Not just that, I can imagine that the life expectancy in those areas was limited anyway, so you could die without knowing you ever had it or it ever really affecting you.
Leave off, you idiot. Marines are Marines, and it doesn't matter the when, where, or what administration. You stand free because those REAL men are willing to do violence on your behalf.
One of the best "Junkyard Wars" moments - background not in focus, with the team member in front stating, "yeah, we got Bobby here doing some fine-tune adjustments to the motor" - leading to focus on Bobby in the background whaling away on the engine with a sledge hammer...
That's just about the classic selenoid-repair method for pretty much anything. Works similar on cars - if your battery is good and it won't turn over, thwack the selenoid before heading to the starter.
Like I said, there are some states (Nebraska and Maine) who divide them depending on the proportional vote within the state; there are also the OCCASIONAL "faithless electors", but they've rarely - if ever - mattered, particularly in recent history.
Citizens within a state are actually voting for a "slate" of electors for their state who are committed to voting for whoever wins that state. Occasionally, there are a few states who divide those electoral votes proportionally.
I know it sounds a little off, but what it protects is the rural/suburban voter and the states with smaller populations, so that they have a say in the overall process. It helps put the state of Iowa, for example, on a little more equal footing with New York with its higher population. It also helps keep candidates from completely pandering to high-population urban areas and ignoring the rest of us. Its main problem is that it could be more proportional (divide electoral college votes proportionally within a state rather than winner-take-all), and tends to relegate the final outcome to a handful of states (Florida in 2000, Ohio 2004).
I'm partway with you on those, but what the government is currently proposing is beyond all this. I actually think that what went on was already partly illegal, and the regulators (who is NOT a conservative, mind you) just let a lot of it slide because times were supposedly going so well. Predatory loans ARE illegal, particularly all the tricks that were being played downstream. There was real fraud going on, and I do wonder why some of the agencies didn't get sued. Of course, there's hardly a point as all the money is gone...and at least you aren't blaming the low interest rates (which is the most idiotic argument - it wasn't the rates, it was the people scamming).
What you are saying is about rules that were already there, but nothing was being enforced - and make sure you compare this to the dot-com boom and savings and loan issues - it's NOT the rules, it's usually the enforcement. Both parties are quite good at rule-making, but also for letting things get out of hand because the money is rolling in. Make sure you're pointing the finger at Fannie and Freddie, too, who were moving more money to dems than republicans the entire time.
I'm with you in that the Republicans got WAY too soft when they were in power and didn't get enough - or really anything - done when they were there. I'm partially in agreeance with you on the results side; however, I look at the alternative. I DON'T want left-leaning responses to this problem. Their solutions got us the RESULTS you're looking at today, combined with the right's inaction.
What you are advocating is putting in charge people who don't have the right answers simply because the ones you ideologically agree with failed at theirs. There's a disconnect there, somewhere, and you don't see it. Are you willing to betray some core values you have to support ones you disagree with simply because it didn't work out?
You DO understand that Presidents don't write laws? And that Bush has been dealing with other probably more important issues than watching our pocketbook? And with all your complaints, you expect him to be competent enough to have managed the problem? Do you WANT more government control and intervention in the economy? Because that's EXACTLY what you're asking for.
Then you don't understand the power and influence of Senators - and the nature of the Senate as a big good ol' boys club. They can EASILY block legislation and favors are traded all the time, particularly ones who have been around a while.
Quick note - Fannie and Freddie bought more out of the market and should have known the product better. They also should have made better loans. They were ALWAYS mismanaged, and were poorly designed agencies that were GOING to fail in this type of situation.
Don't blame Bush when the "ownership society" idea came straight from the left from people who think that equal opportunity results in equal outcome, and then blames the system for failing. You WANT more government regulation and intervention in the markets? Because that's what you're asking for on these matters. It wasn't the rules that were crooked - it was the people playing, something that some can't seem to get over.
