Guilt by association? You are kidding, right?
Posted By: sam on 2008-11-05
In Reply to: If one is guilty by association, then let - sweetpea
20 years in the church, man was his mentor, baptized his children...that is an "association?"
Excuse me...my compadre? Are you now saying I am guilty of wanting to leave my country because another poster posted on this board THEY might leave?
Good grief, rip a page out of your own book. If he sat there for 20 years and was truly AGAINST racism, then he is a hypocrit at the very LEAST.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
I would believe the guilt by association only...
if his policies did not scream Marxist...straight out of black liberation theology. I can see what he hopes for and the change he wants. I don't want a Marxist socialist government. Perhaps you do.
Guilt by association
"…associations with terrorists, criminals, and racist individuals to me is more telling because these are associations and issues that could raise concern during a presidency.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/30572149.html
Racists / terrorists: Republican Sen. John McCain served on the advisory board to the U.S. chapter of an international group linked to ultra-right-wing death squads in Central America in the 1980s. McCain sat on the board of the U.S. Council for World Freedom. During his tenure (1981 to 1986), the Anti-Defamation League said this organization and its parent organization, the WACL (World Anti-Communist League) "has increasingly become a gathering place, a forum, a point of contact for extremists, racists and anti-Semites." The WACL had ties to ultra-right figures and Latin American death squads. Roger Pearson, the chairman of the WACL, was expelled from the group in 1980 under allegations that he was a member of a neo-Nazi organization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Keating
Criminal ties:
1. Charles Keating. Keating was criminally charged with having duped Lincoln's customers into buying worthless junk bonds of American Continental Corporation; he was convicted in state court in 1992 of fraud, racketeering, and conspiracy and received a 10-year prison sentence. In January 1993, a federal conviction followed, with a 12-and-a-half year sentence. He spent four-and-a-half years in prison, but convictions were eventually overturned. Thereafter, on the eve of the retrial on the federal charges, Keating pleaded guilty to several felony charges in return for a sentence of time served.
2. McCain appeared at a Oregon Citizens Alliance gathering after Marilyn Shannon had praised Shelley Shannon as a "fine lady." Shannon is an anti-abortion activist, saboteur, rhetorician and sharpshooter from Grants Pass, Oregon. She assaulted Dr. George Tiller outside his abortion clinic in Wichita, Kansas on August 19, 1993, shooting him in both arms. She is serving time in FCI Dublin. Her projected release date is November 7, 2018.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain_connections_coming_back_to_haunt_1007.html
3. Gordon Liddy, the Watergate break-in mastermind, who spent more than four years in prison for his crimes, has called McCain an "old friend" and hosted the candidate on his conservative talk radio show.
Guilt by association. Really wanna go there?
Just off the top of my head:
1. US Council for World Freedom who got a 20-year sentence for his conviction of conspiracy, burglary and illegal wiretapping in the Watergate fiasco. m (can you say Iran contra?).
2. Phil Gramm, (co-chair of the McCain campaign), champion of Enron tax loopholes and author of Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that effectively neutralized any existing regulation of financial services industry. You remember good ole Phil. He's the one talking on McCain's behalf when he said we were having a "mental recession" and we have a nation of a bunch of whiners.
3. Gordon Liddy. That's the guy
4. Let's don't forget the Keating 5.
5. Richard Quinn, publisher of Southern Heritage ragazine for neo-confederates…unapologetic bigotry.
6. Rick Davis, McCain CEO, lobbyist, paid $15,000 each month for "consulting" from end of 2005 until September 2008.
With a little research, I'm sure I could come up with a few more. Wanna go there some more?
It's that guilt-by-association thingy
O haters have been harping away on that matra for months and months and months and more months while trying without success to make all their endless "connections". What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Another resounding theme from them has been "judgment" about the company one keeps. SP has condoned her own daughter's marriage into a crack/meth (or whatever drug) house. What is with the pubs' adversion to vetting anyway? It's going to be a bit difficult to pull off that one-big-happy-family image politicians like to project.
Don't be such a hypocrite. The glee O haters take in salivating over imagined scandals is positively palpable. I'm not that excited, but I'd be lying if I said I'm not highly amused.
