POST SCRIPTS

"Se Habla Espanol."

Just can't restrain yerself, can ya?

And it does not "give special loans". It makes 400,000 homeowners eligible for restructured loans from their lenders IF THE LENDER CHOOSES TO DO SO, which is a huge IF.

And then, 400,000 is a little shy of the 3 million foreclosures projected. We is in deep doodoo. But the bill should forestall a crash ... for the time being.

Who cares about the homeowners?
There's investors to protect!
Thank God the investors will keep their investements so they can donate ANOTHER 200 MILLION DOLLARS TO INCUMBENTS this election season.
Jack, I think Tina is right--I'm gonna vote Republican; AFTER I buy some some mortgage company stocks.
I can't stop the insanity--I may as well profit off of it.

Dear Libby, I just read your statement and you are so right. I don't know who you are but thank you for supporting President Bush and his loan program, we need more conservatives like you!

Punishing bad economic practices, through bail outs, generally encourages a continuation of bad economic practices.

This is a bad call.

Almost as bad as when government intervened in the first place.

I absolutely agree with Nick. Government has no business in business. Government should have a very limited role in our lives. Almost everytime it interfers there is the law of unforeseen consequences...in other words good intentions run amuck. There are only a few times when I feel we need government to do anything for us. Bush and the Republicans in Congress have grown government dramatically and we have very little to show for it, except some mold infested trailers in New Orleans. This spending track record is making it very difficult for voters to get behind the Republicans trying to hang on to the White House. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are about the only reasons we have left to vote the GOP ticket. Thank goodness we have them helping us out, because we sure can't do much for our own cause.

There are so many home loans on the market these days with an increasing variety of rates, fees and features that it really pays to shop around. Thanks for the info!

You guys have no imagination. And it's a shame that most of the people who lived through the last depression (and can tell you what jerks you're being) have passed.

My Granny (who has indeed passed) was a girl ... and she, her four sisters and parents were on the road, literally. And they got damned lucky. They came upon an abandoned school campus in Oregon, and the owner let them live on the property while my great-grandfather, who was a carpenter, did renovation/maintenance on the buildings for grocery money.

Idealism is all very well (poor George, I know it pained him to sign that thing), but we just can't have 100 million people on the road.

Libby, there is a good case to be made that government intervention at the behest of Republicans in 1929 and then by democrats 1930-40 is what ensured that you granny would be on the street.

Is the issues here the problem or the solution?

Should the solution be the best one, or the one you feel you can control the easiest?

Honestly asking.

Because it seems as if policy through government force is your solution to most of these problems.

I'm just wondering why you think it is both appropriate and effective?

Wasn't communist Russia or fascist Italy in 1933 the end all of what you desire?

If not, can you explain.

Libby, Many of us also have parents and grandparents who "survived" the depression. My father was lucky too. His mother worked as a hairdresser. Many of her clients were wealthy people (who tipped her and treated her with kindness) after she lost her husband to the flu epidemic when my dad was just 18 mo old. My mother was not as fortunate. They lived off of a civil war pension (yes my mothers dad was a vet of that war) and the 50 cents a week her mom made cleaning houses. They (seven kids) went without food on more than one occasion and did the cardboard in the shoes bit and used corncobs for TP. Her mother sacrificed her health for her children. My mom had a lot of "tough times" stories to tell. She made it very clear that it made them strong...they found a way...she learned she could do anything she set her mind to doing.

The quickest way to send us into a similar situation (as the depression) is to increase the size and reach of government, increase taxes, and punish the people that create wealth and provide jobs.

Please keep in mind as we listen to all the hype about the economy that something like 98% of the people are making their house payments and the economy is continuing in a growth cycle, however slight. It's an election year and demiocrats want us to believe the sky is falling. they will do all in their considerable power to make it seem so.

"Idealism is all very well (poor George, I know it pained him to sign that thing), but we just can't have 100 million people on the road."

