Gosh, that sounds an awful lot like an egotistical, elitist, i-know-what's-best-for-you attitude. Originally Posted by DooveNo actually it is common, money sense. I do not believe in all out Libertarian nor do I believe Lassiez-faire economics. It’s not a protection or an infringement on the individual it’s a regulation on the business. Banks ran a credit card ponzie scheme on the American people. As an example: The banks issued way to much credit to consumers in Group A. When Group A was struggling on their payments, banks issued Group A a different credit card so they would swap their debt from one card to the other. When Group A couldn’t pay either credit card because either a) the balance was way out of line with their income or b) the bank jacked the interest rate up to 23%, they wrote off the bad debt – at a tax loophole profit. Then they replaced the lost income from Group A with a Group B’s pre-approved credit card campaign. And so on ad nauseum.
Mortgages are the same thing. Someone making $100,000 a year could get into a $300,000 house on a 110% mortgage. Or what about the poor fool with a 650 credit score that qualifies for no money down if they can gain a 20% equity position in a house based on an inflated appraisal on an ARM. What is that person going to do when his payment of $950 on a $100,000 loan goes up to $1,400 when the loan shark jacks the interest rate up to 9%? He gets his house foreclosed on because he can’t pay the vic.
Regulating the amount of debt a bank is allowed risk is the only way of regulating predatory businesses and their vicious, get rich quick schemes that hurt American consumers.
@OH & IaintlieinWhat you disagree with educating children well. You disagree with oversights for companies that habitually violate the public trust? You think that congressmen should have better insurance than the rest of us? You think they should get 80% of their salary as pensions for the rest of their miserable lives? You think that it should fly that GE didn’t pay a fucking cent in income tax last year? You want our jobs shipped off to third world shit-holes and American citizens left to the dole? You think it’s cool that Halliburton moved its headquarters to a sand and oilfield in the Middle East to avoid paying taxes here in theirs and your country? You think it’s ok for corporations to buy politicians and legislation that costs you money or is contrary to the public good? You think Fannie and Freddie don’t need their heads handed to them? You think our troops and tanks are still needed in Germany? What boogie man are they there defending other people from? What do we need an advanced navy for? There will be no more large conventional wars fought anymore. Really, you disagree with most of what was in those lists? Really?
I disagree with most of what you said. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005
Having said that, you failed to address the financial hole that DOD and its concomitant defense contracts have created. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005I believe Iaintlion addressed pretty steadfastly DOD expenditures. Pull out of foreign countries, mothball navy carrier groups, sell off all assets not needed to fulfill the federal government roll as defined in the constitution. That pretty effectively guts the DOD. If you publicly declare that we are willing to move militarily on rogue governments or governments that are acting counter to American interests (Like Kennedy did during the Cuban Missile Crisis.) you have to have some military, but really you only need the best.