I think the guilt by association thing....(sm)
is ridiculous -- from both sides. That being said, I find it hard to believe that Sarah has never even met the mother of her future son-in-law.
Guilt by association tactic is tired, did nothing
In a democracy, even communists are allow to have their own perceptions. It is good news that Sam will be putting time-consuming research into overdrive. Poor pubs. Plain to see they are spinning themselves into the ground. Spin, baby, spin. Nothing you can say will change the fact that the DNC was a phenomenal success and the RNC is a dud so far, plagued by disappearing speakers, scandal and damage control.
Run another guilt by association smear campaign
watch that landslide turn into a monster avalanche. Some people never learn.
If everyone was guilty by association . . .
how many of us would be guilty? There are and have been plenty of Senators and congresssmen who have (or still do) links to the KKK -- if we knew the actual truth, we would be shocked. The point is, I don't have enough information to be able to make a judgment about Obama's choice of church? We all have at one time or another had a friend or loved one whose lifestyle or morals maybe we did not necessarily agree with, but maybe we knew another side of them that overshadowed the bad side. I don't respect or necessarily like my mother because she is a racist, but I still love her for doing the best she knew how.
If one is guilty by association, then let
any one of you who profess your own guiltlessness please step forward. I just wish you people would find something more constructive to do than continuously harp on a moot point. You're welcome to join your compadre who posted earlier about moving to Australia -- but then, I doubt you would have the funds to do that, since they require major $$ to be deposited into their banks in order to get a green card. And then you would find that they really do not care for Americans very much, and then YOU would be the one discriminated against. I would call that poetic justice.
"Guilt by association" is a logical fallacy.
Unless, of course, you're quite prepared to admit that Obama is a domestic terrorist. (Need the associations to support that?)
Please understand. I don't blame you. I blame the public school systems that no longer teach students logical skills.
You can try to guilt.....
the posters on this board but I doubt you will be effective. Jonestown wasn't the only ones who drank 'the Kool-Aid." So did Heaven's Gate. So, it is now a mainstream term and no disrespect is intended to the victims and willing who met this fate. I refuse to be manipulated by others who try to censor my right to free speech.
Then if Obama is not guilty by association, I guess McCain definitely isn't either sm
Racism goes both ways and you know that!
Not sure about the admitting guilt....
Clinton did not require a pardon because he never went to trial It never went to and wasn't convicted of anything, though we all know he did it. It wasn't pursued after he left office. That should go to show that Republicans do not thirst for revenge, as they are the ones who would have to have done it, liberals obviously would not. That being said...not sure. I never heard that Marc Rich or any of the ones Clinton did the *Hail Mary* pardons for admitted guilt. Perhaps they did; perhaps they didn't. I just don't see how liberals could complain if Libby was pardoned if the Republicans didn't go after Bill after he left office, and they could have. I always wondered why Monica never filed a civil suit. I am thinking either she was afraid for her life or banked a ton of Clinton money. But, that is merely conjecture on my part.
Pardons can be handed out for other reasons too I believe...I don't think the border patrol officers would have to admit guilt because they feel they were wrongly convicted. It could go that way for Libby too...who knows. I can see there are issues...no one went after Judith Miller for conveniently not remembering all her conversations. It is just a mess...
But the point is...Libby didn't leak anything. It was Armitage. And who pulls his strings? We might REALLY be surprised about that one. I would venture that it is not even on the Republican side, but came from the OTHER side to set up some of the administration. Would not be the first time and I certainly would not put it past some of Armitage's old liberal buds with a lot of moveon.org money behind it. How's that for a conspiracy theory this fine evening?
So again we agree to disagree...and...lol...I am NOT even going to go there on the ACLU tonight. Too tired...lol.
Have a good night, Lurker!
Pardons....admission of guilt...
According to this that I found, they are saying that if you *accept* a pardon, that is an implicit admission of guilt. A person does not have to say formally *yes, I am guilty.*
In the United States, the pardon power for Federal crimes is granted to the President by the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2, which states that the President:
shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
All federal pardon petitions are addressed to the President who grants or denies the request. Typically, applications for pardons are referred for review and non-binding recommendation by the Office of the Pardon Attorney, an official of the Department of Justice. Since 1977, presidents have received about 600 pardon or clemency petitions a year and have granted around ten percent of these, although the percentage of pardons and reprieves granted varies from administration to administration (fewer pardons have been granted since World War II than historically had been the case).
