Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- DavidB on Health care reform would save state money
135 Comments
Excellent piece on TARP: http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2008/dec/22/mz1e22sanche19030-banks-taking-taxpayers-ride/?uniontrib
Global cooling marches on, even all of Canada will be covered by snow since 1971. Climate change cannot be controled by man we are at it’s mercy. We have our own artic weather right here in KS.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081221/winter_storm_081221/20081221?hub=CTVNewsAt11
Weather ? Climate, sigh….
“The thickness of Arctic sea ice “plummeted” last winter, thinning by as much as one-fifth in some regions, satellite data has revealed.”
–
“Arctic sea ice has shrunk to the second smallest extent since satellite records began, US scientists have revealed. The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) says that the ice-covered area has fallen below its 2005 level, which was the second lowest on record. According to NASA-processed microwave data, whereas perennial ice used to cover 50-60 percent of the Arctic, this year it covers less than 30 percent. …”
–
“The frequency of extremely high clouds in Earth’s tropics — the type associated with severe storms and rainfall — is increasing as a result of global warming, according to a study by scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.”
–
“We’re seeing the impacts of global warming in many areas of our own lives, like agriculture,” Zwally said. As an example, he cited the pine beetle infestation of this summer in the forests of Colorado and western Canada.
“They were believed to be spreading because the winter was not cold enough to kill them, and that’s destroying forests,” he said.
–
“In the 1990s, Greenland took in as much snow and water as it let out, Zwally said. But now, about 15 years later, sea levels are rising about 50 percent faster, making the global climate situation even more unpredictable.”
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/12/16/melting.ice/index.html
Obama’s Blagojevich Report Clears Emanuel
In a story first broken by ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos, Obama transition sources are saying their internal probe of any contact between transition officials and disgraced Gov. Rod Glabojevich will absolve Rahm Emanuel of any impropriety. Stephanopoulos said on ABC’s This Week, “The sources I talk to say that what it will show there were actually far less contacts than we had heard.” Emanuel “only had one phone call with…Blagojevich. It wasn’t even about the Senate seat.” Elaborating on the story in his George’s Bottom Line blog, Stephanopoulos concludes Obama officials “were not open to any kind of deal for the Obama Senate seat.”
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_081222.htm
I doubt if this will quell the Republican conspiracy theorists.
Oh well, it gives them a bone to gnaw on.
Don’t worry DavidB, george just doesn’t understand…in fact I think I am done trying to argue with people on here when they cannot understand the importance of where, when, and how datasets are taken let alone the difference between local meterology and climte.
Merry Xmas!
geroge: Precipitation is a sign of moderating temperatures, not extremes and believe it or not, the arctic is quite dry in terms of precipitation. Just as rain gives relief to heat waves, snow does the same thing but in reverse. The report was a comment on a unique situation pointing out 5 times zones covered by snow, but it’s not all that cold, compared to what it can be and I saw no comment about a “cold snap”.
#
DavidB
Posted December 22, 2008 at 8:00 am | Permalink
Weather ? Climate, sigh….
“The thickness of Arctic sea ice “plummeted” last winter, thinning by as much as one-fifth in some regions, satellite data has revealed.”
–
“Arctic sea ice has shrunk to the second smallest extent since satellite records began, US scientists have revealed. The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) says that the ice-covered area has fallen below its 2005 level, which was the second lowest on record. According to NASA-processed microwave data, whereas perennial ice used to cover 50-60 percent of the Arctic, this year it covers less than 30 percent. …”
–
“The frequency of extremely high clouds in Earth’s tropics — the type associated with severe storms and rainfall — is increasing as a result of global warming, according to a study by scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.”
–
“We’re seeing the impacts of global warming in many areas of our own lives, like agriculture,” Zwally said. As an example, he cited the pine beetle infestation of this summer in the forests of Colorado and western Canada.
“They were believed to be spreading because the winter was not cold enough to kill them, and that’s destroying forests,” he said.
–
“In the 1990s, Greenland took in as much snow and water as it let out, Zwally said. But now, about 15 years later, sea levels are rising about 50 percent faster, making the global climate situation even more unpredictable.”
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/12/16/melting.ice/index.html
__________________________________________________
Not a trace of evidence to show that man had a thing to do with it.
___________________________________________________
#
george
Posted December 22, 2008 at 7:44 am | Permalink
Global cooling marches on, even all of Canada will be covered by snow since 1971. Climate change cannot be controled by man we are at it’s mercy. We have our own artic weather right here in KS.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081221/winter_storm_081221/20081221?hub=CTVNewsAt11
__________________________________________________
Now you are seeing the mighty mother earth take care of herself all the while laughing at man for thinking he has the balls to change it.
The AGW crowd should quit wasting it’s time trying to convert us to the Humanism cult and spend it learning to adapt to the more powerful reality of NATURE.
Dublin…lol…you are funny.
So much for the housing melt-down being the fault of Democrats:
“He pushed hard to expand homeownership, especially among minorities, an initiative that dovetailed with his ambition to expand the Republican tent — and with the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards”.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html?bl&ex=1230094800&en=03cc697c3c1376e9&ei=5087
So much for the housing melt-down being the fault of Republicans:
Mr. Bush did foresee the danger posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage finance giants. The president spent years pushing a recalcitrant Congress to toughen regulation of the companies, but was unwilling to compromise
So much for the housing melt-down being the fault of Republicans:
NEW YORK TIMES
September 11, 2003
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
”There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,” Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.
Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.
The administration’s proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies’ exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.
The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.
After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration’s proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.
”The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,” Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. ”We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,” the independent agency that now regulates the companies.
”These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,” he added.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.
At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past.
Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration’s package. The support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the company’s mission.
After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae’s chief executive, endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to the Treasury Department, as well as other elements of the plan.
”We welcome the administration’s approach outlined today,” Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president to appoint 5 of the company’s 18 board members.
Company executives said that the company preferred having the president select some directors. The company is also likely to lobby against the efforts that give regulators too much authority to approve its products.
Freddie Mac, whose accounting is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a United States attorney in Virginia, issued a statement calling the administration plan a ”responsible proposal.”
The stocks of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fell while the prices of their bonds generally rose. Shares of Freddie Mac fell $2.04, or 3.7 percent, to $53.40, while Fannie Mae was down $1.62, or 2.4 percent, to $66.74. The price of a Fannie Mae bond due in March 2013 rose to 97.337 from 96.525.Its yield fell to 4.726 percent from 4.835 percent on Tuesday.
Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators.
”The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,” said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ”Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie’s operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.”
Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.
”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.
So much for the housing melt-down being the fault of Republicans:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122290574391296381.html
What They Said About Fan and Fred
House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 10, 2003:
Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.): I worry, frankly, that there’s a tension here. The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios. . . .
AP
Clockwise from top left: Sen. Thomas Carper, Rep. Barney Frank, Sen. Robert Bennett, Rep. Maxine Waters, Sen. Chris Dodd and Sen. Charles Schumer.
Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.), speaking to Housing and Urban Development Secretary Mel Martinez:
Secretary Martinez, if it ain’t broke, why do you want to fix it? Have the GSEs [government-sponsored enterprises] ever missed their housing goals?
* * *
House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 25, 2003:
Rep. Frank: I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing. . . .
* * *
House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 25, 2003:
Rep. Gregory Meeks, (D., N.Y.): . . . I am just pissed off at Ofheo [Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight] because if it wasn’t for you I don’t think that we would be here in the first place.
