Jordan is barely even cold, the 13th book hasn't been published yet, and everyone is already clambering to get wrist deep into his creative work and exploit it.
FREAKING AWESOME. I will joyously see every movie about the series no matter what kind of steaming pile they are. I'll probably buy most of the games too. Probably not the MMORPG though...
How strange, I can drive down the road from my house and look to the right every single day and see 3 dozen people sitting around doing nothing. I see these same people at the grocery store paying for things with food stamps. 20 of them are working age, healthy (based on them playing football and basketball in the yard) people. But none of them are working, or going to school. I've seen the same thing in Baltimore and DC. I've talked to a lot of other people who have also seen it. I know this is merely anecdotal evidence, but I believe that the burden of generational and career welfareists of all races is large enough that it will prevent any kind of socialist agenda from succeeding in the long term. The weight of those who refuse to contribute is just going to be too much for the rest of us to bear.
Bah! Socialism vs Fascism. And I voted for Fascism!
Hmmm... is there a voters remorse clause? I'm beginning to regret that....
Nah seriously. As caricatures of the candidates Obama is a Socialist, McCain is a Fascist. The reality is of course not so extreme, but as a general rule I agree with more of McCain's positions than Obama's and the economic policies of both have a lot to do with that, as do their positions on the second amendment.
Would you like the population numbers by racial breakdown or the welfare recipient numbers or what? Let me know which statistics you would like and I'll dig them up for you.
The following will be incredibly Racist, mod me accordingly:
The Nordic countries aren't full of career welfare blacks and disgusting white trash entitlement whores. The fact is, America has 300+ million people and too many of them don't actually contribute to the economy in any meaningful fashion. If you get rid of the noncons then you might make a socialist system work. But with millions of people who expect to DO NOTHING and have all of their needs provided for it just won't work.
Would you elect a brilliant and capable man who disagrees with your every fundamental value?
I would certainly not. The last thing I want is some genius who is filled with good intentions plunging us into socialism because he thinks he knows what's best for everyone else. Frankly I'd rather go to war with Iran.
Just because I say that those things are none of the governments business does not mean that the feds aren't digging their slimy fingers into all of them.
None of those things are any business of the government. Neither is healthcare. But you can bet your ass that they will jump in with both feet for the chance at increasing the amount of government control over the populace.
Insurance companies suck, I'd love to find one that acknowledges that there is a difference between a 2 person family and a 6 person family. As of right now if I wanted employer healthcare for me and my spouse it would cost me exactly the same as my co-workers healthcare for him, his spouse, and his 3 children. As two generally healthy adults we cost a lot less to cover than 3 children. But we pay the same amount. That sucks. Of course, healthcare isn't the governments business any more than housing, cars, or clothes are. If you believe the government should be providing you healthcare then you should also believe that the government should feed, clothe, and house you since those are more fundamental needs than healthcare. So, please stop your dirty socialist whining.
No, I'm still anti-wealth redistribution, BUT in the event that we can not abolish federal taxes completely then I prefer the Fair Tax because it rewards saving money, smart spending by buying used goods, and doesn't punish investing. It's all about CONTROL. The Fair Tax grants control of your tax burden back to you. If you buy a bunch of brand new luxury goods then you pay more tax than someone who buys second hand goods or saves their money. It's simply a better tax program than the existing one or the flat tax. But I would still prefer no federal taxes.
I like your false dichotomy, it displays your ignorance.
Tax consumption, not income. BUT, yes I favor abolishing federal tax. 90% of the things the feds currently handle should be taken care of on a state basis instead. If there is just NO WAY to return to a situation without federal taxes then I prefer the Fair Tax which is a tax on consumption of new items. The "Prebate" removes the tax burden from the poor and people who are smart and buy used goods and save their money can further reduce their own tax burden.
That's because Facism is just as expensive as Socialism, but Facists know that the people won't cooperate while Socialists seem to believe that everyone will willingly give up their time and money to support some lazy slob on the other side of the country.
