Cross-posted from Borderline Crimes
A synecdoche is a figure of speech used to refer to something by using a name other than its own. Totum pro parte is a particular kind of synecdoche, whereby the name of the whole is used to refer to only a part. I might say, for example, “Beijing” when I really mean the Chinese government, or “Detroit” when I really mean the auto industry.
Patriotism in many right wing visions, especially nationalist ones, perceives the nation only synecdochically. Under this framing, the nation as a whole is used to refer only to the self. Thus when the nationalist right-wing says it “loves America” it is really only referring to a specific part of America, namely the part that it composes. In effect, then, what nationalist right wingers are actually saying when they profess that they love “America” is that they love themselves.
It first occurred to me to think of patriotism and right-wing nationalism in this way when I was reading a reflection by Frank Schaeffer, a former Christian Evangelical leader, who writes,
I came to realize that I was in bed with a group of people who were profoundly anti-American [the Religious Right and far right of the Republican Party]…. They wrapped themselves in the flag and ‘loved America,’ but it was an America in their imaginations only and cast in their image: white, middle-class, straight, born-again, homophobic and tinged with racism, not to mention misogyny.
The America most Americans lived in; diverse, open, tolerant, and multi-ethnic was the America that the right would hardly acknowledge. They ‘loved’ an America that didn’t exist, and hated the real country we live in.
Similar imaginations abound in Israel, which many nationalists (and many abroad) call a “Jewish state.” But over 20% of Israel’s population is not Jewish, just as the real America is not entirely white, middle-class, straight, or born-again. In other words, Israel is only a Jewish state in the imagination; in the real world, it is a state within which many different people live, even though government institutions marginalize and discriminate against those who don’t fit the norm of being Jewish–all with the encouragement of that subgroup of nationalistic Israelis who see the country as belonging to them and not to the others who dwell (or used to dwell) within it.
Nationalists attempt to re-inforce their imaginary version of the nation by designing institutions so that they are biased against other voices within the nation. The notion of being “unpatriotic” is really a byproduct of this hegemonic assertion. If a proclamation that you love “America” is really a proclamation that you love yourself, then an accusation that somebody is unpatriotic is actually an accusation that somebody else is merely against you and your ideas. The attack loses its force when it’s not about betraying a grandiose collective, but is merely a disagreement between two people.
Once the right wing’s nation is exposed as synecdoche for the self, it becomes illogical to accuse somebody of being unpatriotic unless by the accusation what is meant is that the accused is actually against himself. This is certainly a conceivable scenario, but it is unlikely to be the case in most situations where this crude accusation is leveled. To insist on the existence of a nation with regards to which one might be unpatriotic, an exclusive nation whose sanctity and purity is paramount to that of each person’s belonging to it, is to violate some of the most fundamental democratic principles regarding inclusion and equality–not to mention that it fails to recognize the dissenter as an actual person, rather than a mere enemy or threat.
Reading right-wing patriotism in this way–as “profoundly anti-American”–also draws into question paradigms about tolerance. Though tolerance is often a subject of praise, it is actually a sinister way to white-wash implicit inequality. That you will tolerate somebody merely means you are not out to extinguish their existence; it does not mean you recognize their independence, their equality, or their rights. It is one thing for Americans to “tolerate” homosexuals and homosexuality, for example, but it is entirely another for us to acknowledge that they have full rights and full equality to us. Tolerance is still a means of exclusion.
I believe it is important to think about notions of patriotism like this critically. Many Arabs and Muslims in the United States post-9/11, for example, sought to fit themselves within a particular notion of American-ness to guarantee their safety and security. Suhail Khan, a former Bush ally, is one example of the kind of approach that I’ve railed against in the past.
Under Khan’s approach, Muslims and other marginalized communities in the States should say, “we are Americans, like you [white, straight, middle class, born-again Americans].” That is the paradigm of oligarchic assimilation and integration. The appropriate response–the response that fights in the name of pluralism rather than uniformity–should instead be that “we are also Americans” (in addition to whatever else we are). This is the paradigm of democratic inclusion. It suggests parallelism and mutual legitimacy, without imposing uniformity of any kind, or requiring unshared belonging.
While the first approach might grant temporary security, it also comes at the cost of one’s own legitimacy. It makes difference illegitimate and is thus inherently unsustainable. The second approach resists the oppressive force of a category (like “American”) that has been usurped by some elite or nationalist sub-group that treats the nation as a synecdoche for itself. It takes back the category from those who try to selfishly possess it, transforming it into an inclusive one rather than an exclusive one. It also refuses to belong to only one category.
This methodology, of course, does not have a universal applicability, as it presupposes a container for itself. There can be cases where the category/container itself is hegemonic. One might think of the Palestinians in Israel–why should they be forced to identify as Israelis, with the state that dispossessed them of their lands, violently repressed them, and exiled their relatives, when their presence is not conditional on Israel’s existence but precedes it? Another might be the Tamils or the Irish. I am not sure that a universally useful and fair rule exists that applies to these cases where settler colonial populations expropriated the land of the indigenous peoples, especially as circumstances for those communities change over time.
It is nevertheless possible to identify the racist nature of the reigning regimes in these cases, which, as a by-product of their colonial roots, require subjugation and disempowerment of those peoples rather than genuine inclusion. In these exceptional cases, the mission is not necessarily to “expand” the nation (as it constitutes and purifies itself only by the institutional, geographical, and cultural exclusion of the aforementioned groups) but rather to burst its bubble, if only so that a new one might be formed.
Related posts:
- The Rise of Right Wing Extremism: A New War
- The day Palestinians become a nation like any other nation
- Obama Campaign Outraged By KABOBfest, Attacks Cover As Tasteless, Offensive
- State Department Memo Burns Bush
- America (and Israel) First
I think somebody who can't even define something as simple as "enemy" properly should be prohibited by law from using words like "synecdochically". You can't possibly know what that means. And you've already proven yourself incapable of comprehending dictionary definitions.
Posted by programmer craig | July 8, 2009, 5:40 am<img src="http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z174/rubberpoultry/dont_feed_the_trolls.jpg" border="0" alt="DON'T FEED TROLLS" width="300"/>
Posted by yaman | July 8, 2009, 5:42 amIf everyone took that advice, there'd be no comments on any of your posts
Posted by programmer craig | July 8, 2009, 6:05 amholy crap, this douchebag is trolling the entire blog? is he part of the ZioBot army that is apparently getting paid to troll ?
Posted by FuckCraig | July 11, 2009, 9:23 amI really enjoyed reading this.
Posted by Super Sayyin | July 8, 2009, 5:57 amCourse you did, Sayyin. It blames all the world's racism on the white man.
Now, since you are the resident "Arab World" expert, give us a dissertation on how immigration works in the Arab world? Under what circumstances does naturalization occur, and in what ways is it superior to the American method?
Or is that less enjoyable for you?
Posted by programmer craig | July 8, 2009, 6:12 amFirst of all, this article did not have much to do with the process of immigration and none of it had anything to do with blaming the white man for all the racism in the world. I love how you pathetically tried to change the topic of this article.
Second of all we are not discussing immigration in the Arab world. There have been posts on the plight of immigrants in certain Middle Eastern countries, and they were not nice to those regimes at all.
Finally, we are talking about the United States of America, the country I was born and raised in. The country I vote in etc. Its my responsibility as a citizen of this nation to ensure that it lives up to its full potential. Yaman, pointed out that the people who identify as being "super patriot omgz!" are in fact the least patriotic Americans due to there insular views and the fact that they view America as something that it in fact is not. This is what this article is about.
