JG-TC.com > News > 1 in 5 young adults has personality disorder

TODAY'S HEADLINES

SPECIAL SECTION

ONLINE POLL

ONLINE EXTRAS

SITE TOOLS

OTHER LINKS

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Lee Enterprises

Monday, December 1, 2008 10:05 PM CST
1 in 5 young adults has personality disorder

By the ASSOCIATED PRESS

CHICAGO (AP) — Almost one in five young American adults has a personality disorder that interferes with everyday life, and even more abuse alcohol or drugs, researchers reported Monday in the most extensive study of its kind.

The disorders include problems such as obsessive or compulsive tendencies and anti-social behavior that can sometimes lead to violence. The study also found that fewer than 25 percent of college-aged Americans with mental problems get treatment.

One expert said personality disorders may be overdiagnosed. But others said the results were not surprising since previous, less rigorous evidence has suggested mental problems are common on college campuses and elsewhere.

Experts praised the study’s scope — face-to-face interviews about numerous disorders with more than 5,000 young people ages 19 to 25 — and said it spotlights a problem college administrators need to address.

Study co-author Dr. Mark Olfson of Columbia University and New York State Psychiatric Institute called the widespread lack of treatment particularly worrisome. He said it should alert not only “students and parents, but also deans and people who run college mental health services about the need to extend access to treatment.”

Counting substance abuse, the study found that nearly half of young people surveyed have some sort of psychiatric condition, including students and non-students.

Personality disorders were the second most common problem behind drug or alcohol abuse as a single category. The disorders include obsessive, anti-social and paranoid behaviors that are not mere quirks but actually interfere with ordinary functioning.

The study authors noted that recent tragedies such as fatal shootings at Northern Illinois University and Virginia Tech have raised awareness about the prevalence of mental illness on college campuses.

They also suggest that this age group might be particularly vulnerable.

“For many, young adulthood is characterized by the pursuit of greater educational opportunities and employment prospects, development of personal relationships, and for some, parenthood,” the authors said. These circumstances, they said, can result in stress that triggers the start or recurrence of psychiatric problems.

The study was released Monday in Archives of General Psychiatry. It was based on interviews with 5,092 young adults in 2001 and 2002, but the authors said the results probably hold true today.

Add your comments

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Not already registered?
Then click Here.

Comment policy:

JG-TC.com encourages readers to engage in civil conversation with their neighbors. Comments that are submitted are not posted to the site immediately. They go into a queue to be moderated and may take several hours to be reviewed. Comments posted on Saturday may not be reviewed until Sunday afternoon.

In order to keep the page a set width, long lines (mostly long links) will be chopped. Try putting spaces in your links or consider using tinyurl.com to make a smaller link that you can include.

We will never edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to remove comments that violate our code of conduct.

No comment may contain:

* Potentially libelous statements; such as accusing somebody of a crime, defamation of character, or statements that can harm somebody's reputation.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults, threats, harassment or inciting violence.
* Commercial product promotions.

If you have any questions, please contact our moderator.

jrfan wrote on Dec 1, 2008 11:33 PM:

" what a bunch of crap. The people keeping the stats are probly the crazies. "

Harry Potter wrote on Dec 2, 2008 7:27 AM:

" Would being a gun nut be an example of a personality disorder? LOL! "

Harry Potter wrote on Dec 2, 2008 8:58 AM:

" jrfan wrote on Dec 1, 2008 11:33 PM:

" what a bunch of crap. The people keeping the stats are probly the crazies. "

Coles county sure has a lot of intellectuals posting on here. LOL! "

.Doh wrote on Dec 2, 2008 9:02 AM:

" No, but I'll bet having a messiah complex would. "

Becky wrote on Dec 2, 2008 9:58 AM:

" And who exactly funded this study? Pfizer? Bayer? It's funny how the results of all these test always benefit the ones who fund them which ususally means more drugs being prescribed. "

sapient wrote on Dec 2, 2008 10:17 AM:

" Just shows that Illinois needs concealed carry to protect against all the nut cases. ROFLMHineyO "

father bob wrote on Dec 2, 2008 10:55 AM:

" explains Stanley and the Smurf "

jrfan wrote on Dec 2, 2008 12:07 PM:

" Great point Becky. I guess one half of the country being on medication isn't enough, we need more. People think the oil companies make alot of money, the drug companies profit margins are likely higher. Thank you Harry Potter. "

VTucker wrote on Dec 2, 2008 12:47 PM:

" Great point, Becky. It's amazing how many disorders become prevalent once there's a drug out to treat them. "

The Question wrote on Dec 2, 2008 1:12 PM:

" And five in five big pharma companies like to fund studies that prove that still more Americans need a lifelong supply of expensive new drugs. "

RAK wrote on Dec 2, 2008 3:30 PM:

" " Would being a gun nut be an example of a personality disorder? LOL! "

No, but obsessive-compulsive is. For example, hysterically counting the numbers of posts people make, following peoples handles and posting trends, etc. "

Harry Potter wrote on Dec 2, 2008 4:22 PM:

" My my, it looks like I might have struck a nerve with my post at 7:27 this morning. LOL! The little sniveler seemed to overreact a tad on that one. "

RAK wrote on Dec 2, 2008 4:44 PM:

" Poor Poor Harry. He doesn't like it when people point out his obsessive-compulsive behaviors.

