...Congress still had 533 members not running for President who are at least nominally competent to debate and pass legislation.

That statement in itself is debatable! o_O

Amy,

I did my throwing up last week when I realized that the same bozos that caused all of this were now saying they were going to fix things. My last bit of up-chucking came when democrats wanted to put in provisions to keep these bankrupt homeowners in their homes. Politicians' idiocy seems to know no bounds ...

My throw-up moment came watching Bush say that part of the bail-out package will require "limiting" executives compensation.

If only they did have the decency to toss themselves out of buildings like their ancestors.

I turned the TV off (well, closed the WinTV program, anyway) when Dodd's fat fucking face came on the screen and he had the balls to ask Paulson a question.

If Dodd had a shred of decency, he'd at least recuse himself from the hearings, if not outright resign and exile himself to the mountains, after leaving his pension to a homeless shelter.

But I'm not bitter.

Although it's starting to look like the longer this gets drawn out, the more likely it is to resolve itself. Which is odd.

I agree that neither McCain nor Obama is the guy I want to see as President in a crisis like this. I'm scared to death.

But on the debate front -- my gut is on McCain's side. Yeah, I know he's posturing, but so is Obama. Posturing aside, this bailout has to be done right, and whatever happens with it will determine the future course of our country. It will tie the hands of our next president in a million ways. Therefore, I think McCain and Obama should be involved in putting the plan together instead of just trusting the "other" senators to handle it.

This debate is going to be about foreign policy, not the economy. I frankly don't want to watch them argue about Iran and Russia while our collective and individual financial futures teter in the balance. And I don't want to watch their freaking attack ads either. Right now, I want to see them work on our financial meltdown to the extent they can. They can debate about Russia in a couple of days. Maybe I'll care by then.

Gail - I completely agree that tomorrow night I want to hear about the economy not foreign policy.

However, I am at a complete loss as to why your gut is telling you McCain & the Republican party should be allowed another 4 years. I'm not criticizing your choice, but I'd like it explained to me.

Haven't the Republicans done enough to mess up this country? Shouldn't we give the Dems a fair chance to screw things up?

DB -- Actually, I didn't say that I was voting for McCain. I said I didn't like either candidate. I just happen to agree with McCain that we should focus on the economic crisis, and put off debating on Russia.

As to whom I'm voting for -- Sheesh, I'm seriously looking at third parties. I live in New York, so frankly it doesn't matter if I vote for Donald Duck (and I just might).

If you put a gun to my head and make me choose between Obama and McCain -- prior to Palin entering the race, I would have leaned slightly and reluctantly towards McCain. After Palin entered it, I would have leaned slightly and reluctantly towards Obama. Now I think you'd just have to shoot me. We'll see where I am next week.

I'm not sure that throwing the bums out does much good if the other party is just as bad. ALL the freaking bums need to go. Unfortunately, I think the entire country is going to have to collapse before that happens.

Um, DB? let's not jump the gun here.

I got this in an email this morning from one of my brothers:

George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. For the first six the economy was fine.

About a year and a half ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for aournd $2.39 a gallon;
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.
4) The DOW JONES hit a record high -- 14,000+
5) Americans were buying new cars, taking cruises and vacations overseas, living large!

But Americans wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress & yep -- we got 'CHANGE' all right!

1) Consumer confidence has plummeted;
2) Gasoline is now close to $4 a gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 trillion dollars & prices are still dropping;
5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
6) THE DOW is probing another low ~11,300 -- $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT
PORTFOLIOS!
YEP, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE! AND WE GOT IT! A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS, led by NANCY PELOSI. HARRY REID.

Now the Democrats' candidate for president -- and the polls say he's gonna be 'the man' -- claims he's gonna really give us change! Just how much more 'change' do you think you can stand?

Now, my brother is a financial consultant, so I tend to think he's got a pretty good idea of what's going on. Of course, I could be wrong. YMMV

DB - let us not forget that the Fannie/Freddie debacle was largely a creation of Democrats. I can name names, if you like. Ok, since you twisted my arm...

Barney Frank (D,MA) - Chariman House Banking Committee.
Christopher Dodd (D, CT) - Chairman, Senate Banking Committee.

Both are filthy with Fannie/Freddie donations. Both have stood in the way of any meaningful reform that Republicans (including Bush and McCain) have tried to impose.

