OT – Joe the Plumber

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=cooprider]I can’t until this election is over.

Let’s face it. McCain and Obama are one and the same.

The bigger problem is the media, congress, and everyone in politics failing to give any third party an equal opprtunity to participate in the election.

We all know that no matter who wins, none of what was promised will happen, except probably higher taxes for everyone to pay for this giant mess we are in.[/quote]

Well our government is structured (written into the constitution) in a way that always strongly favors 2 factions. Changing that would need multiple amendments and you might really hate the result. Bear in mind our sluggish system never has the wacky excesses to the right or the left that most multiparty systems do. I think France and Germany are 2 countries whose institutional history would discourage multiparty dynamics in the US. Would you disagree? (that’s an actual question-I am curious)

[felix]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=felix]
We are all paying for those who don’t take personal responsibility for their lives.
[/quote]

I disagree. The main expenses are the massive bailout of the super-rich and the Iraq War.

Unemployment and welfare makes up at most 11% of the national budget:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fy2008spendingbycategory.png

The FY2008 budget is $2.9 trillion. That means that at most $319 billion per year is going to those folks who “don’t take personal responsibility for their lives”.

$319 billion pales in comparison to the $11 trillion bailout of the super-rich. $11 trillion is 34 years of welfare spending.

Then there is the boondoggle of the Iraq War which could end up costing $3 trillion:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0310/p16s01-wmgn.html

The Iraq War is costing us 10x as much as a year of welfare. Adding the $11 trillion bailout of the super-rich and the Iraq War brings the total to 44 years of welfare spending.

So what we are really paying for is a misguided war and a massive bailout for the super-rich. Welfare for poor people is teeny-tiny in comparison.

This is what annoys me about faux conservatives/capitalists like you. You constantly bemoan the cost of welfare when what is really dragging our economy down are the crooks on Wall Street and the Iraq War.

If you are truly concerned about welfare spending, then you should be 44 times as concerned about the bailout and the Iraq War. And yet, faux conservatives/capitalists like you never bring those expenses up. I find that to be incredibly hypocritical and will vote to raise your taxes at every chance I get.

[/quote]

You miss the issue.

The issue isn’t where we are spending the most money. I don’t disagree with you, we spend quite a bit on defense. Whether or not that is being spent wisely (I’m sure it all isn’t) is a matter of what policies you believe we should be pursuing.

The point stands, though, that all tax payers contribute to socialist programs in the US. Whether you pay $1 or $1 million dollars in taxes you are subsidizing socialism. The only items that take up more of our budget than defense are: Social Security and Health and Human Services.

As far as Iraq goes. it appears that we have already turned the corner there and it will soon be in our past. In fact, there is almost no talk of Iraq like there was even a year ago.

For all those who likened Iraq to VN, I would like them to consider what both candidates plan to do in Afghanistan. Both want to drastically escalate operations there. I expect that from McCain but BO talked of ending the war. It is very curious how one ends a war by pulling out and losing on one front while he is escalating involvement on another front.

Afghanistan is a place almost no one has been able to control. That is your quagmire. that is your new VN. Why continue to try to do something almost no one has been success doing.

Anyway back to the point.

What super rich are being bailed out?

Shareholders have been wiped out or close to it and if they are lucky their company will stay in business while they are only severely diluted.

The financial institutions are being stabilized for the good of the average citizen. The little guy who has saved his whole life doesn’t deserve to see the whole system collapse on him. The average person is paying their mortgage which they got honestly and saving their money or investing as they have been taught. Why would you want the financial system to collapse on them?

If the Fed let chaos rein those are the folks who would hurt the most. They are least likely to be able to withstand a severe shock or downturn. And letting confidence erode to the point of chaos still leaves the Fed or tax payers holding the bag so what is saved by not funding some kind of stabilization act?

You speak of the crooks on Wall Street. I am well aware of them. I had to deal daily with them for years. I know they exist and I have been hurt by them many times. I have no sympathy for them at all.

However, the real origin for this crisis arises not from the cesspool that is Wall Street but from the cesspool that is Congress and the policy of forcing large institutions to make loans to folks who normally wouldn’t have qualified for loans. It arises not from too little regulation but from to much regulation.

The Carter administration is the root of the problem. He administration passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)in 1977. The Clinton administration did the worst damage though. Not only did he fan the flames of the dot.com boom he screwed things up by requiring 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. Clinton thus forced big institutions to give loans they didn’t want to give to suspect buyers. He also repealed restrictions on interstate banking, listed the CRA ratings received by the out-of-state bank as a consideration when determining whether to allow interstate branches.

