The fraud doesn't happen on paper. The fraud happens when the mortgage broker misrepresents what's on the paper the person is signing. Things like balloon rates. This is he said she said, and very hard to prosecute.
Rich people use roads to, but the benefit comparatively less than poor people. Rich people pay more in taxes, and get less out. That is wealth redistribution.
The US has a government "of the people, by the people, for the people" the distinction between the government and the public is a semantic one only.
What's more, I'm not even arguing for welfare, I'm only arguing for the legitimacy of taxation as a policy. I have a feeling that when the tax man actually comes around you don't tell him to get fucked, but roll over like everyone else.
It's working swimmingly for France and Scandinavia though.
Public services are wealth redistribution. Your money and my money are pooled to make something we both want. If you make more than I make you pay more regardless of whether I gain more benefit from it. If you own a helicopter, and I flip burgers for a living, I gain from the road that connects my house to McDonald's, and you gain nothing, as you continue to fly from your estate in the 'burbs to your corporate office.
Public infrastructure enables you to make money, as such the public is entitled to a portion of your earnings. You couldn't make a dime without us, and we can't function without everybody anteing back up. Every time you go to the grocery store you benefit from farm subsidies and road subsidies, and your education didn't come without government funding. And we want (some of) what's ours.
Name one tax that isn't a form of wealth redistribution.
FWIW I think we need more redistribution and as soon as the GP can make some of his "hard earned money" without interacting with the rest of us tax paying citizens (who no doubt subsidize his work in one way or another) he can keep every penny he makes.
I didn't have to go all the way back to Hoover and FDR, it's just the most dramatic evidence of presidential actions affecting the economy in our entire history. In case you didn't notice, I mentioned Reagan - he also used his bully pulpit to make changes in the way the American economy functions. Also you're the one that used the word control - not me - I simply asked, "How's the economy working out for you."
My contention is that the Reaganomics and deregulation that the GOP has been pushing for the 2 decades have only helped to consolidate wealth among the wealthy. I believe that these policies have been disastrous for the middle class, and are currently in the process of blowing up in our faces. GOP advocated deregulation in the housing and investment banking industries is more responsible than any other factor in the current economic downturn, ahead even of Greenspan's stupidly low interest rates following the dot-com bust.
McCain wishes to continue these policies - not because he's a maverick, but because he's cowed to the pressure from the bizzaro wing of the party that thinks any tax cut in any economic situation is a good tax cut.
Changing the economy in Democratic parlance isn't about watching the Dow break 16000, it's about getting more money to the middle and lower classes. Barack Obama will do this by instituting social programs - most notably universal health care and by shifting the tax burden, which will reduce the expenses of working families. (which will also likely have the happy side effect of boosting consumer spending and driving up the dow.)
Yes, but McCain hasn't said HOW he's going to get Iraq in that kind of shape. Most people think that this is not a problem that can be solved by maintaining a troop presence.
Conditions haven't improved that much. Yes, last month was relatively less deadly, but the April death toll was a seven month high. That tells me Iraq isn't stable, and I'm not prepared to wait until it is.
Well if they answer the second question yes, they're not paying attention. If they answer that that the president doesn't influence the economy, it makes me wonder why they eat up, and regurgitate Reagan's (failed) economic policies. I also think they're a tad delusional if they don't think the president can use his bully pulpit to make major changes to the economy - see Hover and FDR.
If you vote Republican you're either in the top 2% income bracket or voting against your economic self interest. Even if you're ok voting against your economic self interest - and some are - you'd probably be pretty pissed that the republicans nationally haven't delivered on your social issue of choice.
To get to (most) republicans, all Obama has to do is ask, (a) how's the economy working out for you, and (b)did George W Bush make us safer from terrorists?
this is achieved in the article by suggesting that commercial anything requires placing restrictions on other peoples' software
That's not how I read it. The actual words of the article:
Any activity that leverages software for business advantage is likely to restrict the software's freedom
Which, I think, makes sense. If you are doing something to the software/hardware to gain a competitive advantage from GPL'd software you are probably violating the terms of the license.
I'd really like to hear some opinions on whether someone could be slammed even if MediaSentry downloaded the song.
My immediate thought is that by providing a copy of a song to an agent of the copyright holder you're not violating copyright (even if you didn't know it was an agent of the owner.) The thought being that any copy the copyright holder requests of their own IP can't be infringing. If true, that would seem to mean that the RIAA would have to prove that a transaction took place between two people - something technically significantly more difficult than just downloading a song, also something that would raise serious issues regarding trespassing/eavesdropping.
I tried playing, but got sick of the grind. I give it 2 weeks before someone comes out with a bot that does the work for you. The bot will ruin the balance, and no one will want to play anymore.
