RSS Feed MenuThat sounds like it will be the Republican slogan in 2010. One question:
The Senate healthcare bill offers $250 to seniors who enter the prescription drug “doughnut hold” (the no-coverage zone from $2700 to $6154 in drug expenses). The House bill closes the doughnut hole entirely. It’s expected that under reconciliation, the House view would prevail. And this portion of Obamacare goes into effect immediately.
So … if the final product is enacted … and if it does close the doughnut hole … and if seniors are already benefiting … will Republicans repeal THAT? More relevantly: What will they say in the fall if asked whether they intend to repeal it?
PracticalGirl // Mar 11, 2010 at 8:35 pm
A link to what Bush called for in 2002.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2094023/posts
Hear what he had to say about Freddie and Fannie. Understand that he said he would like to see the Section 8 vouchers used as script for down payments and as payment for mortgages instead of leases. In a speech to HUD that same summer, he even tied the need to get new homeowners into homes for nothing down to his VERY FAVORITE fear tactic. “Terrorists hate homeowners”.
Does this sound like an Administration that was really leading the way to reforming Freddie and Fannie and protecting lending and homeowners?
Independent // Mar 11, 2010 at 8:48 pm
Practical Girl notes: “The GOP made 2 extremely weak, half-hearted attempts (first in 2003, then in 2005-06) to bring legislation to the table regarding Freddie and Fannie. Each time, they had a majority in both the House and the Senate to get it done, should they have chosen to put their weight behind it.”
Ummm, like someone brave once told Obama: You Lie!
The Senate Democrat caucus and the former DNC Chair and mortgage bribe queen, Chris Dodd openly threatened if the bill was reported to the Sen Floor he’d lead the “best filibuster in the Senate’s history” –his words, not the White House’s, not any GOPer’s, your man of the mortgage bribe game, Chris Dodd.
We were right, it’s a pathological condition for you –you can’t be anything but intellectually dishonest.
As for the American Dream Act, that was originally a Democrat proposal that underwent a series of major revisions by the GOP minority in the Senate, Practical Girl. It was a program that helped address illegal immigration… not housing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DREAM_Act
http://polis.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=116314
Maybe you should put down the farLeft talking points from the Daily Kos and actually read the nonsense you’re trotting out?
As for your parting shot: “Good God, do you ever do any real research and think for yourself” –well, for someone who just made a major gaff, you sure seem to have a monopoly on indignation –even if misplaced.
I showed you the trend by Fannie & Freddie.
I explained the corruption of their “foundation diplomats” program and how that tied into the later discredited, corrupt ACORN SEIU schemes.
I explained very precisely what the Bush WH wanted in terms of reform before the housing bubble grew out of proportion, who stopped it, why they stopped it, and the primary role of Democrats had in thwarting reform until after the bubble broke and then the very Democrats who stopped reform turned around and embraced it like a prodigal son –in this case, better late than never doesn’t cut it.
Why you cling to a conception and rendition of the facts that no one else could claim in their wildest nightmare, must be due to your unrelenting partisanship.
And intellectual dishonesty –of the pathological sort. Sigh.
PracticalGirl // Mar 11, 2010 at 8:59 pm
Independent,
Try some intellectual honesty yourself. In your world, the GOP is the GodBrain that Knows All and Knows What’s Best. But if this were true, then why did the geniuses continue on with American Dream and then invent and push Zero Down?
There are many good analyses out there (credit union industry,for one did a great one) on exactly what happened as a direct result of sub-prime lending and the abysmal practices of the two Bush led, Bush sold and GOP passed bills you want to blame on Democrats If you actually do research, you see that sales were consistent and market values relatively stable UNTIL after 2002. Then the first skyrocketed and the second plummeted, spiking hard in 2007 as the very bad mortgages started to go south. You could even, if you so choose, find info about when the majority of bad mortgages were written and see a direct correlation between the Bush bills and the eventual realestate collapse, which was pushed over the edge by the defaulting mortgages that flooded the market and caused prices to plummet.
I know, you prefer to think with your gut. But those who do that have crap for brains. You are no exception.
PracticalGirl // Mar 11, 2010 at 9:08 pm
MiGoper:
Even the Heritage Foundation called this out for the junk it was.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/budget/wm378.cfm
I understand it is your goal to try to pin this on the Liberals, but can’t you at least reason like a Conservative?
jabbermule // Mar 11, 2010 at 9:13 pm
Independent:
I agree on all points. Further, I find it interesting when the left automatically blames the housing bubble/mortgage meltdown crisis on a LACK of government regulation. More appropriately, the financial crisis was caused by TOO MUCH government regulation.