"Idealism" run amok is believing you can kill the goose that laid the golden egg and then provide all needs to all citizens. The tap dries up when you choke off the source...Russia found that out and after spending 40 years of dependence on government...the population is drunk on vodka, suffering from std's and infertility and totally unmotivated to work...what an ideal!

People in our free nation who survived the depression fought WWII and then came home and created jobs and industry and wealth as had never been seen before. Now tell me, which ideal is better, a self-reliant population that privately cares for the truly needy or the heavy hand of government as desplayed by the soviet Union where everyone is soon needy and helpless? NO BRAINER!

"They came upon an abandoned school campus in Oregon, and the owner let them live on the property while my great-grandfather, who was a carpenter, did renovation/maintenance on the buildings for grocery money."

Notice it was the private sector that came to the rescue.

"Libby, there is a good case to be made that government intervention at the behest of Republicans in 1929 and then by democrats 1930-40 is what ensured that your granny would be on the street."

This doesn't even make any sense. How could policy enacted AFTER the crash cause the thing! The Great Depression originated in wildly speculative capitalism, the same thing that's originating this next one.

And the rest of your post does seem to be a thorough-going refusal to confront the possiblity of the 100 million in the road. GW was able to, bless him, and his signing the bill still may not solve the problem. It may very well only put it off. But we owe it to the 100 million to put it off as long as we can.

We owe it to you, in fact. You wouldn't like to have starving people on your lawn.

Well Libby.

I think that you may be confused as to when the initial crash took place. (September 3rd 1929) And when the market finally stopped its free fall. (8 July 1932).

When looking at this period of history it is inappropriate to support policy based off of one day of a 10 year period. days similar to 3 Sep 29 had happened before, and had been weathered. the real question is what was different about Black Thursday and the other times such an event had taken place.

Leading up to the crash there had been a great deal of economic speculation, just like there was concerning the .coms in the 90's. But what is your solution Libby? Dont let investors put their money in the companies they want to? How exactly does that help business create jobs with "livable wages".

The notion that Hoover didn't drastically interfere in the economy after the crash simply isn't so.

The Smoot-Hawely tariff of 1929 was incredibly instrumental in deepening the depression.

Wild speculation on the other hand takes place consistently throughout our nations history, so to blame it for the length and detestation of the crash doesn't make a great deal of historical sense.

Again it is the correlation vs. causation debate. It was certainly easier to blame speculators, like it is today, but market speculation is an essential part of the economy.

In fact there are many forms of "speculation" that we don't seem to want to identify as such. A farmer speculates that the cost of his seed at purchase will be less than the price of the crop at time of delivery.

And again how can you limit the current economic situation to "wildly speculative capitalism" when we have had a great deal of government intervention in it. Like I don't know, the Fed, etc.

As far as 100 million people in the road, where do you get that figure?

Now how did government handle drastic adjustments in the market prior to black Tuesday. It certainly wasn't the first time that the market had taken a dive. Yet prior to Hoover the government largely stayed out of the way and let the market adjust. The end result was very hard times for some people, but over a much shorter period of time (2 yrs) or so.

The Great depression lasted from 1929 till WWII. And was marked by the kind of government intervention you suggest, almost from the get go. So the question is not how to prevent markets from making adjustments. You will never be able to stop that in a free society. The question is, what is the best way to deal with it when it happens. The 1930's proved a drastic example of what happens when the government attempts to control the market in order to "help people".

I highly recommend "the Forgotten man" by Amity Shale and "FDR's Folly" by Jim Powell. Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell also touches on some Great Depression myths.

Now clearly capitalism is not perfect, because people are not perfect. That is why I'm a little confused by your notion that while 300 million people taking care of their individual finances is imperfect, government taking care of our finances for us will yield a more positive result.

Where is your evidence that this is the case.

But please do not keep repeating that people will starve in the streets without constant government intervention. The countries with the largest starvation problems in the world, also happen to be the ones where government controls the market for "the good of the people".

Nick: But please do not keep repeating that people will starve in the streets without constant government intervention.

