GOP Sen. Martinez tells supporters he's resigning
- Thread starter Hot Mega
- Start date
No. Analysts have come to a consensus the practice of improperly leveraging bank assets against an unhealthy percentage of sub prime mortgages can threaten a bank's solvency in economic downturns.
We've ALWAYS had sub prime lending and sub prime mortgages are not inherently bad as they don't simply generate defaults on their own.
Now because money was being doled out so easily, many who already owned homes used sub prime mortgages to finance consumer spending in the form of 2nd and 3rd mortgages.
The bigger question is what was the primer for these unprecedented defaults? Since it's true in the overwhelming majority of cases that an individual or family takes out a mortgage in good faith to finance their shelter? It's not likely the majority of these defaults are a product of people merely walking away from their loans but being forced away by circumstance.
What effect do you think the dramatic decline and in some cases failures of all these different business sectors (i.e. consumer electronics, automobile, construction, etc.) would have on peoples ability to continued to meet their budgetary obligations to include their mortgages??
Certainly it was the case many people resort to using credit to pay for their gas when they were cash strapped.
You have to know there were too many people as almost always is the case who are living paycheck to paycheck and barely making ends meet. There are enough of those people to where when their gasoline bill skyrockets over a long enough period of time and they don't spend elsewhere....businesses lose revenue, they then lose employees, those former employees then lose things like houses and credit cards. Now the banks begin to get into trouble when enough of these people can no longer repay their debts.
The cycle gets so pervasive that it becomes a self refueling process...Meaning the more people who get in this cycle creates the condition for more people to be engulfed in it.
If you are referring to me as Republican you are sorely wrong. The Rebublican party left me years ago. I supported no bailout of a private company what so ever.
I support capitalism for all for the record.
I think the great mistakes people make when it comes to political ideology is being too fundamental in their own perspective and failing to recognize that in practical terms, elements or conservatism, liberalism and progressivism are not only good but necessary for our country to live up to it's ideals.
It's not wise IMO for someone to be so fundamental in their ideology that they can't recognize the need to compromise in some cases so that practical solutions can be achieved.
Compromising from the principles of freedom our country was founded on is what has brought us to the brink as a country right now.
I fear for my country and I fear for our future. We in America have lost our way. We have lost the spirit of what it means to be free and have forgotten what liberty is. Instead we have an uneducated electorate that looks to govt to solve problems they can solve themselves. People today dont respect the constitution, they respect American Idol. Very sad times.
You say progressivism is an ideal we need to live up to...I could not disagree more. Progressivism is why people look to the govt for help. Its not the roll of govt to support the people. The progressive agenda to destroy the constitution is why we as a country today are as bad off as we are.
I want to say re-read what I posted...
What you don't realize IMO is any ideology unbalanced by the others threatens to ruin our (or any) country.
But aside from that, with Teddy Roosevelt being the original progressive in the US....what do you think progressivism means?
Hard to argue against what you stated. The core problem of modern "liberalism" is that is has not logical/rational basis. It's all about "feelings", and I for one believe that humans should use logic as a basis for their lives.
And just a point to those claiming libertarianism has no need for government, that's not true. It's just that a LIMITED government, such as the one the Constitution set up, seems to be the most effective, rational approach to maximize individual freedom, so that each person can pursue the life they want to live. It really comes down at it's central basis to what you think the role of government is... I think that the Founders had it right. Limited government, one that only ensures we are safe from harm, and setting the broad boundaries within we much live (i.e., don't harm others, don't cheat others illegally, defend the nation from harm, etc.). Other than that, we should be free to choose the life we want to live and flourish on our own.
I for one don't want a bunch of C students in Washington running huge, wasteful programs to try and "help" me or anyone else. I see the type of people that work for the Federal government every day, and with few exceptions, you should NOT trust them to run ANY aspect of your life. It causes reliance on the government and destroys all that makes us special and unique, all the while expanding the power the government has over all of us. People should not trade their freedom away for scraps from the Federal table... as Ben Franklin eloquently put it, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." And that safety is an illusion anyway!
You couldn't be more wrong about liberalism being an emotional ideology. That would be a core reflection on conservatism and progressivism.
For example on this issue of drug use. The heart of the matter should center around the right of the individual to self determination here in the US...That is, the right of the individual to decide what's in his or her own best interests as long as those decisions don't directly or proximately injure the rights of others.
The conservative would object to the individual's right to do so likely out of some puritanical, moralistic perspective and want to create laws banning the activity for those reasons. The progressive out of fear that the individual is hurting him or herself and some potential non-specific threat to others would want to create laws banning the activity for those reasons. The true liberal would say it's none of the government's business what decisions an individual makes with respect to their personal enjoyment as long as they're not infringing on the rights of others....and it's certainly not my business.
You can take the above examples and apply it to many different circumstances such as prostitution, seat belt laws, etc.
BTW, with respect to your freedoms versus security take attributed to Franklin...what was your thoughts on how Padilla was handled in the dirty bomb plot?
I agreed with all your post but wanted to just single out this.The Padilla case is a travesty.Held for years in the brig in SC without a trial then not even tried on what they said he was accused of ,the so called dirty bomb plot.
And I would like to ask these "extreme " Libertarians are you against public govt funded education.
And if were going to talk about wastefull govt spending ,what about the defense budget which can't even be audited.Meaning not only can you not determine if the money is being spent poorly ,you can't even determine what a lot of the money was spent on period.