If that wasn’t bad enough in 1999 Clinton signed into law an act that repealed the part of the Glass-Steagall Act prohibiting a bank from offering a full range of investment, commercial banking, and insurance services.

Then in November 2000 Dem run and controlled Fannie Mae announced that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) would soon require it to dedicate 50% of its business to low- and moderate-income families.”

These supposedly “smart” folks (Carter and Clinton) didn’t deregulate us into this problem they regulated us into this problem. They required big institutions to loan to folks that no one trusted would ever pay their mortgages in order to do business.

And now they and their cronys get off scott free.
Two of Bo’s crony’s most prominently Franklin Raines and Finance Chairman Barney Frank’s “boyfriend” are reeling in cash from their associations with Fannie. Dodd and BO are the two guys Fannie most targeted with donations. I learned long ago to follow the money and you’ll find the rat. The rats here are all Democrats.

Lastly, I’m concerned with what is best for this country. Giving handouts and creating dependencies isn’t helping anyone but the folks who profits off these dependencies. That would be the Dems. If they really wanted folks to prosper they would be advocating personal responsibility and not victimization.

[felix]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=felix]
We are all paying for those who don’t take personal responsibility for their lives.
[/quote]

I disagree. The main expenses are the massive bailout of the super-rich and the Iraq War.

Unemployment and welfare makes up at most 11% of the national budget:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fy2008spendingbycategory.png

The FY2008 budget is $2.9 trillion. That means that at most $319 billion per year is going to those folks who “don’t take personal responsibility for their lives”.

$319 billion pales in comparison to the $11 trillion bailout of the super-rich. $11 trillion is 34 years of welfare spending.

Then there is the boondoggle of the Iraq War which could end up costing $3 trillion:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0310/p16s01-wmgn.html

The Iraq War is costing us 10x as much as a year of welfare. Adding the $11 trillion bailout of the super-rich and the Iraq War brings the total to 44 years of welfare spending.

So what we are really paying for is a misguided war and a massive bailout for the super-rich. Welfare for poor people is teeny-tiny in comparison.

This is what annoys me about faux conservatives/capitalists like you. You constantly bemoan the cost of welfare when what is really dragging our economy down are the crooks on Wall Street and the Iraq War.

If you are truly concerned about welfare spending, then you should be 44 times as concerned about the bailout and the Iraq War. And yet, faux conservatives/capitalists like you never bring those expenses up. I find that to be incredibly hypocritical and will vote to raise your taxes at every chance I get.

[/quote]

You miss the issue.

The issue isn’t where we are spending the most money. I don’t disagree with you, we spend quite a bit on defense. Whether or not that is being spent wisely (I’m sure it all isn’t) is a matter of what policies you believe we should be pursuing.

The point stands, though, that all tax payers contribute to socialist programs in the US. Whether you pay $1 or $1 million dollars in taxes you are subsidizing socialism. The only items that take up more of our budget than defense are: Social Security and Health and Human Services.

As far as Iraq goes. it appears that we have already turned the corner there and it will soon be in our past. In fact, there is almost no talk of Iraq like there was even a year ago.

For all those who likened Iraq to VN, I would like them to consider what both candidates plan to do in Afghanistan. Both want to drastically escalate operations there. I expect that from McCain but BO talked of ending the war. It is very curious how one ends a war by pulling out and losing on one front while he is escalating involvement on another front.

Afghanistan is a place almost no one has been able to control. That is your quagmire. that is your new VN. Why continue to try to do something almost no one has been success doing.

Anyway back to the point.

What super rich are being bailed out?

Shareholders have been wiped out or close to it and if they are lucky their company will stay in business while they are only severely diluted.

The financial institutions are being stabilized for the good of the average citizen. The little guy who has saved his whole life doesn’t deserve to see the whole system collapse on him. The average person is paying their mortgage which they got honestly and saving their money or investing as they have been taught. Why would you want the financial system to collapse on them?

If the Fed let chaos rein those are the folks who would hurt the most. They are least likely to be able to withstand a severe shock or downturn. And letting confidence erode to the point of chaos still leaves the Fed or tax payers holding the bag so what is saved by not funding some kind of stabilization act?

You speak of the crooks on Wall Street. I am well aware of them. I had to deal daily with them for years. I know they exist and I have been hurt by them many times. I have no sympathy for them at all.

However, the real origin for this crisis arises not from the cesspool that is Wall Street but from the cesspool that is Congress and the policy of forcing large institutions to make loans to folks who normally wouldn’t have qualified for loans. It arises not from too little regulation but from to much regulation.