Guess he was that one out of five. "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 2, 2008 4:47 PM:

" Not too long ago there was an article in this paper about the changes made in the diagnostic listings of mental disorders. Some in the profession complained and from what I have read it makes sense, that in order to standardize diagnosis and treatment some "problems" that we all suffer from occasionally have been reclassified as a disorder. Depression is the prime example. There is little agreement about when depression becomes debillitating in need of "DRUGS" or just a friendly "HELLO", a "sun lamp" to erase the winter doldrums or in my case a beautiful winter snow. "

Harry Potter wrote on Dec 2, 2008 5:12 PM:

" You might want to invest in a DSM 4, RAK. Like most of the things you put on here, You seem to be confused about what obsessive compulsive disorders actually are and how they manifest them self. Uneducated people, like you obviously are, make fools of themselves when they try to talk about things they have little or no understanding of.

Back when he was posing as Doh, your buddy Smurfie was trying to do psychological analysis on his fellow posters, and like you, he made a fool of himself in his attempts.

You might want to stick to your gun topics, and leave the more complicated subjects to those who actually know something. "

medic57 wrote on Dec 2, 2008 5:54 PM:

" Anyone remember when the only over the counter medicine available was Bayer Asperin and Geritol. It's unbelievable what available now. Hell, you can even buy what Bob buys on the shelf at Wal-Mart, I like the new sleep aid called sleep md at Wal-Mart, it's full of hops, nothing like putting ingredients in beer in medicine, no wonder you sleep better. "

what? wrote on Dec 2, 2008 6:11 PM:

" I agree with Becky. The drug companies seem to make a habit of putting the cart before the horse by first creating the market then making gobs of money supplying it. Meanwhile we flush tons of the uneeded overpriced stuff down the toilet annualy. Poisonous. "

STINKY wrote on Dec 2, 2008 6:59 PM:

" I agree that the drug cos. have some ethical issues with conflict of interest. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 2, 2008 7:21 PM:

" (And five in five big pharma companies like to fund studies that prove that still more Americans need a lifelong supply of expensive new drugs.)

Good point, Question.

I'm sure you'll find this interesting:

Big Pharma opens wallet to Dems

Liberals have lost their reputation as the long-standing foes to drugmakers as party lines become blurred with McCain.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Democrats have long served as the traditional enemy of Big Pharma, but in this presidential campaign, the left is taking the lion's share of drugmaker money.

Democratic senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are the top recipients of donations from the pharmaceutical industry, according to The Center for Responsive Politics, a non-profit, non-partisan research group in Washington, D.C. Meanwhile, donations to Sen. John McCain, who was recently endorsed by President Bush as the official Republican candidate, pale in comparison.

Obama maintains a slight edge over his Democratic rival, with $181,000 in Big Pharma donations through Jan. 31, compared with Clinton's $174,000, according to the center. McCain is far behind with $44,000.

This is in spite of the fact that all three candidates have consistently bashed the pharma industry and vowed to lower drug prices, which would take a bite out of corporate profits.

LOL!

More of that famous "Change" we've all heard so much about. "

The Question wrote on Dec 3, 2008 4:28 AM:

" In 2001, the drug industry contributed a tidy $625,000 to the Bush-Cheney inaugural.
For the last decade, Big Pharma put the bulk of its campaign millions behind Republicans. This year, the contributions were evenly split between Republicans and Democrats. Why? They knew Democrats were going to win and control health policy.
Theres a new world order, explained Ken Johnson, senior vice president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.
The drug industry spends more on lobbying and other political persuasion than any other industry.
The drug industry lobbyists are also well-connected: 33 served as Chief of Staff to members of Congress; 11 others worked for the powerful House Ways and Means Committee; eight others worked for the key Senate Judiciary Committee, where drug patent law is crafted.
In addition, six worked for the Bush I administration; five worked for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.); four worked for former Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah); five worked for current Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.); four worked for former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.); and three worked for Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.). "

mike wrote on Dec 3, 2008 5:54 AM:

" I remember after the NIU shooting I took exception with one of Susan's letters about a religious intolerance as one of the issues related to the shootings. I discussed the very findings of the research in this articleand how the college students of the day are showing themselves to being self absorbed, narcissistic and antisocial. At that time VTucker dismissed my post basically saying this is not correct. Vicky, if you did your research you understand that there is not enough medication to treat the conditions that are currently out there. Research on medical problems are updated constantly and new drugs are and conditions are found regularly. Why can't this be the case with mental illness. I don't have a problem with people having their opinions. I don't like amateur psychologists making their comments about mental health when all they have is a lay knowledge. Susan if you would do more research instead of just some reading you would understand that based on empirical evidence via research that disorders do get reclassified. It is not just arbitrary. Don't confuse commercials and newspaper articles and the internet as evidence based research. The very first DSM classified homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder. If there were no updates to psychiatric conditions this would still be classified as one. There is too much growing evidence based on research that there is an increase in personality disorders among the 18-25 year old population. The one thing this study does not discuss is the fact that after the age of 30 that there appears to be a mitigation in these personality factors and they are not as debilitating as they can be at the 18-25 ages. "

Knowitall wrote on Dec 3, 2008 6:29 AM:

" I,myself,had some Anti-social problems, as a child. My Dad cured me of them, with his belt. Very effective.
Just took once. "

Harry Potter wrote on Dec 3, 2008 7:21 AM:

" Oh my....