The presidential power of pardons and commutations was controversial from the outset; many Anti-Federalists remembered examples of royal abuses of the pardon power in Europe, and warned that the same would happen in the new republic. However, Alexander Hamilton makes a strong defense of the pardon power in The Federalist Papers, particularly in Federalist 74. It is worthy of note that Hamilton called for something like an elective monarch at the Constitutional Convention. President George Washington granted the first high-profile Federal pardon to leaders of the Whiskey Rebellion.
Many pardons have been controversial; critics argue that pardons have been used more often for the sake of political expediency than to correct judicial error. One of the more famous, recent pardons was granted by President Gerald Ford to former President Richard Nixon on September 8, 1974, for official misconduct which gave rise to the Watergate scandal. Polls showed a majority of Americans disapproved of the pardon and Ford's public-approval ratings tumbled afterward. He was then narrowly defeated in the presidential campaign, two years later. Other controversial uses of the pardon power include Andrew Johnson's sweeping pardons of thousands of former Confederate officials and military personnel after the American Civil War, Jimmy Carter's grant of amnesty to Vietnam-era draft evaders, George H. W. Bush's pardons of 75 people, including six Reagan administration officials accused and/or convicted in connection with the Iran-Contra affair, and Bill Clinton's pardons of convicted FALN terrorists and 140 people on his last day in office - including billionaire fugitive Marc Rich.
A presidential pardon may be granted at any time after commission of the offense; the pardoned person need not have been convicted or even formally charged with a crime. Clemency may also be granted without the filing of a formal request and even if the intended recipient has no desire to be pardoned. In the overwhelming majority of cases, however, the Pardon Attorney will consider only petitions from persons who have completed their sentences and, in addition, have demonstrated their ability to lead a responsible and productive life for a significant period after conviction or release from confinement.[1]
It appears that a pardon can be rejected, and must be affirmatively accepted to be officialy recognized by the courts. Acceptance also carries with it an admission of guilt. Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915). However, the federal courts have yet to make it clear how this logic applies to persons who are deceased (such as Henry Flipper - who was pardoned by Bill Clinton), those who are relieved from penalties as a result of general amnesties and those whose punishments are relieved via a commutation of sentence (which cannot be rejected in any sense of the language - See Chapman v. Scott (C. C. A.) 10 F.(2d) 690).
The pardon power of the President extends only to offenses cognizable under U.S. Federal law. However, the governors of most states have the power to grant pardons or reprieves for offenses under state criminal law. In other states, that power is committed to an appointed agency or board, or to a board and the governor in some hybrid arrangement.
White guilt is right. Too many people...
feel they HAVE to say they would vote for Obama for fear of being called racist. If that's the only way he gets into the White House then it's not a true win. He certainly isn't going to get in based on his stellar political career or experience. Flowery words, promises that can't be kept, keep the poor people poor and dependent on the government, screw the middle class and help out your fat cat friends.
White guilt is "pitiful?" Help me out here.
this statement to be just the teensey-weensiest bit tinged with that racism the reds doth vigorously protest is absent in their campaign rhetoric? Am I the only one left in America that finds this deeply offensive? Flame away if you must. I can take it.
NEITHER SIDE is 100% free of guilt, 'kay?
White guilt drove the election...
plain and simple. Drones didn't want to be called racist for not voting for him so they jumped on the wagon. Too bad it is going to careen off the cliff with them.
Guilt doesn't eliminate rights
There are privileges that can be taken away after being convicted in a court of law, but in our American system of justice, he still maintains his legal rights. Whether we believe we should save the state a lot of money and fry him right now does not really matter. Our American justice system, which is one of the things we tout as making us superior to middle east justice, means that he is entitled to a free trial, where his lawyer will undoubtedly make an insanity defense. In any case, the murderer opening his mouth prejudices his own case, and apparently the prosecuting team wants to make sure this guy does not walk on a technicality.