The Carter administration is the root of the problem. He administration passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)in 1977. The Clinton administration did the worst damage though. Not only did he fan the flames of the dot.com boom he screwed things up by requiring 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. Clinton thus forced big institutions to give loans they didn’t want to give to suspect buyers. He also repealed restrictions on interstate banking, listed the CRA ratings received by the out-of-state bank as a consideration when determining whether to allow interstate branches.

If that wasn’t bad enough in 1999 Clinton signed into law an act that repealed the part of the Glass-Steagall Act prohibiting a bank from offering a full range of investment, commercial banking, and insurance services.

Then in November 2000 Dem run and controlled Fannie Mae announced that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) would soon require it to dedicate 50% of its business to low- and moderate-income families.”

These supposedly “smart” folks (Carter and Clinton) didn’t deregulate us into this problem they regulated us into this problem. They required big institutions to loan to folks that no one trusted would ever pay their mortgages in order to do business.

And now they and their cronys get off scott free.
Two of Bo’s crony’s most prominently Franklin Raines and Finance Chairman Barney Frank’s “boyfriend” are reeling in cash from their associations with Fannie. Dodd and BO are the two guys Fannie most targeted with donations. I learned long ago to follow the money and you’ll find the rat. The rats here are all Democrats.

Lastly, I’m concerned with what is best for this country. Giving handouts and creating dependencies isn’t helping anyone but the folks who profits off these dependencies. That would be the Dems. If they really wanted folks to prosper they would be advocating personal responsibility and not victimization.

[felix]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=felix]
We are all paying for those who don’t take personal responsibility for their lives.
[/quote]

I disagree. The main expenses are the massive bailout of the super-rich and the Iraq War.

Unemployment and welfare makes up at most 11% of the national budget:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fy2008spendingbycategory.png

The FY2008 budget is $2.9 trillion. That means that at most $319 billion per year is going to those folks who “don’t take personal responsibility for their lives”.

$319 billion pales in comparison to the $11 trillion bailout of the super-rich. $11 trillion is 34 years of welfare spending.

Then there is the boondoggle of the Iraq War which could end up costing $3 trillion:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0310/p16s01-wmgn.html

The Iraq War is costing us 10x as much as a year of welfare. Adding the $11 trillion bailout of the super-rich and the Iraq War brings the total to 44 years of welfare spending.

So what we are really paying for is a misguided war and a massive bailout for the super-rich. Welfare for poor people is teeny-tiny in comparison.

This is what annoys me about faux conservatives/capitalists like you. You constantly bemoan the cost of welfare when what is really dragging our economy down are the crooks on Wall Street and the Iraq War.

If you are truly concerned about welfare spending, then you should be 44 times as concerned about the bailout and the Iraq War. And yet, faux conservatives/capitalists like you never bring those expenses up. I find that to be incredibly hypocritical and will vote to raise your taxes at every chance I get.

[/quote]

You miss the issue.

The issue isn’t where we are spending the most money. I don’t disagree with you, we spend quite a bit on defense. Whether or not that is being spent wisely (I’m sure it all isn’t) is a matter of what policies you believe we should be pursuing.

The point stands, though, that all tax payers contribute to socialist programs in the US. Whether you pay $1 or $1 million dollars in taxes you are subsidizing socialism. The only items that take up more of our budget than defense are: Social Security and Health and Human Services.

As far as Iraq goes. it appears that we have already turned the corner there and it will soon be in our past. In fact, there is almost no talk of Iraq like there was even a year ago.

For all those who likened Iraq to VN, I would like them to consider what both candidates plan to do in Afghanistan. Both want to drastically escalate operations there. I expect that from McCain but BO talked of ending the war. It is very curious how one ends a war by pulling out and losing on one front while he is escalating involvement on another front.

Afghanistan is a place almost no one has been able to control. That is your quagmire. that is your new VN. Why continue to try to do something almost no one has been success doing.

Anyway back to the point.

What super rich are being bailed out?

Shareholders have been wiped out or close to it and if they are lucky their company will stay in business while they are only severely diluted.

The financial institutions are being stabilized for the good of the average citizen. The little guy who has saved his whole life doesn’t deserve to see the whole system collapse on him. The average person is paying their mortgage which they got honestly and saving their money or investing as they have been taught. Why would you want the financial system to collapse on them?

If the Fed let chaos rein those are the folks who would hurt the most. They are least likely to be able to withstand a severe shock or downturn. And letting confidence erode to the point of chaos still leaves the Fed or tax payers holding the bag so what is saved by not funding some kind of stabilization act?

You speak of the crooks on Wall Street. I am well aware of them. I had to deal daily with them for years. I know they exist and I have been hurt by them many times. I have no sympathy for them at all.