To illustrate, the real genesis of this problem began in 1995 with the tightening of the Community Reinvestment Act, or CRA. That year the CRA stipulated that any mortgage lending institution (bank or mortgage company) MUST dramatically increase its sub-prime lending or face financial sanctions. This led to a huge increase in sub-prime mortgage loans. At the same time, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac increasingly became the de facto mortgage guarantors of choice, and banks and mortgage companies began selling ALL of their mortgage loans on the open market to be bundled into mortgage backed securities, and the time-honored tradition of a lending institution placing its loan originations into their own lending portfolio became all but dead.
In other words, institutional lending responsibility died in 1995 thanks to government interference.
kevin47 // Mar 11, 2010 at 9:16 pm
“Your ignorance equals your arrogance and mirrors that of too many in the public at large.”
I hate discussing issues with people who feel compelled to preface their remarks with proclamations about how I am this or that because I believe this or that, but moving on…
“You really should educate yourself, before you just spout a talking point.”
I have worked on both sides of this issue. I assure you that criticizing the ill-prepared is a talking point for neither side.
“There are a myriad reasons for Americans who cannot get affordable health care, and being “unprepared” isn’t the reason for most.”
This, on the other hand…
“Your comments smack of elitism and, well, ignorance.”
Yeah, we covered that.
“Full circle, in less than 5 sentences. You sound a lot like MiGOPer/GOProud/Independent (yes, I know he’s one and the same) with that post.”
You just spent a paragraph not arguing your point of view. Please take a moment to pat yourself on the back before I continue….
“Since I can assume that you are one who has health insurance (employer provided, I’m sure. You don’t strike me as somebody who would strike out too far from Daddy)),”
I own my own business. My father is in a Detroit prison for a crime he didn’t commit, and has been since I was young. None of this has anything to do with the merits of my health care arguments, so let’s move past assumptions.
“then you must know how much the uninsured cost you extra in health care premiums last year.”
Yes.
“Yep, a little more than $1000. And it goes up again next year.”
This is in response to my point that those who are ill-prepared are stuck with existing conditions clauses, with few exceptions. In other words, what is your point?
“Add to that the increase in health care costs you pay as well, and it would appear that you ain’t as smart as ya think ya are…”
I am precisely as smart as I think I am. I harbor no delusions about my intellect, though I do consider myself intelligent, and have a degree from a snobby, not-too-far-from-daddy type college to prove it.
“YOU are paying for the “unprepared” and the denied and the laid off. And the illegals as well. And you’ll just keep dumping money in for them all, I guess.”
How will this change under Obamacare? What does this have to do with what I wrote?
I hope that was cathartic for you. Good grief.
jabbermule // Mar 11, 2010 at 9:17 pm
haha – Practical Girl thinks I’m the same person as Independent…that wouldn’t make him very Independent, would it?
Independent // Mar 11, 2010 at 9:31 pm
Hey practical girl, let’s leave off all your turgid smears and uncivil conduct, ok?
You were wrong on the Daily Kos talking point about the American Dream –but you can’t possibly admit your error.
You were wrong on the Congressional politics behind the Bush Administration effort to reform Freddie and Fannie –but you can’t possibly admit your error.
We’ve given you specific data on the run-up of Fannie’s portfolio, for instance. But you can’t admit you were wrong again.
We’ve explained to you the role that Fannie’s foundation played in working the local scene and seducing local activist groups to pressure Democrat Congress members to stand against the Bush Reform agenda. But you can’t admit you were wrong again on that one, too.
I think you avoid the facts because they indict your side as the most responsible party for encouraging Fannie, protecting Fannie, staffing Fannie with lifelong Democrat staffers and loyalists and leading America off the cliff of the housing bubble.
And who do you think got the most political contributions from Fannie and Freddie PACs? Why it was Barack Obama, Chris Dodd. Just like Bernie Madoff, Democrats were deep in the pockets of Freddie and Fannie, milking their protected political pals for campaign cash.
Corruption is never a bitter drink for Democrats –but suffering under the charges is a tough thing for them. I can understand why you want to run away from it all –I would too if the GOP record on trying to reform the housing bubble and excesses weren’t so laudable, noble.
But the undebatable point remains: the Bush Administration tried to reform Fannie and Freddie, both sweltering hot tubs filled with ol’ Democrat hacks and corruption of the grandest sort. Democrats, lead by former DNC Chairman Chris Dodd, used the Senate rule of filibuster to stop any reform from being discussed in the Senate. And if you can’t get reform out of the Senate with so much Democrat opposition, it’s a dead deal.