Fannie Mayhem: A History
A compendium of The Wall Street Journal’s recent editorial coverage of Fannie and Freddie.
And Freddie Mac, who on its own, you know, came out front and indicated it is wrong, and now the problem that we have and that we are faced with is maybe some individuals who wanted to do away with GSEs in the first place, you have given them an excuse to try to have this forum so that we can talk about it and maybe change the direction and the mission of what the GSEs had, which they have done a tremendous job. . .
Ofheo Director Armando Falcon Jr.: Congressman, Ofheo did not improperly apply accounting rules; Freddie Mac did. Ofheo did not try to manage earnings improperly; Freddie Mac did. So this isn’t about the agency’s engagement in improper conduct, it is about Freddie Mac. Let me just correct the record on that. . . . I have been asking for these additional authorities for four years now. I have been asking for additional resources, the independent appropriations assessment powers.
Brian Carney of the Editorial Board on the hearings Congresspeople don’t want to remember. (Oct. 2)
This is not a matter of the agency engaging in any misconduct. . . .
Rep. Waters: However, I have sat through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn’t broke. Housing is the economic engine of our economy, and in no community does this engine need to work more than in mine. With last week’s hurricane and the drain on the economy from the war in Iraq, we should do no harm to these GSEs. We should be enhancing regulation, not making fundamental change.
Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines. Everything in the 1992 act has worked just fine. In fact, the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals. . . .
Rep. Frank: Let me ask [George] Gould and [Franklin] Raines on behalf of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, do you feel that over the past years you have been substantially under-regulated?
Mr. Raines?
Mr. Raines: No, sir.
Mr. Frank: Mr. Gould?
Mr. Gould: No, sir. . . .
Mr. Frank: OK. Then I am not entirely sure why we are here. . . .
Rep. Frank: I believe there has been more alarm raised about potential unsafety and unsoundness than, in fact, exists.
* * *
Senate Banking Committee, Oct. 16, 2003:
Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.): And my worry is that we’re using the recent safety and soundness concerns, particularly with Freddie, and with a poor regulator, as a straw man to curtail Fannie and Freddie’s mission. And I don’t think there is any doubt that there are some in the administration who don’t believe in Fannie and Freddie altogether, say let the private sector do it. That would be sort of an ideological position.
Mr. Raines: But more importantly, banks are in a far more risky business than we are.
* * *
Senate Banking Committee, Feb. 24-25, 2004:
Sen. Thomas Carper (D., Del.): What is the wrong that we’re trying to right here? What is the potential harm that we’re trying to avert?
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan: Well, I think that that is a very good question, senator.
What we’re trying to avert is we have in our financial system right now two very large and growing financial institutions which are very effective and are essentially capable of gaining market shares in a very major market to a large extent as a consequence of what is perceived to be a subsidy that prevents the markets from adjusting appropriately, prevents competition and the normal adjustment processes that we see on a day-by-day basis from functioning in a way that creates stability. . . . And so what we have is a structure here in which a very rapidly growing organization, holding assets and financing them by subsidized debt, is growing in a manner which really does not in and of itself contribute to either home ownership or necessarily liquidity or other aspects of the financial markets. . . .
Sen. Richard Shelby (R., Ala.): [T]he federal government has [an] ambiguous relationship with the GSEs. And how do we actually get rid of that ambiguity is a complicated, tricky thing. I don’t know how we do it.
I mean, you’ve alluded to it a little bit, but how do we define the relationship? It’s important, is it not?
Mr. Greenspan: Yes. Of all the issues that have been discussed today, I think that is the most difficult one. Because you cannot have, in a rational government or a rational society, two fundamentally different views as to what will happen under a certain event. Because it invites crisis, and it invites instability. . .
Sen. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.): I, just briefly will say, Mr. Chairman, obviously, like most of us here, this is one of the great success stories of all time. And we don’t want to lose sight of that and [what] has been pointed out by all of our witnesses here, obviously, the 70% of Americans who own their own homes today, in no small measure, due because of the work that’s been done here. And that shouldn’t be lost in this debate and discussion. . . .
* * *
Senate Banking Committee, April 6, 2005:
Sen. Schumer: I’ll lay my marker down right now, Mr. Chairman. I think Fannie and Freddie need some changes, but I don’t think they need dramatic restructuring in terms of their mission, in terms of their role in the secondary mortgage market, et cetera. Change some of the accounting and regulatory issues, yes, but don’t undo Fannie and Freddie.
* * *
Senate Banking Committee, June 15, 2006:
Sen. Robert Bennett (R., Utah): I think we do need a strong regulator. I think we do need a piece of legislation. But I think we do need also to be careful that we don’t overreact.
I know the press, particularly, keeps saying this is another Enron, which it clearly is not. Fannie Mae has taken its lumps. Fannie Mae is paying a very large fine. Fannie Mae is under a very, very strong microscope, which it needs to be. . . . So let’s not do nothing, and at the same time, let’s not overreact. . .
Sen. Jack Reed (D., R.I.): I think a lot of people are being opportunistic, . . . throwing out the baby with the bathwater, saying, “Let’s dramatically restructure Fannie and Freddie,” when that is not what’s called for as a result of what’s happened here. . . .
:
:
:
:
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R., Neb.): Mr. Chairman, what we’re dealing with is an astounding failure of management and board responsibility, driven clearly by self interest and greed. And when we reference this issue in the context of — the best we can say is, “It’s no Enron.” Now, that’s a hell of a high standard.
“The president spent years pushing a recalcitrant Congress to toughen regulation of the companies…”
The first SIX years of his two terms? The years Congress was majority Republican? The years when Congress didn’t hold bush accountable for anything? Or, are you going to say the ‘problems’ all happened during the last (less than) two years?
Either way, you want to slant it, there seems to be adequate blame to spread around and no one appears blameless.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122290574391296381.html
:
What They Said About Fan and Fred
House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 10, 2003:
:
:
:
:
Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.): I worry, frankly, that there’s a tension here. The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios. . . .
there seems to be adequate blame to spread around and no one appears blameless.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Linda, I could NOT agree with you more. I take issue every time a lib tries to point the finger at the OTHER side of the aisle.
It’s important to show ignorance and lies for what they are.
What is wrong with posting links instead of whole articles in a comment?
Another factor in the climate change model.
http://home.tiscali.nl/gibbon/earth-axis.htm
How can the AGW crowd a.k.a. “climatards” stop this? Where’s Algore when you need him? lol
“I take issue every time a lib tries to point the finger at the OTHER side of the aisle.
It’s important to show ignorance and lies for what they are.” — RoaCH
——-
Perhaps your own words and your multiple posts to this thread speak for themselves.
Democrats open the flood gates: Home ownership becomes a RIGHT, therefore, Clinton eases the loan process.
NEW YORK TIMES
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 Canvassing Board overseeing the vote recount for Minnesota’s tightly contested U.S. Senate race isn’t quite done examining disputed ballots, but the board issued a projection Saturday night that Al Franken will pick up 270 votes when it finishes. Currently the board is determining voter intent in disputed ballots. If the projection proves correct, Franken will beat incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman by 78 votes.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,470892,00.html
__________________________________________________
Man, that’s cutting it close. I wonder how long this will be in the courts.
I guess it would be premature to start calling Franken “Landslide Al.”
“own words and your multiple posts ”
Each post provides different information/sources on same subject. Supporting documentation.
