This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
There is Only One Way Out of the Foreclosure Crisis
We're the fish.
The giant "too big to fail" banks are the bird. They've got their talons in the American consumer and the economy.
The
only way out for us - the fish - is if someone "shoots" the bird ... or
at least captures it and removes its talons from our hide.
In other words: Unless the mega-banks are broken up and reined in, we're in quite a pickle.
As I've previously noted, virtually all leading independent economists have said that the too big to fails must be broken up, or the economy won't be able to recover, and that smaller banks actually lend more into the economy than the mega-banks (and see this).
Unless we break up the mega-banks:
- Unemployment will keep rising
- The big banks will continue to dominate American politics, destroying any chance of restoring a representative form of government
And now there's the foreclosure crisis.
You've probably heard about it. Even Jon Stewart is talking about it.
We're in tough spot, alright.
As Yves Smith notes:
The
problems facing deals where the notes were not properly conveyed
(which we think are pervasive) are not easily remedied. As we have
discussed, the “fixes” for the note conflict both with the provisions
of the pooling and servicing agreement and New York Trust law.
Breaking up the giant banks is the only way out.
As Congressman Grayson wrote to Geithner, Bernanke, the SEC, FDIC, and the rest of the financial overseers:
The
liability here for the major banks is potentially enormous, and can
lead to a systemic risk. Fortunately, the Dodd-Frank financial reform
legislation includes a resolution process for these banks.
The
Dodd-Frank legislation is the recently-passed "financial reform
legislation" that lets regulators force insolvent banks - no matter how
big - into bankruptcy.
Banking analyst Chris Whalen wrote on Thursday:
The
U.S. banking industry is entering a new period of crisis where
operating costs are rising dramatically due to foreclosures and
defaults. We are less than ¼ of the way through the foreclosure
process.***
The largest U.S. banks remain insolvent and must continue to shrink. Failure
by the Obama Administration to restructure the largest banks during
2007?2009 period only means that this process is going to occur over
next three to five years –whether we like it or not.The issue is recognizing existing losses ?? not if a loss occurred.
Impending operational collapse of some of the largest U.S. banks will
serve as the catalyst for re?creation of RFC?type liquidation
vehicle(s) to handle the operational task of finally deflating the subprime bubble.
He
also said that the next three to six months is when things are going
to get out of control, and agrees that Dodd-Frank legislation - the
"financial reform legislation" that lets regulators force insolvent
international banks into bankruptcy - may be used to restructure
banks:
Similarly, Janet Tavakoli says:
This is the biggest fraud in the history of the capital markets.
***
When
we had the financial crisis, the first thing the banks did was run to
Congress and ask for accounting relief. They asked to be able to avoid
pricing this stuff at the price where people would buy them. So no one
can tell you the size of the hole in these balance sheets. We’ve thrown
a lot of money at it. TARP was just the tip of the iceberg. We’ve
given them guarantees on debts, low-cost funding from the Fed. But a
lot of these mortgages just cannot be saved. Had we acknowledged this
problem in 2005, we could’ve cleaned it up for a few hundred billion
dollars. But we didn’t. Banks were lying and committing fraud, and our
regulators were covering them and so a bad problem has become a
hellacious one.***
In order to make the financial system
healthy, we need to recognize the extent of our losses and begin facing
the fraud. Then the market will be trustworthy again and people will
start to participate.***
This can be done with a resolution trust corporation, the way we cleaned up the S&Ls.
And Ellen Brown points out:
Karl Denninger ... writes:
Those
who bought MBS from institutions that improperly securitized this
paper can and should sue the securitizers to well beyond the orbit of
Mars... [I]f this bankrupts one or more large banking institutions, so
be it. We now have "resolution authority," let's see it used.The resolution authority Denninger is referring to is in the new Banking Reform Bill,
which gives federal regulators the power and responsibility to break
up big banks when they pose a "grave risk" to the financial system -
which is what we have here.