First, thanks for the information. Second, I'm astonished that Brownback isn't dutifully towing Bush's line. Since he is highly ranked in my list of least favorite senators, I assumed (my bad) that he couldn't possibly be even beginning to approach the right side of this issue.
That said, Brownback's criticism is very mild, basically saying we should hold hearings, and he voted yea on the deeply flawed Senate FISA bill that grants the telecoms immunity for their illegal spying on American citizens.
Oh don't get me wrong, I'm motivated by by maintaining civil liberties everywhere. My post was a remark on the hypocritical statement by (the arch-conservative) Sen. Brownback (R-KS) who is outraged by China's censorship but sees the monitoring of our electronic communication here in the US as essential for protecting our freedoms....
I wouldn't worry about it too much. Senator Brownback just wants the internet requests from American hotels to move unimpeded through the NSA operated rooms at the telecoms.
(I'd be much less depressed if I were going for a funny mod...)
In reality during the first term a representative is most vulnerable to being ousted, an incumbent always enjoys and advantage, but that advantage grows with time. In many cases a safe senior representative is more likely to vote his conscience than the freshman, who is more likely to pander for votes. (this of course cuts both ways, many a senior legislator votes his severely warped conscience because he doesn't fear being voted out.)
Being revocable "at any time" basically means a vote of no confidence. If the British parliamentary system has taught us anything it is that we are less likely to continue to confirm someone we don't like than we are to hold a vote to tell someone to screw off.
A morning radio show here has a running bit about the "shovel buddy," the friend you trust implicitly who comes to your house after you die to bury all your porn so your family doesn't stumble across it.
Sounds good to me, just so long as they don't put the "In Loving Memory of..." sticker on the back windshield.
Why that trend is successful is beyond me, I couldn't come up with a less appropriate memorial if I tried. Mobile, gas guzzling, temporary, ill maintained, destined to ultimately rust away on a scrap heap - is that what the memory of your (not you specifically, the people with the stickers) loved one means to you?
I live in an apartment, I didn't lose a dime (directly). Home-owners aren't the only losers, banks are losing in a big way too. We're bailing out the banks because we don't want to see what will happen to the economy if they start dropping like flies.
I don't see why we should bail out wall street for their shitty investments, but not help out the little guy.
The government should cover some of the loses in the housing market because they are partially directly responsible by throwing money at people, and partially indirectly responsible by enabling the lenders to rack up so much bad debt.
Were some people foolish, absolutely. Were some people greedy, most definitely. But most people who are losing their house were swindled to some extent or another.
The fed precipitated this whole mess by cutting the federal funds target rate to 1.0% in 2003. The fed in essence told the banks to lend money to anyone and everyone. The banks sold mortgages to everybody regardless of credit history, because they were betting that the value of their investments (homes) would continue to rise. As long as the value kept going up the banks couldn't lose. The people who bought these mortgages were told the same thing, your rate will increase in 5 years, but housing prices have never decreased, and as long as your home gains value you can refinance after the adjustment and lock in a low rate. THIS IS PREDATORY.
Since the fed and the banks made bad investments they should be forced to cover more of their piss poor investments. Yes, I know the banks are writing down billions of bad debt. They are eating part of the loses, but I think they should be eating more. Housing values went down for everyone because the banks couldn't be bothered to look beyond their quarterly earnings reports to realize that the growth they were driving in the housing market was not sustainable. Therefore even if you didn't take an ARM your are being punished for the bad invesments of the fed and the banking industry. When your neighbor can't make their mortgage and are foreclosed on, and your housing value goes down, and who's fault is that?
So what should be done? For a start a moratorium on foreclosures. The banks should be compelled to aggressively refinance sub-prime loans at lower rates. The fed should be very, very careful about lowering the rates any further, serious inflation is right around the corner, and it is the ridiculously low rates that got us into this mess to begin with. And finally, every major loan to a bank (e.g. the gift insuring Bear Stearn's crappy holdings) should come with strong open banking strings attached. If we're going to bail out banks, we should get something for it.
Oh, one more thing, do you propose we let the banks crash and burn? If so do you recognize the ripple effect that would have on the economy - that is precisely the kind of over-correction that caused the great depression and the entire rational for the fed's existence. If you think the banks should be bailed out, why do they get a gift, yet Joe Sixpack still gets foreclosed on? So either you don't do bail outs and let the death spiral of foreclosures, insolvency, and bankruptcy drive us into a deep, deep depression, or you let the government cover peoples asses.
Slashdot Mirror
The fraud doesn't happen on paper. The fraud happens when the mortgage broker misrepresents what's on the paper the person is signing. Things like balloon rates. This is he said she said, and very hard to prosecute.