The heading: So much for the housing melt-down being the fault of Republicans:
is of course a play off XXX posting his claim that democrats are innocent. Even within his own link, a careful reader can see how the article is clearly written to place the blame on Bush and the author had to admit that Bush tried to stop it – despite the title of the article.
So attack me personally for posting a counter argument with source documents to support another view.
RoaCH, No attack, I think what we each post represents us quite well.
It’s the Bushonomy, stupid!
Toyota sees first operating loss
NAGOYA, Japan (Reuters) – Toyota Motor Corp forecast a first-ever annual operating loss, blaming a relentless sales slide and a crippling rise in the yen in what it said was an emergency unprecedented in its 70-year history.
Toyota, the world’s biggest automaker, had been expected to issue its second profit warning in less than seven weeks after domestic rival Honda Motor Co also cut its outlook again last week, but the downward revision was bigger than predicted.
“This is very, very, very bad,” said Koichi Ogawa, chief portfolio manager at Daiwa SB Investments. “There’s a chance they could fall into the red in the next business year as well.
“This is also not just a problem for Toyota. What is good for Toyota is good for the Japanese economy.”
Automakers around the world face their toughest business environment in recent memory, caught in a sharp reversal of demand as the financial crisis spreads, squeezing credit and consumer sentiment.
Toyota cut its group operating forecast to a loss of 150 billion yen ($1.7 billion) for the year to end-March, after shocking financial markets last month by slashing its group operating profit forecast by 1 trillion yen to 600 billion yen.
“I wonder how long this will be in the courts.”
—–
It looks like in addition to this race being in the courts for who knows how long, there will be other potential political maneuvering. I really dislike the races that are so close there isn’t a clear winner!
“If Franken pulls ahead on the challenged ballots and then also gains a bit on the absentee ballots, the canvassing board might certify him the winner. At that point he might fly to D.C. quick like a bunny and then be sworn in immediately. If Coleman continues to fight in the courts, he will then have the additional burden of trying to expel a sitting senator. The courts might be hesitant to do that since the constitution says only the Senate can expel a sitting senator. On the other hand, if Coleman wins the recount and flies to Washington asking to be sworn in, he may discover that Harry Reid is in no hurry at all and is happy to wait until any court challenges are resolved.”
http://electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Maps/Dec19.html
RoaCH
Posted December 22, 2008 at 10:11 am | Permalink
The heading: So much for the housing melt-down being the fault of Republicans:
_________________________________________________
A little bit revisionist this morning, aren’t we?
Please try to get it right next time.
An observation –
Seems to me the intrinsic difference between how liberals and CONs approach issues is more significant than the actual minutia of policy and rhetoric.
Liberals tend, in my experience, look at a problem and try to look for solutions. Yeah, we’re probably hard-wired to look at big problem and seek big solutions which, perhaps too frequently, put us on an inside track to governmental approaches. It’s a big country, lots of people, and (largely due to Ronald Reagan and the Bush presidencies) the federal government is the biggest hippo in the living room.
CONs, on the other hand, look at an issue, come up with a “solution” that fits their prejudices and agendas, then seek to build a bridge between whatever problem and their pocketbooks.
“Deregulation” is a philosophical, almost theological, goal for the Republic Party. It’s the goal they always work toward, even in the face of abject failure (Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac, the SEC, Enron, the Wall Street bailout, the Tiahrt Amendment…). Oppressive regulation — such as reproductive rights — incongruously fits the Republic Party’s agenda for dragging the twice-born by their noses to the polls even when abstinence training results in more teen pregnancies than condom availability, for example.
“Since our previous publications have been basically censored by the news media, and I have now experienced scientific censorship (which I suppose was long overdue),I have decided to take my message to the people in a second book.”
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm
___________________________________________________
I hope you don’t choke Cos.
I can already see it:
Spencer wants to destroy the world along with the oil/coal industries.
When you can’t refute the facts, attack the messenger.
Can someone explain to me the purpose of OBama’s plan on payroll taxes?
Payroll taxes = FICA, or OASDI & Medicare
First, Obama has stated he wishes to increase the payroll tax on those making $250,000.00.
There is no present limit on Medicare, so Obama has to be talking about OASDI, or the social security payroll tax. Presently, most Americans are paying 12.4% of their salary to the federal government for Social Security payroll tax.. (6.2% from your employer for you and 6.2% from your salary).
Presently, the limit on having OASDI deducted from your payroll ends on income over $102K (106K in 2009).
So, Obama must be talking about “lifting” the $106K “cap” and continued withholding above that limit.
Question: But at what income? Obama said he would increase taxes for singles over 200K married (domestic partnerships?) over 250K.
Obama also promised NOT to raise taxes on the rest of Americans, those under those limits.
So what happens to those with income between
the present “cap” $106K through incomes up to $249,000.00?
Will Obama keep his promise?
Phantom
Posted December 22, 2008 at 10:22 am | Permalink
It’s the Bushonomy, stupid!
Toyota sees first operating loss
———-
Chuckle… I must have been sick the day Bush got named president of the world.
Roach is an idiot in the same manner as grmie.
“married (domestic partnerships?)”
Domestic partnerships are not recognized by the IRS. They are not allowed to file joint tax returns.
Nitwit
Can someone explain to me the purpose of OBama’s plan on payroll taxes?
So what is the purpose of increasing the government take from the wealthy?
Is it:
1. To keep the Social Security Trust Fund solvent? (something democrats won’t admit is a problem.)
2. To resolve the federal deficit spending?
3. To lower the national debt?
4. Direct redistribution of wealth?
Monkey always seems to be desperate to articulate some way he can claim intellectual superiority in the face of the overwhelmingly contrary evidence.
Keep working on it Monkey. Keep working.
Home ownership is not a right or an entitlement to anyone. It is a privilege to own a home. A privilege earned by hardworking people that have dedicated their efforts to live within a budget. When one fails in the basic principles of money management they will lose that privilege (foreclosure) or if they fail to meet those principles; homeownership will remain a distant dream.
The mindset of rights and entitlements is a fundamental flaw in the thoughts of those that are not willing to work or sacrifice for the accomplishment of the “American Dream.”
“So what is the purpose of increasing the government take from the wealthy?”
Of course, the amount of money you eventually receive from the Social Security Trust Fund, is based upon your earnings (withholdings). The more you make, the more you pay in, and the more you receive in benefits.
Since Obama is lifting the income limit “cap” on withholding OASDI, does this mean those at the higher end will continue to receive more using the existing formula?
Or will this be a straight redistribution of wealth?
“Can someone explain to me the purpose of OBama’s plan on payroll taxes?”
And now, at the other end of the spectrum, Obama is proposing “lifting” or ending the payroll tax deductions for those under $75,000.00.
So the plan is to increase the amount of money paid in at the top, and to completely end all taxes for those at the bottom.
In short, the plan is for Robin Hood (aka Obama) to rob from the rich and give to the poor.
I think Mr. Obama has explained his tax plan ideas pretty clearly by himself. Why on Earth would you ask the people you always disagree with to explain it to you? Why on Earth would anyone want to try to explain it to you?
Anyone wanna play a game of “Gotcha!”?
Domestic partnerships are not recognized by the IRS. They are not allowed to file joint tax returns.
No need to call names KsFarmGirl, although we all know your character.
Of course I realize you don’t post without name calling and degrading other posters. I’m told it’s because you have been the “victim” all these years.