How you had a problem with this article is beyond me.
Posted by Super Sayyin | July 10, 2009, 7:26 pmPS-Is this your convoluted way of denying that you took a giant shit on the 4th of July?
Posted by programmer craig | July 8, 2009, 6:06 amDid you remember to use the American flag for toilet paper?
Posted by programmer craig | July 8, 2009, 6:15 amcraig, if you can't understand big words, and big concepts that reach beyond the grasp of small minded people like yourself–don't comment.
Posted by solomon | July 8, 2009, 7:00 amBut my comments are so interesting! My comments usually get 5x more replies than the blog post itself got! Unlike your comment, which was dull as dishwater, unoriginal and lacking in creativity. If that's the bets you can do, maybe blogs aren't for you? Maybe you should consider a new hobby, like watching the grass grow?
Posted by programmer craig | July 8, 2009, 7:23 amAnd yet everyone still hates you, retard.
Posted by JillianKF | July 8, 2009, 3:42 pmDo you think it somehow offends or hurts me to have people like the KABOBfest crew hating me, Jillian?
Posted by programmer craig | July 8, 2009, 4:00 pmI think there's pity in there somewhere too
Posted by Shafiq | July 8, 2009, 4:09 pmYeah, right. Pity from psychopaths! I'll cherish that forever
Posted by programmer craig | July 8, 2009, 9:39 pmSo then go away!
Posted by JillianKF | July 8, 2009, 5:29 pmWhy woudl I do that, Jillian? It's not often I get to see misguidedly self-righteous nutters making fools of themselves and not even knowing it. It's pretty entertaining.
Posted by programmer craig | July 8, 2009, 9:43 pmReally, Craig? Damn, then you ought to check out the Huffington Post.
Posted by anonymous | July 9, 2009, 2:06 pmNice post Yaman. You certainly hit a raw nerve with a certain troll. He so clearly identifies with Frank Schaeffer's former colleagues — those who have no tolerance for difference and think patriotism means bullying others into compliance.
Posted by KABOBfestWill | July 8, 2009, 2:22 pmWell said, Will. I think this explains a lot, and is relevant to the post as well as the troll:
Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) is a personality and ideological variable studied in political, social, and personality psychology. It is defined by three attitudinal and behavioral clusters which correlate together:[1][2]
1. Authoritarian submission — a high degree of submissiveness to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives.
2. Authoritarian aggression — a general aggressiveness directed against deviants, outgroups, and other people that are perceived to be targets according to established authorities.
3. Conventionalism — a high degree of adherence to the traditions and social norms that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authorita…
Posted by Sean2009 | July 8, 2009, 7:42 pmThe irony is, I can see lots of parallels between RWA and modern takfirism / jihadism
Posted by Shafiq | July 8, 2009, 9:34 pmExcellent analysis. Most of these so-called patriots are the ones that get the US into unwinnable wars, making it weaker than ever before. They also delude themselves into thinking their country is perfect in every way, stifling attempts to improve it further – healthcare and pre-college education being great examples. And most importantly, they are misguided in their thinking about what makes a state great – favouring might and primitivism over intellect and foresight.
Posted by Shafiq | July 8, 2009, 4:02 pmSo… Palestinian activists really know what it takes to make a state great. Is that pretty much your line of reasoning?
Posted by programmer craig | July 8, 2009, 9:45 pmNo…non-nutters do, which kinda rules out you and other so-called patriots
Posted by Shafiq | July 8, 2009, 9:52 pmPalestinian activists are non-nutters, then? Have we taken a poll on that?
Posted by programmer craig | July 8, 2009, 9:57 pmsome are nutters…most aren't
Posted by Shafiq | July 8, 2009, 10:03 pmWe are all getting distracted from Yaman's original point. As much as you like to hate Craig, I'm interested to hear what you have to say about the issue he raised:
[...] how [does] immigration work in the Arab world? Under what circumstances does naturalization
occur, and in what ways is it superior to the American method?
How can immigrants become Kuwaiti? or Moroccan? Are Palestinian immigrants become full citizens in the countries they've been forced to moved to? As much as it's easy to criticize Israel about how it treats non-Jews, those who live in Israel proper, within the Green Line, are citizens, can vote, go to college, etc. That is, they may be discriminated against, but they still get the same basic rights. Is it true about immigrants in all Arab countries? This is not a rhetorical question; this is a straightforward question.
Posted by Salty Y | July 9, 2009, 4:22 amI never claimed they were superior and I never would, so there is really not much for me to address. I'm not making a comparative point here about the superiority and inferiority of various systems. I'm mainly looking at one. My post is not even about immigration or naturalization, it's about people who are already within a certain place and part of a certain collective, and yet, despite this, the nationalist right-wing pretends that they are not. There is no such thing as saying "discriminated against but still the same basic rights." They're obviously not the same basic rights if there is discrimination.
Posted by yaman | July 9, 2009, 4:29 amThey are treated horridly. If you're of foreign stock you have little or no chance of becoming a citizen, even if you were born in that state. It's not superior to the American method, but Programmer Craig's question was dishonest from the beginning – he doesn't care about the rights of immigrants to the Arab world, he wants to divert attention away from the Yaman's post by bringing up something irrelevant.
Posted by Shafiq | July 9, 2009, 8:55 amYou raise a very good point.
Posted by eagle007blogger | July 10, 2009, 7:15 pmYou raise a very good point, Salty Y
Posted by eagle007blogger | July 10, 2009, 7:15 pmhttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/synecdoche
lol @ philosophically going around your elbow to get to your asshole – so patriots don't really love ALL of their country. It's not really true for hardcore leftists because they really don't love their country at all, do they?
You'll find plenty of conservative-bashing pieces over at Huffington Post, by the way, that's just how they are (leftist, liberal, statist).
You must learn to navigate through all of the spin and propaganda by people like Frank Schaeffer. What people like him fail to mention is that America's strength comes from her diversity. The best of many different peoples are combined to make America, the cream rises to the top.
Consider this: Hitler hated Jews so bad that he got rid of his Jewish scientists working on his nuclear program, some of which were his best but they were Jewish – some of those even came to America and helped the American nuclear program. Imagine if Hitler had gotten nukes first?
Posted by eagle007blogger | July 10, 2009, 6:40 pm<a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/synecdoche” target=”_blank”>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/synecdoche
lol @ philosophically going around your elbow to get to your asshole – so patriots don't really love ALL of their country? It's not really true for hardcore leftists, though, because they really don't love their country at all, do they?
You'll find plenty of conservative-bashing pieces over at Huffington Post, by the way, that's just how they are (leftist, liberal, statist).
You must learn to navigate through all of the spin and propaganda by people like Frank Schaeffer. What people like him fail to mention is that America's strength comes from her diversity. The best of many different peoples are combined to make America, the cream rises to the top. America was an improvement upon the English design, improving upon the flaws of England and rising with this superior design. There are of course those who hate America the way it is, and want to undo what was so wonderfully created. They seem to focus on America's strength in this battle to destroy: her conservative principles.
Consider this: Hitler hated Jews so bad that he got rid of his Jewish scientists working on his nuclear program, some of which were his best but they were Jewish – some of those even came to America and helped the American nuclear program. Imagine if Hitler had gotten nukes first?