Well, those are a few examples, and I happen to agree on these. Using drugs only harms yourself (unless you commit a crime while on them of course), and therefore has no other victim, and should be legal. I was referring to the over-arching philosophy of the modern left, that we should all be forced by the government (through taxation mainly) to pay for programs to "help" people. Logically, I deny this as an imperative of the state. Giving people something they didn't earn hurts us all, even the people receiving the "help." Giving the people what they want is usually a bad thing. Why? It makes them reliant on the state and not on their own selves. That's the way slaves are made... That's why we have a Constitutional Republic, not a "democracy." Another poignant Franklin quote, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." He understood that the lamb should be protected from the whims of the majority. I agree.
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." Ben Franklin
The Padilla case is interesting, and I have conflicting thoughts on it... he was certainly up to no good from everything I read, and certainly would cause harm to others if given the chance. I am, however, a little troubled at the way the government sent after him... they skirted current law at a minimum, so that troubles me. But should this guy be on the streets? Probably not. :dunno:
What is your definition of "earn" in this case?? I don't know you nor your background, but let's assume you were educated somewhere along the way in the public system (as probably many here have been). That costs...would you have earned that? Or is it a concept the government through taxation believes is a worthy institution to create to better it's country or as termed in the Constitution "promote the general welfare.."?
The more interesting implication of your perspective on Padilla was you suggesting everything you read. Let's assume Padilla was completely innocent (a right he is actually afforded in the first place) of what he was unofficially accused of but merely a political threat to the administration for some reason. From who's perspective would you have been reading from then? Padilla's or the government who theoretically would have been trying to silence him? That's why our rights exist...to prevent such abuses.
Even a libertarian believes that citizens should be educated. In face, I would argue that an educated electorate is the first line of defense against tyranny. The problem is that Americans are getting dumber every year though we keep spending more and more on education. We need to take a hard look at the root causes, not simply throw more money at failing school systems.
Well, I don't know the truth about Padilla, and neither do you. If he was engaging in the actions he is accused of, I simply said I'm grad he isn't walking the streets. I do, however, have some concerns over how this was done, as I stated. The problem is that right now, the government, with credible evidence, can pretty much act with impunity when it comes to anti-terrorism measures. Again, people are letting them do it because they value safety/security over individual rights.
Two things. Libertarians as well any other ideological group believes we should be educated... there are just disagreements on how we get there. Libertarians believe it ought to be the product of free market enterprise. While it is a Utopian belief free markets yield better results....some things shouldn't be in the province of a marketplace system. For example, military operations shouldn't be in the province of a marketplace system either.
Secondly, I never claimed to know what the facts were with respect to what Padilla did. Just the facts with respect to what our rights are.
We would agree on the 2nd part of your post.In times of fear the people are manipulated to go along (yes too easily) with things they almost always regret later.
But the support of public education perplexes me.I agree we are all better off with an educated population in many ways,economically socially etc.
But isn't a population who is healthier and has universal health care access (like universal access to public education) also a benefit for the same reasons? Sick people are not as productive.
The constitution doesn't mention eithier but IMO "promote the general welfare" can cover quite a bit.
Yes, a healthy populace is a good thing, but how can we force people to be healthy? A better question is should we? Again, I disagree that a government run program is the way to go... the track record for government intervention is not good... insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results
As I've stated before, if Obama and the current ruling party really wanted to keep the COSTS of healthcare down, which is their stated goal, they only need to do a few things: (1) tort reform, limiting damages to a reasonable level from litigation, and (2) create a "patient bill of rights" to ensure health care providers do not abuse the customers, and (3) create a system when you can buy insurance in groups, which brings costs dow, and have individuals OWN their insurance."Promoting the general welfare" is but one statement in the Constitution. It has been abused to pass many things over the years, but the underlying premise is this: do you believe that the will of the majority can impose it's decisions on the minority/individuals? Is that what was meant by the founders? I don't think so...
BTW, How about the 10th amendment? You know, the one that we have forgotten? It clearly states that nay power not expressly given to the Federal government is reserved for the states. That was placed in the Bill of Rights to severely limit Federal power of the states and their citizens... we seem to have lost it somewhere in the 20th century.
I'll add my condolences for hijacking the thread
That is exactly the case in a democracy. The majority can impose ANY law as long as it's constitutional. The courts decide what laws are in keeping with the constitution. That is the check against abuses.
I'll add my condolences for hijacking the thread
All forgiven. I started the thread.
One can argue that ANY kind of individual persecution by the majority is unconstitutional.
After all, by what right does the "collective" have to take something earned by the individual for their use? This has been tried elsewhere, and history is littered with the failed regimes who place the "collective good" above that of the individual. To deny that it doesn't work is to be completely ignorant of human nature and history. It is bound to fail, this path...One can argue that ANY kind of individual persecution by the majority is unconstitutional.
I'm not sure what you mean by persecution in this particular discussion but wait a minute....you do know that Art. I, Sect. 8 grants congress the authority to "lay and collect taxes" right?
Absolutely... but only to carry out duties expressly given to the Federal government. They have wayyyy overstepped those bounds. I read something the other day about a current "audit" of sorts to try and find out how many government programs there currently are, and how much money is spent. They could find about 4000, there were more but difficult to find, and gave up trying to find the budgets... in some cases, audited agencies could not account for billions of dollars they spent. I don't think that's what the Founders had in mind.:dunno:
Similar threads