However, the real origin for this crisis arises not from the cesspool that is Wall Street but from the cesspool that is Congress and the policy of forcing large institutions to make loans to folks who normally wouldn’t have qualified for loans. It arises not from too little regulation but from to much regulation.

The Carter administration is the root of the problem. He administration passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)in 1977. The Clinton administration did the worst damage though. Not only did he fan the flames of the dot.com boom he screwed things up by requiring 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. Clinton thus forced big institutions to give loans they didn’t want to give to suspect buyers. He also repealed restrictions on interstate banking, listed the CRA ratings received by the out-of-state bank as a consideration when determining whether to allow interstate branches.

If that wasn’t bad enough in 1999 Clinton signed into law an act that repealed the part of the Glass-Steagall Act prohibiting a bank from offering a full range of investment, commercial banking, and insurance services.

Then in November 2000 Dem run and controlled Fannie Mae announced that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) would soon require it to dedicate 50% of its business to low- and moderate-income families.”

These supposedly “smart” folks (Carter and Clinton) didn’t deregulate us into this problem they regulated us into this problem. They required big institutions to loan to folks that no one trusted would ever pay their mortgages in order to do business.

And now they and their cronys get off scott free.
Two of Bo’s crony’s most prominently Franklin Raines and Finance Chairman Barney Frank’s “boyfriend” are reeling in cash from their associations with Fannie. Dodd and BO are the two guys Fannie most targeted with donations. I learned long ago to follow the money and you’ll find the rat. The rats here are all Democrats.

Lastly, I’m concerned with what is best for this country. Giving handouts and creating dependencies isn’t helping anyone but the folks who profits off these dependencies. That would be the Dems. If they really wanted folks to prosper they would be advocating personal responsibility and not victimization.

[felix]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=felix]
We are all paying for those who don’t take personal responsibility for their lives.
[/quote]

I disagree. The main expenses are the massive bailout of the super-rich and the Iraq War.

Unemployment and welfare makes up at most 11% of the national budget:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fy2008spendingbycategory.png

The FY2008 budget is $2.9 trillion. That means that at most $319 billion per year is going to those folks who “don’t take personal responsibility for their lives”.

$319 billion pales in comparison to the $11 trillion bailout of the super-rich. $11 trillion is 34 years of welfare spending.

Then there is the boondoggle of the Iraq War which could end up costing $3 trillion:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0310/p16s01-wmgn.html

The Iraq War is costing us 10x as much as a year of welfare. Adding the $11 trillion bailout of the super-rich and the Iraq War brings the total to 44 years of welfare spending.

So what we are really paying for is a misguided war and a massive bailout for the super-rich. Welfare for poor people is teeny-tiny in comparison.

This is what annoys me about faux conservatives/capitalists like you. You constantly bemoan the cost of welfare when what is really dragging our economy down are the crooks on Wall Street and the Iraq War.

If you are truly concerned about welfare spending, then you should be 44 times as concerned about the bailout and the Iraq War. And yet, faux conservatives/capitalists like you never bring those expenses up. I find that to be incredibly hypocritical and will vote to raise your taxes at every chance I get.

[/quote]

You miss the issue.

The issue isn’t where we are spending the most money. I don’t disagree with you, we spend quite a bit on defense. Whether or not that is being spent wisely (I’m sure it all isn’t) is a matter of what policies you believe we should be pursuing.

The point stands, though, that all tax payers contribute to socialist programs in the US. Whether you pay $1 or $1 million dollars in taxes you are subsidizing socialism. The only items that take up more of our budget than defense are: Social Security and Health and Human Services.

As far as Iraq goes. it appears that we have already turned the corner there and it will soon be in our past. In fact, there is almost no talk of Iraq like there was even a year ago.

For all those who likened Iraq to VN, I would like them to consider what both candidates plan to do in Afghanistan. Both want to drastically escalate operations there. I expect that from McCain but BO talked of ending the war. It is very curious how one ends a war by pulling out and losing on one front while he is escalating involvement on another front.

Afghanistan is a place almost no one has been able to control. That is your quagmire. that is your new VN. Why continue to try to do something almost no one has been success doing.

Anyway back to the point.

What super rich are being bailed out?

Shareholders have been wiped out or close to it and if they are lucky their company will stay in business while they are only severely diluted.

The financial institutions are being stabilized for the good of the average citizen. The little guy who has saved his whole life doesn’t deserve to see the whole system collapse on him. The average person is paying their mortgage which they got honestly and saving their money or investing as they have been taught. Why would you want the financial system to collapse on them?

If the Fed let chaos rein those are the folks who would hurt the most. They are least likely to be able to withstand a severe shock or downturn. And letting confidence erode to the point of chaos still leaves the Fed or tax payers holding the bag so what is saved by not funding some kind of stabilization act?

