Print

[Frenchfry]

http://annarbor.craigslist.org/rnr/3118958277.html

[Frenchfry]

http://annarbor.craigslist.org/rnr/3108658184.html

Known as Universal Health Care

We already pay for universal health care . . . in Iraq and Afghanistan, that is right, We the people pay for there universal health care out of the war fund.

"Article 31 reads: "First: Every citizen has the right to health care. . . ." THE RIGHT! So, the U.S. can step in and demand that citizens of other countries have health care as a right, but it is a right denied to its own CITIZENS?

Universal Health Care would be the same as health care is today.
USPS mail- government run mail service
UPS mail-private run mail service
FedEx- private run mail service

The police are government run, the fire department are government run.

Are you that stupid to think that Universal Health Care is bad health care?
Here is a list of other counties that have Universal Health Care

Norway 1912 Single Payer
New Zealand 1938 Two Tier
Japan 1938 Single Payer
Germany 1941 Insurance Mandate
Belgium 1945 Insurance Mandate
United Kingdom 1948 Single Payer
Kuwait 1950 Single Payer
Sweden 1955 Single Payer
Bahrain 1957 Single Payer
Brunei 1958 Single Payer
Canada 1966 Single Payer
Netherlands 1966 Two-Tier
Austria 1967 Insurance Mandate
United Arab Emirates 1971 Single Payer
Finland 1972 Single Payer
Slovenia 1972 Single Payer
Denmark 1973 Two-Tier
Luxembourg 1973 Insurance Mandate
France 1974 Two-Tier
Australia 1975 Two Tier
Ireland 1977 Two-Tier
Italy 1978 Single Payer
Portugal 1979 Single Payer
Cyprus 1980 Single Payer
Greece 1983 Insurance Mandate
Spain 1986 Single Payer
South Korea 1988 Insurance Mandate
Iceland 1990 Single Payer
Hong Kong 1993 Two-Tier
Singapore 1993 Two-Tier
Switzerland 1994 Insurance Mandate
Israel 1995 Two-Tier

To think the United States is such a great Country by the people for the people, that statement has never been true.

All the propaganda you hear about Universal Health Care being bad is paid for by the insurance copies that provide the current health care.

Why are people so stupid, why do people believe all the propaganda?
History has shown us that propaganda is bad, why do people still fall for it?
Smart people stupid people, all of these people fall for it.
Why do people believe everything at face value, and don't look at what it really means.

Like the proposal to vote on the bridge, so many people sign this because they want the bridge. (are you that stupid?)
Well stupid the bridge is going to be built, but if the proposal is passed then there will be a vote and then the bridge may not be built.
If you want the bridge built don't sign the proposal for there to be a vote, and if you do not want the bridge built then sign the proposal, and then vote no to the bridge.

The people that do not want the bridge are the people who are making the money on the bridge that is already there.
Other then them, the bridge is good for all.

If the people of this country had any since then this country could be for the people by the people.
This country is for big business by big business,

Tell you what, wanna know how bad off this country really is, look into why most everything sold here is made in China.
That will really open your eyes and you can really see what the United States has really become.
http://annarbor.craigslist.org/rnr/3108731395.html

http://annarbor.craigslist.org/rnr/3076276908.html

[Frenchfry]

http://annarbor.craigslist.org/rnr/3076478737.html

[Frenchfry]

Republican Obstructionism




http://annarbor.craigslist.org/rnr/3077527693.html

Most Blame Bush for Economy... "Duh"!

About two-thirds of Americans believe Republican former President George W. Bush is responsible for the nation's struggling economy, with a smaller percentage blaming Democratic President Barack Obama, a Gallup poll showed on Thursday.

