Banks were not the institutions that made most of the bad loans.
FM & FM were actually very conservative, and, while they did buy up some of the bad loans, it was a very small percentage of them.
I'm not an expert on any of this, but the experts (including one Nobel prize winning economist on NPR just last night -- sorry, I don't pay attention to names) that I've listened have all said this.
No it doesn't. He hasn't actually made a threat ("I will beat Lori Drew with a tire iron"), and he hasn't shown the "means" to carry out the threat. He made a vague statement that if he were given five minutes alone with her and a tire iron, that something would happen.
I actually had a frat boy neighbor threaten me once. It was 4 AM and after being woken up repeatedly by their drunken idiocy (kept coming home, then leaving), I had had enough and went and told them to keep it quiet. The occupants then essentially said "you had better not come back and bother us any more or you'll regret it" (the exact wording escapes me; it's been years ago now.) I called the police to report the noise complaint and the threat, and the officer that showed up essentially told me that it can't even be considered a "threat" unless he was waving a gun or knife, or at the very least had clenched fists or made an aggressive gesture, and that he could do nothing about it.
So this is most definitely not even a threat, let alone an "assault".
Preface: I am not an economist, and I have never purchased a home. I'm a programmer, and I don't know jack shit about banking.
It is my understanding that FM & FM *do not* make loans. They buy loans from lending institutions.
It is also my understanding that FM & FM purchased a fairly small percentage of the "toxic" loans compared to other financial institutions who were using them as get-rich-quick schemes.
Of course, my understanding mostly comes from Marketplace on NPR, so it's almost certainly tainted by evil liberals.
That said, I think your argument is a load of BS. Let's look at your first post:
Actually, it was over-regulation that broke the US banking industry.
Then let's look at your most recent one:
However, to get this back to the original point, this was something that should have been regulated to prevent the problem from affecting more than just banking.
If they continue to treat all McCain voters by some sterotypical image of a bubba in backwoods somewhere, that is bad press and needs to be countered.
Yeah, we all saw what happened when the press rolled over and didn't call the neocons on their BS assertions that Bush detractors/anti war protesters were all tree hugging hippies who hated America and wanted our soldiers to die.
Everyone wants what's best for themselves and their country. The difference is only in how individuals believe the best can be achieved.
Lemme ask you -- when Clinton made his "depends on what the word 'is' means," were you so quick to jump to his defense based on minor nitpicks?
Yep, she didn't break any laws, or even any ethics laws. Does that mean what she did was ethical?
Just because there's no law against a particular action *doesn't* mean that it's ok to do, or that you can't judge a person's character if they perform that action.
(For the record, IMO, getting a blowjob and lying about it, to the court, to the Pope, even to God himself: not unethical. Firing someone because they won't fire your in-laws: clearly unethical.)
I'll respectfully disagree. And this search brings up references to stores like this that suggest otherwise.
In the interest of fairness, this search doesn't really bring up anything to suggest otherwise, except lists of excuses and speculation, with no actual numbers to back them up. (e.g. "The democrats just inherit the years of prosperity and growth from the republican president that they replaced")
In recent history (last 50-100 years), the economy has fared far better under deomcratic presidents. The whole "republicans are good for the economy!" BS just doesn't hold true.
Seems cut and dried to me too, except for that whole "chain of custody" thing, and the fact that the landlord is trying to evict the guy, and planting child porn on someone's computer really wouldn't be very difficult once said computer is in their possession.
Chances are, the original owner was, in fact, the one who downloaded it, but we'll never know -- especially now that the authorities have botched the case by trying to subvert the guy's rights.
GP didn't advocate breaking the law. Realize that, and understand what he actually said, and maybe you'll understand why you're wrong and are racking up the Troll mods in this thread.
Here, I'll help: nobody (not even the evil heathen liberals) posting in the thread likes child molesters. You can safely make that assumption about every post you read.