Forced wealth redistribution is wrong on any level and for any reason. It is nothing more than government sponsored theft.
Punishing people for being successful is wrong on any level and for any reason. It encourages business owners to leave the country for greener pastures.
Our two choices both completely suck. Please don't try to pretend otherwise. Obama will plunge us into socialism, McCain will invade Iran at the first hint of opportunity.
Although not part of the CRA, in order to achieve similar aims the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government sponsored enterprises that purchase and securitize mortgages, to devote a percentage of their lending to support affordable housing.[7]
In October 1997, First Union Capital Markets and Bear, Stearns & Co launched the first publicly available securitization of Community Reinvestment Act loans, issuing $384.6 million of such securities. The securities were guaranteed by Freddie Mac and had an implied "AAA" rating.[18][19] The public offering was several times oversubscribed, predominantly by money managers and insurance companies who were not buying them for CRA credit.[20]
In October 2000, in order to expand the secondary market for affordable community-based mortgages and to increase liquidity for CRA-eligible loans, Fannie Mae committed to purchase and securitize $2 billion of "MyCommunityMortgage" loans.[21][22] In November 2000 Fannie Mae announced that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (âoeHUDâ) would soon require it to dedicate 50% of its business to low- and moderate-income families." It stated that since 1997 Fannie Mae had done nearly $7 billion in CRA business with depository institutions, but its goal was $20 billion.[19] In 2001 Fannie Mae announced that it had acquired $10 billion in specially-targeted Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans more than one and a half years ahead of schedule, and announced its goal to finance over $500 billion in CRA business by 2010, about one third of loans anticipated to be financed by Fannie Mae during that period.[23]
It looks like the CRA actually had quite a lot to do with large numbers of sub prime mortgage securities being improperly rated and sold. Which is the basis of the current financial crisis after the people who obtained those loans began to default on them devaluing those securities. The bottom line is that legislating that banks take on increased risk in order to provide loans to people who are unlikely to be able to pay them back was a bad idea. The banks tried to offload that risk onto other investors and because of the misrating of the mortgages they succeeded.
That decision was made as a way to hopefully recoup some of the inevitable losses when the poor undeserving people couldn't pay their mortgages. The actual problem was that some idiot rated those securities as AAA investments.
The ROOT cause is the 1992 issue. Everything else springs out of that. Had that legislative change not been made we would not have seen this kind of problem.
Do any of you idiots who say this actually know the root cause of the current financial implosion? It's a damned housing bill from the early 90s (Clinton years) which forced lenders to offer mortgages to lower income minorities whether they could afford those mortgages or not. That compulsion spawned huge growth in the housing market and an entire industry built around buying and selling those mortgages and the associated real-estate as well as cashing in on the inflated housing prices caused by the increased demand. When those low income people suddenly couldn't afford to pay for their federally mandated loans anymore the bottom dropped out of everything. So don't blame economists, or the free market, or running the country like a business for any of this shit. Blame the entitlement minded idiots that insisted that "greedy" banks give loans to people who couldn't afford them.
Community Reinvestment Act. Suck it bitches. Relevant text is from the 1992 legislative changes. Enjoy.
I do this too. I use TVU, surfthechannel.com and the NBC/CBS online episodes and they look just fine in a little 640x480 section of my screen while I have a web browser and pidgin and whatever else I'm doing open on the rest of the screen(s). I wouldn't stream it out to a projector 100" wide, but it's perfect for what I do use it for.
Slashdot Mirror
Jordan is barely even cold, the 13th book hasn't been published yet, and everyone is already clambering to get wrist deep into his creative work and exploit it.
FREAKING AWESOME. I will joyously see every movie about the series no matter what kind of steaming pile they are. I'll probably buy most of the games too. Probably not the MMORPG though...
This is a reference to the movie The Big Hit and a conversation involve Tracers, Trace Busters, Trace Buster Busters, etc....
I was loading guns....
