Slashdot Mirror

I see that you have a beef with fiat money. Don't let that blind you to other problems.

GSA would have severely limited the exposure of commercial banks to [MA]BS and it would have kept Citi and BAC solvent (which they currently aren't). I never said GSA would have prevented everything, merely that it would have help contain what is now a much larger problem. There is currently no clear solution for the current banking crisis that does not include nationalizing BAC and C - letting one of them fail would make the Lehman fiasco look mild.

The point is that dishonest mortgage brokers and dodgy loans should not have brought commercial banks down as they did. Investment banks were supposed to be a different beast and they were in the business of taking risks. Also, S&L were not affected by SGA in any way, witness the S&L crisis (they loked like banks and quacked like banks but were not banks).

Finally, Greenspan had no direct authority in regulating markets, but his word on financial sector policies was quite heavy against the initiatives that congressional committees tried to have in regulating derivtives markets. Were he not so opposed to it, the picture would likely be different now.

Anyway, the point is that the system was open for speculation and attempts to regulate it were defeated. Too much deregulation can be bad - and in this case, it was. Take a cue from the reasons for GSA in the first place, before labeling it a red herring - if deregulation is so good, why was it passed during the Great Depression era?

P.S. If you're looking for a red herring, Community Reinvestment Act is as big as they come. Look up statistics for subprime loan originators and you'll see that the large majority were not subject to CRA (50+% had originators not under federal supervision, ~30% came from affiliates of banks and thrifts with less supervision and only the remaining 20% came from banks and thrifts - see Barr's testimony). Once again, it's deregulation that let things blow up - or incomplete regulation, if you like.

I'll not argue for regulation as the perfect solution, but this mess is a proof of what markets can do when left to speculate without constraints. Some institutions are too big to be left taking large risky bets.

There is a simple answer to the corruption of John Conyers. Call his offices:
* Washington Office: 202-225-5126
* Detroit Office: 313-961-5670
* Trenton / Downriver Office: 734-675-4084

Be caring. Be friendly. Be authoritative. Tell the person who answers the phone that his sponsoring of a bill requiring closed government is corruption. Tell that person that he or she should not work for someone who wants government corruption. Try to convince that person to get a better job.

Once several members of his staff quit, John Conyers will no longer be as much of a threat.

Work to make sure John Conyers is never re-elected to anything.

The U.S. government is VERY corrupt. Join with me in stopping the corruption.

Since changing the US constitution is too much work

Fortunately, ignoring the Constitution is very easy — as long as you have "bipartisan support". And no, I don't mean the Guantanamo and the like, which are, actually, arguably legal (however distasteful).

A lot more profound example is the requirement, that all the government can only use "gold or silver coin" as means of payment (Article 1 Section 10):

"No State shall make any Thing but Gold and Silver Coin a tender in Payment of Debts"

When the US abolished gold standard in 1971 and the dollar became "fiat money", all State tax-refunds, welfare payments, salaries of the State-employees, etc. became unarguably unconstitutional.

And yet, chances are very good, dear reader, you read about the issue here for the first time in your life... Now, I don't claim the economic acumen to argue whether or not Gold Standard was (or would be?) a good idea. But I have that "ideological rigidity" to be disturbed by a violation of the Constitution, that is so blatant and yet so ignored...

or this to get to Diane and Barbra boxer Member Name DC Phone DC FAX Electronic Correspondence Senator Dianne Feinstein (D- CA) 202-224-3841 202-228-3954 http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? FuseAction=ContactUs.EmailMe Senator Barbara Boxer (D- CA) 202-224-3553 202-224-0454 http://boxer.senate.gov/contact/email/policy.cfm Representative Jane Harman (D - 36) 202-225-8220 202-226-7290 http://www.house.gov/harman/contact/email.shtml

The House vote on this, for those interested, was 264-158. The details of which representative voted which way is on the House website.

Thomas says this is a rule suspension vote. It takes a 2/3 vote to suspend the rules and pass a bill. Usually this is reserved for bills that are not very controversial and have broad support.

This failure just means that the bill will have to go to the rules committee. After a rule is passed and the bill is brought up under that rule, a simple majority is all that is needed to pass the bill.

This is just a very small bump in the road to extend the deadline.

Thomas says this is a rule suspension vote. It takes a 2/3 vote to suspend the rules and pass a bill. Usually this is reserved for bills that are not very controversial and have broad support.