Yes, there was a LOT of dishonesty in the market, but to lay it at the feet of the Presidency when both houses of Congress were just as complicit in doing nothing or blocking certain reforms (as Dodd and Frank did) needs to be taken into consideration. Freddie and Fannie have been run poorly for a LONG time, and it took a pretty harsh financial lesson for that to finally come to light. The Bush administration actually TRIED to get certain reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and was blocked by the leftists in the Senate.
Actually, look at the dates posted. He was pushing for some reforms since 2001 - that's not exactly doing nothing...and, of course, there were a few more things going on during the Bush administration than just some bad mortgages being made. I'm not concluding there's no one to blame, but you're so caught up in your Bush-hate that you can't see how other people in the government - who were more involved with the details of the law - were just as responsible. The ones on the LEFT wrote these laws. The ones on the LEFT defended the entities. The ones on the LEFT pretended those fires were rain. Bush DID do some things - not enough, but the problem was NOT entirely ignored as you are making it out to be. The articles I posted are pretty clear about that. PLEASE tell me how they are wrong.
It's one of the reasons to vote for McCain - he's actually (at least acting like he's) doing something about it rather than debating further and deliberating.
Be careful. You're falling into the there's-one-person-to-blame trap that the pols are trying to trap you in for the political season. PLEASE keep in mind that much of the situation here lies in the laps of practically everyone in Washington and a good portion of the financial sector who went along with it. This wasn't just some scheme hatched by white rich republicans. The institutions that the left put in place are just as responsible for this mess.
You're kidding, right? Of course, that's the problem with journalism, is the deception that the human mind can be unbiased. Most journalists lean heavily left-of-center, and believe that their core "training" is the definition of objectivity. One thing I find rarely done is the realization that maybe they can never be truly objective...
You're partially correct. When times were going so good, Republicans typically took a back seat and let way too much slide when they were in power. Democrats, on the other hand, were ACTIVE when Fannie and Freddie were concerned in protecting them.
And yet again, you are underestimating the power and influence of the United States Senator. It's a BIG good ol' boys' club, and long-standing members have a lot of influence and power and are able to protect various of their interests. Take a CLOSE look at what the posts say about what the record says. Look at the facts presented, and you'll see that few Republicans were ACTIVE in protecting Fannie and Freddie as the Democrats were.
Please consider that simply because they're opinion pieces doesn't mean they're wrong....and show me some sort of counter-argument that disproves what I am finding.
Fannie and Freddie are government-created entities, and are not run nor structured like other private companies.
Washington policy, particularly centered around an "ownership society," loosened rules and practically forced some companies to make loans to poor people who couldn't afford them in the mistaken idea that it somehow creates equality.
Several senators - particularly Dodd and Sanders - continually blocked measures by the Bush administration to actually be responsible in their required oversight of Fannie and Freddie.
I DO think we're smarter, though - we're not going to have such a massive crash that will take months/years to recover from. People would buy way too much when the market would be on the way down, and some of the big brokerages would take positions that would keep the market up. We also have a few more controls and limitations in the market (like the market stopping trades when things get out of hand) and the recent strategy of stopping some short sellers from trading certain stocks and actually enforcing rules on naked shorting.
I think my "Great Depression" mood is a reaction to some who are (or are trying to incite) panicking. The world won't end, and the USA is still going to be around. We got through it before, we'll get through it again. We'll just freakin' deal with it and don't worry so much.
You're right on several accounts - the current situation can't be compared, and I don't think that it's a good 1929 correlation - we're smarter and there's more good (and bad) regulations standing there (though enforcement has been lax on some items like naked shorting).
I'm not saying things weren't bad during the depression - high unemployment by any metric, people losing what they had in banks, and so on, but you had to be pretty wealthy, and savvy, to invest in the stock market in those days - that particular crash effected people downstream more than anything else, particularly if you had your money in a bank that failed. Many - but not all - lost everything, but there were many who didn't have much to lose to begin with. Also, a bank could call a mortgage due at almost any time - even if you were paid up - in the midst of the panic, that's what happened.
