Guard Dog

Link:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/liberals_warnings_about_obama.html Exactly what we were discussing earlier Krezack. Required reading Pop. The Democrats are the ONLY ones making race an issue. But then again they use identity politics like a crutch that they don't realize they don't need.

I am not one to blow my own horn but here are a few respected journalists who agree with my take on things: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDNkO...Tk5ZjZmZDkxY2U=

This is an excellent question and my answer will suprise you all. But first let me provide a little background info. I'll keep this short and politcally neutral (actually there is plenty of blame to spread around between dems and repubs). This current banking crisis began (as most American problems do) in the halls of Congress. In 1933, learning the lessons from the stock market crash, Congress passed and Roosevelt signed the Glass-Stengel Act. It was a significant law that established the FDIC, obligated lenders to write loans at the same rate the US borrows at (the "prime" rate) and made many other changes in how banks do business. The important provision for what we are talking about here in the Glass Stengel Act is that it made it illegal for FDIC backed deposit banks (that manage checking and savings accounts for example) to own or be owned by non-FDIC backed investment banks (real estate, securities etc.) The idea being that another stock market crash will not wipe out the bank that has John Q Citizens life savings. Fast forward now to 1977, Carter signs the Community Reinvestment Act, a seemingly innocuous bill that requires banks to be evaulated by the federal government to ensure that they are serving the "entire community" and putting pressure on mortgage banks to lend to lower income home buyers. They still needed to meet credit requirements however. In 1995 the Clinton administration and Congress revised the CRA to require investment banks to increase the amount of loans written to lower income borrowers and to facilitate this they relaxed the credit requirements. So now loans were being written to borrowers that just the year before did not qualify due to income level, credit rating etc. There was supposed to be a seven year limit on this just to jump start a flagging economy. In 2003 that seven years was up and the terms of the CRA were modified again by the Bush administration. I'll get to that in a second. Back up to 1980 now, Carter signs the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act. It repealed the provision of the Glass-Stengel act that allowed the Fed to set the interest rates for savings and loans. Moving on to 1999 Congress passes and Clinton signs the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that repeals the provision of the Glass-Stengal Act that prohibits the combination of deposit banking and investment banking. Now banks everywhere begin merging and super banks like Wachovia, Bank Of America, and Citicorp begin to appear. These institutions are absolutely flush with cash. They begin writing mortgages left and right and with the credit rules relaxed by the CRA and the HUD guarenteeing high-risk loans to low income borrowers through Freddie and Fannie a large percentage of these are going to borrowers who simply did not qualify for the amounts they were borrowing. Since buying homes had never been easier the demands for homes began to skyrocket. The price followed of course and we have what everyone likes to call the "housing boom". Actually it was the rapid inflation of the housing bubble. You guys see how this is all coming together? Good, stay with me, there is one last piece to this puzzle. In the late 1990's and early 2000's companies like Bear Sterns, Countrywide, Wells Fargo, (many others) began writing loans for subprime interest. The CRA and DIDMCA allowed them to do this. Their target audience was real estate speculators who would buy a house with the intention of "flipping" it (selling it quickly once market forces caused it's value to appreciate). What these loans did was lent the full value (no down payment) at zero interest for a fixed period of time then was serviced buy an adjustable rate afterwards (usually the prime plus a certain percentage). These loans also came with an early termination fee but houses were appreciating so quickly that speculators still made money so they did not care. The problem was these loans became popular with low income borrowers who did not intend to flip their property (there is some blame for mortgage brokers here who did practice "predatory lending" that is aggesively selling subprime loans to people they knew did not understand what they were getting into. Even more blame goes IMO to the borrowers who sign things they don't bother to read or understand). The smaller banks would package hundreds of these mortgages together and sell them to larger banks or under terms of the CRA sell them to Freddie or Fannie that had to buy them. Now, remember the CRA that was up for reevaluation in 2003? Bush tired to combine Freddie and Fannie into a single institution managed directly by a new sub department of the Treasury. The effect would have been to nullify the CRA requirements on Freddie and Fannie (no longer obligating the thrifts to purchase loans made to low income borrowers) while keeping the federal guarantee of loans it already owned. The Dems called it an econmomic shell game that aimed to weaken the bargaining power of the poor, economic conservatives called it a power grab by the federal government. Both were right, both were wrong. In 2005 the CRA was reevaluated one more time reducing the lending requirements placed on smaller banks with assets under $250 million or so. The idea was to save the smaller institutions. It was already far too late. The bubble burst in 2006. The low to middle income buyers who took the subprime loans were getting a real nasty shock. Their zero interest periods were expiring and their monthly mortgate payments were literally doubling and tripiling. Most could not even refinance because they could not pay the early termination penalties in these loans. Inevitabley scores of homes were foreclosed on and sold for under market value which began to drive down the prices. This caused the speculators to panic and begin selling. Anyone who has an elementary understanding of economics knows what happens when everyone begins selling at once, the prices drop. Now the banks are holding all of these properties that are worth far less that they paid for them, no one is buying and most leners could not afford to lend more money anyway. Now the low to middle income loans were government guaranteed by the CRA through Freddie and Fannie (who own tons or worthless mortgages themselves) so the big banks (who if you will remember an now a combination of investment and deposit banks) are going to the government to cover their losses. And the government must cover or the big banks ( who if you will remember are now a combination of investment and deposit banks thank you Phil Gramm and Bill Clinton) will fail and it will be 1928 all over again. So there we have it in a somewhat big nutshell. Yes, the government must bail out the banks. The government must either regulate banking, or don't. What it did was deregulate but compelled the banks to continue to behave as though they were regulated by providing federal guarantees of a bailout if things went bust. And how could they not. If you insist on the banks taking the financial risks then you must allow them to set the financial terms. That is not what happened here. If you (the government) sets the terms then you (the government) assumes the risks. From 1933 to 1980 they were regulated and we had no problems. From 1776 to 1927 they were unregulated and for the most part there were no problems. From 1980 to 2008 we had a weird hybrid of regulation and now we have problems. Either regulate or don't.