***
Financial analyst Marshall Auerback ... writes:
Most
major banks are insolvent and cannot (and should not) be saved. The
best approach is something like a banking holiday for the largest 19
banks and shadow banks in which institutions are closed for a
relatively brief period. Supervisors move in to assess problems. It is
essential that all big banks be examined during the "holiday" to uncover
claims on one another. It is highly likely that supervisors will find
that several trillions of dollars of bad assets will turn out to be
claims big financial institutions have on one another (that is exactly
what was found when AIG was examined--which is why the government
bail-out of AIG led to side payments to the big banks and shadow
banks)... By taking over and resolving the biggest 19 banks and netting
claims, the collateral damage in the form of losses for other banks and
shadow banks will be relatively small.What we need to
avoid at all costs is "TARP II" - another bank bailout by the
taxpayers. No bank is too big to fail. The giant banks can be broken
up and replaced with a network of publicly-owned banks and community
banks, which could do a substantially better job of serving consumers
and businesses than Wall Street is doing now.
Either the giant banks' talons are removed from us, or the economy is not going to make it.
For details on the foreclosure crisis, see this, this, this and this.
- advertisements -
Nice post... 5 stars...
They could simply nationalize the banks.
The any and all encumbrances either for sale or foreclosure would be removed, by fiat
Yeah, cause we all know how forgiving the Feds are if a commoner owes them any money.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/scavenger/detail?entry_id=59241
Do you really want to have the Feds hold your mortgage?
boycott has historically been their favorite weapon;
use it against them and await the stereotypical screech.
http://www.biblestudysite.com/judea%20declares%20war%20-800px.jpg
i pay my bills with postal money orders, screw their checking accounts
I have no debt. I pay no bills. I have no f'n insurance, credit cards or checking account.
Don't need any of it and neither do any of you.
Most illness starts in your head/ is self-inflicted, ie. lifestyle and diet choices. Fix your collective head.
The Ponzi tries to teach you what you need. Stop listening and smell the freedom.
There is another way, in fact the only way that this can play out: Jubilee, in which all debts are forgotten.
I, for one, wouldn't be happy to see debt financed by (among other things) my tax money - forgiven.
But if jubilee becomes a possibility I'll max out all my credit cards and borrow as much as I can. :-)
Why not? We're propping up the banks. We GAVE them free money. The Treasury was practically emptied for them.
I'd rather bail out Main Street and forgive loans than Wall Street. Besides, forgiving all debts for Main Street would really be a boon for the economy. People could spend again. It would get the economy going.
With all the money we GAVE Wall Street & Banksters we could've forgiven the debts of Main Street and had cash left over. I'm for the people & NOT Banksters or Wall Street. Screw them like they have been screwing us.
The Treasury was practically emptied for them.
Hey, the Treasury was already empty. What "we" did was empty the life savings of our grandchildren for them.
As for favoring "the people" . . . careful, that smacks of socialism, you know.
America should have given every person in the USA 200k or some such amount. Those people in debt would be bailed and those with savings would have more savings.
Moral hazard, moral hazard, moral hazard.
Seriously, though, that would be $6 * 10^13, according to my calculator.
That's $60,000,000,000,000 . . . $60T. That's about global GDP and/or total global wealth. Seems we wouldn't be able to afford that much. But if we cut back by a factor of, say, 6, it would become a more managable $$33,333 each. If we did it by family/household, rather than individually, it would be something like, say, $100,000 per?
We would have roughly broken even, I suspect. Of course, in order to maintain the status quo, payments of all private debts would have to be made mandatory.
Damn, I'd still have a lot more money than I do, though.
Too bad it's all bogus money. You can see that this whole charade is going down. Too damn bad.
Moral hazard slope is slick with the shit.
Here's a crazy scheme that might work along these lines:
Repeal all taxes. Everymotherfuckinglastoneofthem.
OK. Many times, prescribing the symptom is the best method to get something changed. So instead of screaming at each other about who did what stupidity, let the stupidity run.
Instead of screaming about all the losers pulling unemployment, let's rename it and let the people create the money with something we just as well call "
Life Support." We should dial that in at about the top of the bottom quintile.
Everyone gets Life Support. If you don't need it, consider it Pursuit of Happiness Support. Or your Precious Metals purchasing account. This is where the money is created. We plant it at the bottom of the pyramid for a change.
Now what does the world look like. $1200 a month or so created in the name of every man, woman and child in the country. 350000000*1200 is $4.2T
Anyone who complains about government being too big is correct. Never a peep from me about that.
How much was created via the Federal Reserve system last year? Why is there interest due on that money again? Why did we put bankers in charge of money creation again? Anyway:
All taxes are gone, "entitlement spending" is now further beyond comprehension than it was before. Deficit is looking like it will be pushing $5T, etc. So we need a funding mechnism for the whole shebang.
Let's replace the two dozen taxes ultimately figured into a loaf of bread with a single fee for the use of the United States Monetary System to purchase a loaf.
