Homeland Security Secretary Doesnt Trust Veterans

[lenore]

This is disgusting, our new homeland security secretary considers conservatives, right wingers, and veterans on the top of the list as being potential terrorist.

Napolitano stands by 'extremism' report - Washington Times

Quote:

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Wednesday that she was briefed before the release of a controversial intelligence assessment and that she stands by the report, which lists returning veterans among terrorist risks to the U.S.

But the top House Democrat with oversight of the Department of Homeland Security said in a letter to Ms. Napolitano that he was "dumbfounded" that such a report would be issued.

"This report appears to raise significant issues involving the privacy and civil liberties of many Americans - including war veterans," said Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, in his letter sent Tuesday night.

The letter was representative of a public furor over the nine-page document since its existence was reported in The Washington Times on Tuesday.

In her statement Wednesday, Ms. Napolitano defended the report, which says "rightwing extremism" may include groups opposed to abortion and immigration, as merely one among several threat assessments. But she agreed to meet with the head of the American Legion, who had expressed anger over the report, when she returns to Washington next week from a tour of the U.S.-Mexico border.

"The document on right-wing extremism sent last week by this department's Office of Intelligence and Analysis is one in an ongoing series of assessments to provide situational awareness to state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies on the phenomenon and trends of violent radicalization in the United States," Ms. Napolitano said in her statement.

"I was briefed on the general topic, which is one that struck a nerve as someone personally involved in the Timothy McVeigh prosecution," Ms. Napolitano said.

Ms. Napolitano insisted that the department was not planning on engaging in any form of ideological profiling.

"Let me be very clear: We monitor the risks of violent extremism taking root here in the United States. We don't have the luxury of focusing our efforts on one group; we must protect the country from terrorism whether foreign or homegrown, and regardless of the ideology that motivates its violence," Ms. Napolitano said.

"We are on the lookout for criminal and terrorist activity but we do not - nor will we ever - monitor ideology or political beliefs. We take seriously our responsibility to protect the civil rights and liberties of the American people, including subjecting our activities to rigorous oversight from numerous internal and external sources."

[lenore]

Update: she did a half as%$$ apology today....

[nc211]

I can somewhat see where she is coming from though regarding the returning soldiers from Iraq & Afghanistan, especially in light of the poor job the VA does to "de traumatize" these ladies and gentlemen. I mean, honestly, can we really expect each and every soldier who returns home to not have some sense of disgruntlement about the horror's they just went through? Especially in light of all the negative comments allowed to be aired by folks of power and access to the media trucks regarding the war(s) itself? I think the proper thing for Ms. Napolitano to do is make sure the VA has MORE than enough funding to provide the proper level of care to these fine soldiers when they return, to help with the post traumatic stress. If we just pull them off the streets of Baghdad and put them right back on Main Street, USA, with no assistance first for them to release that tension, then there really is no way of telling how they'll fell towards the government that sent them there in the first place. Especially those who had to face the "stop loss" protocol that kept them there far longer than they originally intended to be there. Putting an FBI spook at their door will do nothing but make them feel even more alienated towards their home field. These guys and gals have been trained to kill anything that appears to be threatening to them. If we don't detrain them first, those instincts will remain in the forefront of their everyday thinkings, and justly so. Only good leadership and results can appear from a leader willing to see both sides, and work with all parties to create a real and lasting solution. The fact that she referred to her "personal connection" to the OKC bombings, lends to the thinking that her inability to be objective is possibly real. Another Ashcroft "remember that guy from early W' days, the Attorney General?"

