Illegal Immigration

[capsulecorpjx]

I don't agree with stopping people who look like illegal immigrants (aka brown skin) to check their papers. Sounds very Orwellian.

U.S. should instead build a high, steel fence across the entire southern border, something that isn't very thick, just sturdy and tall, to keep down costs.

Put sensors on the wall, and deep into the earth, so if the wall is breached or a hole is being dug, you can dispatch officers to check it out.

Once the wall is built and monitored, you can start a naturalization process for illegals already in America, given a 5 year probation period.

Even Mexico will generally benefit from a wall:
1) Drug cartel problems in Mexico will reduce as the drug trade will be too expensive to smuggle into the US
2) Gun smuggling back into Mexico will dry up as well.
3) Mexican tourist border towns will revive as the Drug Cartels dry up.

Though Mexico will lose out in:
1) Not as much money being sent back to Mexico
2) No place to send their poor and discontent which might lead to political instability.

[MasterBlaster]

1. Legalize, then regulate the illegal drugs coming across the border and turn the cartels into legitimate business men, who pay taxes.

2. Make it easier for Mexicns to become citizens legally or obtain a work visa so they can pay taxes and get health insurance.

3. Run two waist high fences paralel across the entire border. Place them 40 feet apart. Every 1/4 mile place a sign with a picture of a dismembered body. Fly predator drones non stop inbetween these fences and drop bunker busters on anything that has a pulse.

4. Offer work visas to any illegal immigrant currently in the country who can proove employment. Then deport the rest of the basterds.

The $$$ mexico looses by illegal migrants wire transfers will be more than made up for by the tax revenue generated by trade and redially available work visas.

[techgnome]

Both of you over looked the obvious: Annex Mexico and make it "South Texas".

-tg

[MasterBlaster]

I doubt mexico would like to take on our debt at this time.

[capsulecorpjx]

1. Legalize, then regulate the illegal drugs coming across the border and turn the cartels into legitimate business men, who pay taxes.

2. Make it easier for Mexicns to become citizens legally or obtain a work visa so they can pay taxes and get health insurance.

3. Run two waist high fences paralel across the entire border. Place them 40 feet apart. Every 1/4 mile place a sign with a picture of a dismembered body. Fly predator drones non stop inbetween these fences and drop bunker busters on anything that has a pulse.

4. Offer work visas to any illegal immigrant currently in the country who can proove employment. Then deport the rest of the basterds.

The $$$ mexico looses by illegal migrants wire transfers will be more than made up for by the tax revenue generated by trade and redially available work visas.

I agree with legalizing weed. But other things is a bad idea, the addiction rate is too high and the chemicals too destructive.

[MasterBlaster]

Addictive like alcohol or tobacco or caffene or fast food......?

All of that stuff was legal previously in the US. Making it illegal hasn't reduced the use of the stuff. It's just wrapped a very dangerous black market around it. A junkie will be a junkie regardless if of weather or not he buys his dope from a grocery shop or from underneath a highway overpass.

[capsulecorpjx]

Addictive like alcohol or tobacco or caffene or fast food......?

All of that stuff was legal previously in the US. Making it illegal hasn't reduced the use of the stuff. It's just wrapped a very dangerous black market around it. A junkie will be a junkie regardless if of weather or not he buys his dope from a grocery shop or from underneath a highway overpass.

Well I just look at the Opium wars. Heavy, high addiction, heavy impairment narcotics are very dangerous. China was crippled by Opium addiction epidemic back in the 1800's.

Weed and alcohol are moderate addiction risks, and are very manageable compared to heroin, cocaine, etc...

Caffine and Tobacco is a high addiction risk, but creates functioning addicts, i.e. their addiction doesn't usually affect others or themselves during their working lives (outside of second hand smoke which has been outlawed).

Cocaine and heroin and meth are high addiction risks, and rate of non-functioning or destructive addicts are very high.

There are shades of grey to everything. People too much look at issues in black and white.

Yes there is a black market for hard drugs, but if it became a free open market for them, the percentage of people addicted to hard drugs will increase, increasing non-functioning destructive addicts in the population.

[homer13j]

I don't agree with stopping people who look like illegal immigrants (aka brown skin) to check their papers. Sounds very Orwellian.

Agreed. But if you are referring to Arizona's new law it does no such thing. It merely authorizes local police to enforce federal immigration law since the feds are doing such a bang-up job of it... :rolleyes:

Though Mexico will lose out in:
1) Not as much money being sent back to Mexico
2) No place to send their poor and discontent which might lead to political instability.

Those two reasons (especially #2) are precisely why a fence/wall will not be built. It will take at least two election cycles to even hope for a change in Washington's do-nothing attitude about the problem.

[dbasnett]

Have we all gone nuts? I listened to one of my Senators, who won't get my vote, give some serious body shots to Goldman Sachs this past week. Then we have oil in the Gulf, and illegal immigrants, and a lot of blathering talking head dolts on TV. I like the US Government less and less, each day that goes by.

1 - If Goldman Sach's broke a law then stop with the grandstanding and prosecute them. Dear Senator McCaskill if they didn't break a law then who is at fault? Hold that mirror up.

2 - The oil spill in the Gulf is a tragedy, but why is it a tragedy? Is there such a thing as safe? I don't have a problem with trampling on your rights, but when it comes to mine that is different. I think that cell phone laws are stupid. Isn't careless and reckless driving good enough, or could we have added cell phone use to the list. Did we really need a new law? The real ugly truth is that I want cell phone use to be illegal for all of you, but for it not to apply to me. If the government wanted you not to use the cell phone while the car was in motion my bet is the technology exists to disconnect calls if the cell phone is moving. How many oil rigs are in the Gulf of Mexico? How many barrels of oil are brought on shore each day? How many CFS of gas is brought on shore each day? When was the last time something like this happened? Having spent some time on rigs in the Gulf I was surprised that the rig leaked at all. On the rigs I was on the control to shut the entire rig down was never more than a few feet away, and I know that the well head is supposed to have a device to prevent this. So my money is on some government person not doing their job and just signing off another worthless piece of paper.

3 - Arizona. I don't like what is going on, but I live in Missouri and we don't have as many illegals here. Also, my take on the Constitution / Bill of Rights is that those rights and privileges are for citizens of this country. One of the few times I have agreed with Chris Matthews in the last 10 years was after 9/11 he made a comment on how stupid it was to be checking grandma at the gate. And do we need more laws? The only reason I am in favor of what is going on in Arizona is that it appears that someones (sic) need to stand up to the Federal Gov't. The way things are going I will not be shocked to wake up one day and find that Arizona / Texas have seceded from the union.

I have arrived at the conclusion that I am indeed insane. I keep participating in the system, expecting a different result. No incumbent will get my vote.

[dbasnett]

I think the Chantix is kicking in because I am in full fledged RANT mode.

I don' think I am stupid, but I think that the government thinks I am. When the government didn't know what to do with Elian Gonzales, and allowed the child to be part of a political debate the warning bells started ringing.

And Fat Boy Al Gore felt so comfortable with his global warming message that he published the Ice Core readings in his book that showed that it was a cyclical event, and was happening before there were any appreciable number of people on the planet.

And then on a my personal note there was this http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.php?t=608306

Rant off - time to see who won the Derby.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Derbys are out of style. Heck, they have gone the way of the Bowler: Nothing but museum pieces.

I live in ID, one of the reddest of the red states with a high immigrant population. Many of the immigrants are legal, and a few groups are dowright odd (as in...you had all of America, why here?). I guess I understand the Basque community coming out here, as they were attracted by the sheep ranching, but what did the Bosnian and Croatian contingents see in this place? They come from a mountainous land, and we certainly have that, so perhaps it seemed familiar, but it is also a desert area with indifferent employment prospects. On the other hand, I came out here, too, so maybe they made their decision the same way I did.

Anyways, to get back to the subject, various legislators have tried to pass laws even mildly tightening hiring practices for migrant workers. A casual observer would expect any such legislation to do remarkably well out here, but it barely gets any traction at all. Agriculture interests speak louder than anti-imigration (and the racist elements that still exist in this state) at the state level, and they stomp any regulation.

Politicians are the same everywhere: The squeaky wheel gets greased (along with a few palms). The higher you go in government, the louder the squeaking and the more wheels that squeak. They can't deal effectively with the number of issues brought before them, so they focus on a few and hope the rest take care of themselves. Anybody who has ever had a busy schedule understands how that gets to be. Eventually, you are just filtering out so much noise that you lose lots of signal along with it.