And to this day, Barney Frank insists that there is nothing wrong with Fannie/Freddie's practices and wants them to CONTINUE to issue under-collateralized loans to people without the financial wherewithal to pay them back.

But you continue blaming Republicans. Yeah, Republicans MIGHT fuck up the economy, but the Democrats have a proven track record of fucking it up.

I appreciate everyone's intelligent (and non-snarky) replies. Living in a v. Democratic city and state, w/ extremely Democratic friends it's rare that I get to hear anything but rants about the evils of the Republican empire and the sainthood of the Dems. So, it's nice to get a different viewpoint no matter who you're going to vote for. Is Ralph Nader still running?

Flynne - thank your bro for that email. It's interesting to see it explained like that. It raises the questions however, who do you blame? Congress or the President? If a company bites the dust, who's to blame? The CEO or the employees? (This might be a bad analogy - I'm one of those average ignorant Americans who doesn't fully understand the relationship between congress and the President, BUT I'm trying to learn.)

Back to Amy's entry - I believe there is absolutely no reason why the debate should not take place Friday night, I just wish they'd change the topic to the economy.

DB --

You're not going to hear about the economy in a debate tomorrow night. That's never going to happen -- the economy debate will be in a couple of weeks. Friday is going to be foreign policy or nothing. Moreover, the candidates are not going to be ready to speak definitively to the current financial crisis just yet -- I think in a couple of days they'll be able to say something much more solid. Until the deal is solidified, all we'll hear about the rescue package is careful posturing, and I don't freaking want to hear it.

The question before us is whether they debate foreign policy on Friday, or work on the rescue package for now, and debate foreign policy in a couple of days. While as a usual rule, I care a lot about foreign policy, right now I really don't freaking want to hear about it.

Honestly? Even if McCain and Obama can't add that much to the rescue package (but, gee, I hope that's not true -- one of them's going to be leading the country soon), I don't want to hear them posture and argue right now. Right now, I want to feel like we've got a team of Americans working towards a common goal.

Once we have some kind of rescue plan in place, I'll want to hear all about it. I'll also want to hear all about foreign policy and global warming and the war etc. etc. But until something decent is in place, I'm biting my nails down to the nubs. I can't be alone in feeling this way.

brian, check out the anti-Dodd political cartoon here:

http://townhall.com/funnies/2008/09/25/16d63690-05e4-4929-aa60-24d307f28c9d

I will, DB. As far as blame goes, we have only ourselves to blame, to an extent. We can also blame the candidates that we the people elected based on their campaign promises (as yet, mostly unfulfilled), and their audacity to lie to their constituents in the first place, so I would say blame Congress and the President. There's plenty of blame to go around!

If a company bites the dust, depending on the company, you can usually find mismanagement and greed as the main causes. What you can't find is someone who will admit to it (either the mismanagement or the greed. o_O

PS - I heard Nader's on the ticket this year. Brian, he lives in Winstead, or thereabouts, right? (Let's not forget he's almost as old as McCain, though. Just sayin'.)

Kaus-

| McCain's debate-delaying move seems
| more than a bit immature and
| self-indulgent. (As a kid, didn't
| you used to think, 'Gee, if there
| was a huge disaster I wouldn't have
| to take that test'?')

Conan - Yeah, that's about right.

Flynne - Not only that, but Nader might be the only candidate on the ticket MORE liberal than Obama.

Crid - that depends upon what you think McCain and Obama's job is. They're both still sitting senators.

Which, of course, leads to the idea that perhaps anyone presently in office ought to have to resign before running for another office.

Crid -- McCain's asking for a delay may well be a political stunt (certainly that's at least part of what's going on), but I doubt very much that McCain is afraid to debate Obama on foreign policy. McCain's stronger than Obama on that topic (or rather, Obama's pathetically weak on that topic). If it were on the economy, I might buy it.

Brian -- I'm with you on this issue: while they're senators, I want to see them do their jobs.

McCain was trying to put BO in a lose-lose situation where if he does not accept the proposal to work on the US economic problems, it will seem that the Dems care more about the campaign than about helping the American people. This was a carefully calculated political move that will backfire, like his choice in vp.

Ok ... never mind. I just threw up again. Did anyone read Hillary Clinton's Op-ed in the WSJ today? She actually argues that the US must "launch a national effort to help homeowners refinance their mortgages". This is un-fucking-believable.

Brian,

I must apologize. Although I still feel conservatives that do not stop socialist madness while in power for 8 years are somewhat responsible for the ensuing chaos created, the origination of these destructive policies are all the Dems doing.