Say what you will about Bush, but if this adminstration is set to get as far away from all of the policies put into place during his 8 years, well, they're going to reverse some of the good one's that quite frankly have helped to keep this country, and others, safe. Perfect example, the release of the memos today that outlined some of the techniques used to get information from captured terrorists. Who in the general population really needs to read that stuff? Why? What good did that do for us? Now, those who aim to kill us, can simply walk down to their local wifi cafe, log in, and read what they might face if caught, and train to prepare to defeat the technique. It just doesn't make sense to me. Hey, it's war ladies and gentlemen. If pouring a bucket of water over the head of someone who would rather me be dead to begin with, to get information on a pending plan to blow up 13 international 747's over the Atlantic ocean to save a 3,000 lives is what it takes, then so be it. In my opinion, if an enemy of this country and it's allies are strong enough to pick up a gun and shot at us, but are too cowardly to kill themselves when they're clearly going to lose the gunfight, has no rights. You gave up those rights when you picked up that gun and pulled that trigger for the sole reason of just killing someone who doesn't see the world EXACTLY the same way you do, and refuse to think otherwise.

[Lucky13]

They do not need to be "detrained". In and of itself the training and skills and even instincts they recieve are not wrong or harmfull.

[nc211]

They do not need to be "detrained". In and of itself the training and skills and even instincts they recieve are not wrong or harmfull.

So, then what do propose to the "kids" that have no other element of supporting themselves other than "here son, take this M16 and walk down that street. If anyone doesn't respond to your orders to come out with their hands up, kill them". Because I can assure you, that is exactly what was happening in the heat of the Iraq war, especially in Falluja. So, what do you tell that "kid" at 20 years of age now, at 22 years of age, no college, no career options, and hollow echos of war running around in their dreams at night? It doesn't take much imagination to see what that path can lead to for that young soldier. Don't believe me? Go spend a week down in Fayetteville, NC, "Fort Bragg", or Jacksonville Beach, NC "Camp Lejune" or any of the outlining cities of any army base in this country. You don't decompress some of these fine soldiers before saying "thanks for your service, good luck with your life", you're asking for a trouble. We train them to kill, now you have to train them to interact and ease back into the population base.

[lenore]

I believe, first that this kind of thing should never have been allowed to surface to the public. Shame on this administration for letting it go to the newspapers to support an agenda of tearing down the conservative, right wing, etc... The way it is portrayed is that every veteran is no better than Timonthy Devae. Did our forefathers (revolutionary, civil war, Spanish American war, World War 1, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam, and Gulf Wars) in their eyes only create terrorist? What an arrogant, left wing bunch of crap. My father was a 20 year veteran of the Berlin Airlift, Korean War, and Cold War, as well as the start of the Vietnam War. I am a Vietnam Veteran, my son is a Gulf war Veteran, does that mean we should register ourselfs as Terrorist? For crying out loud, this is the same as what Hitler did with any group that was considered a enemy to the Reich. God Bless our Veterans, They are the only ones that protect our rights and truely commit to the oath to defend this nation. I am disgusted with our Secretary of Homeland Security. If I had said what she said I would have been considered a hate criminal. How dare she agree with such a report. She should be fired immediately. As for detraining, what the H$%$$L is that comment. They are not the Manchurian candidate.

The majority of them come back and continue in their previous jobs, firemen, police officers, teachers, moms, dads. If anything we should get rid of the politically correct crowd and call the terrorist for what they are, not little children with blond hair and blue eyes being searched at the Airports. Do we forget who did the Trade Centers?? The Pentagon?? They were not blue eyed, blond haired, nor little old ladies.....

[nc211]

As for detraining, what the H$%$$L is that comment. They are not the Manchurian candidate.

You know what I'm trying to say, lenore. We can't expect every single soldier who returns to us, to not be truamatized by the effects of war. And, we would be foolish to think that some of those who are traumatized, with no avenue available to help, won't grow angry at that of which they might feel is responsible for that trauma in their lives. That's all I'm saying. Some evidence of that, is the case of the soldier who killed the pregnant lady in Ft. Bragg two years ago, and ran off to Mexico to hide "but got caught and is now back in NC to stand trial". The sheer brutality of that case suggests more than just the killing of someone. Creating a fire pit in your back yard to...well...I'm not going any further with this. Google it if you like.