Of course I am aware that there is no federal recognition of gays. I am in fact providing for a future where you will be on equal footing with those married. There is only positive in that.
So go ahead, do what you do best, and all you do here: Put people down because you feel you have been put down.
Talk gay and that’s about it.
Heheeh David. Roach answered it’s own question.
No need for explanation. Roach already knew the desired answer.
Note Monkeyhawk’s post.
Roach already had an answer, just needed to build a bridge to the “problem”.
I just love how the cons are so blissfully self unaware that they fail to see how they immediately confirm what is posted about them.
Why on Earth would anyone want to try to explain it to you?
===================
You can’t DavidB. Admit it. You have no idea what Obama’s plan is.
Because it has not been flushed out yet.
But again, (ho-hum) attack a conservative because you can.
But don’t lie about it. Admit you don’t have or know the answer.
I think Mr. Obama has explained his tax plan ideas pretty clearly
=======================================
O.K. DavidB, show me you know the answers.
Please provide a link to the answers on how the OASDI plan will be enacted?
Income between present cap $106 and $249,000.00.
What’s the plan stan?
Since you KNOW, it shouldn’t take you long to provide a link.
Domestic partnerships are what straight people get when they arent legally married.
I never said a damn word about gays.
Just that domestic parterships of any stripes are not recognized by the IRS. You think they will be under obama? Hehehe. HAHAHAHAH. But thanks for playing.
Heheheh. I see I touched a raw nerve. Just like someone else we know who’s nerves are always raw.
Calling you an idiot isnt making up a name. It’s a statement of fact.
So KsFarmGirl is admitting, the Obama plan to tax the wealthy (payroll tax), will NOT:
1. To keep the Social Security Trust Fund solvent? (something democrats won’t admit is a problem.)
2. To resolve the federal deficit spending?
3. To lower the national debt?
It doesn’t do a damn thing for this nation.
Calling you an idiot isnt making up a name
======================================
You did call me a nitwit, in the same original post you posted about domestic partnerships. You did so because you saw an association between my using the term – and gays.
I feel sorry for you.
There ya go Roachie, playing with yourself, I see!
Mr. Obama’s tax plan explanation to the American voters satisfied them enough to put him into the White House.
The Republican Smear Team’s tired and phony explanations you still mouth over and over were rejected by the electorate. But keep it up if it makes you happy.
“You think they will be under obama? ”
And yes, I used it because I do think it SHOULD be recognized by the IRS. And we should all pay taxes for the same priviledge as being married.
A positive approach. But call me names as you must.
Roach,
I think the term that you are looking for is “Social Reform” or more succintly defined: Socialism.
You know, help your fellow man; the one that has never tried to help himself. The one that has never worked hard a day in his life. The one that has never sought to educate or independantly improve their position in life by taking advantage of every opportunity that is already available to them.
Consider the Chinese proverb: “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.”
We need to quit giving the fish away and for those that are willing to try, let’s teach them to fish. Nothing good in life is free, one must be willing to pay the price, to earn the benefits of being an American citizen. To do anything less is un-American. Anything less is Socialist.
But keep it up if it makes you happy.
=======================================
You are clueless DavidB, and your continuing to post crap – clarifies that fact.
No link. No knowledge of the discussion item I put forth.
Why do you bother posting?
RoaCH
Posted December 22, 2008 at 10:40 am | Permalink
Can someone explain to me the purpose of OBama’s plan on payroll taxes?
So what is the purpose of increasing the government take from the wealthy?
Is it:
1. To keep the Social Security Trust Fund solvent? (something democrats won’t admit is a problem.)
2. To resolve the federal deficit spending?
3. To lower the national debt?
4. Direct redistribution of wealth?
————————-
What many don’t realize about what Obama says is that the truly rich that they think are going to pay higher taxes won’t be affected. FICA is paid on W2 wages and most of the truly ‘rich’ don’t receive theirs via the payroll avenue.
What we will see then are increased capital gains taxes. The inheritance tax reinacted for lower dollar levels. The spousal exemption to go away. This will make KFG happy.
In other words the other shoe is getting ready to drop and the truly rich are smart enough that they have moved their money off shore. We see this from the dems also. This is why the Kennedy trust is in Haiti. This is also why the market is dropping like a rock because people are taking their money and running.
As Obama and Biden said this will be a long process and recovery.
SS ‘trust fund’ will decline even further if they can even get the key back from Algore. He seems to be the only one who knows where the box is. Deficit spending will continue and increase. The national debt will grow and redistribution of wealth will begin.
So you support gay marriage?
Or just taxing our partnerships and ignoring the rest?
RoaCH
Posted December 22, 2008 at 10:54 am | Permalink
I think Mr. Obama has explained his tax plan ideas pretty clearly
=======================================
=========================
It’s now been about ten minutes: DavidB has no link to support his post.
There is no information on how the Obama plan will be administered.
He has proven himself to be a blind sheep following the flock with praise to Obama.
Baa-aa! Baaaa-aa~! Baaaaaaaa~!
Ten minutes. No source. No link.
DavidB zero
Roach one
ksfarmgrrl
==========================
I know this game. You do too.
Answer my posted questions first.
I posted them NOT to have a running battle.
I honestly wanted to know and discuss how Obama’s plan will affect my income, or the income of others.
DavidB the election is over. Your side won. Now we get to see what Obama does with the power he was given. Your demeaning language contributes nothing to the discussion. If you have an original thought please share it.
DavidB, you there?
The person who always carries a roach clip is well respected amongst peers.
Link please?
I’ve got all day.
You win. And I love your animal sound imitations! Very cute.
And I am so happy for you that you make so much money that you can spend so much time looking out for the interests of your fellow well-to-do.
The nuts and blots of the plan, of course, will be constructed in actual legislation in Washington. That’s when your boys can either join in to help the American people who are struggling, or keep trying to stifle any meaningful reform.
“We need to quit giving the fish away and for those that are willing to try, let’s teach them to fish.”
========================
CJM, that is the same cliche used during the Clinton administration when they decided to get on the side of republicans and support welfare reform.
Still applies.
The spousal exemption to go away.
========================================
What do yo mean by this? Filing married? Won’t that hurt everyone?
===========================================
the truly rich are smart enough that they have moved their money off shore.
==========================================
How do you do that? I’ve looked into it but my broker didn’t have a clue.
The nuts and blots of the plan, of course, will be constructed in actual legislation in Washington. ===============================
Well now DavidB maybe we can have a rational discussion?
============
join in to help the American people who are struggling, or keep trying to stifle any meaningful reform.
========================
I’m trying to join in, but the libs here just want to call names!
But your statement already has a foregone conclusion in it – which pretty well eliminates discussion/compromise.
Do you agree?
Roach, You simply liquidate your holdings in the market and buy into some venture that produces income in another country. They are also markets that sell European stocks and also have the home office of your trush holder be in another country. All of the proceeds go into the trust and you pay no income tax on these because it isn’t recogized as income in the US. You take the money in small enough withdrawals that you can live on but the trust income isn’t taxed only the income you withdraw.
Of course you might get caught as Charlie Rangel did when you collect the rent because it come to him personally instead of going through a trust.
Your broker wouldn’t be the one to ask because he loses money if he loses your account – it would be your lawyer.
The spousal exemption I was talking about was the inheritance exemption on the death of a spouse of $1M which is where it is now I believe.
An explanation of the mortage crisis. And you don’t have to be a banker to understand it.
