Is a Little Congressional Corruption a Good Thing?

2IDSGT

Ah tale yew wut!
Joined
Nov 27, 2012
Messages
371
Reaction score
4
Freedberg here is saying what I've been thinking for weeks. In ye olden days, the President and some congressional bigshots would have sorted this fiscal-cliff situation out ages ago like mature adults (relatively speaking) and applied carrots and sticks to get things done. Hell, they wouldn't have gotten close to this situation in the first place. Unfortunately, what we have now are a bunch of ideologs turning up their noses at anything that doesn't perfectly suit them.

Against Integrity: Why A More Corrupt Congress Could've Fixed The Fiscal Cliff
By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.
Published: January 1, 2013

WILLIAMSBURG, VIRGINIA: Happy New Year, America. To start 2013 off wrong, we have a deal to fix the "fiscal cliff" that actually only solves a third of it.

This is where four decades of Congressional reform have gotten us. The corrupt old boys' club of the past would have done better.

Where exactly do we stand as of noon on New Year's Day? Let's assume the House approves the bill that passed the Senate overnight 89 to 8 – though after Republicans rejected their own leadership's "Plan B" last month, I hesitate to take their votes for granted on anything – and that President Obama signs it, as all signs say he will. Then we will have a resolution on the highest-profile piece of the fiscal cliff trifecta, the Bush-era tax cuts that expired on New Year's Eve.

But we'll still have nothing on the federal debt ceiling, the maximum amount that Uncle Sam can borrow, which we would have hit already if the Treasury weren't playing games with the accounts, and which was the issue that brought the nation near default in 2011. Similarly, the unholy spawn of the 2011 debt-limit compromise, the automatic across-the-board spending cuts called sequestration, will only be postponed two months -- forcing a new battle just as the continuing resolution, which funds federal agencies in the absence of a proper spending bill, also expires.

Admittedly, tax law affects almost every American directly, in a way that federal borrowing and spending do not, so the one-third of the fiscal cliff that Congress seems to have fixed is arguably the most important part. Letting taxes go up on everyone could have thrown the country right back into recession.

Ironically, however, the extra revenue would have also made solving sequestration and the debt limit a lot easier. Now, if Republicans and Democrats play chicken over the debt limit again, as they did in 2011, the country could at worst default and at least see its credit rating downgraded further. If they can't compromise on sequestration – and the two are likely to be linked – then a brainless automatic mechanism will cut $50-60 billion, depending on the estimate, from the Defense Department and an equal sum from non-defense accounts.

Whether the federal budget is too big is an important debate to have, but the sequester addresses it, quite literally and indeed intentionally, in the stupidest way possible, by cutting the same amount out of almost every federal program from health inspectors to stealth fighters. (Entitlements, the biggest driver of the debt, are ironically exempt).

Our friends at the Aerospace Industries Association, whose (occasionally overblown) campaign to stop the cuts we've covered all year, called the sequester mechanism a "mindless meat-axe" in their unavailing 11th-hour appeal to Congress to address the problem. This kind of blind salami-slicing is, as the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments has repeatedly said, is the opposite of policy.

So as I sit here in Colonial Williamsburg, a high-class tourist trap/monument to America's centuries of democracy, after annoying my wife by keeping one eye on my iPhone reading news instead of on the kids, I can't help but think this disaster is the result of too much democracy.

Wait, wait, don't lynch me, let me explain.

Starting with the Legislative Reform Act of 1970 to require a public record of all votes to amend bills in the House, continuing through the trumped-up "scandal" of House Bank overdrafts in 1991, and culminating in the almost-total abolition of earmarks in 2012, generations of high-minded public servants have labored to make the Congress more transparent, more accountable, and more democratic (with a lower-case "d"). Young idealists rebelled against the party elders, men like the Southern Democrats who had stood in the way of civil rights, or for that matter like the great bully Lyndon Johnson, who got the Civil Rights Act passed. The power of committee chairmen to trade favors and make back-room deals declined. And, at the same time, Congress kept getting more partisan, more ideological, and more dysfunctional.

This is not a coincidence, people.

