Slashdot Mirror

And we're going to make it so much better with Obama: The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center.

And if you actually read the article, you'll discover that it has a number of cautions about translating what works in one country and culture to another. Unions appear to be part, but by no means all, of the current education problem in the U.S.

We discuss the article here.

The article in question.

Do Obama and the Democrats deserve a lift in the polls as a result of the financial and mortgage problems? The answer from history is a clear NO. Here's the lead of a New York Times story on September 30, 1999:

"Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending" [link below]. That's 1999 folks. Clinton Administration, I believe.

Here's the lead of a New York Times story on Sept. 11, 2003:

"The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. "[see link below] The Democrats killed the reforms.

McCain said in co-sponsoring the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190:

"If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole. The Democrats killed the Bill.

What was Barney Frank and fellow Democrats saying at the time of these attempted reforms? According to reports, Representative Barney Frank(D-MA) claimed of the thrifts :

"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

Representative Mel Watt (D-NC) added of the reforms "I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing." [ See Community Reinvestment Act, link below ]

Even Bill Clinton points to Congressional Democrats failure to deal with Fannie and Freddie as a primary cause.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsynspIqAoE

The link below contains a purported list of the top 25 in Congress who got contributions from the folks at Fannie and Freddie. Obama is listed third, after Dodd and Kerry, even though Obama is just a junior Senator. Obama is followed next by Clinton. Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi are on the list as well.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=16&artnum=1&issue=20080918

Then there is the Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd who allegedly got special mortgage deals from Countrywide, who gave preferential rates to 'friends' of company's chairman.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25140560/

For an interesting article purporting to detail the House Financial Services Committee Chairs long history with Fannie Mae, See:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080924145932.aspx

"House Financial Services Committee Chair promoted GSEs while former 'spouse' was Fannie Mae executive."

The link below describes how some in Congress tried to use the original version of the bailout bill to divert money eventually recovered to groups like ACORN, a group Obama has a long association with. See:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122247015469280723.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

And then there is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who allegedly has directed nearly $100,000 from her political action committee to her husband's real estate and investment firm.

http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/oct/01/pelosis-pac-pays-bills-for-spouses-firm.

See also:

Do Obama and the Democrats deserve a lift in the polls as a result of the financial and mortgage problems? The answer from history is a clear NO. Here's the lead of a New York Times story on September 30, 1999:

"Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending" [link below]. That's 1999 folks. Clinton Administration, I believe.

Here's the lead of a New York Times story on Sept. 11, 2003:

"The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. "[see link below] The Democrats killed the reforms.

McCain said in co-sponsoring the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190:

"If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole. The Democrats killed the Bill.

What was Barney Frank and fellow Democrats saying at the time of these attempted reforms? According to reports, Representative Barney Frank(D-MA) claimed of the thrifts :

"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

Representative Mel Watt (D-NC) added of the reforms "I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing." [ See Community Reinvestment Act, link below ]

Even Bill Clinton points to Congressional Democrats failure to deal with Fannie and Freddie as a primary cause.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsynspIqAoE

The link below contains a purported list of the top 25 in Congress who got contributions from the folks at Fannie and Freddie. Obama is listed third, after Dodd and Kerry, even though Obama is just a junior Senator. Obama is followed next by Clinton. Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi are on the list as well.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=16&artnum=1&issue=20080918

Then there is the Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd who allegedly got special mortgage deals from Countrywide, who gave preferential rates to 'friends' of company's chairman.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25140560/

For an interesting article purporting to detail the House Financial Services Committee Chairs long history with Fannie Mae, See:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080924145932.aspx

"House Financial Services Committee Chair promoted GSEs while former 'spouse' was Fannie Mae executive."

The link below describes how some in Congress tried to use the original version of the bailout bill to divert money eventually recovered to groups like ACORN, a group Obama has a long association with. See:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122247015469280723.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

And then there is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who allegedly has directed nearly $100,000 from her political action committee to her husband's real estate and investment firm.

http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/oct/01/pelosis-pac-pays-bills-for-spouses-firm.

See also:

And don't forget that Biden is against Net Neutrality too!

Do Obama and the Democrats deserve a lift in the polls as a result of the financial and mortgage problems? The answer from history is a clear NO. Here's the lead of a New York Times story on September 30, 1999:

"Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending" [link below]. That's 1999 folks. Clinton Administration, I believe.

Here's the lead of a New York Times story on Sept. 11, 2003:

"The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. "[see link below] The Democrats killed the reforms.

McCain said in co-sponsoring the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190:

"If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole. The Democrats killed the Bill.

What was Barney Frank and fellow Democrats saying at the time of these attempted reforms? According to reports, Representative Barney Frank(D-MA) claimed of the thrifts :

"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

Representative Mel Watt (D-NC) added of the reforms "I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing." [ See Community Reinvestment Act, link below ]

Even Bill Clinton points to Congressional Democrats failure to deal with Fannie and Freddie as a primary cause.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsynspIqAoE [youtube.com]

The link below contains a purported list of the top 25 in Congress who got contributions from the folks at Fannie and Freddie. Obama is listed third, after Dodd and Kerry, even though Obama is just a junior Senator. Obama is followed next by Clinton. Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi are on the list as well.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=16&artnum=1&issue=20080918 [investors.com]

Then there is the Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd who allegedly got special mortgage deals from Countrywide, who gave preferential rates to 'friends' of company's chairman.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25140560/ [msn.com]

For an interesting article purporting to detail the House Financial Services Committee Chairs long history with Fannie Mae, See:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080924145932.aspx [businessandmedia.org]

"House Financial Services Committee Chair promoted GSEs while former 'spouse' was Fannie Mae executive."

The link below describes how some in Congress tried to use the original version of the bailout bill to divert money eventually recovered to groups like ACORN, a group Obama has a long association with. See:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122247015469280723.html?mod=googlenews_wsj [wsj.com]

And then there is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who allegedly has directed nearly $100,000 from her political action committee to her husband's real estate and investment firm.

http://www.washt

Do Obama and the Democrats deserve a lift in the polls as a result of the financial and mortgage problems? The answer from history is a clear NO. Here's the lead of a New York Times story on September 30, 1999:

"Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending" [link below]. That's 1999 folks. Clinton Administration, I believe.