Anyhow, we are aware that there is in fact a movement to undermine America, and other western countries – for example by using their civil rights laws and their freedoms against them – and this post seems to be in line with that sort of thinking:
The Misnomer of Radical Islam – America's Security Blunder
Posted by eagle007blogger | July 10, 2009, 7:08 pmsigh
People like you will be America's downfall
Posted by Shafiq | July 10, 2009, 10:01 pm"Consider this: Hitler hated Jews so bad that he got rid of his Jewish scientists working on his nuclear program, some of which were his best but they were Jewish. "
This sounds a lot like what you want to do to the people you hate in this country.
Posted by yaman | July 10, 2009, 11:44 pmFail.
Posted by eagle007blogger | July 22, 2009, 6:55 amSo basically, by recommending that article, and thus endorsing its contents, you're essentially saying you're of the opinion that every Muslim and Muslimah on this forum and everywhere else in the world is just biding his or her time, "buttering up" their "infidel" friends until the global Jihad can truly be unleashed by the "Islamic military" and Ummah expanded to include the West, the apostates and deniers of the Prophet (SAW)* converted or killed? This line of thinking just tells me you have such a dull life that you subconsciously create or buy into these fantasies for your own mental benefit.
There have been plenty of right-wingers who have talked about taking over the U.S., or the world, but when Chuck Norris talks about having hundreds of thousands of right-wing cells behind him ready to force Texas' secession and then overpower the United States by force or whatever the hell he said, we on the "left" just laugh at him and recognize his kind for what they are: angry with the way their chunk of the world has turned out relative to their beliefs, and eager to have everyone else adopt the same belief structure.
* Oh my god, eagle, I think I'm becoming one!!! Help!!!!!!!11!!1!111!1!!!11!
Posted by Nth Republic | July 10, 2009, 10:40 pmNo, actually Nth Republic, by posting the article I am not suggesting anything like what you suggest, I am saying precisely what I wrote.
Unlike the article, you don't seem to have a point other than to make lame insults against me – and Chuck Norris? Ok?
You on the left – the socialists, the statists, ect. – seem to be in some sort of denial about the nature of terrorism, like that which on occured on 9-11. You seem to think that if you can just give more power to the government, with the necessary limitations on freedom and liberty, then all of life's problems will magically be solved – including the problem with Islamists which can be solved by just apologizing for America the way that Obama did on his apology tour and by talking and singing kumbaya. While you warm up your guitar, just remember that Obama is making massive mistakes to the economy and to foreign policy with his radical left-wing ideology – and that is fueling a resurgence of conservatism which will come to the rescue when your left-wing pipe-dream reaps the inevitable consequences.
Posted by eagle007blogger | July 22, 2009, 6:51 amYou seem to think that if you can just give more power to the government, with the necessary limitations on freedom and liberty, then all of life's problems will magically be solved
Have you heard of the Patriot Act? I'm pretty sure that you supported it and then you lecture US about giving more power to the government?
including the problem with Islamists which can be solved by just apologizing for America the way that Obama did on his apology tour and by talking and singing kumbaya.
Whether you like it or not, Al-Qaeda can't be defeated without the Muslim World's help. Bush managed to alienate 99% of them and as far as I can see, Obama's trying to undo that. And I think the Muslim world does deserve an apology after invading a country on fake intelligence.
While you warm up your guitar, just remember that Obama is making massive mistakes to the economy and to foreign policy with his radical left-wing ideology – and that is fueling a resurgence of conservatism which will come to the rescue when your left-wing pipe-dream reaps the inevitable consequences.
If Obama's radical left-wing, I'm fucking Karl Marx himself. And I love how you label left-wingers statists, when for the past eight years, the US has had nothing but big government and you've been cheerleading them all the way.
Posted by Shafiq | July 22, 2009, 12:06 pmHave you heard of the Patriot Act?
Yes, have you?
The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001. Sec. 105, instructed the Director of the United States Secret Service to develop a national network of electronic crime task forces based on the New York Electronic Crimes Task Force (NYECTF) model. On October 16, 2001, President George Bush signed Executive Order 13231 titled the "Critical Infrastructure in the Information Age". Section S(f) of the order calls for "Law Enforcement Coordination with National Security Components, DOJ through NIPC and Department of Treasury through United States Secret Service". The Electronic Crimes Task Force has continued to grow since it's inception.
The last administration did an excellent job of protecting the American people. It's funny how you leftist types whined about necessary security measures, but support things like this:
GOVERNMENT MOTORS sales fall 22%
GM global sales fall 22 pct in first half of 2009
Democrats 'baffled' by president's health care stance
Not only has the stimulus not worked and the economy not been rescued, the President continues to promote policies that will create more unemployment in America. The national energy tax that went through this House last month will cause millions of Americans to lose their jobs over the next 10 years, at 2.5 million per year. And we're debating the health care plan, the government takeover of health care, which according to the Presidents council of economic advisors model will cost five million more Americans their jobs.
Posted by eagle007blogger | July 23, 2009, 12:59 amOh, so you don't think it's at all problematic that the act gives the FBI the power to intercept the private communications of any law-abiding American citizen? And then you harp on about Democrat acts being unconstitutional .
The Patriot Act has done nothing extra to keep the US safe, it was just an excuse for the federal government to infringe upon the private lives of not only US citizens, but the citizens of other states.
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. – I'm assuming you know who said that.
I'm not surprised GM sales have fallen – their cars are shit. But at least government ownership will give them a breather to start making decent cars. Or maybe the government should let it go into receivership, so all those GM workers can lose their jobs and all their suppliers close too all in the name of the free market? The thing is, despite what you say, if Bush was still President he'd have done exactly the same thing.
I'd be baffled too, if I were a Democrat – After all, I know that Universal healthcare is the only way in a developed economy, but my President keeps on telling me I can't pass that because ordinary Americans don't want it.
And the energy tax you're talking about is to save the world from turning into a giant oven. Now if you want to destroy a world, please move onto another planet – I want this one for my kids and grandkids. It's also funny you say the stimulus hasn't worked seeing as it has everywhere else – spectacularly, in fact, in China.
Posted by Shafiq | July 23, 2009, 1:15 pmThe Patriot Act was a good thing, and kept America safe. Part of the government's job is to protect the American people from foreign attackers, and that's precisely what it did.
The government SHOULD protect the people, but it SHOULD NOT get involved in private business. Let's not forget that left-wing interference in the housing markets and banking is what cause the financial crisis in the first place.
GM made good cars and did good business for a long time. There production and finance companies were hit hard by the financial crisis. The unions had them over a barrel. They should have been able to declare bankruptcy and renegotiate contracts, but no, Obama had better ideas. The American people don't like that. Now Obama wants to dictate what kind of cars to make too, dopey little cars. The American people don't like that either.
Look at Ford – they make cars people like, and they didn't take any govt money – they are doing fine now!
And the energy tax you're talking about is to save the world from turning into a giant oven
Cap and trade doesn't change the amount of gasses being released, it just collects money for the government and hurts the economy. The funny thing, there is no global warming. In fact, things have been cooling lately. Liberals are so ridiculous. It's just about grabbing more power for the govt.
Government monopsony distorts climate science, says SPPI
The climate industry is costing taxpayers $79 billion and counting
Universal Healthcare is un-American. Obama's plan creates govt sponsored insurance which will drive private insurances out of business. It penalizes businesses and individuals and dictates what people must do. It rations care. It is bad. People like you buy all the hype and slogans and media coverage, but you don't really even understand what Obama is trying to do.
