That letter to the editor doesn't say anything of content, it only links to a study from early 2008. I'll have to read that study, however I'll note that much of the business for the guys behind the study depends on the continued existence of the CRA, so there's definitely the potential for conflict of interest. I'll also note that in their conclusion, they freely admit that CRA Banks were only one quarter of the whole loan market. They make no comment on how much of the total US loan market consists of CRA Banks.
First of all, why are provisions having NOTHING AT ALL to do with the resolution being passed on that resolution.
It's worse than that. This bill was original about mental health. They simply got rid of all of the original bill, because they wanted to pass something ASAP, and filled it in with their bailout bullshit. Then the mental health bit was stuck back in as a side comment.
It's slimy.
Indeed. Any rational congressman would consider the addition of pork a reason not to vote for a bill. These guys clearly have little experience with using their mind rationally.
Wow, brilliant analysis! Did you construct those sentences all by yourself, or did you get help?
Simple rebuttal: you've characterized me as a lunatic, you've characterized that prof as a wack, you've stated the opposite of my conclusion, but you have not backed up either of your characterizations or your statement with any evidence or rationale.
You've got bald assertions. Frame them and hang em on your wall.
It is rational to suck and store/invest as much of it as possible, the same as you would with any other source of income.
No, it is convenient, not rational. Your survival is based on the forced acquisition of the fruit of other people's labor. You only contribute to bringing the system down, reducing the likelihood of the fulfillment of your goals and furthering of your values, increasing the acceptability of government-backed rights violations.
Once the child is born, it no longer burdens the mother by its very existence - others may raise it in her place, so it is more independent than a fetus. By choosing to bring it into this world, rather than abort it early, the mother accepts an obligation to see that it is cared for, either by herself, or by someone else.
I will admit that these seem like gray areas, t only because our lack of knowledge regarding the mind of the fetus. But what we can say for sure is that the mother definitely does have a mind capable of rational decision toward her self-interest, and thus definitely does have rights. Until we can definitely say otherwise about fetuses at the later stages of pregnancy, the mother's rights must always be upheld, as that is the only proper role of a government.
"I still claim that it's consistent to believe in an absolutely minimal government which bans abortions."
So explain why. I believe the end result of such a ban would be massive numbers of women dying trying to commit abortions in private, and lots of other mothers and doctors being sent to prison for decades (if, after all, a fertilized egg or fetus is a person, it must be treated as severely as murder).
because it's really a debate about the definition of "citizenry".
To claim that such a debate exists is to misunderstand, or have no understanding, of the origin of rights. Humans are the only species with free will. You can choose to live or to die. If you choose to live, it is right for you to use your rational mind to further your values and goals, unimpeded by others, and independent of others. A fetus has no free will, no choice, no rational mind, and most importantly, it is not independent. It is entirely dependent on the mother. It is not an individual, and has no rights. Its existence is only right so long as it is in keeping with the goals and values of the mother that carries it, and only so long as that mother's goals and values are in keeping with her rational self-interest.
The US has a mixed economy. Our currency is based on a perception of value (no more gold standard). We like for a market to be as unregulated as possible, but for any number of reasons sectors of the economy will have regulations (from health codes, to OSHA, to Sarbanes/Oxley).
The fact that regulations exist does not justify their existence, or the creation of more regulations.
But because the general public has the *perception* that this is "the worst economic crisis since the depression" then something had to be done.
So you're making excuses for irrationality now? If people weren't so used to the government coming in and saving the day, they would have to inform themselves to have any hope of surviving in the market. All this bailout does is breed more irrationality, more dependence on the government, and expectation that the government will come in and save us from our bad decisions. You're breeding ignorance.
give some emergecy economic help to people who lost their homes
Thus telling them that if they make bad decisions, if they choose to turn off their brains when signing contracts, don't worry, the government will save the day. Nobody should be saved - that is the only way they can be saved.
I hate that this is how it works (and I know I'm oversimplifying), but it's true.
Again, reality doesn't justify itself by its existence alone. The only way people can be weaned off the government is to stop giving them the expectation that the government will bail them out. We've done the exact opposite.
"if you can suck on public teat, it is perfectly rational to do so and irrational to refuse."