You speak of the crooks on Wall Street. I am well aware of them. I had to deal daily with them for years. I know they exist and I have been hurt by them many times. I have no sympathy for them at all.

However, the real origin for this crisis arises not from the cesspool that is Wall Street but from the cesspool that is Congress and the policy of forcing large institutions to make loans to folks who normally wouldn’t have qualified for loans. It arises not from too little regulation but from to much regulation.

The Carter administration is the root of the problem. He administration passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)in 1977. The Clinton administration did the worst damage though. Not only did he fan the flames of the dot.com boom he screwed things up by requiring 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. Clinton thus forced big institutions to give loans they didn’t want to give to suspect buyers. He also repealed restrictions on interstate banking, listed the CRA ratings received by the out-of-state bank as a consideration when determining whether to allow interstate branches.

If that wasn’t bad enough in 1999 Clinton signed into law an act that repealed the part of the Glass-Steagall Act prohibiting a bank from offering a full range of investment, commercial banking, and insurance services.

Then in November 2000 Dem run and controlled Fannie Mae announced that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) would soon require it to dedicate 50% of its business to low- and moderate-income families.”

These supposedly “smart” folks (Carter and Clinton) didn’t deregulate us into this problem they regulated us into this problem. They required big institutions to loan to folks that no one trusted would ever pay their mortgages in order to do business.

And now they and their cronys get off scott free.
Two of Bo’s crony’s most prominently Franklin Raines and Finance Chairman Barney Frank’s “boyfriend” are reeling in cash from their associations with Fannie. Dodd and BO are the two guys Fannie most targeted with donations. I learned long ago to follow the money and you’ll find the rat. The rats here are all Democrats.

Lastly, I’m concerned with what is best for this country. Giving handouts and creating dependencies isn’t helping anyone but the folks who profits off these dependencies. That would be the Dems. If they really wanted folks to prosper they would be advocating personal responsibility and not victimization.

[felix]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=felix]
We are all paying for those who don’t take personal responsibility for their lives.
[/quote]

I disagree. The main expenses are the massive bailout of the super-rich and the Iraq War.

Unemployment and welfare makes up at most 11% of the national budget:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fy2008spendingbycategory.png

The FY2008 budget is $2.9 trillion. That means that at most $319 billion per year is going to those folks who “don’t take personal responsibility for their lives”.

$319 billion pales in comparison to the $11 trillion bailout of the super-rich. $11 trillion is 34 years of welfare spending.

Then there is the boondoggle of the Iraq War which could end up costing $3 trillion:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0310/p16s01-wmgn.html

The Iraq War is costing us 10x as much as a year of welfare. Adding the $11 trillion bailout of the super-rich and the Iraq War brings the total to 44 years of welfare spending.

So what we are really paying for is a misguided war and a massive bailout for the super-rich. Welfare for poor people is teeny-tiny in comparison.

This is what annoys me about faux conservatives/capitalists like you. You constantly bemoan the cost of welfare when what is really dragging our economy down are the crooks on Wall Street and the Iraq War.

If you are truly concerned about welfare spending, then you should be 44 times as concerned about the bailout and the Iraq War. And yet, faux conservatives/capitalists like you never bring those expenses up. I find that to be incredibly hypocritical and will vote to raise your taxes at every chance I get.

[/quote]

You miss the issue.

The issue isn’t where we are spending the most money. I don’t disagree with you, we spend quite a bit on defense. Whether or not that is being spent wisely (I’m sure it all isn’t) is a matter of what policies you believe we should be pursuing.

The point stands, though, that all tax payers contribute to socialist programs in the US. Whether you pay $1 or $1 million dollars in taxes you are subsidizing socialism. The only items that take up more of our budget than defense are: Social Security and Health and Human Services.

As far as Iraq goes. it appears that we have already turned the corner there and it will soon be in our past. In fact, there is almost no talk of Iraq like there was even a year ago.

For all those who likened Iraq to VN, I would like them to consider what both candidates plan to do in Afghanistan. Both want to drastically escalate operations there. I expect that from McCain but BO talked of ending the war. It is very curious how one ends a war by pulling out and losing on one front while he is escalating involvement on another front.

Afghanistan is a place almost no one has been able to control. That is your quagmire. that is your new VN. Why continue to try to do something almost no one has been success doing.

Anyway back to the point.

What super rich are being bailed out?

Shareholders have been wiped out or close to it and if they are lucky their company will stay in business while they are only severely diluted.