Posted by eagle007blogger | July 23, 2009, 9:42 pmCardin Town Hall Meeting On Health Care Gets Angry http://www.wusa9.com/rss/local_article.aspx?story…
Posted by eagle007blogger | July 23, 2009, 9:53 pmCardin Town Hall Meeting On Health Care Gets Angry
Posted by eagle007blogger | July 23, 2009, 9:53 pmTypical. When Right-Wing governments intrude on people's lives, it's necessary. When left-wing govts do it, it's a crime against God. The US not having had a terrorist attack after 9/11 has nothing to do with the Patriot Act, which is why many other Western states haven't experienced terrorist attacks despite not having passed such draconian legislation (i.e. Germany and France) and other states have experienced terrorist attacks with such legislation (i.e. Britain).
GM made good cars in the 50s and 60s. After that, things went downhill. They were inefficient, expensive and outdated, which is why they couldn't compete with their Japanese rivals. And the OLD GM did file for bankruptcy. Without government intervention however, it would have been impossible for them to renegotiate contracts and would have therefore disappeared.
Ford's finances were slightly better than GM's going into the crisis, which meant it was able to survive, just about.
Cap and trade limits the maximum CO2 being released and it creates a CO2 market reflecting the true cost of polluting the world. The money raised is invested in renewables, which over time will reduce the energy bill AND reduce the US' dependence on places like Saudi for their oil. And please don't use discredited science to try and deny global warming. Every respectable scientist agrees that it is a fact. And as a matter of fact, it was Margaret Thatcher (the most conservative Prime Minister in modern British history) who first raised alarm bells about global warming (she had a degree in Chemistry from Cambridge).
You link to an organization whose sole aim is to discredit Global Warming?
Why exactly is universal healthcare un-American?
I live in a Universal Healthcare system and I know many people that have experienced both Universal Healthcare and the American system. Hands down, Universal healhcare is more efficent and better value for money. And despite all the propaganda, universal healthcare does NOT ration care.
Obama's system is a compromise to try and insure the 47 million Americans that are un-insured. You can choose to be privately insured if you want or you can choose to use the government system. What reason do you have for not liking the system? Or do you want those 47 million to turn up when they're almost dying taking up twice as much resources to treat them and then not being able to pay, pushing up YOUR insurance premiums?
Posted by Shafiq | July 24, 2009, 11:22 amTypical. When Right-Wing governments intrude on people's lives, it's necessary. When left-wing govts do it, it's a crime against God.
One of the responsibilities of the American government is to protect the American people from attack. The American government is NOT supposed to take over large sections of the economy or nationalize industries, in fact there are laws to protect against that. It is a "free market" system, although not completely free in the purest sense of the word in that there needs to be some regulation to keep things fair. But that's it.
The Obama administration intends to implement a "public option" in healthcare which will lead to a single payer system, otherwise known as universal healthcare.
Why is the cancer survivor rate lower in Canada than in the U.S.? It's because Canada has socialized medicine, which rations care and makes people wait for tests or treatment. The American system is better than that. Where do you think all the medical breakthroughs and new treatments and drugs come from? Socialized medicine will ruin all that.
Medical decisions should be between a doctor and a patient, without some bureaucrats in Washington getting in the way.. I was watching some debates on CSPAN where house republicans were trying to add amendments to the healthcare bill, on that healthcare committee headed by Waxman (a scumbag). House republicans wanted an amendment that would not allow the govt to deny or ration care based on percentages, and they gave come examples from England and Canada where that had happened and people died – the Democrats all voted against it – they want to ration care. Guess what, the people aren't going for that.
You see, Obama is trying to sell this program as a plan to insure everyone, but its REALLY a plan to bring down government costs because they are spending so much on Medicare and Medicaid. Like most democrat programs, they have to disguise it to sell it – but people are catching on – they wanted it passed before the August break but thankfully it didn't – now people have more time to learn about how terrible it is.
By the way – Obama Trims Sails On Health Reform
He Seeks to Rally Support by Promising Less
You know the "47 million" uninsured people? That number is completely wrong!
Obama is an idiot, while he is out making racial statements and having beer summits – 2 Obama officials: No guarantee taxes won't go up
Cap and Trade, the energy tax which raises utility bills for all Americans, does not actually limit the amount of gasses being released – it just collects money.
The Obama administration is misrepresenting the science of global warming, as has been done for a long time: Global Warming
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 3, 2009, 12:04 amOne of the responsibilities of the American government is to protect the American people from attack. The American government is NOT supposed to take over large sections of the economy or nationalize industries, in fact there are laws to protect against that. It is a "free market" system, although not completely free in the purest sense of the word in that there needs to be some regulation to keep things fair. But that's it.
By taking over people's civil liberties? No thanks. And which government started bailing out the banks? I wouldn't have a problem with the above views if they weren't so hypocritical. I don't mind when Ron Paul or libertarians trash Obama because they trash all politicians who want to nationalise industries. You on the other hand, had no problem when Bush was doing it.
The Obama administration intends to implement a "public option" in healthcare which will lead to a single payer system, otherwise known as universal healthcare.
The Obama administration hasn't come up with a healthcare plan so far. The House and Senate have come up with numerous ones, all of them crap. There are two options left – the Senate Finance committee comes up with a plan that's palatable to both Democrats and Republicans or Americans stop being so idiotic and accept the idea of universal healthcare.
Why is the cancer survivor rate lower in Canada than in the U.S.? It's because Canada has socialized medicine, which rations care and makes people wait for tests or treatment. The American system is better than that. Where do you think all the medical breakthroughs and new treatments and drugs come from? Socialized medicine will ruin all that.
The difference between US and Canadian cancer survival rates are minimal, less than 10%. And within the US there is great variation. Canadians and Europeans still manage to live longer than their US counterparts. How do you explain that?
Rations care? Have you ever experienced universal healthcare? The American system is the worst in the developed world! Full stop. We have breakthroughs in healthcare. We just don't run for shiny new technology that doesn't make a difference to our health. Medical decisions are made by doctors in a UH system. Within a mile from my house, I have one hospital, three healthcare centres, and five doctors' surgeries – I can choose to visit any one of them and can choose to see any doctor. I don't wait for tests (out of all healthcare systems, Americans are least likely to get their test results on time for the next appointment), I get them done straight away. I don't have to worry about costs and I don't have to worry about being given unnecessary treatments.
Medicare was a Bush program – and an awful one at that.
How many people are uninsured then? And why are 60% of bankruptcies related to healthcare costs?
The cap and trade bill was awful – but not for the reason your giving – it had no teeth with 70% of permits handed out to utility companies for free. It's not going to make any difference whatsoever.
There is a global scientific consensus on Global Warming. A post from your blog linking to random articles that don't actually disprove this consensus, isn't going to change that. (p.s. the science and public policy institute is a think-tank, NOT a research outfit,)
Posted by Shafiq | August 3, 2009, 10:55 amBy taking over people's civil liberties?
No ones civil liberties were taken over – that is just a talking point for the left because they opposed the Bush administration for purely political reasons. Those against beefing up security also jumped all over that, with the false criticisms, because they actually just didn't want America to be safe from attack (because they needed to be taught a lesson for invading Iraq, after all)
Bailing out the banks – Henry Paulson went against everything he stood for with the bank bailout because he thought there would be a disaster. By the way, the democrats CAUSED the financial crisis. Did you know that??? Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM
and this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxMInSfanqg
Watch these videos, they are pretty short. You didn't see this information in the mainstream media because it is so liberal.