[dbasnett]

I agree with you, and for a long time have known that "we" are the problem because "we" squeak about everything, and expect our government to respond to our squeak, and most worrisome, to respond as if everyone had the same squeak.

Once before I tried to make that point by making a case for letting businesses decide whether to allow smoking in their restaurant, so long as they posted clearly whether it was a smoking establishment or not. I was shouted down, to hell with letting the market vote with their money, more government regulation. The squeakers won again. I paid for my choice in this matter, and don't blame anyone but myself.

It confounds me to this day why the government is involved in abortion. I am anti-abortion but pro-choice. But once again a group of people looked at another group of people and said we know better than you, and the government was all to glad to step in.

Maybe if we took more personal responsibility for our own lives the government could focus on the really important issues.

BTW - There is a lot wrong with horse racing, but there is something magical about seeing them run, especially in person.

[homer13j]

I went down to Cleveland's public square on Saturday to watch the so-called "immigration rally" held there. The first thing that struck me was how much I miss the communists doing their May Day thing. Now those people knew how to hold a public demonstration...

The second thing I noticed was the number of protesters - or more accurately the lack of them. 30-50 people tops - and most of them were Puerto Ricans who are all natural US citizens by birth. I found it interesting that a few of them felt it necessary to protest a law in a far-off state that doesn't apply to them anyway. But I guess that's what free speech is all about.

And of course there were a few noisy "reconquista" types who honestly believe the entire southwest US was stolen from Mexico and they want to take it back by any means necessary. Funny how photos of these folks never seem to appear in the mainstream news media...

http://www.lookingattheleft.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/MG_0078.jpg

As far as I'm concerned they can have California back. The Mexican government couldn't possibly do any worse with it, could they?

[techgnome]

"letting businesses decide whether to allow smoking in their restaurant" -- if that happened around here... I'd never eat out again... and while I'm sure there's others that would do the same... it wouldn't be a large enough movement to "vote with our dollars" ... after all, one of the establishments I refuse to go to for this very reason continues to thrive. The problem with smoking vs non-smoking establishments is that smoke knows no boundaries... it interferes with my ability to enjoy a nice meal with my family. It interferes with my ability to breathe, as well as my kids. Either way someones freedom of personal choice has been taken away. I don't really care if you want to suck on a cancer stick or not... just take it outside and leave me alone to enjoy my meal.

-tg

[Shaggy Hiker]

I went down to Cleveland's public square on Saturday to watch the so-called "immigration rally" held there. The first thing that struck me was how much I miss the communists doing their May Day thing. Now those people knew how to hold a public demonstration...


After listening to various foreign protestors in other countries, I have reached the conclusion that Americans need chanting practice. Some of those countries, like Iran, can get their chanters to do whole chorus lines with harmonies and everything. We seem lucky if we can take some tired old school pep song and stuff a couple new words into it. I say: If a person can't dance to your chant....it needs some work.

Just to add to the smoking issue: I recently found out that nicotine will settle onto surfaces and will then be transformed into a more carcinogenic form. That depresses me. I have a friend who uses an e-cigarette. My first thought, upon seeing that device was: "Cool, that should end the whole debate." After all, the e-cig has no smoke, and the only noticeable side effect is that it causes ulcers in the cheeks of observers due to attempts to refrain from laughing. Still, the user of an e-cig exhales something, and now, even though that something is odorless, since it contains nicotine, it is carcinogenic. Bummer.

[homer13j]

"letting businesses decide whether to allow smoking in their restaurant" -- if that happened around here... I'd never eat out again... and while I'm sure there's others that would do the same...

You are missing his point. I'm sure their would be plenty of non-smoking establishments that sensitive folks like you would flock to if businesses were allowed to make their own business decisions.

There are two types of people in the world. Those who wish to control others and those who have no such desire.

[capsulecorpjx]

Have we all gone nuts? I listened to one of my Senators, who won't get my vote, give some serious body shots to Goldman Sachs this past week. Then we have oil in the Gulf, and illegal immigrants, and a lot of blathering talking head dolts on TV. I like the US Government less and less, each day that goes by.

1 - If Goldman Sach's broke a law then stop with the grandstanding and prosecute them. Dear Senator McCaskill if they didn't break a law then who is at fault? Hold that mirror up.

2 - The oil spill in the Gulf is a tragedy, but why is it a tragedy? Is there such a thing as safe? I don't have a problem with trampling on your rights, but when it comes to mine that is different. I think that cell phone laws are stupid. Isn't careless and reckless driving good enough, or could we have added cell phone use to the list. Did we really need a new law? The real ugly truth is that I want cell phone use to be illegal for all of you, but for it not to apply to me. If the government wanted you not to use the cell phone while the car was in motion my bet is the technology exists to disconnect calls if the cell phone is moving. How many oil rigs are in the Gulf of Mexico? How many barrels of oil are brought on shore each day? How many CFS of gas is brought on shore each day? When was the last time something like this happened? Having spent some time on rigs in the Gulf I was surprised that the rig leaked at all. On the rigs I was on the control to shut the entire rig down was never more than a few feet away, and I know that the well head is supposed to have a device to prevent this. So my money is on some government person not doing their job and just signing off another worthless piece of paper.

3 - Arizona. I don't like what is going on, but I live in Missouri and we don't have as many illegals here. Also, my take on the Constitution / Bill of Rights is that those rights and privileges are for citizens of this country. One of the few times I have agreed with Chris Matthews in the last 10 years was after 9/11 he made a comment on how stupid it was to be checking grandma at the gate. And do we need more laws? The only reason I am in favor of what is going on in Arizona is that it appears that someones (sic) need to stand up to the Federal Gov't. The way things are going I will not be shocked to wake up one day and find that Arizona / Texas have seceded from the union.

I have arrived at the conclusion that I am indeed insane. I keep participating in the system, expecting a different result. No incumbent will get my vote.

You really need to stop watching only Fox News. They're the only ones defending Goldman Sachs.

The SEC has charged Goldman Sachs with breaking the law, the Feds are investigating the company and individuals working there for fraud.

That's why Congress is grilling them.

[techgnome]

My point was that no matter what the legislation is, someone's personal freedom is getting trounced on... it depends on which side of the fence you stand on as to whether the ordinances are "right" or "wrong"

To be honest, I'm not sure why the local munis felt it necessary to pass the "clean air" ordinances that they did... Sad to say you can't even light up in a bar around here any more. *GASP! *koff* *wheeze** I know!... even cigar bars are coming under fire (no pun intended) ...

-tg

[homer13j]

The SEC has charged Goldman Sachs with breaking the law, the Feds are investigating the company and individuals working there for fraud.

It would not surprise me one bit if this is all an attempt to deflect attention from the fact that when warned as early as 2002 about a potential mortgage crisis Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer began telling everyone "everything is fine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs)" and it was nothing more than another evil Republican plot to deny homes to black people.

Goldman Sachs was (were?) selling short (betting on losses) in the mortgage-backed securities market. They are accused of not disclosing this fact to their own investors which if true would be very bad for business. If their investors were truly defrauded the government should have no problem proving this beyond any reasonable doubt.

But what I believe happened is these investors trusted crooks like Frank, Schumer & Co. and now demand that someone must pay for their own stupidity. Thus Goldman Sachs becomes a prime target for a government witch hunt. It will be interesting to see if the feds can prove that actual fraud occurred.

You really need to stop watching only Fox News.

Yeah... give someone else a chance... it's only fair! LOL.

There's a very good reason why Fox News gets better ratings than all the other cable news channels combined.

[techgnome]

"There's a very good reason why Fox News gets better ratings than all the other cable news channels combined." -- because those of us who choose to NOT drink the Kool-Aid know that ALL media is biased and shun all news media outlets.

-tg

[homer13j]

My point was that no matter what the legislation is, someone's personal freedom is getting trounced on...

Look at it this way - I don't eat at a certain restaurant. Can't stand their food or what passes for it. My personal freedom is not "trounced on" because they serve food I don't like. I don't demand that they change their menu to suit me, I simply eat elsewhere.

Likewise, if a bar allows smoking you are free to drink elsewhere. Nobody's personal freedom is getting "trounced on" UNTIL you begin demanding the bar in question disallow smoking.