………………………………………………………………..
Practical Girl, on a personal note, which I don’t like to do here… your increasingly harsh and uncivil tone is not appreciated and is counter productive to the free exchange of ideas at FF. This kind of personally targeted rant (“I know, you prefer to think with your gut. But those who do that have crap for brains. You are no exception.”) is really out of bounds, Practical Girl.
Please be so kind as to refrain from said harsh and intemperate ranting in the future? Thank you for your compliance with FF’s comment policy.
http://www.frumforum.com/comment-policy
Independent // Mar 11, 2010 at 9:38 pm
jabbermule and kevin47, I’ve alerted the FF webzine managers for these repeated infractions of the comment policy by Practical Girl, sparty and the new version of TeaBag, TerryF99.
I have a fairly thick skin but Practical Girl and some others here go far over the line of civility because, I think, this is an anonymous forum and they can spew their bile out without caution from identification.
I hope these worst offending culprits change their ways. It may be ok for this kind of trash talk over at DailyKos or BlogAmerica or DemocratUnderground or LesbiansWithLipstick, but it’s offensive in this intellectual haven of well-intentioned conservative discourse.
PracticalGirl // Mar 11, 2010 at 10:02 pm
Independent:
You crack me up..The poster who constantly rants harsh and name calls. As MiGOPer, as GOPProud, you are the worst offender of your own point.
However, a point: I had some short hand issues. Regarding the mortgage crash, I’m talking about the American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003, not the American Dream Act of 2009, which does attempt to deal children of illegals in equally with children of citizens.
PracticalGirl // Mar 11, 2010 at 10:09 pm
Independent:
“But the undebatable point remains: the Bush Administration tried to reform Fannie and Freddie, both sweltering hot tubs filled with ol’ Democrat hacks and corruption of the grandest sort. ”
It’s completely debatable, and all the evidence of what he actually did is to the contrary. If he was truly looking to protect Fannie and Freddie and lenders in general, he would not have swung so hard for the irresponsible programs that are responsible for most of the defaulted/defaulting.
Corruption is everywhere, and Dodd is one sorry pile of it. Again, though with a majority EVERYWHERE and with such surerior foresight and knowledge of the ticking time bombs of Fannie and Freddie, whyno backbone fromthe GOP to stand up to one bad guy? And why adopt programs that benefitted him and his base so directly, especially if they knew it was “bad”.
The answer is ugly, and it’s a pox on both houses. Neither party has proven to have even the smallest ability to forward-think and consider consequences of major financial actions they implement.
SpartacusIsNotDead // Mar 11, 2010 at 11:36 pm
Kevin47, responding to PracticalGirl wrote: “I have worked on both sides of this issue.”
Maybe so, but you still never responded to PracticalGirl’s point that there are many reasons Americans can’t get health care coveage other than being “unprepared.”
You may not have cared for her insults, but on substance she demonstrated that you are indeed ignorant on this issue if you believe that the common problem is unpreparedness. Apparently, you are ignorant of the rather common problems of pre-existing conditions, skyrocketing premiums and cancelations of policies.
There are a myriad reasons for Americans who cannot get affordable health care, and being “unprepared” isn’t the reason for most.
kevin47 // Mar 12, 2010 at 12:46 am
“I agree on all points. Further, I find it interesting when the left automatically blames the housing bubble/mortgage meltdown crisis on a LACK of government regulation. More appropriately, the financial crisis was caused by TOO MUCH government regulation.”
I think this is beyond the point. You can’t regulate the markets against outright fraud. People were duped into straw buying schemes (illegal), baited and switched at closing time (also illegal), and present with false TILA’s (technically legal, but easy to bring to the public’s attention) and false amortization schedules (brazenly illegal).
What has Obama done to help the FBI chase down the crooks? Nothing. You can go back and forth about the CRA, but the above is the more compelling message.
Independent // Mar 12, 2010 at 10:35 am
Practical Girl, thank you for taking down the harshness of ugly ranting and name calling a bit in your last reply… even if you can’t admit your factual errors.
You write: “If he (Bush 43) was truly looking to protect Fannie and Freddie and lenders in general, he would not have swung so hard for the irresponsible programs that are responsible for most of the defaulted/defaulting.”
First, you’re really showing your liberal assumptions with that line, Practical Girl. Bush and the GOP’s repeated reform efforts weren’t meant to “protect” Freddie and Fannie… they were meant to protect the US taxpayer… you know, that big sack of loose change that you and Obama and the Congressional Democrats want to rape?
