The subject takes me back to 1960, a few weeks before graduation.

Was in an industrial engineering class, the instructor had spent a
lifetime in the real world, and up to then, not much in the class
room.

The subject of the Edsel, the 1958 FoMoCo screw up, the largest
business screw up since the Curtis-Wright mess of 1940, was brought up
for discussion.

Still remember the instructors advice:

Class, if you are going to screw up, make it as big as possible.

They fire you for making small mistakes.

They won't fire you if the mistake is big enough because that will
make the guy who hired you look like an idiot.

Almost 50 years later, sounds like there is about to be a repeat
application of that advice.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:

The subject takes me back to 1960, a few weeks before graduation.

Was in an industrial engineering class, the instructor had spent a
lifetime in the real world, and up to then, not much in the class
room.

The subject of the Edsel, the 1958 FoMoCo screw up, the largest
business screw up since the Curtis-Wright mess of 1940, was brought up
for discussion.

Still remember the instructors advice:

Class, if you are going to screw up, make it as big as possible.

They fire you for making small mistakes.

They won't fire you if the mistake is big enough because that will
make the guy who hired you look like an idiot.

Almost 50 years later, sounds like there is about to be a repeat
application of that advice.

Lew

Yep, despite the fact that the congress-critters like Barney Frank and
Chris "Country-wide" Dodd caused the problem by using Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac as their own playground to essentially socialize the mortgage
market by setting standards so low that just about anybody could get a loan
to buy a house, these congress-critters are going to continue get
re-elected and now get even more taxpayer money to "manage" the bail-out of
the problem they caused.

Talk about the ultimate promotion.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

These, of course, had nothing to do with anything...
Renata



" Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 ...
....By preventing mergers between the various branches of Wall Street,
....[this] act reversed basic Depression-era legislation passed to
prevent the sort of collapse we are now experiencing.

Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.
....legitimized the "swap agreements" and other "hybrid instruments"
that are at the core of the crisis.

"Legal Certainty for Bank Products Act of 2000," Title IV of the
law--a law that Gramm snuck in without hearings hours before the
Christmas recess--provided Wall Street with an unbridled license to
steal. It made certain that financiers could legally get away with a
whole new array of financial rip-off schemes.

One of those provisions, summarized by the heading of Title III,
ensured the "Legal Certainty for Swap Agreements," which successfully
divorced the granters of subprime mortgage loans from any obligation
to ever collect on them. That provision of Gramm's law is at the very
heart of the problem.
But the law went even further, prohibiting regulation of any of the
new financial instruments permitted after the financial industry
mergers: "No provision of the Commodity Exchange Act shall apply to,
and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission shall not exercise
regulatory authority with respect to, an identified banking product
which had not been commonly offered, entered into, or provided in the
United States by any bank on or before December 5, 2000. ..."
from an article by Robert Scheer


On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:58:32 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Lew Hodgett wrote:

The subject takes me back to 1960, a few weeks before graduation.

Was in an industrial engineering class, the instructor had spent a
lifetime in the real world, and up to then, not much in the class
room.

The subject of the Edsel, the 1958 FoMoCo screw up, the largest
business screw up since the Curtis-Wright mess of 1940, was brought up
for discussion.

Still remember the instructors advice:

Class, if you are going to screw up, make it as big as possible.

They fire you for making small mistakes.

They won't fire you if the mistake is big enough because that will
make the guy who hired you look like an idiot.

Almost 50 years later, sounds like there is about to be a repeat
application of that advice.

Lew

Yep, despite the fact that the congress-critters like Barney Frank and
Chris "Country-wide" Dodd caused the problem by using Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac as their own playground to essentially socialize the mortgage
market by setting standards so low that just about anybody could get a loan
to buy a house, these congress-critters are going to continue get
re-elected and now get even more taxpayer money to "manage" the bail-out of
the problem they caused.

Talk about the ultimate promotion.

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:58:32 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

Yep, despite the fact that the congress-critters like Barney Frank and
Chris "Country-wide" Dodd caused the problem by using Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac as their own playground to essentially socialize the mortgage
market by setting standards so low that just about anybody could get a loan
to buy a house, these congress-critters are going to continue get
re-elected and now get even more taxpayer money to "manage" the bail-out of
the problem they caused.

And of course Phil Gramm couldn't possibly have had anything to do with
it. After all, John McCain relies on his advice. And we all know he
wouldn't associate with a crooked politician, would he?

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:58:32 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

Yep, despite the fact that the congress-critters like Barney Frank and
Chris "Country-wide" Dodd caused the problem by using Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac as their own playground to essentially socialize the mortgage
market by setting standards so low that just about anybody could get a loan
to buy a house, these congress-critters are going to continue get
re-elected and now get even more taxpayer money to "manage" the bail-out of
the problem they caused.

And of course Phil Gramm couldn't possibly have had anything to do with
it. After all, John McCain relies on his advice. And we all know he
wouldn't associate with a crooked politician, would he?


You mean like Comrade Obama and his cast of thugs here in
IL? (The Mayor, the Governor, two convicted felons - one
a 60s mad bomber and the other one Obama's real estate fairy.)

"I'll take liberal hypocrisy for 500 Alex...."

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Sep 25, 12:02*pm, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:58:32 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
*Yep, despite the fact that the congress-critters like Barney Frank and
Chris "Country-wide" Dodd caused the problem by using Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac as their own playground to essentially socialize the mortgage
market by setting standards so low that just about anybody could get a loan
to buy a house, these congress-critters are going to continue get
re-elected and now get even more taxpayer money to "manage" the bail-out of
the problem they caused.

And of course Phil Gramm couldn't possibly have had anything to do with
it. *After all, John McCain relies on his advice. *And we all know he
wouldn't associate with a crooked politician, would he?

In 1989 when the Berlin Wall fell, it was described as the Fall of
Communism. In 2008, Wall Street fell: can this be described as the
Fall of Capitalism?

"Jimbo" wrote

In 1989 when the Berlin Wall fell, it was described as the Fall of
Communism. In 2008, Wall Street fell: can this be described as the
Fall of Capitalism?

The "Fall of Mortgages Being Backed by Welfare Payments" is a more apt
description, eh?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Larry Blanchard wrote:

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:58:32 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

Yep, despite the fact that the congress-critters like Barney Frank and
Chris "Country-wide" Dodd caused the problem by using Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac as their own playground to essentially socialize the mortgage
market by setting standards so low that just about anybody could get a
loan to buy a house, these congress-critters are going to continue get
re-elected and now get even more taxpayer money to "manage" the bail-out
of the problem they caused.

And of course Phil Gramm couldn't possibly have had anything to do with
it. After all, John McCain relies on his advice. And we all know he
wouldn't associate with a crooked politician, would he?

