rbpls

You repeat several myths. If you'd really like to know what caused the problems you allude to, read what actual experts (the FBI after looking into it exhaustively) found after their investigation. To summarize: 1. Most of the loans that were and are defaulting were made from non-CRA (Community Re-investment Act) participating institutions. Those lenders had total free choice on who they lent to and how much they lent. 2. Fully 80% of the bad loans involved fraud from the appraisser, lender, or mortgage broker. Of course that is just the FBI's finding after their actual investig

Call facts moxie if you like. Are you aware that Obama's first budget took effect about 9 months ago? And most of the increase in deficits occurred because the non-adult preceding Obama had both wars off budget!? And (coffee's nearly ready) most of the budget shortfalls occurring now are because of the economy that Obama inherited? Substance please. BTW, Reagan donors (illegal ones) gave money that eventually funded rapists/murderers. Of humanitarian mission nuns. Obviously Reagan didn't do it... had absolutely nothing to do with it. So you paint some awful picture of what Will mi

Ronald Reagan took money from groups that would make Satan blush. While breaking american law to do it. I promise no one bought Will for $200. He is more the practical moral center kind of candidate that republicans and democrats both say they want. Will Avery is no radical.

No, I just want to argue for sensible fiscal policy. Like during WW2, we ran deficits. After, and I mean both after the war and after the economy improved, we had adults in the White House (basically every president except the 3 fake conservatives) who with balanced sensible tax and spending policies managed to pay down the Gross Debt. Now while Eisenhower was in office, the highest brackets were over 90%. That is too high for today's climate but it worked then. Then there were more income deductions for re-investing in american capacity to produce. During Eisenhower's time we started the

No, not just on Bush (thought Bush's damage to this country will last for a good while to come.) I'm stuck on how anyone can be so dishonest or so clueless to claim that the short term deficit spending we need to do right now is suddenly so bad when just about every Republican president and member of Congress for the last 30 years never met a deficit they didn't like before Obama was elected. As I said, 100% of the increase in this country's Gross Debt (since WW2!) occurred under the last 3 Republican presidencies. That is easily verified. It is undeniable. It is a cold hard historical fac

No, I am referring to the fiscally disingenuous party that suddenly has fake deficit religion. The party that took the surpluses Bush inherited and drove the great american economy into the ravine. Yes, I mean the two-faced ones who are delusional enough to believe voo-doo economics ever worked. The party that produced the only 3 presidencies since WW2 that did not lower the Gross Debt (total accumulated federal debt as a percentage of GDP) during their terms. The ones responsible for 100% of the increase in our country's Gross Debt since Roosevelt was in office. The presidencies whose

The cost was around $10,000 including fireworks and other entertainment instead of around $40,000 that some adjoining counties spent. This negotiated lower fee was becuse of the not prime time weekend after timing mostly. Sort of like how much stuff costs December 26 compared to the 12/23 12/24 pricing.

Ronald Reagan took money from groups that would make Satan blush. I promise no one bought Will for $200. Many in the Republican party are starting to quietly admit that the lunatics are running the asylum in the national Republican party. In the 1950s, the nuts were saying that Eisenhower was a socialist and in the pockets of the communists. The difference is that then the nuts were ostracised. Today, we see actual decent people in the party apolgizing for offending the scumbag Rush Limbaugh. Personally, I don't much care for nutty righties or extreme lefties. Some backlash against the

Mine gets warm but not hot. It should have a very low wattage incandescent. We know that incandescents are almost equal as heaters to their function as light sources. It really shouldn't get hot though. Any loose connections?

I believe it was paid for with Stimulus money. It is supposed to eventually be a trail head to the Silver Comet Trail. There is a website that shows Paulding County's Stimulus share and that project got around $695,000. (but don't quote me, I'm not sure that the city/county/state didn't have to pony some money in addition) That site shows where and how much money is being spent.

Yeah you're right. It is a generic term. The one lady agent I know has very few non-male workmates.

Now not all of those Secret Service folks are dudes. I know one (she and my friend her hubby) who lives in Stockbridge. This dudette is an ex-Blackhawk pilot Special Forces alumnus and I promise most men would regret tangling with her. Those are special people.

There are some who will tell you that mathematically they can prove a bumblebee can't fly. They might also say that insurance companies only make 3% on their money. With the flawed logic and information used for both arguments, they are right. Bumblebees can't fly. Insurance companies only make 3% on their investment and every other non-third world nation (with their varied methods) does not do medical care better overall for much less money. Except that bumblebees do fly, insurance companies would have long ago moved into fixed investments that yield more than 3% per annum, and ....we

I wonder: is there some logic rule that says if you say something completely false enough times that in some Bizzaro world the falsehood can become true? If there is, I have never seen it. Untrue before, untrue now. The FACT that private administration of healthcare bureaucracies is significantly more expensive is certain (at least on earth and up till now.)