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/37391/
Plenty of blame to go around. And pretty much all of that blame can be placed squarely on government.
Johnny Mathis
Winter Wonderland and Silent Night
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3mlNafPCRw&feature=related
No, no, I do not have the intellectual prowess to take you on! But please, make some more barnyard animal sound imitations!
I bet you can do a splendid pig! ;-)
You could do some reading on progressive ‘think tank’ sites like The Center for American Progress, at http://www.americanprogress.org/
Or you could stuck with the Robin Hood story and Matt Drudge. That might be easier for you, than trying to understand the thinking of progressives.
Hey Reg,
Do you think this may cause Cosmos’ head to implode?
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm
‘No, Joe, say it isn’t so’, Time agreeing with the farmgrrl:
“Obama has proved himself repeatedly to be a very tolerant, very rational-sounding sort of bigot.”
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1867664,00.html
donndublin posted December 22, 2008 at 10:31 am
I hope you don’t choke Cos.
——————–
Choke? Only from laughing too hard at donndublin’s inability to understand scientific methodology.
Actually Steve you have a gay columnist who writes for Time agreeing with KFG. This is surprising because?…..
It will be interesting to see how this plays out if indeed the planned demonstrations in DC take place.
I had some sympathies for KFG’s position until she attacked me and my faith repeatedly and in a rather obnoxious fashion. Now – not so much.
Let the battles begin – or carry on.
Roach. An answer in search of a queston.
I thought the WE was cracking down on spoofers?
Sounds like we just have some spoofers on crack.
Heheheh.
Steven. Dont you know, I’m the ONLY one who thinks obama is a high class bigot?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH
“I had some sympathies for KFG’s position”
Kinda like she said she’d vote for obama in the primaries?
I recall NO such thing. In fact, quite the opposite.
And let the record show, I am NOT the one who brought up gays on this thread.
Or the official NRA Version –
Give a man a fish and he’ll eat for a day.
Give a man a gun and he’ll go out and steal his own damned fish.
And it’s no “ancient Chinese proverb,” it’s a line from one of Ronald Reagan’s script-writers back when he was the governor of California.
It’s surprising okie dokie, because her views were characterized here as extreme and representing an infinitesimally small number of people. And, then we see essentially the same sentiment in a national magazine, hence, the surprise. Just one things that make some of us (at least) go “hmmmmmm….?”
Cos,
It’s obvious that you not only didn’t read the link but can’t distinguish real science from political propaganda.
“IF WE CAN’T EXPLAIN IT, IT MUST BE HUMAN-INDUCED.
The fact is, science doesn’t understand why these natural climate variations occur, and can not reliably distinguish between natural and possible human influences on global temperatures. So, if scientists have no other natural explanation for a warming trend, they tend to assume that it is manmade.
For instance, you might have heard claims to the effect that no peer-reviewed scientific study has refuted the claim that global warming is manmade. Well, there have indeed been some papers that have at least questioned the theory that our current warmth is manmade….but the publishing of alternative explanations is hindered by the fact that our long-term global climate observations (e.g. of cloud characteristics) are not good enough to measure the small changes that might offer an alternative explanation for our current warmth.
Science can not deal with what we can not measure. But scientists could at least admit to incomplete knowledge — unfortunately, most of them do not.
I can not overemphasize this — the theory that our current warmth is manmade is largely the result of not having good enough global observations over a long enough period of time to rule out natural causes. Therefore, the current widespread support for the theory of manmade global warming is NOT because the alternative explanations have been ruled out. It is because our poor understanding of natural climate variability does not yet permit alternative explanations to be investigated thoroughly.
Thus, while it is indeed possible to explain much of the warming over the last 100 years with manmade greenhouse gas increases, this is only one possible explanation — one that necessarily ignores or minimizes any natural sources of temperature variability.
As a result, our worries that global warming is manmade are directly related to how much faith we have that natural climate variations (for instance, a small decrease in low-level cloudiness) are not substantially contributing to our current warmth. Some scientists who believe in manmade global warming have asked me, “But what else could be causing the warmth?” Note that this is arguing, not from the evidence, but from a lack of evidence.
There is an old saying, “When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” Well, manmade global warming is our hammer, and so every change (nail) we see in the climate system gets attributed to mankind.”
Here is a nice example of Robin Hood in Bizarro World:
“The 116 banks that so far have received taxpayer dollars to boost them through the economic crisis gave their top tier of executives nearly $1.6 billion in salaries, bonuses and other benefits in 2007, an Associated Press analysis found.
That amount, spread among the 600 highest paid bank executives, would cover the bailout money given to 53 of the banks that have shared the $188 billion that Washington has doled out in rescue packages so far.”
When I heard McCain say, “Let’s give EVERYBODY a tax cut!”, I thought of these guys… (my thermostat is set to 61° as a high.)
-http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/22/bailedout-executives-got-_n_152773.html
#
cosmos_originally
Posted December 22, 2008 at 11:42 am | Permalink
donndublin posted December 22, 2008 at 10:31 am
I hope you don’t choke Cos.
——————–
Choke? Only from laughing too hard at donndublin’s inability to understand scientific methodology.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You got me there Cos, I don’t understand the “scientific methodology” of how your head is imploding.
ksfarmgrrl
Posted December 22, 2008 at 11:46 am | Permalink
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH
“I had some sympathies for KFG’s position”
Kinda like she said she’d vote for obama in the primaries?
I recall NO such thing. In fact, quite the opposite.
And let the record show, I am NOT the one who brought up gays on this thread.
——————-
Were you in the voting booth with me? It didn’t seem that crowded. BTW we have a prez and unlike the left I will rally behind that prez because I have the well being of our country at heart. I’m not a one vision voter. I see the whole picture and if SS marriages isn’t on my plate right now it is because there are some very serious economic problems facing us right now.
Steven I’m not saying there aren’t people upset by this decision but I am saying that it isn’t at the top of many’s worry lists.
DavidB just remember when you vote next election that our congressman and senator (Tiahrt and Roberts) didn’t vote for this bailout. They were very much against it and also the auto bailout. Isn’t that good to know?
Cos,
It’s obvious that you not only didn’t read the link but can’t distinguish real science from political propaganda.
——————
BECAUSE I read the link, I said that you are unable to understand scientific methodology.
Hank posted December 20, 2008 at 9:11 am (Open 12/20)
Flawed Science Advice for Obama?
—————————-
Hank,
If you want to remain IGNORANT about how stupid and inaccurate your copy/paste post is, do NOT read this, and the included links.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/john_tierneys_easterbrook_numb.php
No, Okie from Muskogee, the financial rescue packages were absolutely necessary! Tiahrt and Roberts should be ashamed of themselves for the cowardly positions they took.
Right sure DavidB. Then quit your whining about the bonus’ paid out. Can’t have it both ways.
I wasn’t for either bailout btw. Sometimes it hurts but is completely necessary and I think a controlled bankruptsy was the best thing for the autos.
As for the banks. This just allowed the biggest to eat up the little ones. It didn’t losen credit for most of the small ones nor did it help consumers for the most part.
“I’m trying to join in, but the libs here just want to call names!”
Because calling yourself “Roach” is the best way to show you demand respect.
#
cosmos_originally
Posted December 22, 2008 at 12:08 pm | Permalink
Cos,
It’s obvious that you not only didn’t read the link but can’t distinguish real science from political propaganda.