How strange, I can drive down the road from my house and look to the right every single day and see 3 dozen people sitting around doing nothing. I see these same people at the grocery store paying for things with food stamps.
20 of them are working age, healthy (based on them playing football and basketball in the yard) people.
But none of them are working, or going to school. I've seen the same thing in Baltimore and DC. I've talked to a lot of other people who have also seen it. I know this is merely anecdotal evidence, but I believe that the burden of generational and career welfareists of all races is large enough that it will prevent any kind of socialist agenda from succeeding in the long term. The weight of those who refuse to contribute is just going to be too much for the rest of us to bear.
Generational Welfare and Career Welfare is a large enough portion of the welfare rolls that it constitutes a serious problem.
http://www.urban.org/publications/900288.html
The information is about a decade old, but it's the most comprehensive I could find on short notice.
Bah! Socialism vs Fascism. And I voted for Fascism!
Hmmm... is there a voters remorse clause? I'm beginning to regret that....
Nah seriously. As caricatures of the candidates Obama is a Socialist, McCain is a Fascist.
The reality is of course not so extreme, but as a general rule I agree with more of McCain's positions than Obama's and the economic policies of both have a lot to do with that, as do their positions on the second amendment.
Would you like the population numbers by racial breakdown or the welfare recipient numbers or what?
Let me know which statistics you would like and I'll dig them up for you.
I think a 30 day margin of error over that time period is pretty damn good considering they were doing their calculations with giant rocks...
The following will be incredibly Racist, mod me accordingly:
The Nordic countries aren't full of career welfare blacks and disgusting white trash entitlement whores.
The fact is, America has 300+ million people and too many of them don't actually contribute to the economy in any meaningful fashion. If you get rid of the noncons then you might make a socialist system work. But with millions of people who expect to DO NOTHING and have all of their needs provided for it just won't work.
Would you elect a brilliant and capable man who disagrees with your every fundamental value?
I would certainly not. The last thing I want is some genius who is filled with good intentions plunging us into socialism because he thinks he knows what's best for everyone else. Frankly I'd rather go to war with Iran.
Just because I say that those things are none of the governments business does not mean that the feds aren't digging their slimy fingers into all of them.
None of those things are any business of the government. Neither is healthcare. But you can bet your ass that they will jump in with both feet for the chance at increasing the amount of government control over the populace.
Insurance companies suck, I'd love to find one that acknowledges that there is a difference between a 2 person family and a 6 person family.
As of right now if I wanted employer healthcare for me and my spouse it would cost me exactly the same as my co-workers healthcare for him, his spouse, and his 3 children.
As two generally healthy adults we cost a lot less to cover than 3 children. But we pay the same amount. That sucks.
Of course, healthcare isn't the governments business any more than housing, cars, or clothes are. If you believe the government should be providing you healthcare then you should also believe that the government should feed, clothe, and house you since those are more fundamental needs than healthcare.
So, please stop your dirty socialist whining.
No, I'm still anti-wealth redistribution, BUT in the event that we can not abolish federal taxes completely then I prefer the Fair Tax because it rewards saving money, smart spending by buying used goods, and doesn't punish investing. It's all about CONTROL. The Fair Tax grants control of your tax burden back to you.
If you buy a bunch of brand new luxury goods then you pay more tax than someone who buys second hand goods or saves their money. It's simply a better tax program than the existing one or the flat tax. But I would still prefer no federal taxes.
Never said he did. His name just got tagged onto it. That makes him no less interesting.
I like your false dichotomy, it displays your ignorance.
Tax consumption, not income. BUT, yes I favor abolishing federal tax. 90% of the things the feds currently handle should be taken care of on a state basis instead. If there is just NO WAY to return to a situation without federal taxes then I prefer the Fair Tax which is a tax on consumption of new items. The "Prebate" removes the tax burden from the poor and people who are smart and buy used goods and save their money can further reduce their own tax burden.
That's because Facism is just as expensive as Socialism, but Facists know that the people won't cooperate while Socialists seem to believe that everyone will willingly give up their time and money to support some lazy slob on the other side of the country.