[homer13j]

"There's a very good reason why Fox News gets better ratings than all the other cable news channels combined." -- because those of us who choose to NOT drink the Kool-Aid know that ALL media is biased and shun all news media outlets.

-tg

Thanks for demonstrating the pompous, elitist attitude that drives Fox haters and most on the political left. You people honestly believe that most people are just a bunch of idiotic knuckle-dragging cave men who cannot think for themselves and do not know what is good for them.

"Kool-aid drinkers" indeed... :rolleyes:

[dbasnett]

When I said charge them, I was speaking about a serious charge. I assume your insult was because you had assumed I had not read http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2010/comp21489.pdf. Wrongo.

So if we are going to get insulting capsule, what law did they break, it says it in the filing. If you need help I can will be glad to help. And while backstroking because you brought a knife to a gun battle, tell me what the max penalties are? Once again I can help if you can't find it.

[capsulecorpjx]

It would not surprise me one bit if this is all an attempt to deflect attention from the fact that when warned as early as 2002 about a potential mortgage crisis Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer began telling everyone "everything is fine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs)" and it was nothing more than another evil Republican plot to deny homes to black people.

Goldman Sachs was (were?) selling short (betting on losses) in the mortgage-backed securities market. They are accused of not disclosing this fact to their own investors which if true would be very bad for business. If their investors were truly defrauded the government should have no problem proving this beyond any reasonable doubt.

But what I believe happened is these investors trusted crooks like Frank, Schumer & Co. and now demand that someone must pay for their own stupidity. Thus Goldman Sachs becomes a prime target for a government witch hunt. It will be interesting to see if the feds can prove that actual fraud occurred.



Yeah... give someone else a chance... it's only fair! LOL.

There's a very good reason why Fox News gets better ratings than all the other cable news channels combined.

Are you implying that Fox News getting good ratings means their reporting are truthful, fair and balanced?

Really? Hitler got good ratings in Germany during the 1940s.
Mao's Little Red Book was a best seller.

1000 people can believe a foolish idea, it's still a foolish idea.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Technically, every decision that affects anybody impacts some theoretical person in a negative way.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I find it hard to believe that two people snuck posts in before that single sentence showed up.

[dbasnett]

"There's a very good reason why Fox News gets better ratings than all the other cable news channels combined." -- because those of us who choose to NOT drink the Kool-Aid know that ALL media is biased and shun all news media outlets.

-tg

I agree with this. News? Not much of that going around these days.

[dbasnett]

When I said charge them, I was speaking about a serious charge. I assume your insult was because you had assumed I had not read http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2010/comp21489.pdf. Wrongo.

So if we are going to get insulting capsule, what law did they break, it says it in the filing. If you need help I can will be glad to help. And while backstroking because you brought a knife to a gun battle, tell me what the max penalties are? Once again I can help if you can't find it.

@capsulecorpjx - this was a question intended for you.

[techgnome]

Thanks for demonstrating the pompous, elitist attitude that drives Fox haters and most on the political left. You people honestly believe that most people are just a bunch of idiotic knuckle-dragging cave men who cannot think for themselves and do not know what is good for them.

"Kool-aid drinkers" indeed... :rolleyes:
I have to laugh... I make a Kool-Aid reference and you automatically assume I'm from the left... hardly. If you read it carefully, I've shunned ALL news media outlets.... left and right. All media biased, despite any claims. And that's because people by nature are biased. Even I have my own biases. It can't be helped. It's human nature. As such, over all, perhaps there is a balance, I jsut simply don't have the stomach for the garbage that's being spewed by both sides. I'm not happy with the way things have gone at all levels of govt, from local all the way to DC... but what can I do? Nothing. Heck, I can't even register for my party of choice, despite the "Other" option found on the registration forms.

I honestly believe we're seeing the beginnings of a political revolution. Something is going to happen over the next few years. Either we're going to finally see the beginnings of a true three-party system, or the demise of the Republican Party as it exists today. Following that, I'd expect to see the same kind of implosion (perhaps even more spectacular though) of the Democratic Party. I think there's going to be a large ground swelling of the middle, one which will rip the two current major parties apart at the seams. Oh sure, the Dems think that the fractioning that is happening now with the Republicans and the Tea Party people is good because it's splitting votes on the right... but in 6-8 years, I think the Tea Party is going to be a force to reckon with and is going to suck people from both sides.

-tg

[homer13j]

Are you implying that Fox News getting good ratings means their reporting are truthful, fair and balanced?

I'm saying they kick everyone's asses and have from day one because they are not in the back pocket of the Democrat party and they dare to question the wise & all-knowing government. People simply got sick of being consistently spoon-fed the left wing agenda and as soon as an alternative was available it quickly rose to the top of the heap and stayed there.

+1 for the comparison to Hitler, though. It was only a matter of time before this thread was Godwinned...

[dbasnett]

"letting businesses decide whether to allow smoking in their restaurant" -- if that happened around here... I'd never eat out again... and while I'm sure there's others that would do the same... it wouldn't be a large enough movement to "vote with our dollars" ... after all, one of the establishments I refuse to go to for this very reason continues to thrive. The problem with smoking vs non-smoking establishments is that smoke knows no boundaries... it interferes with my ability to enjoy a nice meal with my family. It interferes with my ability to breathe, as well as my kids. Either way someones freedom of personal choice has been taken away. I don't really care if you want to suck on a cancer stick or not... just take it outside and leave me alone to enjoy my meal.

-tg

So you are saying that most of the people that eat out are smokers but the business should shun their business to satisfy the minority.

Like I tried to point out, keep inviting the government in and one day it will be something you don't like. Or, be personally responsible. Don't go to restaurants that allow smokers, and encourage your friends to do the same.

[homer13j]

I have to laugh... I make a Kool-Aid reference and you automatically assume I'm from the left...

I did? :confused:

Thanks for demonstrating the pompous, elitist attitude that drives Fox haters and most on the political left.

Sounds to me like I called you a Fox hater and compared you to those on the left where most Fox haters have positioned themselves. I made no assumptions about your political affiliation.

[techgnome]

So you are saying that most of the people that eat out are smokers but the business should shun their business to satisfy the minority.

Um... no. Not quite what I meant, if it came out that way, sorry... no... what I meant was that if smoking were allowed again, I believe most of the eating establishments would go back to smoking... OK... so I "protest" with my dollars by going........ ? I guess to the grocers and staying home... yeah, that'll teach them... I "protest" a lot of establishments by choosing to not patronize them. I'm sure they feel it.... the "protest" goes both ways, if a muni has banned smoking, then patronize the places in another town that hasn't.... we all know it doesn't make a bit of difference either way. When Omaha banned smoking everywhere... there was a huge uproar at the time... now here we are a few years later... and guess what? places are still thriving. As it was, the places it was intended to target, weren't actually affected ... it was a solution looking for a problem that didn't exist. And the places it did affect teh most (bars, taverns, and keno parlours) ARE the kind of places where most people would expect to be smoke free in the first place....

-tg


Don't go to restaurants that allow smokers,

[dbasnett]

We really are insane. Vote for (pick a party) and the government will be fixed, but it just keeps getting bigger and more invasive. That is insane, doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.

I already have a new party, the Not Incumbent party. If you are the incumbent, you are not getting my vote.

[techgnome]

I did? :confused:



Sounds to me like I called you a Fox hater and compared you to those on the left where most Fox haters have positioned themselves. I made no assumptions about your political affiliation.

Yes you did.... and you did it again....
"compared you to those on the left where most Fox haters have positioned themselves"

(which is fine, I couldn't care less - I just happen to be left of the ultra conservative, but I am right of center - often some of my views come from cynicism which results in me being a devil's advocate sometimes.)

I have a dislike and distrust of all media... I don't hate Fox any more than I hate CNN or MSNBC... nor do I like one any more than the other... I simply ignore them all. Anything that's worth knowing about, I get from The Daily Report and The Colbert Report ... where the bias is obvious, comical and tends to have the same cynical attitude about Washington and the media.

-tg

[dbasnett]

Um... no. Not quite what I meant, if it came out that way, sorry... no... what I meant was that if smoking were allowed again, I believe most of the eating establishments would go back to smoking... OK... so I "protest" with my dollars by going........ ? I guess to the grocers and staying home... yeah, that'll teach them... I "protest" a lot of establishments by choosing to not patronize them. I'm sure they feel it.... the "protest" goes both ways, if a muni has banned smoking, then patronize the places in another town that hasn't.... we all know it doesn't make a bit of difference either way. When Omaha banned smoking everywhere... there was a huge uproar at the time... now here we are a few years later... and guess what? places are still thriving. As it was, the places it was intended to target, weren't actually affected ... it was a solution looking for a problem that didn't exist. And the places it did affect teh most (bars, taverns, and keno parlours) ARE the kind of places where most people would expect to be smoke free in the first place....