——————
BECAUSE I read the link, I said that you are unable to understand scientific methodology.
__________________________________________________
If indeed you read it, then your are obviously over your head in distinguishing real science from the junk science/propaganda you learned in copy/paste journalism class.
Junk science is dependent upon “shock and awe”.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/13/23557/437
okobserver posted December 22, 2008 at 12:19 pm
I wasn’t for either bailout btw. Sometimes it hurts but is completely necessary and I think a controlled bankruptsy was the best thing for the autos.
———————–
Foreign auto-makers use the same part suppliers as Detroit.
Detroit bankruptcies would probably bankrupt many of the suppliers, who are already hurting due to low demand. That would spread to the foreign auto-makers.
How do you have “controlled” bankruptcies under those conditions?
donndublin,
Thank you for again proving that you do NOT understand scientific methodology.
Cosmos the parts are still being produced as before they are just able to come to new terms with their crediors and any unions involved.
This give them some time to implement a better business model and enact it.
Cos,
Thank you for proving that “scientific methodology” is more than a word that non-scientific minds are brainwashed with.
http://www.dharma-haven.org/science/myth-of-scientific-method.htm
My mathematical and physical science expertise overwhelms you journalism credentials.
okobserver posted December 22, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Cosmos the parts are still being produced as before they are just able to come to new terms with their crediors and any unions involved
———————-
So the parts suppliers would not be hurt by being underpaid, and the delayed payments?
cosmos will claim man-made global warming even when an ice glacier is over the top of his grave.
donndublin posted December 22, 2008 at 12:59 pm
My mathematical and physical science expertise overwhelms you journalism credentials.
——————
Thank you for again proving that you do NOT understand scientific methodology, and that all you have is stupid, false ad hominems.
correction you = your (for the scientifically challenged)
“My mathematical and physical science expertise”
No egos involved here! whahahahahha!!!!!
Regular insists that changes in the Earth’s orbit during the last century are causing the warming since the mid 1970’s.
Cosmos there is a real world out there. Companies who can’t pay their bills either talk to their creditors and arrange different payment schedules or they go out of business. Fact.
The automakers are receiving our tax dollars to support a business plan that has failed. It has failed for a number of reasons. An influx of tax dollars will only delay the inevitable. It’s either that or the gov takes over and we enter a whole new era of government control of our lifes.
They need to remedy what ails them now.
Dublin…you are killing me! LOL! Where do you find these links? BTW your Spencer guy is a intelligent design guy…which (i am sure I will light a fire here)don’t usually follow the scientific method…no wonder he is not in the consensus.
Now merry xmas dublin…I am back to work. Keep trying. lol
Cos,
“Thank you for again proving that you do NOT understand scientific methodology, and that all you have is stupid, false ad hominems.”
____________________________________________________
If that’s all you have to say, I’ll accept you capitulation.
I have located a delightful news story which warm the cockles of someone’s heart:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,470893,00.html
Nearly four years ago, I observed a very ugly denizen of The Spirit One Christian Center proclaiming on video that post-abortive wimmin are “w-w-w-w-eeches.” (Got something ya wanna hock up if you’ve got the flu? Use yer slo-mo on this mother—ker. That’ll bring up your bratwurst in a hurry.)
I’m sorry. I realize I’m not being very pleasant. And I’m not living up to the ancient prophets’ ideal of servile ‘n silent womanhood. I’m trying to get in touch with my kinder, gentler side – I really and truly am. I’m trying to make a determined effort to watch my language.
But sometimes it doesn’t do any f–king good.
I’m sorry – but if some dude with his a$$ on his face belches a celluloid crapheap like that, he gonna live in a world of hurt.
And his “moral” admonitions are about as limp as a gravedigger’s d–k, if you ask me.
DavidB,
Didn’t you know that donndublin knows MORE about climate science than ALL of the worlds top climate scientists combined? And Regular is second most knowledgeable. /sarcasm OFF
okobserver posted December 22, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Cosmos there is a real world out there.
—————
Yes, there is. That’s why Toyota, Honda, etc were very concerned about what would happen to their companies and their part suppliers, if Detroit went bankrupt.
donndublin posted December 22, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Cos,
“Thank you for again proving that you do NOT understand scientific methodology, and that all you have is stupid, false ad hominems.”
____________________________________________________
If that’s all you have to say, I’ll accept you(sic) capitulation.
———————————-
It was not a capitulation, it was a factual statement.
#
DavosRancheros
Posted December 22, 2008 at 1:17 pm | Permalink
Dublin…you are killing me! LOL! Where do you find these links? BTW your Spencer guy is a intelligent design guy…which (i am sure I will light a fire here)don’t usually follow the scientific method…no wonder he is not in the consensus.
Now merry xmas dublin…I am back to work. Keep trying. lol
__________________________________________________
Hey amigo,
Why dose the AWG crowd always resort to attacking he messenger, scientific censorship, avoidance and “blame man so we can control him” when they can’t refute the data?
Feliz Navidad
I’ll be laughing while you freeze with your passive solar heating systems and riding your bikes this winter.
cosmos_originally
Posted December 22, 2008 at 1:28 pm | Permalink
___________________________________________________
Just like your belief that man is more powerful than the earth or NATURE.
donndublin posted December 22, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Just like your belief that man is more powerful than the earth or NATURE.
——————
And now donndublin resorts to LYING about what I believe.
I believe that anthropogenic GHG’s and land use changes are causing a slow warming, which are/will be amplified by positive natural feedbacks.
Orbital changes (Milankovitch) were very weak, but the feedbacks (albedo and CO2 increase) eventually caused very significant changes.
Unbelievable !!!!!
Police Chief Pleads Not Guilty in Boy’s Uzi Death Monday, December 22, 2008
SPRINGFIELD, Mass. — A police chief in western Massachusetts pleaded not guilty Monday to involuntary manslaughter in the death of an 8-year-old boy who accidentally shot himself with an Uzi at a gun show.
Pelham Chief Edward Fleury owns COPS Firearms & Training, which promoted the October show where Christopher Bizilj shot himself in the head.
Fleury’s lawyer, David Kuzmeski, also entered not guilty pleas on Fleury’s behalf to four counts of furnishing a machine gun to a person under 18. Fleury did not appear at the arraignment in Hampden Superior Court.
Fleury could face up to 20 years in prison if convicted of involuntary manslaughter and up to 10 years if convicted of furnishing the weapon to a minor.
“We’re very disappointed that he’s been indicted,” Kuzmeski said after the arraignment. “We’re optimistic with our defenses. Of course, everybody is just feeling terrible about this accident. Mr. Fleury’s sympathies go out to the family.”
The boy, from Ashford, Conn., was killed Oct. 26 when he lost control of the 9mm micro submachine gun as it recoiled while he was firing at a pumpkin at the Machine Gun Shoot and Firearms Expo. Christopher’s father was 10 feet behind him and reaching for his camera when the child fired the weapon.
Pelham has appointed an acting police chief while Fleury remains on sick leave until Jan. 6.
District Attorney William Bennett has said Fleury wrongly assured two men who brought the weapon to Westfield Sportsman’s Club that it was legal for children to use under Massachusetts law.
Carl Giuffre of Hartford, Conn., and Domenico Spano of New Milford, Conn., were charged with involuntary manslaughter and pleaded not guilty last week.
The club, where the gun show was held, pleaded not guilty to involuntary manslaughter Monday.