With no taxes, there are obviously no exemptions, and with a small fee structure for the use of the United States Monetary System. When your church goes to deposit your alms, they will incur the fee.
The one I like for a turnover rate (moving the current debt-based system to a life-based system) is .49% which would easily yield $10T.
$10T - government budgets - life support - tax cuts still leaves us with suplus to be retiring the national debt.
I would net out the current programs like welfare and unemployment and the FICA ones.
Leave the current programs in place for those who wish to continue them, but they would only receive the balance (if any) between their current benefits and the life support (poverty) level. I bet many would flee their current setups to tap the full extent of their life accounts.
Now the money that was always entered on the asset side of the banks during the money-creation event, is now entered on the positive asset side of every individual.
Now 100% reserve requirements look pretty nifty, especially if new reserves are created automatically in depositors' accounts. And I know I'd be looking for a return on it, if the bank be lending it out at interest.
As pre-life-dollar-monetization debt is retired ($1200 is a heck of a boost on a mortgage payment) the previously debt-based system is retired.
Ultimately, we'd want to turn that fee down, because you want to see an economy start to boom, repeal all the stupid taxes, and make sure that everyone has cash money coming in.
Streamlined a bunch of stuff. Provides an equal playing field impossible in colonial times. Everyone's a banker. Everyone a CEO. Capital Gains tax below half a percent. Inheritance tax below half a percent. Bread tax and gas tax now below half a percent. Payroll taxes (both sides) now less than half a percent. Raises anyone?
Now those who don't want to work, may not have to. Those that do should have ample oppportunity, and minimum wage, in conjunction with the life support, can now actually support a family. Especially since every
This defunds the globalists pools of dark leverage, and invites their capital to play in a market that is now free in all sorts of new ways.
This is the typical end result of a proper full blown hyperinflation, e.g. Zimbabwe.
If only there were a way to avoid the starvation that happens along the way :(
Yorp. Like Japan. Keep the monstrosities afloat, massive fiscal stimulus, Petri Dish loose monetary policy, graft and corruption galore, roads to nowhere, shrinking demographics (when accounting for departures) liquidity trap.
Nada, zip, zero, naught, none, negatory.
Works for me.
Who would supervise the process--the FDIC? Or the Fed (as was debated at one point.) Who would pull the trigger--a committe, after a six month study?
Specifics, Geo?
Specifics: Put Bill Black in charge of breaking 'em up...
Yeah, he knows how to send bankers to jail by the hundreds.
"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt." John Adams 1826
"And I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property -- until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered... The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." -- Thomas Jefferson wrote on May 28, 1816
"It took 169 long years and seven major wars -- from 1776 to 1945 -- to rack up a cumulative deficit that matches the gaping budget hole of just 28 short days in February 2010." -- Marty Weiss
Obama legalized bribes and legalized non-disclosure:
Here's the exact language the Obama agency used in its recent court filing: "Any records created by or held in the custody of the Enterprises (Fannie and Freddie) reflecting their political campaign contributions or policies, stipulations and requirements concerning campaign contributions necessarily are private corporate documents. They are not 'agency records' subject to disclosure under FOIA."
So there you have it. American taxpayers are paying the tab for the collapse of Fannie and Freddie but are not allowed to obtain any information about why it happened. The Obama administration is saying, in effect, "None of your business."
What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. -- Thomas Jefferson
"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything."
-- Alexander Hamilton
Most transparent Administration evah!
I recently learned to play the Star Spangled Banner on my geetar (Nugent style of course) your patriotic post has made me put down my beer & warm up the Amp.
GOD Bless America.
Kind of funny that there is such a large contingent of folks here at ZH who continually scorn nationalization of the banks as "socialist." Yeah, right, just like those commie founding fathers.
Bob,
First, the Founding Fathers were ok with banks provided they used 'honest money' as measured in gold and silver. The Founding Father were indeed treasonous... against Britain. The real question may be, will history repeat itself anytime in the future?
Ya got me--but I'm all for change. The currrent set is unsustainable, even in the short term.
I thought you meant "funny" odd, but I think it's "funny" ha-ha as well. Buncha clowns who can't define socialism yet manage to carry a sign with mis-spelled words.
You must be a terrorist. How dare you quote the founding fathers.
But we're flying along! Isn't that wonderful?
I think the few seconds of being air borne is totaly worth it ;)
fun knee, love your spirit!