[RX in NC]

Exactly. Veterans don't like to hear it, but there is a greater number of unstable, dangerous characters in the military today as compared to the traditional serviceman in the WWII, Korean War, and even Vietnam timeframes. Many of today's recruits were borderline when they signed up, were further traumatized by their experiences in a war zone, and then can't or won't get the help they need to decompress and safely return to civilian life when their term of service is over. Then they can't adjust, their brains snap, and they wind up killing their wives or girlfriends in fits of rage. We see these stories on the news far too often these days. I don't have an answer other than better pre-selection screening by the military (especially the Marines and the Army) and a mandatory decompression program that gives these guys a better chance to safely return to "normal civilian life" again, whatever that may be. The Air Force and the Navy seem to do it much better - the guys who snap, kill somebody, and then make headlines all over the country always seem to be either Marines or Army....

Lenore, I'm not knocking veterans. The vast majority do indeed return to civilian life without incident. My late father fought his way across Europe as a machine-gunner on a tank in Patton's 3rd Army during WWII. He was 18 and 19 years old. He did his duty, was fortunate to survive, returned home, went to college on the GI Bill, got married, started a career, started a family, and never talked about his experiences overseas with anyone. But those who knew him both before and after his tour of duty said that he was definitely a changed man after returning stateside. He kept to himself more. He had recurring nightmares about his experiences in the middle of the Battle of the Bulge. His temper changed from mild to unpredictable. There was no help available from the Army in dealing with this even though my grandmother pursued it for years. So he handled it himself as best he could. He didn't go ballistic on my mother or any of us three kids thank goodness, but when he finally snapped in February 1974, he drove off to a remote location 100 miles from home and put a bullet through his brain leaving a wife and three kids behind to deal with the consequences. I was in the middle of my second semester mid-term exams during my junior year in college. We buried my father and the next day I was back in class taking exams because I knew life goes on and it was the right thing to do....

So I have some indirect experience in this matter when I say that the military has long failed its returning servicemen in terms of providing them with the decompression and counseling they need in order to return successfully and safely to civilian life....

[lenore]

I understand what you both are saying, And I am a big advocate of helping returning vets through any of their problems. We owe it to them. Thank God for our vets. I just feel the Secretary of Homeland Security had no right putting out publically a list which put Vets at the top of the list, as potential terrorist. Not terrorist, but potentially unstable yes.. Terrorist are what those wonderful folks did to us in the Trade Centers, Pentagon, the Embassy bombings, etc. Two very different personalities. A terrorist has a mission of distruction to our way of life and our country. The Serviceman that kills or snaps is an individual that has mental problems which need to be dealt with.

[nc211]

I just feel the Secretary of Homeland Security had no right putting out publically a list which put Vets at the top of the list, as potential terrorist. Not terrorist, but potentially unstable yes.. Terrorist are what those wonderful folks did to us in the Trade Centers, Pentagon, the Embassy bombings, etc. Two very different personalities. A terrorist has a mission of distruction to our way of life and our country. The Serviceman that kills or snaps is an individual that has mental problems which need to be dealt with.

I see your point of view now, and I clearly agree with what you're saying. Labeling those who defend us, as a potential enemy, is b/s.

[lenore]

thanks NC211, This is an outrage putting them in the same class as terrorist. Another one of our PC crowd tearing down our nation.....

[nc211]

I wouldn't worry too much about it Lenore, my gutt is telling me that if the past 100 days is any indication of the next 1,360, Obama's arrogance is going to set himself up for the same results Jimmy Carter had, especially if the GOP can produce a canidate that isn't shaking hands with his right, and clutching his oxygen bottle with the left. I'm starting to see a good bit of stuff similiar to the quote below from an article about Obama's decision to allow the prosecution of former Bush legal advisors. This, and the backpeddling of several political figures these days "Pelosi, I'm talking about you and waterboarding", I think the memories of the public will revert back to the messy days of Bill Clinton. Say what you will about Bush "and there is a lot to be said", but you've got to admit, he ran a pretty tight ship in DC. I think over the course of the next few years, we're going realize how tight it was, and some might miss it.