The financial institutions are being stabilized for the good of the average citizen. The little guy who has saved his whole life doesn’t deserve to see the whole system collapse on him. The average person is paying their mortgage which they got honestly and saving their money or investing as they have been taught. Why would you want the financial system to collapse on them?

If the Fed let chaos rein those are the folks who would hurt the most. They are least likely to be able to withstand a severe shock or downturn. And letting confidence erode to the point of chaos still leaves the Fed or tax payers holding the bag so what is saved by not funding some kind of stabilization act?

You speak of the crooks on Wall Street. I am well aware of them. I had to deal daily with them for years. I know they exist and I have been hurt by them many times. I have no sympathy for them at all.

However, the real origin for this crisis arises not from the cesspool that is Wall Street but from the cesspool that is Congress and the policy of forcing large institutions to make loans to folks who normally wouldn’t have qualified for loans. It arises not from too little regulation but from to much regulation.

The Carter administration is the root of the problem. He administration passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)in 1977. The Clinton administration did the worst damage though. Not only did he fan the flames of the dot.com boom he screwed things up by requiring 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. Clinton thus forced big institutions to give loans they didn’t want to give to suspect buyers. He also repealed restrictions on interstate banking, listed the CRA ratings received by the out-of-state bank as a consideration when determining whether to allow interstate branches.

If that wasn’t bad enough in 1999 Clinton signed into law an act that repealed the part of the Glass-Steagall Act prohibiting a bank from offering a full range of investment, commercial banking, and insurance services.

Then in November 2000 Dem run and controlled Fannie Mae announced that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) would soon require it to dedicate 50% of its business to low- and moderate-income families.”

These supposedly “smart” folks (Carter and Clinton) didn’t deregulate us into this problem they regulated us into this problem. They required big institutions to loan to folks that no one trusted would ever pay their mortgages in order to do business.

And now they and their cronys get off scott free.
Two of Bo’s crony’s most prominently Franklin Raines and Finance Chairman Barney Frank’s “boyfriend” are reeling in cash from their associations with Fannie. Dodd and BO are the two guys Fannie most targeted with donations. I learned long ago to follow the money and you’ll find the rat. The rats here are all Democrats.

Lastly, I’m concerned with what is best for this country. Giving handouts and creating dependencies isn’t helping anyone but the folks who profits off these dependencies. That would be the Dems. If they really wanted folks to prosper they would be advocating personal responsibility and not victimization.

[SD Realtor]

“So do I. That is why I would prefer that super-rich people like you pay more taxes so that I can pay less.”

There it is right there in a nutshell. It is not about raising oneself to strive for greater wealth. It is about bringing down those that are successful.

The bottom line is that is much harder to be successful then not. To make change in yourself is HARD. It is much easier to hope for, to advocate, to force change in others then in yourself.

Life is not really fair. You either adapt or you do not. A grand social experiment about redistributing wealth from those that have to those that do not can be abstracted to many other forms. What about the classroom? Should the teacher devote many more hours to the slow students because they cannot learn as fast as the quicker students? Should those that accel IN ANYTHING, be it academics, creation of wealth, atheletics, stop and devote more of thier own time effort and/or resources to help those that do not?

That is what is so intriguing about this entire election. Granted there is nothing, absolutely NOTHING right about the rampant corruption, greed, wasteful spending, horrid international and domestic policies from Bush. I don’t like any party and am a liberal. Yet it is fascinating that there is this universal belief that the “wealthy” OWE MORE to those that don’t have wealth. That there is now this sense of almost universal entitlement from a HUGE number of our population that they are ENTITLED to more money from the government. It is not about empowring themselves to better thier own lives through hard work, or education. It is about getting OWED what they are ENTITLED to from those that have already done so.

Breeze you summed it up in one perfect statement. It was almost comical. What is “super rich”? 10M? 1M? 250k? Doesn’t it seem somewhat arbitrary?

Just answer me these questions.

Why should someone who has worked hard and earned wealth have to contribute more to the government then anybody else?

Why should you Breeze pay less then say me? Here are my numbers. You can assume I make 10k or 100k or 1M it doesn’t matter. Just tell me why you should pay less then me.

[SD Realtor]

“So do I. That is why I would prefer that super-rich people like you pay more taxes so that I can pay less.”

There it is right there in a nutshell. It is not about raising oneself to strive for greater wealth. It is about bringing down those that are successful.

The bottom line is that is much harder to be successful then not. To make change in yourself is HARD. It is much easier to hope for, to advocate, to force change in others then in yourself.

Life is not really fair. You either adapt or you do not. A grand social experiment about redistributing wealth from those that have to those that do not can be abstracted to many other forms. What about the classroom? Should the teacher devote many more hours to the slow students because they cannot learn as fast as the quicker students? Should those that accel IN ANYTHING, be it academics, creation of wealth, atheletics, stop and devote more of thier own time effort and/or resources to help those that do not?