This failure just means that the bill will have to go to the rules committee. After a rule is passed and the bill is brought up under that rule, a simple majority is all that is needed to pass the bill.

This is just a very small bump in the road to extend the deadline.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR00414:@@@L&summ2=m&

According to THOMAS, he is also sponsoring several other stupid bills that would:

"Encouraging employers and online dating sites to use sex offender registries for background checks."

and

"To amend title 4, United States Code, to declare English as the official language of the Government of the United States, and for other purposes."

and

"To provide for the establishment of the Science and Technology Homeland Security International Cooperative Programs Office, and for other purposes."

Source - http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d110&querybd=@FIELD(FLD003+@4((@1(Rep+King++Peter+T.))+00635))

Representative King's website is: http://peteking.house.gov/

According to it, Rep. King is Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Committee and also serves on the Financial Services Committee.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR00414:@@@L&summ2=m&

Thanks, Congressman Peter T. King - a Republican, is serving his eighth term in the U.S. House of Representatives.

http://peteking.house.gov/bio.shtml

Great idea. I just emailed Rep. Anna Eshoo. Hopefully other Silicon Valley nerds will do the same. Here is the URL:

http://eshoo.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=420&Itemid=44

How about this link instead? It has the membership of the 111th congress, not the 110th (as is linked by the parent). You have to click on the "Membership" tab. If you didn't read the parent, this is who is on the committee; find out if your representative is on the list and contact them.

...now's your chance. It's been referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Please check the membership list to see if your representative is on it. If so, please call them and ask them not to support this bill when it is considered by the committee. Be polite. Try to have a good reason prepared before you call.

Next will have complaints from parents whose children's recitals are marred by clicking cell phones, newlyweds whose vows were interrupted by the same, etc., etc.

Won't anyone think of the parents?

I don't see why this should be limited to camera phones. This should be a feature of ALL cameras, if for no other reason that any press conferences of sponsor will be drowned out by constant beeping.

Or, maybe we should just outlaw skirts. "upjean" shots probably don't turn out too well. Take THAT, Scots!

Keynesian economics has been discredited every time it's been tried.

1970's "stagflation"? Keynesian approaches flopped.

1990's Japan? The Keynesian approach flopped again.

The House Joint Economic Committee has a very nice, scholarly and correct paper explaining why Keynesian economics don't work in a recession and why it'd be a bad idea to rely on them to fix this recession http://www.house.gov/jec/Research%20Reports/2008/rr110-32.pdf/

"Implicit in the theory is that there is no efficiency difference between government and privately managed production and investment. The size of the government sector is not thought to matter, because private and government funding are presumed to be fully interchangeable." Anyone who's worked with the government for more than a few months knows they're much less efficient when spending money than private enterprise.

Another nice section that ought to be required reading for every Senator or Rep voting to give money to the US "Big 3" car manufacturers: "The problem with [the Keynesian] view is that the definition of productive capacity relates to the past, not to what needs to be produced or how it should be produced in the future. Reductions in output--recessions--occur because too much has been produced too fast or the wrong things have been produced, which may occur either due to errors or unforeseen circumstances. A market economy will stop producing products that go unsold or that are too costly; it will reallocate resources and employ them in new ways. During the adjustment process, output will be less than nominal capacity and income may decline. If the government intervenes to support continued generation of unwanted output, it keeps the economy on the wrong path and hinders its progress toward a new production frontier."

And of course "The One" can be trusted to keep official communications off his Blackberry. Yeah, sure. Imagine the kerfuffle were it revealed there were no recorded communications between Bush 43 and oh say Karl Rove on any known official e-mail system, the ACLU and the Dhimmicreeps would go berzerk.

Um, I don't really get the point of your post. The Bush administration had a pretty solid record of keeping things secret. They had a policy to hide information, use non-government email servers for government communications, and invoke "presidential privilege" at the drop of a hat. People that are interested in transparent government don't like that.

Obama has already enacted a policy of greater transparency and made it clear to his administration that he intends to operate more openly. Maybe he'll actually follow it. Maybe he won't. But things are looking up.

And "The One" and "Dhimmicreeps"? This foaming-at-the-mouth categorical hatred is just as stupid on the "right" as it is on the "left."