About 68 percent of the more than 1,000 adults surveyed nationwide said Bush, who left office in January 2009, deserves a "moderate amount" or a "great deal" of the blame for the U.S. economic woes compared to 52 percent who pointed to his successor Obama, the poll found.

http://annarbor.craigslist.org/rnr/3079174568.html


http://annarbor.craigslist.org/rnr/3079374604.html


http://annarbor.craigslist.org/rnr/3079647113.html

[Frenchfry]

http://annarbor.craigslist.org/rnr/3079822603.html


http://annarbor.craigslist.org/rnr/3082786787.html


http://annarbor.craigslist.org/rnr/3104268442.html

[Frenchfry]

Conservatism: The thief of democracy
Here we are trying to organize our society to solve some of the most difficult problems of war and peace, one of which is the hideously expensive health care system. Congress took a whack at it and came up with an imperfect solution, but one that at least could form the basis for something better later on.

Now along comes conservatism and revives case law going back to the much despised twins of case law, Hammer vs. Dagenhart (1918) and Lochner vs. New York, where the commerce clause (Dagenhart) and 14th Amendment's due process cause (Lochner) were perverted by the !% of the day, some of whom, such as the Bush and Walker families, were the direct ancestors of the current crop of 1%'ers.

We see people like law professor Richard A. Epstein, lovers of Lochner, who from a tax-payer subsidized 501(c)(3) university, mount an attack on the ACA which, as Epstein himself here states:

The mandate is not necessary for that purpose because there are other devices that do a far better job in coping with that omnipresent danger [that only sick people will sign up to pay health insurance premiums]. And it is surely not proper to use an extraordinary remedy that expands the scope of Congressional power to achieve an end that could be controlled by more traditional means. Thus, restrictions on the power to pull out of an insurance plan can deal with adverse selection and general taxes can deal with the need to subsidize high-risk individuals --if that is thought to be a legitimate government function.
What Epstein is saying is that it is the courts who should decide what means are employed to resolve the health insurance crisis, and they are free to second guess Congress. He also hints that payment of health care costs for "high risk individuals" (women of child-bearing age, perhaps?) may not be a legitimate government function. And who would make that choice? The courts again?
Back in the '30s was the last time that conservatives mounted such a broad-based attack. And just as then, when a dispute about social policy is made into a constitutional matter, it halts all discussion. Hence, today, people like my family, which should have as much say in how health care is run as anyone on the the Supreme Court, are swept aside, like hundreds of millions of other people, and dependent on a few unelected cranks to make this ruling for us.

One may ask -- why is conservatism, which complained for decades about judicial activism, suddenly seeking refuge in the courts? It's because the conservatives have a long-term plan to control how votes are counted (via Voter ID, various racists ploys such as S 1070, and other suppression measures) and how the political system can be conquered by unlimited wealth. The fruits of such an effort include the power to appoint judges -- hence one gets Citizens United.

In short, the plan is simply to
1. Narrow down the vote.
2. Empower the wealthy.
3. Seize the judiciary.
4. Return to step one, and repeat until sufficient plutocracy is obtained.
http://annarbor.craigslist.org/rnr/3104291216.html




http://annarbor.craigslist.org/rnr/3104460127.html

[Frenchfry]

http://annarbor.craigslist.org/rnr/3106450869.html

Thru 2006:
FEDERAL SPENDING: since 1960 Republicans increased Federal Spending by 71% more than have Democrats.
FEDERAL DEBT: since 1960 Republicans have increased the National debt by 100% more per year than have Democrats.
GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT: since 1921, adjusted for inflation, Democrats outproduce Republicans by 43%. Starting in 1940 the Democratic advantage is 23% better.
REAL PER CAPITA INCOME: since 1960 Democrats have outperformed Republicans by 30%. (This is perhaps the most important economic statistic of all).
INFLATION: since 1960, Democrats outperform Republicans 3.13% to 3.89%.
UNEMPLOYMENT: since 1960 it decreases in an average Democratic year by 0.3% to 5.33%, and increases in average Republican year by 1.1% to 6.38%.
JOB CREATION: from 1945 to 2003, Democrats produced 174,200 jobs per month, Republicans have only produced 60,600 per month. Every time a Democrat succeeds a Republican, job creation soars. Every time a Republican succeeds a Democrat job creation plummets. NO EXCEPTIONS!
DOW JONES AVERAGE: since 1921 the DOW has increased by 52% more under Democratic administrations.
THE BOND MARKET: since 1940 the value of 10 year Treasury bonds rose 1.2% under Democrats and fell 0.5% under Republicans.
SOURCES-Bureau of Labor Statistics, Economic Policy Institute.
http://detroit.craigslist.org/wyn/rnr/3129875429.html


