Highmark

And just what party got us deep into that quagmire?

Seen something on the news were a liberal organization "fairly" looked into it and even they were surprised at the results.

We use to have rocket fights with bottle rockets. I don't know if I ever laughed so hard.

I remember in some of my kids baseball tournaments the losers brackets 2nd place trophy was bigger than the championship bracket 1st place trophy. The mere fact they have to take orders from a superior is difficult for a lot of kids today. Nuts.

1. Hannity is not a anchor. His show while dealing with facts also has opinion's from both sides. 2. 45 minute interview with Hannity they showed 2 minutes cut to how they wanted it to look.

Today's news. Simply say what you want with no repercussions. Sickening. Proof of it getting to the American people is the fact that Trump won.

CNN Contributor Claims Flynn and FBI Struck a Deal, Later Admits She Has No Evidence http://freebeacon.com/politics/cnn-contributor-claims-flynn-fbi-struck-deal-later-admits-no-evidence/

According to Association spokesperson, Helen Dabney-Coyle, "By removing the ball, it's absolutely impossible to say 'this team won' and 'this team lost' or 'this child is better at soccer than that child.'""We want our children to grow up learning that sport is not about competition, rather it's about using your imagination. If you imagine you're good at soccer, then, you are." LMFAO at these people. Sorry not everyone can be good at everything. My kids weren't great at singing and they knew it because I was honest and told them. They didn't pursue singing. BFD move on to something you are good at. 5:15 mark

Often times they have their airlines uniform on.

Only now.

Yet if a significant portion of those oil reserves prove to be unrecoverable – either because climate-conscious governments or social movements compel fossil fuel companie Are you fucking kidding me.

God it must suck to be you MC. Go ahead and jump.

Obama had a secret email code name for when he communicated with Hillary thru her private email server. Secret email codes are good. Especially when dealing with classified information at the highest levels of govt. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/24/obama-used-pseudonym-emails-hillary-clinton-fbi/ By Andrew Blake - The Washington Times - Saturday, September 24, 2016 President Obama emailed Hillary Clinton using a pseudonym while she served as his secretary of state, according to FBI documents released Friday. The president’s previously unreported use of a pen name is referenced in notes from federal investigators’ April 5, 2016 interview with Huma Abedin, one of Mrs. Clinton’s closest aides, contained within 189 pages of records released late Friday afternoon by the FBI concerning its review of the Democratic presidential nominee’s use of a private email server while in office. During that interview, investigators showed the aide an email exchange dated June 28, 2012 with the subject “Re: Congratulations!” “Abedin did not recognize the name of the sender. Once informed that the sender’s name is believed to be a pseudonym used by the president, Abedin exclaimed ‘How is this not classified?’” according to the FBI’s summary of the interview. “Abedin then expressed her amazement at the president’s use of a pseudonym and asked if she could have a copy of the email.” The FBI’s revelation quickly spurred questions about the president’s past claims concerning his knowledge of Mrs. Clinton’s private email server. Mrs. Clinton’s non-governmental email address was first revealed in 2013 when a Romanian computer hacker breached the AOL account of Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime Clinton confidant, and subsequently leaked messages to the media that were sent to an account operated by Mrs. Clinton’s outside of the .gov realm.

Of course Toyota wanted them to be saved. They knew the govt would protect union workers and have an advantage in their own non-union factories.

I did. Where did Cheney get all of his classified information? Did he pull a Sandy Berger and stuff documents in his sock stealing them from the NA's. Oops I forgot that was a Clinton guy.

Bingo.

So you don't think someone or group wouldn't have swooped in and purchased GM for the right price?

OMFG! Now they are posting what Cheney says as word of god.

The auto industry would have been scooped up and maintained for the right price. The govt did it for the Unions.