It is debateable that the repeal of the Glass-Steigal act had anything to
do with this. After all, it really didn't matter whether brokerage houses
or banks were the ones getting this toxic waste from Freddie Mac and Fannie
Mae.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Renata wrote:

These, of course, had nothing to do with anything...
Renata



" Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 ...
...By preventing mergers between the various branches of Wall Street,
...[this] act reversed basic Depression-era legislation passed to
prevent the sort of collapse we are now experiencing.

Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.
...legitimized the "swap agreements" and other "hybrid instruments"
that are at the core of the crisis.


The core of the crisis was Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae for setting the loan
standards so low that those swap agreements and hybrid instruments
contained loans to people with no chance of paying them back. This was
done at the direction of Congress who demanded an end to "redlining" and
the availability of "affordable mortgages" to more people. At its height,
it was possible for people to walk in and get a loan with no down payment
and not even have proof of employment.


"Legal Certainty for Bank Products Act of 2000," Title IV of the
law--a law that Gramm snuck in without hearings hours before the
Christmas recess--provided Wall Street with an unbridled license to
steal. It made certain that financiers could legally get away with a
whole new array of financial rip-off schemes.

One of those provisions, summarized by the heading of Title III,
ensured the "Legal Certainty for Swap Agreements," which successfully
divorced the granters of subprime mortgage loans from any obligation
to ever collect on them. That provision of Gramm's law is at the very
heart of the problem.
But the law went even further, prohibiting regulation of any of the
new financial instruments permitted after the financial industry
mergers: "No provision of the Commodity Exchange Act shall apply to,
and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission shall not exercise
regulatory authority with respect to, an identified banking product
which had not been commonly offered, entered into, or provided in the
United States by any bank on or before December 5, 2000. ..."
from an article by Robert Scheer


On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:58:32 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Lew Hodgett wrote:

The subject takes me back to 1960, a few weeks before graduation.

Was in an industrial engineering class, the instructor had spent a
lifetime in the real world, and up to then, not much in the class
room.

The subject of the Edsel, the 1958 FoMoCo screw up, the largest
business screw up since the Curtis-Wright mess of 1940, was brought up
for discussion.

Still remember the instructors advice:

Class, if you are going to screw up, make it as big as possible.

They fire you for making small mistakes.

They won't fire you if the mistake is big enough because that will
make the guy who hired you look like an idiot.

Almost 50 years later, sounds like there is about to be a repeat
application of that advice.

Lew

Yep, despite the fact that the congress-critters like Barney Frank and
Chris "Country-wide" Dodd caused the problem by using Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac as their own playground to essentially socialize the mortgage
market by setting standards so low that just about anybody could get a
loan to buy a house, these congress-critters are going to continue get
re-elected and now get even more taxpayer money to "manage" the bail-out
of the problem they caused.

Talk about the ultimate promotion.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Mark & Juanita wrote in
:

The core of the crisis was Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae for setting
the loan
standards so low that those swap agreements and hybrid instruments
contained loans to people with no chance of paying them back. This
was done at the direction of Congress who demanded an end to
"redlining" and the availability of "affordable mortgages" to more
people. At its height, it was possible for people to walk in and get
a loan with no down payment and not even have proof of employment.

The real core of the problem is not the direction of Congress so much as
the implementation. Isn't it the fiduciary duty of banks etc to protect
their depositors' and stockholders' "investments? Then they (the banks and
investment firms) should have NOT invested in dubious loans and Ponzi
schemes of insurance thereon. The fault of Congress is only in not
insuring that there was proper oversight and regulation of the Ponzi
schemes and 120% of value mortgages.

Don't blame attempts to increase home ownership and responsibility for
irresponsible acts by greedy banks, investment and insurance firms, as well
as corrupt ratings agencies. (Not saying that F&F are blameless).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote in
:

The core of the crisis was Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae for setting
the loan
standards so low that those swap agreements and hybrid instruments
contained loans to people with no chance of paying them back. This
was done at the direction of Congress who demanded an end to
"redlining" and the availability of "affordable mortgages" to more
people. At its height, it was possible for people to walk in and get
a loan with no down payment and not even have proof of employment.

The real core of the problem is not the direction of Congress so much as
the implementation. Isn't it the fiduciary duty of banks etc to protect
their depositors' and stockholders' "investments? Then they (the banks and
investment firms) should have NOT invested in dubious loans and Ponzi
schemes of insurance thereon. The fault of Congress is only in not
insuring that there was proper oversight and regulation of the Ponzi
schemes and 120% of value mortgages.

Don't blame attempts to increase home ownership and responsibility for
irresponsible acts by greedy banks, investment and insurance firms, as well
as corrupt ratings agencies. (Not saying that F&F are blameless).


So ... the banks are "irresponsible" and "greedy" for trying to maximize
their profits. But the welfare queens who already were living off
of everyone else's money are noble? The government is as responsible
for this mess as the banks. So are the people who borrowed money for
homes they could not actually afford. It's just convenient to blame
the eeeeeeeeeeevil rich people because the slimy left has so ingrained
class warfare in the public mind. The best thing we could do here
would be *nothing*. Let all the participants in this fiasco reap what
the sowed. Let the irresponsible banks go under. Let the irresponsible
borrowers loose their homes and equity. Why should I have to pay
to bail either party out?

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim Daneliuk writes:

So ... the banks are "irresponsible" and "greedy" for trying to maximize
their profits. But the welfare queens who already were living off
of everyone else's money are noble?

AIG was $579 billion in debt.

The CEO of AIG made 5.6 million which included a "performance bonus."
for ruining the company.

Total US welfare costs are $440 million per year.

Blaiming the problem is those on welfare is really misguided and
and frankly bigoted.

By the way - have you ever talked to anyone on Welfare? Like those
people still living in FEMA trailers that have 5 times the normal
level of Formaldehyde gas? I bet they feel like queens. Sure.

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
borrowers loose their homes and equity. Why should I have to pay
to bail either party out?

It's always about "you" isn't it? Every time you open your mouth all that
comes out is ME, ME, ME. Stick it to everybody else just as long as it
doesn't cost you anything.You really are the quintessential definition of
the word "selfishness".

Arrogant, greedy, selfish, don't give a damn for anyone except yourself. You
exude some of the worst traits in the human condition.

Fortunately, a large amount of your countrymen fail to share your failings.
Lucky for the rest of the world.

Upscale wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
borrowers loose their homes and equity. Why should I have to pay
to bail either party out?

It's always about "you" isn't it? Every time you open your mouth all that
comes out is ME, ME, ME. Stick it to everybody else just as long as it
doesn't cost you anything.You really are the quintessential definition of
the word "selfishness".

Arrogant, greedy, selfish, don't give a damn for anyone except yourself. You
exude some of the worst traits in the human condition.

Fortunately, a large amount of your countrymen fail to share your failings.
Lucky for the rest of the world.