http://detroit.craigslist.org/wyn/rnr/3128653399.html

[Frenchfry]

http://detroit.craigslist.org/mcb/rnr/3128328990.html

Plus more there but I can't post 'em

[Frenchfry]

http://detroit.craigslist.org/mcb/rnr/3127330040.html

Again more on the link

[Frenchfry]

http://detroit.craigslist.org/wyn/rnr/3131147571.html

You are being lied to by Republicans its a womans right to choose here are some common lies republicans use to force their agenda
1. Birth Control Causes Prostate Cancer.

Last month a New Hampshire lawmaker came up with a new reason the government should not require health insurance companies to provide contraception.

"As a man, would it interest you to know that Dr. Brownstein just published an article that links the pill to prostate cancer?" state Rep. Jeanine Notter (R) asked a male representative at the hearing, the Merrimack Patch reports.

"In the children that are born from these women?" he asked. Notter could not clearly explain the study or how the pill results in prostate cancer.

The study described in the newsletter of Dr. David Brownstein, a physician and holistic practitioner in Michigan, suggests men may ingest estrogen through environmental contamination, not in utero from mothers taking birth control. An author of the study told ABC News, "This is just a hypothesis-generating idea. Women should not be throwing away the pill because of this."

2. Abortion Causes Breast Cancer.

The New Hampshire House recently passed a bill that would require doctors to tell women seeking abortions that the procedure can cause breast cancer. Here is an excerpt from the bill, sponsored by Notter:
Materials that inform the pregnant woman that there is a direct link between abortion and breast cancer. It is scientifically undisputed that full-term pregnancy reduces a woman's lifetime risk of breast cancer. It is also undisputed that the earlier a woman has a first full-term pregnancy, the lower her risk of breast cancer becomes, because following a full-term pregnancy the breast tissue exposed to estrogen through the menstrual cycle is more mature and cancer resistant. In fact, for each year that a woman's first full-term pregnancy is delayed, her risk of breast cancer rises 3.5 percent. The theory that there is a direct link between abortion and breast cancer builds upon this undisputed foundation. During the first and second trimesters of pregnancy the breasts develop merely by duplicating immature tissues. Once a woman passes the thirty-second week of pregnancy (third trimester), the immature cells develop into mature cancer resistant cells. When an abortion ends a normal pregnancy, the woman is left with more immature breast tissue than she had before she was pregnant.

There is no link between abortions and breast cancer, according to the World Health Organization, the American Cancer Society and other major health organizations. Similar provisions requiring doctors to make the abortion-breast cancer connection remain on the books in other state laws. Alaska, Kansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas all inaccurately assert a risk in written counseling materials, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a New York-based reproductive health research organization.

3. Birth Control Is A Sex Pill.

Rush Limbaugh showed he has no understanding of how birth control pills work when he attacked Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown law student barred from testifying as a Democratic witness at a congressional hearing about the Obama administration's contraception policy. Limbaugh called Fluke a "s***" for needing lots of birth control to manage her sex life.

"She wants to be paid to have sex," Limbaugh said. "She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex."

Rick Santorum has also said that contraception encourages a bad kind of sex. Last year, in an interview with the Evangelical blog Caffeinated Thoughts, Santorum warned of the "dangers of contraception:"
"It's not OK because it's a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They're supposed to be within marriage, they are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal, but also [inaudible], but also procreative. That's the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act."

