800 Billion Dollar Bill

[Wild Bunch]

Let's get a disscussion on this that doesn't involve "Do republicans have a deathwish?", I just want to know what you people think of the bill and what should've been done with it.

[Nevada_Ballin]

my option isn't listed:

Should have approriated better but it's still better than nothing.

[Wild Bunch]

my option isn't listed:

Should have approriated better but it's still better than nothing.

This is the stuff I wanted people to talk about, not vote in the poll about.

[Sgt.Slaughter]

Like I said yesterday I think it would be better if the American people got a portion of the stimulus package instead of banks and other businesses.

I saw the CSPAN interview with the CEO of Citigroup and I can tell that this part of the stimulus is going to backfire. They gave the Fed $7 Billion for a bailout package of $200+Billion which the CEO called insurance.

The taxpayers are fronting 90% of the bill while they are responsible for 10%. Thats crazy.

I still think that if they portioned $700 billion towards the American people (roughly $7,000 per person) then that would help the economy because people would actually spend that money to either catch up on bills, pay down debt, invest or purchase goods.

But that could backfire if people decided to spend the money. But if majority of people got $7000 I believe they would spend more.

But since thats not going to happen I feel there should have been a bigger allotment towards Education and more to help individual state budgets.

[resnor]

How about they take that $800 billion, and pay down people's mortgages? Like, anyone with less than a $300,000 mortgage, they pay it down. Now, you have a large percentage of the mortgages, which would include a large percentage of the bad mortgages, paid way down. The banks would no longer have that bad debt out there. The homeowners would now be able to use the money for their mortgage to buy other things with. I think that would have been better. If they had more left over, they could have paid off parts of people's college loans. Without a mortgage, and lower student loan payments, people could, and would, spend their money on other things...and they would have a good amount more to spend.

[TheSphinx 2.0]

I am in the camp of do very little. I don't think you should bail out people thatgot into mortgages that are over their head. I don't think you should bail out banks that bought bad loans. I think the government should make sure that the financial system is functioning so that money can flow and regular business can continue to work. They should not try to help bad banks survive. They should let bad banks go away (or let the equity holders get wiped out) so that the good banks can take advantage of the dislocation. Beyond that I don't think there is much else the government should do.

The issue I have is that by helping those who did the wrong thing you are hurting those who did the right thing. Now we can argue if saving your neighbor's home actually helps yours keep its value, but I don't think it does in the long-run. Proping up bad industries or investment has never really worked in terms of creating value.

I am not a fan of the stimulus package because it just adds to the debt burden of the country and I have not been convinced that it will actually foster growth commencerate with that debt. I understand the desire to do "something" and if you print enough money it will eventually fix the problem. Unfortunately, that money isn't free. It is hard for the average citizen to understand what that debt burden means to them but it will have an impact on all of us...inflation, lower growth, higher rates, etc. So without the growth you are basically just destroying value.

I don't know the answer, but I do think that at some point (not sure when) the US won't be able to debt finance its way of life. We all know what happens to a person who lives off credit cards when they can't borrow anymore money. That is what my fear is for the US. No debtor nation has been the center of the world for long.

-TS

[TheSphinx 2.0]

How about they take that $800 billion, and pay down people's mortgages? Like, anyone with less than a $300,000 mortgage, they pay it down. Now, you have a large percentage of the mortgages, which would include a large percentage of the bad mortgages, paid way down. The banks would no longer have that bad debt out there. The homeowners would now be able to use the money for their mortgage to buy other things with. I think that would have been better. If they had more left over, they could have paid off parts of people's college loans. Without a mortgage, and lower student loan payments, people could, and would, spend their money on other things...and they would have a good amount more to spend.

The only problem with this is that you are rewarding people and corporations which did bad things. It might help with the problem, but at that point it is just a massive transfer of wealth. Also if you pay off all mortgages under a certain size you are getting a good chunk of people who don't need the stimulus so they are just getting a windfall. Why should I pay for that? If you only help the bad people then you are rewarding bad behavior. Why should I pay for that? What if the person with the bad loan who got a bailout then just sells the house and makes a massive profit.