Are you kidding? (sm)
He never had any cheese on his cracker! All that clown needs is a room with mirrored walls and he'd be happy!
Who are YOU kidding?
You don't want to interrupt our so-called "Bush hate-fest with facts"????
Number one, you THRIVE on this. You thrive on spouting your drivel, fighting and spreading your venom. You need it like a fish needs water. You can't survive unless you spread your evil hatefulnes all over this board. You're not satisfied with a respectful, reasonable debate. You're not happy unless you're personally stomping someone who disagrees with you into the ground.
Number two, the entire issue involved with this thread IS "FACTS." An increasing number of Americans want to know what the truth is, and they're bright enough to realize they've been fed a bunch of lies by the idiot in the White House. You people are so adverse to the truth, you wouldn't be able to identify a fact if it hit you between the eyes.
I realize that you're energized and  over the fact that you've got a fight going here.
You have no compelling point of view. All you know how to do is insult and call people names. You don't have the ability to intelligently debate any issue. You're nothing more than message board thugs. I personally am very uncomfortable stooping that low, and from now on, I refuse to read and/or respond to any of your posts, and I would urge the thoughtful, respectful, intelligent people who frequent this board to do the same and NOT give you the conflict that you thrive on.
Take it back to the cesspool you call home: The Conservative Board. Isn't that what you've repeatedly promised to do, anyway, LEAVE?? Once again, your word has just as much value and credibility as Bush's. It's easy to see why you worship him. You share the same "values."
I don't know that it was kidding, but it's quite different.
But I'm sure you knew that. I could take the time to explain how these are two very different threats/comments from a legal as well as common sense standpoint but it it would fall on deaf ears. Not playing this game with you anymore. If you want to pretend to be ignorant, go ahead. Just not sure why you'd want to do it in public.
You ARE kidding, right?
You never heard of TRAVELGATE?!!!!!? Oh, well, people's lives were only ruined. People who had worked in the travel office under many different administrations. You know, people like you and me, just average Joes. Until Clinton cronyism ruined their lives. Gosh, how come you people don't know this stuff? That's really amazing. And disturbing.
You have got to be kidding, right?
Those comments the other night weren't particularly disturbing. They were a bit crass at times, and the John Willkes Booth comment was a bit coarse and probably a bit over the top.....but overall they were quite amusing. I even saved one posting because it was HILARIOUS. Okay, probably not hilarious to the conservative board, I do realize that. But after watching these dreadful playground bullies beat up on everyone on that board that didn't spew their propaganda there was some sort of justice in those posts that appeared. Sort of a karmic get-even thing. I am so glad that I got to read all of them that particular evening.
Reading the other board is kind of like passing a gruesome car accident. You don't want to look, but yet you can't resist.....and you never know how awful it's going to be. Human nature, I guess.
Your kidding right...??...sm
While this is not at the top of my list, a sitting president who was not elected by the people is nothing to say 'oh well' about.
I have always favored the popular vote over electorial votes. All electronic so swinging chads are not an issue.
You got to be kidding.
All day and night long, Bush used it as a political statement, beginning with Cheney and Rice on the Sunday talk show circuit and ending with a neocon made for TV movie that tried to pin the blame for 9/11 on Clinton.
Are you kidding?
213,000 refugees in 2004 and 801,000 in 2005 - I guess all this liberty/democracy/newfound security is just too much for some Iraqis, so they have to leave their country. ???????????????
Baghdad Empties as Residents Flee to Safety
Major Exodus Sends Hundreds of Thousands of Iraqis to Jordan, Syria
By JIM SCIUTTO
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 18, 2006 — - Iraqi officials insist that the government's security plan shows signs of success, but hundreds of thousands of Iraqis express a different view -- by leaving the region in hordes.
Baghdad's passport office is overrun with people trying to leave the country. On a recent afternoon, a car bomb went off just outside the gates, killing nine people.
Inside an official tried to calm the crowd, saying this happens all the time. The attack was one more reason for resident Kaiss Warash to want to leave Iraq.
I'm tired of life here, he said.
Visit bus stations in Iraq's capital and it's clear many feel the same as Warash. By some estimates, this is now the largest movement of refugees in the world today, with most of the fleeing people going to neighboring Syria and Jordan. And the pace of the movement has accelerated. In 2004, 213,000 Iraqis fled the country. Last year that number rose to 801,000.