This was a carefully calculated political move that will backfire, like his choice in vp.

Please tell me your head's gonna explode when Obama loses by 20 points in November. I wanna watch.

"Did anyone read Hillary Clinton's Op-ed in the WSJ today? She actually argues that the US must "launch a national effort to help homeowners refinance their mortgages". This is un-fucking-believable."

Do you have better ideas? What are you going to do with all these foreclosed homes? Ship them all to China?

It is catch 22. The unoccupied foreclosed homes will just bring in more crimes and further miseries far worse than the financial mess.

Let's be fair. 350 billion to bail out the Wall Street greedy MBA graduates. 350 billion to bail out the greedy high school drop outs.

Chang,

You are either economically illiterate or just a hypocrite. The current problem was created by the government wanting to raise homeownership to unsustainable levels. What "greedy MBA'
s" did was just a reaction to an environment that gov't created. And it is not a catch 22 dumbass. The only way to solve this problem is to let market forces work their magic. The foreclosed property becomes the bank's property which it can rent, sell, have converted to apartment buildings, converted to commercial buildings, etc. etc. etc. But hey, maybe we should bring Hitler in and just execute everyone in site. So let's be fair ... 700B to bailout government from its own stupidity. Man are you ever dumb.

Sorry for getting aggressive ... but these people are really pissing me off with their ignorance.

Chang, you ignorant slut.

The reason so many of these houses are in foreclosure is because they were sold at inflated prices to people who couldn't afford them.

Correction requires a few things - and one of them is for those who loaned the money to these individuals to take a beating. Instead, the people they fraudulently sold these mortgages to (as mortgage-backed securities) are getting hammered.

The other thing is for those who bought too much house using exotic financial instruments need to lose them.

Someone will come in to buy up the properties at the fire sale. And if enough of these buyers can be convinced to sell the houses (at a loss) to avoid foreclosure, maybe they can work off the remainder by renting the house back from the person they sell it to.

"The only way to solve this problem is to let market forces work their magic."

It is too late for that. You sound like a gambler "Since I got my money back, no cheating any more on the table, OK?"

"The foreclosed property becomes the bank's property which it can rent, sell, have converted to apartment buildings, converted to commercial buildings, etc. etc."

And you call me ignorant. The failed banks are not equipped to handle the above transactions. They are not even good at what they are supposed to do. You watch too many Disney movies.

"But hey, maybe we should bring Hitler in and just execute everyone in site."

That may not be bad idea. A lot of nations went through that process. France, Germany, Japan, Russia..... They all came out OK at the end.

"Sorry for getting aggressive ... but these people are really pissing me off with their ignorance."

Don't be too humble. You are not that great. (I stole this line from Crid).

"Someone will come in to buy up the properties at the fire sale. And if enough of these buyers can be convinced to sell the houses (at a loss) to avoid foreclosure, maybe they can work off the remainder by renting the house back from the person they sell it to."

If you were behind the mortgage, you have two options.

1. Sell it at a loss. Then, you are still obligated to pay the bank for the unpaid mortgage.

2. Trash the house, get if foreclosed and walk out. Due to recent legislation, the unpaid debt to bank is no longer taxable income to you as debt cancellation income.

Most people chose option 2. Your neighbor hood would look like Iraq pretty soon.

That may not be bad idea. A lot of nations went through that process. France, Germany, Japan, Russia..... They all came out OK at the end.

Because someone else jumped in and put an end to the madness...or stood firm against the expansionist plans of said countries.

Your comment has to be one of the stupidest statements I've ever read.

Chang, since you're so keen to see the country descend into violence and tyranny (and so praising of those who have led their countries into the same), why don't you volunteer to be first against the wall? I'll even give your family enough to pay for the bullet.

Don't be too humble. You are not that great. (I stole this line from Crid).

No, you stole it from Golda Meir.

"2. Trash the house, get if foreclosed and walk out. Due to recent legislation, the unpaid debt to bank is no longer taxable income to you as debt cancellation income.

Most people chose option 2. Your neighbor hood would look like Iraq pretty soon."

This kind of scum already lives in a neighborhood that looks like Iraq. And besides, where do they go then? They have to live somewhere.

"Chang, since you're so keen to see the country descend into violence and tyranny (and so praising of those who have led their countries into the same), why don't you volunteer to be first against the wall? I'll even give your family enough to pay for the bullet."