"Mr. Obama may think he can soar above all of this, but he'll soon learn otherwise. The Beltway's political energy will focus more on the spectacle of revenge, and less on his agenda. The CIA will have its reputation smeared, and its agents second-guessing themselves. And if there is another terror attack against Americans, Mr. Obama will have set himself up for the argument that his campaign against the Bush policies is partly to blame."

[RX in NC]

Sorry nc211, but Bush's reign will be missed by very, very few here in America or around the world. Obama still scores high approval ratings even with the gaffes that have taken place around him. Don't underestimate his intelligence as much of the GOP did during the run-up to the election - that will carry him a long, long way if he keeps his nose clean (and assassination attempts continue to be kept in check - still his biggest threat in my opinion). The GOP needs more than just youth from a potential party leader - they need competence, humility, brainpower, the actual ability to work both sides of the aisle after getting pulverized in November, and it wouldn't hurt to find a little star power as well. Palin was a joke and is off the table just as she should be. Bobby Jihndal (spelling?) has shown that he is nowhere near ready for prime time and remains far too wooden in his delivery and appearance. The GOP will need at least a couple of years to identify their best-chance candidate for 2012. But if the economy turns around by the end of 2010 and the Obama administration successfully withdraws our troops from Iraq on schedule, it won't matter who the Republicans put up against him. And if we manage to nail Bin Laden on Obama's watch, fuggetaboutit....

[nc211]

I KNEW you'd be the first to react to that! You're getting slow old timer, at 40 minutes! I was about to call the NC GOP office and give them your name as a possible "softening" democrat!

[RX in NC]

Way too busy with other more pressing matters lately to check these boards as frequently as I used to....

But at least my memory remains sharp as a tack. What happened to yours? I've said multiple times over the years that I've been a registered Republican since becoming eligible to vote way back in 1972 (probably before you were even a figment of your dad's imagination). An idiot in the Oval Office for the past 8 years didn't cause me to switch party affiliation. Made me ashamed to admit it quite frequently, but I still couldn't bring myself to step over to the other side....

[SW03ES]

I find it fascinating how quickly people's opinions turn. I don't watch it as closely as you nc, but I just don't see the issues...

Apparently neither do most since his approvals are so high.

Who is the GOP going to run, Jindal?

I think Obama is doing fine.

[nc211]

I certainly agree on how quickly people's opinions turn as well. That's part of our fast-food society mind set. I think he's doing a good job too, but my gut honestly has this growing feeling that a backlash is coming. Some of it is starting to show in some of the press articles from foreign leaders, and certain political groups that were once praising him prior to the election. I like the fact that we're talking to people that we haven't talked to in decades, like Cuba, and Venzuela, and the like. To simply ignore these countries just seems childish and counter productive. I like the "fresh" approach he's taking in certain regards. But, and it's too soon to judge the results, but I think the arrogant and bullied approach he's taking towards the economy can create some pretty nasty backlash. If he is successful in that regard, in both the cover page, and back stage players, he's golden for a second term. But, if he goes too far with the "Presidential Powers" to control the business sector, I think he'll make some very nasty and very wealthy enemies. That is what I'm seeing the most in terms of negative articles about him now. Banks wanting to give the TARP money back, but being told no, which results in the government controls still in play for that bank "which makes the bank angry". The comment to the CEO's of the big banks a few weeks ago about "I'm the only thing between you and the pitchforks", set the wrong tone. Plus, and I know this for a fact, I don't care who you are, if you call the Titans of business to your office for a meeting, you offer them a place to sit, and you offer them refreshments. Obama made those Titans stand the whole time, no water offered, and when one asked for a glass of water, it was warm tap water. Now, I understand the public perception against the banking community right now, infact, my mortgage bill this past month had an additional $25 fee tacked on, just because "which can't be done", but none the less, they tried "but it just got paid off with the sale of the home". But, as the President, you have to see beyond today's feeling, and realize that things will get better, and you will need these Titans of Industry on your side in three years. That sort of stuff is what concerns me about Obama right now. We had one President too quick to write the checks, and it appears we have one now that seems to quick to act out of personal emotion. He's got to balance that.