Dang, but you need to get out more. I wouldn't call India's government at all interventionist. They haven't got the cash to be interventionist with. People die in the road, daily ... hourly.

Then you can head down into Africa, where some governments are highly "interventionist", but not in a very kindly way: Sundan, Zimbabwe.

Intervention really isn't the issue. Paying attention ... this is the thing. I did do some reading on the many theories re the cause of the Great Depression. The one thing they all agree on was that our government wasn't paying attention.

Libby, if you were refering to global rather than national conditions, I apologize for not reading your comments more closely.

But I am afraid that a global perspective does not improve your position. As there are numerous examples of governments which apply your economic solutions to the great peril of their people. Yet I am hard pressed to find one government that applies the economic policies I espouse which deal with the same problems that yours do. Unless we take as an example a country who has only recently converted from your economic preferences to mine.

Libby, you will find that India has been very interventionist for quite some time and are only lately easing up economic restrictions, with HUGE success. resulting in a greater standard of living for people in India, heretofor unheard of in that part of the world.

furthermore,

You claim I need to get out more...

Ok here is a list of places I have been and had a chance to observe the economic policies and their effects on the populace:

Ireland, Great Britain, France, Germany, Kuwait, Iraq, Japan, Philippines, Thailand, Bangladesh, South Korea, Mexico and of course, here in our own great Country, where I have visited the following States:

New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Texas, Nebraska, Illinois, Kansas, Iowa, Colorado, Utah, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Wyoming, Nevada, and of course beautiful California.

So I'm not sure that isolation has been a problem.

And again, I don't think that I ever said that I thought that government inattention was the problem. I believe I stated that inappropriate government intervention is.

Furthermore, I don't think that you really believe that "paying attention" was the problem or the solution.

Paying attention is simply a question of observation.

I doubt based off of you other writings that if the government had merely observed the crash, you would have been ok with that course of action.

I am afraid that you have confused my argument with someone else's and have therefore answered questions which do not seem to apply to our discussion.

Could we return to our conversation and the points brought up in my last post?

Whoa...back up a bit.

Nick said: "Leading up to the crash there had been a great deal of economic speculation, just like there was concerning the .coms in the 90's.

I'm intruding into your argument a bit but you have to admit, I'm "paying attention".

I'd just like to point out the significant difference in the way the press and dems handled the .com "bubble" and the recession that followed at the end of BC's presidency and this downturn that has yet to see 2 consecutive negative growth quarters:

Under Bill Clinton: just a "bubble"...nothing to be concerned about...it'll pass (maintaining the hero worship) and trying to push the recession into GWB's pocket!

Under George Bush: we are all going to die...we're headed into depression...millions starving in the streets...everyone losing their homes (GWB is a total failure and we need tax increases and more regulation) Democrats are better at running the economy...blah blah and blah

We cannot easily win wars without the will to do so...the will of the people is key to economies as well.

Why are the press, democrats in Congress and wealthy socialist activists doing all they can to depress the people in front of the next election and why did they do just the opposite at the end of Bill Clinton's presidency?

Tina, you're not really trying to compare the dot.com bubble to this? To compare some thousands of people losing their jobs to 2-plus million losing their homes. Intel, Google and the rest of them lost some bucks, but nothing like the billions that have evaporated in the last six months. Sorry, won't fly.

The comparison I was making was the media coverage and hype during an election season and the fact that the actual recession that occured at the end of Clintons term was flatly denied while this economy...which has yet to see two consecutive quarters of negative growth (recession) has been compared to a depression.

They want people to believe it is much worse than it is which is highly irrisponsible.

And the 2+ million were not all poor little families...some were people who bought the homes on speculation in order to flip them for profit. I repeat, something like 96-98 percent of home owners are paying their mortgages. People are losing jobs but people lose jobs all the time. The numbers of jobless were very low for most of Bush's term so this is again more hype.

The problems we are facing have to do mostly with criminals and low lifes in positions of authority...many of whom are democrats. Certainly the oil situation is greatly effecting the economy and dems are blocking and have blocked production of oil (or nuclear) for decades.