You read me wrong. I would be on the other side of the firing line. So, keep your money.

If your goal is to build a peaceful society, the violence is necessary evil to achieve that. The law itself is the legalized violence. The people created this financial mess should be punished literally not rewarded with stock options. To me, it is worse than 09/11.

Our current system is unable to execute these criminals. In fact, they are still in charge of the government. Neither candidate would get us out of this mess.

France was in similar situation before, and Napoleon came along..

You read me wrong. I would be on the other side of the firing line. So, keep your money.

Only if you're on the winning side.

And maybe even not then...just ask Trotsky or Robespierre how being on the winning side worked out for them.

France was in similar situation before, and Napoleon came along.

And that worked out so well. Eleven years of near-constant warfare, a bankrupt country, an entire generation of young men lost, and the metric system. Yeah. I can't wait for our Napoleon to come along.

"And that worked out so well. Eleven years of near-constant warfare, a bankrupt country, an entire generation of young men lost, and the metric system. Yeah. I can't wait for our Napoleon to come along."

It is like you are complaining Miss America's beautiful evening dress is missing a button.

Napoleon is the one of the best thing ever happened to France and humanity. Please... I think you know that.

Napoleon is the one of the best thing ever happened to France and humanity. Please... I think you know that.

I rarely celebrate war-mongering dictators and tyrants as "one of the best thing [sic] ever happened...to humanity."

I'm silly that way.

I know I'm going to dread asking this; but what, pray tell, did the little Corsican ever give humanity...besides the inspiration for the 1812 Overture (reason enough, by itself, to have him shot).

Napoleon is the one of the best thing ever happened to France and humanity. Please... I think you know that.

I was getting bored with this thread until I read that. That was truly funny - in a "pain + time = humor" kind of way.

"I know I'm going to dread asking this; but what, pray tell, did the little Corsican ever give humanity...besides the inspiration for the 1812 Overture (reason enough, by itself, to have him shot)."

He enforced the law and order after French Revolution. That is the more important than the freedom, democracy or economic success.

Once you have the public who will follow the law and order, the freedom, democracy and economic success is not far from it.

Conan, that was uncalled for. I like the 1812 Overture. But I was a drummer and there's nothing so fun as playing the "canon" drum.

Once you have the public who will follow the law and order, the freedom, democracy and economic success is not far from it.
Chang, you are the gift that keeps on giving and also, I'm guessing, the product of a government school education.

You should do a little more independent reading. May I suggest The Dosadi Experiment by Frank Herbert? One of the things it will help you think about is that the law is a tool of the powerful. Dictators love a populace that is conditioned to follow the law meekly.

He enforced the law and order after French Revolution.

Napoleon took over France several years after the French Revolution.

The Committee for Public Safety "enforced the law and order" after the French Revolution...a little period history called, "The Terror."

Don't confuse a cowed and intimidated public with an orderly and law-abiding one. Big difference.

"I was just following orders".

How many millions have died for that one phrase?

Chang - you're an idiot. Pure and simple. Advocating for a purge, or perhaps a "Great Leap Forward" is disgusting to say the least.

Of course, your ideology is informed by the belief that you will, of course, be recognized for your wisdom and asked to join the revolution while the rest of us obtuse proles will be liquidated for the greater good.

Just remember that your belief is essentially feeding your friends to the alligator, hoping to be eaten last.

People wondered how we could pay for a war without sacrificing anything, without raising taxes, without a draft - turns out we just put the war on layaway. Now it's time to pay.

I think you're trying (desparately) to make a profound point, Chang. Possibly even a round-about defense of the Chinese government.

The problem is you've been indoctrinated in history more than you've been educated in it.

The interpretations of history given by Mao and Deng are self-serving. They created those viewpoints to justify their own policies; not in any pursuit of the truth.

Hitler, Stalin, Castro/Che, Mao/Deng, and Napoleon are bad choices to use in showing that sometimes an unruly society needs a firm (or even brutal) hand in order to transition to a more peaceful and prosperous social order.

All of your examples brutalized their populations and pursued destructive policies. They left their countries far worse off than they would have been had these dictators not come along.

You could make a better argument along the lines you're trying to use if you gave Syngman Rhee, Lee Kwan Yew, Augustin Pinochet or Francisco Franco as examples. I wouldn't support your arguments in most of those cases, but you could better rationalize those dictators as necessary evils than the ones you've chosen.