So yes, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke enacted a plan to reduce damage that was ULTIMATELY CAUSED BY THE LEFT!
Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Kent Conrad, Chuck Schumer – how are they even still in government after what they did? After the Countrywide Loan Scandal, how are they not in jail? How did Franklin Raines walk away with millions after what he did? Why is he not in jail?
Medicare is not a Bush program. It is funny that you say that. Read this: http://www.ssa.gov/history/lbjsm.html
Medicare is terrible you say? Medicare operates as a single-payer health care system!
There is NOT a global consensus on global warming! Just as many scientists present evidence against it – it's just that the Al Gore types only present evidence that agrees with them, as the Obama administration is doing now.
The truth is, things are actually cooling down. People are fighting about this simply because of political reasons, and its sad that some people really think we are in some sort of man-caused danger. It seems like you really think there is some danger for future generations, or even for ourselves… well just know that there is just as much, if not more, evidence against global warming as there is for it.
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 4, 2009, 2:31 amDebunking myths about our 'lousy' health care system
Ten reasons why America’s health care system is in better condition than you might suppose
1. Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.
2. Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.
3. Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.
4. Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians.
5. Lower-income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians.
6. Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the United Kingdom.
7. People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed.
8. Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians.
9. Americans have better access to important new technologies such as medical imaging than do patients in Canada or Britain.
10. Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations.
The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other developed country. Since the mid- 1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to U.S. residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined. In only five of the past thirty-four years did a scientist living in the United States not win or share in the prize. Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.
Health Reform and Cancer
But the government’s plan to reform the health-care system in this country threatens all of this—particularly the development of new treatments.
Patient-as-person will be a lost concept under the new health-care plan, where treatments will be based not upon individual patient needs, but upon what’s best for everyone. So cancer drugs for seniors might take second place to jungle gyms and farmers’ markets—so-called preventive care—which are covered under both the House and Senate versions of the health bill.
The stimulus package passed earlier this year allocated $1.1 billion for hundreds of “Comparative Effectiveness Research” studies. This project will compare all treatment options for a host of diseases in order to develop a database to guide doctors’ decisions. Research of this sort typically takes years. But the data will likely be hastily drawn conclusions that reflect the view of the government agencies that fund the studies: Cheap therapies are just as good as expensive ones.
In order to finance health-care reform, Democrats in Congress have proposed cutting $500 billion from Medicare over the next 10 years. Yet in his press conference last Wednesday, President Barack Obama denied that Medicare benefits would be cut. He has surrounded himself with advisers who believe otherwise.
Tom Daschle, Mr. Obama’s original pick to head Health and Human Services, argues in his book “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis,” that we should accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments.” Mr. Daschle blames the “use and overuse of new technologies and treatments” for runaway health-care costs. He suggests a Federal Health Board modeled after the British “NICE” board to make decisions on health-care rationing.
But the British system is infamous for denying state-of-the-art drugs to cancer patients. Thus cancer-survival rates in Britain are far below those in America, just as they are in Canada.
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 4, 2009, 4:29 am1) The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990
2) The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960
3) The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960.
4) The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall US is 67th, right behind Botswana
5) Outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery disease, and renal failure show the United States to rank below Canada and a wide variety of industrialized nations.
6) The United States spends at least 40% more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country with universal health care
7) Federal studies by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting office show that single payer universal health care would save 100 to 200 Billion dollars per year despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits.
State studies by Massachusetts and Connecticut have shown that single payer universal health care would save 1 to 2 Billion dollars per year from the total medical expenses in those states despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits
9) The costs of health care in Canada as a % of GNP, which were identical to the United States when Canada changed to a single payer, universal health care system in 1971, have increased at a rate much lower than the United States, despite the US economy being much stronger than Canada’s.
10) Studies reveal that citizens in universal health care systems have more doctor visits and more hospital days than in the US
11) There would be free choice of health care providers under a single payer universal health care system, unlike our current managed care system in which people are forced to see providers on the insurer’s panel to obtain medical benefits
12) Taxes, fees and benefits would be decided by the insurer which would be under the control of a diverse board representing consumers, providers, business and government. It would not be a government controlled system, although the government would have to approve the taxes. The system would be run by a public trust, not the government.
13) Single payer universal health care is not socialized medicine. It is health care payment system, not a health care delivery system. Health care providers would be in fee for service practice, and would not be employees of the government, which would be socialized medicine. Single payer health care is not socialized medicine, any more than the public funding of education is socialized education, or the public funding of the defense industry is socialized defense.
14) Private for profit corporation are the lease efficient deliverer of health care. They spend between 20 and 30% of premiums on administration and profits. The public sector is the most efficient. Medicare spends 3% on administration.
15)The level of satisfaction with the US health care system is the lowest of any industrialized nation.
16)Uniform benefits. No Cadillac plans for the wealthy and Pinto plans for everyone else, with high deductibles, limited services, caps on payments for care, and no protection in the event of a catastrophe. One level of comprehensive care no matter what size your wallet.
17) Prevention. By removing financial roadblocks, a single payer system encourages preventive care that lowers an individual's ultimate cost and pain and suffering when problems are neglected, and societal cost in the over utilization of emergency rooms or the spread of communicable diseases.
The British system works perfectly fine. The 'State of the Art Drugs' 90% of the time have little effect and are only used when there effectiveness is proven. There is no reason why the patients can't pay for their own supply of these drugs. After all, even when doing so, their treatment would work out cheaper than the US system
Posted by Shafiq | August 4, 2009, 12:19 pmWhat so he's going to be president for 20 years and implement a universal healthcare system?
The New Deal was a stimulus program and it got the US out of a recession. And trust me, healthcare reform will NOT mean you're socialist – it'll mean you're sensible.
The stimulus has worked. The recession has slowed down much quicker than it was projected to. It's a shallower recession than what was expected and less people are unemployed than what was expected. What more do you want?
And of course I'm denying the mainstream media is liberal
Posted by Shafiq | August 5, 2009, 12:04 pmNo threat on Civil Liberties? Care to explain why Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows the FBI to spy on any US Citizen or resident without having any grounds to believe that they're taking part in criminal activity? As for lefties not wanting the US to be safe, can you prove that? How many times have I heard influential Republicans state they're praying for another terrorist attack to 'prove' Obama's wrong?
Henry Paulson bailed out the banks. Bush supported it. For you to say they were justified but Obama's not shows what an ideologue you are. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were just two pieces in what led to the financial crisis. Lack of regulation, which allowed banks to over-extend themselves, were the prime-root of the crisis. Same story in Britain and surprise, surprise, countries where there was tough regulation, were unaffected by the crisis (e.g. India and Sweden).
And for God's sake, FOX News IS mainstream media.
The Medicare reforms passed by Bush and the Republicans were awful. They underestimated the costs by $150 billion dollars. US Medicare, is a primary example of how not to have a single-payer system. It's funny how every other developed country in the world can manage it but you can't.
Can you see a world outside the US? There is a global consensus on Global Warming, with a couple of nut-jobs in the US denying it. No wonder your economy is going down the drain when you have people like you ignoring the evidence for Global Warming.
What political reasons are there for lying about Global Warming? What do the Democrats have to gain? I know what the electricity and oil companies have to gain by denying it.
Posted by Shafiq | August 4, 2009, 11:53 amHow many times have I heard influential Republicans state they're praying for another terrorist attack to 'prove' Obama's wrong?