Birds of Prey are illegal to kill....they made a law for that.
We can beat the banks. just don't consume more that your paycheck allows.
The real problem is the healthcare insurance business. They have us and the economy by the balls. I just received a 25% increase in my small business premiums. There's no way any small business will hire with this healthcare cost structure.
60% increase in my capped insurance...it now costs $480/mo to go to work.
Look. This is a good point. But the banks can be beaten back. First is to move your money to a smaller, local bank. They are just as insured as the big ones.
Second, you can cancel or reduce insurance in many cases. Eliminate collision coverage on your cars. If you wreck one and its your fault, too bad. But don't put money into the auto insurance industry for no reason. Your car is probably worth a lot less than you think anyway.
Is your home debt free? Then cancel your fire insurance. When was the last time you heard of a residential home burning down in your neighborhood. Never? Me too. Firefighters have become paramedics. There are almost no residential fires to put out anymore. Smoke alarms and better construction have put an end to most residential fires. Yet the insurance industry is still charging thousands of dollars per home per annum. Forget it. You're wasting your money.
Third. If you pay for your own health insurance, only pay for major medical. Cancel dental, cancel optical. You don't need insurance for things that only cost a few hundred a year at most. You will soon find out how much private practice doctors love patients who pay cash. The only real risk is major hospitalization. If you don't participate in dangerous activities, don't smoke, drink moderately, and have parents who lived a long time, then forget about all this excessive medical insurance. In the end, they pay for a lot less then you think anyway. Take a chance. Anyway, what's the worst thing that can happen. You die? So what. If you are at peace with your maker, then there is nothing to be afraid of.
Take the money you save, and invest it in India in the name of your children. They might take care of you some day in return.
As long as we're considered "consumers" instead of "people" we're fucked.
Today I noticed something on CNBC. Granted it's not something terrifically new, but nevertheless I took notice: they were talking about wheat prices and mentioned how commodities were looking very "bullish" and that wheat prices were up 9% today and how that was "good".
Yes, well, "good" wasn't the first thing that crossed my mind. It occurred to me that the alternate way of phrasing that would have been "the price of a loaf of bread jumped by .25 today, good luck if you're on welfare because there is no end in sight for this". Granted, my version of that story would not have been as "good" for the market...but is it less or more accurate?
Commodities are up because your government is debasing your currency. That's the big story.
Grain prices spiked yesterday because it is now apparent that Aug/Sept. wasn't great weather-wise for many crops. Shit happens.
criminal, forced insurance at higher rates......is there a way to hire "free lancers" who can qualify for pooled insurance somehow?
Rots of ruck with that.
yes. its called single payer
Half drunk.. read your post as single prayer
hope this helps
That was the point of the Health Care Reform--getting everyone's balls into their grip, including the taxpayers.
We wouldn't want to have a public system like the rest of the civilized world. Or the better health outcomes it yields, would we? That would make it a bad "S" word.
"We wouldn't want to have a public system like the rest of the civilized world. Or the better health outcomes it yields, would we? That would make it a bad "S" word."
Would you call Britain part of the "civilized world."?
"Practical details of the plan are still sketchy. But its aim is clear: to shift control of England’s $160 billion annual health budget from a centralized bureaucracy to doctors at the local level."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/world/europe/25britain.html?_r=2&partn...
You may call the "S" word socialism...I call it shit. You cannot "expect" another person to labor for your price forever, if ever. If they won't do it for your price what will you do then, force them?
This would be the "C" word Bob...and it doesn't stand for capitalism or charity.
At some point capitalism must man up to acknowledging its shortcomings without the romantic bullshit pushed by its enraptured direct beneficiaries. This would, imo, include the reality that some people would die for their lack of what the society can well afford.
It disappoints me that ideologues refuse to just spit it out: They don't give a fuck if those people die.
There's no denying it, since it is a reality inherent in their "political" philosophy, but they refuse to say it. That's a deficit of integrity, imo.
Sorry that they feel so robbed by "socialistic" grabs of their precious, but when it comes to life and death, I really really don't give a fuck what they feel. The poor are plenty valuable to them when it's time to labor in their fields or die in their wars.
Those are the reasonable terms of a reasonable social contract, imo. It's the price the haves should pay for not getting slaughtered by the have-nots. They do outnumber the haves, so it should be obvious that this is a good deal for all, imo. Unless you really want to push the noble law of the jungle thing to its logical conclusion.