George W. Bush is the clear front runner when it comes to drug company contributions and patronage. According to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), manufacturers of drugs and health products had contributed $764,274 to the 2004 Bush campaign through their political action committees and employees by April 26th of the election year 2004. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 3, 2008 8:00 AM:

" (This year, the contributions were evenly split between Republicans and Democrats.)

So the Democrats are just as influenced by Big Pharma as the Republicans, huh Question.

And what's worse, Obama flip-flopped on his reform pledge to NOT take soft money from big donors like Big Pharma.

I guess principles are essential only when one doesnt need cash. Otherwise, the principles go right out the door, along with promises, and especially the sanctimony.

That's "Change" we can all laugh at. "

Harry Potter wrote on Dec 3, 2008 8:06 AM:

" Doh needs to do a little research into the Bush family connections to the Eli Lilly drug company. Especially interesting is the number of Lilly executives that Bush has put into high level positions in government.

After Bush's cozy relationship with the drug companies, it's quite laughable that he's now trying to connect Obama to them. "

Becky wrote on Dec 3, 2008 8:30 AM:

" Yes Mike, of course reclassification and updated research should always continue but at what cost to us, the "victims" of today's research?

http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i46/46a02201.htm

"Mildred K. Cho, a senior research scholar at the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, has conducted studies showing that researchers are more likely to report positive results and overlook adverse effects in drug trials when the companies that made the drugs foot the bills. Most universities, she argues, do not do enough to safeguard the integrity of research" "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 3, 2008 8:41 AM:

" Mike you blew your own argument. You state disorders don't get reclassified than you stated that homosexuality once was and now isn't. Which is it? Perhaps you should check your facts and your own postings. The diagnostic manual was revised recently, and changes were made. Oh and Mike, my father was a psychologist, my brother is a psychologist, and a niece and cousin are also psychologists. So I have an inkling of an idea of what I am talking about. "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 3, 2008 8:53 AM:

" Now there are two issues at hand, the control of drug companies over public policies and the health industry (mental health is just one area, think of Viagra, restless leg disorder, asthma....) and the issue of youth who have "personality disorders"/"are disenfranchised". In the latter case their anti-social behavior might actually be a sign of mental health, a fight for self that has been misdirected and unrecognized and will continue to be so as long as they can be diagnosed, given a pill to pop, and sent on their way. Like the "no child left behind" education bill, the very help,tools they need to keep from being left behind will be denied and they will be left behind. "

HeinekenMan wrote on Dec 3, 2008 9:02 AM:

" I think the research is dead-on nails accurate. People are crazy. I think it's due to inbreeding. If you inbreed dogs, they get stupid. The same goes for people. But that's just a personal theory that I thought I'd float out there.

I've known lots of people with issues. Some have had 50 serious illnesses in the past 20 years without spending a single day in a hospital for them. I've met compulsive liars, self-destructive drunks and all manner of obsessive-compulsives. Most common, to me, is the vast number of people with manic depression and/or schizophrenia. "

medic57 wrote on Dec 3, 2008 9:27 AM:

" I talked to a Therapist for a while after dad passed away and took Prozac for a few months, (not any more) I can never own a FOID card again. "

Harry Potter wrote on Dec 3, 2008 9:33 AM:

" By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG AND GARDINER HARRIS
Published: September 5, 2003
In the thick of the 2000 presidential campaign, executives at Bristol-Myers Squibb, one of the nation's largest drug companies, received an urgent message: donate money to George W. Bush.

The message did not come from Republican campaign officials. It came from top Bristol-Myers executives, according to four executives who say they donated to Mr. Bush under pressure from their bosses. They said that they were urged to donate the maximum -- $1,000 in their own name and $1,000 in their spouse's -- and were warned that the company's chief executive would be notified if they failed to give.

NY Times-

More propaganda, Doh? "

Harry Potter wrote on Dec 3, 2008 9:38 AM:

" Lower-cost drugs predicted under Obama administration
Democratic control in D.C. could pave way for initiatives...

"We are likely to see some movements with prescription drugs and pricing," said David Dranove, professor of health industry management for Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management.

The reason: President George W. Bush blocked, or allowed Republican leaders to stall, several bills that would have resulted in lower drug prices. In doing so, he sided with the pharmaceutical industry, which cited safety concerns about cheaper imported drugs and worried about threats to drug company research budgets if the federal government interfered with pricing.

And this was from the Chicago Tribune, not normally known for it's liberal stands. "

HeinekenMan wrote on Dec 3, 2008 9:48 AM:

" Medic...

Wrong again. You just boggle the mind. Your post was shocking. So I checked into it. You say "ever again." That's untrue. There's a five-year wait people who were patients in a mental institution. That's not out-patient treatment with a psychologist or psychiatrist. It's for people who were so mentally messed up that they were either forcibly or voluntarily placed in a mental institution. Unless that happened to you and unless you were deemed mentally unstable by a court of law, you are eligible for a FOID card. Merry Christmas. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 3, 2008 9:52 AM:

" Come now Harry,

All of your stats are years old.

And more importantly, how does any of that negate the fact that the Democrats are now accepting money from Big Pharma, ESPECIALLY when Obama promised that he wouldn't?

How is that "change"? "

RAK wrote on Dec 3, 2008 9:58 AM:

" Medic57:

You're incorrect. Who told you that? "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 3, 2008 10:06 AM:

" Get with the times Harry ole boy.