Exactly zero.
For you to say they were justified but Obama's not shows what an ideologue you are.
Taking over the healthcare industry, auto companies, ect. is not the same thing. And Obama's big "stimulus plan" failed miserably and increased unemployment.
Lack of regulation, which allowed banks to over-extend themselves, were the prime-root of the crisis.
Did you not watch the video? Republicans tried to bring regulation and the Democrats blocked it!
Community groups and "progressive" political forces had lowered underwriting standards for lending!
which allowed banks to over-extend themselves
The left pressured banks to make loans they normally wouldn't make! READ THIS. It's all accurate and it shouldn't take too long to read.
It's funny how every other developed country in the world can manage it but you can't.
I am not managing healthcare, I am opposing socialized medicine which is a disaster for the U.S. Most Americans agree. The Dems wanted to rush through the legislation before people realized what it is, but they failed to get it before the August break.
GOP Gaining Traction Against Obama
Mainstream media in America is mostly liberal, from ABC, NBC, and CBS, to cable news to newspapers and magazines. Everyone knows it, they don't hide it. Yes, FOX News has been number one for several years because they are free of left-wing bias – their news reporting is neutral (We report, you decide) and then there are the opinion shows like O'Reilly and Hannity, which are great you should watch.
What political reasons are there for lying about Global Warming?
The left want to use it to control more of the economy. And it's not so much lying as it is cherry-picking the science.
I know what the electricity and oil companies have to gain by denying it.
Sure, maybe. But they aren't the ones denying it – its scientists who study it – there are conflicting findings. And its economists and politicians.
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 4, 2009, 12:25 pmOh really?
1) http://www.democrats.com/node/6836
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Rohrabacher#Def…
3) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/24/johnm…
4) http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/michael-s…
a) Obama's not taking over the healthcare industry, he's extending it to all those that are uninsured.
b) Bush would have done the same over GM
c) The stimulus plan has worked in China and most European countries – why wouldn't it work in the US? Did 2001 tax cuts by Bush work immediately? No
d) The banks weren't regulated enough, not Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And guess who got rid of the regulation?
e) You're against socialised medicine? Do you really think our European models are socialised? Do you honestly think that we do it out of misguided egalitarianism? We do it because it's cheap and effective.
f) FOX is so far to right, it's a hate channel. And the fact that you think it's neutral (I almost spilt my coffee when reading that) explains why you think the rest of the mainstream media is liberal. Simple answer: it aint. You're just too far to the right to notice.
g) The left wants to control the economy? So how do you explain all the right-wing governments that are harping on about global warming? I suppose the IPCC was founded by Marx?
h) Scientists and Economists? lol.
Posted by Shafiq | August 5, 2009, 10:54 amYou are denying that the mainstream media is liberal-biased?
Obama wants to take over the healthcare industry with a public option that leads to a single payer system. WATCH THIS
America is a Capitalist system, that's what made America great and continues to make America great – America is not meant for Socialism. That's a big part of the problem, Obama is a socialist trying to implement socialist policies – his stimulus is a failure and he wants to do even more damage, much bigger damage with energy and healthcare.
The stimulus hasn't worked and unemployment has gone up. When they were trying to pass it, the Dems said it needed to be passed immediately or it would be a catastrophe.
Bush would not have done the same to GM. (But Obama does the same as Bush concerning the wars, although thats not what he said in his campaign.)
That whole thing about trying to blame the financial mess…. just watch this video. Pay attention to it… you are repeating the inaccurate and untrue talking points of the left (which have been pushed by the liberal media). You are in the dark, and its the media's fault.
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 5, 2009, 11:52 amSection 215 deals with "Access to records and other items under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act."
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 is an Act of Congress which prescribes procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between "foreign powers" and "agents of foreign powers" (which may include American citizens and permanent residents suspected of being engaged in espionage and violating U.S. law on territory under United States control).
On July 10, President Bush signed the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (FAA). Until Congress enacted the FAA, FISA generally prohibited the government from conducting electronic surveillance without first obtaining an individualized order from the FISA court. The new law gives the court established by FISA an extremely limited role in overseeing the government’s surveillance activities.
No problem.
How many successful terrorist attacks have there been in the U.S. since 911? How many attempts were stopped? Nuff said.
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 4, 2009, 12:10 pmHow many successful terrorist attacks were there before 9/11?
Your reasoning is pathetic. The US has only suffered one terrorist attack. Britain on the other hand, learnt the hard way that you can't swap civil liberties with security:
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both
In 2002 and 2003, U.S. military officials created a data mining project that looked like something out of a bad science fiction novel: Total Information Awareness, which promised to keep tabs on us all.
In December 2005, the New York Times reported that the Bush administration had been wiretapping private telephone conversations without obtaining search warrants, in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
In May 2006, USA Today reported that the Bush administration is also attempting to compile a universal database of telephone calls made in the United States.
In January 2007, President Bush issued a signing statement claiming federal authority to search packages, without a warrant, in "exigent circumstances." Whether this represents a real shift in policy, or simple acknowledgment of the fact that postal inspectors have always claimed this authority, is not yet clear.
Posted by Shafiq | August 4, 2009, 12:25 pmThe Patriot Act has nothing to do with Britain. And Britain has its own challenges, from which we can learn.
It is unfortunate that Britain was hit by Muslim terrorists, and they did learn a hard lesson, but not the one you say.
The US has only suffered one terrorist attack
Foiled Attacks
What is it that makes you so afraid of surveillance for terrorism? Something to hide? lol Anyway, do some research on ECHELON – that will really bake your noodle.
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 4, 2009, 9:53 pmYou link Dan Hannan – a nobody MEP stating the obvious truth that our Prime Minister is the second worst PM in modern history after Tony Blair? The Patriot Act has curtailed the same civil liberties as Britain did for the Northern Irish population in the 70s and 80s. Did it stop terrorist attacks? NO!
And how many of the above foiled attacks were due to the Patriot Act? Absolutely Zero. How many foiled attacks were there before 9/11? Numerous.
"surveillance for terrorism" – How naive are you? What's there to stop government agencies from spying on you for a reason other than terrorism? Or (in the US) for practising First Amendment rights?
Posted by Shafiq | August 5, 2009, 10:23 am9/11-Style Attacks Foiled by Patriot Act
Saturday, Dec. 17, 2005
Since its inception, the measure has foiled at least three terrorist attacks of 9/11 proportions against the U.S. – and seven other attacks in nations of close allies around the globe.
Terrorist Watch: 23 Plots Foiled Since 9/11
July 2, 2009
While these particular attacks have been disrupted, the threat remains. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Congress should not construe the successes over the past eight years as a signal to reduce U.S. counterterrorism efforts.
Congress and the DHS will need to work together to provide continued support for terrorism-fighting tools, to increase information sharing and collective security efforts around the globe, and to expand vital law enforcement partnerships with local and state law enforcement and cooperation with the governments of other countries. These relationships have enabled the U.S. to disrupt the flow of money and resources to terrorist groups.
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 5, 2009, 10:48 amWhat's there to stop government agencies from spying on you for a reason other than terrorism?
If they catch me buying a joint with their massive spying capabilities, that evidence will not be admissible in court – how could you possibly present evidence collected that way? lol so again, no worries!
Seriously, counter-terrorism is not used for domestic law enforcement. Or did you mean what if they saw me naked in the shower with their secret new technology?
There is actually more to be afraid of from data-mining being done by private companies. Unlike the government, they sell and trade that data.