Really? Is it rational to come to depend on public money? What happens if/when that money disappears, and you're left realizing you have no skills and cannot do anything but flip burgers at McDonald's. Suddenly all your values, all your goals go out the window, you can never hope to achieve them. There's nothing rational about that. It's as irrational as theft, because your future depends solely on your victim's willingness to play by your rules. As soon as they start playing by their rules, wanting their money back, or wanting to cut you off, you're screwed.
Everyone assumed an implicit guarantee, because the entities were created by the government and, much like the federal reserve, are deeply intertwined with the government.
So basically, government intervention in the market bred a market that believed in government intervention.
"A lie. Fannie Mae specifically didn't have any US backing on the paper it gave out."
What are you talking about???! The whole mortgage crisis was fueled by Fannie Mae's willingness to buy up low-income loans and automatically guarantee them with government money.
But the amount of gold doesn't change. Sure, you can redefine the amount of money that is equivalent to a pound of gold, but if you ramp up that number, prices automatically go up in turn. Under a fiat system, the money is only as strong as the government.
"How, exactly, is my ideology tied to George W Bush's?"
Any time I've seen your idiotic use of labels, "those damn liberals", it's always a Republican or someone co-opting the word "conservative" to support their own big government pet programs. Are you for the abolition of the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac, the Department of Education, making abortion legal, getting the church out of the state, reducing the role of the government down to its only proper role: to uphold and protect the rights of the citizenry, and that's it? Are you for all this? That is a conservative. Subscribe to anything else, even a mixed system, and you're merely resorting to principles when it is convenient, and violating/disregarding those principles when it is not convenient - pragmatism, in short. Moral and political pragmatism.
"And how is linking to the LA Times and Wikipedia and the Wall Street Journal "sticking to Fox News Bullet points"?
Any time I see someone label someone else a Liberal or a Conservative, without having a clue about their political stance (in this case, you got me as completely wrong as possible), it's because that individual is a braindead Dem or Rep spewing talking points.
"random story about how Bush is not Reagan."
What does that mean? Reagan was just as big of a joke as Bush. They're both for big government, while paying lip service to capitalism and freedom when it is convenient and politically profitable. When you learn to stop fooling for this idiocy, you'll understand what it means to have inalienable rights.
Yes, but you can't turn anything into gold. You can't make more gold. You can print paper money all day long, but you can pull another bar of gold out of your ass. That's the different between a currency based on a finite standard, and a fiat currency, the latter of which must ultimately fail.
Yes, it's a long article. It will require you to think and understand. That's how learning occurs. Or, you can continue with your idiotic Fox News bullet points.
"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."
Sorry, but you're an idiot. I consider myself more conservative than any Republican in the last 50 years. Both parties have become a joke - they're both pushing for a welfare-state. The words "Liberal" and "Conservative" have become synonymous. I won't be voting for either Obama or McCain, and certainly not some idiotic Libertarian candidate. They're all for the destruction of individual rights.
What the hell would make you do a self-destructive thing like that? Don't you value your rights, and the rights of your friends, family, and community?
My Rep said he was flooded with calls and letters from people about all the pork in the bill. When I called, I said my vote for him in November depended on him voting No for this bill.
They're not dumb, they're just evil. They have learned that they can get away with anything, and we'll allow it. No interest in principles, no interest in truth. This is the product of modern political and social pragmatism - a free-for-all, every man for himself. Lie, cheat, steal, whatever it takes to maintain your grasp on the teat of the American public tax pool. The alternative is to make it on your own, using your rational mind to survive and fulfill your goals; but, reason is outdated, obsolete.
I wrote my Senators and Rep repeatedly. Letters, faxes, emails, and phone calls. My Senators wouldn't listen, but my rep did, and voted No for exactly the right reasons. How about you?
Err... that assumes that the shore is actually a shore, and not just an floating piece of melting ice, which is what we got with the bailout on Friday. It cannot work, companies do not learn from their mistakes when the government is constantly willing to save their asses, and worst of all, we're all stuck with the bill. Have you written your $4,000 check to the government for this bailout yet?