Furthermore, I think there is one thing that Bush and his team can be credited with. There was only one 9/11. He and his team were able to prevent other "not all" terrorist attacks around the world, and he was able to calm the country. Some of those tactics, in my opinion, we don't want to reverse, because they've worked, and continue to work. Also, Iraq sure is looking a lot better, and I firmly believe is on the path to self sustaining ability as one of our allies. I hope they are anyway, as we have just completed the world's largest embassy in history over there for us. We're there, for decades to come. I have yet to read a post on any of the other forums I cruise that says anything negative about waterboarding a terrorist. In fact, every single post I've read, seems to agree with the tactic. Here is a guy who wants to kill all of us, and all we're doing is pouring a bucket of water on his head to get him to talk. That's a far cry from what they do to our captured.

I want to be a kinder, and gentler nation too. But, I don't want to revert back to the Clinton days of breaking down our military to the point of nearly being unable to respond to an attack, other than launching a missle.

Jindal has no chance in my opinion. But, Mitt Romney does. Especially if the economy is still in bad shape, which will play right into the hands of his business executive leadership background.

We'll see what happens. I'm not saying I think Obama is doing a bad job, I think it's still too early to tell. There's been a LOT of talking going on, but the results aren't showing yet. That'll take some time. Hopefully he can pull it off! You've got to admit, it's an interesting time to be an American right now. I must say, in a selfish kind of way, I really like this "return to basics" feeling that is creeping over the country right now. It's almost a relief to slow down, kind of like that rainy Sunday every once in a while where you can just sit on the sofa and watch a Clint Eastwood filmathon on A&E, instead of having to mow the yard, clean the gutters, wash the car, do this, do that... We're starting to save again, instead of this frantic spend spend spend mind set over the past 8 years. Granted, it's killing the economy these days, which isn't good. But I think you see where I'm coming from. I, and I think the under current of the country, is finally starting to feel like 9/11 and those raw "kill 'em all" emotions are starting to take their places in the history books of our nation and world.

[SW03ES]

The comment to the CEO's of the big banks a few weeks ago about "I'm the only thing between you and the pitchforks", set the wrong tone.

But he's right!

Plus, and I know this for a fact, I don't care who you are, if you call the Titans of business to your office for a meeting, you offer them a place to sit, and you offer them refreshments. Obama made those Titans stand the whole time, no water offered, and when one asked for a glass of water, it was warm tap water.

You mean the titans that greenlighted the irresponsible banking practices that started this mess and needed billions in bailout money to keep their banks afloat?

Come on. I like it, we don't need to woo these folks. IMHO these banks need to start wooing us a little.

The attitude in the banking industry needs a correction, I'm happy none of my taxpayer money went to provide them refreshments and they can sit on the private jets I paid for on the way home.

[nc211]

The comment to the CEO's of the big banks a few weeks ago about "I'm the only thing between you and the pitchforks", set the wrong tone.

But he's right!

Plus, and I know this for a fact, I don't care who you are, if you call the Titans of business to your office for a meeting, you offer them a place to sit, and you offer them refreshments. Obama made those Titans stand the whole time, no water offered, and when one asked for a glass of water, it was warm tap water.

You mean the titans that greenlighted the irresponsible banking practices that started this mess and needed billions in bailout money to keep their banks afloat?

Come on. I like it, we don't need to woo these folks. IMHO these banks need to start wooing us a little.