Dear Fellow Enthusiast, As a SEMA Member Company, we have received an Urgent Legislative Action Alert from the association. You may be interested in this legislative alert and the possible impact it will have on your hobby. The Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA) is a non-profit trade association composed of more than 6,800 member companies involved in all aspects of the automotive industry, from manufacturers to car clubs and race teams. The SEMA Action Network (SAN) protects your hobby from unfair or unnecessary legislation on national and local levels. Through distribution of information and the collective voice of automotive enthusiasts and businesses, the SEMA Action Network has successfully impacted legislation concerning scrappage laws, equipment standards, registration classifications, emissions regulations, and more. The following information is directly from SEMA. If you would like to contact the lawmaker, follow the instructions in the alert. Thank you for your time, Your Friends at Summit Racing Equipment Washington lawmakers are drafting a large economic stimulus package to help create jobs and rebuild infrastructure. They want to include a nationwide scrappage program which would give U.S. tax dollars to consumers who turn-in older cars to have them crushed, as a misguided attempt to spur new car sales. The lawmakers need to scrap this idea. The stimulus package is being drafted right now. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) wants to introduce the bill on January 6 and have it approved by Congress by January 20, so that President Obama can sign it into law after he is inaugurated. Contact House Speaker Nancy Pelosi IMMEDIATELY To Oppose Cash for Clunkers! Call: 202-225-0100 Click here to send an electronic message: http://speaker.house.gov/contact/

You're suggesting that Congress somehow forced private enterprise to behave stupidly, greedily, incompetently, negligently and possibly criminally? That private enterprise was unable to resist and followed each other, like lemmings, over the cliff?

Yes, see Housing and Community Development Act of 1977 - Title VIII (Community Reinvestment Act) and Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 which forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to do what they did to those poor poor people.

A huge problem is that the thing which surprises us most about politicians is not that they're whores, but that they're cheap whores. Many seem perfectly willing to sell out their constituents, the country, and the constitution for relatively small campaign donations. I might be able to understand an expensive whore of a politician accepting payment of hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in exchange for extending some favor. But the politician who takes a few thousand dollars in exchange for letting make millions or even billions of dollars be made at the ultimate expense of the rest of us is a cheap whore.

See Rod Blagojevich for what happens when they get greedy.

Probably because those victims were offered a year of "credit monitoring" and those victims took them up on it.

Hmm... credit monitoring (monitoring your credit reports for changes) would increase the chance of detection tho, not decrease the chance of fraud. If the detection rate increases and the chance of fraud is the same, the fraud rate found for the breached data would increase since logically there's only detected fraud in the numbers, not undetected.

It made them more paranoid than they had been before, so they watched their financial data more carefully,

That would have the same effect as the credit monitoring I guess.

and were perhaps more cautious when using their credit cards. (Of course that doesn't reduce the number of attacks, just the number that are successful, but the data posted is a "fraud rate", and doesn't denote "successful vs. unsuccessful.")

Well being more careful might decrease the chance of their cards being abused somewhat indeed...

Or maybe many of them closed out a bunch of unused credit accounts to minimize their footprints, which actually did spare them from further breaches.

... guess that's more likely tho :-) Well if you change "unused" to "unwanted" or something... Unused accounts probably wouldn't have their data stolen in the first place ;-) So people were notified of the breach and closed down accounts... and now these closed accounts are polluting the attackers data... while the "overall fraud rate" only includes working accounts.

I also found the written testimony of ID Analytics these numbers originate from.

It makes an interesting read... there's just so many things affecting the fraud rate. For example, the report estimates it'd take a single person about 10 years to use a million breached accounts. Perhaps this one data set was stolen by a smaller group of attackers. Or just one, and a lazy one at that... ;-)

There's something wrong with the math in the report tho... they estimate: 5 minutes per application, 6.5 hours a day, 5 days a week, 50 days a year. That's 12 applications per hour * 6.5 * 5 * 50 = 19500 applications per year, or roughly 51 years for a single person, not the 10 they write about.

The report then goes on saying that you'd have to hire 51 workers to complete all that in one year -- which actually triggered my curiosity about these numbers because it matches my 51 years but not their 10 ;-) -- which would cost over $830,000 at $10 an hour... quite the operation ;-)

My conclusion is that we can't compare the results of this one study to the overall fraud rate at all. I do agree with jambarama's comment tho that these companies selling credit monitoring services and "fraud protection" try very hard to hype the fraud fear.

why not postulate about ones that don't require an atmosphere or "breathing" at all?

No need to postulate.

The Finance Committee added an amendment which provides that a man will receive this annuity only if he has retired from regular employment. This was based on the belief that no person holding a regular job should retain this job after 65, receiving an annuity along with his pay check. Rather, he should retire and make it possible for others to obtain work.