-tg

Are you trying to miss my point that has NOTHING to do with smoking? Could the issue have been resolved without resorting to more laws.

How about this. Most of us believe that cell phone use is bad while driving. The government should tell all cell carriers to disconnect any call if the cell phone is moving faster than 5 MPH.

@capsule - I am waiting, stop watching Keith Obermouth. Hint - It is USC, Title 15 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/usc_sup_01_15.html

[techgnome]

How about this. Most of us believe that cell phone use is bad while driving. The government should tell all cell carriers to disconnect any call if the cell phone is moving faster than 5 MPH

That's not funny... I was just reading something over the weekend where car manufacturers are looking into seeing if there is a way to disable cell phones in a moving vehicle. And THAT is with out legislation.

And what point did I miss?

-tg

[capsulecorpjx]

Another thread I've started, derailed. This time by Goldman Sachs, Fox News, Smoking and whether drugs should be legalized or not.

[capsulecorpjx]

I went down to Cleveland's public square on Saturday to watch the so-called "immigration rally" held there. The first thing that struck me was how much I miss the communists doing their May Day thing. Now those people knew how to hold a public demonstration...

The second thing I noticed was the number of protesters - or more accurately the lack of them. 30-50 people tops - and most of them were Puerto Ricans who are all natural US citizens by birth. I found it interesting that a few of them felt it necessary to protest a law in a far-off state that doesn't apply to them anyway. But I guess that's what free speech is all about.

And of course there were a few noisy "reconquista" types who honestly believe the entire southwest US was stolen from Mexico and they want to take it back by any means necessary. Funny how photos of these folks never seem to appear in the mainstream news media...

http://www.lookingattheleft.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/MG_0078.jpg

As far as I'm concerned they can have California back. The Mexican government couldn't possibly do any worse with it, could they?

That image seems a bit inflammatory, for people who don't know spanish it looks like the Protestors wants Mexico to take the South West.

But the words says "You were the invaders"

Those protesters are saying that American Government originally took over and annexed Mexican land, so for some people to consider Hispanics as invaders and criminals is a bit hypocritical.

[capsulecorpjx]

I'm saying they kick everyone's asses and have from day one because they are not in the back pocket of the Democrat party and they dare to question the wise & all-knowing government. People simply got sick of being consistently spoon-fed the left wing agenda and as soon as an alternative was available it quickly rose to the top of the heap and stayed there.

+1 for the comparison to Hitler, though. It was only a matter of time before this thread was Godwinned...

I think they kick everyone's ass because they don't let boring facts affect their reporting. They use inflammatory, hyperbolic language and their hosts literally hyperventilate on air over conspiracy stories.

They're more a right-wing opinion channel than a news channel. A propaganda outlet for the Republican party and big corporations. Which is fine, you can argue maybe MSNBC, and definately huffingtonpost is the same for the Left. But FoxNews is definitely not "fair and balanced" as they or their viewers claim.

CNN and MSNBC and all the other news outlets fall more into, reporting about stupid stories or celebrity stories, because only housewives watch them now.

The only good news source these days is the BBC.

[capsulecorpjx]

When I said charge them, I was speaking about a serious charge. I assume your insult was because you had assumed I had not read http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2010/comp21489.pdf. Wrongo.

So if we are going to get insulting capsule, what law did they break, it says it in the filing. If you need help I can will be glad to help. And while backstroking because you brought a knife to a gun battle, tell me what the max penalties are? Once again I can help if you can't find it.

It says SEC charges Goldman Sachs and Fabrice Tourre with securities fraud and misleading clients.

I think those are serious charges and justifies the Senate grilling.

You're defending them because Limbaugh and Fox News are defending them, and they're defending them because they're always pro-corporation.

[dbasnett]

It says SEC charges Goldman Sachs and Fabrice Tourre with securities fraud and misleading clients.

I think those are serious charges and justifies the Senate grilling.

You're defending them because Limbaugh and Fox News are defending them, and they're defending them because they're always pro-corporation.

OK, you can make billions and if you are caught the penalty is a $500,000 fine. Wow, I bet that hurts. But you didn't bother reading the actual law did you. Let me guess, you are a Keith Obermouth fan, or Bill Mahr fan.

That doesn't come from Fox, that comes from your laws. I don't watch the bufoons on Fox, MSNBC, CNN, et al, just for the record. As close as I come to a news source is John Stewart. I'll give you the BBC, they seem to have not lost sight of what news is.

[dbasnett]

That's not funny... I was just reading something over the weekend where car manufacturers are looking into seeing if there is a way to disable cell phones in a moving vehicle. And THAT is with out legislation.

And what point did I miss?

-tg

"Texting while driving is about 6 times more likely to result in an accident than driving while intoxicated."
"In 2008 almost 6,000 people were killed and a half-million were injured in crashes related to driver distraction. "

Sounds like we need a law to me? Are you disagreeing?

[capsulecorpjx]

OK, you can make billions and if you are caught the penalty is a $500,000 fine. Wow, I bet that hurts. But you didn't bother reading the actual law did you. Let me guess, you are a Keith Obermouth fan, or Bill Mahr fan.

That doesn't come from Fox, that comes from your laws. I don't watch the bufoons on Fox, MSNBC, CNN, et al, just for the record. As close as I come to a news source is John Stewart.

I read the document you sent me. It is true that SEC is charging Goldman with securities fraud and misleading their clients.

I don't know what you're arguing with me about.

[dbasnett]

I read the document you sent me. It is true that SEC is charging Goldman with securities fraud and misleading their clients.

I don't know what you're arguing with me about.

"I think those are serious charges and justifies the Senate grilling." $500,000 max fine against billions. That is serious? Your kidding right?

Vote for the Not Incumbent party for several years(10-20). Voting smart isn't working out well.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Every news source has a bias. That's nature and can't be avoided. If each source acknowledged its bias, then the news would be more valuable. I have no problem reading left or right, and read both, but I want them to state what their bias is up front. Those who claim to be in the center aren't. Of course, a truly balanced media source would have individuals from all sides, which would mean that individuals would be biased and the source would be a muddle. These days, of course, whatever view you have you will find plenty of others who share your views. It used to be that you were always a part of your community, which, if small enough, could make you a minority of one. Now, you can be part of such a large party (the internet) that you never need to associate with anybody who doesn't confirm your views. Since we already have a bias in our thinking where we assume that the majority believes as we do on any subject, the internet reinforces our expectations. Better yet, you can shout down anything that doesn't agree with you.

Having said that, I would add that tv news is all tripe. I watch tv news about once a year, on average. It now consists of one or two actual stories lightly covered, followed by a series of pseudo-news stories about pop culture.

So you can have left, right, or tv (on the bottom and digging deeper).

[homer13j]

Yes you did.... and you did it again....

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd140/excommunicatio/MontyPython.gif

You're defending them because Limbaugh and Fox News are defending them, and they're defending them because they're always pro-corporation.

Good Lord, kid, give it a rest already. And go back and reread post #22...

I guess the possibility that staunch anti-government conservatives can actually think for themselves is just too much for some minds to comprehend.

[homer13j]

...And for the record I do not watch Fox News. I don't even have cable TV.

If you want to get me to watch the news I have only two words: Melissa Theuriau. :drool:

http://bostanciogludevran.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/meliss.jpg

I don't speak a word of French, yet somehow I don't really care...

[capsulecorpjx]

"I think those are serious charges and justifies the Senate grilling." $500,000 max fine against billions. That is serious? Your kidding right?

Vote for the Not Incumbent party for several years(10-20). Voting smart isn't working out well.

Well that's where you and I differ.

Go ahead, keep defending those wall street firms, while they lie and screw everyone, even their own clients over.

[dbasnett]

Well that's where you and I differ.

Go ahead, keep defending those wall street firms, while they lie and screw everyone, even their own clients over.

How am I defending Wall St. firms? My point was that the Senate was having another Carnival side show so that people like you would pat them on the back for doing a good job, when in fact they allowed this to happen, and the Wall St firms are going to get a wrist slap.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

What you have to remember is that Goldman Sachs was only doing what most of the other banks having been doing for years. This kind of stuff is standard practise in investment banks.