That's correct, it is about me. It's about no one - you particularly -
having ever explained why the family of someone I've never met
is more deserving of my hard work than *my* family. It's about
no one - you particularly - having ever explained why I have to be
a slave to lazy, irresponsible, dishonest people. That's right,
it's about me.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Maxwell Lol wrote:
Tim Daneliuk writes:

So ... the banks are "irresponsible" and "greedy" for trying to maximize
their profits. But the welfare queens who already were living off
of everyone else's money are noble?

AIG was $579 billion in debt.

The CEO of AIG made 5.6 million which included a "performance bonus."
for ruining the company.

Total US welfare costs are $440 million per year.

Blaiming the problem is those on welfare is really misguided and
and frankly bigoted.

You must have trouble with elementary arithmetic. Of the
$3 Trillion US Federal budget (never mind State and Local), over
*half* is entitlement spending - welfare in all it's forms - by
my count, that's north of $1.5 *Trillion* - you're missing a lot of
zeros.

And it's only bigoted if you have to look in every nook and cranny
to find bigotry and make yourself feel better. The overwhelming
portion of the $1.5 trillion goes to elders in some form - who, last
I checked, cover all flavors of race, religion, and so forth.

What is "bigoted", is the bigotry displayed here and in the larger
culture against those of us who object to being made slaves to serve
the dishonest and lazy majority.


By the way - have you ever talked to anyone on Welfare? Like those

Yes. I used to live next door to them. It's what made me realize
what a complete scam social entitlements are.

people still living in FEMA trailers that have 5 times the normal
level of Formaldehyde gas? I bet they feel like queens. Sure.

Perhaps they shouldn't have built homes below sea level in the first
place. Perhaps they shouldn't have elected the (arguably) most
corrupt government in the entire nation in NOLA. Perhaps - after a
major disaster - they shouldn't insist on living the same place again.
And, perhaps, they shouldn't expect their Federal rehabilitation to
give them a quality of life *better* than they ever had in the first
place. The entire system is a fraud.



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Sep 25, 12:12*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:58:32 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

*Yep, despite the fact that the congress-critters like Barney Frank and
Chris "Country-wide" Dodd caused the problem by using Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac as their own playground to essentially socialize the mortgage
market by setting standards so low that just about anybody could get a loan
to buy a house, these congress-critters are going to continue get
re-elected and now get even more taxpayer money to "manage" the bail-out of
the problem they caused.

And of course Phil Gramm couldn't possibly have had anything to do with
it. *After all, John McCain relies on his advice. *And we all know he
wouldn't associate with a crooked politician, would he?

You mean like Comrade Obama and his cast of thugs here in
IL? (The Mayor, the Governor, two convicted felons - one
a 60s mad bomber and the other one Obama's real estate fairy.)

"I'll take liberal hypocrisy for 500 Alex...."

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk * *
PGP Key: * * * *http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim.
If your arguments weren't so *strident* they might merit some
discussion. As you present them, I read that you're a conservative
bigot who will broach no discussion to the contrary.

Jimbo wrote:
On Sep 25, 12:12 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:58:32 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
Yep, despite the fact that the congress-critters like Barney Frank and
Chris "Country-wide" Dodd caused the problem by using Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac as their own playground to essentially socialize the mortgage
market by setting standards so low that just about anybody could get a loan
to buy a house, these congress-critters are going to continue get
re-elected and now get even more taxpayer money to "manage" the bail-out of
the problem they caused.
And of course Phil Gramm couldn't possibly have had anything to do with
it. After all, John McCain relies on his advice. And we all know he
wouldn't associate with a crooked politician, would he?
You mean like Comrade Obama and his cast of thugs here in
IL? (The Mayor, the Governor, two convicted felons - one
a 60s mad bomber and the other one Obama's real estate fairy.)

"I'll take liberal hypocrisy for 500 Alex...."

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim.
If your arguments weren't so *strident* they might merit some
discussion. As you present them, I read that you're a conservative
bigot who will broach no discussion to the contrary.

I am neither a conservative nor a bigot. I am unapologetically
opposed to force, fraud, and threat. I live in IL and have seen
Obama for what he is locally. If he is elected it will not be
me who is disappointed - I already have very low expectations for
both him and McCain - It will be Obama's groupies who will get sold
out in acts of political expediency, no different than pretty
much everyone else who ever supported the man. I strongly urge
people to read the New Yorker article on Obama's rise to power
to just get a small taste of what a political bottomfeeder this
guy is.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Sep 26, 2:30*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Jimbo wrote:
On Sep 25, 12:12 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:58:32 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
*Yep, despite the fact that the congress-critters like Barney Frank and
Chris "Country-wide" Dodd caused the problem by using Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac as their own playground to essentially socialize the mortgage
market by setting standards so low that just about anybody could get a loan
to buy a house, these congress-critters are going to continue get
re-elected and now get even more taxpayer money to "manage" the bail-out of
the problem they caused.
And of course Phil Gramm couldn't possibly have had anything to do with
it. *After all, John McCain relies on his advice. *And we all know he
wouldn't associate with a crooked politician, would he?
You mean like Comrade Obama and his cast of thugs here in
IL? (The Mayor, the Governor, two convicted felons - one
a 60s mad bomber and the other one Obama's real estate fairy.)

"I'll take liberal hypocrisy for 500 Alex...."

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk * *
PGP Key: * * * *http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim.
If your arguments weren't so *strident* they might merit some
discussion. *As you present them, I read that you're a conservative
bigot who will broach no discussion to the contrary.

I am neither a conservative nor a bigot. *I am unapologetically
opposed to force, fraud, and threat. *I live in IL and have seen
Obama for what he is locally. *If he is elected it will not be
me who is disappointed - I already have very low expectations for
both him and McCain - It will be Obama's groupies who will get sold
out in acts of political expediency, no different than pretty
much everyone else who ever supported the man. *I strongly urge
people to read the New Yorker article on Obama's rise to power
to just get a small taste of what a political bottomfeeder this
guy is.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk * *
PGP Key: * * * *http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim.
Love him or hate him, Obama represents the best chance the US has to
raise itself out of the mess that Bush has either created or made
worse (depending on where you believe it all started). Obama will
bring a renewed status to the US on the international stage and his
ideas will revitalize the US economy. Your delving into his history
is irrelavant and backward looking. Remember, perception is reality.
When Obama is elected - and I predict he will be by a large margin -
the markets will sit back and wait to see who he brings into the
Treasury. Then the economic resurgence will begin. This time it will
be have a broader base and will improve the lives of more Americans
than any time in recent history. I also predict a second term for him.