I agree with you on several points. We are not a fit nation. In an earlier post I mentioned that some peoples call us the "balloon people." In some countries you have to search far and wide to find anything except real cream, real butter and real sugar on restaurant tables. They do not have artificial sweeteners, fake coffee creamers, etc. Supposedly the non-fatty fake crap is good for us while real sugar, butter, cream, etc is bad. I believe in most cases the opposite is true. I have no problem separating the two. I do not want the government to make my tv or audio equipment or cars, or a

So first you start by admitting that private plans charge 260% of what government administrative costs are. Then you quote a charge per patient for admin that is higher under under Medicare? Do you think that maybe, just maybe the fact that since Medicare patients are old and require several times as much care as younger patients, on average several times more in fact, do you not see you are affirming what I said? That for every dollar spent under private plans, a much higher percentage (260% or 160% percent more per your figures) is used to administer the plans? "But Wait" as the ad

Whoa Nelly. That statement ignores reality. The insurance companies consume way more for their costs and profits than any of the government run medical bureaucracies. That is not opinion. BTW, if your house were on fire would you call some non-socialist private fire protection company? Or, would you call the socialist fire departmant? And when you leave your home, do you travel on the socialist roads or do you travel in a hovercraft and avoid being a socialist?

Private insurance companies are way less efficient in administrative costs than either Tri-Care, VA or Medicare or Medicaid. There are many reasons for that but one undeniable result: insurance companies add too much cost.We are all entitled to our own opinions but not to our own facts. It is not a matter of opinion that several nations achieve better overall results (longer life spans, lower costs, lower infant mortality, etc.) Some of them even do it with out using "socialized" plans. The point is, with several different ways of doing it and several countries doing it using all these di

Actually the bridge to nowhere was the one Palin kept trying to get funding for in Alaska. That is not the one I was talking about. I also pay bills electronically both for my business and for personal bills. I always run out of deposit slips before I've written 5 or 10 checks. However, some things still warrant mailing letters. Some people and organizations still mail you and me materials through the post office and spend way less because the private alternative is way too expensive. Undeniably. Still, I'm trying to talk seriously here. Private is good when appropriate. In Can

I can find myriad reports on how health care is messed up in the United States. There is no reason to start that endlees loop. There are problems everywhere. But consider this undeniable fact: the Candian system, if funded by 20% more money than they spend right now would be awash in money. Not coincidentally, there spending would then be about half what we spend without covering everyone. Let me ask you: do you mail a letter with FEDEX or UPS since they must be more efficient because it is not the "gooberment?" What about police, fire protection, libraries? Do you think private alternativ

Yes, many studies show similar results. Ironically, we have some of and maybe the best care available in the world. And yes many people travel here to get medical procedures done. But many people from the US travel to get lower cost high quality medical to countries both nearby and far away. Even “Death Panel” Palin traveled into Canada to get high quality lower cost care. Charlie Rose, the TV host, is a very wealthy American and could get his care anywhere he wants. He went to France (rated number one in the world for health care results in most studies) to get his complicated heart surge

As someone who associated with Newt G (we were both at West Georgia College in the 70s,) talked with him on numerous occasions and listened to him pontificate then and later on throught the years, followed his career, read things he wrote, etc etc, yes I definitely say that Will is a quicker study than Newt. It is ignorant or delusional thinking that labels one smart or dumb based on party affiliation. I've known and supported bright and honest Republicans and Democrats. There are certainly very uninformed and misinformed people who vote party line line for BOTH parties. But, they are the doof

He is concerned about more than one issue. Education is an important issue. Georgia is rated 46th(?) in the US and is apparently determined to keep that rating or maybe go lower. That affects whether businesses locate here or not. Our high schools aren't producing students that can make it in our best colleges. Fire the parents? I don't believe it is the teachers fault. Yes, I've never taken time to post before. I'm trying to survive running a business. This recession officially started in 2007 but really started in 2006 for lots of folks including me. Recoveries on average start 2 years a

He did not say those things. I said those things about him. If you get to know him, there is a good chance you'll believe similarly. As for full time teaching or not, he is a full time Masters Candidate who teaches history classes for pay. Newt Gingrich did the same thing when I was at West Georgia in the 70s. The difference is that Will is probably a brighter study and also is actually a faithful husband and father. What a difference time makes. Back then, Newt G was an idealistic ecologist or at least talked a good game.