The US may have taken longer to get out of it without the war, but what the Depression and the war DID do was drive us to a more productive industry-based rather than agriculture-based society, and generated more profit. We were going to come out of it one way or another, but it was difficult to see that at the time.
That being said, I still believe, while though awful, the Great Depression was overrated, to a point - particularly in that the world - and America in particular - DIDN'T end. A long term-view shows that it was the result of panic in the market, and that recovery was occurring (unemployment was dropping significantly before the war) within the decade.
Try http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-called-for-reform-of-fannie-mae.html/ for the initial list making the rounds. Much of it was executive-side trying to get congress to do something, but you're partly right about one thing - congress, as a whole, was ignoring it. However, Dodd, Sanders, and several on the left were shielding Fannie and Freddie from proper oversight.
And please...argue facts before you argue source here. There's plenty of blame to go around on both sides, but there are several Republicans you CAN'T say stood by and did nothing - that was all democrats.
Try http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-called-for-reform-of-fannie-mae.html/ for the initial list making the rounds. Much of it was executive-side trying to get congress to do something, but you're partly right about one thing - congress, as a whole, was ignoring it. However, Dodd, Sanders, and several on the left were shielding Fannie and Freddie from proper oversight.
And please...argue facts before you argue source here. There's plenty of blame to go around on both sides, but there are several Republicans you CAN'T say stood by and did nothing - that was all democrats.
Slashdot Mirror
Not just that, I can imagine that the life expectancy in those areas was limited anyway, so you could die without knowing you ever had it or it ever really affecting you.
Leave off, you idiot. Marines are Marines, and it doesn't matter the when, where, or what administration. You stand free because those REAL men are willing to do violence on your behalf.
One of the best "Junkyard Wars" moments - background not in focus, with the team member in front stating, "yeah, we got Bobby here doing some fine-tune adjustments to the motor" - leading to focus on Bobby in the background whaling away on the engine with a sledge hammer...
/raises glass, to the defenders of Freedom.
(Rough quote, probably not quite all the way accurate).
Schiavone: The answer is easy as two plus two!
Heenan: Five!
Schiavone: Two plus two is FOUR, Bobby...
Heenan: Not if you get the deal...
That's just about the classic selenoid-repair method for pretty much anything. Works similar on cars - if your battery is good and it won't turn over, thwack the selenoid before heading to the starter.
Ah, just give it good ol' emergency repair plan "A." If that doesn't work, send up Richard Dean Andersen with some duct tape.
Like I said, there are some states (Nebraska and Maine) who divide them depending on the proportional vote within the state; there are also the OCCASIONAL "faithless electors", but they've rarely - if ever - mattered, particularly in recent history.
http://www.fairvote.org/e_college/faithless.htm has a list and breakdown. It's really a non-issue, and I believe there are several states that may have laws against doing it.
Citizens within a state are actually voting for a "slate" of electors for their state who are committed to voting for whoever wins that state. Occasionally, there are a few states who divide those electoral votes proportionally.
I know it sounds a little off, but what it protects is the rural/suburban voter and the states with smaller populations, so that they have a say in the overall process. It helps put the state of Iowa, for example, on a little more equal footing with New York with its higher population. It also helps keep candidates from completely pandering to high-population urban areas and ignoring the rest of us. Its main problem is that it could be more proportional (divide electoral college votes proportionally within a state rather than winner-take-all), and tends to relegate the final outcome to a handful of states (Florida in 2000, Ohio 2004).
I'm partway with you on those, but what the government is currently proposing is beyond all this. I actually think that what went on was already partly illegal, and the regulators (who is NOT a conservative, mind you) just let a lot of it slide because times were supposedly going so well. Predatory loans ARE illegal, particularly all the tricks that were being played downstream. There was real fraud going on, and I do wonder why some of the agencies didn't get sued. Of course, there's hardly a point as all the money is gone...and at least you aren't blaming the low interest rates (which is the most idiotic argument - it wasn't the rates, it was the people scamming).