Here's the lead of a New York Times story on Sept. 11, 2003:

"The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. "[see link below] The Democrats killed the reforms.

McCain said in co-sponsoring the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190:

"If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole. The Democrats killed the Bill.

What was Barney Frank and fellow Democrats saying at the time of these attempted reforms? According to reports, Representative Barney Frank(D-MA) claimed of the thrifts :

"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

Representative Mel Watt (D-NC) added of the reforms "I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing." [ See Community Reinvestment Act, link below ]

Even Bill Clinton points to Congressional Democrats failure to deal with Fannie and Freddie as a primary cause.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsynspIqAoE

The link below contains a purported list of the top 25 in Congress who got contributions from the folks at Fannie and Freddie. Obama is listed third, after Dodd and Kerry, even though Obama is just a junior Senator. Obama is followed next by Clinton. Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi are on the list as well.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=16&artnum=1&issue=20080918

Then there is the Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd who allegedly got special mortgage deals from Countrywide, who gave preferential rates to 'friends' of company's chairman.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25140560/

For an interesting article purporting to detail the House Financial Services Committee Chairs long history with Fannie Mae, See:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080924145932.aspx

"House Financial Services Committee Chair promoted GSEs while former 'spouse' was Fannie Mae executive."

The link below describes how some in Congress tried to use the original version of the bailout bill to divert money eventually recovered to groups like ACORN, a group Obama has a long association with. See:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122247015469280723.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

And then there is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who allegedly has directed nearly $100,000 from her political action committee to her husband's real estate and investment firm.

http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/oct/01/pelosis-pac-pays-bills-for-spouses-firm.

See also:

Do Obama and the Democrats deserve a lift in the polls as a result of the financial and mortgage problems? The answer from history is a clear NO. Here's the lead of a New York Times story on September 30, 1999:

"Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending" [link below]. That's 1999 folks. Clinton Administration, I believe.

Here's the lead of a New York Times story on Sept. 11, 2003:

"The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. "[see link below] The Democrats killed the reforms.

McCain said in co-sponsoring the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190:

"If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole. The Democrats killed the Bill.

What was Barney Frank and fellow Democrats saying at the time of these attempted reforms? According to reports, Representative Barney Frank(D-MA) claimed of the thrifts :

"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

Representative Mel Watt (D-NC) added of the reforms "I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing." [ See Community Reinvestment Act, link below ]

Even Bill Clinton points to Congressional Democrats failure to deal with Fannie and Freddie as a primary cause.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsynspIqAoE

The link below contains a purported list of the top 25 in Congress who got contributions from the folks at Fannie and Freddie. Obama is listed third, after Dodd and Kerry, even though Obama is just a junior Senator. Obama is followed next by Clinton. Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi are on the list as well.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=16&artnum=1&issue=20080918

Then there is the Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd who allegedly got special mortgage deals from Countrywide, who gave preferential rates to 'friends' of company's chairman.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25140560/

For an interesting article purporting to detail the House Financial Services Committee Chairs long history with Fannie Mae, See:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080924145932.aspx

"House Financial Services Committee Chair promoted GSEs while former 'spouse' was Fannie Mae executive."

The link below describes how some in Congress tried to use the original version of the bailout bill to divert money eventually recovered to groups like ACORN, a group Obama has a long association with. See:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122247015469280723.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

And then there is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who allegedly has directed nearly $100,000 from her political action committee to her husband's real estate and investment firm.

http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/oct/01/pelosis-pac-pays-bills-for-spouses-firm.

See also:

... except for the purposes of same day registration and voting:

Ohio residents must present identification to vote, but they can use utility bills, bank statements, pay stubs or other documents in place of a driver's license or ID card. Early voters may provide the last four digits of their social-security numbers in lieu of such documents.

Does seem to that fraud door more than just a bit, doesn't it?

To put it kindly, you're full of SHIT.

Look Who's Irrational Now

"What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians.

...

The answers were added up to create an index of belief in occult and the paranormal. While 31% of people who never worship expressed strong belief in these things, only 8% of people who attend a house of worship more than once a week did.

Even among Christians, there were disparities. While 36% of those belonging to the United Church of Christ, Sen. Barack Obama's former denomination, expressed strong beliefs in the paranormal, only 14% of those belonging to the Assemblies of God, Sarah Palin's former denomination, did. In fact, the more traditional and evangelical the respondent, the less likely he was to believe in, for instance, the possibility of communicating with people who are dead.

So, you air of superiority isn't just feigned, it's faked.

A few simple words in an arcane regulation may be a major cause of the current financial "crisis." Removing this regulation would be simpler and cheaper than the proposed bailout.

Financial Accounting Standard 157 is a regulation imposed on businesses by the quasi-private Financial Accounting Standards Board (FAS). This rule is also incorporated into the regulations of the IRS and is further enforced by the SEC and the FDIC. FAS 157 requires businesses to mark down assets to the lowest price for which similar
assets have been sold in the market.

The jargon term for this regulation is "mark-to-market." Mark-to-market forces good securities to be valued at the same price as bad securities.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122186515562158671.html

It's important to understand that a security may be sold at a low price for many reasons. The firm selling the security may simply need to generate cash, and be willing to take a loss for that purpose. A security may also be sold for a low price because one or more of the mortgages behind that security is in arrears or default. But once a security is sold for a low price, something startling happens . . .

All other firms are forced to pretend that their mortgage backed securities are also worth that low price, even if none of the mortgages backing their securities are in arrears or default! This leads to a chain of catastrophic consequences . . .

Company balance sheets suddenly become unbalanced. Credit rating firms downgrade the companies that suffer this fate, resulting in margin calls, higher interest rates, and falling stock prices. Firms that were having no trouble paying their bills suddenly find themselves on the verge of bankruptcy.

This has happened repeatedly over the past few months. In the absence of "mark-to-market" it's possible that no firms would have gone bankrupt, or clamored for government funding.

Treasury Secretary Paulson and Fed Chairman Bernanke have both been asked about the "mark-to-market" problem. They have responded with jargon and gibberish. We suspect that it would be highly embarrassing for government officials to admit that a federal regulation has led to so much heartache for so many people.