Rich people use roads to, but the benefit comparatively less than poor people. Rich people pay more in taxes, and get less out. That is wealth redistribution.
The US has a government "of the people, by the people, for the people" the distinction between the government and the public is a semantic one only.
What's more, I'm not even arguing for welfare, I'm only arguing for the legitimacy of taxation as a policy. I have a feeling that when the tax man actually comes around you don't tell him to get fucked, but roll over like everyone else.
It's working swimmingly for France and Scandinavia though.
Public services are wealth redistribution. Your money and my money are pooled to make something we both want. If you make more than I make you pay more regardless of whether I gain more benefit from it. If you own a helicopter, and I flip burgers for a living, I gain from the road that connects my house to McDonald's, and you gain nothing, as you continue to fly from your estate in the 'burbs to your corporate office.
Public infrastructure enables you to make money, as such the public is entitled to a portion of your earnings. You couldn't make a dime without us, and we can't function without everybody anteing back up. Every time you go to the grocery store you benefit from farm subsidies and road subsidies, and your education didn't come without government funding. And we want (some of) what's ours.
Name one tax that isn't a form of wealth redistribution.
FWIW I think we need more redistribution and as soon as the GP can make some of his "hard earned money" without interacting with the rest of us tax paying citizens (who no doubt subsidize his work in one way or another) he can keep every penny he makes.
You missed the part where they dispatch the T-888 to the guy who ate the hamburger.
Now since the real goal is to disenfranchise certain groups, you might be interested to know
Of all Americans without a license:
Requiring photo ID disenfranchises traditionally democratic voters.
I didn't have to go all the way back to Hoover and FDR, it's just the most dramatic evidence of presidential actions affecting the economy in our entire history. In case you didn't notice, I mentioned Reagan - he also used his bully pulpit to make changes in the way the American economy functions. Also you're the one that used the word control - not me - I simply asked, "How's the economy working out for you."
My contention is that the Reaganomics and deregulation that the GOP has been pushing for the 2 decades have only helped to consolidate wealth among the wealthy. I believe that these policies have been disastrous for the middle class, and are currently in the process of blowing up in our faces. GOP advocated deregulation in the housing and investment banking industries is more responsible than any other factor in the current economic downturn, ahead even of Greenspan's stupidly low interest rates following the dot-com bust.
McCain wishes to continue these policies - not because he's a maverick, but because he's cowed to the pressure from the bizzaro wing of the party that thinks any tax cut in any economic situation is a good tax cut.
Changing the economy in Democratic parlance isn't about watching the Dow break 16000, it's about getting more money to the middle and lower classes. Barack Obama will do this by instituting social programs - most notably universal health care and by shifting the tax burden, which will reduce the expenses of working families. (which will also likely have the happy side effect of boosting consumer spending and driving up the dow.)
Yes, but McCain hasn't said HOW he's going to get Iraq in that kind of shape. Most people think that this is not a problem that can be solved by maintaining a troop presence.
Conditions haven't improved that much. Yes, last month was relatively less deadly, but the April death toll was a seven month high. That tells me Iraq isn't stable, and I'm not prepared to wait until it is.
Well if they answer the second question yes, they're not paying attention. If they answer that that the president doesn't influence the economy, it makes me wonder why they eat up, and regurgitate Reagan's (failed) economic policies. I also think they're a tad delusional if they don't think the president can use his bully pulpit to make major changes to the economy - see Hover and FDR.
If you vote Republican you're either in the top 2% income bracket or voting against your economic self interest. Even if you're ok voting against your economic self interest - and some are - you'd probably be pretty pissed that the republicans nationally haven't delivered on your social issue of choice.
To get to (most) republicans, all Obama has to do is ask, (a) how's the economy working out for you, and (b)did George W Bush make us safer from terrorists?
Oh, and I should add is now stuck with a measly $1,307,500,000 worth of yahoo shares.
Oh yeah I feel real sorry for the guy who didn't cash out for $1,500,000,000 because he could have made $1,550,000,000
Which, I think, makes sense. If you are doing something to the software/hardware to gain a competitive advantage from GPL'd software you are probably violating the terms of the license.
I'd really like to hear some opinions on whether someone could be slammed even if MediaSentry downloaded the song.
My immediate thought is that by providing a copy of a song to an agent of the copyright holder you're not violating copyright (even if you didn't know it was an agent of the owner.) The thought being that any copy the copyright holder requests of their own IP can't be infringing. If true, that would seem to mean that the RIAA would have to prove that a transaction took place between two people - something technically significantly more difficult than just downloading a song, also something that would raise serious issues regarding trespassing/eavesdropping.
"Laws" of supply and demand in a free market and under monopolies, oligopolies and cartels are radically different.