The modern myth of the ideal legislator is Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, a naïve but honorable outsider who fights corruption brings the Senate to a halt by filibustering against all odds. It's a great story. But guess what happens when every member of the legislator is trying to play Mr. Smith? Why, the same thing that happens when every cop in the precinct is a loose cannon who plays by his own rules, or every pilot in the squadron is a hot-shot maverick: Nothing gets done.

Uncompromising idealism makes for great theater – the kind that wins you votes in a primary election – but it doesn't get bills passed.

So I'd propose a new model for the 21st century, inspired not by Frank Capra's 1943 Mr. Smith but by Steven Spielberg's 2012 Lincoln. Spielberg's counterintuitive but inspired choice of topic is not any of the familiar dramas of the Civil War but the legislative battle over the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery. The film starts with soldiers reciting the Gettysburg Address and ends with a snippet of Lincoln's immortal second inaugural address ("with malice towards none..."). In between, however, it's full of political arm-twisting, sleight of hand with parliamentary procedure, impeachable misrepresentations by the President to the House of Representatives, and outright buying of votes.

It's how Congress used to operate, back in the good old, bad old days – and it worked.
 

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
2,089
Reaction score
631
This is how you do it..........

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usual_channels


cheers,
Robin.
 

2IDSGT

Ah tale yew wut!
Joined
Nov 27, 2012
Messages
371
Reaction score
4
robunos said:
This is how you do it..........

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usual_channels
Actually, that wiki article makes it sound like the British are headed for the same problems as us. Formalized transparency isolates the parties from one another and forces everyone to stand on principle regardless of common sense or the general good. It used to be that if your party lost an election, you would just have to choose your battles more carefully and hope for better results next time. Now, without the ability to strike quiet deals in the background, obstructionism is your only option.
 

pathology_doc

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
1,068
Reaction score
455
Aah, the fine line between bullshit-cutting and criminality. What you really need is a detector of moral turpitude, so that doing things off the book for the betterment of all gets through but taking them off the book to benefit you puts you in the slammer.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,721
Reaction score
3,676
pathology_doc said:
Aah, the fine line between bullshit-cutting and criminality. What you really need is a detector of moral turpitude, so that doing things off the book for the betterment of all gets through but taking them off the book to benefit you puts you in the slammer.

This. The problem isn't we don't have enough corruption, it's that we have too damn much.
 

chuck4

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
803
Reaction score
12
Assuming the Chinese would want to match F-22 in wing loading, one can estimate how heavy it is by calculating how big are its wings and canards, assuming its fuselage lift would scale proportionally by length compared to f-22.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,721
Reaction score
3,676
chuck4 said:
Assuming the Chinese would want to match F-22 in wing loading, one can estimate how heavy it is by calculating how big are its wings and canards, assuming its fuselage lift would scale proportionally by length compared to f-22.

Wrong thread.
 

TaiidanTomcat

"A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
863
Reaction score
6
sferrin said:
pathology_doc said:
Aah, the fine line between bullshit-cutting and criminality. What you really need is a detector of moral turpitude, so that doing things off the book for the betterment of all gets through but taking them off the book to benefit you puts you in the slammer.

This. The problem isn't we don't have enough corruption, it's that we have too damn much.

I would agree. Corruption for the "greater good" is far different than the individual/party corruption we see now.
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,961
Reaction score
3,484
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
sferrin said:
chuck4 said:
Assuming the Chinese would want to match F-22 in wing loading, one can estimate how heavy it is by calculating how big are its wings and canards, assuming its fuselage lift would scale proportionally by length compared to f-22.

Wrong thread.

Perhaps the posting software got... corrupted.

tumblr_m4m70zTebV1qg9kam.jpg
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,961
Reaction score
3,484
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
TaiidanTomcat said:
Corruption for the "greater good" is far different than the individual/party corruption we see now.

Corruption for the common good is *worse.* When someone is corrupt and in it to enrich themselves, you can figure out how to get around in the system. The greasing of palms, favors, gaming the system. But when someone is a true believe in the common good... watch out. They will smash down society if they think it right. Ask the Kulaks. Ask a farmer who has had his farm taken from him or made to be non-productive because of "the common good." Ask Kelo. Ask anyone who has lived under politicians who pass unconstitutional, inappropriate, illegal or just downright *stupid* laws because "we have to do something."