House Banking Chairman Barney Frank continually claims that the current problems were caused by deregulation. He, like most politicians, have powerful incentives to always exempt the government from blame. And many CEOs have powerful incentives to remain silent about such things in order to retain access to government favors. The fact is . . .

This entire problem has been caused by government money and government regulations, from the creation of the housing bubble to the bursting of that bubble, to the current plan for a bailout.
http://www.openmarket.org/2008/09/20/700-billion-for-disastrous-financial-system-bailout/#disqus_thread

Were the politicians to come clean about this they might find their careers hanging from metaphorical lamp-posts. And so they will not come clean, but will instead hide behind jargon and gibberish and blame everyone but themselves.

Worse still, they will use their own failures to grant themselves more power.

Now, here is something truly stunning . . . The current bailout plan could have unintended consequences as a result of the mark-to-market regulation. The plan is designed to purchase securities at the lowest possible price, using various tools, including reverse auctions. But
think about what this means. Under mark-to-market all holders of similar securities will then be forced to mark down their securities to that lowest possible price, potentially driving many more firms toward bankruptcy, and into the arms of the federal bailout.
http://www.o

You realize the politics involved in the enforcement of this law? The collusion between the Clinton administration and race-baiters like Acorn and Rainbow Coalition? Read The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities to see what really went on with CRA and then tell me it was a harmless, fairly-enforced policy. PLEASE, IF YOU READ NOTHING ELSE, READ THIS ARTICLE.

City Journal
    is published by the Manhattan Institute for Policy research

The Manhattan Institute (MI) is a right-wing 501(c)(3) non-profit think tank founded in 1978 by William J. Casey, who later became President Ronald Reagan's CIA director.[1]

The CRA is but one of the problems I listed. Like Freddie and Fannie's effects on credit and the housing bubble? While the GOP attempted to reign in the FM's, Dems said "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" to.

Ah, yet another quote from the WSJ's "opinion" column, which is the print equivalent of the sean hannity show.

You realize, of course, that a good portion of our current crisis [wikipedia.org] is caused by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, introduced by Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX), which in 1999 repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act, opening up "competition" among banks, securities companies and insurance companies. Which in turn lead to our current set of mega-institutions that are so large and intertwined they can't be allowed to fail?

Wrong wrong wrong! That "deregulation" actually helped mitigate the crisis by allowing prudently managed banks like Wells Fargo to diversify their portfolios and products in other areas (like mutual funds, etc) besides home loans. Had they not been able to do so, the bailout would have been a lot bigger. Wamu was stupid, but some banks took advantage of the law.

I'm sorry, but you can keep praying.. in your dreams.. that freeing corporate agents (who are otherwise completely free of liability) from regulation will result in anything but abuse and malfeasance.

I would suggest this article by Stiglitz, a nobel winning economist (disclaimer: and, author of about 50% of the texts through which I earned my economics degree).
this article is also instructive.

No, McCain is too liberal and statist on too many issues, and too pandering for me. I am a Reagan Republican.

Read my sig, read the articles I quoted from someone else who is eminently competent, then realize you drank the cool-aid of the corporate fat-cat lobby hook, line, and sinker.

We did the "reaganomics" thing.

The first time it led to depression.
The second time it led to massive recession.
The third time it led to the greatest across-the-board consolidation (and related consumer abuse) in a century, a "jobless recovery" thanks to offshoring, and eventually our fine credit crisis.

I blame democrats for not pushing hard enough against it.

You realize, of course, that you've left a lot out?

Yes, it is Saturday and I (am trying to) have a life.

You realize, of course, that the CRA did not force banks to make loans to individuals who couldn't afford them? What it did do was say that you could not refuse credit based on location or area (redlining) and instead had to base your loan evaluation on the INDIVIDUAL, and upon the individual's ability to pay. (Try reading the bill and not the Wiki.)

You realize the politics involved in the enforcement of this law? The collusion between the Clinton administration and race-baiters like Acorn and Rainbow Coalition? Read The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities to see what really went on with CRA and then tell me it was a harmless, fairly-enforced policy. PLEASE, IF YOU READ NOTHING ELSE, READ THIS ARTICLE.

You realize, of course, that the vast majority of the subprime loans that are going belly-up were made by financial institutions like CountryWide... which are not banks, and as such, WERE NOT COVERED BY THE CRA IN THE FIRST PLACE.

The CRA is but one of the problems I listed. Like Freddie and Fannie's effects on credit and the housing bubble? While the GOP attempted to reign in the FM's, Dems said "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" to.

You realize, of course, that in early 2005, the Office of Thrift Supervision (under GW Bush) implemented new rules that substantially weakened the CRA, and as such, its impact on credit markets?

Good! Of course you'll give Bush credit for this? But there was still a decade of this shit going on prior to 2005.

You realize, of course, that a good portion of our current crisis [wikipedia.org] is caused by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, introduced by Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX), which in 1999 repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act, opening up "competition" among banks, securities companies and insurance companies. Which in turn lead to our current set of mega-institutions that are so large and intertwined they can't be allowed to fail?

Wrong wrong wrong! That "deregulation" actually helped mitigate the crisis by allowing prudently managed banks like Wells Fargo to diversify their portfolios and products in other areas (like mutual funds, etc) besides home loans. Had they not been able to do so, the bailout would have been a lot bigger. Wamu was stupid, but some banks took advantage of the law. And the securities companies (already massive and trading in derivatives long before 1999) failed because of the credit swaps, not because they were "competing" with banks. It was buying the already shitty mortgages that killed them. In other words, they were very often a customer, not a competitor.

The same Phil Gramm, BTW, that was John McCain's presidential campaign co-chair and his most senior economic adviser. The same Gramm that in July explained the nation was not in a recession, stating, "We have sort of become a nation of whiners."

And Gramm was exactly right. We were not in a recession, which is two consecutive quarters of economic contraction. We didn't even have one.

And we have turned into a nation of whiners. There was a time when people did not blame the government for their bad decisions and fortunes, like taking out loans they couldn't afford, then blaming big bad lenders. A time when just about every economic, social, and educational indicator was much lower than today, yet people complained less.