Most women who have had sex have used contraception. Birth control pills -- which are taken daily, regardless of how frequently a woman has sex -- may also be taken to manage endometriosis, ovarian cysts, acne or other health problems. A recent bill in Arizona proposed penalizing women who use the pill for non-medical reasons.

4. Abortion Industry Is "Selling Abortions."

A Republican state legislator in Arizona last week wrote in an email to a constituent that she wanted to force women seeking abortions to watch the procedure first.

"Personally I'd like to make a law that mandates a woman watch an abortion being performed prior to having a 'surgical procedure,'" state Rep. Terri Proud (R) wrote. The constituent responded by email that she was "speechless" and after a baffling exchange with Proud, released the emails to the media. Facing national outrage, Proud issued a statement:
For too long, Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry have placed selling abortions above the health and safety of women. My message to a constituent last week emphasized my concerns with how abortion providers have not been honest with women about the realities of abortion, and the short and long-term risks of this dangerous surgical procedure.

The notion that Planned Parenthood baits women into unwanted pregnancies by providing ineffective contraception then profits off the abortions is nothing new, but it's as outrageous as it sounds. Abortions constitute 3 percent of Planned Parenthood's services, and the organization estimates it prevents more than 220,000 abortions each year by providing contraception. Because Planned Parenthood is not allowed to use federal funds for abortions, defunding the program may limit contraception services and result in more abortions.

5. Women Can't Get Pregnant From Rape.

Just before Idaho's Senate passed a mandatory ultrasound bill last week, bill sponsor made some startling comments about abortion and rape.

"Rape and incest was used as a reason to oppose this," said state Sen. Chuck Winder (R). "I would hope that when a woman goes in to a physician with a rape issue, that physician will indeed ask her about perhaps her marriage, was this pregnancy caused by normal relations in a marriage or was it truly caused by a rape. I assume that's part of the counseling that goes on."

It wasn't the first time a lawmaker has suggested that women seeking abortions may lie about rape. Some anti-abortion activists actually believe that rape cannot result in pregnancy. Buzzfeed dug up a series of bizarre statements Republicans have made about pregnancy, rape, juices not flowing and more. Here's one:
The odds that a woman who is raped will get pregnant are "one in millions and millions and millions," said state Rep. Stephen Freind, R-Delaware County, the Legislature's leading abortion foe.

The reason, Freind said, is that the traumatic experience of rape causes a woman to "secrete a certain secretion" that tends to kill sperm.

Two Philadelphia doctors specializing in human reproduction characterized Freind's contention as scientifically baseless.


According to Planned Parenthood, about 5 percent of rapes result in pregnancy, and providing all rape victims with emergency contraception could prevent more than 22,000 unwanted pregnancies a year.

6. Prenatal Testing Leads To Abortion.

Rick Santorum made prenatal testing a campaign issue last month when he declared the tests are designed to "cull the ranks of the disabled in our society" by encouraging abortions.

"Amniocentesis does, in fact, result more often than not in this country in abortions," Santorum, who has a severely disabled daughter, said on Face the Nation. "That is a fact."

In fact, more than 90 percent of amniocenteses tests result in normal diagnoses, and half of fetuses diagnosed with severe abnormalities -- about 5 percent of those tested -- are aborted, according to PolitiFact.

A campaign spokeswoman for Obama condemned Santorum's comments as "misinformed and dangerous" and pointed out that the tests help women have safer deliveries and healthier babies.

7. HPV Vaccine Causes Retardation.

Back when Rick Perry was campaigning for president, his rivals attacked him for signing an executive order mandating the human papillomavirus vaccine for young girls, and misinformation quickly spread. Michele Bachmann insinuated that the vaccine causes mental retardation, while Santorum spoke out against "having little girls inoculated at the force and compulsion of the government."