Such random flailing. Where ever shall I begin?

"media coverage and hype during an election season"

Wachovia $8.9 billion ... hardly media hype.

"and the fact that the actual recession that occured at the end of Clintons term was flatly denied"

No, I remember it vividly. The fact is, I was only marginally employed throughout the whole of Mr. Clinton's presidency, media hype notwithstanding.

"while this economy...which has yet to see two consecutive quarters of negative growth (recession) has been compared to a depression."

We have some historical experience, at this point, and we know what we're lookin' at.

"And the 2+ million were not all poor little families...some were people who bought the homes on speculation in order to flip them for profit."

Now this is REALLY random, and feeble.

"I repeat, something like 96-98 percent of home owners are paying their mortgages."

Very likely: 3 million out of 300 million, well, take away 100 million for children, another 100 million for renters ... but 3 million dispossessed is not to be sneezed at. The social repercussions will be formidable.

"People are losing jobs but people lose jobs all the time. The numbers of jobless were very low for most of Bush's term so this is again more hype."

Actually, no. 4.5 is considered quite high. But as the unemployment rate has indeed been right around that for the whole of Bush's presidency ... well, we've just accepted it. Under Republicans, you don't work.

"The problems we are facing have to do mostly with criminals and low lifes in positions of authority...many of whom are democrats."

But not Senator Stevens. And not Mr. DeLay neither. No.

"Certainly the oil situation is greatly effecting the economy and dems are blocking and have blocked production of oil (or nuclear) for decades."

Tina, you volunteer your backyard for waste storage and, well, hell, we is all for it!

Libby i want you to watch something very closely. I am going to look at your comments, analyze them and then present a response:

Libby says:Actually, no. 4.5 is considered quite high. But as the unemployment rate has indeed been right around that for the whole of Bush's presidency ... well, we've just accepted it. Under Republicans, you don't work.

5% unemployment is considered Full employment. Please look it up. Unemployment has been fairly low during the Bush years. I am afraid that you made a quick comment on a verifiable fact and have been found wanting.

Libby: We have some historical experience, at this point, and we know what we're lookin' at.

What do you mean by this? We do have historical examples but that doesn't change the definition of a recession. You are absolutely correct if you mean we have historical examples of a recession; that is in fact how we came up with the definition, and our current economy has not yet met the requirements.

So your response here is not right...it is not even wrong. Its just...useless.

Libby says: Tina, you volunteer your backyard for waste storage and, well, hell, we is all for it!

So what are you saying? You prefer fossil fuels to Nuclear energy which is much cleaner and more efficient?

Libby says: Very likely: 3 million out of 300 million, well, take away 100 million for children, another 100 million for renters ... but 3 million dispossessed is not to be sneezed at. The social repercussions will be formidable.

So you are claiming that 3 million people will be "thrown into the streets" because they lose their homes. Or do you think they will probably just rent? I have had family that lost their home, but they weren't "thrown into the street". Thats not what losing your home usually means. It means you can no longer afford to live in the home you have due to your inability to pay. It doesn't mean you automatically lose your job. It means you have to settle for something less.

And for the vast majority of that 3 million, that will mean downgrading, not homelessness. generally speaking when someone losses their home due to a housing market fluctuation, it is because they bought allot of house at the peak of the market. This instance was greatly exaggerated due to government involvement in the financial industry.

Libby where do you get this stuff?

You really need to work on your correlation vs. causation argument.

Ok, so you see how that worked Libby. I addressed YOUR questions and statements.

I didn't make up statements or questions for you and then disingenuously answer them as if I really had a handle on things.

Now if you could do the same for me. I would really appreciate it.

Thanks Nick...nicely done. You demonstrated how LIbby is perfectly aligned with a liberal media that hypes news against republicans and in favor of democrats. Sensationalising the story or ignoring it works unless people take the time to find out for themselves.