Now, people just want to bitch and have government be their mommy, then bitch again when government predictably screws it up. The government shouldn't be a mommy because 1) adults should be responsible for themselves and 2) Britney Spears is more qualified for the job than Uncle Sam.

Do you work for the

...Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, how those government sponsored enterprises acted as ATMs

A lie. Fannie Mae specifically didn't have any US backing on the paper it gave out. And probably the same for Freddie Mac.

It's not a lie. The simple fact is they are government created entities fulfilling a government mission - just like the post office. And like the post office, they are exempt from the rules that private companies are bound to follow.

Created by the federal government in 1938, Fannie Mae was given a range of special privileges, including exemption from state and local taxes, a $2.25 billion line of credit with the U.S. Treasury, and the implicit backing of the federal government. Fannie Mae is a government sponsored entity, a hybridized enterprise endowed with an advantageous set of special privileges. Source

And both of those entities - regardless of official policy - made private representations to lenders that the government had their backs, and Republicans were trying to stop this.

Washington-based Fannie and McLean, Va.-based Freddie are the engines behind a complex process of buying, bundling and selling mortgages that remains a mystery to millions of Americans whose home loans pass through this system. Together Fannie and Freddie hold or guarantee about $5 trillion in mortgage debt â" about half of the nation's total.

They traditionally backed the safest loans, 30-year fixed rate mortgages that required a down payment of at least 20 percent. But in recent years, they lowered their standards dramatically, matching a decline fueled by Wall Street banks that backed the now-defunct subprime lending industry.

Armando Falcon, who clashed frequently with the companies during his six years as Fannie and Freddie's chief government regulator, said in an interview last month that the companies' woes are similar to the downfall of other major corporate titans like Enron and WorldCom earlier this decade. "It boils down to a whole lot of greed and arrogance," he said.

The companies, he said, took advantage of the perception on Wall Street that the government would stand behind them in a time of crisis, as is now the case. Source

****

Dems forced banks to lend to those with bad credit

I keep hearing this. Show me one example where a bank was forced to loan out money to someone and where they instead couldn't have said "fuck this I am not lending any more money with these kind of unprofitable regulations."

More than an example (since I have no access to bank loan records or to the private conversations of bankers), I'll just point out to you that dramatically expanding the subprime lending market was the whole purpose and effect of the Clinton's Expansion of CRA. Just Google "Clinton CRA subprime" to see what the effects were.

Howard Husock warned of all of this in 2001: The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities.

And again, what did Democrats say during 2003 hearings on this problem?

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power"-- Mussolini

OK, if we are going to quote Mussolini as a great political scientist, let's extrapolate on this a bit. Who created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the true "merger of state and corporate power" in this crisis? Democrats. Who further extended this by creating the CRA? Democrats. Who expanded its mission into accusing bankers of racism ("redlining") and extorting them to make more bad loans, or else be investigated? Democrats. Who ignored warnings and blocked efforts at reform in 2003? Who killed efforts at GOP reform of the FMs in 2005? Democrats. What party was Chris Dodd, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee who took millions in lobbying money from the financial services industry and got sweetheart loan deals a member of? Democrats. What party was the guy who was boning the assistant director of Fannie Mae while he was on the House Financial Services Committee a member of? Democrats.

Funny, I see a lot of suspects that your oh-so-insightful post left out.

But don't worry. help is on the way. Barack Obama, who also got a sweetheart loan deal, will be sure critics can't speak out against him. He will define truth, just as Orwell predicted, since the media is asleep at the switch. What party is he from?

Whoever modded parent as "insightful" are all so busy slamming Fox News that you don't even know who is responsible for all of this. But don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.

They can't accept the fact that the free market is what caused this mess.

Wait, what? What a stunning display of ignorance of how the whole subprime lending system worked. In a "free market" the government does not intervene. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, government sponsored enterprises (AKA, "ATMs"), are no more "free market" than the post office. In this "free market," both FMs artificially inflated both credit and housing markets (just as government student loan programs have done to tuition) by pouring money into the system, and representing to the banks "don't worry, we are backed by Uncle Sam, what could go wrong?". In a "free market", government regulations like mark-to-market, which caused massive bank paper losses, don't exist. In a "free market," you don't have a CRA telling lenders how they have to loan their money. In a "free market" you don't have corrupt senators like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, who are on important congressional banking oversight committees (which themselves wouldn't exist in a "free market"), leaning on lenders to make subprime loans, and fighting attempts to reign in these out-of-control Government-Sponsored Monstrosities..

Here's what Chuck Schumer said back in 2003, when Republicans wanted more oversight of said Government-Sponsored Monstrosities:

Senate Banking Committee, Oct. 16, 2003:

Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.): And my worry is that we're using the recent safety and soundness concerns, particularly with Freddie, and with a poor regulator, as a straw man to curtail Fannie and Freddie's mission. And I don't think there is any doubt that there are some in the administration who don't believe in Fannie and Freddie altogether, say let the private sector do it. That would be sort of an ideological position.

Source.

So Schumer himself opposed reform on the grounds that the "free market" is the wrong approach. Massive government intervention and regulation was the status quo. But now it is the "free market's" fault? WTF?

Yeah, sounds like a "free market" alright. Just like public housing is a free market.

They can't accept the fact that the free market is what caused this mess.

Wait, what? What a stunning display of ignorance of how the whole subprime lending system worked. In a "free market" the government does not intervene. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, government sponsored enterprises (AKA, "ATMs"), are no more "free market" than the post office. In this "free market," both FMs artificially inflated both credit and housing markets (just as government student loan programs have done to tuition) by pouring money into the system, and representing to the banks "don't worry, we are backed by Uncle Sam, what could go wrong?". In a "free market", government regulations like mark-to-market, which caused massive bank paper losses, don't exist. In a "free market," you don't have a CRA telling lenders how they have to loan their money. In a "free market" you don't have corrupt senators like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, who are on important congressional banking oversight committees (which themselves wouldn't exist in a "free market"), leaning on lenders to make subprime loans, and fighting attempts to reign in these out-of-control Government-Sponsored Monstrosities..

