just summarizing. Were I to comment, I would say that his angry-white-male reaction to the press coverage is the desired response elicited by the corporations that provide the "news." I would also remind readers that Bush had a Republican congress for much of his administration, but that didn't seem to help the budget deficits in the least.