Now, check out the $150 Billion in pork-barrel projects that were added by the Senate to the original 100-page bailout that failed in the House, turning it into a 450-page bailout:
- "Wooden arrows designed for use by children" (Sec 503)
- Wool Research (Sec. 325)
- Film and Television Productions (Sec. 502)
- Litigants in the 1989 Exxon-Valdez oil spill (Sec. 504)
- Virgin Island and Puerto Rican Rum (Section 308)
- American Samoa (Sec. 309)
- Mine Rescue Teams (Sec. 310)
- Mine Safety Equipment (Sec. 311)
- Domestic Production Activities in Puerto Rico (Sec. 312)
- Indian Tribes (Sec. 314, 315)
- Railroads (Sec. 316)
- Auto Racing Tracks (317)
- District of Columbia (Sec. 322)
This is the bill that senators are screaming about, saying "IT MUST BE PASSED OR DOOMSDAY!" Who believes them? And yet the bill easily breezed through Congress.
- "Wooden arrows designed for use by children" (Sec 503)
- Wool Research (Sec. 325)
- Film and Television Productions (Sec. 502)
- Litigants in the 1989 Exxon-Valdez oil spill (Sec. 504)
- Virgin Island and Puerto Rican Rum (Section 308)
- American Samoa (Sec. 309)
- Mine Rescue Teams (Sec. 310)
- Mine Safety Equipment (Sec. 311)
- Domestic Production Activities in Puerto Rico (Sec. 312)
- Indian Tribes (Sec. 314, 315)
- Railroads (Sec. 316)
- Auto Racing Tracks (317)
- District of Columbia (Sec. 322)
????
This is the bill that senators are screaming about, saying "IT MUST BE PASSED OR DOOMSDAY!" Who believes them? And yet the bill will easily breeze through Congress.
It's interesting... all the legislation is there, sitting, waiting for a Congress willing to uphold individual rights to come along, at which point these bills, already written and filed, can be recovered from the dustbin and passed en masse.
Slashdot Mirror
That letter to the editor doesn't say anything of content, it only links to a study from early 2008. I'll have to read that study, however I'll note that much of the business for the guys behind the study depends on the continued existence of the CRA, so there's definitely the potential for conflict of interest. I'll also note that in their conclusion, they freely admit that CRA Banks were only one quarter of the whole loan market. They make no comment on how much of the total US loan market consists of CRA Banks.
The US was on the gold standard during the Great Depression, remember?
And? The stock market crash turned into the Great Depression with increased government regulation that was supposed to fix the non-existent problem.
First of all, why are provisions having NOTHING AT ALL to do with the resolution being passed on that resolution.
It's worse than that. This bill was original about mental health. They simply got rid of all of the original bill, because they wanted to pass something ASAP, and filled it in with their bailout bullshit. Then the mental health bit was stuck back in as a side comment.
It's slimy.
Indeed. Any rational congressman would consider the addition of pork a reason not to vote for a bill. These guys clearly have little experience with using their mind rationally.
Wow, brilliant analysis! Did you construct those sentences all by yourself, or did you get help?
Simple rebuttal: you've characterized me as a lunatic, you've characterized that prof as a wack, you've stated the opposite of my conclusion, but you have not backed up either of your characterizations or your statement with any evidence or rationale.
You've got bald assertions. Frame them and hang em on your wall.
It is rational to suck and store/invest as much of it as possible, the same as you would with any other source of income.
No, it is convenient, not rational. Your survival is based on the forced acquisition of the fruit of other people's labor. You only contribute to bringing the system down, reducing the likelihood of the fulfillment of your goals and furthering of your values, increasing the acceptability of government-backed rights violations.
I will admit that these seem like gray areas, t only because our lack of knowledge regarding the mind of the fetus. But what we can say for sure is that the mother definitely does have a mind capable of rational decision toward her self-interest, and thus definitely does have rights. Until we can definitely say otherwise about fetuses at the later stages of pregnancy, the mother's rights must always be upheld, as that is the only proper role of a government.
"I still claim that it's consistent to believe in an absolutely minimal government which bans abortions."
So explain why. I believe the end result of such a ban would be massive numbers of women dying trying to commit abortions in private, and lots of other mothers and doctors being sent to prison for decades (if, after all, a fertilized egg or fetus is a person, it must be treated as severely as murder).
because it's really a debate about the definition of "citizenry".