Here's what Chuck Schumer said back in 2003, when Republicans wanted more oversight of said Government-Sponsored Monstrosities:

Senate Banking Committee, Oct. 16, 2003:

Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.): And my worry is that we're using the recent safety and soundness concerns, particularly with Freddie, and with a poor regulator, as a straw man to curtail Fannie and Freddie's mission. And I don't think there is any doubt that there are some in the administration who don't believe in Fannie and Freddie altogether, say let the private sector do it. That would be sort of an ideological position.

Source.

So Schumer himself opposed reform on the grounds that the "free market" is the wrong approach. Massive government intervention and regulation was the status quo. But now it is the "free market's" fault? WTF?

Yeah, sounds like a "free market" alright. Just like public housing is a free market.

They're not dumb, they're just evil.

This is the difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives think libs are well-meaning but horribly misguided. Liberals think conservatives are evil (and this gets modded as insightful rather than flamebait!). And it's the conservatives who are "intolerant."

For the record, it was Democrats who got us in this mess, not Republicans. Democrats created these government-sponsored ATMs (Freddie and Fannie), the CRA, and your fair-and-balanced media won't report on Chris Dodd's and Barney Frank's (sorry, only Fox News is reporting this one, so had to use them) ties to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, how those government sponsored enterprises acted as ATMs, and how Dems forced banks to lend to those with bad credit. And how they fought John McCain's 2005 home mortgage reform bill. But now it's Republicans' fault? THIS IS A GOVERNMENT-CREATED PROBLEM that Republicans tried to regulate and Democrats wanted unregulated. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

The lack of reporting on what really caused this scandal is a scandal in itself. Reading these threads shows me how the media has not done its job.

something named, "The Protection of Children Act.."

Close...

.
So the question is not how to use taxes to get more money, but how to use taxes to stimulate growth. If you want more revenue - dollars - then you want to grow the GDP (Hauser's Law stating that you get a fixed percent of the GDP regardless of tax rate).

It's generally accepted that lower taxation will stimulate GDP growth faster than higher taxation. Keep taxes low, your economy grows faster, and while the Government doesn't get more tax as a percentage of GDP, it gets more dollars overall.

So the question is not how to spread taxes, but how to use tax policy to encourage economic growth. And that is generally through lower taxation.

The problem is that the people who were supposed to oversee Fannie Mae are the same people that are now supporting a certain Democrat candidate for president, and it would not be beneficial for the media to expose those relationships to the public-at-large until after the election.

• Jamie Gorelick, on the board of Fannie Mae, received > $75 million in bonuses when the company was "doing well"; she is now assisting Obama's campaign. Investigation would reveal that FM was "cooking the books" in order to pump up executive bonuses.
• Barney Frank, served on the House Banking Committee, and stopped many legislation attempts to regulate Fannie Mae.
• Frank Raines, former Fannie Mae executive and Clinton budget directory, received preferentially lower interest rates on personal loans. He is now advising the Obama campaign.
• Democratic Congressional Black Caucus, who was praised by Fannie Mae's CEO Daniel Mudd for passing beneficial legislation, in the name of loosening regulations allowing people with poor credit scores to overextend themselves with home loans. We know today how that turned out.

I don't understand how the Enron Trial is on the tip of everyone's tongue, but the media isn't calling to put these banking executive in jail for a fraud that is 10x worse!

The problem is that the people who were supposed to oversee Fannie Mae are the same people that are now supporting a certain Democrat candidate for president, and it would not be beneficial for the media to expose those relationships to the public-at-large until after the election.

• Jamie Gorelick, on the board of Fannie Mae, received > $75 million in bonuses when the company was "doing well"; she is now assisting Obama's campaign. Investigation would reveal that FM was "cooking the books" in order to pump up executive bonuses.
• Barney Frank, served on the House Banking Committee, and stopped many legislation attempts to regulate Fannie Mae.
• Frank Raines, former Fannie Mae executive and Clinton budget directory, received preferentially lower interest rates on personal loans. He is now advising the Obama campaign.
• Democratic Congressional Black Caucus, who was praised by Fannie Mae's CEO Daniel Mudd for passing beneficial legislation, in the name of loosening regulations allowing people with poor credit scores to overextend themselves with home loans. We know today how that turned out.

I don't understand how the Enron Trial is on the tip of everyone's tongue, but the media isn't calling to put these banking executive in jail for a fraud that is 10x worse!

everyone would own a prius if they could afford to get a new car

They've been making them for the US since 2001 so by your logic the majority of second-hand cars of that age should already be Priuses - except that they're not.

The WSJ has September's US figures - it's only in the bottom half of the top 20:
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html
(and the ytd figures are down)

According to UK full-year 2007 figures, it's not in the top 10 there either:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7174856.stm

The people running the large car makers (or any large company) aren't idiots - if there had have been a more obvious market gap they'd have filled it. If you think they're wrong you're welcome to have a go yourself, like these people:
http://www.nicecarcompany.co.uk/

I don't know the answer to the question "how many people will really buy electric cars" but suspect that right now it's not many - it's easier for many people to change to something that's a bit smaller and a bit more economical, but still running on regular petrol or diesel.

Americans Are Scarce In Top Tech Contest:

(This is about the TopCoder competition)

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114721319725548216-EPUotRD8d3aZ4HFijEN8r_DOdJQ_20070509.html?mod=blogs [wsj.com]

SALIENT QUOTE:

----

"Of the 48 best computer programmers in the world, only four of them are Americans... As noted in February, these competitions were dominated at their start in 2001 by Americans,, but that's no longer the case -- not by a long shot... By contrast, there were eight from Russia, and four each from Norway and China. The biggest delegation -- 11 -- came from Poland... Much of Poland's abundant interest in coding contests can be traced to Tomasz Czajka, who as a multiple TopCoder champion has won more than $100,000 in prize money since the competition began."

----

FACT IS?

SOME OF THE VERY BEST PROGRAMMERS ON THE PLANET, APPARENTLY, per an international competition??

Well, they COME FROM POLAND... wake up!

APK

P.S.=> So much for "snide attempts" @ the typical "stupid polock" jokes, eh? It truly appears that "the jokes on you", boys (with some solid evidence no less)... oh, & "WickedZen"? You MIGHT also want to take a peek @ jacquesm's reply here as well, in regards to your sarcasm as well:

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=978035&cid=25180399 ... apk

Every ethnic group, including white people, were given these awful loans. There's no actual evidence to support your argument that the sweet, innocent lily white banking community was *forced* to give a disproportionately high number of horrible loans to awful dark people, who unlike their snow white brethren, were unable to pay them back, as a function of them being not white.