“We maintain our position that no one acting on behalf of the club furnished any weapon to the people in question,” said Thomas Drechsler, the club’s attorney. “There was no reckless, wanton conduct on the part of the club.”
“ALL of the worlds top climate scientists combined?”
Are you talking about the IPCC, Algore and other Globalists who CENSOR thousands of studies and cherry picking only those that support their agenda.
“INCOMPLETE UNDERSTANDING OF A COMPLEX PROBLEM: All climate modelers must build their models based upon our current understanding of how the climate system works. Therefore, if there is some important – but as yet poorly understood – process that they are missing, they will all tend to make the same error. Past evidence for this is the tendency for climate models to drift away from a realistic climate over time. This suggests that it takes a higher level of understanding to capture the intricate processes that stabilize the climate system.
The most important example of this lack of understanding is, in my view, how precipitation systems control the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect, over 90% of which is due to water vapor and clouds. The Earth’s total greenhouse effect is not some passive quantity that can be easily modified by mankind adding a little carbon dioxide — it is instead being constantly limited by precipitation systems, which remove water vapor and adjust cloud amounts to keep the total greenhouse effect consistent with the amount of available sunlight. Our understanding of this limiting process is still quite poor, and likely not represented in climate models.
(April 19, 2008 update): I am becoming increasingly convinced that the main reason climate models produce so much global warming is because of a mixing up of cause and effect when climate researchers observe cloud and temperature variability in the real climate system. In “feedback analysis”, it is always assumed that cloud variability is 100% the result of temperature variability, when in fact causation also flows in the opposite direction. Not accounting for this effect can lead to climate models built upon cause and effect assumptions which then result in the models producing too much warming.”
Come on Cos and Davos, whats your “scientific methodology” rebuttal?
“I see the whole picture and if SS marriages isn’t on my plate right now it is because there are some very serious economic problems facing us right now.”
* * * * *
I see, too. Because we have economic problems brought to us by the buffoonery of your party, that means we can ignore civil rights injustices. Okay, any other brilliance you care to bestow on the rest of us? I don’t know how we’ve made this long without your help.
#
cosmos_originally
Posted December 22, 2008 at 1:46 pm | Permalink
I believe that anthropogenic GHG’s and land use changes are causing a slow warming, which are/will be amplified by positive natural feedbacks.
__________________________________________________
“The theory that mankind is causing recent global warming is based upon the fact that our greenhouse gas emissions (mainly carbon dioxide) are causing a very small enhancement (about 1%) of the Earth’s natural ‘greenhouse effect’. The greenhouse effect refers to the trapping of infrared (heat) radiation by water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, methane, and a few other minor greenhouse gases (see Fig. 4). You can think of the greenhouse effect as a sort of ‘blanket’ — a radiative blanket. The natural greenhouse effect makes the lower atmosphere warmer, and the upper atmosphere cooler, than it would otherwise be without the greenhouse effect. The role of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere’s greenhouse effect is relatively small, due to the fact that CO2 is a ‘trace gas’ — only 38 out of every 100,000 molecules of air are carbon dioxide. It takes a full five years of human greenhouse gas emissions to add 1 molecule of CO2 to every 100,000 molecules of air.”
________________________________________________
Man can not do a laboratory experiment to determine how the Earth will respond to mankind’s addition of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.
From “The Agitator”:
A pair of gay penguins thrown out of their zoo colony for repeatedly stealing eggs have been given some of their own to look after following a protest by animal rights groups.
Last month the birds were segregated after they were caught placing stones at the feet of parents before waddling away with their eggs.
But angry visitors to Polar Land in Harbin, northern China, complained it wasn’t fair to stop the couple from becoming surrogate fathers and urged zoo bosses to give them a chance.
In response, zookeepers gave the pair two eggs laid by an inexperienced first-time mother.
‘We decided to give them two eggs from another couple whose hatching ability had been poor and they’ve turned out to be the best parents in the whole zoo,’ said one of the keepers.
‘It’s very encouraging and if this works out well we will try to arrange for them to become real parents themselves with artificial insemination.’
Interesting. . .
‘Mosquito blood ‘identifies thief’ ‘
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7795725.stm
donndublin posted December 22, 2008 at 2:20 pm
The role of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere’s greenhouse effect is relatively small, due to the fact that CO2 is a ‘trace gas’ — only 38 out of every 100,000 molecules of air are carbon dioxide.
—————-
LOL!
donndublin seems to believe that only the percentage of a gas in Earth’s atmosphere determines its “role” as a GHG.
http://www.epa.gov/highgwp/scientific.html#sf6
“Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6)
The global warming potential of SF6 is 23,900, making it the most potent greenhouse gas the IPCC has evaluated.”
cosmos_originally
Posted December 22, 2008 at 2:58 pm | Permalink
The global warming potential of SF6 is 23,900, making it the most potent greenhouse gas the IPCC has evaluated.”
__________________________________________________
Cos is still believes that the IPCC and Algore are scientists.
Here’s more of their junk science.
http://nominister.blogspot.com/2008/02/arctic-ice-returns-to-normal.html
“global warming POTENTIAL or GWP” = EXPONENTIAL SPECULATION
“GWPs are calculated as the ratio of the radiative forcing that would result from the emissions of one kilogram of a greenhouse gas to that from emission of one kilogram of carbon dioxide over a period of time (usually 100 years). Gases involved in complex atmospheric chemical processes have not been assigned GWPs due to complications that arise.”
__________________________________________________
I couldn’t help but notice that H2O or water vapor was conspicuously left out of the IPCC GWP calculations.
“Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. Not only are its infrared absorption features widespread and strong, but it displays a significant continuum absorption. Thus, while not one of the “gases of concern” in the sense of anthropogenic modification, the feedbacks engendered by the higher water content of a warmer atmosphere (and, potentially, greater cloud cover) are a vital element of these studies. Furthermore, water vapor, through continua centered at 100 and 1600 cm-1, is a crucial element in the radiative balance of the upper troposphere. TES routinely measures humidity (water vapor) profiles with a precision better than 10%.”
source:
http://tes.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/climateroles/
donndublin posted December 22, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Cos is still believes that the IPCC and Algore are scientists.
——————
donndublin, why do you LIE so often?
The IPCC does not do climate science — they compile the published research done by scientists worldwide.
Al Gore does not claim to be a scientist — he reports their research.
And this may be too difficult for you to understand, but thin one-year Arctic sea ice melts easier and faster than thicker multi-year ice.
looks like mr. dublin had to return to his padded room, where he can bang his head into the wall safely. LOL
Currently 162 “Catholic” U.S. congressmen support abortion, in contradiction to their “professed faith.” That’s because the abortion lobby has spent $9 million buying up these “lawmakers,” making the average price of converting a “Catholic” congressman to the support of contract murder $55,555.55.
If we consider, say, the 13 million or so mangled, dismembered, poisoned, and beheaded babies over just the last 10 years, their untimely demise having been enabled and encouraged by these “legislators,” that means a “Catholic” U.S. congressman selling his soul to the abortion industry rakes in about 69 cents for each dead baby.
Such is the value of human life in our federal government.
- – -
Ashley Truitt, 19, of Iowa, tossed her minutes-old baby girl down a garbage chute at a Pompano Beach, FL hotel on June 2, 2007. The infant was killed by a blow to the head after falling 70 feet. Truitt had faced up to 30 years in prison for first-degree murder. She was sentenced by Broward Circuit Judge Mily Rodriguez-Powell to 13 years for a guilty plea to aggravated manslaughter of a child.