When you go down this path it just gets really tricky and what it boils down to is you have to accept that what you are doing is a wealth transfer and nothing more. However to transfer wealth you have to take it from somewhere and by borrowing money to do so you are taking it from future growth. I don't think that is a good tradeoff.

-TS

[MonoxideChild]

I think theoretically it would've been better to give the american citizens the money to help with paying off their debts, school fee's, etc., etc., which would in turn put the money back into the banks and the system in general. But in a way, thats kinda how we got here, irresponsible spending. I know it's already been stated a million times, but giving people that just blew billions upon billions of their own companies assets and were acting completely irresponsible froma business standpoint, more money just doesn't make sense to me. BTW anyone who's interested in the whole mortgage bubble, There's a good doc on cnbc called House of Cards. It definately clears some things up...kinda.

[bk1998]

I think theoretically it would've been better to give the american citizens the money to help with paying off their debts, school fee's, etc., etc., which would in turn put the money back into the banks and the system in general.

That's assuming that American Citizens would use the money in such a manner.

I'd assume that they'd be more likely to blow any payout and potentially accumulate more debt.

I have little sympathy for those who bought homes and assumed that the value of those homes would continue to rise.

Owning a home is not a god given right, and anyone that's whining and crying about losing their $500k home to forclosure can kiss my ***. Can't afford to stay in the home you're in? Here's an idea: RENT AN APARTMENT FOR HALF OF YOUR MORTGAGE.

[bk1998]

Jack Cafferty's take, FWIW:


NEW YORK (CNN) -- What a joke. Your Congress has voted to spend almost $790 billion of your money on a stimulus package that not a single member of either chamber has read.

The 1,073-page document wasn't posted on the government's Web site until after 10 p.m. the day before the vote to pass it was taken. I don't care if you're Evelyn Wood, you can't read almost 1,100 pages of the lawyer talk that makes up all legislation in eight or 10 hours.

The criminal part of this boondoggle is divided into two parts. The first is the Democrats promised to post the bill a full 48 hours before the vote was taken to allow members of the public to see what they were getting for their money. Both parties voted unanimously to do this ... and they lied.

It didn't happen. Why am I not surprised? Congress lying to the American people has become part of their job description. They can't be trusted on anything anymore.

I'm sure part of the reason there was no time for the public to read the bill was the 11th-hour internecine warfare between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

When Reid first announced the compromise had been reached, Nancy Pelosi was nowhere to be seen. And it would take an act of God for this egotistical, arrogant woman to miss a photo op where she could take credit for anything. But she wasn't there.

She summoned Reid to her office, where unnamed sources said she blew her top over some provision for schools that she wasn't happy with. Pelosi's snit delayed everything.

It's really too bad President Obama couldn't figure out a way to jettison these two who are poster children for everything that is wrong in Washington. The Associated Press called the birth of the stimulus bill "sausage making" in the best tradition of Washington politics as usual.

The second part of the crime is the contents of the bill itself. Far from being only about jobs, infrastructure and tax cuts as promised, the stimulus bill stimulates a bunch of other stuff as well. Eight billion dollars for high-speed rail lines, including a proposed line between Las Vegas and Los Angeles. This little bit of second story work wasn't even in the House version of the bill.

It started in the Senate as a $2 billion project, and came out of the conference committee costing a whopping $8 billion. Gee, now who would that benefit? Oh yeah, the Senate majority leader is from Nevada.

Filipino veterans, most of whom don't live in the U.S., will get $200 million in compensation for World War II injuries. And: $2 billion in grants and loans for battery companies, $100 million for small shipyards and a rollback of the alternative minimum tax at a cost of some $70 billion.

The AMT provision is much-needed legislation, but it doesn't belong in the stimulus bill. It forced other things out so Congress could keep to its self-imposed $800 billion cap.

And when it comes to the tax cuts contained in the stimulus bill, experts have determined they will amount to about $13 per week after taxes for the average American. I'm not sure how much stimulation $13 a week buys. It depends on the neighborhood.

The biggest problem of all is the stimulus bill may not be nearly enough. And if the president has to come back asking for more, the next time might not be so easy.