Individual corruption is flexible. "Common good" corruption is not. Neither is good... but one is far, far worse.
 

Rafael

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
128
Reaction score
6
Orionblamblam said:
TaiidanTomcat said:
Corruption for the "greater good" is far different than the individual/party corruption we see now.

Corruption for the common good is *worse.* When someone is corrupt and in it to enrich themselves, you can figure out how to get around in the system. The greasing of palms, favors, gaming the system. But when someone is a true believe in the common good... watch out. They will smash down society if they think it right. Ask the Kulaks. Ask a farmer who has had his farm taken from him or made to be non-productive because of "the common good." Ask Kelo. Ask anyone who has lived under politicians who pass unconstitutional, inappropriate, illegal or just downright *stupid* laws because "we have to do something."

Individual corruption is flexible. "Common good" corruption is not. Neither is good... but one is far, far worse.

I fully agree. From my standpoint, living and breathing in one of the most corrupt systems in the world. Take it from me. When corruption occurs once and goes unpunished, it is a clear call to others to first bend, then to break the rules, the norms, and ultimately the Law. The it becomes commonplace, and in the end, it becomes a way of life for just everybody. And then life itself is worthless in a system like this. As has occurred to us in my country, life and property can be taken away even by ideological means. Thus occurs the judicialization of politics and the politization of justice. Hence Impunity rules, dead people is not provided justice, the expropriated is not paid for his stolen property by the State, the State becomes the First Public Enemy, and the truth never reaches the street.

No human being, and by extension, no society, deserves to be ruled by corrupt officials. The examples set by these officials (specially in my Latin America) are going to be the trademarks of the citizen's behavior henceforth. So, just a little bit of corruption is like being injected with just a little bit of the nastiest addictive drug you can imagine. Not wanting it, but needing it to make things "work" ever worse.

Good luck to all of you my friends, and may you never live a hell like that.
Conserve your values, uphold your Laws, and live peacefully the more you can. It's darned difficult but, believe you me, the easy way out is just plain deadly.
 

Matej

Multiuniversal creator
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
2,610
Reaction score
211
Website
www.hitechweb.genezis.eu
This topic has a great potential to be locked, so I would like to ask you to keep your posts polite, at least at the level as they are so far.
 

2IDSGT

Ah tale yew wut!
Joined
Nov 27, 2012
Messages
371
Reaction score
4
Rafael said:
No human being, and by extension, no society, deserves to be ruled by corrupt officials.
Perhaps "corruption" was a poor choice of words on the part of Freedberg and myself. What I (and maybe Freedberg) am trying to get at is that efforts to stamp out corruption have resulted in an over-formalized transparency... that does little to stop actual graft and makes it difficult to conduct the basics of government.

Then again, it's probably impossible to go back to the way things were in an era when everyone's innermost thoughts are expected to be posted on Twitter or Facebook. Maybe we should do away with the middlemen and turn the government over to a giant computer that makes decisions based on what's "trending."
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,961
Reaction score
3,484
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
2IDSGT said:
Maybe we should do away with the middlemen and turn the government over to a giant computer that makes decisions based on what's "trending."

Just so long as for every computer designed to make a decision, there is another computer with veto power that is programmed to say "no." No corruption... *and* no government overreach!
 

kcran567

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
667
Reaction score
24
I think its by design. The higher ups think they are naturally better than us, and that it is their right to fleece the sheep. In their eyes we are just cattle or sheep to be used like a farm animal. I really think that is the mentality of these people at the top. Add to that that most Americans are dumbed down and apathetic, more concerned about the football scores and iphones. Now, the 2nd amendment is "trending" as a bad thing, something that was horribly barbaric to be put in by the founding fathers. Now they are trying to say the Constitution itself is barbaric? Once they do away with the 2nd amendment, then the first, there is no limit to the amount of corruption that will occur.
I'm puzzled as to how we got into our fiscal mess. How is it the citizens fault? Most people are hardworking taxpayers that are getting squeezed hard for more and more taxes, and we the taxpayer are forced to bail out GM and the banks. The banks are the cause of the problem in the first place, they created the $$ Trillion derivative crisis. So at this point, they can get away with just about any corruption imaginable, and the dumbed down population is powerless to stop it.