Here's some MODERN stats for you.

From Sept 2008:

Pharmaceutical firms have been a stalwart Republican ally$22 million of the industrys $30 billion in contributions went to GOP congressional candidates in 2002but drug makers are increasingly supporting Democrats, Jeanne Cummings reports in Politico. Programs such as President Bushs prescription-drug plan mean half of pharmaceutical sales are controlled by the government, and big pharma depends on those programs staying well-fundedfamiliar territory for Democrats.

Drug firms have hedged their bets this year, evenly splitting $17 million among Democratic and Republican congressmen. While still willing to support their former congressional allies, the companies are flatly opposed to John McCain, who has buttressed his maverick image by railing against the industry since primary season. Instead, pharmaceutical firms split $1.4 million between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

And again, Harry, Obama broke his promise on campaign finance when said he would NOT accept private donations from big corporations. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 3, 2008 10:12 AM:

" (Lower-cost drugs predicted under Obama administration
Democratic control in D.C. could pave way for initiatives...)

Oh suuuuure Harry.

Big Pharma donated $17 million to Democrats, I'm sure those Big Evil Corporations aren't expecting ANYTHING in return. I'm sure they'll just roll-over for lower prescription drugs prices without any sort of compensation.

Cause that's just how Washington works. Right Harry?

Oh that's right. You still believe in "Change".

LOL "

mike wrote on Dec 3, 2008 10:42 AM:

" Susan,

Maybe you should read more carefully. I said that disorders DO get updated. My point was that Homosexuality was once classified as a mental disorder and due to updates to the Diagnostic Manual this is no longer considered a mental illness. Just because you have family members who are psychologists makes them experts Susan, not you. Don't confuse your reading and associations with expertise. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 3, 2008 10:42 AM:

" It just keeps getting better out there Harry!

Pharmaceutical lobbyist ads to target Obama idea

November 14, 2008 - The nation's largest pharmaceutical lobbying group is preparing a multimillion-dollar public relations campaign to tout the importance of free-market health care and undercut an expected push by the Obama administration for price controls of prescription drugs.

Other major industries are also gearing up for the fight, including big businesses and insurance companies. But the stakes are especially high for drugmakers, which stand to lose as much as $30 billion in revenue if President-elect Barack Obama's plan to let the federal government negotiate Medicare drug prices is implemented, according to one independent report.

Gosh Harry, you don't suppose those Big Pharma Companies donated all that money to the Dems with the idea of a little Quid pro quo do ya?

Nah. LOL "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 3, 2008 10:46 AM:

" SEN. CLINTON: - "You know, when it comes to lobbyists, you know, Senator Obamas chair in New Hampshire is a lobbyist. He lobbies for the drug companies. So I think its important that all of us be held to the same standards, that were all held accountable."

RFLMAO!

And what's really funny- Obama actually lied through his teeth and denied this.

LOL! "

Harry Potter wrote on Dec 3, 2008 12:16 PM:

" All of your stats are years old.

-----

And all of your "facts" on the early support of the war by the Dems are up to date, right, Doh? LOL! "

Harry Potter wrote on Dec 3, 2008 12:27 PM:

" And what's really funny- Obama actually lied through his teeth and denied this.

What? how shocking. Imagine, a politician telling a lie.

At least Bush never did that, huh? "

Harry Potter wrote on Dec 3, 2008 12:44 PM:

" November 14, 2008 - The nation's largest pharmaceutical lobbying group is preparing a multimillion-dollar public relations campaign to tout the importance of free-market health care and undercut an expected push by the Obama administration for price controls of prescription drugs.

Well gee Doh, that's seems to contradict your theory that Obama is in bed with the drug companies, doesn't So which is it, you can't have it both ways. Oh yeah, you're never wrong, so I guess you can. LOL! "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 3, 2008 2:13 PM:

" Hey Harry, I even have some older news for you.

Can you feel the "Change"? LOL.

ABCNEWS- Despite Rhetoric, Obama Pushed Lobbyists' Interests

July 16, 2007 - Away from the bright lights and high-minded rhetoric of the campaign trail, Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has quietly worked with corporate lobbyists to help pass breaks worth $12 million.

In his speeches, Obama has lambasted lobbyists and moneyed interests who "have turned our government into a game only they can afford to play."

"It's an entire culture in Washington -- some of it legal, some of it not," the Democratic hopeful told a New York crowd in June, rallying support for his ethics reform agenda.

But last year, at the request of a hired representative for an Australian-owned chemical corporation Nufarm, Obama introduced nine separate bills exempting the company from import fees on a range of chemical ingredients it uses in the manufacture of pesticides and herbicides. Nufarm's U.S. subsidiary is based in Illinois.

Nufarm wasn't the only beneficiary of Obama's efforts to reduce customs fees and duties. In early May of 2006, two Washington lobbyists registered to work on behalf of Astellas Pharma, a Japanese-owned drug company which also has offices in Illinois.

The lobbyists' task? "Introduce legislation to temporarily suspend customs duties for the importation of a pharmaceutical ingredient," they wrote on their lobbying forms. Less than three weeks later, the men had earned their $20,000 fee, thanks to Obama. On May 26, he introduced S. 3155, a bill specifically exempting Astellas' key ingredient from tariff payments. The bill cost the federal government more than $1 million in lost revenue, according to government estimates.