While morally it is obviously wrong, i would be surprised if they actually get found guilty of anything. From what i have heard of the evidence, it doesn't look exactly water-tight.

Rather than trying to hammer a Bank for pretty much doing what was seen as acceptable in the market, we (as in all countries) should be looking at tightening up rules at the banks so that it can't happen again.

The biggest danger is that we concentrate so much on hammering the Banks that regulation gets watered down and the Banks are basically allowed to carry on with business as usual.

What would happen if there was another financial crisis in say 5 or 10 years time, i cant see the people accepting that we have to bail out the banks again there will be rioting on the streets !!

I still don't get this obsession with anti-Big government, let the free market decided attitude. From what i have seen, yes governments can be inefficient and corrupt, but big business is often worse, It really does look out only after its own interests and it's shareholders no-one else's !

The whole banking crises happened basically because the banks said, we don't need any regulation, regulation is bad, we should be allowed to invest as we see fit, let the markets decided and lobbied the hell out of government to get regulation removed or relaxed. (In fact if there is one thing that would improve politics irredeemably is a ban on all lobbyists and specifically a ban all donations made to political parties by lobbyists) As we have seen Greed then rules as these banks see more and more ways to make quick money they ignore all the risks involved as they know at the end of the day it wont be them footing the bill !!

Now if that wasn't about as big a failure of "let the market decided" ideal then i don't know what is.

I am not saying that you need Government interference on everything but surely on the need to regulate the financial markets we can agree !

[techgnome]

I think where GS went wrong, and what seems to be the brunt of alleged grilling from Congress is to whom should they be answering to? The shareholders, for whom they are making money with the scheme? OR to their investors, to whom they were selling the junk, so that they could make money for their shareholders. That's where GS got snagged. Based on that scheme, the two responsibilities were diametrically opposed to each other. Sound investments would have been detrimental to the profits for the share holders. The profits of the shareholders were at the detriment of the shareholders. I'm sure that when it comes down to it, several things are going to be apparent: 1) GS didn't do anything legally wrong. 2) They will get a slap on the wrist, if anything. 3) We'll end up with more regulation that's going to put a further choke hold on the system. 4)It'll become safer to invest in Greece.


I am not saying that you need Government interference on everything but surely on the need to regulate the financial markets we can agree !

You'll have to accept that we'll agree to disagree.

-tg

[NeedSomeAnswers]

You'll have to accept that we'll agree to disagree.

What, you really think that the financial markets should just be allowed to do whatever they want ?

that Credit Default swaps and other financial products like it are ok ?

that the recent financial crisis had nothing to do with lack of regulation ?

We'll end up with more regulation that's going to put a further choke hold on the system

Are we talking about the same thing here ? the Banks have been making unprecedented amount of money out of some of the most risky activity, which they are only able to do because they got government to relax regulations.

If i was to go to a betting shop and gamble my monthly pay away, i wouldn't expect the tax payer to bail me out, and yet you are saying we should for the banks ?

Are you telling me that the investment banks betting on the most risky activity in the market with tax payers money is ok ? because that is exactly what they were doing, specifically the banks that also had retail deposit arms.

Not only were they betting on this risky activity they were being actively rewarded, the Banks were paying there own employees huge bonuses to engage in as much of the most risky activity as possible

I don't know about in the US, but in 1 major UK bank they fired their Risk Manager for pointing out some of these risks to them and replaced him with a banker with no training in risk management at all as they felt that listening to the risk manager would effect their profits.

The Banks have not shown any desire to change this activity without government regulation, so why wouldn't we regulate them on this issue ?

[Shaggy Hiker]

I'd say that I agree most with Homer's post #48.

Other than that, banks do need regulation. They are not fundamentally private businesses. If a tractor factory fails, lots of people are out of work, but the damage is contained. If the major investment banks fail, the whole economy could go down with disastrous results. Companies are treated as people, but large companies should be treated as pre-moral people. They are following an unenlightented self interested path. If that impacts few other people, then they may do so, but when they have the country by the pols, there needs to be a constraint on their actions.

As for banning lobbyists, that's unworkable. Everybody who has an opinion is a lobbyist, some are just richer and/or more effective than others.

[homer13j]

I still don't get this obsession with anti-Big government, let the free market decided attitude.

Read The Federalist Papers, and (if it is at all possible) try to do it while looking at the British government from an American perspective. Our country's inherent distrust of government is a direct result of British rule.

The whole banking crises happened basically because the banks said, we don't need any regulation, regulation is bad, we should be allowed to invest as we see fit, let the markets decided and lobbied the hell out of government to get regulation removed or relaxed.

:facepalm: Sounds like you work for the Obama administration. Or at least you should...

Allow me to set you straight on what really happened:

This whole mess started in 1977 under the Carter administration with the Community Reinvestment Act (http://www.federalreserve.gov/dcca/cra/) which gave Congress the power to punish banks for "failing to meet the credit needs of low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." As a direct result of this legislation lending rules were relaxed, income verification was suspended and a whole mess of people were given subprime mortgages that they could not possibly pay back.

Complicit in this mess were the government-owned mortgage finance firms known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which encouraged more subprime lending by constantly changing the criteria by which high-risk borrowers qualified for home loans. They then bought up those bad loans meaning they were now backed by the U.S. taxpayers.

All this was justified as a way of increasing home ownership among minorities and the poor. Any bank that dared to question the ability of a minority to actually pay back the money lended to them was an invitation for the federal government to slap the offending bank with a huge, crippling lawsuit. So bad mortgage after bad mortgage were approved under threat of the government to make life very difficult for any bank that did not comply.

The mess wasn't caused by a lack of government regulation, it was caused precisely BY government regulation.

But congressional Democrats (and their willing accomplices in the media) would hear none of that. Go back and watch the video I posted in post #19 to see the truth for yourself in the Democrats' own words. When warned of the impending meltdown elected idiots like Barney Frank insisted that absolutely nothing was wrong and it was just a bunch of mean Republicans who didn't want black people to have houses.

But hey, don't let pesky facts get in the way of a good anti-bank rant and the predictable calls for even more government meddling.

Now the bubble has burst and idiots like Frank are desperately (and apparently successfully looking at some of these posts) trying to pass the blame off to the private sector - specifically Goldman Sachs.

[homer13j]

I'd say that I agree most with Homer's post #48.

I'm glad there's something we all can agree on... ;)

[NeedSomeAnswers]

I'd say that I agree most with Homer's post #48.

I second that, in fact i am off to France this summer and i can confirm that many of the women look exactly like that :0).

[capsulecorpjx]

How am I defending Wall St. firms? My point was that the Senate was having another Carnival side show so that people like you would pat them on the back for doing a good job, when in fact they allowed this to happen, and the Wall St firms are going to get a wrist slap.

Well then I agree with you 100%. Yes, obviously the Senate is putting on a show. They most likely are not genuine, and will not pass any meaningful reform.

Just that I believe Goldman deserves the grilling they get in the Media and Senate, though it might be fake outrage in the Senate.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

:facepalm: Sounds like you work for the Obama administration. Or at least you should...

Allow me to set you straight on what really happened:

I don't disagree with what you are saying (surprisingly) but you are looking at just one part of the situation. I am well aware of the issue with selling sub prime mortgages in the US, but this financial crisis is not just a US problem it is a World problem, and we don't have the same legislation in the UK or in any European country and yet we have been hit just as hard, because of the banks activities.

To say the banks didn't not know the risk that was involved in these sub prime mortgages is like Clinton saying i did not have sexual relations with that woman.

Many purely investment banks got caught out gambling on the Credit Default Swaps (Big bundles of sub-prime mortgages which have been given a nice big gold star by the Credit agencies) and they are complicit in not only creating these financial products but in then gambling heavily on them first to go up then shorting them when the crisis started to take hold.

The problem with the Financial markets now days is that they are global, and 1 very bad idea like the sub prime one you mentioned above, if the Banks are able to sell these financial product however they like then it can have massive effects on countries around the world.

It is quite possible that some other country could do the same as the US on sub-prime in the future, and then if the banks act the same, what protection do you have ?