I can't speak for all of us, but the Wii was the only system I was excited for in this generation.
360 and PS3: more of the same. I've played all those games to death. There was a chance for something new with the Wii, and while it hasn't been completely realized yet, there are still possibilities.
Generic FPS Sequel 4 (now with XBox Live micropayments and in-game ads!) is neither new, nor exciting.
How about we just define "winner" as whoever made the most money?
Nintendo is the big winner and Microsoft is a huge loser when you look at it that way, which is really the only relevant way to look at it, regardless of sales numbers. Sony did ok with the PS1/2 and is taking it in the teeth with the PS3.
Yeah, and the first couple of years of a console's life will always be the a) slowest and b) most expensive to manufacture. If you compare the first 2 years of sales of the Wii to the PS2, the Wii has sold roughly 150% more.
The largest volume of PS2s were sold after redesigns and improvements in manufacturing brought them down to much cheaper prices and in greater quantities.
The demand for the Wii has been absolutely unprecedented in the history of video game consoles.
9 points worth of insinuations and no substance. Try again.
You don't think that every capable McCain supporter isn't trying their hardest to dig up dirt (actual dirt, not just vague accusations) on Obama? You don't think we'd have heard something by now if there were anything significant to report?
If the news media were so biased towards Obama, why haven't they smeared McCain's character as being a spoiled brat who had to pull strings to get into the naval academy, an then barely managed to pass (5th from the bottom of his class of 900 students)? Why haven't we heard about how he crashed several of our planes? Why haven't we heard all about his confessions?
Oh -- right, they aren't relevant to his policy positions.
That said, he's still a privileged piece of shit. Obama may end up being a piece of shit too, but I like his policy better than McCain's.
Are you really that dense? When Obama says "Spread the wealth around", government services are exactly what he's talking about.
He doesn't mean, as many people seem to think, that he is going to tax the rich and use it to buy himself a nice Robin Hood suit, then skip through the streets of New Orleans and Detroit throwing handfuls of cash in the air, while Brave Sir Robin's men trail him playing merry tunes.
One should note, however, that Bush's handout checks were pretty much *exactly* that, minus the costume and the minstrels. Did you have a problem with his redistribution of wealth?
Maybe the reason that those governments failed their citizens was because they were corrupt, and it had nothing to do with their being socialist?
Oh, that doesn't support your central thesis, so we'll just disregard that possibility. Down with the pinko commies!
BTW: I'm all for smaller government, but you'll probably group me with those "leftists" who want to take your stuff anyway, so you can disregard my opinion too.
There are lots of thieves out there. The worst ones are the ones stealing the money we make before we even see it, and "redistributing" it to others "who need it more". Only after, of course, they have taken a major part of it for themselves and/or their agendas. Give me a fscking break.
Good job not toeing a line with alarmist rhetoric, there.
You saved $500,000 in 5 years by saving $1000/year on cable, $1600/year in communications, and $1000/year on laptops? Seems to me that the reason you were able to save that much is *probably* because you make more than enough money to begin with.
Explain to me how someone making $16,000/yr is going to save up these piles of cash that you seem to advocate to pay for all their medical expenses. My guess is that they won't be able to, and so they'll go to the emergency room (where they can't be denied care), then not be able to pay for it, which will drive the overall cost of health care up to cover it, which all ends up back on *us,* the paying customers, anyway.
So, one way or the other, we get to pay for it. Would you rather pay for a $75 office visit (covered by their evil socialist healthcare plan -- i.e. us), or a $750 emergency room visit (covered by... us)?
I realize that you never made an endorsement of either candidate, but your comment made me curious, so I googled for "VP debate speaking grade level" and found this Global Language Monitor report.
The only major differences in their statistics were that Palin used more words per sentence, Biden spoke more total words overall, Biden used passive voice 5% of the time while Palin's was 8%, and Biden's was slightly easier to read.