The attitude in the banking industry needs a correction, I'm happy none of my taxpayer money went to provide them refreshments and they can sit on the private jets I paid for on the way home.

I hear ya', and can easily see where you're coming from. My take on all of this is:

The Titans he had lined up like little school children in his office, in all honesty, weren't exactly "the" titans that greenlighted this mess. They were going with the system, which in a good argument, can been seen as just the same, I get that. But, it wasn't the CEO of BofA that told Fannie & Freddie to move towards a more private sector playing field and open the doors to buy subprime loans at a feverish pitch. It wasn't the CEO of Wells Fargo that created the Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO) security agreement that roiled Wall Street, and it wasn't the CEO of PNC that enforced the Mark to Market accounting rules. Nor were it either of them running up oil last summer that really put the nail in the coffins. These guys were doing as instructed by the machine, which was "get the money out the door, and give the notes to Fannie and Freddie". They were propositioned from Investment Banks to do these toxic commercial instruments (CDO's), scratched their heads in confusion, then went to the SEC to get their take on it, and they simply said "we like CDO's, you should do them", so they did. Those who should be on that pitchfork are the ones running the SEC for failing to understand, what the majority of us knew to avoid, the rating agencies for being wooed' by the Investment Banks "Lehman, Merrill, etc". And the SEC should be pitchforked for allowing the credit default swaps market to run like it did, which is the core underlining reason why so many institutions are in trouble and needed that "bailout" money. The credit default swaps market was in no way shape or form different than if you, me, DCfish, and SRK all went to Vegas. You went to the 21 table, and I told you that I would cover your losses for a fee. And then I turn to DCFish and say "I'll sell you that fee for a fee", and he turns to SRK and says the same thing. You paid me $100 to cover your losses. You lose $10,000, and I'm screwed because I don't have $9,900 right now, and have to turn to DCfish to call that contract, and he turns to SRK and calls that contract, all the while, you're getting your butt beat by the bouncer while we're in the corner digging in our pockets for money we don't have. At which point, you tell the bouncer "those guys have your money", and now we're getting our butts kicked too. The main players sitting at the table, were Bears Stern, and Lehman Brothers.

The folks responsible for this, is the SEC, of which Obama nor Bush will/would approach in such a public fashion as Obama did to the banks. He's forcing banking and investment institutions that did not get wrapped up in the CDO mess, Credit Default Swaps mess, and Subprime mess to take the TARP money "which is the backdoor for the government to control the boardroom", and now they're starting to say "hey, we didn't ask for it, we didn't want it, and now you won't take it back because you want to use it as leverage to run our business". THAT, is certain to backfire. You know where I work, and the only reason why we're not in that mess is because (1) we're not public (2) we do our homework and saw what the CDO market and credit default swap market was really about. BUT, even though we're fine, the Treasury department right now, is trying to enact legistlation to expand their "controlling" powers beyond the banking sector into the other playing fields of the financial world "us". Even though, we're a private company, in good shape. THAT too, will certainly backfire if allowed to happen.

It wasn't the bank that made the Alt-A mortgage .25% cheaper with no paperwork then the traditional mortgage, that we took in 06' in NC. It was Fannie and Freddie Mac that did that. And, I for one, thank them for it, because it saved me personally several hundred dollars a year, and got us the mortgage in 30 minutes..... That, was the problem.

[SW03ES]

Well it wasn't a problem because you didnt lie about your income when you got the Alt-A mortgage, and neither did I.

I don't disagree with you, but the banks are not innocent in all of this, not hardly. The issue goes on too with them witholding credit putting small, medium, and large companies out of business, hiking credit card rates, these banks have been fleecing the American taxpayer for years.

Time will tell, I don't think it will backfire personally. I don't see a lot of demand out there for a President who wants to be big banks' buddy. I think everybody's a little shell shocked by this guy actually *doing* the things he said he was going to do.