US taxpayers were at risk, Practical Girl. Fannie and Freddie were very well protected already –by a host of Democrat Congressional leaders. They stopped reforms repeatedly. Fannie’s Foundation of activists, hired at unconscionable salary levels, worked with local activists like ACORN in nearly every state save Utah, to thwart Bush reforms.
The speech you cite as “proof positive” that Bush wasn’t sincere about reform was given after the first 16 months of reform advocacy had resulted in Dodd’s famous –I hope you agree indisputable– promise to filibuster any Bush/GOP reform package in an intensity never visited upon the Senate.
The Bush Admin worked with key Fannie leaders to get them to call off the junkyard attack dogs who were effectively stopping reform legislation, work with Bush people to advance reform and the speech you think is the smoking gun is, indeed, a smoking gun –but not for the reasons you dishonestly propose. The Bush Admin was trying to get Fannie to accept working on some reforms… that was the reason for the speech. In Sept 03, the Bush people finally got want they wanted –Fannie’s explicit agreement to tolerate reform… but only on Fannie’s terms. Bush was there to put personal touch on getting Fannie’s CEO to embrace reform… and it worked.
Here’s what the AP story said about the historic moment: “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.”
In exchange, Practical Girl, the president had to also give up any appointment perqs to the GSE boards, too.
The AP story continues, pointing out your lie: “… 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.”
What did Democrats say?
Your pal, Fannie Defender Barney Frank said: ’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.’’
Later, Barney went on to cry about future calls from the White House for moving the modest reform package forward as political stunts to appease the radical Right.
Turns out that Barney Frank had 2 lovers working over at Fannie, another lover in Boston who got hired as one of Fannie’s Foundation diplomats, and yet another lover over at Freddie (who was only BBFWB for Barney –best boi friend with benefits).
Dodd, the mortgage bribe queen, and former DNC Chair.
Barney, Fannie Defender Extraordinaire, keeper of the boyfriends.
Personal corruption meets professional corruption. In the housing bubble, it’s the lesson we all ought to learn about Congressional Democrats who ride on high horses while clucking about “hurting the poor who need housing”.
That you want to avoid that lesson is not surprising. You’re just being a good Democrat partisan… and that means avoid responsibility, first and foremost.
kevin47 // Mar 12, 2010 at 9:32 pm
“Maybe so, but you still never responded to PracticalGirl’s point that there are many reasons Americans can’t get health care coveage other than being “unprepared.””
There wasn’t anything to respond to. She merely asserted that there were other reasons. She did not enumerate the reasons, or offer evidence to suggest that those reasons substantively contribute to lack of coverage. On a case by case basis, you can almost certainly identify instances where someone prepared didn’t have health insurance, but it isn’t at all the norm.
“You may not have cared for her insults, but on substance she demonstrated that you are indeed ignorant on this issue if you believe that the common problem is unpreparedness.”
How did she “demonstrate” this? She didn’t address the issue other than asserting my ignorance. That is not substantive.
“Apparently, you are ignorant of the rather common problems of pre-existing conditions, skyrocketing premiums and cancelations of policies.”
I am not ignorant of these problems. If you have insurance, you cannot be dropped for having pre-existing conditions. So if you are prepared when you are healthy, you will not be unprepared when you are sick. And yes, it requires budgeting and living beneath your means in order to account for rising costs. People in America are not fond of doing so.
“There are a myriad reasons for Americans who cannot get affordable health care, and being “unprepared” isn’t the reason for most.”
This has been said over and over. Do you have any evidence that this is the case? If I’m ignorant, by all means, enlighten me.
SpartacusIsNotDead // Mar 13, 2010 at 6:01 pm
Kevin47 wrote: “If you have insurance, you cannot be dropped for having pre-existing conditions. So if you are prepared when you are healthy, you will not be unprepared when you are sick.”
This assumes you were able to obtain insurance in the first place. Many, many people cannot obtain insurance because of pre-existing conditions. This has nothing to do with being prepared.
And, while it is true that most states do not allow insurers to drop people with existing coverage, most states do permit insurers to raise premiums dramatically with very little notice to the insured. Over 800,000 people in CA are facing increases of as much as 39% from Anthem alone. Increases in MA are as much as 44%. Is this a case of dropping people with pre-existing conditions? It certainly has the same practical effect. And, once those people leave their current insurers, they have little to no hope of getting coverage elsewhere because of their pre-existing conditions. So, how does one “prepare” for a 40-50% increase in insurance premiums?