All their "grade level" algorithm seems to take into account is sentence length. Not coherence. Not word choice. Certainly not content. Check the "18.3 grade level" gem I got from this CNN article:
What I would do, also, if that were ever to happen, though, is to continue the good work he is so committed to of putting government back on the side of the people and get rid of the greed and corruption on Wall Street and in Washington.
Sounds like utter, rambling nonsense to me, which really makes one put very little faith in some sort of algorithm that rewards it.
No, the 'left' is fully aware of this problem. What you, and many others, seem to ignore is that these corporations want to do business in the US, while not having to contribute their fair share to the economy.
The middle class pays an enormous percentage of taxes relative to their income. That provides things like schools, roads, police and military forces, a legal system, and other niceties of a western civilization. Corporate interests, and the wealthy in general, try very, very hard to pay as little as possible into the system, while still reaping all of the benefits.
Now, I understand that life isn't fair. I don't expect that everyone will ever pay a 100% equitable share. However, the system that we have may not be *sustainable*, because people on the top have copped out on their share (in both taxes and simple things like acting responsibly) to the point that the whole thing is teetering on the brink of collapse (or so the news tells me).
So, sure, let Facebook and all the others dodge taxes for as long as they want, and siphon as many dollars out of peoples' pockets as they can to offshore locations. Eventually the system will collapse because so many jobs and dollars leave for Ireland, and you can say "I told you so" forever. My question to you, that *you* don't seem to consider, is that if we lower taxes (how low? 10%? 8%? 0%?) to the point that businesses are willing to stay here, but the system *still* collapses because they aren't ultimately paying enough back, how is that functionally any different? At that point do I get to say "I told you so", or do you just keep coming back with "but with lower taxes, everything would have magically worked out!"?
Personally, I'd rather just attack the root of the problem, which is that some people seem to have no problem with taking and taking and taking, living like kings all the while, and then bitch and moan when asked to contribute a bit back to the system that made them so rich in the first place.
No.... Greyskull was the home of the Sorceress. He Man was actually Adam, who lived in the Eternia palace.
At least, that's how I remember it. I can't click the Wikipedia link or I'll certainly get lost in a maze of articles about He Man, G.I. Joe, Thundercats, and all my other childhood favorites.
So, Clinton's response to '93 WTC bombing: cost to us, essentially nothing. His response to USS Cole: cost to use, essentially nothing.
Bush's response to WTC attack... Cost to us: hundreds of billions of dollars, thousands of US soldiers dead, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead.
Not to mention all that "hard earned money" going to Halliburton, rather than some poor person. I guess maybe Halliburton doesn't count as 'lazy' in your eyes, which makes it ok for them to receive government welfare?
In your analogy, even if the software worked perfectly the first time, people would still be "testing" it by just using it. For a textbook, the review for accuracy and clarity would, presumably, be done by the professors who would be using the material. If was written perfectly clear and accurately the first time, there would be no "testing" that needed to be done, right?
You seem to be arguing that there's no way to KNOW that a text is clear and accurate without review, yet somehow it's possible to KNOW that software works as intended with no testing. I think that a) that's irrelevant and b) stupid. Of course you can't know if software works correctly without using it, and in the process, testing it.
And here, I'll sign my name to it. You're definitely an asshole.
The problem is that you can't get TW cable *without* renting a box from them. I actually tried this last spring -- I have a nice 2-tuner TV with side by side picture out of picture, which is much better than the shitty Motorola cable boxes that TW rents. I asked to start up cable service, but I didn't want or need a cable box. Unfortunately, their system *does not allow* them to bill someone for cable alone without the box.
Your lesson in basic economics and business management was very nice, but completely irrelevant to the topic.
Slashdot Mirror
To respond to your typical "damn libs" points:
Banks were not the institutions that made most of the bad loans.
FM & FM were actually very conservative, and, while they did buy up some of the bad loans, it was a very small percentage of them.