He campaigned on the promise that he would:

1. Work to enact swift rescue for the economy

2. Take a firm hand with banks and work to put an end to business practices that are abusive to the American consumer

3. Cut taxes for middle class Americans

4. Take steps to restore and heal America's reputation with the world

5. Open up new dialogues with old enemies

6. Start down the road looking at forms of renewable energy

7. Start down the road exploring workable solutions to the American healthcare crisis.

Well, I'll be darned in his for 95 days he's made a lot of progress in pretty much every one of those areas. In fact, IMHO, I think its hard to believe he's only been in office 3 months. I like that, action. We haven't had that in a *long* time. Thats what Americans are reacting to

[RX in NC]

Well put. The Old Boy Network has been shaken to its knees for the first time in decades, and it is sputtering and complaining and still formulating on how it will respond over the long haul. The old guard didn't believe that Obama actually had the cahunas to really do what he said he would do during his campaign. They are finding out now that he meant what he said and that he's willing to stake his reputation (and potential second term) on it. Whether you agree with him or not, you must admit that the man has guts to go along with his smarts. Very, very refreshing after the previous eight years....

[nc211]

I don't disagree with you, but the banks are not innocent in all of this, not hardly. The issue goes on too with them witholding credit putting small, medium, and large companies out of business, hiking credit card rates, these banks have been fleecing the American taxpayer for years.

Oh, I certainly agree the banks aren't exactly "victims" in all of this either. It still amazes me that when things began to turn sour in the residential mortgage business, that the banks simply pointed their finger at the mortgage brokerage community, and put the blame squarely on them 100%. Granted, some mortgage brokers weren't exactly straight and narrow on the path, but what happened to the bank's underwriters too? Where were they when that package came in from the broker to make sure the information was correct and verified? I also find it quite discomforting that the FDIC internal auditing community was no where to be seen from 2003-2007, in which they were supposed to visit the banks and audit their books to make sure they were in compliance. The credit union side was doing this "NCUA", and you don't hear nearly the cry baby stories from them these days "although they're starting to hurt too". Our mortgages (2) were both done by First Horizon. The primary note was sold to MetLife recently, and the closed end equity was retained. This month when we got the bill, a $25 "fee" was tacked on, with no explination as to why. No late payment has ever been issued by me in my entire life, since getting my first credit card at the age of 19. So, I certainly see where you're coming from SWO, and agree. But the old-boys network does exist, and no matter if you change the players around or not, it will always exist. Beyond the news reports, the main reason why the banks aren't lending out a lot of that money is because they simply can't, as long as mark-to-market accounting remains in it's current form. Under law, they have to reserve something like 10x's the anticipated loss with cash. So if your charter requires a max loan to value ceiling of 80%, and all of the sudden "today's" value of that asset falls 20% with no regard for tomorrow's value, then you've got a 100% loan to value, and the bank not only has to assign that 20% gap in cash, but ad an additional 90% cash on top of that, for that one specific loan. So if you wrote an $80k mortgage on a $100k house, that falls in "today" value to $80k, they're not facing a $20k balance to make up, but a $200k balance. The real world "applied" purpose of the TARP money is resting on the asset side of the balance sheet for those losses, instead of it's intended purposes to pump out into the hands of the economic engine. This is also why the banks won't release the info on where they're using that money, which I don't understand. If I were a bank being killed by these ridiculous "reserves" rules, I would be in front of every news camera on the planet saying "if you want me to put this money out, then tell congress to ease the reserves limit which completely ignore the financial backbone element of our economy....the "time value" of money." So when you hear this bank and that bank have theses HUGE losses that need to be bailed out, know that the majority of those "losses" are really "phantom" losses, or accounting losses. Not actual losses of cash revenue.

I would also caution against the comfort of Mr. Obama's high approval ratings, with the reminder of what President who holds the record for the highest approval ratings of all time, Bush, after 9/11. I believe he serves as an example of how quickly the worm can turn.