Another good example is Al Gore. Here's a guy who has a huge mansion in California that is not "carbon credit friendly" whatsoever, has a personal jet and drives around in limousines to lecture use to buy his carbon credits from him and his cronies to save the environment. All while he helps to shut down American coal plants while China is building new ones every month. He and Clinton bought huge stocks in Chinese coal plants by the way, so he could cash in on the Chinese coal boom. He wants everyone to pay double their taxes and live in 250 sq foot mini apartments. The pinnacle of corruption. Gore has made over $100 million on his carbon scheme. Its only a matter of time before we are forced to pay carbon credits at the barrel of a gun, and are eventually eliminated for being a carbon burden to the planet.
 

kcran567

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
667
Reaction score
24
kcran567 said:
I think its by design. The higher ups think they are naturally better than us, and that it is their right to fleece the sheep. In their eyes we are just cattle or sheep to be used like a farm animal. I really think that is the mentality of these people at the top. Add to that that most Americans are dumbed down and apathetic, more concerned about the football scores and iphones. Now, the 2nd amendment is "trending" as a bad thing, something that was horribly barbaric to be put in by the founding fathers. Now they are trying to say the Constitution itself is barbaric? Once they do away with the 2nd amendment, then the first, there is no limit to the amount of corruption that will occur.
I'm puzzled as to how we got into our fiscal mess. How is it the citizens fault? Most people are hardworking taxpayers that are getting squeezed hard for more and more taxes, and we the taxpayer are forced to bail out GM and the banks. The banks are the cause of the problem in the first place, they created the $$ Trillion derivative crisis. So at this point, they can get away with just about any corruption imaginable, and the dumbed down population is powerless to stop it.


Another good example is Al Gore. Here's a guy who has a huge mansion in California that is not "carbon credit friendly" whatsoever, has a personal jet and drives around in limousines to lecture use to buy his carbon credits from him and his cronies to save the environment. All while he helps to shut down American coal plants while China is building new ones every month. He and Clinton bought huge stocks in Chinese coal plants by the way, so he could cash in on the Chinese coal boom. He wants everyone to pay double their taxes and live in 250 sq foot mini apartments. The pinnacle of corruption. Gore has made over $100 million on his carbon scheme. Its only a matter of time before we are forced to pay carbon credits at the barrel of a gun, and are eventually eliminated for being a carbon burden to the planet.
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,961
Reaction score
3,484
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
kcran567 said:
The banks are the cause of the problem in the first place, they created the 12 Trillion derivative crisis.

Actually, no. The problem with sub-prime mortgages came not from the banks but from - surprise, surprise - the government. Specifically, the "Community Reinvestment Act," a bit of legislation from the Carter years. It sat there not doing much until the Clinton years, when the administration found that banks and other mortgage lenders were handing out disproportionately fewer mortgages to minorities. The reason why this was happening had nothing to do with racism on the part of the lenders; they'll lend to whoever has the credit, cuz that's how they make their money. But in the US in the early 1990's, minorities had disproportionately bad credit. So, Janet Reno did the logical thing: threatened to imprison lenders who didn't hand out more mortgages to minorities. The sub-prime mortgage was the mechanism that was produced that would allow lenders to give loans to people who simply couldn't afford them.

So here we had both kinds of corruption: "common good" corruption at the top, threatening to ruin people who did not do what the administration thought would create a bit of betterment; and private corruption on the part of bankers who, faced with an unwinnable problem came up with a way to profit off of what they knew to be BS. Both bad... but one worse than the other. Without the government threats and edicts, the lenders never would've cranked out the sub-prime mortgages.
 

kcran567

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
667
Reaction score
24
Orionblamblam said:
kcran567 said:
The banks are the cause of the problem in the first place, they created the 12 Trillion derivative crisis.