Jimbo wrote:
On Sep 26, 2:30 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Jimbo wrote:
On Sep 25, 12:12 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:58:32 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
Yep, despite the fact that the congress-critters like Barney Frank and
Chris "Country-wide" Dodd caused the problem by using Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac as their own playground to essentially socialize the mortgage
market by setting standards so low that just about anybody could get a loan
to buy a house, these congress-critters are going to continue get
re-elected and now get even more taxpayer money to "manage" the bail-out of
the problem they caused.
And of course Phil Gramm couldn't possibly have had anything to do with
it. After all, John McCain relies on his advice. And we all know he
wouldn't associate with a crooked politician, would he?
You mean like Comrade Obama and his cast of thugs here in
IL? (The Mayor, the Governor, two convicted felons - one
a 60s mad bomber and the other one Obama's real estate fairy.)
"I'll take liberal hypocrisy for 500 Alex...."
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Tim.
If your arguments weren't so *strident* they might merit some
discussion. As you present them, I read that you're a conservative
bigot who will broach no discussion to the contrary.
I am neither a conservative nor a bigot. I am unapologetically
opposed to force, fraud, and threat. I live in IL and have seen
Obama for what he is locally. If he is elected it will not be
me who is disappointed - I already have very low expectations for
both him and McCain - It will be Obama's groupies who will get sold
out in acts of political expediency, no different than pretty
much everyone else who ever supported the man. I strongly urge
people to read the New Yorker article on Obama's rise to power
to just get a small taste of what a political bottomfeeder this
guy is.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim.
Love him or hate him, Obama represents the best chance the US has to
raise itself out of the mess that Bush has either created or made
worse (depending on where you believe it all started). Obama will

Disagree strongly. He is a political snakeoil salesman with no
real legislative record and a long history of bad associations,
and political double dealing.

bring a renewed status to the US on the international stage and his
ideas will revitalize the US economy. Your delving into his history

No. The private sector will revitalize the economy unless the
various flavors of neo-communists in government, the general
population, and even the business community insist on collectivizing
that which should be private. Politicians do not "fix" economies.
They merely damage economies, some more, some less.


is irrelavant and backward looking. Remember, perception is reality.
When Obama is elected - and I predict he will be by a large margin -
the markets will sit back and wait to see who he brings into the
Treasury. Then the economic resurgence will begin. This time it will
be have a broader base and will improve the lives of more Americans
than any time in recent history. I also predict a second term for him.

You are likely right about his election - very sadly. Then again,
a nation that has lived with economic fiction, force, and all that
accompanies socialism for some 70 years, doesn't deserve to be
all that well off. Obama will get elected and when he leaves office,
he will leave a chain of high taxes, nationalized businesses, and
a further erosion of the original American ideal of personal liberty.

Viva Obama, Viva Marx


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Jimbo" wrote

Love him or hate him, Obama represents the best chance the US has to
raise itself out of the mess that Bush has either created or made
worse (depending on where you believe it all started). Obama will
bring a renewed status to the US on the international stage and his
ideas will revitalize the US economy. Your delving into his history
is irrelavant and backward looking. Remember, perception is reality.
When Obama is elected - and I predict he will be by a large margin -
the markets will sit back and wait to see who he brings into the
Treasury. Then the economic resurgence will begin. This time it will
be have a broader base and will improve the lives of more Americans
than any time in recent history. I also predict a second term for him.

"na·ive" : marked by unaffected simplicity : deficient in worldly wisdom or
informed judgment.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Tim Daneliuk wrote in news:mk8vq5-agi.ln1
@ozzie.tundraware.com:

So ... the banks are "irresponsible" and "greedy" for trying to maximize
their profits. But the welfare queens who already were living off
of everyone else's money are noble? The government is as responsible
for this mess as the banks. So are the people who borrowed money for
homes they could not actually afford. It's just convenient to blame
the eeeeeeeeeeevil rich people because the slimy left has so ingrained
class warfare in the public mind. The best thing we could do here
would be *nothing*. Let all the participants in this fiasco reap what
the sowed. Let the irresponsible banks go under. Let the irresponsible
borrowers loose their homes and equity. Why should I have to pay
to bail either party out?


Yo should read your writings from the point of view of an unbiased mind,
and you'll understand why I won't say anymore than
plonK

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article ,
says...
Larry Blanchard wrote:

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:58:32 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

Yep, despite the fact that the congress-critters like Barney Frank and
Chris "Country-wide" Dodd caused the problem by using Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac as their own playground to essentially socialize the mortgage
market by setting standards so low that just about anybody could get a
loan to buy a house, these congress-critters are going to continue get
re-elected and now get even more taxpayer money to "manage" the bail-out
of the problem they caused.

And of course Phil Gramm couldn't possibly have had anything to do with
it. After all, John McCain relies on his advice. And we all know he
wouldn't associate with a crooked politician, would he?

It is debateable that the repeal of the Glass-Steigal act had anything to
do with this. After all, it really didn't matter whether brokerage houses
or banks were the ones getting this toxic waste from Freddie Mac and Fannie
Mae.

IMO, it does. Without Wall St. the banks would be holding more of
their own paper. The money wouldn't be made so much from
originating the loans as holding them. They would naturally be more
careful with their own portfolio.

OTOH, once the investment houses got involved, anything with a AAA
rating was the same as any other and "AAA" got stamped on
everything. The really silly thing was the banks were packaging and
selling known junk on the loan side of their operations, then
having their investment side buy the same junk others were
packaging. Apparently they thought others somehow had a better
class of "AAA" junk.

--
Keith

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 09:36:42 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Han wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote in
:

The core of the crisis was Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae for setting
the loan
standards so low that those swap agreements and hybrid instruments
contained loans to people with no chance of paying them back. This
was done at the direction of Congress who demanded an end to
"redlining" and the availability of "affordable mortgages" to more
people. At its height, it was possible for people to walk in and get
a loan with no down payment and not even have proof of employment.

The real core of the problem is not the direction of Congress so much as
the implementation. Isn't it the fiduciary duty of banks etc to protect
their depositors' and stockholders' "investments? Then they (the banks and
investment firms) should have NOT invested in dubious loans and Ponzi
schemes of insurance thereon. The fault of Congress is only in not
insuring that there was proper oversight and regulation of the Ponzi
schemes and 120% of value mortgages.

Don't blame attempts to increase home ownership and responsibility for
irresponsible acts by greedy banks, investment and insurance firms, as well
as corrupt ratings agencies. (Not saying that F&F are blameless).


So ... the banks are "irresponsible" and "greedy" for trying to maximize
their profits.

Yes, if they did it by leveraging 40-50 to one and knew the risk
factors. Watched some interviews yesterday with some CEO's of smaller
banks and investement firms that are leveraged 3-4 to one and they are
doing just fine, return on assets very repectable.

But the welfare queens who already were living off
of everyone else's money are noble? The government is as responsible
for this mess as the banks. So are the people who borrowed money for
homes they could not actually afford.

agreed.