> Once you have the public who will
> follow the law and order, the
> freedom, democracy and economic
> success is not far from it.

I've been outta town... Has Chang told anyone how old he is yet?

TMH - Wrong. We've had plenty of money to fund the war - the tax cuts resulted in an increase in federal tax receipts. Not that you'd find that out from the media.

What you're seeing now is what happens when stupidity and greed meet.

People got the idea that housing values would increase without bound, and that they would receive pay raises of 10% year on year.

And the lies have finally collided with reality.

Turns out TANSTAAFL.

Chang,

"You sound like a gambler". Huh? What the hell are you talking about? And btw, if the banks can't buy the properties, it will be sold to entrepreneurs and investors that will make a good return on capital on them. This is capitalism you fool. "It's too late for that". You really are daft aren't you? I just finished explaining how the current mess is due to socialist policies and not free markets. Do you think more socialism will solve this problem?

TMH,

Bian is right. Cutting taxes raises revenues in the medium and long term because doing so encourages entrepreneurship, capital expenditures and investments thus increasing the pool from which governments can tax from. Just look up the Laffer Curve. As for spending, that's the trick isn't it? Find me a politician that does not spend like a drunken sailor and I will consider voting for him ...

Charles -

Thanks for the backup. And as distasteful as it may be, McCain is probably the closest you are going to get in our lifetimes.

I think Chang is just tweaking people. He's not terribly entertaining.

A little something special just for the little Chang fella.

I'm still trying to understand everything. I didn't take out a whopping mortgage, I've managed to pay down debt. I never re-did my kitchen, I've painted my house myself, I drive an old car. I cook most my meals at home.

And so I find myself feeling pissed off over having to bail out people who were so out of control, and whose lives will go on with their houses in The Hamptons, $400 hair cuts, and shiny cars that are washed by someone else.

OH come on here. One of these men is going go be the NEXT president, and pretty soon, too. And they BOTH are elected members of the Senate, which makes their input to the discussion of the bailout bill important. AND, the economy and the recession and the bailout, have completely usurped practically every other issue being discussed, as more important than any of them right now. I certainly think it's important. Important enough to lay aside all the partisan rancor and diatribe going on right now in the campaign, and do the best we can, any of us, to deal with this issue. I say, GOOD FOR YOU, MR. JOHN MCCAIN. You GO, man.

I looked over the original blog again, and see I need to pay better attention. Some of this stuff gets pretty visceral. Amy if you want to throw up, fine. That's a great response. But after you get done, and clean yourself up, one of these guys is STILL going to be president. You say they are confused? Hell, EVERYbody is confused about this issue. And NObody whose comments I have read, or read about, is anything if not confused. I have read comments by many economists, and they pretty much say that they don't know what will happen if we do bailout, or what will happen if we don't, or what Congress/the President/the Secretary will do with a bailout bill if we pass one. So please, whatever your political persuasion, don't bash the current candidates for being confused. There is plenty to bash without that. Being confused on this issue is just honesty.

"All of your examples brutalized their populations and pursued destructive policies. They left their countries far worse off than they would have been had these dictators not come along."

You should have added "for their respective enemies." at the end.

You seem to think that you know what is good for Chinese, Germans or French than themselves. That is damn arrogant.

I don't think Napoleon, himself, would have said such a thing to Mao.

In a nutshell, I would first ask if you are interested in four or eight more years of what's been happening in our world? Especially the stuff that's been coming from the White House: the global belligerence, lack of diplomacy, the courts moving to the right, the loss of our rights, the judgment day is coming justification for screwing the planet and the human race.
Then I would simply remind you that that stuff is not coming from Bush. It is coming from the party behind him.
This is why all us 'lefties' call McCain 'McSame' (as nice as I'm sure he is). If he wins, the party behind the last eight years stays in charge, and we stay the course.
It's not about the personalities that head the ticket. Not at all. It is not about Obama vs McCain. Those guys could all be "kiss ass figure heads".
It is only about Democrats vs Republicans. That is the entire question.
I will even grant you, that Democrats are only slightly better than Republicans. However, when one considers the size of the issues, that very slight difference becomes tremendous. Tremendous. Look around you.
So, are you voting for four more years?
Even voting for a third party is a vote for 'stay the course'.
- lpb, Ithaca, NY

Chang:You seem to think that you know what is good for Chinese, Germans or French than themselves. That is damn arrogant.