Please notice that Libby brings up Mr. Stevens while ignoring completely democrats who are being investigated...Chicago is full of them (Obamas buds)...Jeffords has completely gone off the radar. Clinton buddies Gorelic and ??? can't recall the other name...must not have heard it much in the NEWS!

Tina, you volunteer your backyard for waste storage and, well, hell, we is all for it!

Storage is no more a problem than is trying to run an entire country (the world) on wind or solar power. I get this mental image of acres and acres of windmills with a wire hooked up to a single weak little light bulb...that's pretty close to the level of where we are with alternative energy sources.

We need a reasonable approach that includes all possible solutions...we need oil until something better comes along that can actually work...and we need to allow the transition, if it happens, to take place naturally. It can't be forced.

Tina: "Please notice that Libby brings up Mr. Stevens while ignoring completely democrats who are being investigated...Chicago is full of them (Obamas buds)...Jeffords has completely gone off the radar. Clinton buddies Gorelic and ??? can't recall the other name...must not have heard it much in the NEWS!"

I was trying to point out, one more time, how pointless is all this partisan horsepucky, but you will not see it. It's not Republican corruption; it's not Democratic corruption ... It's CORRUPTION ... !!!!

Ah, Nick ... you denied the fact that 4.5 is high unemployment (big news); you denied that losing your home constitutes dispossession (no more than I'd expect); you denied that nuclear energy creates unmanageable waste (I wasn't really expecting Tina to volunteer).

And you were otherwise generally disparaging. So what?

"I was trying to point out, one more time, how pointless is all this partisan horsepucky, but you will not see it."

I can see that bickering is often pointless but I'd like you to defend the idea that partisan debate is horsepucky.

If you don't want to participate you don't have to. On the other hand you might have something to say that others have not considered. So what is it about "partisan" bickering that bothers you so much? What would you prefer?

If I can get you to see just the corruption, I might get you to think about who's doing the corrupting ... which is a damned sight more important (if you want to stop it) than who's been corrupted.

But then, if you are, as I often suspect, shilling for the corruptors, you wouldn't want to stop it, would you? You would want to continue to distract us ... will incessant appeals to our baser inclinations: fear, greed, bigotry, and all like that which are the soul and spirit of party politics ... and most other human relations.

I admit. It's gonna be one hell of a hard slog.

Oh boy here we go...

How exactly does the systematic "dispossession" you espouse (punitive taxation against honest hard working people) solve the greater "dispossession" problem Libby hmmm?

Oh yeah its the "corrupter's"...because government control of industry has never led to corruption.

Have you ever picked up a history book?

Libby: "Ah, Nick ... you denied the fact that 4.5 is high unemployment (big news); you denied that losing your home constitutes dispossession (no more than I'd expect); you denied that nuclear energy creates unmanageable waste (I wasn't really expecting Tina to volunteer)."

Really, I said that...where? go ahead, cut and paste where I said that losing your home wasn't dispossession? Of course it is dispossession, that wasn't the point.

And maybe in Libby's world, where Libby English and Libby reasoning are applied, 4.5 % unemployed is considered high.

But here in the real world where socialist utopias are about as prominent as unicorns, it isn't.

As far as "unmanageable waste" once again, must be a reality in Libbytopia. Because here in the real world, Nuclear power is far cleaner and efficient than anything else we have going.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts...as we have reminded you several times.

Stop making blatantly false accusations in an attempt to bolster your argument...its very unbecoming.

Tina has not answered me. Interesting. Because it was her that I quite baldly accused of shilling for the "corruptors", which is to say, Corporate America. They send monies to the Republicans and Democrats alike, as has been oft reported, though Tina refuses to see it.

I try to avoid getting personal but, damned, they do provoke me. Who do you work for? Yourself? Really?

Tina has not answered me. Interesting. Because it was her that I quite baldly accused of shilling for the "corruptors", which is to say, Corporate America. They send monies to the Republicans and Democrats alike, as has been oft reported, though Tina refuses to see it.

I try to avoid getting personal but, damned, they do provoke me. Who do you work for? Yourself? Really?