Also criminals steal data, such as with identity theft.
A little something I wrote a while back: Electronic Crimes
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 5, 2009, 11:07 amCounter-terrorist laws in the UK have been used to freeze the bank accounts of Icelanders after their banks collapsed taking the savings of many Britons with them.
They've also been used for petty snooping so excuse me if I have little trust in the government using legislation sensibly.
Take your pick. There's the NSA warrantless eavesdropping program wherein the president breezily authorized spying on the phone calls of innocent citizens, in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The FBI's TALON database shows the government has been spying on nonterrorist groups, including Quakers, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and Veterans for Peace. The Patriot Act lives on. And that's just the stuff we know about.
I read the above in an article. It seems it's not only my country facing this problem.
And what about the case of Jose Padilla? Do you think it's okay to torture US citizens?
Posted by Shafiq | August 5, 2009, 11:16 amIt seems it's not only my country facing this problem.
What problem? The article is just liberal whining about nothing in particular… NSA eavesdrops! But, no names of anyone harmed or otherwise inconvenienced… just a bunch of whining (for political reasons).
9/11-Style Attacks Foiled by Patriot Act
Terrorist Watch: 23 Plots Foiled Since 9/11
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 5, 2009, 12:05 pmOh, I'm sure you wouldn't mind being snooped on – after all, that's what the US is all about, isn't it? (mutters something about the fouth amendment).
I'm sure you won't mind Obama authorising NSA snooping on Conservatives who say they want him to fail?
And what are the chances that the list has been exaggerated by security services in order to gain more power? States that don't have such draconian legislation manage to cope just fine. How is that?
Posted by Shafiq | August 5, 2009, 1:01 pmObama is another story… yes, he is a problem:
GOP Senator: White House Encroaching on First Amendment
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 6, 2009, 7:02 amNOW you're worrying about the First Amendment? As if the Patriot Act didn't severely weaken it already?
NOW you're worried because you have a Democrat government? Well, you should have thought of that before supporting such ridiculous legislation.
Posted by Shafiq | August 6, 2009, 12:58 pmThe Patriot Act did not weaken the First Amendment in any way.
Obama's treading on First Amendment rights has nothing to do with the Patriot Act… didn't you read the article?
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 7, 2009, 6:22 amYou don't think Bush tracked emails critical of his administration?
Posted by Shafiq | August 7, 2009, 11:17 amFannie Mae and Freddie Mac were just two pieces in what led to the financial crisis.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were at the heart of it.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages from banks. They were directed (by efforts from the left) to buy more and more subprime mortgages. This increased the demand for subprime mortgages on the markets (supply and demand).
Banks were made to issue loans they normally wouldn't issue, again, by forces on the left.
There was a housing boom. Housing prices were going up (buy a house now, it will be worth more later! no worries!) During these good times banks issued risky loans, collected their fees, and sold the loans to Fannie and Freddie. Everyone is making money.
DERIVATIVES – A Derivative is a financial instrument that is derived from some other asset, index, event, value or condition (known as the underlying). Derivatives are often leveraged, such that a small movement in the underlying value can cause a large difference in the value of the derivative.
Mortgage assets can be sold to other banks and to investment banks. Investment banks can turn groups of mortgage assets into securities called Mortgage Backed Securities, or MBS. Groups of these MBS can be turned into Collateralized Mortgage Obligations, or CMO. CMOs are put into risk categories and put into Tranches. Something called Credit Default Swaps can be bought, which are like insurance on credit backed assets in case they fail.
Imagine that mortgage assets are a salad ingredient. They are mixed with other ingredients to make a salad. Imagine that under each piece of lettuce you find a small piece of toxic waste. Pretty soon no one would want the salad, and everyone would stop ordering the salad.
The toxic waste is the bad mortgage assets.
Now the derivatives are screwed – either worthless or of undetermined value.
The housing bubble popped, and housing prices started dropping. Before, you could borrow money for a house and sell it later for more money, but when the bubble popped, many people OWED more money for the home loan than the house was currently WORTH.
On top of that, investment banks had taken too many Credit Default Swaps.
President Bill Clinton signed the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act into law, which could be considered a deregulation bill. In 2000, Congress also passed legislation that, among other things, clarified that certain kinds of financial instruments were not regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Among these were "credit default swaps," which have played a role in the meltdown.
Financial services were not deregulated during the Bush Administration.
Please tell me you can understand this.
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 4, 2009, 10:25 pmI know how finance works, I study economics after all. Financial services were deregulated during the Reagan era (and during the Thatcher era in Britain).
The left (you talk about it as if it's a monolithic, shady corporation) had little influence on Fannie and Freddie during the Bush era, which is when the housing boom really took off. In Britain, we had no F&F equivalent but still faced a housing boom. How do you explain that? The Banks weren't forced to give mortgages to Americans who couldn't pay, they deluded themselves into thinking that they'd be able to recoup the money through rising house prices.
Posted by Shafiq | August 5, 2009, 10:59 amThe left… had little influence on Fannie and Freddie during the Bush era
The left had been interfering since before Bush. The mortgage crisis is a direct result of an intentional loosening of underwriting standards – done in the name of ending discrimination, despite warnings that it could lead to wide-scale defaults.
In 2004, Clinton appointee Democrat Franklin Raines steps down as CEO of Fannie May for bad accounting practices – he was cooking the books to hide the risks of buying all the subprime mortgages. He left with $90 million after 6 years.
A Fannie Mae Foundation report singled out a model of lending that worked with community activists and followed "the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted." That lender's $1 billion commitment to low-income loans in 1992 had grown to $80 billion by 1999 and $600 billion by early 2003. The lender was Countrywide.
The Banks weren't forced to give mortgages to Americans who couldn't pay,
Yes. they were!
A 1995 strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to find ways to provide mortgages to their poorer communities. It also let community activists intervene at yearly bank reviews, shaking the banks down for large pots of money.
Banks that got poor reviews were punished; some saw their merger plans frustrated; others faced direct legal challenges by the Justice Department.
Flexible lending programs expanded even though they had higher default rates than loans with traditional standards. On the Web, you can still find CRA loans available via ACORN with "100 percent financing . . . no credit scores . . . undocumented income . . . even if you don't report it on your tax returns." Credit counseling is required, of course.
they deluded themselves into thinking that they'd be able to recoup the money through rising house prices.
The banks made mortgages, collected their fees, and then sold the mortgages to Fannie and Freddie. Fannie and Freddie turned mortgages into derivatives and sold them to investment banks (which thought they were safe because Fannie and Freddie were Government Sponsored Enterprises, GSEs)
You seem to have some difficulty in either understanding or else accepting what happened.
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 5, 2009, 11:33 amYou've gotten it all mixed up. F&F didn't sell mortgages to anyone. They bought mortgages from the banks (as did the Investment banks). Before 2004, sub-prime mortgages only made up 10% of the market. They rose to 25% after the April 2004 decision by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to relax the net capital rule, which encouraged the largest five investment banks to dramatically increase their financial leverage and aggressively expand their issuance of mortgage-backed securities. This applied additional competitive pressure to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which further expanded their riskier lending.
Others have pointed out that there were not enough of these loans made to cause a crisis of this magnitude. In an article in Portfolio Magazine, Michael Lewis spoke with one trader who noted that "There weren’t enough Americans with [bad] credit taking out [bad loans] to satisfy investors’ appetite for the end product." Essentially, investment banks and hedge funds used financial innovation to synthesize more loans using derivatives. "They were creating [loans] out of whole cloth. One hundred times over! That’s why the losses are so much greater than the loans."