To claim that such a debate exists is to misunderstand, or have no understanding, of the origin of rights. Humans are the only species with free will. You can choose to live or to die. If you choose to live, it is right for you to use your rational mind to further your values and goals, unimpeded by others, and independent of others. A fetus has no free will, no choice, no rational mind, and most importantly, it is not independent. It is entirely dependent on the mother. It is not an individual, and has no rights. Its existence is only right so long as it is in keeping with the goals and values of the mother that carries it, and only so long as that mother's goals and values are in keeping with her rational self-interest.
The US has a mixed economy. Our currency is based on a perception of value (no more gold standard). We like for a market to be as unregulated as possible, but for any number of reasons sectors of the economy will have regulations (from health codes, to OSHA, to Sarbanes/Oxley).
The fact that regulations exist does not justify their existence, or the creation of more regulations.
But because the general public has the *perception* that this is "the worst economic crisis since the depression" then something had to be done.
So you're making excuses for irrationality now? If people weren't so used to the government coming in and saving the day, they would have to inform themselves to have any hope of surviving in the market. All this bailout does is breed more irrationality, more dependence on the government, and expectation that the government will come in and save us from our bad decisions. You're breeding ignorance.
give some emergecy economic help to people who lost their homes
Thus telling them that if they make bad decisions, if they choose to turn off their brains when signing contracts, don't worry, the government will save the day. Nobody should be saved - that is the only way they can be saved.
I hate that this is how it works (and I know I'm oversimplifying), but it's true.
Again, reality doesn't justify itself by its existence alone. The only way people can be weaned off the government is to stop giving them the expectation that the government will bail them out. We've done the exact opposite.
"if you can suck on public teat, it is perfectly rational to do so and irrational to refuse."
Really? Is it rational to come to depend on public money? What happens if/when that money disappears, and you're left realizing you have no skills and cannot do anything but flip burgers at McDonald's. Suddenly all your values, all your goals go out the window, you can never hope to achieve them. There's nothing rational about that. It's as irrational as theft, because your future depends solely on your victim's willingness to play by your rules. As soon as they start playing by their rules, wanting their money back, or wanting to cut you off, you're screwed.
Everyone assumed an implicit guarantee, because the entities were created by the government and, much like the federal reserve, are deeply intertwined with the government.
So basically, government intervention in the market bred a market that believed in government intervention.
"A lie. Fannie Mae specifically didn't have any US backing on the paper it gave out."
What are you talking about???! The whole mortgage crisis was fueled by Fannie Mae's willingness to buy up low-income loans and automatically guarantee them with government money.
But the amount of gold doesn't change. Sure, you can redefine the amount of money that is equivalent to a pound of gold, but if you ramp up that number, prices automatically go up in turn. Under a fiat system, the money is only as strong as the government.
"How, exactly, is my ideology tied to George W Bush's?"
Any time I've seen your idiotic use of labels, "those damn liberals", it's always a Republican or someone co-opting the word "conservative" to support their own big government pet programs. Are you for the abolition of the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac, the Department of Education, making abortion legal, getting the church out of the state, reducing the role of the government down to its only proper role: to uphold and protect the rights of the citizenry, and that's it ? Are you for all this? That is a conservative. Subscribe to anything else, even a mixed system, and you're merely resorting to principles when it is convenient, and violating/disregarding those principles when it is not convenient - pragmatism, in short. Moral and political pragmatism.
"And how is linking to the LA Times and Wikipedia and the Wall Street Journal "sticking to Fox News Bullet points"?
Any time I see someone label someone else a Liberal or a Conservative, without having a clue about their political stance (in this case, you got me as completely wrong as possible), it's because that individual is a braindead Dem or Rep spewing talking points.
"random story about how Bush is not Reagan."
What does that mean? Reagan was just as big of a joke as Bush. They're both for big government, while paying lip service to capitalism and freedom when it is convenient and politically profitable. When you learn to stop fooling for this idiocy, you'll understand what it means to have inalienable rights.
Yes, but you can't turn anything into gold. You can't make more gold. You can print paper money all day long, but you can pull another bar of gold out of your ass. That's the different between a currency based on a finite standard, and a fiat currency, the latter of which must ultimately fail.