It certainly doesn't cover retirement fully, but it's wrong to say that retirement wasn't part of the original intention.

The FISA court was designed only for conversations- communications surveillance where one party was and American citizen-US person.

The statute you cited explicitly excludes such.

(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that--
...
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
...
(b) Applications for a court order under this subchapter are authorized if the President has, by written authorization, empowered the Attorney General to approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title, and a judge to whom an application is made may, notwithstanding any other law, grant an order, in conformity with section 1805 of this title, approving electronic surveillance of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence information, except that the court shall not have jurisdiction to grant any order approving electronic surveillance directed solely as described in paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) of this section unless such surveillance may involve the acquisition of communications of any United States person.

I omitted a lot for brevity. None of what I omitted alters the meaning of the parts I included.
The link "How Current Is This" led to a page which didn't tell me anything about the date of the original draft of the statute. I only saw two references to dates there, Jan 2, 2006 & Monday, November 3, 2008.

An empty table indicates that we see no relevant changes listed in the classification tables since Jan. 2, 2006. If you suspect that our system may be missing something, please double-check at http://uscode.house.gov/classification/tables.shtml

...

The most recent Classification Table update that we have noticed was Monday, November 3, 2008

Shit, I could dumb down the issues presented here into words of no more than 3 syllables, and my Rep (Joe Pitts, PA-16, a man who is (Not that it really matters..) significantly to the right of, say, Genghis Khan) who might actually agree to actually listen to me for 5 minutes or so if I asked him REAL nicely, and my 2 senators (Specter and Casey (who almost certainly would not) would not understand more than 20% of it.

I'd be better off talking to a wall.

Riiiight... which is why Republicans voted 2-to-1 against it, while Democrats strongly supported it. Conservative Republicans support more government spending, and liberals are fiscally conservative, black is white, hate is love, and it's 1984 all over again. Got it. [rolls eyes]

The Employee Free Choice Act doesn't do away with secret ballots. Secret ballots are still an option. Secret ballots are, in fact, required if more than 30% but less than the majority of employees publicly support the union, and secret ballots are still used to de-unionize. The reason for this is that employers have a long time between the union declaring its intention to be a union and the time when the official vote happens for the Employer to do things like holding mandatory "If You Join A Union, The Company Will Fold And Your Children Will Die Penniless And Hungry In The Street Like Dogs" meetings. Under the EFCA, if a majority of the employees get together and say "We want to form a union", then it works. If a majority of the employees get together and say "We want to have a secret ballot to determine whether or not to form a union", that works too. Under the current rules, that first one doesn't work unless the employer authorizes it.

From The Committee on Education and Labor:

harassment by unions is not the problem. In a study of a more than 60-year period, the Human Resources Policy Association listed 113 NLRB cases which they claimed involved union deception and/or coercion in obtaining authorization card signatures. Careful examination of those cases, however, reveals that union misconduct was found in only 42 of those 113 claimed cases. By contrast, in 2005 alone, over 30,000 workers received back pay from employers that illegally fired or otherwise discriminated against them for their union activities.

If it were something like "There are twice as many instances of Management coercion than Union coercion", I could see that you'd have a position to say "Well, those numbers are probably massaged a bit". But this is thirty-thousand in one year vs 42 cases over the course of six decades. An average of a whopping 7/10ths of a case per year, compared to tens of thousands.

So in conclusion: The fears of rampant, coercing union bosses are mostly mythical. The fears of management illegally preventing unions that a majority of employees really want are very much grounded in reality.

Ok, first of all, emergency contraceptive pills are not prescribed drugs. Anyone can go to a pharmacy and get them over the shelf!

Well, sort of. Many places still refuse to take them out from behind the counter, and they insist on putting the patient through an "interview" before allowing them to purchase the drug. I'm not sure if they'll actually deny them the drug if they're not happy with the answers to the questions.

Second, if I read your post right, the idea that a pharmacist has the authority to deny me drugs that a doctor prescribed, based soly on their religious beliefs is complete and utter bullshit!

It is absolutely bullshit. And yet it happens.

$18K.

18K in the 1970's? That's quite a bit, a bit over double what my family made. You're basically proving what I said, people who are well off don't want to admit it.

I'll admit that I didn't think much about time when I posted. After this retort, I recall that our family income (while I was still living in the home) peaked at that amount in 1985.