#
cosmos_originally
Posted December 22, 2008 at 3:58 pm | Permalink
donndublin posted December 22, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Cos is still believes that the IPCC and Algore are scientists.
————————————————–
donndublin, why do you LIE so often?
The IPCC does not do climate science — they compile the published research done by scientists worldwide.
Al Gore does not claim to be a scientist — he reports their research.
And this may be too difficult for you to understand, but thin one-year Arctic sea ice melts easier and faster than thicker multi-year ice.
_________________________________________________
The IPCC and Algore are cherry pickers. They seem to be your source along with anonymous science bloggers and junk science web sites. The AGW artic ice THEORY is only substantiated by 30 years of data. Didn’t you use that same 30 year period in one of your posts?
Nice try chas the spas. Is that what you and cos call “scientific methodology?
” but thin one-year Arctic sea ice melts easier and faster than thicker multi-year ice.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“And this may be too difficult for you to understand,”
There may be more “thicker multi-year ice” to come.
I wouldn’t bet the farm on either one if I were you.
cosmos_originally
Posted December 22, 2008 at 2:58 pm | Permalink
The global warming potential of SF6 is 23,900, making it the most potent greenhouse gas the IPCC HAS EVALUATED.”
____________________________________________________
Cosmos, “why do you LIE so often?”
Evaluation and publishing are not the same thing.
I will respect your OPINION no matter how illogical it is and not LABEL them as “LIES”. You’d better take your canned “scientific methodology” somewhere that won’t make you look so ignorant. It also makes you look childish.
george: A bit late to bring this up, but the longest skating ring in the world is the Rideau Canal which rings the City of Ottawa. Each year it freezes later and later and to-day it was noted it still hasn’t frozen over to allow the good burghers to go skating.
Here is a source that Cos likes to use as “scientific methodology.
http://doubletap.cs.umd.edu/WikipediaStudy/lambert.htm
“Irregularities in Lambert’s handling of “information” in the course of discussing these topics at several web sites make clear he is not interested in debating the merits of issues, but simply driving his own advocacy positions into acceptance as “truth.”
Lambert runs the Deltoid rumor monger blog.
I’ll accept your capitulation are go home now.
Bush’s Iraqi sole mate reportedly beaten and tortured in jail and forced to write a letter of apology.
Worth the fighting for?
donndublin,
I’m sorry that you are unable to understand simple facts.
The IPCC “evaluated” the published papers on GHG’s done by scientists, and found that SF6 had the highest GWP.
I have a question for the group. Is there any such thing as being ‘too ethical”?
“Is there any such thing as being ‘too ethical”?”
——–
“ethical:
Being in accordance with the accepted principles of right and wrong that govern the conduct of a profession.
1. of or based on a system of moral beliefs about right and wrong
2. in accordance with principles of professional conduct
3. of or relating to ethics”
————
No.
I can imagine a person being too blunt in an attempt to be honest, maybe inflicting hurt unnecessarily, but I can’t think of any situation where someone would be ‘too ethical.’
So is an accepted principle ethical if everyone does it, even if it is wrong?
Let us hope the bailout for the automakers has a few more controls and open records for the public than the bank bailout fiasco.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,470824,00.html
The plan now is for the both GM and Chrysler to reject the Bush bailout because of the call for employees to be part of the solution (rather than to continue to be part of the problem).
They will take the free money – but wait until Obama takes charge and the full democrat congress before whining for a negotiated settlement. The settlement will likely include US Taxpayers funding the rosy healthcare insurance plan for auto workers. This saves the union, which took over the pension/future payments and the company from future liabilities.
There are no liabilities for these companies anymore.
Just for us poor taxpayers!
“So is an accepted principle ethical if everyone does it, even if it is wrong?”
—-
Probably, to at least some. Look at all the subjects we disagree about here on the blog, accepted by some and unacceptable by others.
“I have a question for the group. Is there any such thing as being ‘too ethical’?”
Do you have a specific question? A good general reference for medical/helping professions:
http://ethics.iit.edu/codes/health.html
I couldn’t live with myself if I used the ‘everyone else does it’ measure of ethics I guess.
No, I’m not talking anything illegal that would be in the solidly black white area. More of the gray areas.
Things that aren’t good practice and somewhat devious, but not illegal.
My ethics are pretty situational. I tend to weight toward the greater good or towards folks not getting hurt.
I just hate that. I wish the world were a little different sometimes. That’s all.
donndublin posted December 22, 2008 at 5:07 pm
There may be more “thicker multi-year ice” to come.
I wouldn’t bet the farm on either one if I were you.
——————
Thicker multi-year Arctic sea ice is very unlikely during the next decade, unless there is cooling caused by a major volcanic eruption.
* AGW is causing the fastest warming at the upper Northern latitudes, as the climate models earlier predicted.
* Arctic sea ice extent has been declining the last 30 years. The decline in extent, and volume, sharply increased during the last 2 years.
donndublin posted December 22, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Here is a source that Cos likes to use as “scientific methodology.
—————–
Hey! A two-for-one!
donndublin again lies about me, AND he again proves that he does not understand “scientific methodology”.
A “methodology” = a system of methods, NOT a “source”.
• cosmos_originally
Posted December 22, 2008 at 6:41 pm | Permalink
donndublin,
I’m sorry that you are unable to understand simple facts.
The IPCC “evaluated” the published papers on GHG’s done by scientists, and found that SF6 had the highest GWP.
________________________________________________________________________
Evaluate:
1. To ascertain or fix the value or worth of.
2. To examine and judge carefully; appraise.
3. Mathematics To calculate the numerical value of; express numerically
I would say it’s more like smoke and mirrors than evaluation, especially when they ignore this common analysis of SF6.
Source: wikipedia
“Its concentration can be measured with satisfactory accuracy at very low concentrations, and the Earth’s atmosphere has a negligible concentration of SF6.”
Since it’s most common use is in electrical equipment, perhaps you should quit using your computer and go back to living in a cave if you believe it’s going to destroy the earth.
________________________________________________________________________
#
cosmos_originally
Posted December 23, 2008 at 12:25 am | Permalink
donndublin again lies about me, AND he again proves that he does not understand “scientific methodology”.
A “methodology” = a system of methods, NOT a
“source”.
________________________________________________________________________
Why did you wait so long before you replied Cos? Did you have wait on your boss or teacher to get the answer. Go tell your mentor this. In my 35 years of professional practice, I’ve forgotten more about “scientific methodology” than you’ve ever read much less comprehend.
If you believe that anybody who disagrees with you is lying then you must think that YOU have a monopoly on the truth. Again you have proved that your belief system is based more on faith than science.
I would say it’s more like smoke and mirrors than evaluation, especially when they ignore this common analysis of SF6.
…
—————-
I NEVER claimed that SF6 was a strong factor in AGW. I used it as an example to show that different molecules have different GWP’s, to refute your false claim from Spencer.
donndublin posted,
In my 35 years of professional practice, I’ve forgotten more about “scientific methodology” than you’ve ever read much less comprehend.
—————
Your posts show that you’ve forgotten EVERYTHING about it.
donndublin posted,
If you believe that anybody who disagrees with you is lying then you must think that YOU have a monopoly on the truth.
—————
You didn’t “disagree” with me, you LIED about what I believe. And if you’re not lying about AGW science, then you’re very ignorant and misinformed about it.