That is what is so intriguing about this entire election. Granted there is nothing, absolutely NOTHING right about the rampant corruption, greed, wasteful spending, horrid international and domestic policies from Bush. I don’t like any party and am a liberal. Yet it is fascinating that there is this universal belief that the “wealthy” OWE MORE to those that don’t have wealth. That there is now this sense of almost universal entitlement from a HUGE number of our population that they are ENTITLED to more money from the government. It is not about empowring themselves to better thier own lives through hard work, or education. It is about getting OWED what they are ENTITLED to from those that have already done so.

Breeze you summed it up in one perfect statement. It was almost comical. What is “super rich”? 10M? 1M? 250k? Doesn’t it seem somewhat arbitrary?

Just answer me these questions.

Why should someone who has worked hard and earned wealth have to contribute more to the government then anybody else?

Why should you Breeze pay less then say me? Here are my numbers. You can assume I make 10k or 100k or 1M it doesn’t matter. Just tell me why you should pay less then me.

[SD Realtor]

“So do I. That is why I would prefer that super-rich people like you pay more taxes so that I can pay less.”

There it is right there in a nutshell. It is not about raising oneself to strive for greater wealth. It is about bringing down those that are successful.

The bottom line is that is much harder to be successful then not. To make change in yourself is HARD. It is much easier to hope for, to advocate, to force change in others then in yourself.

Life is not really fair. You either adapt or you do not. A grand social experiment about redistributing wealth from those that have to those that do not can be abstracted to many other forms. What about the classroom? Should the teacher devote many more hours to the slow students because they cannot learn as fast as the quicker students? Should those that accel IN ANYTHING, be it academics, creation of wealth, atheletics, stop and devote more of thier own time effort and/or resources to help those that do not?

That is what is so intriguing about this entire election. Granted there is nothing, absolutely NOTHING right about the rampant corruption, greed, wasteful spending, horrid international and domestic policies from Bush. I don’t like any party and am a liberal. Yet it is fascinating that there is this universal belief that the “wealthy” OWE MORE to those that don’t have wealth. That there is now this sense of almost universal entitlement from a HUGE number of our population that they are ENTITLED to more money from the government. It is not about empowring themselves to better thier own lives through hard work, or education. It is about getting OWED what they are ENTITLED to from those that have already done so.

Breeze you summed it up in one perfect statement. It was almost comical. What is “super rich”? 10M? 1M? 250k? Doesn’t it seem somewhat arbitrary?

Just answer me these questions.

Why should someone who has worked hard and earned wealth have to contribute more to the government then anybody else?

Why should you Breeze pay less then say me? Here are my numbers. You can assume I make 10k or 100k or 1M it doesn’t matter. Just tell me why you should pay less then me.

[SD Realtor]

“So do I. That is why I would prefer that super-rich people like you pay more taxes so that I can pay less.”

There it is right there in a nutshell. It is not about raising oneself to strive for greater wealth. It is about bringing down those that are successful.

The bottom line is that is much harder to be successful then not. To make change in yourself is HARD. It is much easier to hope for, to advocate, to force change in others then in yourself.

Life is not really fair. You either adapt or you do not. A grand social experiment about redistributing wealth from those that have to those that do not can be abstracted to many other forms. What about the classroom? Should the teacher devote many more hours to the slow students because they cannot learn as fast as the quicker students? Should those that accel IN ANYTHING, be it academics, creation of wealth, atheletics, stop and devote more of thier own time effort and/or resources to help those that do not?

That is what is so intriguing about this entire election. Granted there is nothing, absolutely NOTHING right about the rampant corruption, greed, wasteful spending, horrid international and domestic policies from Bush. I don’t like any party and am a liberal. Yet it is fascinating that there is this universal belief that the “wealthy” OWE MORE to those that don’t have wealth. That there is now this sense of almost universal entitlement from a HUGE number of our population that they are ENTITLED to more money from the government. It is not about empowring themselves to better thier own lives through hard work, or education. It is about getting OWED what they are ENTITLED to from those that have already done so.

Breeze you summed it up in one perfect statement. It was almost comical. What is “super rich”? 10M? 1M? 250k? Doesn’t it seem somewhat arbitrary?

Just answer me these questions.

Why should someone who has worked hard and earned wealth have to contribute more to the government then anybody else?

Why should you Breeze pay less then say me? Here are my numbers. You can assume I make 10k or 100k or 1M it doesn’t matter. Just tell me why you should pay less then me.