According to this chart we were in the "middle income" bracket - but JUST BARELY. Somehow I doubt that means we were "well off"

People can climb out of poverty. It frustrates me when people believe that they are permanently poor simply because they are poor today.

I believe that it was more possible in the past, but that there's less class mobility today.

I reject that thesis, and here's a link that addresses this with facts and analysis. I recognize you may reject the writing either because it is a few years old or because of the conservative source, but it rebuts your idea using data.
 
 

The answer to poverty is not throwing money at the poor. The answer lies in personal character and family structure. Money addresses neither.

Considering how little the government actually spends on non-elderly poor they haven't been exactly throwing money. Character doesn't buy food, character doesn't buy training or the ability to move to a new location.

Let me tell you a story. There once was a company called Motorola, they made televisions.....

Now what were those workers supposed to do, are you saying they didn't have character? Things happen to people that are beyond their control, market forces, economy have more effect on poverty than anything else.

Ever read Who Moved My Cheese?

Let me tell you a story: the coal industry tanked in my area due to a combination of automation and workers collective bargaining terms pricing themselves out of the global market. The chemical industry limited hiring white male workers because they had quotas to meet to escape litigation.

Each of these factors significantly limited work opportunities and I could have claimed that "the man" was keeping me down. Instead, I worked hard, lived frugally, and then moved to where the jobs are. I could have started a business there, but preferred to work as an employee to owning a company.

Opportunities abound, even in this economy. Make a product or service that people want or need, and you will make money.

People can do as I did and have their fortunes improve. There's no caste system here. People need to stop being victims. I am terribly frustrated by people looking for some lawsuit to provide them with a fortune, or claiming disability when they could work. Plenty of people have overcome obstacles. People need to take action. The world awaits! Go make your fortune!

Instead of a bank making a 30-year mortgage to someone who was a good risk, and keeping the mortgage for the life of it, now institutions could buy and trade baskets of mortgages. They could buy and sell it at any time, and therefore had little incentive to see how well any individual could pay of their personal mortgage.

Does anything this interesting have just one cause? My favourite cause is self-interest, the question is whose self-interest?

As Greenspan said:

those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect, shareholders equity, myself especially, are in a state of shocked disbelief. http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20081024163819.pdf

Washington Mutual made the 30 years loans, kept many of those loans on their own books, and had every incentive to see how well an individual could pay off their mortgage.

However in an environment of rising real estate prices managers got better bonuses selling bad loans, than caring about risk. Now Washington Mutual is gone.

Perhaps when companies don't care about the welfare of employees, employees stop caring about the welfare of the company.

Or perhaps finance companies did some kind of financial equivalent to software metrics, which managers then optimised for:

http://www.agilejournal.com/content/view/107/76/

So where's the site the creator can go to to download "free money"?

A pair of sites actually.

http://www.house.gov/
http://www.senate.gov/

This administration does what it wants, without repercussions.

(Emphasis mine.) And Congress. Don't forget Congress, please. Every seat in the House and a third of the Senate is up for election in a few weeks. Which way did your incumbent vote?

The senate bill is S3325.

Posted the wrong links to the votes.
The final house vote as I read it is this one: Number 664.

While with the senate the result is reported by the Thomas.loc.gov history as:

9/26/2008:
        Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.

The cosponsors are:

Sen Alexander, Lamar [TN] - 9/23/2008
Sen Bayh, Evan [IN] - 7/24/2008
Sen Bond, Christopher S. [MO] - 9/23/2008
Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] - 9/24/2008
Sen Brown, Sherrod [OH] - 9/26/2008
Sen Cardin, Benjamin L. [MD] - 9/10/2008
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] - 9/25/2008
Sen Corker, Bob [TN] - 9/18/2008
Sen Cornyn, John [TX] - 7/24/2008
Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] - 7/24/2008
Sen Graham, Lindsey [SC] - 9/23/2008
Sen Gregg, Judd [NH] - 9/25/2008
Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] - 9/11/2008
Sen Hutchison, Kay Bailey [TX] - 9/24/2008
Sen Levin, Carl [MI] - 9/25/2008
Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] - 9/24/2008
Sen Smith, Gordon H. [OR] - 9/24/2008
Sen Specter, Arlen [PA] - 7/24/2008
Sen Stabenow, Debbie [MI] - 9/26/2008
Sen Voinovich, George V. [OH] - 7/24/2008
Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon [RI] - 8/1/2008

IOf you're offended by this consider this. There are a number of other issues they do not address, vis education, taxation, etc. But somehow in two months the House and Senate went from introducing this bill to passing it.