The vaccine is safe and effective in preventing cervical cancer caused by certain strains of HPV, and Perry's 2007 executive order, which was overturned by the state legislature, would have allowed parents to opt out of having their daughters vaccinated. Dr. Renata Arrington-Sanders, a professor at Johns Hopkins University medical school, told HuffPost's Laura Bassett:
"The HPV vaccine has been shown to be safe and well-tolerated based on multiple medical reports that have been submitted through government databases. It's unfortunate that this particular vaccine is surrounded by a lot of controversy just because it's been labeled as an STD-prevention vaccine. We have similar vaccines, such as one for hepatitis B, that are also used in a mandated approach and have shown very successful rates with prevention."

8. Plan B Causes Abortions.

The debate over the Obama administration's contraception policy has yielded some puzzling claims about birth control and Plan B. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) addressed the House in February, urging his colleagues to reverse Obama's mandate for health insurance coverage of "abortion-inducing drugs:"
In recent days, Americans of every faith and political persuasion have mobilized in objection to a rule put forward by the Obama administration that constitutes an unambiguous attack on religious freedom in our country. This rule would require faith-based employers --- including Catholic charities, schools, universities, and hospitals --- to provide services they believe are immoral. Those services include sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs and devices, and contraception.

Michele Bachmann called Plan B an abortion pill when she incorrectly criticized Obama for making the drug available over-the-counter -- an FDA recommendation the administration and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius rejected last year. "The president can put abortion pills for girls 8 years of age, 11 years of age, on the bubblegum aisle," Bachmann said at a "pro-life" town hall in December.

Contraceptives, emergency or not, prevent pregnancy. They don't cause abortions. Plan B works in the same way and with the same ingredients as birth control pills, just at a higher dosage, and does nothing to stop the development of a fetus.

9. Your Fetus Is Just Fine.

The Arizona Senate passed a bill this month to protect doctors from "wrongful birth" lawsuits -- effectively allowing them to withhold information that may lead a patient to get an abortion. HuffPost's John Celock reports:
Sen. Nancy Barto (R-Phoenix) told the Claims Journal that she sponsored the law because she did not want claimants to blame a doctor for a baby born with disabilities. Under the provisions of her bill, a doctor could not be sued for medical malpractice if the doctor withholds information from a mother about a child's potential health issues that could influence her decision to have an abortion. In addition, a lawsuit could not be filed on the child's behalf regarding a disability.

Kansas lawmakers have considered similar legislation.
http://annarbor.craigslist.org/rnr/3131808634.html

[Frenchfry]

http://annarbor.craigslist.org/rnr/3135221609.html

Jobs growth and real GDP growth between the Bush and Clinton adm (READ AND WEEP)
CBPP: Bush Economic Expansion "Was Sub-Par Overall." The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that the economic expansion between 2001-2007 was especially weak despite the Bush tax cuts:
Members of the [Bush] Administration routinely tout statistics regarding recent economic growth, then credit the President's tax cuts with what they portray as a stellar economic performance. But as a general rule, it is difficult or impossible to infer the effect of a given tax cut from looking at a few years of economic data, simply because so many factors other than tax policy influence the economy. What the data do show clearly is that, despite major tax cuts in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2006, the economy's performance between 2001 and 2007 was from stellar.

Growth rates of GDP, investment, and other key economic indicators during the 2001-2007 expansion were below the average for other post-World War II economic expansions ... Growth in wages and salaries and non-residential investment was particularly slow relative to previous expansions, and, while the Administration boasts of its record on jobs, employment growth was weaker in the 2001-2007 period than in any previous post-World War II expansion.

Economic Policy Institute: After Bush Tax Cuts Were Enacted, Economy Experienced "The Worst Economic Expansion Of The Post-War Era." An EPI policy memo released 10 years after the first Bush tax cuts were enacted found that they were a "poor stimulus" and "did not lead to faster economic growth":
Not only were the Bush-era tax cuts a poor stimulus coming out of the 2001 recession, they did not lead to

faster economic growth during the economic expansion leading up to the Great Recession.

• Between the end of the 2001 recession (2001Q4) and the peak of that expansion (2007Q4), the U.S. economy experienced the worst economic expansion of the post-war era.