There is persecution going on of religious minorities, of professionals … and of course Shia or Sunni, said Lavinia Limón of the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants. People are actually told if you don't leave we're going to kill you.
The drain is worst among professionals. An estimated 40 percent of the country's professionals have left, and Baghdad's main hospital is now experiencing a dangerous shortage of trauma surgeons.
Unemployed but Safe
Across Baghdad, in some areas quiet streets and vacant homes are an eerie testament to the exodus.
In Jordan entire neighborhoods of Iraqi refugees have sprung up. In Jordan they can walk the streets safely again, but many can't work legally.
One refugee told us, I don't have a job here … but there's nothing better than security.
And so many keep leaving, hoping some day it will be safe to come home.
Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures
No kidding!
I belive the vet stated that someone spat on the ground near him. This same vet has also had other incidents happen to him. Kind of strange. I guess accusations of spitting have been what is called an urban legend and been around since VIet Nam.
no kidding, you are right about that
My son heard some negative ads on the radio the other day and was telling me Obama did this or McCain is going to do that, and we had to have a talk about taking all of this with a grain of salt and about twisted half-truths. It's hard to get to the bottom of a lot of it. I really commend you for "I stand corrected." Not many people are willing to do that on either side.
You have got to be kidding!
Spreading false rumors - I thought junior high was over with!
Besides, it's far more probable that the Palin had the baby due to her age, rather than her young daughter.
Grow up, would ya?
Are you kidding me?
In my family....if there is a baby in the house....it is passed around like a game of pass the parcel. We love babies and quite frankly they get heavy sometimes....and so you pass them to someone else to TAKE A BREAK FROM THE DEAD WEIGHT OF A SLEEPING BABY. SHEESH. This isn't child abuse. This is called sharing the love!
are you kidding me?????
Glenn Beck last night!
ARE YOU KIDDING ME??
x
Are you kidding me?
The poor people of this country get all the benefits. I go to my local Wallyworld on the first weekend of every month and see those "poor" people wheeling 2 baskets of groceries, with crab legs and cases of beer and steaks, wearing gold jewelry, hair and nails done and better clothes than I wear and they pull out their benefits card to pay. And then when I get out to the parking lot I see them loading their groceries into the brand new car while I work for 3 services, dh works a full time job and a part time job and I got into my 10 year old SUV. and this happens every month, not a once or 2 thing. These people know how to work the system to get benefits and live the good life all the while. Give me a freaking break...you believe in charity...you give your paycheck away and leave mine alone. I have kids to take care of and I'd like to retire someday.
Are you kidding me??????
Believe me, if you were making 250K a year, you would definitely be paying more than 25%. I do have family members who work their BUTTS OFF to make that and I can guarantee you they pay FAR MORE than 25% in taxes, not to mention all the other garbage they get hit with, just for making an honest living and employing others.
So what now, we're supposed to despise those that succeed in life? Isn't that what we're supposed to strive to do?
Where do you think all the jobs come from in this country, besides our out of control government jobs? Jobs usually do come from those that financially may be better off. What's wrong with that? If they didn't own more and have more, so they could have businesses that employ the rest of us, where do you think you would be?
My husband is a CPA and does taxes as well and I can tell you you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Those making 250K don't make it by sitting on their duffs. They usually live at their businesses and if you think you have little time, they have even less for enjoyment, etc. And they pay through the nose to the tune of 50% plus on their taxes.
A flat tax would be the only fair way to be taxed at all, even though individuals paying income tax in this country is illegal anyway. There are no laws governing such thing. Only for corporate taxes. Instead of taxes, we should only have consumer taxing...we pay taxes on what we buy, not what we make.
Government has no right to our money, never has. Supreme Court shot down individuals paying income taxes back in the early 1900's, called it unconstitutional, but look how it managed to creep its ugly self back into our lives.
You have got to be kidding!!!!
From BF's own mouth when Greenspan and the republicans were trying to regulate FMFM, he said there was no problem. Know why? They would find out he and a bunch of others were skimming the profits.