Together, Obama's obscure measures -- known as tariff suspensions -- steered more than $12 million away from federal coffers, according to government estimates. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 3, 2008 2:19 PM:

" (And all of your "facts" on the early support of the war by the Dems are up to date, right?)

What are the "facts" that negate their early support Harry? "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 3, 2008 2:23 PM:

" (What? how shocking. Imagine, a politician telling a lie.

At least Bush never did that, huh?)

But Harry, Obama ran on a platform of "Change".

Remember that? No more "Washington politics as usual"?

Remember Harry? "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 3, 2008 2:59 PM:

" (that's seems to contradict your theory that Obama is in bed with the drug companies)

Uhm no Harry ole boy...it doesn't.

Did you read my ABCNEWS post that explained how Obama's sweetheart relationship with Astellas Pharma steered more than $12 million away from federal coffers? "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 3, 2008 3:16 PM:

" Let's look at that again:

Obama's obscure measures (known as tariff suspensions) on behalf of the chemical corporation Nufarm, and Astellas Pharma, steered more than $12 million away from federal coffers.

Uhm....what was Obama (Mr. Change) saying about Big Corporations and loop holes, during the champaign?

Anybody recall? "

Mr. Right wrote on Dec 3, 2008 4:06 PM:

" Here's the answer to the problem . . . Let's form a blue-ribbon panel to spend two years studying it then let's throw money at it!!!!!

It won't work but it'll make us all feel warm and fuzzy about ourselves. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 3, 2008 4:18 PM:

" Don't worry Mr. Right, I'm sure the Democrats already have a brand new bloated bureaucracy already in the works.

I'm sure that was the intended purpose of this AP story to begin with. "

The Question wrote on Dec 3, 2008 4:24 PM:

" "Don't worry Mr. Right, I'm sure the Democrats already have a brand new bloated bureaucracy already in the works."
---
No need for a new one, Doh. Bush's drunken-spending $10 trillion bureaucracy should do just fine. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 3, 2008 4:45 PM:

" (No need for a new one, Doh. Bush's drunken-spending $10 trillion bureaucracy should do just fine.)

If that's true, Question, then why is Obama promising to spend more on bureaucracies than Bush ever dreamed of? "

The Question wrote on Dec 3, 2008 5:33 PM:

" "If that's true, Question, then why is Obama promising to spend more on bureaucracies than Bush ever dreamed of? "
----
Because your you pal Cheeta and the deregulation-crazy greed-head GOP have so wrecked the world economy that only major government spending may save us. But it probably won't. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 3, 2008 5:46 PM:

" (Because your you pal Cheeta and the deregulation-crazy greed-head GOP have so wrecked the world economy that only major government spending may save us. But it probably won't.)

You're confused again, slappy.

It was your corrupt Democrats and their fraudulent practices in the government housing institutions that created all that bad paper that brought the world market to it's knees.

And here you moronic Democrats think MORE government involvement will be the answer.

FOCUS Question. FOCUS and LEARN. LOL "

Mr. Right wrote on Dec 3, 2008 5:57 PM:

" If Sen. Obama backpedals on his campaign "promises", where's the shock? He'll dodge, feint, and sidestep the issue, blame it on someone else and try to convince everyone that HE tried to do somthing. If only we'd give him a 100% Democrat congress for his 2nd term, he can actually "change" something.

The last time the buck stopped on a Democrat's desk was when it stopped on Harry Truman's. And when it did - he actually DID something about it! Now let's see how long it takes for someone to dodge that statement by showing us how many Republican presidents also dodged things. It may not have anything to do with the issue and it may be sidestepping, etc. but it's a common practice.

I'll bet it won't be four hours before someone posts "Oh yeah? You think OBAMA is dodging . . . what about (fill in the blank)". They think shifting blame is taking responsibility. Watch . . . . . four hours. Go! "

Mr. Right wrote on Dec 3, 2008 6:00 PM:

" Blue Dog . . . more government involvement IS the answer! Look what a bang up job the government has done with the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, education and Social Security! "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 3, 2008 6:17 PM:

" Yep, Mr. Right.

It's difficult to find any government institutions that aren't ineffective and wasteful. And Mr. HopeAndChange is about to give us a whole boat-load of more-of-the-same. "

The Question wrote on Dec 4, 2008 7:33 AM:

" Doh, you know very well that Fannie and Freddie didn't create the trillions upon trillions in toxic, fraudulent financial derivatives and credit default swaps that brought down the world economy. Greed-head Republican Wall Street crooks did that, assisted by ideology-blinded free market Republicans in Congress, and too many Democrats who went right along with them.
It was just a Ponzi scheme on an unimaginable scale, made possible by a cowed, cowardly, corrupted business news media and bribe-greased deregulation to legalize financial fraud. We had a preview of all this from Bush's dirty little pals an Enron, but we refused to admit what was going on.
We don't yet know the price we're going to have to pay for this refusal to see reality, but it's going to be vast. It may yet end, like other historic financial disasters, in a fascist totalitarian government here.
In any case, the American era of world dominance is done. "

Becky wrote on Dec 4, 2008 8:23 AM:

" "It was your corrupt Democrats and their fraudulent practices in the government housing institutions that created all that bad paper that brought the world market to it's knees."