I don't think Napoleon, himself, would have said such a thing to Mao.

Chang, I can't even come up with an insult bad enough to lay on you.

You want to know Mao's legacy? 40 million DEAD in the Great Leap Forward. People are routinely executed for expressing incorrect opinions in public. And in 35 years, China is going to be a democraphic basket-case on account of that one-child thing. So if you are going to try to convince me that they are going to be an economic powerhouse, I'll need new underwear after I get through laughing.

God damn, you are stupid.

lpb - that you can consider the Democrats superior in any measure to the Republicans tells me much about your lack of thought processes.

Were it not for Democrats and their fecklessness, 9/11 would not have happened. Were it not for Democrats and their graft, Enron would never have existed. Were it not for Democrats and their power-lust, the housing bubble would never have been created.

And yet you still think that Bush is the worst thing to happen to this country. He may have been the worst thing to happen to the Republican party, but certainly not as bad for America as the Democratic party.

Until the Democratic party renounces socialism in all its guises, they will never get a vote from me. Some motherfuckers just don't learn from history.

continues brian, "i'll even vote for the republicans even if they are socialist, so long as they don't change thier names to the Democratic Party".

What has McBama done for you today?

Chang,

So you think bringing Hitler back would not be a bad idea huh? I really hope you are blond and blue eyed ... because if you're not ...

Well, given the performance of some of the Republicans in the House, I'd have to say that the Republican party is not socialist. Bush might be (he is a liberal, but I don't know if he's all the way to socialist) but when you look at the leadership in the House (Boehner, et. al.) there's a good bit for a conservative to be proud of.

The senate? Not so much.

And your last question, J.D.? That's the giveaway.

I DON'T WANT McCAIN TO DO A FUCKING THING FOR ME.

Which is kinda the point of limited government. I don't want them to catch me when I fall. I don't want them to stand on either side of the lane to make sure I don't throw a gutterball. Hell, I don't even want them to feed my dog and water my plants when I'm away.

I want the government to, y'know, GOVERN. Like that little slip of paper in the National Archives says.

I mean, seriously - what part of "Congress shall make no law" do these fuckheads not get, anyhow?

Kanani's comment was right on point, IMHO. The folks who buy houses within their means, keep equity in their homes, and have money in savings and stocks are going to get hosed on this...all for doing the responsible thing.

I spent a short time in the early 00's thinking that I would change my career to realty sales, because I have worked with property design and planning all my life, and decided not to do that for other reasons (because I missed the design part), but the lending practices at the time scared the heck out of me.

It was ALL about getting someone into a house no matter what they could bring to the table. No down payment, no problem! Job? Got a semblance of one that you have had for a month or so? No problem! There were plenty of lenders who had reputable names doing "no down" loans for at the very least 100% of the appraised value, and many who would go 120% to allow for home improvements along with the sale. You gotta ask yourself, when this buyer has their one month long job hit the skids...why shouldn't they walk away? They have no reason not to, nothing invested in it they would hate to lose.

So they have no reason NOT to walk away and leave someone else holding the bag.

The lenders made the loans, and then immediately sold them to someone else, who sold them to someone else...probably each time the new loan company added on an enticer to add to the loan for home improvements or to add in personal debt to the mortgage. Which works in an increasing market, but collapses when things decrease. The no equity loan makes a downturn a major collapse, when a downturn is simply a downturn if folks have equity and are not on the edge.

If you stumble and have a 5' or even a 10' space between you and the edge of the Grand Canyon, you only get a bruise or sprain an ankle. If you are walking along the edge of the Grand Canyon and have that same stumble...you die.

The whole crisis is a huge study in irresponsibility, on a lot of parts. And while I am a big supporter of personal responsibility (like not borrowing something you can't pay back), the banking and loan industry really does deserve the lable of "predatory" on this one. The real estate building and sales industry is complicit on this one, because many builders and developers can only make the projects work if there is a market, so they lean on the lenders to make the market "work". And all in the building industry have folks that lobby our legislators to help make it work in whatever way they can. The guilty parties are all the way from government to developers to lenders to sales to the folks that bought that couldn't afford.

As a parent with a teenager who just started driving, we have many discussions about responsibility and the consequences of decisions, both good and bad. It seems that in this whole debaucle, that simple concept has been lost.