Read this, and find out why you're no more conservative than even Ralph Nader:
The Decline and Fall of American Conservatism
Yes, it's a long article. It will require you to think and understand. That's how learning occurs. Or, you can continue with your idiotic Fox News bullet points.
"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."
Sorry, but you're an idiot. I consider myself more conservative than any Republican in the last 50 years. Both parties have become a joke - they're both pushing for a welfare-state. The words "Liberal" and "Conservative" have become synonymous. I won't be voting for either Obama or McCain, and certainly not some idiotic Libertarian candidate. They're all for the destruction of individual rights.
"I'd vote for the Greens"
What the hell would make you do a self-destructive thing like that? Don't you value your rights, and the rights of your friends, family, and community?
My Rep said he was flooded with calls and letters from people about all the pork in the bill. When I called, I said my vote for him in November depended on him voting No for this bill.
"Bushtards, every single one of them."
They're not dumb, they're just evil. They have learned that they can get away with anything, and we'll allow it. No interest in principles, no interest in truth. This is the product of modern political and social pragmatism - a free-for-all, every man for himself. Lie, cheat, steal, whatever it takes to maintain your grasp on the teat of the American public tax pool. The alternative is to make it on your own, using your rational mind to survive and fulfill your goals; but, reason is outdated, obsolete.
I wrote my Senators and Rep repeatedly. Letters, faxes, emails, and phone calls. My Senators wouldn't listen, but my rep did, and voted No for exactly the right reasons. How about you?
Err... that assumes that the shore is actually a shore, and not just an floating piece of melting ice, which is what we got with the bailout on Friday. It cannot work, companies do not learn from their mistakes when the government is constantly willing to save their asses, and worst of all, we're all stuck with the bill. Have you written your $4,000 check to the government for this bailout yet?
First, let's understand what caused this crisis. Then you'll understand why the bailout won't work.
Economist: Why Bankruptcy is better than bailout
The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities ( written EIGHT YEARS before this crisis, predicting everything down to the dollar amount)
Now, check out the $150 Billion in pork-barrel projects that were added by the Senate to the original 100-page bailout that failed in the House, turning it into a 450-page bailout:
- "Wooden arrows designed for use by children" (Sec 503)
- Wool Research (Sec. 325)
- Film and Television Productions (Sec. 502)
- Litigants in the 1989 Exxon-Valdez oil spill (Sec. 504)
- Virgin Island and Puerto Rican Rum (Section 308)
- American Samoa (Sec. 309)
- Mine Rescue Teams (Sec. 310)
- Mine Safety Equipment (Sec. 311)
- Domestic Production Activities in Puerto Rico (Sec. 312)
- Indian Tribes (Sec. 314, 315)
- Railroads (Sec. 316)
- Auto Racing Tracks (317)
- District of Columbia (Sec. 322)
This is the bill that senators are screaming about, saying "IT MUST BE PASSED OR DOOMSDAY!" Who believes them? And yet the bill easily breezed through Congress.
Why does the Senate bailout bill have tax breaks for:
- "Wooden arrows designed for use by children" (Sec 503)
- Wool Research (Sec. 325)
- Film and Television Productions (Sec. 502)
- Litigants in the 1989 Exxon-Valdez oil spill (Sec. 504)
- Virgin Island and Puerto Rican Rum (Section 308)
- American Samoa (Sec. 309)
- Mine Rescue Teams (Sec. 310)
- Mine Safety Equipment (Sec. 311)
- Domestic Production Activities in Puerto Rico (Sec. 312)
- Indian Tribes (Sec. 314, 315)
- Railroads (Sec. 316)
- Auto Racing Tracks (317)
- District of Columbia (Sec. 322)
????
This is the bill that senators are screaming about, saying "IT MUST BE PASSED OR DOOMSDAY!" Who believes them? And yet the bill will easily breeze through Congress.
It's interesting... all the legislation is there, sitting, waiting for a Congress willing to uphold individual rights to come along, at which point these bills, already written and filed, can be recovered from the dustbin and passed en masse.
How long will it be?
To inform yourself about what is wrong with the bailout, and what caused the crisis in the first place, read these two excellent articles:
Economist: Why Bankruptcy is Better than Wall Street Bailout
The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities ( written EIGHT YEARS before this crisis , predicting everything down to the dollar amount)