This started before Bush. There were warnings but the dems did not heed them. Why? Because the republicans wanted this regulation and we all know NOW that the dems won't do anything for the better of the people if it means voting for something the repubs try to put in place, no matter how good the legislation is.
I think you better do some homework.
Are you kidding?
I know if your a democrat you staunchly believe it wasn't the democrats fault and it was all the republicans fault and vice versa. I'm sure you could even find articles written by democrats or republicans who will write article proving why its not the democrats or republicans fault. But facts are facts and they cannot be hidden.
My take is it is both sides fault. They all let it happen. They knew what was going on and they continued to line their pockets (both democrats and republicans?)
I am sick to death of one side blaming the other side and then sit there and say , oh no, it wasn't the side I support, it was everyone else.
Have you seen a list of the people who had a hand in this. BOTH SIDES!!!!!
Then of course when you point it out they say "oh, well lets not do the blame game". They won't take responsibility for a situation they created.
And now they have the nerve to let the same people who got us into this mess figure out a solution to get us out? Are they for real?????? That's like letting criminals once found guilty decide what punishment they should receive.
Oh and the top 1% of republicans that is getting rich under a republican president is the same 1% that were getting rich under a democrat president. It may take awhile but I could find the names of the 1% wealthy that got even more wealthy when Clinton was in. Both sides! Face the facts.
I am so disgusted with the whole thing. They are all crooks and I don't trust not one of them! They should all be fired! Crooked to the bone, liars to the core!!!!!!
No, I'm not kidding
It would be nice to write off the current crisis on Wall Street and global financial markets as something that only matters to the investor class.
Unfortunately, the effects are already being felt in lower-income communities around the United States. Worst-case scenarios for what spins out from the U.S. mortgage meltdown are truly frightening -- a severe world recession is a distinct possibility.
Whether such worst-case scenarios can be averted, or softened -- and preventing the recurrence of similar crises in the future -- depends on abandoning the laissez-faire financial regulatory regime entrenched over the last decade.
The current crisis is the predictable (and predicted) result of a massive U.S. housing bubble, which itself can be traced in part to global economic imbalances that could have been prevented.
At least five distinct regulatory failures led to the current crisis.
Regulatory Failure Number One: Failure to Manage the U.S. Trade Deficit. The housing bubble (as well as the surge in leveraged buyouts of publicly traded companies ("private equity")) was fueled by cheap credit -- low interest rates. One reason for the cheap credit was an influx of capital into the United States from China. China's capital surplus was the mirror image of the U.S. trade deficit -- U.S. corporations were sending lots of dollars to China in exchange for the cheap stuff sold to U.S. consumers.
Regulatory Failure Number Two: Failure to Intervene to Pop the Housing Bubble. Along with an influx of capital, Federal Reserve policy kept interest rates very low. There were good reasons for the Fed Policy, but that did not mean the Fed was helpless to prevent the housing bubble. As economists Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic and Policy Research insisted at the time, Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan simply by identifying the bubble -- and adjusting public perception of the future of the housing market -- could have prevented or at least contained the bubble. He declined, and even denied the existence of a bubble.
Regulatory Failure Number Three: Financial Deregulation and Unchecked Financial "Innovation." A key reason that mortgages were made available so widely and with such little review of recipients' qualifications was a shift in which institutions hold the mortgages. Traditionally, banks made mortgages and held them. In the new era, banks and non-bank mortgage lenders made loans, but then sold the loans to others. Investment banks packaged lots of mortgage loans into "Collateralized Debt Obligations" (CDOs) and then sold them on Wall Street, with a promise of a steady stream of revenue from interest payments. These operations were pretty much unregulated. Despite the supposed sophistication of the investors involved, no one took account of how shoddy the loans were or -- more fundamentally -- the certainty that huge numbers would go bad if and when the housing bubble popped.
Regulatory Failure Number Four: Private Regulatory Failure. It was the job of ratings agencies (like Standard and Poor's, and Moody's) to assess the CDOs and give investors guidance on how risky they were. They failed totally, likely in part because they wanted to maintain good relations with the investment banks issuing the CDOs.