It's just convenient to blame
the eeeeeeeeeeevil rich people because the slimy left has so ingrained
class warfare in the public mind.

agreed. The responsible rich did not cause this.

The best thing we could do here
would be *nothing*. Let all the participants in this fiasco reap what
the sowed. Let the irresponsible banks go under. Let the irresponsible
borrowers loose their homes and equity. Why should I have to pay
to bail either party out?

Better think this one through. So I make my 20% down payment, get a
fixed interest rate, live frugally so that I can pay off my mortgage,
live my life debt free, often denying myself and family things because
I don't want debt, save religiously, make it to retirement oblivious
of the fact that my pension fund and 401K, even though they are rather
conservatively invested, are intertwined with these 40-50 to 1
leveraged firms that are going down and are at risk of catastrophic
failure as a result.

The time for the hard line was before the fact. The people you
describe as causative above will lose very little because they had no
skin in the game. Those living off of someone else will walk away
from their debt and continue to live off of somebody else. The greedy
evil corporate bankers and CEO's will get large severance packages,
and will complain at the country club that if it had held up they
would be far richer. Politicians will continue to spin the truth and
get elected or, if not, join lobbying firms to lobby their
replacements.

But hundreds of millions described above, who had nothing to do with
the cause, will suffer greatly. It is true that if nothing is done,
they won't have to worry about paying to bail either party out, if
this thing spirals down as modeled by a number of economists, they
won't have enough assets and income to pay taxes to do so.

My thoughts.

Frank

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...

Better think this one through. So I make my 20% down payment, get a
fixed interest rate, live frugally so that I can pay off my mortgage,
live my life debt free, often denying myself and family things because
I don't want debt, save religiously, make it to retirement oblivious
of the fact that my pension fund and 401K, even though they are rather
conservatively invested, are intertwined with these 40-50 to 1
leveraged firms that are going down and are at risk of catastrophic
failure as a result.

The time for the hard line was before the fact. The people you
describe as causative above will lose very little because they had no
skin in the game. Those living off of someone else will walk away
from their debt and continue to live off of somebody else. The greedy
evil corporate bankers and CEO's will get large severance packages,
and will complain at the country club that if it had held up they
would be far richer. Politicians will continue to spin the truth and
get elected or, if not, join lobbying firms to lobby their
replacements.

But hundreds of millions described above, who had nothing to do with
the cause, will suffer greatly. It is true that if nothing is done,
they won't have to worry about paying to bail either party out, if
this thing spirals down as modeled by a number of economists, they
won't have enough assets and income to pay taxes to do so.


If this guy is right, it can't be good.
Kevin Phillips on Bill Moyers:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09192008/watch2.html

Dave in Houston

"Dave in Houston" wrote

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...

Better think this one through. So I make my 20% down payment, get a
fixed interest rate, live frugally so that I can pay off my mortgage,
live my life debt free, often denying myself and family things because
I don't want debt, save religiously, make it to retirement oblivious
of the fact that my pension fund and 401K, even though they are rather
conservatively invested, are intertwined with these 40-50 to 1
leveraged firms that are going down and are at risk of catastrophic
failure as a result.

The time for the hard line was before the fact. The people you
describe as causative above will lose very little because they had no
skin in the game. Those living off of someone else will walk away
from their debt and continue to live off of somebody else. The greedy
evil corporate bankers and CEO's will get large severance packages,
and will complain at the country club that if it had held up they
would be far richer. Politicians will continue to spin the truth and
get elected or, if not, join lobbying firms to lobby their
replacements.

But hundreds of millions described above, who had nothing to do with
the cause, will suffer greatly. It is true that if nothing is done,
they won't have to worry about paying to bail either party out, if
this thing spirals down as modeled by a number of economists, they
won't have enough assets and income to pay taxes to do so.


If this guy is right, it can't be good.
Kevin Phillips on Bill Moyers:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09192008/watch2.html

This guy is right, and so are you!

Not only is he right, but if you go back and read through the archives of
this newsgroup alone you will see his premise alluded to again and again by
many of us common folk, particularly by those who share an all important age
based perspective. All regarding issues such as loss of manufacturing, with
emphasis on a burger flipping service economy and its attendant, ignorance
based acceptance of shoddy goods and services; rampant corporate greed; a
broken educational system (which, at its highest levels encourages that
greed and blurs the distinction between morality and legality in our laws
and social systems, with no moral compass to guide); social welfare
trappings that exist mainly to salve a guilty conscious; illegal
immigration; fiscal irresponsibility at all levels (just wait until the
unsustainable credit card debt "bubble" hits the fan); and the inexplicable,
tacitly allowed and insidious, government gridlock/ineptitude; which are all
blatant, visible manifestations of an economy and culture spiraling
downwards.

This crisis, with more to come, has been predictable for some time, which
begs the question that if us common folk can see it coming, why the hell not
our elected "representatives" ... for "leaders" they are provably not?

You can now sit back and wait for the next "crisis" stemming directly from
the "What's in your wallet?" mentality.

Simply put: "what you sow, you shall reap"...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 09:36:42 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Han wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote in
:

The core of the crisis was Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae for setting
the loan
standards so low that those swap agreements and hybrid instruments
contained loans to people with no chance of paying them back. This
was done at the direction of Congress who demanded an end to
"redlining" and the availability of "affordable mortgages" to more
people. At its height, it was possible for people to walk in and get
a loan with no down payment and not even have proof of employment.
The real core of the problem is not the direction of Congress so much as
the implementation. Isn't it the fiduciary duty of banks etc to protect
their depositors' and stockholders' "investments? Then they (the banks and
investment firms) should have NOT invested in dubious loans and Ponzi
schemes of insurance thereon. The fault of Congress is only in not
insuring that there was proper oversight and regulation of the Ponzi
schemes and 120% of value mortgages.

Don't blame attempts to increase home ownership and responsibility for
irresponsible acts by greedy banks, investment and insurance firms, as well
as corrupt ratings agencies. (Not saying that F&F are blameless).

So ... the banks are "irresponsible" and "greedy" for trying to maximize
their profits.

Yes, if they did it by leveraging 40-50 to one and knew the risk
factors. Watched some interviews yesterday with some CEO's of smaller
banks and investement firms that are leveraged 3-4 to one and they are
doing just fine, return on assets very repectable.

If we just let them fail, this problem would be self-correcting.


But the welfare queens who already were living off
of everyone else's money are noble? The government is as responsible
for this mess as the banks. So are the people who borrowed money for
homes they could not actually afford.

agreed.

It's just convenient to blame
the eeeeeeeeeeevil rich people because the slimy left has so ingrained
class warfare in the public mind.

agreed. The responsible rich did not cause this.

The best thing we could do here
would be *nothing*. Let all the participants in this fiasco reap what
the sowed. Let the irresponsible banks go under. Let the irresponsible
borrowers loose their homes and equity. Why should I have to pay
to bail either party out?