I'm not an expert on any of this, but the experts (including one Nobel prize winning economist on NPR just last night -- sorry, I don't pay attention to names) that I've listened have all said this.
--Jeremy
No it doesn't. He hasn't actually made a threat ("I will beat Lori Drew with a tire iron"), and he hasn't shown the "means" to carry out the threat. He made a vague statement that if he were given five minutes alone with her and a tire iron, that something would happen.
I actually had a frat boy neighbor threaten me once. It was 4 AM and after being woken up repeatedly by their drunken idiocy (kept coming home, then leaving), I had had enough and went and told them to keep it quiet. The occupants then essentially said "you had better not come back and bother us any more or you'll regret it" (the exact wording escapes me; it's been years ago now.) I called the police to report the noise complaint and the threat, and the officer that showed up essentially told me that it can't even be considered a "threat" unless he was waving a gun or knife, or at the very least had clenched fists or made an aggressive gesture, and that he could do nothing about it.
So this is most definitely not even a threat, let alone an "assault".
--Jeremy
Preface: I am not an economist, and I have never purchased a home. I'm a programmer, and I don't know jack shit about banking.
It is my understanding that FM & FM *do not* make loans. They buy loans from lending institutions.
It is also my understanding that FM & FM purchased a fairly small percentage of the "toxic" loans compared to other financial institutions who were using them as get-rich-quick schemes.
Of course, my understanding mostly comes from Marketplace on NPR, so it's almost certainly tainted by evil liberals.
That said, I think your argument is a load of BS. Let's look at your first post:
Then let's look at your most recent one:
Make up your mind, then get back to us.
--Jeremy
It's deja vu all over again!!
You mean another 8 years of economic growth and (relative) peace?
Count me in.
--Jeremy
Yeah, we all saw what happened when the press rolled over and didn't call the neocons on their BS assertions that Bush detractors/anti war protesters were all tree hugging hippies who hated America and wanted our soldiers to die.
Everyone wants what's best for themselves and their country. The difference is only in how individuals believe the best can be achieved.
--Jeremy
Lemme ask you -- when Clinton made his "depends on what the word 'is' means," were you so quick to jump to his defense based on minor nitpicks?
Yep, she didn't break any laws, or even any ethics laws. Does that mean what she did was ethical?
Just because there's no law against a particular action *doesn't* mean that it's ok to do, or that you can't judge a person's character if they perform that action.
(For the record, IMO, getting a blowjob and lying about it, to the court, to the Pope, even to God himself: not unethical. Firing someone because they won't fire your in-laws: clearly unethical.)
--Jeremy
I'll respectfully disagree. And this search brings up references to stores like this that suggest otherwise.
In the interest of fairness, this search doesn't really bring up anything to suggest otherwise, except lists of excuses and speculation, with no actual numbers to back them up. (e.g. "The democrats just inherit the years of prosperity and growth from the republican president that they replaced")
In recent history (last 50-100 years), the economy has fared far better under deomcratic presidents. The whole "republicans are good for the economy!" BS just doesn't hold true.
--Jeremy
Seems cut and dried to me too, except for that whole "chain of custody" thing, and the fact that the landlord is trying to evict the guy, and planting child porn on someone's computer really wouldn't be very difficult once said computer is in their possession.
Chances are, the original owner was, in fact, the one who downloaded it, but we'll never know -- especially now that the authorities have botched the case by trying to subvert the guy's rights.
--Jeremy
GP didn't advocate breaking the law. Realize that, and understand what he actually said, and maybe you'll understand why you're wrong and are racking up the Troll mods in this thread.
Here, I'll help: nobody (not even the evil heathen liberals) posting in the thread likes child molesters. You can safely make that assumption about every post you read.
--Jeremy
I can't speak for all of us, but the Wii was the only system I was excited for in this generation.
360 and PS3: more of the same. I've played all those games to death. There was a chance for something new with the Wii, and while it hasn't been completely realized yet, there are still possibilities.