Regulatory Failure Number Five: No Controls Over Predatory Lenders. The toxic stew of financial deregulation and the housing bubble created the circumstances in which aggressive lenders were nearly certain to abuse vulnerable borrowers. The terms of your loan don't matter, they effectively purred to borrowers, so long as the value of your house is going up. Lenders duped borrowers into conditions they could not possibly satisfy, making the current rash of foreclosures on subprime loans inevitable. Effective regulation of lending practices could have prevented the abusive loans, but none was to be found.
Unfortunately, the consequences of the mortgage meltdown go far beyond the foreclosure epidemic, as horrible a toll as that is taking. The entanglement of the financial sector with mortgage instruments, and the ripple effects of the housing bubble, has made lenders uncertain of who even among large corporations and financial institutions is credit worthy. The resulting credit crunch endangers the functioning of the global economy. Financial markets are guessing wildly about the prospects of banks, insurers and other financial corporations, and the plunging value of stocks poses immediate dangers to the real global economy.
Less acute, but probably more profoundly, the popping of the housing bubble is driving down home prices. U.S. consumer demand over the last five years has been driven by consumers borrowing against the increased value of their homes; with housing values falling, that process is working in reverse. The depressed housing market is also ravaging the construction sector, a nontrivial portion of the U.S. economy. A serious recession looms as a real possibility.
Mitigating these harms and preventing the worst now depends on active and interventionist government -- a government stimulus plan, and aggressive efforts to force lenders to adjust mortgage terms and let people stay in their homes. Preventing financial panics of the kind now underway require new standards of transparency and regulation for high finance. The coming days and months will tell whether any lessons have been learned.
R U Kidding?
Suggest you study up on national health care in other countries. It is NOT good.
no kidding!
x
You are kidding, right?
Surely you have more to do with your time than this rubbish. Get over it!!
no, I'm not kidding
and the part that matters is that the tax tables do not lie. did you read that part or just jump to a conclusion. Do what it says. Look at the tax tables from those years and see for yourself. The IRS publications and tables are all available to you.
are you kidding me?
x
Are you kidding me?..nm
nm
What? Are you kidding me?
if it were McCain's mother? Seriously. It does not get any more desperate than this. You would discount the validity of the last act of a living, breathing American? Alive and strong enough to make to the early polls...should it count. You bet it should.
No kidding
I had some other military wife tell me that she just doesn't have four hours to spend making bread--of course it doesn't really take four hours and she has no kids and no job, so I really wondered why not? If I can do it, why can't she? Lazy is really my guess and I don't really care, except she was so condescending about the whole thing.
Are you kidding?
You need to take the time to read the begining post before you start going on about nothing. Poster was making a comment against whites, referring to their ammo, and I just told her as a black person, I own a gun and there is nothing wrong with that. Don't act so ridiculous.
Are you kidding me? I have taken so
past 3 years....the latest one being the company I work for did away with our QC dept. It is now the MTs responsibility to do the QC work -- for no pay of course. They sure didn't ask for my opinion before doing this. But, I still have a job, and yes, I am thankful for that.
Yes I am serious and no I am not kidding.
ALL politicians are responsible for this financial mess and doesn't it seem quite odd that an emergency economic summit would be called by foreign countries? Reckon they were about to call in our national debt? What kind of deal do you suppose Bush made to keep them at bay until Obama takes office?
are you kidding???
who really cares??? how can you ask? Everyone should care. We are talking about the Constitution here. How can someone not care? I think it is very important that our Constitution be honored, very very important. What else would you like to "not care about." our Bill of Rights, too? Sure, who cares??? That is one DUMB question. I would have expected better.
Who do you think you are kidding?
Since the end of August....the moment Hillary lost in the primaries, Berg launched his legal proceedings. This subject has been exercised ad nauseum in the blogosphere ever since.
The sources for your claim that "a lot more people" would have voted differently "had they known" is curiously absent, making your credibility rating less than zero. Your speculation on "another election" is stupidity on top of stupidity. How do you think the 192 electoral vote margin could change? NOT. He received 67.8 percent of the electoral vote..more than 2/3rds. No one here said anything about a landslide, but it is not overstating the situation in the least to say that this election was won by a wide and comfortable margin that cannot and will not be reversed by this BC idiocy.
|