Better think this one through. So I make my 20% down payment, get a
fixed interest rate, live frugally so that I can pay off my mortgage,
live my life debt free, often denying myself and family things because
I don't want debt, save religiously, make it to retirement oblivious
of the fact that my pension fund and 401K, even though they are rather
conservatively invested, are intertwined with these 40-50 to 1
leveraged firms that are going down and are at risk of catastrophic
failure as a result.

So that means - and I face this decision like so many others - we
have to rebalance our retirement portfolios - now before the
bottom falls out.


The time for the hard line was before the fact. The people you
describe as causative above will lose very little because they had no
skin in the game. Those living off of someone else will walk away
from their debt and continue to live off of somebody else. The greedy
evil corporate bankers and CEO's will get large severance packages,
and will complain at the country club that if it had held up they
would be far richer. Politicians will continue to spin the truth and
get elected or, if not, join lobbying firms to lobby their
replacements.

But, if we have bailout, we'll all be paying to *perpetuate* what you've
just described.


But hundreds of millions described above, who had nothing to do with
the cause, will suffer greatly. It is true that if nothing is done,
they won't have to worry about paying to bail either party out, if
this thing spirals down as modeled by a number of economists, they
won't have enough assets and income to pay taxes to do so.

My thoughts.

Frank



You are - I think - right, up to a point. The problem is that there
is *no* fix. The most the government can do is delay the inevitable.
This whole mess starts and ends with business, individuals, and government
living in economic fantasyland. Trying to buy our way out of it now
with tax money will fix nothing. It will weaken the dollar and cause
a consequent increase in oil prices. When government interdicts and
distorts markets, no good thing comes from it. We need to get back
to "Root, hog, or die" as did our forefathers.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 11:10:19 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 09:36:42 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Han wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote in
:

The core of the crisis was Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae for setting
the loan
standards so low that those swap agreements and hybrid instruments
contained loans to people with no chance of paying them back. This
was done at the direction of Congress who demanded an end to
"redlining" and the availability of "affordable mortgages" to more
people. At its height, it was possible for people to walk in and get
a loan with no down payment and not even have proof of employment.
The real core of the problem is not the direction of Congress so much as
the implementation. Isn't it the fiduciary duty of banks etc to protect
their depositors' and stockholders' "investments? Then they (the banks and
investment firms) should have NOT invested in dubious loans and Ponzi
schemes of insurance thereon. The fault of Congress is only in not
insuring that there was proper oversight and regulation of the Ponzi
schemes and 120% of value mortgages.

Don't blame attempts to increase home ownership and responsibility for
irresponsible acts by greedy banks, investment and insurance firms, as well
as corrupt ratings agencies. (Not saying that F&F are blameless).

So ... the banks are "irresponsible" and "greedy" for trying to maximize
their profits.

Yes, if they did it by leveraging 40-50 to one and knew the risk
factors. Watched some interviews yesterday with some CEO's of smaller
banks and investement firms that are leveraged 3-4 to one and they are
doing just fine, return on assets very repectable.

If we just let them fail, this problem would be self-correcting.

Don't think so, too intertwined, I'm led to believe. But I'm no
expert.


But the welfare queens who already were living off
of everyone else's money are noble? The government is as responsible
for this mess as the banks. So are the people who borrowed money for
homes they could not actually afford.

agreed.

It's just convenient to blame
the eeeeeeeeeeevil rich people because the slimy left has so ingrained
class warfare in the public mind.

agreed. The responsible rich did not cause this.

The best thing we could do here
would be *nothing*. Let all the participants in this fiasco reap what
the sowed. Let the irresponsible banks go under. Let the irresponsible
borrowers loose their homes and equity. Why should I have to pay
to bail either party out?

Better think this one through. So I make my 20% down payment, get a
fixed interest rate, live frugally so that I can pay off my mortgage,
live my life debt free, often denying myself and family things because
I don't want debt, save religiously, make it to retirement oblivious
of the fact that my pension fund and 401K, even though they are rather
conservatively invested, are intertwined with these 40-50 to 1
leveraged firms that are going down and are at risk of catastrophic
failure as a result.

So that means - and I face this decision like so many others - we
have to rebalance our retirement portfolios - now before the
bottom falls out.

A lot of the damage has already been done there. And there is no
place to go except hard assets and cash and cash isn't safe. If the
big bucks flow out of equities and cost and availability of capital is
nil for those "adding value to something that is mined or grown", then
they go down, nobody has a job and nothing is worth anything. So the
government starts the priniting press and cash becomes worthless. And
when there is no one to sell anything to, hard assets don't have any
value.


The time for the hard line was before the fact. The people you
describe as causative above will lose very little because they had no
skin in the game. Those living off of someone else will walk away
from their debt and continue to live off of somebody else. The greedy
evil corporate bankers and CEO's will get large severance packages,
and will complain at the country club that if it had held up they
would be far richer. Politicians will continue to spin the truth and
get elected or, if not, join lobbying firms to lobby their
replacements.

But, if we have bailout, we'll all be paying to *perpetuate* what you've
just described.


But hundreds of millions described above, who had nothing to do with
the cause, will suffer greatly. It is true that if nothing is done,
they won't have to worry about paying to bail either party out, if
this thing spirals down as modeled by a number of economists, they
won't have enough assets and income to pay taxes to do so.

My thoughts.

Frank



You are - I think - right, up to a point. The problem is that there
is *no* fix. The most the government can do is delay the inevitable.
This whole mess starts and ends with business, individuals, and government
living in economic fantasyland. Trying to buy our way out of it now
with tax money will fix nothing. It will weaken the dollar and cause
a consequent increase in oil prices. When government interdicts and
distorts markets, no good thing comes from it. We need to get back
to "Root, hog, or die" as did our forefathers.


The fix is to prevent complete collapse, then gradually move in the
other direction in an orderly fashion. That direction would be
limited government, limited taxation, rewarded personal
responsibility, regulatory action to only prevent fraud, deception, or
outright illegal behavior.

Problem is, we may have gone too far to get back. We have attained a
weird sort of government and economy that has creeping socialism on
one end and those in favor of and reaping the benefits of that have
allowed a sort of reckless captialism on the other end to fund it.
Even though the game is all but over, nobody is going to give up their
position if they don't have to.

SNIP


Problem is, we may have gone too far to get back. We have attained a
weird sort of government and economy that has creeping socialism on
one end and those in favor of and reaping the benefits of that have

It's not "creeping". We have leapt into the socialist sewer on
virtually every front given almost any opportunity. It is ironic
that Comrade Obama has admitted he may have to give up his
communist health insurance ambitions to make room for the socialist
economic bailout. Evil begets evil.

allowed a sort of reckless captialism on the other end to fund it.