[lenore]

So if our legislators had read the bills they create, and did some proper thinking, the banks rules would have been changed to accomodate the Tarpe money in a more efficient manor? That is why big government and lobbyist are going to tear our economy down. Look at medicare, social security, welfare, and education. They are all disasters, because government can not manage OUR money (taxes)....If we think government is the solution, than we forget that they are the problem....

[nc211]

So if our legislators had read the bills they create, and did some proper thinking, the banks rules would have been changed to accomodate the Tarpe money in a more efficient manor? That is why big government and lobbyist are going to tear our economy down. Look at medicare, social security, welfare, and education. They are all disasters, because government can not manage OUR money (taxes)....If we think government is the solution, than we forget that they are the problem....

The late in the day approach from the Bush administration misread the playing field when they enacted tarp. They thought this was a "liquidity" crisis, when in fact it is a "balance sheet" crisis. They thought the flow of money through the system was being cut by the lack of money in the system. It was classic play they did after 9/11 to divert the nation's attention, and make us feel better about things, by distracting us to "go out buy stuff", which we did A LOT of. They took this same approach on this one, but were wrong. I agree, they did not read the laws, and didn't realize the difference between the two elements of economic crisis. One, is a restriction of cash flowing through the economy due to lowering wages, job cuts, inflationary price conditions "which we witnessed last summer in the commodities market". They looked at the playing field and saw "everything costs more, so lets give them more". But, that was masking and fueling the real problem, which was deflationary elements to value, caused by an over-built housing market, and a manipulated oil market. Remember when I said in the gas prices thread when oil was heading to $150, that if we don't find another pocket for all of this money to run to before the election and the bubble bursting, we're going to have a complete meltdown? Well, that's exactly what happened. Those who were trying to cushion thier losses in the residential real estate market by manipulating the oil market for profit, ended up double-downing their losses when the bubble broke. Commercial real estate did the same thing in the late 80's-90's that triggered the 91-94 recessionary period. We simply overbuilt, over extended our capital commitments, and ran out of money. THAT was a "liquidity" crisis. It is/was addressed by the introduction of Wall Street into the real estate markets, via tradable security instruments through a process called "securitization". We solved the "liquidity" crisis. If the portfolio lenders "life companies & banks" ran out of money to lend, then the borrowing community could turn to Wall Street for capital. Unfortunately, that model was so successful, that it escaped the confines of commercial real estate "and the professional execution requirements" and ran into the residential markets, and everything else, including the financing of Hollywood movies, cars, taxi cab licenses, etc. It went haywire. The model works, brilliantly, if properly administers. But when it's abused, it creates an over inflated sense of values, and causes a "balance sheet" crisis, which is what we have today. And, it won't get solved until two elements occur (1) more transparency in the assets held by financial institutions, resulting in a "bad bank" structure that holds nothing but the bad assets for bidders to buy, (2) Valuation techniques put into place after the Great Depression of the 30's are brought up to modern day speed, like mark-to-market accounting. Until then, we're just going to throw good money after bad and run further down the rabbit hole of a national deficit, as evidenced by the bailout money given to GM a few months ago, as they now prepare to go BK anyway.

If we think government is the solution, than we forget that they are the problem.... Ah, the great one, Ronald Reagan. "Government is not the solution to the problem, Government is the problem." Happens time and time again, and is the base argument for a free market approach to things. Let it run it's course and it'll find it's center, or interfere and delay, with the real possiblity of enhancing, the problem.

[jerzynuts]

I really have no respect for politicians, most of them in my eyes are just crooks with degrees!!! I lost so much faith in our government over the bush years and finally realized why the world hates us. Dont get me wrong i love this country and people in it but i hate our govt. Politicians sending out our people in the military to die needlessly in stupid wars and then disrespecting them with associating them with terrorist. DISGUSTING