So called "equal opportunity" legislation is usually passed because of inequality in banking lending practices, regardless of actual financial data regarding those people. Logically, if a wide spectrum of people defaulted on loans, you can't blame only a segment of them because you desperately want to.

If you want to push your "teh democrat is teh reverse racist" agenda, go hang out on /b/, I'm sure they'll be a bit more accepting of it.

No more feeding the troll.

It's a 767-200 you insensitive clod.

Americans Are Scarce In Top Tech Contest:

(This is about the TopCoder competition)

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114721319725548216-EPUotRD8d3aZ4HFijEN8r_DOdJQ_20070509.html?mod=blogs

SALIENT QUOTE:

"Of the 48 best computer programmers in the world, only four of them are Americans... As noted in February, these competitions were dominated at their start in 2001 by Americans,, but that's no longer the case -- not by a long shot... By contrast, there were eight from Russia, and four each from Norway and China. The biggest delegation -- 11 -- came from Poland... Much of Poland's abundant interest in coding contests can be traced to Tomasz Czajka, who as a multiple TopCoder champion has won more than $100,000 in prize money since the competition began. That has made him something of a national hero back home, and other students have been eager to follow suit."

FACT IS? SOME OF THE VERY BEST PROGRAMMERS ON THE PLANET, APPARENTLY, per an international competition? Well, they COME FROM POLAND, my friends... wake up!

APK

P.S.=> So much for "snide attempts" @ the typical "stupid polock" jokes, eh? It truly appears that "the jokes on you", boys (with some solid evidence no less)... apk

I actually read this first on the Wall Street Journal Law Blog, which cited the AP article, so it appears to also be significant in legal circles, though still noticeably absent from mainstream news sites. There also appears to be an some additional info here.

There was so much return on these subprime loans, that Fannie and Freddie were financially pressured into purchasing up blocks themselves.

You mean Congress pressured the GSEs to take on $1 trillion of Alt-A and subprime loans in the name of "affordable housing" between 2004 and 2007, as the GSEs needed to look good to Congress after their accounting was found to be fraudulent.

The GSEs should have been dissolved long ago, especially once their accounting fraud was revealed. The GSEs were private/public frankensteins whose implicit backing by the government gave them a near duopoly position.

First, I don't think any sane person thinks the government is the "main blame" for the subprime crisis. I feel the "main blame" goes to those who made loans and purchased MBSs/CMOs without an accurate risk model (specifically, what happens if home prices start to go down?). However, the government did make things worse.

80% of the loans which were fully or largely outside CRA jurisdiction

But many were. Specifically, after 1995 changes in the CRA banks were pressured to take low-income CRA loans. Don't take my word for it, read what the Comptroller of the Currency said:

Letter states that financial institutions may receive favorable CRA credit for investing in a middle income housing down-payment assistance program if the investment is a "qualified investment" under the CRA regulation...Interagency CRA letter stating that an investment in an MBS bond that is specifically tailored to an institution's CRA requirements appears to be a "qualified investment" under the CRA regulations...purchases of obligations of certain special purpose vehicles backed by affordable housing mortgages...

Again, part of the problem, not all of the problem. Government also enhanced the housing bubble in general through mortgage interest deduction as well as zoning regulations.

Throw in unregulated ratings agencies

You may want to Wikipedia Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization, recognized by the SEC to determine whether securities are "investment quality" or not for regulatory bank and broker-dealer net capital requirements. Years ago people in the investment area started suspecting the NRSROs were screwed up (thus all the Credit Derivative Swap insurance policies), but the SEC didn't do much to reform.

You can blame Bush all you want, but lets also remember Democrats were pushing the GSEs to take on additional alt-A and subprime loans in the name of "affordable housing". They are still talking about bailing out individuals who took out unsustainable loans. I don't think we should bail out Wall Street firms or individuals, lest we reward all of their bad risk taking.

Like all great disasters, there were lots of people and problems contributing to the problem.

What we do know is that the 70,000 pages of new banking regulations published every year did not stop it.

I won't vote for a ticket that uses Catholic Social Doctrine to justify its tax policies and who proclaims himself to be in "totally consistent" on this point. I'm not Catholic - I don't want a Catholic doctrine to be used to go after my checkbook.

Just say no to Biden/Obama and their theocratic tax scheme!

Sorry, was that not what you were expecting?

Read it here!

Congress's bailout package will reward failed Wall Street companies instead of letting them crater and injecting money into solvent banks.

This is an important read for those who have money in banks and stocks, and who hope to make the US their home for the next decade:
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/09/20/treasurys-financial-bailout-proposal-to-congress/

Congress's bailout package will reward failed Wall Street companies instead of letting them crater and injecting money into solvent banks.

This is an important read for those who have money in banks and stocks, and who hope to make the US their home for the next few decades:
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/09/20/treasurys-financial-bailout-proposal-to-congress/

Congress's bailout package will reward failed wall street companies instead of letting them crater and injecting money into solvent banks.

This is an important read for those who have money in banks and stocks, and who hope to make the US their home for the next few decades:
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/09/20/treasurys-financial-bailout-proposal-to-congress/ [wsj.com]

Unless the site was *clearly* a parody, calling someone a "sex addict who 'hits on students'" is slander - or libel when written.

Of course it was a parody. The page was a fake profile of the principal. How many people proudly advertise that they are paedophiles on Myspace?

Here's what happened, according to court papers: J.S. and another student, identified as K.L., posted a profile on MySpace in March 2007 that showed a photo of principal James S. McGonigle they had taken from the district's Web site. The profile didn't use the principal's name, but identified the person pictured as a "principal,"and described him as a 40-year-old married, bisexual man whose interests included "being a tight ***," "******* in my office" and "hitting on students and their parents," according to U.S. District Judge James M. Munley's opinion.

(source)

If you think this is anything except a parody, you have serious comprehension problems.

Congress's bailout package will reward failed wall street companies instead of letting them crater and injecting money into solvent banks.