[techgnome]

And yet another example of the feds sticking their nose where it doesn't belong:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100504/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_apple_antitrust_inquiry

-tg

[Shaggy Hiker]

Allow me to set you straight on what really happened:


Yeah, take a complex issue and distill it down to one action that conservatives can use to blame the whole thing on liberal policy. Then wait thirty plus years for this problem to suddenly bring down the system and make it appear that was the whole issue...or even the most significant part...or even a piece of the issue.

With that amount of lead time between cause and effect in a chaotic system, you might as well blame the whole crisis on ME, as you would be entirely as justified in doing so, mathematically.

About the Community Reinvestment Act described, due to the lag between cause and effect, one or both of these statements are true, and the inverse of both of them are definitely false:


1) The Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with the current financial crisis.

2) We have no possible way to determine whether the Community Reinvestment Act had any measurable impact on the current financial crisis.

It doesn't matter whether you are right or left. This is just math. As much as people desperately want to believe otherwise, those two statements are the only ones you can viably choose from regarding the impact of the Community Reinvestment Act. You can have one, the other, or both, but that's all.

[dbasnett]

The actual law

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/12/usc_sup_01_12_10_30.html

[dbasnett]

The actual law

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/12/usc_sup_01_12_10_30.html

12 USC 30 2905 is just a holding spot for other agencies to fill in the blank. Here is the link for the FDIC's interpretation

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title12/12cfr345_main_02.tpl

Nothing like facts to clog up the pipes.

[Shaggy Hiker]

THOSE facts will certainly clog pipes. From those links, could you narrow down a few parts that are pertinent? How many hours can we spend reading that stuff before we find something relevant?

I used to read bills when my mother was in the legislature. In general, they make drying paint interesting, but there is always a portion that is of interest, as long as you can wade through the chaff to get to it.

[homer13j]

Yeah, take a complex issue and distill it down to one action that conservatives can use to blame the whole thing on liberal policy. Then wait thirty plus years for this problem to suddenly bring down the system and make it appear that was the whole issue...or even the most significant part...or even a piece of the issue.

Critics of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had been sounding the alarm for nearly three decades and were ignored, impugned and ridiculed by the media and powerful government interests.

You make it out like it took thirty years for the situation to come to light when in reality there were plenty of people out there warning of the impending crisis but nobody paid any attention. Heck, even Bill Clinton himself placed the blame on corrupt Democrats (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/09/bill-clinton-bl.html).

The main reason it took so long was the influx of new home buyers reduced or eliminated the regular cyclical downturns in the housing market that would normally expose such shoddy economics but as long prices kept spiraling upward the self-regulating market forces were very limited in effectiveness until the bubble grew so big it burst in a huge calamity and the inevitable finger-pointing began.

And so I edited down what was a much-too-lengthy post to include only the pertinent facts of the root cause of the crisis. I wasn't about to write a novel about it and so that is now being used to discount the facts I presented above. Nice try though...

Another example of how to piss off a liberal by simply speaking the truth.

[Shaggy Hiker]

The fact that things were complained about for thirty years is irrelevant to the point. You are trying to assert long term downstream causality in a chaotic system. It doesn't matter which side you stand on, saying that was the cause is simply false. Instead, you could say "I think this was the cause." or "I think this was one of the factors." Either one would be sound, but they are both weak tea.

You may be as sure of that cause as you are of lolcats, but from a mathematical perspective, you are simply wrong. In a chaotic system you can only infer causality if the effect is dramatic and immediate. This may have been dramatic, but it was anything but immediate, and without immediacy any inference is nothing but a guess...unless you are god.....are you? I sure hope not, that would suck.

The fact that people were crying about it for thirty years has no bearing. When the collapse didn't happen within a few years of the act, its impact became completely lost.

On the other hand, this is a battle I have been fighting for decades. I have known otherwise highly intelligent post-docs who would say, "Ok I recognize that chaos math means that this inference is invalid, but I am going to pretend that chaos doesn't exist because I am invested in my inference." Others would say something more like, "Ok, so I can't make that inference, what am I supposed to do?"

That second question is actually a pretty fundamental one. Humans are good at only one thing: Pattern recognition. We infer cause and effect at the drop of a hat, right or wrong. Now that we have a situation where we can prove that inferring causality is invariably wrong under well defined criteria, it causes us to flounder. Most people get around the floundering by simply choosing an inference, asserting that it is TRUTH, and generally accusing anybody who doesn't agree with them of having an ideological bent, as you have suggested.

I certainly have a well known ideological bent. It has nothing to do with this. The assertion you are making is demonstably false on mathematical grounds.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Another example of how to piss off a liberal by simply speaking the truth.

You still haven't explained how Banks around the world have become involved in the crisis, and how it has effected most of the world economy ?

Most of the worlds banks have nothing to do with the American housing market apart from the fact the current regulation says they can gamble on risky financial products as much as they want without any payback.

And you still haven't explained how in a global financial market we are supposed to guard against risk. You cant guard against the policies of other countries (because i can damn well tell you that there hasn't' been the same mis-selling of sub-prime mortgages in the UK) so how do you stop Banks behaving the same thing again if something similar happens in China or India or one of the other big developing nations ?

Oh and if it is the US government that is at fault for this crisis and not the banks then should the rest of the world be compensated by the US government ?

[dbasnett]

"You are trying to assert long term downstream causality in a chaotic system."

And then Paulsen, Bernake, et al, took that to new heights, asserting that they knew what would happen if we did not bail them out.

I would guess that the "climate change is our fault" drum beaters don't like that either.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

And then Paulsen, Bernake, et al, took that to new heights, asserting that they knew what would happen if we did not bail them out.

There is a slight difference between a 30 year gap and what would have happened if we hadn't bailed out the banks which we would have experienced probably within 6 months.

Do you believe that we shouldn't have bailed out the banks then ?

[dbasnett]

There is a slight difference between a 30 year gap and what would have happened if we hadn't bailed out the banks which we would have experienced probably within 6 months.

Do you believe that we shouldn't have bailed out the banks then ?

No I don't. Do you really think they could predict the future of one of the most chaotic systems ever devised by man? What was a fact was that their buddies were going under if they didn't bail them out.

And before you ask, yes they should have bailed out GM, they make Corevettes. ;)

[NeedSomeAnswers]

No I don't

You do understand the consequences of that don't you ?

If the banks had been allowed to fail, because all the high street banks were involved as well, all our personal savings, mortgages, banks accounts would have gone to the wall with them. There is no separation between Investment bank and retail bank any more they are all gambling on the market, and as for Businesses they would have been in the same situation, if a business had millions of pounds in a bank then if the bank failed they would lose all their money !

Personally i would have liked us to not have had to bail out the banks, but under the current system if the banks fail, virtually everything else goes with them too.

If you want to be able to allow banks to fail then at the very minimum you have to have something in place that says peoples saving and deposits are safe so that the bank can fail without hurting the average citizen and the average business, currently there is very little in place to protect businesses and the consumer.

[dbasnett]

You do understand the consequences of that don't you ?

If the banks had been allowed to fail, because all the high street banks were involved as well, all our personal savings, mortgages, banks accounts would have gone to the wall with them. There is no separation between Investment bank and retail bank any more they are all gambling on the market, and as for Businesses they would have been in the same situation, if a business had millions of pounds in a bank then if the bank failed they would lose all their money !

Personally i would have liked us to not have had to bail out the banks, but under the current system if the banks fail, virtually everything else goes with them too.

If you want to be able to allow banks to fail then at the very minimum you have to have something in place that says peoples saving and deposits are safe so that the bank can fail without hurting the average citizen and the average business, currently there is very little in place to protect businesses and the consumer.

I am certain that is one opinion. I am also certain that if anyone could ACTUALLY predict the future we would have a name for them.

I agree we need reform.

Wasn't the Government already "regulating" financial institutions? Wasn't there an economist that testified before the SEC about Bernie Mad-off-with-your-money.

I vote, but have stopped voting for the incumbent. If we all did so we would get real reform. It is actually harder on lobbyist when there are new people.