So far, we have an anemic stimulus bill and some sort of vague proposal from the secretary of the Treasury to deal with the banking crisis -- a proposal that landed with a thud last week -- as the two first steps toward solving a financial crisis that is threatening to take down the country.

Obama better step up his game, or it's going to be a short four years in office.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Jack Cafferty.

[Sgt.Slaughter]

That's assuming that American Citizens would use the money in such a manner.

I'd assume that they'd be more likely to blow any payout and potentially accumulate more debt.

I have little sympathy for those who bought homes and assumed that the value of those homes would continue to rise.
Owning a home is not a god given right, and anyone that's whining and crying about losing their $500k home to forclosure can kiss my ***. Can't afford to stay in the home you're in? Here's an idea: RENT AN APARTMENT FOR HALF OF YOUR MORTGAGE.


I understand where you are coming from but if you have been renting your whole life and a bank/mortgage broker tells you that with your current income and credit you can get a house for 0 down (which causes you to have a double mortgage) at an adjustable rate, with interest rates tied to the economic status of the country (you know the economy was at a good point about 3-5 years ago during the housing boom), then people jumped on it.

But what about the person who is in the affordable 100k house but has seen the interest rates and mortgage payments rise drastically because of the economic downturn?

and the people whose house appreciated to 500k took out a HELOC and now can't even sell the house for $100k?

Or the person who is paying on a mortgage valued at $500k but the house is currently worth $200k but the bank is unwilling to refinance and forces that person to pay an exasperated amount each month? Thats where the problem occurs and their are more scenarios of people being a victim of the later rather people who just went out and got crazy loans. If banks would approve some of these refinancing agreements people would be able to make the payments, banks would continue to loan to make up for the loss, and the cycle would be pushed for a profit for both parties.


And for the past 20 years people have been continuously saying that the first form of building wealth was to own a home. Because a home appreciates in value while other items like cars depreciate over time.

Not to point fingers with this next statement, but former-President Bush wanted people to go out and purchase homes. People did. Banks lent more based on the premise of "High-risk, High-reward" but instead of being logical and not taking so many risks banks just loaned and loaned until it got too outrageous. And here are some excerts from a speech by former-President Bush:

Let me first talk about how to make sure America is secure from a group of killers, people who hate -- you know what they hate? They hate the idea that somebody can go buy a home.

But I believe owning something is a part of the American Dream, as well. I believe when somebody owns their own home, they're realizing the American Dream. They can say it's my home, it's nobody else's home. And we saw that yesterday in Atlanta, when we went to the new homes of the new homeowners. And I saw with pride firsthand, the man say, welcome to my home. He didn't say, welcome to government's home; he didn't say, welcome to my neighbor's home; he said, welcome to my home. I own the home, and you're welcome to come in the home, and I appreciate it. He was a proud man. He was proud that he owns the property. And I was proud for him. And I want that pride to extend all throughout our country.
One of the things that we've got to do is to address problems straight on and deal with them in a way that helps us meet goals. And so I want to talk about a couple of goals and -- one goal and a problem.

The goal is, everybody who wants to own a home has got a shot at doing so. The problem is we have what we call a homeownership gap in America. Three-quarters of Anglos own their homes, and yet less than 50 percent of African Americans and Hispanics own homes. That ownership gap signals that something might be wrong in the land of plenty. And we need to do something about it.

We are here in Washington, D.C. to address problems. So I've set this goal for the country. We want 5.5 million more homeowners by 2010 -- million more minority homeowners by 2010. (Applause.) Five-and-a-half million families by 2010 will own a home. That is our goal. It is a realistic goal. But it's going to mean we're going to have to work hard to achieve the goal, all of us. And by all of us, I mean not only the federal government, but the private sector, as well.
And so I want to, one, encourage you to do everything you can to work in a realistic, smart way to get this done. I repeat, we're here for a reason. And part of the reason is to make this dream extend everywhere.

I'm going to do my part by setting the goal, by reminding people of the goal, by heralding the goal, and by calling people into action, both the federal level, state level, local level, and in the private sector. (Applause.)