Well, the problem is that it wasn't really free market capitalism at
all. It was more like oligarchic capitalism in which the largest
center of money in the private sector took profit when it appeared (as
they should), but laid off the risk and losses to the taxpayer
whenever possible (which should never have happened). This is not a
free market economy, it's a con game. This doesn't stop the Obama
communists from claiming that this was a "failure of the free market".
It was no such thing and they know it, but like all collectivists, at
their heart, they are liars.

Pretty much every left government in the past 100 years has
participated, but so have a good many of the the so-called right
governments. I note with disdain that the airlines got protection from
the Bush administration in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 even though
their problems long predated this, for instance. Why? Because the
sheeple howled that they had a "right" to a "fair" price. Just like
Clinton told them they have a "right" to housing. Just like Comrade Obama
invents a "right" to healthcare and so forth. In my very jaundiced (I
admit) view, it is this body of invented and fictitious rights
promised the sheeple that actually paved the way for the taxocrats and
the oligarchs to pillage the country's coffers, private and public.

Maybe you're right, we need to find a softer landing for now. But on
the other side of that, as you say, we need and immediate return to
limited government, individual responsibility, and self-sufficiency.
Every time some drooling ideologue insists on using tax money to
"help" people, we need to point out that this was a large part of what
led us to the meltdowns of 2008 ...


Even though the game is all but over, nobody is going to give up their
position if they don't have to.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Sep 27, 8:39*am, "Dave in Houston" wrote:
"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message

...



Better think this one through. *So I make my 20% down payment, get a
fixed interest rate, live frugally so that I can pay off my mortgage,
live my life debt free, often denying myself and family things because
I don't want debt, save religiously, *make it to retirement oblivious
of the fact that my pension fund and 401K, even though they are rather
conservatively invested, are intertwined with these 40-50 to 1
leveraged firms that are going down and are at risk of catastrophic
failure as a result.

The time for the hard line was before the fact. *The people you
describe as causative above will lose very little because they had no
skin in the game. *Those living off of someone else will walk away
from their debt and continue to live off of somebody else. *The greedy
evil corporate bankers and CEO's will get large severance packages,
and will complain at the country club that if it had held up they
would be far richer. Politicians will continue to spin the truth and
get elected or, if not, join lobbying firms to lobby their
replacements.

But hundreds of millions described above, who had nothing to do with
the cause, will suffer greatly. *It is true that if nothing is done,
they won't have to worry about paying to bail either party out, if
this thing spirals down as modeled by a number of economists, they
won't have enough assets and income to pay taxes to do so.

* * If this guy is right, it can't be good.
Kevin Phillips on Bill Moyers:http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09192008/watch2.html

Dave in Houston

A well-spent 26 minutes. Thanks for the link.

Tim Daneliuk wrote in news:n5a2r5-7rr.ln1
@ozzie.tundraware.com:

we need an immediate return to limited government, individual
responsibility, and self-sufficiency.

Limiting government is easy to legislate.
Individual responsibility is an ideal, almost impossile to legislate.
Self-sufficiency is a dream, possibly attainable by erecting HUGE trade
barriers, but who is going to profit from limited resources after the
barriers are erected, pray answer?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote in news:Xns9B269B2BB8027ikkezelf@
199.45.49.11:

Tim Daneliuk wrote in news:n5a2r5-7rr.ln1
@ozzie.tundraware.com:

we need an immediate return to limited government, individual
responsibility, and self-sufficiency.

Limiting government is easy to legislate.
Individual responsibility is an ideal, almost impossile to legislate.
.................................................i mpossible to legislate,
let alone enforce.
Self-sufficiency is a dream, possibly attainable by erecting HUGE trade
barriers, but who is going to profit from limited resources after the
barriers are erected, pray answer?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 19:18:04 GMT, Han wrote:

Han wrote in news:Xns9B269B2BB8027ikkezelf@
199.45.49.11:

Tim Daneliuk wrote in news:n5a2r5-7rr.ln1
@ozzie.tundraware.com:

we need an immediate return to limited government, individual
responsibility, and self-sufficiency.

Limiting government is easy to legislate.

Are you kidding me? The government is going to limit itself? Pray
tell when in history that ever happened.

Individual responsibility is an ideal, almost impossile to legislate.
................................................i mpossible to legislate,
let alone enforce.

In someone's post to this thread it was suggested that individual
responsibility can be legislated? More government action to legislate
individual reponsibility? ROTFLOL.

When there is no handout you only have two choices. Be responsible
for you and yours or perish. Most will choose the former.

Self-sufficiency is a dream, possibly attainable by erecting HUGE trade
barriers, but who is going to profit from limited resources after the
barriers are erected, pray answer?

I think he is referring to individual self sufficiency not trade
issues

Han wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote in news:n5a2r5-7rr.ln1
@ozzie.tundraware.com:

we need an immediate return to limited government, individual
responsibility, and self-sufficiency.

Limiting government is easy to legislate.

And is corrupted almost immediately by the mooching sheeple.

Individual responsibility is an ideal, almost impossile to legislate.

But can be strongly "encouraged" by holding people accountable when
they harm another person. "Harm" here pretty much always comes in
some form of fraud, force, or threat.

Self-sufficiency is a dream, possibly attainable by erecting HUGE trade
barriers, but who is going to profit from limited resources after the
barriers are erected, pray answer?


I wrote this imprecisely. By "self sufficiency", I don't mean
independent of each other or our trading partners. Successful people
are always voluntarily interdependent. What I meant was "not dependent
on the involuntary confiscations of our fellow citizens' assets".

IOW - Root, Hog, Or Die...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Frank Boettcher wrote in
:

On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 19:18:04 GMT, Han wrote:

Han wrote in news:Xns9B269B2BB8027ikkezelf@
199.45.49.11:

Tim Daneliuk wrote in news:n5a2r5-7rr.ln1
@ozzie.tundraware.com:

we need an immediate return to limited government, individual
responsibility, and self-sufficiency.

Limiting government is easy to legislate.

Are you kidding me? The government is going to limit itself? Pray
tell when in history that ever happened.

It has happened. See the repeal or limitation of income taxes. You or
Tim D will just have to set up the constitutional amendments necessary.
How else are you going to "return to limited government" as you said we
need?

Individual responsibility is an ideal, almost impossile to
legislate.
................................................ impossible to
legislate, let alone enforce.

In someone's post to this thread it was suggested that individual
responsibility can be legislated? More government action to legislate
individual reponsibility? ROTFLOL.

When there is no handout you only have two choices. Be responsible
for you and yours or perish. Most will choose the former.

Responsibility alo includes not screwing others. That should be
legislated, or are you going on the honor sysem? ROTFLMAO, indeed.

Self-sufficiency is a dream, possibly attainable by erecting HUGE
trade barriers, but who is going to profit from limited resources
after the barriers are erected, pray answer?