What you are saying is about rules that were already there, but nothing was being enforced - and make sure you compare this to the dot-com boom and savings and loan issues - it's NOT the rules, it's usually the enforcement. Both parties are quite good at rule-making, but also for letting things get out of hand because the money is rolling in. Make sure you're pointing the finger at Fannie and Freddie, too, who were moving more money to dems than republicans the entire time.
I'm with you in that the Republicans got WAY too soft when they were in power and didn't get enough - or really anything - done when they were there. I'm partially in agreeance with you on the results side; however, I look at the alternative. I DON'T want left-leaning responses to this problem. Their solutions got us the RESULTS you're looking at today, combined with the right's inaction.
What you are advocating is putting in charge people who don't have the right answers simply because the ones you ideologically agree with failed at theirs. There's a disconnect there, somewhere, and you don't see it. Are you willing to betray some core values you have to support ones you disagree with simply because it didn't work out?
You DO understand that Presidents don't write laws? And that Bush has been dealing with other probably more important issues than watching our pocketbook? And with all your complaints, you expect him to be competent enough to have managed the problem? Do you WANT more government control and intervention in the economy? Because that's EXACTLY what you're asking for.
Then you don't understand the power and influence of Senators - and the nature of the Senate as a big good ol' boys club. They can EASILY block legislation and favors are traded all the time, particularly ones who have been around a while.
Quick note - Fannie and Freddie bought more out of the market and should have known the product better. They also should have made better loans. They were ALWAYS mismanaged, and were poorly designed agencies that were GOING to fail in this type of situation.
Don't blame Bush when the "ownership society" idea came straight from the left from people who think that equal opportunity results in equal outcome, and then blames the system for failing. You WANT more government regulation and intervention in the markets? Because that's what you're asking for on these matters. It wasn't the rules that were crooked - it was the people playing, something that some can't seem to get over.
Yes, there was a LOT of dishonesty in the market, but to lay it at the feet of the Presidency when both houses of Congress were just as complicit in doing nothing or blocking certain reforms (as Dodd and Frank did) needs to be taken into consideration. Freddie and Fannie have been run poorly for a LONG time, and it took a pretty harsh financial lesson for that to finally come to light. The Bush administration actually TRIED to get certain reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and was blocked by the leftists in the Senate.
Actually, look at the dates posted. He was pushing for some reforms since 2001 - that's not exactly doing nothing...and, of course, there were a few more things going on during the Bush administration than just some bad mortgages being made. I'm not concluding there's no one to blame, but you're so caught up in your Bush-hate that you can't see how other people in the government - who were more involved with the details of the law - were just as responsible. The ones on the LEFT wrote these laws. The ones on the LEFT defended the entities. The ones on the LEFT pretended those fires were rain. Bush DID do some things - not enough, but the problem was NOT entirely ignored as you are making it out to be. The articles I posted are pretty clear about that. PLEASE tell me how they are wrong.
It's one of the reasons to vote for McCain - he's actually (at least acting like he's) doing something about it rather than debating further and deliberating.
Be careful. You're falling into the there's-one-person-to-blame trap that the pols are trying to trap you in for the political season. PLEASE keep in mind that much of the situation here lies in the laps of practically everyone in Washington and a good portion of the financial sector who went along with it. This wasn't just some scheme hatched by white rich republicans. The institutions that the left put in place are just as responsible for this mess.
"Mandate to be unbiased..."
You're kidding, right? Of course, that's the problem with journalism, is the deception that the human mind can be unbiased. Most journalists lean heavily left-of-center, and believe that their core "training" is the definition of objectivity. One thing I find rarely done is the realization that maybe they can never be truly objective...
You're partially correct. When times were going so good, Republicans typically took a back seat and let way too much slide when they were in power. Democrats, on the other hand, were ACTIVE when Fannie and Freddie were concerned in protecting them.