[SD Realtor]

“So do I. That is why I would prefer that super-rich people like you pay more taxes so that I can pay less.”

There it is right there in a nutshell. It is not about raising oneself to strive for greater wealth. It is about bringing down those that are successful.

The bottom line is that is much harder to be successful then not. To make change in yourself is HARD. It is much easier to hope for, to advocate, to force change in others then in yourself.

Life is not really fair. You either adapt or you do not. A grand social experiment about redistributing wealth from those that have to those that do not can be abstracted to many other forms. What about the classroom? Should the teacher devote many more hours to the slow students because they cannot learn as fast as the quicker students? Should those that accel IN ANYTHING, be it academics, creation of wealth, atheletics, stop and devote more of thier own time effort and/or resources to help those that do not?

That is what is so intriguing about this entire election. Granted there is nothing, absolutely NOTHING right about the rampant corruption, greed, wasteful spending, horrid international and domestic policies from Bush. I don’t like any party and am a liberal. Yet it is fascinating that there is this universal belief that the “wealthy” OWE MORE to those that don’t have wealth. That there is now this sense of almost universal entitlement from a HUGE number of our population that they are ENTITLED to more money from the government. It is not about empowring themselves to better thier own lives through hard work, or education. It is about getting OWED what they are ENTITLED to from those that have already done so.

Breeze you summed it up in one perfect statement. It was almost comical. What is “super rich”? 10M? 1M? 250k? Doesn’t it seem somewhat arbitrary?

Just answer me these questions.

Why should someone who has worked hard and earned wealth have to contribute more to the government then anybody else?

Why should you Breeze pay less then say me? Here are my numbers. You can assume I make 10k or 100k or 1M it doesn’t matter. Just tell me why you should pay less then me.

[Coronita]

[quote]
Life is not really fair. You either adapt or you do not. A grand social experiment about redistributing wealth from those that have to those that do not can be abstracted to many other forms. What about the classroom? Should the teacher devote many more hours to the slow students because they cannot learn as fast as the quicker students? Should those that accel IN ANYTHING, be it academics, creation of wealth, atheletics, stop and devote more of thier own time effort and/or resources to help those that do not?
[/quote]

SDR, unfortunately…The thing about the classroom and teachers is sort of already true. It’s called the “no student left behind” program and the emphasis on the standardize tests. Public school teachers these days are being asked more to bring up the rear end up to average, and those above average are basically left alone as “good enough”. Yes, even in renowned Carmel Valley school districts.

[Coronita]

[quote]
Life is not really fair. You either adapt or you do not. A grand social experiment about redistributing wealth from those that have to those that do not can be abstracted to many other forms. What about the classroom? Should the teacher devote many more hours to the slow students because they cannot learn as fast as the quicker students? Should those that accel IN ANYTHING, be it academics, creation of wealth, atheletics, stop and devote more of thier own time effort and/or resources to help those that do not?
[/quote]

SDR, unfortunately…The thing about the classroom and teachers is sort of already true. It’s called the “no student left behind” program and the emphasis on the standardize tests. Public school teachers these days are being asked more to bring up the rear end up to average, and those above average are basically left alone as “good enough”. Yes, even in renowned Carmel Valley school districts.

[Coronita]

[quote]
Life is not really fair. You either adapt or you do not. A grand social experiment about redistributing wealth from those that have to those that do not can be abstracted to many other forms. What about the classroom? Should the teacher devote many more hours to the slow students because they cannot learn as fast as the quicker students? Should those that accel IN ANYTHING, be it academics, creation of wealth, atheletics, stop and devote more of thier own time effort and/or resources to help those that do not?
[/quote]

SDR, unfortunately…The thing about the classroom and teachers is sort of already true. It’s called the “no student left behind” program and the emphasis on the standardize tests. Public school teachers these days are being asked more to bring up the rear end up to average, and those above average are basically left alone as “good enough”. Yes, even in renowned Carmel Valley school districts.

[Coronita]

[quote]
Life is not really fair. You either adapt or you do not. A grand social experiment about redistributing wealth from those that have to those that do not can be abstracted to many other forms. What about the classroom? Should the teacher devote many more hours to the slow students because they cannot learn as fast as the quicker students? Should those that accel IN ANYTHING, be it academics, creation of wealth, atheletics, stop and devote more of thier own time effort and/or resources to help those that do not?
[/quote]

SDR, unfortunately…The thing about the classroom and teachers is sort of already true. It’s called the “no student left behind” program and the emphasis on the standardize tests. Public school teachers these days are being asked more to bring up the rear end up to average, and those above average are basically left alone as “good enough”. Yes, even in renowned Carmel Valley school districts.

[Author]

Posts