Generic FPS Sequel 4 (now with XBox Live micropayments and in-game ads!) is neither new, nor exciting.
--Jeremy
How about we just define "winner" as whoever made the most money?
Nintendo is the big winner and Microsoft is a huge loser when you look at it that way, which is really the only relevant way to look at it, regardless of sales numbers. Sony did ok with the PS1/2 and is taking it in the teeth with the PS3.
(I own both a 360 and a Wii, for the record)
--Jeremy
Yeah, and the first couple of years of a console's life will always be the a) slowest and b) most expensive to manufacture. If you compare the first 2 years of sales of the Wii to the PS2, the Wii has sold roughly 150% more.
The largest volume of PS2s were sold after redesigns and improvements in manufacturing brought them down to much cheaper prices and in greater quantities.
The demand for the Wii has been absolutely unprecedented in the history of video game consoles.
9 points worth of insinuations and no substance. Try again.
You don't think that every capable McCain supporter isn't trying their hardest to dig up dirt (actual dirt, not just vague accusations) on Obama? You don't think we'd have heard something by now if there were anything significant to report?
If the news media were so biased towards Obama, why haven't they smeared McCain's character as being a spoiled brat who had to pull strings to get into the naval academy, an then barely managed to pass (5th from the bottom of his class of 900 students)? Why haven't we heard about how he crashed several of our planes? Why haven't we heard all about his confessions?
Oh -- right, they aren't relevant to his policy positions.
That said, he's still a privileged piece of shit. Obama may end up being a piece of shit too, but I like his policy better than McCain's.
--Jeremy
Are you really that dense? When Obama says "Spread the wealth around", government services are exactly what he's talking about.
He doesn't mean, as many people seem to think, that he is going to tax the rich and use it to buy himself a nice Robin Hood suit, then skip through the streets of New Orleans and Detroit throwing handfuls of cash in the air, while Brave Sir Robin's men trail him playing merry tunes.
One should note, however, that Bush's handout checks were pretty much *exactly* that, minus the costume and the minstrels. Did you have a problem with his redistribution of wealth?
--Jeremy
By charging the OWNERS of the business who make in excess of $250k.
Do you see the distinction?
--Jeremy
Maybe the reason that those governments failed their citizens was because they were corrupt, and it had nothing to do with their being socialist?
Oh, that doesn't support your central thesis, so we'll just disregard that possibility. Down with the pinko commies!
BTW: I'm all for smaller government, but you'll probably group me with those "leftists" who want to take your stuff anyway, so you can disregard my opinion too.
--Jeremy
There are lots of thieves out there. The worst ones are the ones stealing the money we make before we even see it, and "redistributing" it to others "who need it more". Only after, of course, they have taken a major part of it for themselves and/or their agendas. Give me a fscking break.
Good job not toeing a line with alarmist rhetoric, there.
--Jeremy
It must really suck when a law you voted for doesn't work out the way you like.
The law of unintended results.
Law of unintended results? Is McCain old enough to have voted for that one, too?
--Jeremy
You saved $500,000 in 5 years by saving $1000/year on cable, $1600/year in communications, and $1000/year on laptops? Seems to me that the reason you were able to save that much is *probably* because you make more than enough money to begin with.
Explain to me how someone making $16,000/yr is going to save up these piles of cash that you seem to advocate to pay for all their medical expenses. My guess is that they won't be able to, and so they'll go to the emergency room (where they can't be denied care), then not be able to pay for it, which will drive the overall cost of health care up to cover it, which all ends up back on *us,* the paying customers, anyway.
So, one way or the other, we get to pay for it. Would you rather pay for a $75 office visit (covered by their evil socialist healthcare plan -- i.e. us), or a $750 emergency room visit (covered by ... us)?
--Jeremy
I realize that you never made an endorsement of either candidate, but your comment made me curious, so I googled for "VP debate speaking grade level" and found this Global Language Monitor report.