[FunkyDexter]

I've always taken the view that my government has a responsibility to protect me from everyone except myself. From that viewpoint I'll throw my two-pennorth in on the trhee main discussion points (which, strangely, no longer includes immigration)

1. Talking on mobile phones in cars - hell yes we need legislation. That can lead someone else to kill me and I see nothing in the private markets that would lead manufacturers to pursue a solution without legislation.
2. Smoking in bars/restaurants - I'd like to leave this to the market but the evidence shows it just doesn't work. Before smoking bans were introduced I wasn't aware of a single bar or restaurant that banned smoking in my city. I suspect this is to do with the nature of addiction combined with the social nature of those outlets. If me and six of my freinds are planning to go out and just one of us smokes we will go to a smoking venue because his addiction will mean he insists on it. That means there is a much bigger market for a smoking venue than for a non-smoking venue, even if that market is made up mostly of non-smokers.
3. Legislating banks - Yes we need legislation. Banks are businesses and businesses are not motivated by the public good, they are motivated solely by profit. The public good is often a means to an end because it tends to attract business (and the private market works well as its own arbiter when the two naturally align) but it is never the end in and of itself. Given the impact a banks failure can have on the wider public it is simply too risky to leave unregulated. How you frame and implement that legislation is a massivle complex question that I wouldn't even try to answer.



On the whole 'Mexico was nicked' thing: yes, historically it was. However, after a couple of hundred years, anyone trying to protest that it should be given back is like us Brits trying to demand Calais and Aquitaine back from the French.

[dbasnett]

I've always taken the view that my government has a responsibility to protect me from everyone except myself. From that viewpoint I'll throw my two-pennorth in on the trhee main discussion points (which, strangely, no longer includes immigration)

1. Talking on mobile phones in cars - hell yes we need legislation. That can lead someone else to kill me and I see nothing in the private markets that would lead manufacturers to pursue a solution without legislation.
2. Smoking in bars/restaurants - I'd like to leave this to the market but the evidence shows it just doesn't work. Before smoking bans were introduced I wasn't aware of a single bar or restaurant that banned smoking in my city. I suspect this is to do with the nature of addiction combined with the social nature of those outlets. If me and six of my freinds are planning to go out and just one of us smokes we will go to a smoking venue because his addiction will mean he insists on it. That means there is a much bigger market for a smoking venue than for a non-smoking venue, even if that market is made up mostly of non-smokers.
3. Legislating banks - Yes we need legislation. Banks are businesses and businesses are not motivated by the public good, they are motivated solely by profit. The public good is often a means to an end because it tends to attract business (and the private market works well as its own arbiter when the two naturally align) but it is never the end in and of itself. Given the impact a banks failure can have on the wider public it is simply too risky to leave unregulated. How you frame and implement that legislation is a massivle complex question that I wouldn't even try to answer.



On the whole 'Mexico was nicked' thing: yes, historically it was. However, after a couple of hundred years, anyone trying to protest that it should be given back is like us Brits trying to demand Calais and Aquitaine back from the French.

1 - The technology exists to know where a phone is at any time, so it shouldn't be hard to just have them disconnect calls / text while the vehicle is in motion. I suspect not enough people have died for us to really want that.

2 - You need new friends. I went to a lot of places, including the State of CA, and never insisted.

3 - Could we start with monitoring the monitors? How about a restriction on taking private jobs in the industry you regulate for some period of time after you leave, 5-10 years.

My personal opinion is that the government lost track of the common citizen. I am almost 100% certain that their motto is "Show me the money...".

Vote for the Not Incumbent Party. Imagine what it would be like if every incumbent lost, would they get the message then?

[NeedSomeAnswers]

1. Talking on mobile phones in cars - hell yes we need legislation. That can lead someone else to kill me and I see nothing in the private markets that would lead manufacturers to pursue a solution without legislation.
2. Smoking in bars/restaurants - I'd like to leave this to the market but the evidence shows it just doesn't work. Before smoking bans were introduced I wasn't aware of a single bar or restaurant that banned smoking in my city. I suspect this is to do with the nature of addiction combined with the social nature of those outlets. If me and six of my freinds are planning to go out and just one of us smokes we will go to a smoking venue because his addiction will mean he insists on it. That means there is a much bigger market for a smoking venue than for a non-smoking venue, even if that market is made up mostly of non-smokers.
3. Legislating banks - Yes we need legislation. Banks are businesses and businesses are not motivated by the public good, they are motivated solely by profit. The public good is often a means to an end because it tends to attract business (and the private market works well as its own arbiter when the two naturally align) but it is never the end in and of itself. Given the impact a banks failure can have on the wider public it is simply too risky to leave unregulated. How you frame and implement that legislation is a massivle complex question that I wouldn't even try to answer.

Right could resist replying,

1, Not that i am in disagreement but how the hell are you gonna police it ?

As for - The technology exists to know where a phone is at any time, so it shouldn't be hard to just have them disconnect calls / text while the vehicle is in motion

i suspect that this would be a hard sell to pass as law, most law abiding people don't want there phone companies recording and checking where they are at all times. Yes they do log some data currently about the phone mast you are connected too, but this would be far more information.

2, I totally agree with Mr Funky on this, Pubs and bars on there own if given the choice there would be Zero non-smoking establishments. The Smoking establishment would get greater custom as both smokers & non-smokers would go to them, but for a non-smoking establishment you cut out half your market. The non-smoking establishments would be committing commercial suicide. And anyway smoking is a public health issue and the smoking ban is in the public interest.

3, i have already commented on this so i wont repeat myself.

4, Immigration (well that what the thread was about originally), It seems to me that all the developed countries now have a problem with immigration. Immigration has always happened and the US in particular is a nation of (fairly recent in historical terms) immigrants, i don't know that US issues nearly so well but in the UK we do have a problem with the sheer numbers of immigrants.

I am actually normally in favour of a more relaxed immigration policy but at the moment i think that we should probably be letting a lesser percentage into the country than we are.

[techgnome]

1 - the problem with that, is not policing it... but how do you know if a phone is in a vehicle or not? If it's in motion, it could be by bus, train or even walking... And then you have passengers. What? Everyone is cut off? Hardly seems fair.

2 - Bars - I've got no issue with allowing smoking at bars... isn't that part of their very essence? Oddly, when the local muni banned smoking at such establishments, there was a huge uproar, people claiming that their bars would lose business and they would be forced to close. Two years later and the only bars that have shut are ones that had their liquor license pulled due to fights and other police-involving incidents. To the best of my knowledge, none have closed because they lost their smokers. Just goes to show that people will want to get drunk no matter what.

3 - And then who is going to monitor those monitoring the monitors watching the banks? Where does it end? That's part of the problem now. Too much oversight and not enough accountability. Want to straighten things out? Let a few firms fail and fail miserably... Then maybe the rest of the industry will wake up and go "OH carp! Maybe we shouldn't be doing that." As it is now, these firms are acting with impunity since the gov't will save their sorry butt.

4) I say militarize the borders... that's the job of the military, isn't it? To defend the borders of the country from invaders? Seems harsh, but so far nothing else has worked. Maybe it's time for a little kick butt.

-tg

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Want to straighten things out? Let a few firms fail and fail miserably...

I agree, but currently if they fail they would take all our cash with them. I would like something in place first that meant the the public would still get there money if the bank failed.

[techgnome]

That's what the FDIC and the NCUIC (I think that's right) ... in a bank, my deposits are federally insured up to a certain max amount... so that's covered... what isn't is any investments in the stock market... which as far as I am concerned is part of the game.

-tg

[dbasnett]

Like I said, we haven't killed enough people off yet.

[Blakk_Majik]

Banking:
The problem with the current system, as NeedSomeAnswers pointed out, is that a single bank can have many arms (retail, commercial, investment). This led to banks like JP Morgan, Bank of America, and Citibank to gamble with actual deposits from retail and commercial banking deposits.

The problem wasn't that the banks were too big to fail, the problem was that too many of regular people's REAL money was gambled away to beef up profits for shareholders and pay outrageous bonuses.

They should have never, EVER, repealed the Glass–Steagall Act. No sooner than the ink from President Clinton's signature dried on the paper to repeal the act, Citibank was full speed ahead selling mortgage backed securities and collateralized debt obligations, among other "exotic" financial instruments. It also helped that GWB and every other federal agency (namely the lame SEC) spent 8 years looking the other way.

Immigration:
AZ is doing what they have to do to fight a growing problem. I agree with the idea of militarizing the border. This is something our troops should be doing, instead of fighting in the interests of companies like Halliburton.

[Shaggy Hiker]

"You are trying to assert long term downstream causality in a chaotic system."

And then Paulsen, Bernake, et al, took that to new heights, asserting that they knew what would happen if we did not bail them out.

I would guess that the "climate change is our fault" drum beaters don't like that either.

No, they don't, nor do they, like most people, understand it.