Incidentally, according to the CBO this bill is estimated to lead to spending up to $429 million over the next four years. So much to budget control.

If you hunt on his site you can usually find a phone number which is an optimal place to call and complain about the lousy e-mail.

http://joebarton.house.gov/Default.aspx

I tend to use the phone now for the same reason their horrible scripted mail-me links usually don't work or are so restrictive as to make the exercise painful and meaningless. Phone is much more effective.

So yes ths bill is awful. The Civil Forfeture provisions alone are foul let alone the Czar. While it may not roll things back overnight here is something simple that you can each do.

1) Find your senator/representative on the list of supporters (see below)
2) Call their office or contact them via the Senate and House websites.
3) Ask them why they voted for the bill. If their response does not convince you politely explain that this is an awful bill and one that has cost them your vote. Inform them politely that you will not vote for them or donate money to their campaigns again.
4) Repeat.

I would be shocked if any of them read this bill or have a reason for voting other than that they were in favor of good stuff. But the act of informing them that you will not support them because of it makes the point.

For those of you not in the U.S. I would recommend contacting your representatives with the message that you will not back them if they consider a stunt like this.

Now the Senators who voted in favor are here.

The house members in favor of the PRORIP act which became this are here

So yes ths bill is awful. The Civil Forfeture provisions alone are foul let alone the Czar. While it may not roll things back overnight here is something simple that you can each do.

1) Find your senator/representative on the list of supporters (see below)
2) Call their office or contact them via the Senate and House websites.
3) Ask them why they voted for the bill. If their response does not convince you politely explain that this is an awful bill and one that has cost them your vote. Inform them politely that you will not vote for them or donate money to their campaigns again.
4) Repeat.

I would be shocked if any of them read this bill or have a reason for voting other than that they were in favor of good stuff. But the act of informing them that you will not support them because of it makes the point.

For those of you not in the U.S. I would recommend contacting your representatives with the message that you will not back them if they consider a stunt like this.

Now the Senators who voted in favor are here.

The house members in favor of the PRORIP act which became this are here

So yes ths bill is awful. The Civil Forfeture provisions alone are foul let alone the Czar. While it may not roll things back overnight here is something simple that you can each do.

1) Find your senator/representative on the list of supporters (see below)
2) Call their office or contact them via the Senate and House websites.
3) Ask them why they voted for the bill. If their response does not convince you politely explain that this is an awful bill and one that has cost them your vote. Inform them politely that you will not vote for them or donate money to their campaigns again.
4) Repeat.

I would be shocked if any of them read this bill or have a reason for voting other than that they were in favor of good stuff. But the act of informing them that you will not support them because of it makes the point.

For those of you not in the U.S. I would recommend contacting your representatives with the message that you will not back them if they consider a stunt like this.

Now the Senators who voted in favor are here.

The house members in favor of the PRORIP act which became this are here

Google "Community Reinvestment Act"

I did. this tells me that the CRA only applied to banks, and that half of the subprime lenders weren't banks, they were unregulated corporations that made subprime loans because they were good money.

50% of all subprime loans were made by companies who were not banks and therefore not forced to do anything by the CRA. They made subprime loans because subprime loans were good money.

Furthermore, Fannie Mae estimated in 2007 that "up to half" of the subprime loans it had bought from brokers could have been qualified for "better terms" than they received. Brokers made these people subprime loans because subprime loans were good money and the lenders didn't bother to shop around for a broker that wouldn't rip them off.

Did the Democrats set up the failure? Sure, then we had the "Republican Revolution" and they didn't do a thing to stop it, because big business was making big money and didn't want to stop, even after Bush undid Clinton's CRA regulations.

You're blaming the "Community Reinvestment Act" (CRA) that basically forces banks to lend to people they wouldn't otherwise lend to (i.e. people with bad credit) because they have to fulfill racial quotas.

Most likely. Of course, even after it's pointed out that half of the subprime mortgages were made by unregulated "non-bank" companies it won't stop them from parroting the party talking points.