Thank you, Ang. I've grown frustrated with the mindless, knee-jerk finger-pointing: "It's the Dems' fault! No, it's the Republicans' fault!" With a clusterfuck like this, there is enough blame to go around for everyone.

You seem to think that you know what is good for Chinese, Germans or French than themselves. That is damn arrogant.

It's hardly arrogant to state that living under a brutal tyrant is dangerous to plants, children, and other living things.

Your automoatic assumption earlier that you would be on the non-target side of the firing line was the height of arrogance. You think taking a bullet would be good for Chinese, Germans, or French - because you arrogantly assume you won't be the one of the folks being lined up and shot.

I'm not the one advocating the indiscriminate slaughter of the "other" people in my country's population.

Chang, you need to take off the Che t-shirt, put down the COMINTERN pamphlet, move out of your parents' basement, and try reading a book that was not written by a fellow traveler.

"You think taking a bullet would be good for Chinese, Germans, or French - because you arrogantly assume you won't be the one of the folks being lined up and shot."

You read me wrong again. You asked me to volunteer to be shot first. And I said no.

The democracy is the tyranny of majority. If I want to remove this tyranny, I will not be the first to be shot as I will be the one to fire the first shot to upset this current status quo. However, I will accept the fact I might become the second to be shot as a result. That has nothing to do with arrogance. It is just a logical sequence.

Under crushing national debt and inflation, Germans had to use wheel barrow to carry cash to buy a loaf of bread. Hitler fired the first shot to change that status quo.

Chinese had to work as slaves for the colonial powers in their own country. Mao fired the first shot to change that status quo.

The unwanted results might have something to do with their incompetence and a lack of fire power. However, it is very arrogant for you to say that they should have accepted and suffered the status quo.

"A little something special just for the little Chang fella."

Crid, I cried. No one gave me anything before. Now, I got something for you. This photo reminds me of MacArthur. The old soldiers just fade away.....

http://vi.sualize.us/view/loucypher/1e65a2e110fb8c6bd8e58fcdeb1997a8/

Actually, Chang, Chiang Kai Shek (sp?) was well on the way to establishing a representative democracy in China until Mao decided he wanted the power.

Under crushing national debt and inflation, Germans had to use wheel barrow to carry cash to buy a loaf of bread. Hitler fired the first shot to change that status quo.

Hitler's economic policies were a sham house of cards that collapsed long before the Nazi empire did.

Chinese had to work as slaves for the colonial powers in their own country. Mao fired the first shot to change that status quo.

I believe Sun fired those first shots. And Mao destroyed what Sun (and later Chaing) tried to build.

The democracy is the tyranny of majority. If I want to remove this tyranny, I will not be the first to be shot as I will be the one to fire the first shot to upset this current status quo.

That's why the Founding Fathers established the United States as a republic instead of a democracy.

And, BTW, usually the first ones to fire the shots of change are the first ones shot. The second ones come along and learn from the first's mistakes...or don't.

"I believe Sun fired those first shots. And Mao destroyed what Sun (and later Chaing) tried to build."

"What is history but a fable agreed upon?"
Napoleon Bonaparte

"Chang, you ignorant slut." ~brian

Whoa! SNL flashback! Brian, you crack me up. :D

The unwanted results might have something to do with their incompetence and a lack of fire power. However, it is very arrogant for you to say that they should have accepted and suffered the status quo.

Whoa. You're trying to argue that Hitler and Mao were progressive revolutionaries simply fighting to change the status quo and got caught up in something unintended?

Chang, you really need to put down the party-approved pamphlets and read a new book.

Hitler was NEVER fighting for the common man. He intended all along to "cleanse" Germany of Jewish influence and conquer Russia. He said so from the beginning in Mein Kampf.

And Mao was never going to implement a peasant's paradise in China. He detested the peasants as ignorant and backwards. His apologists keep trying to say the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward happened while he was taking a nap. He was well aware what was going on.

Power grabs are always disguised as "progressive" revolutions.

And I can do the quote thing, too: "One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes a revolution in order to establish a dictatorship." - George Orwell

Evidence for the reality of the Laffer Curve is right up there with that for Bigfoot. What reliable analysis have you seen ?
The idea of graduated tax is simple : you take the money from those who have it. At the low end that means survival is at risk : at the high end, not.
It's as simple as a salesman going after people with disposable income. Where else can he make a sale ?
The biggest companies have taken their money offshore and played international accounting games already. Talk of 'trickle down' is...talk.