I'm still puzzling over the "c" word . . . oh, yeah, communist. Bullshit.
It's a civilized compromise that a christian people should be able to comprehend. Even an atheist can understand it as a matter of conscience.
But, hey, not everybody sees everything the same way. Like you and me, at least in this instance.
Damn, it's easy to get worked up about this stuff!
There are times when you and I are back-to-back against other mobs. That's what I mean about reasonable compromise--absolutist, black and white ideologies don't do justice to either human beings or reality.
I see that I've gone off on a rant here. Your question was whether medical professionals should be forced to provide care at what I would consider reasonable prices. It's no surprise that the Brits are paring their social programs down--that's the magical wonder of capitalist austerity . . . once the criminals of the priviledged class have pillaged their society of most of its wealth and humanity.
My position is obviously that, yes, if push comes to shove, those prices/costs should be enforced. I'm also opposed to abortion, so at least I'm consistent.
Except that Capitalism hasn't been allowed in this country for about seventy years.
What you call Capitalism is actually Corporatism.
Capitalism is a great idea, we should really try it sometime.
Capitalism isn't an ism, it just is.
You couldn't kill it anymore than you could kill off the human drive for sex or food or shelter (or the forces of supply and demand). Even in a repressive political system it's still there, squeezed into the margins of society, official corruption and black markets.
Actually, free enterprise is a much more accurate term in this context. Capitalism is a Marxist term, his straw man.
Indeed...and agree.
"Actually, free enterprise is a much more accurate term in this context. Capitalism is a Marxist term, his straw man."
An honest left of center person has to admit the fault when forced to actually read what has been done.
Leaving aside Bob's thoughts for a moment, to his credit, George Washington did this long ago when I pointed out the fallacy of calling something a "human right" and then placing a penalty/fine on it for not exercising it...LOL.
This garnered respect from me toward GW. We should always value integrity and honesty over good intentions.
"I see that I've gone off on a rant here."
It didn't take much...just challenge Karl Marx's stupid little theories ;-)
Dreamed up when there was no middle class to speak of.
Now there is.
And they are not really keen on going back into poverty on the shakey notion that another group of oligarchs...still run by powerful people will somehow take care of their every want and need...just re-read your own words dude.
"It's a civilized compromise that a christian people should be able to comprehend. Even an atheist can understand it as a matter of conscience."
Puuuhlease...your not going to try the "Am I my brothers keeper?" progressive meme on me are you? You do realize it was an attempt on Cain's part to obfuscate before God, a murder he had committed don't you? A "what me?" kind of thing.
"My position is obviously that, yes, if push comes to shove, those prices/costs should be enforced."
And if I refuse to work for that price?...will you then ask the government to kill me for you or will you do it personally?
You will say, again, the same thing Cain said won't you?
I point out socialized healthcare's failure in Britain and I get from you it's a failure of capitalism itself...LOL...good grief.
It was a rant. It's getting late. Hey, we can all choose where we work, what we do, and what we are willing to do it for--at least this is true of the health care professionals I have worked with for the last 30 years. Surely it comes through that I don't condone killing people, though?
As for the gov taking care of "every want and need," it was not some sort of right to a fun day at the circus I was talking about. It was health care, which is genuinely a matter of life and death.
Honestly, I don't know about the British health care situation. I've followed the general financial and political climate there, though. Banks get bailed out, seniors get admonished for expecting interest on their savings, etc.
I'm not a Marxist, don't believe in Santa, either.
My progressive "sermon" is a founded upon a belief in compromise, finding middle ground.
Guilty liberal disclaimer: Please don't take my indictment personally.
Did my characterization of what has been called "Conservative Compassion" hit a sore spot? Should we just let "those people" die if they haven't successfully positioned themselves in this "everybody has an equal chance" society to buy their own health care?
"Surely it comes through that I don't condone killing people, though?"
No...it really doesn't.
When you start believing in a system, like using faceless apparatchiks to "enforce" your vision of quality of outcome upon the rest of society it's only one small step further to remove any and all impediment's to your utopian vision isn't it?
"As for the gov taking care of "every want and need," it was not some sort of right to a fun day at the circus I was talking about. It was health care, which is genuinely a matter of life and death."
There was never a lack of healthcare. It was always a discussion of the price of health insurance. The socialists/progressives/statists used the peoples personal aversion to paying for anything they can get for "free" as a lever against their (the peoples) own best interest and set themselves (the bureaucracy) up as arbitors between the people, their doctors and the method of payment for a service. They, and people like you, decided to put the burden on the taxpayers ultimately.