• Growth in investment, GDP, and employment all posted their worst performance of any post-war expansion.

• The tax cuts were supposed to encourage business investment, but nonresidential fixed investment increased a meager 2.1% annually--a third of the average increase and less than half that of the next poorest post-war increase in business investment on record. [Economic Policy Institute, 6/1/11]
Economists Say Bush Tax Cuts Lowered Revenue And Contributed Substantially To Debt And Deficits

Bartlett: Bush Tax Cuts Caused Federal Revenue To Shrink. Economist Bruce Bartlett explained in a New York Times blog post that the Bush tax cuts were responsible for lowering federal revenues as a share of the economy:

The Congressional Budget Office expects revenue to be just 14.8 percent of G.D.P. this year; the last year it was lower was 1950, when revenue amounted to 14.4 percent of G.D.P.

But revenue has been below 15 percent of G.D.P. since 2009, and the last time we had three years in a row when revenue as a share of G.D.P. was that low was 1941 to 1943.

Revenue has averaged 18 percent of G.D.P. since 1970 and a little more than that in the postwar era. At a similar stage in previous business cycles, two years past the trough, revenue was considerably higher: 18 percent of G.D.P. in 1977 after the 1973-75 recession; 17.3 percent of G.D.P. in 1984 after the 1981-82 recession, and 17.5 percent of G.D.P. in 1993 after the 1990-91 recession. Revenue was markedly lower, however, at this point after the 2001 recession and was just 16.2 percent of G.D.P. in 2003.

The reason, of course, is that taxes were cut in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2006. [The New York Times, Economix, 7/26/11]

Revenue As A Share Of The Economy Fell During Bush Administration And Never Recovered. Data from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis show that federal revenue as a percentage of GDP fell after the earliest Bush tax cuts, and never again reached the level they were at when President Bush took office:


[Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, accessed 7/11/12]

CBPP: "Congressional Budget Office Data Show That The Tax Cuts Have Been The Single Largest Contributor" To Budget Deficits. A 2008 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities report on myths about tax cuts found that tax cuts were the "single largest contributor to the reemergence of substantial budget deficits in recent years":

Congressional Budget Office data show that the tax cuts have been the single largest contributor to the reemergence of substantial budget deficits in recent years. Legislation enacted since 2001 added about $3.0 trillion to deficits between 2001 and 2007, with nearly half of this deterioration in the budget due to the tax cuts (about a third was due to increases in security spending, and about a sixth to increases in domestic spending). Yet the President and some Congressional leaders decline to acknowledge the tax cuts' role in the nation's budget problems, falling back instead on the discredited nostrum that tax cuts "pay for themselves."
EPI: Bush Tax Cuts "Added $2.6 Trillion To The Public Debt Over 2001-10." In a September 26, 2011, article, Andrew Fieldhouse of the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) wrote:

A spending-cuts-only approach is regressive in that it forces the brunt of deficit reduction on the backs of poor and working families while ignoring a prime culprit of the budget deficit: the expensive, ineffective, and unfair Bush-era tax cuts. These top-heavy tax cuts added $2.6 trillion to the public debt over 2001-10 and will add $3.8 trillion to deficits over the next decade if fully continued. [Economic Policy Institute, 9/26/11]

And The Bush Tax Cuts Continue To Contribute To Deficits

CBPP: "Virtually The Entire Federal Budget Deficit Over The Next Ten Years" Is Due To Bush Policies, Economic Downturn. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) chief economist Chad Stone said in testimony before the Joint Economic Committee in June 2011:
Figure 1 focuses on the projected deficit going forward. It shows that the economic downturn, tax cuts enacted under President Bush, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire federal budget deficit over the next ten years. The economic downturn added about $300 billion chiefly from the operation of the automatic stabilizers (declining revenue and increased outlays for unemployment insurance and other pro-cyclical spending) and associated interest costs. Both the financial-market measures enacted under President Bush and largely implemented under President Obama such as the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), and the Recovery Act tax cuts and increases in spending enacted under President Obama, were important drivers of the surge in deficits in 2009-11, but those measures will largely have phased out by the end of this year, leaving only associated interest costs in subsequent years.