However, I left out a key word in that. It should be long term DELAYED downstream causality. You can infer causality with considerably better confidence (better than zero, that is) if the effect happens immediately after the causal agent. After all, chaotic systems are oscillating around an irregular space known as the strange attractor. If you shift the strange attractor, you will see the same oscillations, but around a different location. The point behind climate change is that people feel that the strange attractor has been shifted.

In other words: There has always been long, short, and very short, cycles of temperature fluctuations. There are record colds, extreme colds, cold, warm, extreme heat, and record heat. These always happen. Eventually, if the strange attractor never moved, there would never be another record set, though that could take infinite time. With global warming, there will still be the oscillations that we have always had, they will just be oscillating around a different point (actually not a point, but you get the idea).

So global warming doesn't violate what I MEANT to say, had I not left out that one word, but that doesn't change the fact that very few people seem to both understand chaos, and accept the implications. Some understand it, and choose to ignore the implications as far as causality is concerned, while the vast majority don't even understand it.

[Shaggy Hiker]

No I don't. Do you really think they could predict the future of one of the most chaotic systems ever devised by man? What was a fact was that their buddies were going under if they didn't bail them out.

And before you ask, yes they should have bailed out GM, they make Corevettes. ;)

I agree with the first part, but not the second. That car isn't worth it.

I do think we had to bail out the banks just a little, but not the way we did or to the extent that we did. Should have made them feel the pain in exchange. The way we have it now, they screwed up in a MAJOR way...and got richer for it. What did we just reinforce?


As for immigration, militarizing the border would only work if the people don't want the immigrants. Plenty of people don't, but as I tried to point out earlier, plenty of people DO, too. The business interests in this state have solidly prevented ANY action on immigration, no matter how tepid. AZ is trying to push them out, ID is trying to pretend to push them out while actually looking the other way.

[homer13j]

Sorry for the delay - been out dirtbiking in central PA all week...

The fact that things were complained about for thirty years is irrelevant to the point. You are trying to assert long term downstream causality in a chaotic system. It doesn't matter which side you stand on, saying that was the cause is simply false. Instead, you could say "I think this was the cause." or "I think this was one of the factors." Either one would be sound, but they are both weak tea.

How about the fact that the provisions in the Community Reinvestment Act were pretty much ignored by the Reagan/GHB administrations until enforcement was kicked into high gear when Clinton took office in 1993?

And yes, perhaps I should have added "this was one of the factors" but I will also go as far to say he Community Reinvestment Act was the single biggest factor and what touched the whole thing off.

Now it's perfectly true that critics of FM&FM were ignored by the powers that be on both sides of the aisle. However it is also true that FM&FM's critics only came from one side of that aisle while those who defended the system only came from the other side (I'll let you figure out which) including a certain high-ranking member of the House Banking Committee who also just happened to be involved in a homosexual relationship with a certain high-ranking Fannie Mae executive... But naw, none of that could have anything to do with it, right? ;)

You still haven't explained how Banks around the world have become involved in the crisis, and how it has effected most of the world economy ?

The foreign banks got involved (and screwed) when Fannie & Freddie began buying up these bad loans and repackaging them as bonds on the world financial markets backed by the full faith & trust :lol: of the U.S. government. D'oh!

If the banks had been allowed to fail, because all the high street banks were involved as well, all our personal savings, mortgages, banks accounts would have gone to the wall with them.

Here in the states we have the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation - a federal government entity which insures all bank accounts up to $250,000. Not sure how it handles mortgages if a bank fails, but I'm sure the taxpayers are on the hook for this as well.

[homer13j]

That car isn't worth it.

Blasphemy! :D

[NeedSomeAnswers]

The foreign banks got involved (and screwed) when Fannie & Freddie began buying up these bad loans and repackaging them as bonds on the world financial markets backed by the full faith & trust of the U.S. government. D'oh!

It was the Banks that actually created the Credit Default Swaps financial products, rather then the mortgage companies.

[Shaggy Hiker]

How about the fact that the provisions in the Community Reinvestment Act were pretty much ignored by the Reagan/GHB administrations until enforcement was kicked into high gear when Clinton took office in 1993?



No, even if this was true, which I have no idea about, it makes no difference to the point. Had you said that it was ignored until some time in the early part of the Bush administration, that would make a difference as there would be a continuity between cause and effect. Instead, it remained non-existent for some length of time then surfaced. While it makes the relationship slightly more plausible, such that it might be provable, it could only be done with multiple replicates, which you can never have in economic systems.


And yes, perhaps I should have added "this was one of the factors" but I will also go as far to say he Community Reinvestment Act was the single biggest factor and what touched the whole thing off.

You would be going too far, but you would be in good company there.


The foreign banks got involved (and screwed) when Fannie & Freddie began buying up these bad loans and repackaging them as bonds on the world financial markets backed by the full faith & trust :lol: of the U.S. government. D'oh!

That was a part of it. There was also the reason that the global pool was seeking such things due to the very low interest rates, the fact that the rating agencies were over-rating the bonds created by the banks (not just Fannie & Freddie, they are mostly being attacked by the right because they are what they are), and the bit that several groups were pumping up the bad bonds because they were betting heavily against them. There is one large bank that has been blamed fairly publicly for that, but they weren't actually the worst actors.

There was a very good way to make money on loans and a few groups took advantage of it. That's capitalism. All the rest of that is kind of silly. When you have a few funds that are saying "We will buy as much of this debt as you can create, as long as it is bad enough." Then why bother blaming the bad debt on some act of Congress? There was a willing buyer. Under capitalism, there will generally become a willing seller.


Here in the states we have the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation - a federal government entity which insures all bank accounts up to $250,000. Not sure how it handles mortgages if a bank fails, but I'm sure the taxpayers are on the hook for this as well.

Not necessarily. It depends considerably on what the mortgage is and how it is performing. For a bank, a mortgage in good standing is income, so nobody is "on the hook" for it. If the mortgage is not in good standing...then it is not in good standing. What happens after that is pretty complicated. What does NOT happen is that the borrower doesn't get the property as a free gift just because the bank crashed. In fact, they can suffer worse.

[dbasnett]

What does NOT happen is that the borrower doesn't get the property as a free gift just because the bank crashed. In fact, they can suffer worse.

Funny you should say that. I just recently saw / read ??? a story about a woman who got her mortgage balance reduced to 0 because the bank, that bought the bank, that bought the bank, kept refusing her mortgage payments. She believe her paperwork was lost and the judge said fine, your home is yours.

[techgnome]

That's different. That didn't happen as a result of the bank going under. that's a result of a paperwork snafu. It's something that could have just as easily happened in better times.

-tg

[dbasnett]

That's different. That didn't happen as a result of the bank going under. that's a result of a paperwork snafu. It's something that could have just as easily happened in better times.

-tg

When I said bought I meant acquired the assets of the failed bank. Sorry for not being clear.

[techgnome]

It's an indirect result of the bank failing... some one lost paperwork along the way... happens. And it could still happen, even with out a failing bank. In short, the bank failed to produce documentation that the woman still owed them money. So the judge did the only logical thing.

-tg

[dbasnett]

It's an indirect result of the bank failing... some one lost paperwork along the way... happens. And it could still happen, even with out a failing bank. In short, the bank failed to produce documentation that the woman still owed them money. So the judge did the only logical thing.

-tg

It was just funny that Shaggy said what he did.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I was aware of that situation, though not of that exact case. One of the side effects of the packaging and selling of mortgages during the runup (I actually bought a house in 2003, before the rise, but while the packaging and selling was happening) was that individual mortgages could get lost. The paper had been bought and sold so many times that there were cases where people thought they held the note when they didn't, actually, and nobody could determine who really did have the note. If a non-holder demanded payment from a homeowner, they certainly can't enforce that claim (or else anybody could demand payment). If the real note holder couldn't be identified, there were cases, such as the one you cited, where the courts declared the mortgage void.

It's kind of like that old Monopoly card: Bank error in your favor. Collect one house.

Still, that has more to do with bungling than bank failures, but I do see your point. There's a worse case playing out up here. A bank failed while holding the note for a very expensive piece of property that was part of a seasonal business. The bank had recognized the seasonal nature of the business and adjusted payments accordingly (nothing in the winter, plenty in the summer). Once the bank failed, the new owner (FDIC lines up a buyer before the actual failure) refused that mortgage (for no clear reason that I can see), so FDIC called the loan.

Sometimes you win...