Actually, no. The problem with sub-prime mortgages came not from the banks but from - surprise, surprise - the government. Specifically, the "Community Reinvestment Act," a bit of legislation from the Carter years. It sat there not doing much until the Clinton years, when the administration found that banks and other mortgage lenders were handing out disproportionately fewer mortgages to minorities. The reason why this was happening had nothing to do with racism on the part of the lenders; they'll lend to whoever has the credit, cuz that's how they make their money. But in the US in the early 1990's, minorities had disproportionately bad credit. So, Janet Reno did the logical thing: threatened to imprison lenders who didn't hand out more mortgages to minorities. The sub-prime mortgage was the mechanism that was produced that would allow lenders to give loans to people who simply couldn't afford them.

So here we had both kinds of corruption: "common good" corruption at the top, threatening to ruin people who did not do what the administration thought would create a bit of betterment; and private corruption on the part of bankers who, faced with an unwinnable problem came up with a way to profit off of what they knew to be BS. Both bad... but one worse than the other. Without the government threats and edicts, the lenders never would've cranked out the sub-prime mortgages.


Yeah, the govt also got rid of glass-steagall that wouldve been a firewall against this. And the banks DID repackage the subprime mess as AAA investments which they sold with other bad investments as derivatives, the banks got themselves their government bailout though and got the taxpayers to foot the bill. None of that bailout money went to the real economy of small business loans, or roads, or bridges, or infrastructure or hospitals, just to the phantom economy created by the banks and wall street.
 

2IDSGT

Ah tale yew wut!
Joined
Nov 27, 2012
Messages
371
Reaction score
4
Orionblamblam said:
Actually, no. The problem with sub-prime mortgages came not from the banks but from - surprise, surprise - the government. Specifically, the "Community Reinvestment Act," a bit of legislation from the Carter years. It sat there not doing much until the Clinton years, when the administration found that banks and other mortgage lenders were handing out disproportionately fewer mortgages to minorities. The reason why this was happening had nothing to do with racism on the part of the lenders; they'll lend to whoever has the credit, cuz that's how they make their money. But in the US in the early 1990's, minorities had disproportionately bad credit. So, Janet Reno did the logical thing: threatened to imprison lenders who didn't hand out more mortgages to minorities.
Don't waste your time on kcran. Over on the "F-35 No Holds Barred" topic, he's already insinuated the the US will stage a terrorist attack on Canada if they don't buy the F-35 (see page 158 of the thread before he edits it). Best not respond to *truther* types no matter what they say.
 

TaiidanTomcat

"A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
863
Reaction score
6
Orionblamblam said:
sferrin said:
chuck4 said:
Assuming the Chinese would want to match F-22 in wing loading, one can estimate how heavy it is by calculating how big are its wings and canards, assuming its fuselage lift would scale proportionally by length compared to f-22.

Wrong thread.

Perhaps the posting software got... corrupted.

tumblr_m4m70zTebV1qg9kam.jpg

You win the Internet!! :D made my day
 

TaiidanTomcat

"A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
863
Reaction score
6
Don't waste you time on kcran. Over on the "F-35 No Holds Barred" topic, he's already insinuated the the US will stage a terrorist attack on Canada if they don't buy the F-35 (see page 158 of the thread before he edits it). Best not respond to *truther* types no matter what they say.


*Truthfully* if Canada decides not to buy the F-35 we just take the billions of dollars of jobs and incentives and keep them to ourselves or give them to other nations, with a thank you card for all the non refundable money the Canadians have already pumped into the program. Its not quite a terrorist attack so much as letting Canada hurt itself, no one terrorizes Canadian Aviation quite like Canadians and we won't be trying to top that.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
11,344
Reaction score
2,942
kcran567 said:
Orionblamblam said:
kcran567 said:
The banks are the cause of the problem in the first place, they created the 12 Trillion derivative crisis.

Actually, no. The problem with sub-prime mortgages came not from the banks but from - surprise, surprise - the government. Specifically, the "Community Reinvestment Act," a bit of legislation from the Carter years. It sat there not doing much until the Clinton years, when the administration found that banks and other mortgage lenders were handing out disproportionately fewer mortgages to minorities. The reason why this was happening had nothing to do with racism on the part of the lenders; they'll lend to whoever has the credit, cuz that's how they make their money. But in the US in the early 1990's, minorities had disproportionately bad credit. So, Janet Reno did the logical thing: threatened to imprison lenders who didn't hand out more mortgages to minorities. The sub-prime mortgage was the mechanism that was produced that would allow lenders to give loans to people who simply couldn't afford them.