I have to say, I love Dr. Kamerschen. He's the most interesting Econ Prof you will ever take a class from and is in every way just plain brilliant.
A Vote for Obama is a Vote for Socialism.
Forced wealth redistribution is wrong on any level and for any reason. It is nothing more than government sponsored theft.
Punishing people for being successful is wrong on any level and for any reason. It encourages business owners to leave the country for greener pastures.
Our two choices both completely suck. Please don't try to pretend otherwise.
Obama will plunge us into socialism, McCain will invade Iran at the first hint of opportunity.
All absolutely true and I agree. But it's also not accurate to say that the CRA had nothing to do with the situation.
Debunked you say?
Legislative changes 1992
Although not part of the CRA, in order to achieve similar aims the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government sponsored enterprises that purchase and securitize mortgages, to devote a percentage of their lending to support affordable housing.[7]
In October 1997, First Union Capital Markets and Bear, Stearns & Co launched the first publicly available securitization of Community Reinvestment Act loans, issuing $384.6 million of such securities. The securities were guaranteed by Freddie Mac and had an implied "AAA" rating.[18][19] The public offering was several times oversubscribed, predominantly by money managers and insurance companies who were not buying them for CRA credit.[20]
In October 2000, in order to expand the secondary market for affordable community-based mortgages and to increase liquidity for CRA-eligible loans, Fannie Mae committed to purchase and securitize $2 billion of "MyCommunityMortgage" loans.[21][22] In November 2000 Fannie Mae announced that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (âoeHUDâ) would soon require it to dedicate 50% of its business to low- and moderate-income families." It stated that since 1997 Fannie Mae had done nearly $7 billion in CRA business with depository institutions, but its goal was $20 billion.[19] In 2001 Fannie Mae announced that it had acquired $10 billion in specially-targeted Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans more than one and a half years ahead of schedule, and announced its goal to finance over $500 billion in CRA business by 2010, about one third of loans anticipated to be financed by Fannie Mae during that period.[23]
It looks like the CRA actually had quite a lot to do with large numbers of sub prime mortgage securities being improperly rated and sold. Which is the basis of the current financial crisis after the people who obtained those loans began to default on them devaluing those securities.
The bottom line is that legislating that banks take on increased risk in order to provide loans to people who are unlikely to be able to pay them back was a bad idea. The banks tried to offload that risk onto other investors and because of the misrating of the mortgages they succeeded.
I'd be interested to know that too, my power bill is almost always 200$/month....
That decision was made as a way to hopefully recoup some of the inevitable losses when the poor undeserving people couldn't pay their mortgages. The actual problem was that some idiot rated those securities as AAA investments.
The ROOT cause is the 1992 issue. Everything else springs out of that. Had that legislative change not been made we would not have seen this kind of problem.
Are you hiring? Any language requirements? What company? What kind of call center? Come on man, hook a brotha up!
Do any of you idiots who say this actually know the root cause of the current financial implosion?
It's a damned housing bill from the early 90s (Clinton years) which forced lenders to offer mortgages to lower income minorities whether they could afford those mortgages or not. That compulsion spawned huge growth in the housing market and an entire industry built around buying and selling those mortgages and the associated real-estate as well as cashing in on the inflated housing prices caused by the increased demand.
When those low income people suddenly couldn't afford to pay for their federally mandated loans anymore the bottom dropped out of everything.
So don't blame economists, or the free market, or running the country like a business for any of this shit. Blame the entitlement minded idiots that insisted that "greedy" banks give loans to people who couldn't afford them.
Community Reinvestment Act. Suck it bitches.
Relevant text is from the 1992 legislative changes. Enjoy.
I do this too. I use TVU, surfthechannel.com and the NBC/CBS online episodes and they look just fine in a little 640x480 section of my screen while I have a web browser and pidgin and whatever else I'm doing open on the rest of the screen(s). I wouldn't stream it out to a projector 100" wide, but it's perfect for what I do use it for.