I tried playing, but got sick of the grind. I give it 2 weeks before someone comes out with a bot that does the work for you. The bot will ruin the balance, and no one will want to play anymore.
First, thanks for the information. Second, I'm astonished that Brownback isn't dutifully towing Bush's line. Since he is highly ranked in my list of least favorite senators, I assumed (my bad) that he couldn't possibly be even beginning to approach the right side of this issue.
That said, Brownback's criticism is very mild, basically saying we should hold hearings, and he voted yea on the deeply flawed Senate FISA bill that grants the telecoms immunity for their illegal spying on American citizens.
Oh don't get me wrong, I'm motivated by by maintaining civil liberties everywhere. My post was a remark on the hypocritical statement by (the arch-conservative) Sen. Brownback (R-KS) who is outraged by China's censorship but sees the monitoring of our electronic communication here in the US as essential for protecting our freedoms....
As I said, it's depressing.
I wouldn't worry about it too much. Senator Brownback just wants the internet requests from American hotels to move unimpeded through the NSA operated rooms at the telecoms.
(I'd be much less depressed if I were going for a funny mod...)
In reality during the first term a representative is most vulnerable to being ousted, an incumbent always enjoys and advantage, but that advantage grows with time. In many cases a safe senior representative is more likely to vote his conscience than the freshman, who is more likely to pander for votes. (this of course cuts both ways, many a senior legislator votes his severely warped conscience because he doesn't fear being voted out.)
Being revocable "at any time" basically means a vote of no confidence. If the British parliamentary system has taught us anything it is that we are less likely to continue to confirm someone we don't like than we are to hold a vote to tell someone to screw off.
A morning radio show here has a running bit about the "shovel buddy," the friend you trust implicitly who comes to your house after you die to bury all your porn so your family doesn't stumble across it.
Sounds good to me, just so long as they don't put the "In Loving Memory of..." sticker on the back windshield.
Why that trend is successful is beyond me, I couldn't come up with a less appropriate memorial if I tried. Mobile, gas guzzling, temporary, ill maintained, destined to ultimately rust away on a scrap heap - is that what the memory of your (not you specifically, the people with the stickers) loved one means to you?
I live in an apartment, I didn't lose a dime (directly). Home-owners aren't the only losers, banks are losing in a big way too. We're bailing out the banks because we don't want to see what will happen to the economy if they start dropping like flies.
I don't see why we should bail out wall street for their shitty investments, but not help out the little guy.
The government should cover some of the loses in the housing market because they are partially directly responsible by throwing money at people, and partially indirectly responsible by enabling the lenders to rack up so much bad debt.
Were some people foolish, absolutely. Were some people greedy, most definitely. But most people who are losing their house were swindled to some extent or another.
The fed precipitated this whole mess by cutting the federal funds target rate to 1.0% in 2003. The fed in essence told the banks to lend money to anyone and everyone. The banks sold mortgages to everybody regardless of credit history, because they were betting that the value of their investments (homes) would continue to rise. As long as the value kept going up the banks couldn't lose. The people who bought these mortgages were told the same thing, your rate will increase in 5 years, but housing prices have never decreased, and as long as your home gains value you can refinance after the adjustment and lock in a low rate. THIS IS PREDATORY.
Since the fed and the banks made bad investments they should be forced to cover more of their piss poor investments. Yes, I know the banks are writing down billions of bad debt. They are eating part of the loses, but I think they should be eating more. Housing values went down for everyone because the banks couldn't be bothered to look beyond their quarterly earnings reports to realize that the growth they were driving in the housing market was not sustainable. Therefore even if you didn't take an ARM your are being punished for the bad invesments of the fed and the banking industry. When your neighbor can't make their mortgage and are foreclosed on, and your housing value goes down, and who's fault is that?
So what should be done? For a start a moratorium on foreclosures. The banks should be compelled to aggressively refinance sub-prime loans at lower rates. The fed should be very, very careful about lowering the rates any further, serious inflation is right around the corner, and it is the ridiculously low rates that got us into this mess to begin with. And finally, every major loan to a bank (e.g. the gift insuring Bear Stearn's crappy holdings) should come with strong open banking strings attached. If we're going to bail out banks, we should get something for it.
Oh, one more thing, do you propose we let the banks crash and burn? If so do you recognize the ripple effect that would have on the economy - that is precisely the kind of over-correction that caused the great depression and the entire rational for the fed's existence. If you think the banks should be bailed out, why do they get a gift, yet Joe Sixpack still gets foreclosed on? So either you don't do bail outs and let the death spiral of foreclosures, insolvency, and bankruptcy drive us into a deep, deep depression, or you let the government cover peoples asses.