CBO: "Growing Debt" "Reflects An Imbalance Between Revenues And Spending That Predated The Recession." The Congressional Budget Office found that the growing debt-to-GDP ratio stems from both the recession and from the Bush administration's tax polifies. From the CBO's latest Budget and Economic Outlook:
In the past few years, the federal government has been recording the largest budget deficits since 1945, both in dollar terms and as a share of the economy. Consequently, the amount of federal debt held by the public has surged. At the end of 2008, that debt equaled 40 percent of the nation's annual economic output (gross domestic product, or GDP)--a little above the 40-year average of 38 percent. Since then, the figure has shot upward: By the end of this year, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects, federal debt will exceed 70 percent of GDP--the highest percentage since shortly after World War II. The sharp rise in debt stems partly from lower tax revenues and higher federal spending caused by the severe economic downturn and from policies enacted during the past few years. However, the growing debt also reflects an imbalance between spending and revenues that predated the recession. [Congressional Budget Office, June 2012]
http://detroit.craigslist.org/wyn/rnr/3137667606.html

http://detroit.craigslist.org/wyn/rnr/3137667606.html

[Frenchfry]

http://detroit.craigslist.org/okl/rnr/3136078242.html

[Frenchfry]

http://annarbor.craigslist.org/rnr/3136894540.html


http://detroit.craigslist.org/wyn/rnr/3126272503.html




http://detroit.craigslist.org/mcb/rnr/3126203317.html

[Frenchfry]

http://detroit.craigslist.org/okl/rnr/3125284554.html

[Frenchfry]

The Bush family and the S&L Scandal (largest theft in taxpayer history)
Neil, George Jr., George Sr., and Jeb Bush

The Savings and Loan industry had been experiencing major problems through the late 60s and 70s due to rising inflation and rising interest rates. Because of this there was a move in the 1970s to replace the role of S&L institutions with banks.

In the early 1980s, under Reagan, regulatory changes took place that gave the S&L industry new powers and for the first time in history measures were taken to increase the profitability of S&Ls at the expense of promoting home ownership.

A history of the S&L situation can be found here:

http://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/s&l/

What is important to note about the S&L scandal is that it was the largest theft in the history of the world and US tax payers are who was robbed.

The problems occurred in the Savings and Loan industry as they relate to theft because the industry was deregulated under the Reagan/Bush administration and restrictions were eased on the industry so much that abuse and misuse of funds became easy, rampant, and went unchecked.

Additional facts on the Savings and Loan Scandal can be found here:

http://www.inthe80s.com/sandl.shtml

There are several ways in which the Bush family plays into the Savings and Loan scandal, which involves not only many members of the Bush family but also many other politicians that are still in office and still part of the Bush Jr. administration today. Jeb Bush, George Bush Sr., and his son Neil Bush have all been implicated in the Savings and Loan Scandal, which cost American tax payers over $1.4 TRILLION dollars (note that this is about one quarter of our national debt).

Between 1981 and 1989, when George Bush finally announced that there was a Savings and Loan Crisis to the world, the Reagan/Bush administration worked to cover up Savings and Loan problems by reducing the number and depth of examinations required of S&Ls as well as attacking political opponents who were sounding early alarms about the S&L industry. Industry insiders were aware of significant S&L problems as early 1986 that they felt would require a bailout. This information was kept from the media until after Bush had won the 1988 elections.

Jeb Bush defaulted on a $4.56 million loan from Broward Federal Savings in Sunrise, Florida. After federal regulators closed the S&L, the office building that Jeb used the $4.56 million to finance was reappraised by the regulators at $500,000, which Bush and his partners paid. The taxpayers had to pay back the remaining 4 million plus dollars.