If I remember correctly, it was both Democrats AND Republicans in Washington for the last 100 years. Why do you keep insisting that the Repubs do things better? I really, REALLY don't get that. Sure, you are conservative but the new Republican party is ANYTHING BUT conservative. What they are doing now is taking all of our tax money and giving it to the huge, multinational corporations with no bid contracts doing exactly what our military's supposed to do and then paying those contractors ten times over what it would cost our military to it. Does that make sense to you? And it's quite convenient that those companies are owned and operated by Cheney and his bestest buddies. Can you spell Plutocracy there Blue Dog? Do you really want that for our country?

I'm all for conservativism but the Republicans don't have the slightest idea of what that means anymore. We need a third party who touts real conservatism, (smaller government, less taxes, more individual responsibilty) because we won't find that with EITHER the Dems or Repubs. Plus we need to leave the theological idealism out of politics! It has no place there.....PERIOD! "

HeinekenMan wrote on Dec 4, 2008 8:25 AM:

" I can't imagine why people are arguing about mortgage lenders when the story is about mental disorders. Go get a room. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 4, 2008 8:33 AM:

" I don't know who you're talking to Question, but I have explained in detail (numerous times) that Fannie and Freddie were allowed to run a derivatives scam that was far worse than any private bank could have ever attempted.

Fannie and Freddie were counterparties in $2.3 trillion-worth of derivative transactions related to their hedging activities. The two groups had core capital of $83.2 billion at the end of 2007; this supported around $5.2 trillion of debt and guarantees, a gearing ratio of 65 to one.

There is no way a private bank would be allowed to have such a highly geared balance sheet.

They repackaged their "bad paper" (15 million individual loans given to illegal aliens with no social security numbers and no proof of income, for example) and used it as collateral for bonds called mortgage-backed securities; they guaranteed buyers of those securities against default. The belief in the implicit government guarantee allowed the pair to borrow cheaply. This made their model work. They could earn more on the mortgages they bought than they paid to raise money in the markets. Had Fannie and Freddie been hedge funds, this strategy would have been known as a carry trade.

This belief in the implicit government guarantee resulted Foreign investors owning approximately $2.5 trillion worth of both Fannie and Freddies debt.
So when the entire thing collapsed, it took the world market with it by domino effect.

And all the while (over the last 8 years) Republicans were calling for more regulation and oversight of these fraudulent practices, only to have the Democrats forcefully resist as they claimed that there was no problem and that Republicans were racist fear mongers.

You can keep pushing your dishonest attempts to rewrite history all you want, Question, but facts are facts.

And you are either blind or dishonest.
So which is it, Question? "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:12 AM:

" (Why do you keep insisting that the Repubs do things better?)

In this case, Becky, the Republicans DID try to enforce regulation on the corrupt Democrats.

Watch this 8 1/2 minute video of Democrats (in there own words) if you don't believe me. Look at the dates (going back to 2004) Listen to their indignation at the mere mention that Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac may have a problem. Listen to the Democrats whole-cloth denial that there is ANY problems whatsoever. Listen to their accusations of racism:

http://tinyurl.com/4c89v9

(I really, REALLY don't get that. Sure, you are conservative but the new Republican party is ANYTHING BUT conservative.)

I completely agree, Becky. That's why I'm not a Republican.

(I'm all for conservativism but the Republicans don't have the slightest idea of what that means anymore.)

I couldn't agree more, Becky. "

Mr. Right wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:43 AM:

" Becky wrote on Dec 4, 2008 8:23 AM: "I'm all for conservativism but the Republicans don't have the slightest idea of what that means anymore. We need a third party who touts real conservatism, (smaller government, less taxes, more individual responsibilty) because we won't find that with EITHER the Dems or Repubs."

What SHE said! "

Becky wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:43 AM:

" "There is no way a private bank would be allowed to have such a highly geared balance sheet."

Oh really Blue Dog? Then how'd this happen?

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12042008/business/ponzi_scheme_at_citi_142511.htm

Director Rubin and ousted CEO Prince - and their lieutenants over the past five years - are named in a federal lawsuit for an alleged complex cover-up of toxic securities that spread across the globe, wiping out trillions of dollars in their destructive paths. "

The Question wrote on Dec 4, 2008 11:04 AM:

" Here are a few facts on the Bush Depression for you. Fannie and Freddie don't lend money to illegal aliens or anyone else, however. They purchase loans from the private lenders.
Mortgage brokers, who weren't subject to federal regulation, originated most of the subprime loans. Investment banks created a demand for subprime loans because they saw it as a new asset class that they could dominate, realizing they could get paid for making the loans, for turning them into securities, and for trading them using borrowed capital! What a deal!
A New York Times article from 1999, "Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending," noted that " ...banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers." The private sector lenders, and not Fannie and Freddie, were PUSHING TO PURSUE this market with big profits in their greedy eyes.
Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was booming, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance.
During those same three years, private investment banks NOT Fannie and Freddie dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost TWO THIRDS of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie.
Written by Wall Street investment-bank lawyers, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which had no hearing before any committee, mandated deregulation of investment banks, declaring off-limits to regulators most over the counter derivatives, credit derivatives, credit defaults and swaps. It also included the famously destructive "Enron loophole."
And the derivatives market isn't any mere $2 trillion, Doh. It's a staggering $60 trillion annually.
It doesnt take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that when you're looking for the perpetrators of a massive financial fraud, the culprits will be THE PEOPLE WHO GOT THE MONEY.
But have it your way, Doggy Doh. Some poor people who really couldn't afford houses outwitted the financial bermensch on Wall Street and brought down the world economy. The Republicans were always in favor of financial services regulation, and against the free market. We all remember how much the Republicans mistrust the free market. It's just too bad the GOP had no chance to enact those regulations they so longed to impose during the many years they controlled the presidency AND both houses of Congress AND the Supreme Court, while subprime lending and derivatives were running out of control.
Yes, head for the hills now that youve killed the economy, Republicans. But be sure to make some more pathetic attempts to cover your bloody tracks. "