You need to do some more research on the causes of the financial crisis.
Posted by Shafiq | August 5, 2009, 11:47 am"One trader" says there weren't enough bad loans made to cause this mess? lol!
He's obviously trying to cover up for what the left did with lowering lending standards. Defaults were the problem! Getting bad assets (derivatives with toxic loans) off of balance sheets and all that.
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 5, 2009, 12:20 pmWhat a predictable reply!
The derivatives and securities markets were completely unregulated meaning that the financial institutions could have done whatever they wanted with them – and guess what? they did.
Posted by Shafiq | August 5, 2009, 1:17 pmmarkets were completely unregulated
One of the big problems was Credit Default Swaps – those were deregulated under Clinton…
President Bill Clinton signed the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act into law, which could be considered a deregulation bill. In 2000, Congress also passed legislation that, among other things, clarified that certain kinds of financial instruments were not regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Among these were "credit default swaps," which have played a role in this year's meltdown.
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 6, 2009, 3:35 amSo you admit de-regulation was the problem? I do concede that Democrats are as much to blame for the financial crisis as Republicans are. I would like to just expand a bit on the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act:
Respective versions of the legislation were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The third lawmaker associated with the bill was Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Virginia).
he House passed its version of the Financial Services Act of 1999 on July 1st by a bipartisan vote of 343-86 (|Republicans 205–16; Democrats 138–69; Independent/Socialist 0–1),[3] [4] [5] two months after the Senate had already passed its version of the bill on May 6th by a much-narrower 54–44 vote along basically-partisan lines (53 Republicans and one Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).
Posted by Shafiq | August 6, 2009, 12:52 pmFannie and Freddie purchase mortgages from the lenders who originate them. They hold some of these mortgages, and some are "securitized" — sold in the form of securities.
The two GSEs today are among the largest corporations in the world.
The securities are derivatives, and yes the losses could be much greater. Look at my earlier post… you are just repeating what I was trying to say.
Your only mistake is that yes, Fannie and Freddie sold securities (derived from mortgages)
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 5, 2009, 12:16 pmThe investment banks bought their mortgages directly from the banks and did their own securitisation. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac played their part, I admit, but the investment banks played a much larger part.
Posted by Shafiq | August 5, 2009, 1:14 pmFannie Mae and Freddie Mac played their part, I admit, but the investment banks played a much larger part.
lol you are mistaken.
Fannie and Freddie are at the heart of this meltdown.
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 6, 2009, 6:53 amThey are? You still haven't explained to be how states (like mine) suffered a similar meltdown without having a Fannie and Freddie equivalent.
Posted by Shafiq | August 6, 2009, 12:54 pmAbout half of U.S. mortgages seen underwater by 2011
NEW YORK (Reuters) – The percentage of U.S. homeowners who owe more than their house is worth will nearly double to 48 percent in 2011 from 26 percent at the end of March, portending another blow to the housing market, Deutsche Bank said on Wednesday.
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 6, 2009, 6:51 am"The left had been interfering since before Bush."
"In 2004, Clinton appointee Democrat Franklin Raines steps down as CEO of Fannie May for bad accounting practices"
Since when is Clinton a part of the left? He's a centrist, and most would agree that his politics are center-right. He's more like you than he is to those "evil leftists" as you like to call them.
In any case, this financial collapse is a legacy of the Reagan deregulation era that continued into the Bush Sr era, that was adopted by the Clinton administration, and then sent full steam ahead by the Bush Jr crowd.
All your conspiracy theories, about "stealth jihads," and "evil minorities" wont change that simple fact.
Posted by Arayus | August 5, 2009, 5:53 pmArayus this is a little above your head. This will help you:
WATCH THIS VIDEO
AND THIS ONE
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 6, 2009, 3:38 amDems Start To Push Back Hard To Prevent A 'Waterloo' http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/hca_…
Posted by eagle007blogger | July 23, 2009, 1:01 amDems Start To Push Back Hard To Prevent A 'Waterloo'
Senate Finance ranking member Charles Grassley: "A Democrat congressman last week told me after a conversation with the president that the president had trouble in the House of Representatives, and it wasn't going to pass if there weren't some changes made … and the president says, 'You're going to destroy my presidency.' "
Posted by eagle007blogger | July 23, 2009, 1:03 amGOP Gaining Traction Against Obama
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 5, 2009, 6:41 amNANCY PELOSI IS GOING CRAZY!
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 6, 2009, 7:02 amObamacare's Fatal Flaw
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 7, 2009, 9:40 amWell the answer is a single-payer system. That's the only way Obama can fulfil his promise of bringing the 47 million uninsured into the system, whilst not spending any more.
Would it be more palatable if each state had its own single-payer system? – less bureaucracy, and the more conservative states can have a more market-based system
Posted by Shafiq | August 7, 2009, 11:20 amObama may soften healthcare plan
President Barack Obama's administration has signalled that its healthcare reforms may be diluted, amid pressure from opponents.
In an interview with CNN, Ms Sebelius said that Mr Obama's government-run insurance plan – a so-called "public option" – was "not the essential element" of the administration reforms.
PEOPLE DON'T WANT GOVERNMENT-CONTROLLED HEALTHCARE!
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 17, 2009, 7:08 pmYeah, the world kinda figured.
After all, which other country's populations resort to telling lies about the healthcare systems of other nations to try and derail healthcare reform in their own country?
I think you'll like this link: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/j…
Posted by Shafiq | August 18, 2009, 10:11 amYou should stick with the facts Shafiq…
Canada's top doctor: Health care system 'imploding'…
'We all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize'…
Firms with Obama ties profit from health push
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's push for a national health care overhaul is providing a financial windfall in the election offseason to Democratic consulting firms that are closely connected to the president and two top advisers.
Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval plummets
Approval of Obama, Democrats Declines, Pew Poll Says (Update1)
Obama Goes Postal, Lands in Dead-Letter Office
Impromptu Obamanomics is getting scarier by the day. For all the president’s touted intelligence, his un-teleprompted comments reveal a basic misunderstanding of capitalist principles.
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 20, 2009, 2:20 amYou should stick with the facts Shafiq…
Canada's top doctor: Health care system 'imploding'…
'We all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize'…
Firms with Obama ties profit from health push
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's push for a national health care overhaul is providing a financial windfall in the election offseason to Democratic consulting firms that are closely connected to the president and two top advisers.
Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval plummets
Approval of Obama, Democrats Declines, Pew Poll Says (Update1)
Obama Goes Postal, Lands in Dead-Letter Office
Impromptu Obamanomics is getting scarier by the day. For all the president’s touted intelligence, his un-teleprompted comments reveal a basic misunderstanding of capitalist principles.
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 20, 2009, 2:20 amThe Canadian healthcare system faces challenges and which countries does he go for advice? England, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands and France.
And what part of the article wasn't factual?
The US healthcare system is also close to imploding. You already spend 1/7th of your wealth on healthcare and that's going to rise steeply as you get older. Europe and Canada faces the same challenges but nowhere to the same degree.
I also love your 'advice' to stick with the facts. That's rich coming from someone that thinks the US has the best healthcare system in the world.
Posted by Shafiq | August 20, 2009, 10:35 amObamacare's Fatal Flaw
Posted by eagle007blogger | August 7, 2009, 9:40 am