Lets not forget the $4.5 Trillion in QE the US has done. FUBAR

Polls. Only 3% regret voting for Trump. http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/21/politics/donald-trump-republican-support/ Poll: Only 79% of Obama voters would vote for him again http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poll-71-of-obama-supporters-regret-voting-for-his-reelection/article/2544165 Given a chance to do it all over again, only 79 percent of those who voted for President Obama would vote for him again and 71 percent of Obama voters now inclined to vote for somebody else “regret” their vote to reelect the president, according to a new poll.

So what. So did the Clinton's. This is pretty normal stuff. Obama's team did the same thing. http://nypost.com/2017/03/12/russia-confirms-envoy-met-with-trump-and-clinton-camps-during-election/ http://thehill.com/policy/international/323582-kremlin-spokesman-russian-ambassador-met-with-advisers-to-clinton

It was basically started under Bush. Bush did reach out to the Obama team as he knew it would crossover to Obama. Just imagine the chances of that going on today. BTW I disagreed with large portions of the bill. Non Essential items Conservatives, represented by House Minority whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., complained, “This was not a stimulus bill. It was a spending bill.” [19] Some of the "stimulus" proposals attacked by conservatives: $650 million for digital TV coupons $600 million for new cars for the federal government $6 billion for colleges/universities The plan establishes at least 32 new government programs at a cost of over $136 billion [20] $25 million for new ATV trails $400 million for the National Endowment for the Arts $400 million for global warming research $30 billion has been set aside for infrastructure spending $200 million for Dep. of Defense to acquire alternative energy vehicles. $1.5 billion for a CO2 Reductions $4.2 billion for community organizing [21] $3.5 billion for higher education facilities $400 million for HIV and chlamydia testing $150 million for The Smithsonian $81 billion for Medicaid $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits $20 billion for food stamps $83 billion for the earned income credit for non-taxpayers $54 billion to federal programs Economic Development Administration, the Small Business Administration, the 10 federal job training programs $66 billion for education $650 million coupons to subsidize digital television conversion $572 million for Coast Guard improvements [22] $1 billion to subsidize Amtrak $2 billion to help subsidize child care $2.25 billion for national parks $75 million for programs to help people quit smoking $44 million to renovate the headquarters building of the Agriculture Department $200 million for the National Mall, including $21 million for sod $53.4 billion for science facilities, high speed Internet, and miscellaneous energy and environmental programs. $32 billion for a "smart" electricity grid to minimize waste $13 billion for public housing, the homeless, renovate foreclosed homes $20 billion for quicker depreciation and write-offs for equipment $10.3 billion for tax credits to help families defray the costs of college tuition

WRONG! I'm not saying Bush and the GOP should not have done more but every time they wanted to regulate the books of the GSE's the dems cried foul and being unfair to the poor. If FM and FM were made to have better books in 2003 a lot would have changed. Like I said lots of blame to go around but to claim it was all Bush is simply ignorant of the facts. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae By STEPHEN LABATONSEPT. 11, 2003 The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry. The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios. The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates. ''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan. Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies. The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws. The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session. After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall. ''The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,'' Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. ''We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,'' the independent agency that now regulates the companies. ''These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,'' he added. The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios. At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past. Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration's package. The support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the company's mission. After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chief executive, endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to the Treasury Department, as well as other elements of the plan. ''We welcome the administration's approach outlined today,'' Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president to appoint 5 of the company's 18 board members. Company executives said that the company preferred having the president select some directors. The company is also likely to lobby against the efforts that give regulators too much authority to approve its products. Freddie Mac, whose accounting is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a United States attorney in Virginia, issued a statement calling the administration plan a ''responsible proposal.'' The stocks of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fell while the prices of their bonds generally rose. Shares of Freddie Mac fell $2.04, or 3.7 percent, to $53.40, while Fannie Mae was down $1.62, or 2.4 percent, to $66.74. The price of a Fannie Mae bond due in March 2013 rose to 97.337 from 96.525.Its yield fell to 4.726 percent from 4.835 percent on Tuesday. Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators. ''The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,'' said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ''Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie's operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.'' Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing. ''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.'' Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed. ''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.