I think he is referring to individual self sufficiency not trade
issues

I don't understand. Aren't we all dependent on many functions of
government? Defense, trade, transportation, healthcare? Or do you want
to be your own doctor?

If you mean that we should earn our way, I agree. However, some people
haven't gotten the same chances that others could profit from. For
instance, my parents paid for my education, and that (plus a lot of luck)
is what got me where my family and I are today. Does that mean that
someone who didn't have the luck of having parents (and grandparents etc)
like mine should rot away like garbage?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:
SNIP

I think he is referring to individual self sufficiency not trade
issues

I don't understand. Aren't we all dependent on many functions of
government? Defense, trade, transportation, healthcare? Or do you want
to be your own doctor?

Defense is the only legitimate government function on your list.
(Because it is essential to the preservation of liberty.) Trade,
transportation and healthcare are properly private sector activities
in which the government has no business. (Because none of them
are issues of liberty.)


If you mean that we should earn our way, I agree. However, some people
haven't gotten the same chances that others could profit from. For
instance, my parents paid for my education, and that (plus a lot of luck)
is what got me where my family and I are today. Does that mean that
someone who didn't have the luck of having parents (and grandparents etc)
like mine should rot away like garbage?

I wasn't born with the physical skills to make $20M per year playing
the NBA. Does that mean I should be excluded from being a point guard
for the Chicago Bulls? I am too old to make any significant
breakthroughs in theoretical physics. Does that mean I should be
excluded from a full professorship in the Princeton physics
department? I cannot run a marathon in 2 hrs. Does that mean that
I can't be on the Olympic long distance team?

In a free society, inequitable circumstances of birth and family are
almost entirely eradicated within a generation or two *so long as the
individuals in question work very hard to make inter-generational
progress*. The purpose of liberty is not to ensure equivalent outcomes
for all beneficiaries - this is a fantasy peddled by political vermin
like Comrade Obama. The purpose of liberty is to provide an
environment where everyone can try their best to succeed without
living in fear of fraud, threat, or force.

In a society that promotes individual liberty, the only way people
"rot away" is when they don't try very hard. Well, there is one other
circumstance: When they are profoundly physically or mentally
handicapped. In this latter case, there is more than enough private
charity to help. But able bodied/minded people ought to be expected to
be responsible for their own economic and social progress and not
given the hammer of government to force their neighbors to pay up.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 22:16:41 GMT, Han wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote in
:

On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 19:18:04 GMT, Han wrote:

Han wrote in news:Xns9B269B2BB8027ikkezelf@
199.45.49.11:

Tim Daneliuk wrote in news:n5a2r5-7rr.ln1
@ozzie.tundraware.com:

we need an immediate return to limited government, individual
responsibility, and self-sufficiency.

Limiting government is easy to legislate.

Are you kidding me? The government is going to limit itself? Pray
tell when in history that ever happened.

It has happened. See the repeal or limitation of income taxes.

Didn't limit government. It provided a stronger economy and more tax
reciepts for the government to spend. If anything it expanded
government.

You or
Tim D will just have to set up the constitutional amendments necessary.
How else are you going to "return to limited government" as you said we
need?

Don't need amendments, Constitution OK as is. Just abide by it.

Individual responsibility is an ideal, almost impossile to
legislate.
............................................... .impossible to
legislate, let alone enforce.

In someone's post to this thread it was suggested that individual
responsibility can be legislated? More government action to legislate
individual reponsibility? ROTFLOL.

When there is no handout you only have two choices. Be responsible
for you and yours or perish. Most will choose the former.

Responsibility alo includes not screwing others. That should be
legislated, or are you going on the honor sysem? ROTFLMAO, indeed.



Self-sufficiency is a dream, possibly attainable by erecting HUGE
trade barriers, but who is going to profit from limited resources
after the barriers are erected, pray answer?

I think he is referring to individual self sufficiency not trade
issues

I don't understand. Aren't we all dependent on many functions of
government? Defense, trade, transportation,

The government should provide for my defense from those who would do
me harm, both foreign and domestic.

healthcare? Or do you want
to be your own doctor?

No, I want to choose my doctors.



If you mean that we should earn our way, I agree. However, some people
haven't gotten the same chances that others could profit from. For
instance, my parents paid for my education, and that (plus a lot of luck)
is what got me where my family and I are today. Does that mean that
someone who didn't have the luck of having parents (and grandparents etc)
like mine should rot away like garbage?

Well good for you, I don't hold it against you, in fact I'm happy for
your good fortune. I didn't have that luxury, had to work my way
through, please don't hold that against me. I don't think I'm rotting
away like garbage.

Frank

Han wrote:

If you mean that we should earn our way, I agree. However, some people
haven't gotten the same chances that others could profit from. For
instance, my parents paid for my education, and that (plus a lot of luck)
is what got me where my family and I are today. Does that mean that
someone who didn't have the luck of having parents (and grandparents etc)
like mine should rot away like garbage?


Do you really feel that if your parents had not paid for your education
you would be rotting away like garbage?

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

Nova wrote in news:BhzDk.392$kI6.128
@nwrddc01.gnilink.net:

Do you really feel that if your parents had not paid for your education
you would be rotting away like garbage?

I am pretty sure that if not for the "luck" I have ad, my circumstances
would be different. Consider that admision of lazyness.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Jimbo wrote:

.... snip
Love him or hate him, Obama represents the best chance the US has to
raise itself out of the mess that Bush has either created or made
worse (depending on where you believe it all started). Obama will
bring a renewed status to the US on the international stage and his
ideas will revitalize the US economy. Your delving into his history
is irrelavant and backward looking. Remember, perception is reality.
When Obama is elected - and I predict he will be by a large margin -
the markets will sit back and wait to see who he brings into the
Treasury. Then the economic resurgence will begin. This time it will
be have a broader base and will improve the lives of more Americans
than any time in recent history.

Perhaps you can help me out here, I'm not yet fully up on my Book of
Obama: Does all of the above happen before or after he lowers the ocean
levels and heals the sick?


I also predict a second term for him.

If, by some chance our country is punished with an Obama presidency, it is
more likely we will finally experience that Jimmy Carter second term that
we missed in the 80's.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Nova" wrote in message
...
Han wrote:

If you mean that we should earn our way, I agree. However, some people
haven't gotten the same chances that others could profit from. For
instance, my parents paid for my education, and that (plus a lot of luck)
is what got me where my family and I are today. Does that mean that
someone who didn't have the luck of having parents (and grandparents etc)
like mine should rot away like garbage?


Do you really feel that if your parents had not paid for your education
you would be rotting away like garbage?


Too many of us did not receive an education funded by our parents, to accept
Han's statement above. The key point that Han seems to have missed out on
by receiving the gift that he did, is the merit and the benefits of hard
work to achieve one's goals.

--

-Mike-