And so what are the barriers that we can deal with here in Washington? Well, probably the single barrier to first-time homeownership is high down payments. People take a look at the down payment, they say that's too high, I'm not buying. They may have the desire to buy, but they don't have the wherewithal to handle the down payment. We can deal with that. And so I've asked Congress to fully fund an American Dream down payment fund which will help a low-income family to qualify to buy, to buy. (Applause.)

We believe when this fund is fully funded and properly administered, which it will be under the Bush administration, that over 40,000 families a year -- 40,000 families a year -- will be able to realize the dream we want them to be able to realize, and that's owning their own home. (Applause.)

The second barrier to ownership is the lack of affordable housing. There are neighborhoods in America where you just can't find a house that's affordable to purchase, and we need to deal with that problem. The best way to do so, I think, is to set up a single family affordable housing tax credit to the tune of $2.4 billion over the next five years to encourage affordable single family housing in inner-city America. (Applause.)

The third problem is the fact that the rules are too complex. People get discouraged by the fine print on the contracts. They take a look and say, well, I'm not so sure I want to sign this. There's too many words. (Laughter.) There's too many pitfalls. So one of the things that the Secretary is going to do is he's going to simplify the closing documents and all the documents that have to deal with homeownership.

It is essential that we make it easier for people to buy a home, not harder. And in order to do so, we've got to educate folks. Some of us take homeownership for granted, but there are people -- obviously, the home purchase is a significant, significant decision by our fellow Americans. We've got people who have newly arrived to our country, don't know the customs. We've got people in certain neighborhoods that just aren't really sure what it means to buy a home. And it seems like to us that it makes sense to have a outreach program, an education program that explains the whys and wherefores of buying a house, to make it easier for people to not only understand the legal implications and ramifications, but to make it easier to understand how to get a good loan.



You can read the speech for yourself here as well-http://www.hud.gov/news/speeches/presremarks.cfm

[bk1998]

What about these people... and those people... and these people?

Let 'em file for bankruptcy.

Losing your home won't make you homeless. There are more affordable options to keeping a roof over your head than paying a mortgage.

If people got suckered into getting a home with a terrible loan... Perhaps they should have done a little bit more homework?

[Sgt.Slaughter]

What about these people... and those people... and these people?

Let 'em file for bankruptcy.

Losing your home won't make you homeless. There are more affordable options to keeping a roof over your head than paying a mortgage.

If people got suckered into getting a home with a terrible loan... Perhaps they should have done a little bit more homework?

Filing for bankruptcy isn't the answer for everyone.

losing your home will bust your credit to the point where you could barely even rent again. All these people whose homes have been foreclosed will be better off living out of a car rather than an apartment, where they will probably have to put a years worth of rent down for security deposit.

Yea if some people get suckered in then hey thats cool right? but what about the innocent victims should they be homeless too. You know the people who are renting out a home, because they can't afford a mortgage, but then the owner gets the house foreclosed on while he's collecting the rent every month and doesn't even tell the people but they are now forced to live on the streets of Charlotte because they can't find an affordable rental or house. is that cool? he hasn't been able to afford the payments because of the adjustable rate mortgage of a home he's owned for 10 years but he collects the money, lives in his house safe and secure but has this lady and her 3 kids living on the street!!!

Or here in Tallahassee about 2 years ago a student housing complex had about 600 students renting from them. Booth Properties couldn't afford to pay the bank so when the bank foreclosed on the property all 600 students were evicted out of the complex...and this happened in like October, middle of the semester. More than half of the students withdrew from school and went home for the rest of that year because finding decent or even affordable housing in the capital city/college town is hard.

So the problem isn't just individual homeowners its more than them big real estate/housing firms are affected by this influx of the horrible economy too...but your solution is to have them file for bankruptcy isn't a logical solution for more than half of the individuals in America.

[MonoxideChild]

Bankruptcy would make the situation much worse than it already is. When someone claims bankruptcy, noone gets any owed money, or maybe just a small portion. I agree that it's the homeowners fault. But there's another side to the story as well. When people work in real estate or deal with stocks there's a certain bit of responsibility that you're bound to by law. Most of these people selling CDO's overseas should've lost their jobs and forfeited any future positions within their field. Think of it as a lawyer getting disbarred because of inappropriate behavior. And you didn't quote my whole statement, I also said that unfortunately most americans wouldn't use that money responsibly.