The only major differences in their statistics were that Palin used more words per sentence, Biden spoke more total words overall, Biden used passive voice 5% of the time while Palin's was 8%, and Biden's was slightly easier to read.
All their "grade level" algorithm seems to take into account is sentence length. Not coherence. Not word choice. Certainly not content. Check the "18.3 grade level" gem I got from this CNN article:
Sounds like utter, rambling nonsense to me, which really makes one put very little faith in some sort of algorithm that rewards it.
--Jeremy
No, the 'left' is fully aware of this problem. What you, and many others, seem to ignore is that these corporations want to do business in the US, while not having to contribute their fair share to the economy.
The middle class pays an enormous percentage of taxes relative to their income. That provides things like schools, roads, police and military forces, a legal system, and other niceties of a western civilization. Corporate interests, and the wealthy in general, try very, very hard to pay as little as possible into the system, while still reaping all of the benefits.
Now, I understand that life isn't fair. I don't expect that everyone will ever pay a 100% equitable share. However, the system that we have may not be *sustainable*, because people on the top have copped out on their share (in both taxes and simple things like acting responsibly) to the point that the whole thing is teetering on the brink of collapse (or so the news tells me).
So, sure, let Facebook and all the others dodge taxes for as long as they want, and siphon as many dollars out of peoples' pockets as they can to offshore locations. Eventually the system will collapse because so many jobs and dollars leave for Ireland, and you can say "I told you so" forever. My question to you, that *you* don't seem to consider, is that if we lower taxes (how low? 10%? 8%? 0%?) to the point that businesses are willing to stay here, but the system *still* collapses because they aren't ultimately paying enough back, how is that functionally any different? At that point do I get to say "I told you so", or do you just keep coming back with "but with lower taxes, everything would have magically worked out!"?
Personally, I'd rather just attack the root of the problem, which is that some people seem to have no problem with taking and taking and taking, living like kings all the while, and then bitch and moan when asked to contribute a bit back to the system that made them so rich in the first place.
--Jeremy
No .... Greyskull was the home of the Sorceress. He Man was actually Adam, who lived in the Eternia palace.
At least, that's how I remember it. I can't click the Wikipedia link or I'll certainly get lost in a maze of articles about He Man, G.I. Joe, Thundercats, and all my other childhood favorites.
--Jeremy
So, Clinton's response to '93 WTC bombing: cost to us, essentially nothing. His response to USS Cole: cost to use, essentially nothing.
Bush's response to WTC attack... Cost to us: hundreds of billions of dollars, thousands of US soldiers dead, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead.
Not to mention all that "hard earned money" going to Halliburton, rather than some poor person. I guess maybe Halliburton doesn't count as 'lazy' in your eyes, which makes it ok for them to receive government welfare?
--Jeremy
In your analogy, even if the software worked perfectly the first time, people would still be "testing" it by just using it. For a textbook, the review for accuracy and clarity would, presumably, be done by the professors who would be using the material. If was written perfectly clear and accurately the first time, there would be no "testing" that needed to be done, right?
You seem to be arguing that there's no way to KNOW that a text is clear and accurate without review, yet somehow it's possible to KNOW that software works as intended with no testing. I think that a) that's irrelevant and b) stupid. Of course you can't know if software works correctly without using it, and in the process, testing it.
And here, I'll sign my name to it. You're definitely an asshole.
--Jeremy
You really don't get it.
The problem is that you can't get TW cable *without* renting a box from them. I actually tried this last spring -- I have a nice 2-tuner TV with side by side picture out of picture, which is much better than the shitty Motorola cable boxes that TW rents. I asked to start up cable service, but I didn't want or need a cable box. Unfortunately, their system *does not allow* them to bill someone for cable alone without the box.
Your lesson in basic economics and business management was very nice, but completely irrelevant to the topic.
--Jeremy