So here we had both kinds of corruption: "common good" corruption at the top, threatening to ruin people who did not do what the administration thought would create a bit of betterment; and private corruption on the part of bankers who, faced with an unwinnable problem came up with a way to profit off of what they knew to be BS. Both bad... but one worse than the other. Without the government threats and edicts, the lenders never would've cranked out the sub-prime mortgages.


Yeah, the govt also got rid of glass-steagall that wouldve been a firewall against this. And the banks DID repackage the subprime mess as AAA investments which they sold with other bad investments as derivatives, the banks got themselves their government bailout though and got the taxpayers to foot the bill. None of that bailout money went to the real economy of small business loans, or roads, or bridges, or infrastructure or hospitals, just to the phantom economy created by the banks and wall street.

OBB is correct if you look at historical home ownership rates prior to CRA and up through the crisis the increase almost gives you a perfect correlation to the 'bad debt' on the books in the financial sector. Then what happend was due to accounting rules and government policy the repackaged debt could not be valued because no one knew its value due to the bad loans mixed with the good. When that happend you, under law, (laws passed after Enron) have to value the 'asset' at zero (no buyers the asset is technical worth nothing) causing massive reduction in retained earnings and caplital adequacy rates forcing huge write offs. Then the banks and other lenders had to try and raise capital due to government imposed capital ratio to debt requirements, no one would lend to the banks because they didn't know the extent of the bad debts in the subprime mortgage issues. The government then became the lender of last resort to the banks. The goverment became a subordinated and well as equity shareholder restoring these capital adequacy ratios

But it all started with the CRA as OBB said. If you were forced to put risky debt on your books I would repackage and sell them to,
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,273
Reaction score
6,233
But in the US in the early 1990's, minorities had disproportionately bad credit. So, Janet Reno did the logical thing: threatened to imprison lenders who didn't hand out more mortgages to minorities. The sub-prime mortgage was the mechanism that was produced that would allow lenders to give loans to people who simply couldn't afford them.

Morale: minorities have the right to ask for total, and absolute, equality - and that includes the right to own debts and rotten credits, just like the majority.

Oh, the bitter irony... ::)

Reminds me of the debate over same-sex marriage. Someone rightly noted
"What, they want to marry ? fine, but do they know that a) 50% of marriages end in divorce and b) a divorce is a painful experience that may ruin a life ?" ;D ;D
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,961
Reaction score
3,484
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Archibald said:
Morale: minorities have the right to ask for total, and absolute, equality - and that includes the right to own debts and rotten credits, just like the majority.

A big part of the problem was that once the sub-prime mortgage gained acceptance, the principle of the thing moved up the economic ladder. Before this, someone making (handwave) $15K per year would not have gotten a mortgage on a house costing (handwave) $150k. But after sub-prime, they could. But that meant that someone making $150K would now be able to get a sub-prime mortgage for a $1.5M house that they shouldn't augghta got. And so the demand that po' foke get houses beyond their means meant that middle classers got houses beyond their means, and upper classers got mansions beyond their means.

"For the common good" screwed us all.
 

TaiidanTomcat

"A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
863
Reaction score
6
Orionblamblam said:
Archibald said:
Morale: minorities have the right to ask for total, and absolute, equality - and that includes the right to own debts and rotten credits, just like the majority.

A big part of the problem was that once the sub-prime mortgage gained acceptance, the principle of the thing moved up the economic ladder. Before this, someone making (handwave) $15K per year would not have gotten a mortgage on a house costing (handwave) $150k. But after sub-prime, they could. But that meant that someone making $150K would now be able to get a sub-prime mortgage for a $1.5M house that they shouldn't augghta got. And so the demand that po' foke get houses beyond their means meant that middle classers got houses beyond their means, and upper classers got mansions beyond their means.

"For the common good" screwed us all.