This is an important read for those who have money in banks and stocks, and who hope to make the US their home for the next few decades:
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/09/20/treasurys-financial-bailout-proposal-to-congress/

Please read Congress's misguided bailout package. It will reward failed wall street companies instead of letting them crater, instead of injecting money into solvent banks.

This is important to your financial future:
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/09/20/treasurys-financial-bailout-proposal-to-congress/

Even in cases that are deemed to be of imminent need to gain access for wire tapping a field warrant must be submitted and reviewed by a judge to ensure the process followed standards set in place for proceeding with such action.

What standards? FISA? If they were all just "doin' their jobs," why was it necessary to amend it and provide immunity for the telcoms? An amendment I might add, considered unconstitutional by many, something that hasn't yet been determined by the courts. You're just telling me here what's supposed to happen. That would be great, but it falls somewhat short of reality:

Domestic spying widespread

F.B.I. Data Mining Reached Beyond Initial Targets

Wiretap Whistle-Blower's Account

NSA's Domestic Spying Grows As Agency Sweeps Up Data

Yes, there is an approval procedure, too bad the Bush administration saw fit to bypass it (something they only admitted to doing after being caught at it, BTW). Constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald states it thus:

Congress passed a law in 1978 making it a criminal offense to eavesdrop on Americans without judicial oversight. Nobody of any significance ever claimed that that law was unconstitutional. The Administration not only never claimed it was unconstitutional, but Bush expressly asked for changes to the law in the aftermath of 9/11, thereafter praised the law, and misled Congress and the American people into believing that they were complying with the law. In reality, the Administration was secretly breaking the law, and then pleaded with The New York Times not to reveal this. Once caught, the Administration claimed it has the right to break the law and will continue to do so.

_
_
_

(back to your regularly scheduled response:)

Guantanamo is no different than any other prison run by the military in a time of war. As a matter of fact, prisoners held in American military prisons are treated better than those held by any other country in the world. The majority of the people there were actually captured on the battlefield actively trying to kill our soldiers. Several who have been released were subsequently killed or recaptured on the battlefields of Iraq or Afghanistan.

Oh, I'm sure the camp is very nice. Of course, the "war" we are referring to here, is a never ending war on a methodology, rather than one on a nation that could actually come to an "end" at some point. So presumably, these guys are going to be there until they die. And since even some who are tried, don't get released because of a "security threat," one ponders the actual relevance of trials in the process. If some of these detainees were not actually involved in terrorist or violent acts against our soldiers, how would they prove it? Perhaps you would like to cite Hamdan vs Rumsfeld as an example of how the "system works," because subsequently Hamdan and Khadr were released?

And, there's the distinct possibility that some who have been released have been inspired to subsequently join our opposition because of the way they were treated by the US in the process. Find it hard to buy that? Now you know how I feel about your claim that Saddam "might" have buried some WMDs or passed them to Syria. (Why do you think they call it apologetics?)

But I would be willing to accept that Guantanamo is "no different than any other prison run by the military in a time of war." One thing that is different though is the amount of visibility such things have in the modern information age, which in my opinion, is a good thing. It's harder to keep abuses hidden now, th

Superficially at least, the Democratic claims are true: Since 1948, the Standard & Poor's 500 total return (capital gains plus dividends) has averaged 15.6% when a Democrat was in the White House and only 11.1% when a Republican was in the White House.
You get a similar result if you look at growth in real gross domestic product. Under Democratic presidents, the average since 1948 has been 4.2%. Under Republican presidents it has been only 2.8%.
But it's not so simple when you study that "study." First, not all Democrats act like Democrats, and not all Republicans act like Republicans. John F. Kennedy, for example, was an enthusiastic supply-side tax cutter, and George H.W. Bush raised taxes. Bill Clinton promoted free trade, and Richard Nixon imposed wage and price controls.
If you assign those four presidents to the opposite party based on that -- make the two Democrats into Republicans and the two Republicans into Democrats -- the numbers completely reverse. Now stocks average 14.7% under Republicans and only 10.5% under Democrats.
In fact, it turns out that if you do just one single switch -- if you make Richard Nixon into a Democrat -- it's enough to reverse the numbers. Then stocks average 14% under Republicans and only 12.1% under Democrats. This fact discredits this whole study more than it does Republicans, or even Richard Nixon himself. Any analysis that can be undone by omitting or changing a single data point isn't very robust.

He makes a few other good points in there, including lagging results, but his ultimate conclusion is that,

"If the electorate were really smart, it would elect a Democratic president and a Republican Congress. Under that deal, stocks have averaged a 20.2% total return, and real GDP averaged 4%. That tells us that economic and stock market success isn't really about partisan politics at all. Sadly, nobody has a political incentive to conduct a study about that.

While there is a correlation (not necessarily causal) between the president's party and the growth figures you cited, it's not quite that one-sided. As Donald Luskin recently illustrated in the Wall Street Journal, the economy does even better when the political makeup of congress leans to the right. In fact, it does best with a Democratic president and Republican congress.

Just goes to show you can make statistics that say pretty much anything.

There's an interesting analysis (partisan Republican) here: http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB122117691244025843.html. Looking at them, I think the bottom line is that the historical growth/party statistics don't really mean anything, and any information they have is swamped by the "usual" information about each candidate, economic theory etc.

Information is not illegal. It's how you act on it that creates a liability.

Information may not be illegal, but shouldn't MISinformation be? It is in some cases already.

The investors' programs sold low because of a typo in a source they trusted without verification. That's bad decision-making, automated, not Google's fault and not the Florida Sentinel Sun's fault. (typo intended)

Shout FIRE in a crowded theater when there isn't one, for example.

If you want to argue by analogy, make it fit. Consider a computer-controlled fire alarm. One that dials 9-11 based merely on speech-recognition of the word "fire" spoken by somebody in the room would be a good analogy to the programs in use for stop-loss on Wall Street. That was a stupid design. A sensible computer-controlled fire alarm at least checks for source(s) of heat, particulates and/or carbon monoxide. Instead of automatically dialing 9-11, it should also notify the property owner, who would then have to manually dial 9-11, if he decides the fire is real.