And yet again, you are underestimating the power and influence of the United States Senator. It's a BIG good ol' boys' club, and long-standing members have a lot of influence and power and are able to protect various of their interests. Take a CLOSE look at what the posts say about what the record says. Look at the facts presented, and you'll see that few Republicans were ACTIVE in protecting Fannie and Freddie as the Democrats were.
Please consider that simply because they're opinion pieces doesn't mean they're wrong....and show me some sort of counter-argument that disproves what I am finding.
Several facts:
Fannie and Freddie are government-created entities, and are not run nor structured like other private companies.
Washington policy, particularly centered around an "ownership society," loosened rules and practically forced some companies to make loans to poor people who couldn't afford them in the mistaken idea that it somehow creates equality.
Several senators - particularly Dodd and Sanders - continually blocked measures by the Bush administration to actually be responsible in their required oversight of Fannie and Freddie.
Heh, no problem.
I DO think we're smarter, though - we're not going to have such a massive crash that will take months/years to recover from. People would buy way too much when the market would be on the way down, and some of the big brokerages would take positions that would keep the market up. We also have a few more controls and limitations in the market (like the market stopping trades when things get out of hand) and the recent strategy of stopping some short sellers from trading certain stocks and actually enforcing rules on naked shorting.
I think my "Great Depression" mood is a reaction to some who are (or are trying to incite) panicking. The world won't end, and the USA is still going to be around. We got through it before, we'll get through it again. We'll just freakin' deal with it and don't worry so much.
Sweet. I'll take the biggest one and use it to play video games and watch movies.
And what miniscule percentage of those sites AREN'T spam/phishing/scamming of one form or another...
You're right on several accounts - the current situation can't be compared, and I don't think that it's a good 1929 correlation - we're smarter and there's more good (and bad) regulations standing there (though enforcement has been lax on some items like naked shorting).
I'm not saying things weren't bad during the depression - high unemployment by any metric, people losing what they had in banks, and so on, but you had to be pretty wealthy, and savvy, to invest in the stock market in those days - that particular crash effected people downstream more than anything else, particularly if you had your money in a bank that failed. Many - but not all - lost everything, but there were many who didn't have much to lose to begin with. Also, a bank could call a mortgage due at almost any time - even if you were paid up - in the midst of the panic, that's what happened.
The US may have taken longer to get out of it without the war, but what the Depression and the war DID do was drive us to a more productive industry-based rather than agriculture-based society, and generated more profit. We were going to come out of it one way or another, but it was difficult to see that at the time.
That being said, I still believe, while though awful, the Great Depression was overrated, to a point - particularly in that the world - and America in particular - DIDN'T end. A long term-view shows that it was the result of panic in the market, and that recovery was occurring (unemployment was dropping significantly before the war) within the decade.
Try http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-called-for-reform-of-fannie-mae.html/ for the initial list making the rounds. Much of it was executive-side trying to get congress to do something, but you're partly right about one thing - congress, as a whole, was ignoring it. However, Dodd, Sanders, and several on the left were shielding Fannie and Freddie from proper oversight.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091102841.html/ helps put it directly at some of the dem senators' feet.
One more. http://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-fannie-mae-five-five-key-players-who-broke-the-system/
And please...argue facts before you argue source here. There's plenty of blame to go around on both sides, but there are several Republicans you CAN'T say stood by and did nothing - that was all democrats.
Try http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-called-for-reform-of-fannie-mae.html/ for the initial list making the rounds. Much of it was executive-side trying to get congress to do something, but you're partly right about one thing - congress, as a whole, was ignoring it. However, Dodd, Sanders, and several on the left were shielding Fannie and Freddie from proper oversight.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091102841.html/ helps put it directly at some of the dem senators' feet.
One more. http://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-fannie-mae-five-five-key-players-who-broke-the-system/
And please...argue facts before you argue source here. There's plenty of blame to go around on both sides, but there are several Republicans you CAN'T say stood by and did nothing - that was all democrats.