[bk1998]

Bankruptcy would make the situation much worse than it already is. When someone claims bankruptcy, noone gets any owed money, or maybe just a small portion. I agree that it's the homeowners fault. But there's another side to the story as well. When people work in real estate or deal with stocks there's a certain bit of responsibility that you're bound to by law. Most of these people selling CDO's overseas should've lost their jobs and forfeited any future positions within their field. Think of it as a lawyer getting disbarred because of inappropriate behavior. And you didn't quote my whole statement, I also said that unfortunately most americans wouldn't use that money responsibly.

That's understood. I'm speaking from a personal standpoint, not a national fix...

As an individual who has saved and waited, I am tired of the irresponsible getting bailed out, while those that are savy, responsible, and educated reap few rewards.

Selfish? Probably. Good for the masses? Hardly.

But that's how I feel.

[MonoxideChild]

That's understood. I'm speaking from a personal standpoint, not a national fix...

As an individual who has saved and waited, I am tired of the irresponsible getting bailed out, while those that are savy, responsible, and educated reap few rewards.

Selfish? Probably. Good for the masses? Hardly.

But that's how I feel.

I'm on the same boat, almost. My point is that there's a certain trust that society has in certain people, whether it's proper or not, that was broken.
The fact of the matter is, unfortunately, that people like you and myself who have paced themselves, tried to act responsible, have to deal with everyone's problems. There's not much to be done, just kinda have to suck it up and try to help out.

[Nevada_Ballin]

It's a bit of a farce to say "no one read this bill" ..... This bill was read - and amended by the House and Senate (can't amend something you haven't read, right?). It was kinda funny to hear "we have an 1,100 page bill that no one can read in time to vote on it" when all they really needed to check in with were the things that were changed, about 20% of the original bill. And they had to know what those were because those were the things they were haggling over for 3 weeks.

Sorry, not buying the "didn't read it" BS. They read it, changed it, read it again, changed it some more and then voted on it.

[Sgt.Slaughter]

It's a bit of a farce to say "no one read this bill" ..... This bill was read - and amended by the House and Senate (can't amend something you haven't read, right?). It was kinda funny to hear "we have an 1,100 page bill that no one can read in time to vote on it" when all they really needed to check in with were the things that were changed, about 20% of the original bill. And they had to know what those were because those were the things they were haggling over for 3 weeks.

Sorry, not buying the "didn't read it" BS. They read it, changed it, read it again, changed it some more and then voted on it.

NB, your right...thats how we do it in most states when a bill is presented (1st reading), it is amended (2nd reading) and voted on (3rd reading).

These legislatures have enough aides to go threw 30 bills in a day page for page or even section for section and thats just at the state level so I know that in D.C. I know they have aides upon aides willing and ready to do anything to help these congressman. But when they feel say that haven't had time to read it we tend to believe them even though the bill has been amended from $850 billion (1st reading) to $797 billion (3rd reading) so I guess that gap between 850 and 797 they didn't amend anything huh...

[dsteve]

The bill is garbage. its littered with ridiculous spending on things that won't do a damn thing for the ecnomy. they rushed it through so people wouldnt read all of it so they could sneak in stupid social crap that werent able to do before. The biggest spending bill in the history of this country when we're in debt up to our *******s....yeah good idea.


spending like this didnt help us during the depression so what makes anyone think this is going to be different? things will get worse.

[resnor]

The only problem with this is that you are rewarding people and corporations which did bad things. It might help with the problem, but at that point it is just a massive transfer of wealth. Also if you pay off all mortgages under a certain size you are getting a good chunk of people who don't need the stimulus so they are just getting a windfall. Why should I pay for that? If you only help the bad people then you are rewarding bad behavior. Why should I pay for that? What if the person with the bad loan who got a bailout then just sells the house and makes a massive profit.

When you go down this path it just gets really tricky and what it boils down to is you have to accept that what you are doing is a wealth transfer and nothing more. However to transfer wealth you have to take it from somewhere and by borrowing money to do so you are taking it from future growth. I don't think that is a good tradeoff.