Once financial institutions are required to make subprime and interest-only mortgages available

The kicker? They weren't required to make interest only loans at all, they made those up themselves so they could soak up the interest. They weren't even required (by the CRA, a common scapegoat) to make subprime loans as long as they could find people in (or interested in moving into) the region that would qualify for prime, and you're neglecting not only the other 50% of the loans that were made by non-regulated non-bank corporations who weren't required to do anything at all, but did so because they wanted the money, but you're also ignoring that the mortgage brokers apparently routinely under-qualified applicants: "Fannie Mae has estimated that up to half of borrowers with subprime mortgages could have qualified for loans with better terms." (more details here)

In other words, all of the interest-only mortgages and quite a few of the subprime mortgages were freely offered by the brokers with no "requirement" involved but their own desire to make money.

1) http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.107hr1

2) http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll681.xml (warning, might not be a permalink; as a bonus, the bill text proper)

3) http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.103hr700

All three in less than ten minutes. Though #3 was a gimme, and it was easier to find the bill than the roll call for #2.

So, what? Are you trying to say that those of us who follow baseball can't do both? At any rate, the legislation is PASSED. We already broke their mail servers saying "fuck no!" once. By not watching baseball, will that accomplish anything? Should I skip the game to email my senator and tell him to vote no for legislation that's already gone through? (btw the twins didn't make it to the post-season, they lost the tie breaker, no one in Minneapolis is watching)

Instead bitching about sports do something like Link to who voted for the bill and maybe cross link with which of them are up for re-election and get people to vote them out.

My only hope is that the voters check for who is voting for this and get rid of them next election.

I hope so too, but the perpetrator (this bill) is known under many aliases including:"Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act of 2007" AKA "Defenders of Freedom Tax Relief Act of 2007" AKA "Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007". So it's difficult to find the text of the final bill and which traitors voted for it. We need a WikiCongress!

I haven't seen a single traditional news media outlet report the voting roster (maybe it would be a violation of that stupid unconstitutional McCain-Feingold bill?), but you can find The house vote here and The Senate vote here. Come election time, lets make sure they know that they still work for us and we aren't happy about being screwed over time and time again for the benefit of their wealthy friends.

"Tie-In Sales" Provisions Generally, tie-in sales provisions are not allowed. Such a provision would require a purchaser of the warranted product to buy an item or service from a particular company to use with the warranted product in order to be eligible to receive a remedy under the warranty. The following are examples of prohibited tie-in sales provisions. In order to keep your new Plenum Brand Vacuum Cleaner warranty in effect, you must use genuine Plenum Brand Filter Bags. Failure to have scheduled maintenance performed, at your expense, by the Great American Maintenance Company, Inc., voids this warranty.

They are arguing that tieing to AT&T, and then firmware releases bricking phones that have been unlocked to another carrier is an illegal/tortious act on the part of Apple. They allege Apple has told customers that downloading of unapproved software (but software that should be legal to install, under the MM act, imo) will void their warranty. Furthermore they have a vested financial interest in "approved" software from the Apple store, and obviously refuse to allow unlocking software to be included in that store. They refuse to provide customers who have lawfully canceled their AT&T contracts with unlocking codes so they may use their device with another carrier (again, covered by MM act). The list of allegations goes on. Full text of 15 USC Chapter 50, which is the section of the statute they have sued under (although I believe Title 16 - Commercial Practices, Chapter I - Federal Trade Commission, Subchapter G - Rules, Regulations, Statements and Interpretations under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Part 700 Section 102 also deals with warranty denials, text here).

They are alleging illegality on the part of Apple in that they monopolized the market for iphone applications, and also apple+AT&T for voice and data service monopolization. And of course the alleged illegality I spoke of above (services ties, denying consumers the ability to break these ties, pushing software updates that intentionally break the phones of users who have circumvented product ties, and then denying warranty coverage for these affected users)

I hope that was somewhat helpful.

Yeah.. because..you know.. when the seeds for this were sown in 1977 the Congress was Democrat controlled and it was signed by a Democrat president. In 1995 President Clinton made regulatory changes (no need for the consent of the Republican Congress) that put the program on steroids, paving the way straight to our current crisis.

So, you're suggesting that a law that:

1) was passed 31 years ago
2) applies only to federally-insured banks and thrifts and not to the non-bank mortgage companies that made the majority of the sub-prime loans
3) George Bush weakened in 2004 with no apparent decrease in subprime activity
4) does not appear to lead to unprofitable lending

caused the sharp upward trend in unprofitable loans that did not coincide with either 1977 or 1995? Oh, and of course, the banks making these bad loans (knowing full well that they were bad--they were under duress, you know), decided to borrow huge sums of money to make huge numbers of them in order to massively leverage their losses (which they expected to be losses--you know, the CRA made them make those loans against their will). Well done indeed.