Instead of such a sensible algorithm, investors are automating sales based on one variable: stock price decrease. The same investors could make their stop-loss programs less risky to themselves by adding a method to send a TXT message to their BlackBerry (TM), with the ticker symbol, price decrease and time interval of the decrease. It could have a simple Y/N dialog, and depending on the number of shares they hold, they could then decide to check Bloomberg first, or just sell if they're reckless.

Redundancy and manual checks before important transactions are not novel concepts. Failure to require verification, and implementation of a design having a single point of catastrophic failure, were reckless choices. Google didn't write that faulty software. Those who did deserve to bear the full burden of the losses it caused. They have already enjoyed the full benefits of the same software, when it worked as intended without verification. Losses totaling $1.14B probably won't substantially improve programming in general, but it's a good start.

I think this clarifies how this can happen and it not be a case of manipulation: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122109238502221651.html?mod=yahoo_hs&ru=yahoo Tribune has offered details of the incident in pieces since Monday. In its latest explanation, Tribune said a single visit during a low-traffic period early Sunday morning pushed the undated story onto the list of most popular business news of its South Florida Sun-Sentinel newspaper's Web site.

When I click on TFA all I get is a blank page. When I view source, all I see is:

[html comment code start --] fastdynapage - sbkj2kwebp01 - Thu 09/11/08 - 00:13:47 EDT
[--!/html comment code end]

But most disturbing is when I visit the site that is linked, the Wall street Journal online, there's NO mention of anything to do with United & google, and a search even draws a blank:

http://online.wsj.com/public/search/page/3_0466.html?KEYWORDS=untied%20airlines%20google%20news&mod=DNH_S

Where's my tinfoil hat?! Oh wait, I'm still on Slashdot. Once NPR covers this tho'...

Ah, so you're a PUMA then?

No, but since Obama supporters like you are now making him the candidate of "if you point out any error or inconsistency, my supporters will ignorantly accuse you of being an enemy operative", maybe it's not such a bad idea.

No, that's a lie. Obama never committed to public financing.

The hell he didn't. He's the one who brought it up as an issue. He made it a point of contention with Hillary Clinton, and then turned it on the Republicans. He made the proposal in response to the other candidates hedging on the issue--only to hedge himself, and flat out walk away from his own proposal. He allowed the media to talk about his pledge, his plan, and his commitment while it suited him and was working in his favor. Then he lied about his reason for not taking the money.

Since the option he took has even fewer restrictions and no need for loopholes, he can't complain about a "broken" public fund. It's not broken, except that you can bypass the requirements and limitations by opting out. Since that's exactly what he did, though, it's no protest.

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/content/Questionnaire_Midwest_Democracy_Network_Obama_02192008.pdf

"I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election." He made the proposal. HE was the one who made the issue into a campaign issue. He walked away, paying little more than lip service to the idea.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/04/11/obama-blurs-his-pledge-on-public-financing/

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1014824,public061908.article

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/us/politics/02fec.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/06/obama-to-break.html

And now you're saying that a pledge and a commitment isn't a promise. Where is this candidate of change and new politics, exactly? He looks exactly like all the other ones.

Tapper, an Obama supporter, summed it up perfectly: "Declaring independence from a "broken system" by breaking a promise. Obama hopes you'll care more about the former than the latter."

As a liberal, it's the latter that matters, especially when the former is largely a lie. A liberal who tolerates this is no liberal at all, but rather an ideologue trapped by a cult of personality, and unfortunately the Democrats are joining the Republicans in that growing population.

I don't remember which article I read it in, but it was the first one that I read about the wooten guy or I would have linked it originally.
Here is one article at the WSJ that says it too:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121746477267499109.html?mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy

Kinda funny though, how we had a mild summer, and yet in spring, you had all those people predicting that the arctic would be ice-free by July.

Excuse me? Who predicted all the Arctic ice would be gone? Anyway: The Arctic has become an island for the first time in modern human history.

We're actually better off not taxing the rich as much and just having a flat tax. The higher taxes are, the lower our GDP is and it's been found that the amount of tax money we bring in is directly related to our GDP. Check out http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121124460502305693.html

From the WSJ article about this incident:

Mr. Yevloyev had been in Moscow on business during the weekend and was arrested Sunday morning as he stepped off a plane that landed in Nazran, the capital of Ingushetia. He was whisked away in an armored jeep of Russia's Interior Ministry and dumped a short time later near a local hospital with a single bullet wound through the head, said a friend, Mogamed Khazbiyev, who had gone to the airport to meet him.

"We saw him get in the jeep quietly, with his suitcase and his computer," said Mr. Khazbiyev, who was awaiting Mr. Yevloyev in the arrivals hall of the airport.

Mr. Khazbiyev said he ran to his car and tried to follow the jeep but was blocked by other Interior Ministry cars. While driving through Nazran in search of Mr. Yevloyev, he got a call from the local hospital saying Mr. Yevloyev was there. Mr. Khazbiyev said Mr. Yevloyev was in police custody for 20 minutes at most.

"I think they shot him in the head as soon as they left the airport," Mr. Khazbiyev said.

Googling Mogamed Khazbiyev doesn't turn up a lot but it would seem that he is also a part of the anti-government (for lack of a better term) opposition that the deceased web site owner was part of.

For additional information about this heinous crime, read the report just issued by the "Daily Telegraph" (DT). According to the DT, "Mr Yevloyev is the most prominent anti-Kremlin journalist to be killed since Anna Politkovskaya was shot dead in the lift of her apartment block in October 2006. ... Russia is considered to be one of the world's most dangerous countries for journalists."

The "Wall Street Journal" provides more information about this and other suspicious deaths of well-known journalists. According to the WSJ, "Mr. Yevloyev was the latest in a series of Russian journalists to have died in suspicious circumstances. The death of Anna Politkovskaya, who was shot in October 2006 at her Moscow apartment, highlighted the dangers faced by Russia's independent press. Ms. Politkovskaya was a lead reporter at Novaya Gazeta, a Moscow-based newspaper that specializes in muckraking and probes of government corruption. She was the third journalist at the paper to die under mysterious circumstances. Paul Klebnikov, editor of the Russian edition of Forbes magazine, was shot on a Moscow street in July 2004."

After I read these news articles, I could think of only 4 words: God damn the Kremlin!