I remember when it happened my friend and I were talking about how upset people were with bankers. I told him if I was a banker and the government forced me to continue an unsustainable business model I would be packing the golden parachute too. If you were in that industry and weren't a total idiot you had to know what was going to happen, and planned accordingly. The fastest way to stop smart people, from making smart decisions, that help themselves, to get ahead, is for the government to eliminate intelligent people, the government is doing its best already with public schools ;D A lot of people saw the writing on the wall, and some even shouted it but it was ignored, until it happened then it was "OMGZ How!!!!1!!" I can't until Social Security goes belly up and the news treats it like a surprise no one saw coming. ::)
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
11,344
Reaction score
2,942
TaiidanTomcat said:
Orionblamblam said:
Archibald said:
Morale: minorities have the right to ask for total, and absolute, equality - and that includes the right to own debts and rotten credits, just like the majority.

A big part of the problem was that once the sub-prime mortgage gained acceptance, the principle of the thing moved up the economic ladder. Before this, someone making (handwave) $15K per year would not have gotten a mortgage on a house costing (handwave) $150k. But after sub-prime, they could. But that meant that someone making $150K would now be able to get a sub-prime mortgage for a $1.5M house that they shouldn't augghta got. And so the demand that po' foke get houses beyond their means meant that middle classers got houses beyond their means, and upper classers got mansions beyond their means.

"For the common good" screwed us all.

I remember when it happened my friend and I were talking about how upset people were with bankers. I told him if I was a banker and the government forced me to continue an unsustainable business model I would be packing the golden parachute too. If you were in that industry and weren't a total idiot you had to know what was going to happen, and planned accordingly. The fastest way to stop smart people, from making smart decisions, that help themselves, to get ahead, is for the government to eliminate intelligent people, the government is doing its best already with public schools ;D A lot of people saw the writing on the wall, and some even shouted it but it was ignored, until it happened then it was "OMGZ How!!!!1!!" I can't until Social Security goes belly up and the news treats it like a surprise no one saw coming. ::)

Also interesting was that studies have now shown that banks were not discriminating as once thought. If they were, meaning they were only granting credit to minorities with 'superior credit' then their defaults rates should have been less than the average but they weren't. Banks were pretty even handed about granting credit. I have been a banker all my life and could care less of your race or ethnicity the numbers work or they don't.
 

kcran567

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
667
Reaction score
24
2IDSGT said:
Orionblamblam said:
Actually, no. The problem with sub-prime mortgages came not from the banks but from - surprise, surprise - the government. Specifically, the "Community Reinvestment Act," a bit of legislation from the Carter years. It sat there not doing much until the Clinton years, when the administration found that banks and other mortgage lenders were handing out disproportionately fewer mortgages to minorities. The reason why this was happening had nothing to do with racism on the part of the lenders; they'll lend to whoever has the credit, cuz that's how they make their money. But in the US in the early 1990's, minorities had disproportionately bad credit. So, Janet Reno did the logical thing: threatened to imprison lenders who didn't hand out more mortgages to minorities.
Don't waste your time on kcran. Over on the "F-35 No Holds Barred" topic, he's already insinuated the the US will stage a terrorist attack on Canada if they don't buy the F-35 (see page 158 of the thread before he edits it). Best not respond to *truther* types no matter what they say.


21dstg

I guess you drink the Government kool-aid, believe everything the media shovels down you're throat, take you're vaccines, drink the fluoridated water, and think the public schools are great...are you kidding? I guess you think the US has never used terrorism as a weapon. The US, UK, even Germany have all sponsored groups and used covert actions. What I said about Canada was meant to be taken tounge in cheek, But it seems like you are the type to overreact, so I guess we should just ban free speech along with the second amendment, you would like that 21dstg.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
11,344
Reaction score
2,942
kcran567 said:
2IDSGT said:
Orionblamblam said:
Actually, no. The problem with sub-prime mortgages came not from the banks but from - surprise, surprise - the government. Specifically, the "Community Reinvestment Act," a bit of legislation from the Carter years. It sat there not doing much until the Clinton years, when the administration found that banks and other mortgage lenders were handing out disproportionately fewer mortgages to minorities. The reason why this was happening had nothing to do with racism on the part of the lenders; they'll lend to whoever has the credit, cuz that's how they make their money. But in the US in the early 1990's, minorities had disproportionately bad credit. So, Janet Reno did the logical thing: threatened to imprison lenders who didn't hand out more mortgages to minorities.
Don't waste your time on kcran. Over on the "F-35 No Holds Barred" topic, he's already insinuated the the US will stage a terrorist attack on Canada if they don't buy the F-35 (see page 158 of the thread before he edits it). Best not respond to *truther* types no matter what they say.