Becky wrote on Dec 4, 2008 11:06 AM:

" And here's a study by the FED GOVERNOR! about your constant assertions about Fred & Fan.
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/12/it-wasnt-the-cr.html

This result undermines the assertion by critics of the potential for a substantial role for the CRA in the subprime crisis. In other words, the very small share of all higher-priced loan originations that can reasonably be attributed to the CRA makes it hard to imagine how this law could have contributed in any meaningful way to the current subprime crisis.

Oh, sorry Blue Dog, I forgot I was making things too simple and didn't understand the whole concept of what you were saying. But, go ahead and read the entire report. Maybe you'll finally get off the kick that those Democrats and the CRA are totally responsible for the entire ills of the financial world today. "

father bob wrote on Dec 4, 2008 11:42 AM:

" In June 2002, President Bush issued America's Homeownership Challenge to the real estate and mortgage finance industries to encourage them to join the effort to close the gap that exists between the homeownership rates of minorities and non-minorities. The President also announced the goal of increasing the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families before the end of the decade. Under his leadership, the overall U.S. homeownership rate in the second quarter of 2004 was at an all time high of 69.2 percent. Minority homeownership set a new record of 51 percent in the second quarter, up 0.2 percentage point from the first quarter and up 2.1 percentage points from a year ago. "

Harry Potter wrote on Dec 4, 2008 11:50 AM:

" Wow! From young adult personality disorders to Fannie and Freddie in three days flat. Where will this thread be tomorrow, yellow cake or Obama's supposed Muslim connections? "

Harry Potter wrote on Dec 4, 2008 1:23 PM:

" And you are either blind or dishonest.
So which is it, Question? "

Yeah TQ, and did you stop beating your wife? "

Rotty wrote on Dec 4, 2008 2:05 PM:

" I have your diagnosis for political ambition disorder....

Take 2 Third Parties, & call me in the morning.

LOL! "

The Question wrote on Dec 4, 2008 2:16 PM:

" I guess I've had it all wrong. The right wingers here assure me that Republicans have always been IN FAVOR of regulation. It's those awful free-market, deregulation-crazed Democrats who caused all this. We all remember that, don't we?
Repeat after me: "We are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia." "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 4, 2008 2:36 PM:

" (Oh really Blue Dog? Then how'd this happen?)

How did what happen Becky? I don't see any evidence of a private bank having a debt to capital gearing ratio of 65 to one in your article. And I don't see anything close to the $2.3 trillion-worth of derivative transactions that Fannie and Freddie were playing with and I see nothing mentioned about foreign investors owning approximately $2.5 trillion worth of debt like they did with Fannie and Freddie.

Oh and Becky, were exactly did these "toxic securities" originate from in your story?

Are these banks guilty of passing along "bad paper"? Probably.

But how does any of this take away from the fact that the Democrats corrupt practices started this ball rolling, Becky? "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 4, 2008 3:42 PM:

" (I guess I've had it all wrong. The right wingers here assure me that Republicans have always been IN FAVOR of regulation.)

I wonder why your Democrats in Congress were so resistant to any further regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? "

Becky wrote on Dec 4, 2008 3:48 PM:

" So Blue Dog, you're right and the Federal Reserve Governor doesn't know what he's talking about.....right?

Give it up Blue Dog. You want to vote Repub...go right ahead but do it with a little, no make that a LOT more information than what you hear from Limbaugh or O'Reily and Faux Noise. It's a big world out there and 2 Dems don't have THAT much clout to ruin the entire world economies. "

father bob wrote on Dec 4, 2008 4:06 PM:

" Becky wrote on Dec 4, 2008 3:48 PM:
"2 Dems don't have THAT much clout to ruin the entire world economies. """"

how true becky, and you know in 2002 president bush came out with a home ownership campaign that pushed...um...how do i say this SUBPRIME loans, and it has been one of the administration's pet projects....homeownership for everyone!

oh....and where did i get my information? the whitehouse website.
let the smurf squirm about that for a while.

hey blue-man-crew....you out there moron? "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 4, 2008 4:38 PM:

" (So Blue Dog, you're right and the Federal Reserve Governor doesn't know what he's talking about.....right?)

Oh I dunno Becky.

(the very small share of all higher-priced loan originations that can reasonably be attributed to the CRA makes it hard to imagine how this law could have contributed in any meaningful way to the current subprime crisis.)

Consider this report from last June:

Reuters - Investors will only buy bundles of the smaller mortgages that conform to the standards of government-sponsored housing finance companies such as Fannie Mae (Those would be the CRA mortgages) preventing lenders from freeing up capital by selling their largest home loans.