Neil Bush was the most widely targeted member of the Bush family by the press in the S&L scandal. Neil became director of Silverado Savings and Loan at the age of 30 in 1985. Three years later the institution was belly up at a cost of $1.6 billion to tax payers to bail out.

The basic actions of Neil Bush in the S&L scandal are as follows:

Neil received a $100,000 "loan" from Ken Good, of Good International, with no obligation to pay any of the money back.

Good was a large shareholder in JNB Explorations, Neil Bush's oil-exploration company.

Neil failed to disclose this conflict-of-interest when loans were given to Good from Silverado, because the money was to be used in joint venture with his own JNB. This was in essence giving himself a loan from Silverado through a third party.

Neil then helped Silverado S&L approve Good International for a $900,000 line of credit.

Good defaulted on a total $32 million in loans from Silverado.

During this time Neil Bush did not disclose that $3 million of the $32 million that Good was defaulting on was actually for investment in JNB, his own company.

Good subsequently raised Bush's JNB salary from $75,000 to $125,000 and granted him a $22,500 bonus.

Neil Bush maintained that he did not see how this constituted a conflict of interest.

Neil approved $106 million in Silverado loans to another JNB investor, Bill Walters.

Neil also never formally disclosed his relationship with Walters and Walters also defaulted on his loans, all $106 million of them.

Neil Bush was charged with criminal wrongdoing in the case and ended up paying $50,000 to settle out of court. The chief of Silverado S&L was sentenced to 3.5 years in jail for pleading guilty to $8.7 million in theft. (Keep in mind that you can get more jail time for holding up a gas station for $50.)

Today Neil Bush is working on closing a deal in Florida, where his brother Jeb is governor, to sell a software package to schools with his startup company Ignite.

Update 11/28/2003: Some of Neil Bush's business deals have been exposed in his recent divorce case. For more on this see:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/112703A.shtml

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/01/26/neil_bush/index.html

It should also be noted that shortly after news of Neil Bush's involvement in the S&L scandal hit the press his father, George Bush Sr., announced the Desert Storm campaign in Iraq, which subsequently had the result of making Neil's name quickly fade from the headlines. In addition, while Neil Bush's divorce proceeding were exposing more backroom Bush dealings, America was once again bombarded with war propaganda for Operation Iraq Freedom.

The S&L scandal is by no means the only incident of questionable, and actually illegal, financial activity that the Bush family has been involved in. The line of questionable, illegal, and unethical businesses practices goes back at least to Prescott Bush Sr., George Bush Sr.'s father. Prescott Bush was a Senator from 1952 -- 1963. Previous to his time as a Senator Prescott was a banker and businessman. Prior to the American entry into WWII Prescott Bush was director of Union Banking Corporation. Union Banking Corporation helped to finance Hitler's regime. The Concentration Camps of Nazi Germany were labor camps that the Nazis used to make products for their regime as well as for sale to raise money. Prescott profited directly from the Auschwitz labor camp.

In 1942, after Hitler declared war on America the United States government seized the Union Banking Corporation under the Trading with the Enemy Act as a front operation that was supporting the Nazis. Much of the profits from the operation were already pocketed by Prescott however, and $1.5 million was put in a trust fund for George Bush Sr.

For more on Prescott Bush's ties to the Nazis see:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html

http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=detail&catalogno=NN_Bush_Nazi_2

The issues of WWII will be revisited again later.

This is actually just the tip of the iceberg as far as the Bush family and business dealings are concerned, the topic is a book in itself. In the interest of brevity I invite you to research the Bush family business ties yourself, including those in Saudi Arabia, where George Bush made millions as an oil well developer, and George Bush's $14 million deal when he sold the Texas Rangers, while leaving tax payers footing the bill.

http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#rangers

For information on Prescott Bush Jr.'s economic ties to China see:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2002/02/19/usat-prescott-bush.htm

http://detroit.craigslist.org/wyn/rnr/3125200061.html