21dstg

I guess you drink the Government kool-aid, believe everything the media shovels down you're throat, take you're vaccines, drink the fluoridated water, and think the public schools are great...are you kidding? I guess you think the US has never used terrorism as a weapon. The US, UK, even Germany have all sponsored groups and used covert actions. What I said about Canada was meant to be taken tounge in cheek, But it seems like you are the type to overreact, so I guess we should just ban free speech along with the second amendment, you would like that 21dstg.

Many people forget the second half of the 1st Amendment equation - Others are allowed to call someone an idiot for what they have said, that is also protected speech. The 1st Amendment does not insulate one from criticism.

AND NO I am not calling anyone an idiot just making a point :eek:
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,961
Reaction score
3,484
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
bobbymike said:
I have been a banker all my life and could care less of your race or ethnicity the numbers work or they don't.

Indeed. The thing many people refuse to recognize is that *capitalism* is the great equalizer, not government rules and regulations. If I can make money by doing business with you, then racism will get shoved aside.

As Penn & Teller pointed out, Britain and France would still be trying to murder each other were it not for the fact that they are too busy making money doing business with each other.
 

TaiidanTomcat

"A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
863
Reaction score
6
Orionblamblam said:
bobbymike said:
I have been a banker all my life and could care less of your race or ethnicity the numbers work or they don't.

Indeed. The thing many people refuse to recognize is that *capitalism* is the great equalizer, not government rules and regulations. If I can make money by doing business with you, then racism will get shoved aside.

It's so odd to me that people who think the worst of capitalists that will "do anything for money" except sell to people who can afford things of course ::) Thats business 101 right there...
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
11,344
Reaction score
2,942
TaiidanTomcat said:
Orionblamblam said:
bobbymike said:
I have been a banker all my life and could care less of your race or ethnicity the numbers work or they don't.

Indeed. The thing many people refuse to recognize is that *capitalism* is the great equalizer, not government rules and regulations. If I can make money by doing business with you, then racism will get shoved aside.

It's so odd to me that people who think the worst of capitalists that will "do anything for money" except sell to people who can afford things of course ::) Thats business 101 right there...
Stop a person after a Boxing Day sale and ask of each of their items, what was the ethnicity of the person who built that or made that or whatever (on a side note a pretty good guess would be Chinese but I digress ;D ) Do you care if the pilot is African American? Your neurosurgeon is Polish, etc. Nope they just better be good at their job.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,721
Reaction score
3,676
Archibald said:
Morale: minorities have the right to ask for total, and absolute, equality - and that includes the right to own debts and rotten credits, just like the majority.

It's not about black, white, purple, or green. It's about if they can afford it. Period. Reaching for the race card is about the weakest arguement there is.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
11,344
Reaction score
2,942
sferrin said:
Archibald said:
Morale: minorities have the right to ask for total, and absolute, equality - and that includes the right to own debts and rotten credits, just like the majority.

It's not about black, white, purple, or green. It's about if they can afford it. Period. Reaching for the race card is about the weakest arguement there is.
For decades now there has been an ongoing contradictory attack on corporation and capitalism.
1) All corporations care about is making profit nothing else matters, the people, the environment, etc.
2) Corporations won't hire women or minorities even though having a diverse workforce would be so profitable by opening up new demographic markets
Are corporations greedy and reckless or racist and sexist can't have it both ways.
 

TaiidanTomcat

"A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
863
Reaction score
6
sferrin said:
Archibald said:
Morale: minorities have the right to ask for total, and absolute, equality - and that includes the right to own debts and rotten credits, just like the majority.

It's not about black, white, purple, or green. It's about if they can afford it. Period. Reaching for the race card is about the weakest arguement there is.

I have a feeling they will only stop using it when it fails to win elections. So far it hasn't let them down.
 

Similar threads

Top