So who do we believe here Becky? "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 4, 2008 4:50 PM:

" Stanley Kurtz takes a look at how the Community Reinvestment Act was used by activist groups to pressure banks into lending money to high-risk applicants, and how community organizers like ACORN played a front-line role. ACORN insinuated itself into the process by using CRA to block bank sales and mergers and force lending institutions to lower standards for applicants. They also championed the sale of these loans to Fannie Mae as a key program that would alleviate the lenders of any risk in lending:

CRA was meant to encourage banks to make loans to high-risk borrowers, often minorities living in unstable neighborhoods. That has provided an opening to radical groups like ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) to abuse the law by forcing banks to make hundreds of millions of dollars in subprime loans to often uncreditworthy poor and minority customers.

Any bank that wants to expand or merge with another has to show it has complied with CRA - and approval can be held up by complaints filed by groups like ACORN.

In fact, intimidation tactics, public charges of racism and threats to use CRA to block business expansion have enabled ACORN to extract hundreds of millions of dollars in loans and contributions from Americas financial institutions.

Banks already overexposed by these shaky loans were pushed still further in the wrong direction when government-sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began buying up their bad loans and offering them for sale on world markets.

Fannie and Freddie acted in response to Clinton administration pressure to boost homeownership rates among minorities and the poor. However compassionate the motive, the result of this systematic disregard for normal credit standards has been financial disaster. "

father bob wrote on Dec 4, 2008 5:03 PM:

" interesting the smurfette takes his obsession with fannie mae to a thread about personality disorders.

must be something about this sociopath that causes him to obsess with one topic regardless of the discussion.

i guess it beats yellowcake,yellowcake,yellowcake,
yellowcake.....or yellowcake "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 4, 2008 5:15 PM:

" Actually Bob, it was Question who brought this entire thing up in here:

The Question wrote on Dec 3, 2008 5:33 PM:

Because your you pal Cheeta and the deregulation-crazy greed-head GOP have so wrecked the world economy that only major government spending may save us. But it probably won't.

Sorry bobby. I forgot, you can't read. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 5, 2008 12:10 AM:

" (The private sector lenders, and not Fannie and Freddie, were PUSHING TO PURSUE this market with big profits in their greedy eyes.)

Let's look at that NYT article, Question:

-Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

-Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

-In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

-In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

-The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 5, 2008 12:13 AM:

" (Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was booming, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance.)

Uhm...yeah, Question. And do you know why?

"by 2004, the crony capitalism had gone too far. Even the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight issued a report essentially criticizing Fannie and Freddie for Enron-style accounting that let them boost profits in order to pay their politically well-connected executives hefty bonuses.

It emerged that Clinton aide Raines, who took Fannie Mae's helm as CEO in 1999, took in nearly $100 million by the time he left in 2005. Others, including former Clinton Justice Department official Gorelick, took $75 million from the Fannie-Freddie piggy bank.

Even so, Fannie and Freddie were forced to restate their earnings by some $3.5 billion, due to the accounting shenanigans." - Investors Business Daily "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 5, 2008 12:49 AM:

" From The BBC Sept 8 2008

'Implode' risk

There will be no queues outside branches of Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae - quite simply because there are not any.

In fact, despite them guaranteeing or owning just under half of the entire US mortgage market, you cannot actually get a home loan from either firm.

But while they are invisible to the average borrower, the two firms are highly influential institutions and are key to the US housing market.

As one US Treasury official puts it, the two firms are "way too intertwined with everyone in the world" to fail.

Banks around the world are highly exposed to the two companies.

And, given the febrile state of markets across the world, it had become dangerous for doubts to persist about whether they were viable and would be able to keep up the payments on their massive liabilities, said the BBC's business editor Robert Peston.

Almost all US mortgage lenders, from huge financial institutions such as Citigroup to small, local banks, rely on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, looking to them for the funds they need to meet consumer demand for mortgages. "

Harry Potter wrote on Dec 5, 2008 3:53 PM:

" Now who was it complaining about someone thinking the owned this site? Surely it wasn't the old blue Smurfster. "

1 cav wrote on Dec 15, 2008 10:57 AM:

" Harry Potter wrote on Dec 5, 2008 3:53 PM:
" Now who was it complaining about someone thinking the owned this site? Surely it wasn't the old blue Smurfster. "
*************************
No its people like you D.H. that write on this blog at work all day long,while being paid,by those who have to work all day. "

1 cav wrote on Dec 15, 2008 10:59 AM:

Harry Potter wrote on Dec 15, 2008 3:55 PM:

" No its people like you D.H. that write on this blog at work all day long,while being paid,by those who have to work all day. Alias T Q or HP and who knows what others. "

Any thoughts about the volumes of crud being put out by the blue smurfster, l cav? Or do you just criticise those you have philosophical differences with? "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 16, 2008 11:51 AM:

" (Any thoughts about the volumes of crud being put out by the blue smurfster, l cav? Or do you just criticise those you have philosophical differences with?)

The Question is this "blue smurfster"?

Well wadda you know.

Who knew?..........

Thanks for the tip Harry.

P.S.

You still haven't answered my questions, Harry.

You really need to stop running away from me, you know.

Why do you fear me so, Harry? "

medic57 wrote on Dec 16, 2008 8:23 PM:

" I'm convinced that the makers of Breakfast Cereal also make Ritalin, Adderal, Etc...

There is no more hyper-activity now than there was when I was a kid, we were just told to stay outside and play until it was supper time.

No computers, no Play Stations, although we did have Pong when I was 16.

In those days, I was the remote control, of course we only had 3 channels. Anyone remember being to to move the Rotor 3 clicks to the right? "