-TS

Oh, I agree completely. I'm merely saying, IF we are going to go down this massive spending road, which was inevitable apparently, then it would have been better to have spent the money in a manner like I kinda outlined. I agree, it would be better to just leave it alone, and let the chips fall where they may.

Slaughter...if you are making a combined $50-$60k a year, and someone tells you that you can buy a $300k home, don't you think that the person buying the home has a responsibility to say, "Wait...WHAT?" I mean, seriously. The problem is, there was no responsibility. The banks had zero responsibility on these bad loans because they just turned around and sold the bad loans to Fannie and Freddie. The homeowners had no responsibility because they blamed the banks. In the end, it's both the homebuyers fault, and the banks fault.

The bill wasn't read. Congressmen and Senators skip to the parts that apply to them and their state, and that's what they read. Also, Obama and Pelosi and Reed have been lying through their teeth about this bill...no pet projects? Please. No pork? BS.

[Nevada_Ballin]

The bill wasn't read. Congressmen and Senators skip to the parts that apply to them and their state, and that's what they read. Also, Obama and Pelosi and Reed have been lying through their teeth about this bill...no pet projects? Please. No pork? BS.

Then who's fault is that? That bill has been on The Hill for a month. The "they didn't have time to read it" is pure BS. Kinda funny how a bizillion website bloggers had a chance to read it and pick it apart but those voting on it didn't? Sorry, that doesn't fly.

[MonoxideChild]

Isn't the bill itself online? stimulus.gov or something? Another thing, if they didn't read the whole thing, doesn't that kinda mean that they were failing to do their job? And just wondering, not trying to start another, liberal, conservative arguement, but what pet projects exactly are there in the bill?

[resnor]

The final bill that was voted on was not ready until 12 hours before the Senate voted on it. That means, that there was MORE TIME to read it in the time AFTER it passed the Senate to when Obama signed it, than BEFORE the Senate voted on it.

Off the top of my head, pet projects...

The high speed rail...
The marsh mouse (or whatever mouse is in the bill to be saved)

Want more? There are tons.

[MonoxideChild]

High Speed Rail? You mean like transportation? lol, how is that a pet project? Should we just continue to use the inefficient systems we have? I wouldn't reallt put trans issues in the category of pet projects.

[resnor]

Is this stuff still in the bill?

• $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Dept. of Energy defunded last year because the project was inefficient

• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film

• $650 million for the digital television (DTV) converter box coupon program

• $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship)

• $448 million for constructing the Dept. of Homeland Security headquarters

• $248 million for furniture at the new Dept. of Homeland Security headquarters

• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees

• $400 million for the CDC to screen and prevent STD’s

• $1.4 billion for a rural waste disposal programs

• $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities

• $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion

• $75 million for “smoking cessation activities”

• $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges

• $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI

• $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction

• $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas

• $6 billion to turn federal buildings into “green” buildings

• $500 million for state and local fire stations

• $650 million for wildland fire management on Forest Service lands

• $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities

• $1.2 billion for “youth activities,” including youth summer job programs

• $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service

• $412 million for CDC buildings and property

• $500 million for building and repairing NIH facilities in Bethesda, MD

• $160 million for “paid volunteers” at the Corporation for National and Community Service

• $5.5 million for “energy efficiency initiatives” at the VA “National Cemetery Administration”

• $850 million for Amtrak • $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint

• $75M to construct a new “security training” facility for State Dept Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies.

• $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems

• $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations.

[resnor]

The high speed rail connects Las Vegas to Disneyland in Anaheim...Las Vegas just happens to be Harry Reid's hometown...coincidence?

Let's not forget, one of the bigger train operators in America, Amtrak, hasn't made money in years, and has been propped up for years by federal money.

[MonoxideChild]

lol, have these people ever heard of IKEA? Wasn't there supposedly like a million dollar toilet in the white house? The only thing I really don't have a problem wiht is the STD stuff seeing as how it is a health concern after all. Maybe the tribal substance abuse stuff. I think the DOD needs to be dealt with badly, it's WAAAAAAY over whats necessary, I know we should all be scared cuz they're following us home, and all that, but the amount of money they have and don't really use for anything productive is mind boggling. The same thing for the whole "war on drugs".