Exactly the thing I see you rail against on ZH day after day. Government in bed with the banks against the taxpayer. Government in bed with corporations against the taxpayer etc...ad nauseum. Your apparent hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Bob, you can't have it both ways.
Now comes news that companies are asking for waivers (and being granted them for political reasons) because the cost of compliance with the new law is to great...they will get the waiver or the insurance will be withdrawn as a benefit of employment. This forces the people toward government healthcare plans (funded by taxation)...exactly what was wanted by statist/progressive/socialists.
Equality of opportunity does not equal quality of outcome. The quality doctors are opting out already...back to the labor equation I started from & the charging for it.
Your state funded utopian healthcare dream will be administered by young fresh out of college med graduates as the price on them of paying back their government student loans. This is the Castro communist model and why I believe it was part of the legislation. Watch for it.
Or the legislation will be repealed or rendered mute by not funding the bureacracies and we can start over on the issue of price.
It is my belief that you are basically a good person Bob. But you (in my opinion) are woefully naive about the responsibility you have as a free person to guard jealously against any invitation to government to come into your life and set things right. When you abdicate that responsibility you lose a piece of your freedom.
I find it amusing that the true "liberals" these days are more often found on the right side of the political spectrum than the left...LOL.
Think about it...have a good day.
The discussion about healthcare was always about price, rather than availability?
If true, that would certainly support your argument. But Econ 101 taught us that there is a relationship between the two. The problem here is that increasing cost inherently decreases accessability to more and more people. That's a "capitalist" reality.
While health care doesn't get the attention that banking does, it is to a certain degree itself a racket. As one example, what would it cost if there were more doctors? Well, the AMA completely controls the available supply of doctors. It's kept artificially low by political machinations of the parties invested in the existing system with the clear goal of keeping prices high. Would we be unable to get more "good" doctors if the AMA weren't controlling supply? Have we really tapped out the available supply of smart people who would make good doctors? Having worked in the industry for so long and seen for myself what it's like there, I don't think so. To argue otherwise reminds me of what you hear about Wall Street traders and corporate CEO's everywhere: The best and brightest must be paid what they are or we would lose them. I don't buy it.
It gets old fighting the desperate (however sincere) fear of creeping socialism. Yeah, anything is possible and--to be fair to you--it should be vigilantly recognized as a threat. But the "one small step from X" (x=whatever boogie man one wants to conveniently insert wrt to any issue) argument has to be viewed from a reasonable perspective. Hey, giving police guns and the authority to use them is one small step from giving them a license to murder--and it does happen. But that does not reasonably support the position that cops shouldn't have them.
I'm taken aback by your perception of me as a hypocritical ranter ad nauseum. No doubt I am not perfectly consistent--no one is. It's humanly impossible. Ranting seems appropriate to me wrt the gov and banks, as the future of civilization now seems compellingly at risk. I note that I am nonetheless often in the company of folks with philosphies like yours in this, however.
Interesting, perhaps (it has always been to me, at least), is that both here and in "real life" I have always been as much in agreement with principled "conservatives" as I have with so-called liberals. Both doctrinaire camps see me as a hypocrite, btw, so no big deal.
We're never gonna agree on this argument. We have different values, asssumptions, and beliefs that seem to make agreement impossible. No big deal. Intelligent and good people disagree alot--at least those who do their own thinking do.
And thanks, btw, I have thought about it, and will continue to do so. That makes this a good experience, imo.
Have a good one yourself, nmewn.
"It gets old fighting the desperate (however sincere) fear of creeping socialism."
ROTFLMAO...it's not much of a challenge, more of a hobby really...statism/progressivism/socialism is pretty much rotten at it's core because it disdains the notion of individuals and personal property rights in favor of the collective or the state.
That is, we can survive without it...it cannot survive without us.
Don't confuse that statement with the concept of anarchy.
"And having looked to Government for bread, on the very first scarcity they will turn and bite the hand that fed them."-Edmund Burke
Sounds like your average Obama voter huh?...LOL.
And one of mine;
A pregnant socialist will always give birth to a bouncing baby communist ;-)
SeeYa
Once the "Massive Mortgage Mess" becomes better known, huge amounts of people are gonna be needing health care, only it'll be as scarce as hen's teeth!