It was after this that FM/FM started taking on the risky loans to comply with the heightened standards.

I'm not going to claim that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac enacted wise regulations during the run-up, but for God's sake, they lost significant market share to asset-backed securities issuers starting in about 1999. You're suggesting that organizations that don't originate mortgages and have been declining in significances (especially in the sub-prime market) are responsible for a huge up-tick in sub-prime mortgages? I salute you.
Notably absent from this discussion is the fact that the types of derivatives that made these securities as attractive as they were happened to become deregulated at just about the same time the asset backed securities market started to eat away at Fannie and Freddie's mortgage holdings.

Bottom line: Let's see your numbers. From what I can see, this is an example of a spectacular lack of oversight in a new and "innovative" market that got out of control. The economic theory bears it out well, the time line works, and the numbers seem to favor that explanation. There's no reason to appeal to things like the CRA or FM/FM to explain the sudden run-up in available credit to low-quality borrowers. I'm willing to hear a detailed explanation, if it makes economic sense and has some data behind it, though.

Bush tried to fix this in 2003, but the Democrats killed it.

Of course, I'm sure that Mr. Responsible governance and regulation tried everything he could to get a tighter grip around those guys, but it was 2003, and his party only controlled both houses of the legislature. Sure, he got whatever he wanted in those days, but woe to those who cross Barney Frank, especially when he's in a minority party that couldn't seem to do shit when it came to pushing its agenda.

Frankly, any argument that's being pushed by Kevin "Dow 36000" Hasset needs a little bit of hard data backing it up before I buy into it, especially when it appears to run counter to the facts and expert opinion. Basically, I'm thinking, Kevin Hasset vs Janet Yellen. Who gets the benefit of the doubt on data-driven matters of economic policy?

Boy, and they thought house.gov was having traffic problems before. Welcome Slashdot!

Studies by researchers from RAND Corporation, Stanford, Urban Institute, Harvard, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Georgetown, Rochester Institute of Technology, UC Davis, and Duke have reported that we have continually been producing far more STEM (science, tech, engineering, math) workers than we've been employing in these fields.

Examination of employment data and projections from BLS when compared with NCES (Dept. of Education) records of degrees earned by US citizens confirms these findings.

"As late as 1987, 60K graduates were competing for about 25K open positions, according to Janet Ruhl, author of _The Programmers Survival Guide_" --- Margie Wylie _CNET_ "The skills shortage that isn't: When the rising tide floats employees' boats, employers proclaim disaster"
http://news.com.com/2010-1077-281060.html
http://www.kermitrose.com/econ1998.html#19980204

In testimony to the House Science and Technology Committee, Harold Salzman reported that we've been producing as many as 3 times the numbers of STEM workers as we've been employing in these fields.

http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/File/
Commdocs/hearings/2007/tech/06nov/salzman_testimony.pdf

http://www.kermitrose.com/econ200711.html#Runnerup2007

This isn't just about not paying at a higher rate for additional hours of work.
It's about not paying for the additional work at all.

I have to wonder how many software engineers from Sopchoppy and Chicago will go into California's hideous cost of living not realizing that, no matter how much they work, they won't be paid for anything past the first 40 hours.

Anthony Weiner is on the committee and even if you don't live in the 9th you know he's running for Mayor or Governor in the next couple of years. He's gonna want the science / internet vote.

Also, from what little I can tell, he's not an idiot.

Drop him an email

Something else that is interesting is the composition of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee.

Its composed of 24 members, 13 Democrat, 11 Republican.

25% of the subcommittee is from California.

http://judiciary.house.gov/about/subcourts.html

That is the right thing to do, if politicians see how important this issue is then maybe they will not be so inclined to support it.

Use the above link to contact your local representative, also it might not hurt to contact the sponsors of the bill:

Howard Berman
http://www.house.gov/berman/contact/

John Conyers
http://www.house.gov/conyers/contact.shtml
or
http://www.johnconyers.com/contact

That is the right thing to do, if politicians see how important this issue is then maybe they will not be so inclined to support it.

Use the above link to contact your local representative, also it might not hurt to contact the sponsors of the bill:

Howard Berman
http://www.house.gov/berman/contact/

John Conyers
http://www.house.gov/conyers/contact.shtml
or
http://www.johnconyers.com/contact

Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property Membership