Now reading The Story of Edgar Sawtelle by David Wroblewski. At first I thought it was a rip off of Hamlet, but now I must say it is bloody brilliant and the best book I've read in a long time. I really reccomend this to anyone.

That supposition is impossible to prove since all of those states DO support Repubs are supporting the Repub. If Obama were a Republican and they were not supporting him you would have a point. If John McCain were black and they were not supporting him you would have a point. As it is they are polling in a manner consistent with ideological preferences and to suggest now after twenty eight years of historical evidence that they are not supporting Obama simply because of his race is illogical and more than a little vitriolic. As for socialisim my biggest problem with is is that there is no way to opt out of it. It reduces everyone to the lowest common denominator and suffers no competition. We have government run healthcare in this country already, the VA. Believe me, it stinks. I believe it is everyones fundamental duty to take care of themselves and their families not ask me and everyone else to do it for them. The governments job is to provide a regulatory system that maintains a fair economic market that allows them to do so. We don't have that here in the US and rather than getting back to it too many people are asking for the government to take over the whole thing lock stock and barrel. That is like asking the cat that ate the baby canary to guard the rest of them. But too many people want it because they think it will be free. It won't be. It will be hideously expensive and we will all pay and pay and pay for it in cripplig taxes. And if you choose not to participate you still must pay the taxes. Where is the freedom in that? And the democrats ARE socialists. Bill Clinton tried to nationalize 1/7th of the US economy in 1993. A hostile government take over of PRIVATE business. Obama wants the government to run the banking insutry (unfortunately so does McCain), Democratic Rep Maxine Waters flat out proposed that US oil companies be nationalized. Al Gore in his book came out against the private ownership of real estate. He said that land is a resource that belongs to all the people. Still think I'm being paranoid?

OK, since many of you here seem to think that anyone who would not vote for Obama is some kind of racist (instead of a red-blooded American who does not want to see their county plunged into abject socialisim, be saddled with a crippling tax burden, or see more of there State and local governemts power usurped by Washington DC) here is my proof that race is not an issue in this election: This is the 2000 Electoral Map. The red states voted Repub, the blues voted Dem. Here is 2004, same color scheme (sorry for the crappy pic, it was all I had) Here is the Electoral Map with the polling data from 9/12/08 So, lets see. All that states that traditionally support the Dems are supporting Obama and the ones that traditionally vote Repub are supporting McCain and the 7-8 "battleground states" that have decided every election since 1992 could go either way and are leaning in a predicatble fashion. If racisim were the issue some of you seem to think, one or more "blue states" would be going against history. They are not. Ideology will decide this election. If you think otherwise you are either too cynical to be reasoned with or understand little about Americans.

For all baseball fans out there, the last game ever in Yankees Stadium will be on ESPN Sunday night at 8 pm EST. Supposedly there will be flashbacks all throughout the game and a ceremony following. That is a real piece of Americana that will fade into history Sunday night. You might not want to miss that one. I'll be watching.

Former Congressman from Oklahoma, running for governer in 2010. Brilliant man and a Reoublican with a strong Libertarian streak. I met him several times when I worked for the FL Republican party. Oh, and he's black too but nobody cared about that.

I'm no longer homeless!!!!! I closed on the new house last Thursday and I'm moving in today. I don't have much stuff but I do have all my dogs back which makes me (and them) very happy. I just bought a new living room set and a new TV (72" DLP) and it should be here by Friday, just in time for football this weekend. Finally I can start living normal again.

Racisim will never be dead so long as someone can make political hay out of it. I really don't think Obamas race is an issue in 2008 America. But there are political factions mainly on the left who try to make it an issue especially if he loses. I'm not voting for him but it has nothing to do with his race, it's his politics. If JC Watts would run for president you had better believe I'd vote for him.

Calax if you don't mind a bit of advice, do some volunteer work at a charity. You have the time, it might make you feel better, and it will give you a chance to meet people in local business. Those kinds of contacts can often lead to good jobs. Especially when their description of you begins with "He works for a charity I'm involved with." United Way might be the best choice because they are very community oriented and work with a lot of companies.

I'd hardly call the use of the term "liberal" a pejorative when describing Obama. In the new American political definition of the word liberal (advocating strict government control over free enterprise and eschew individual and states rights in favor of federal mandate) Obama fits it to a T. Ironically if you ever actually looked up the word liberal and liberalism in a dictionary you would find this: "a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties" I could not imagine a definition more contrary to everything Barack Obama believes in. So I guess really he's not a liberal. He's a democrat. According to Websters those are two very different things. You would have a point here if West Virginia, Ohio, or any Western States had not already voted Republican in the last three presidential elections. But they did so I guess you don't. Those states you mentioned (except Ohio which Clinton won by a slim margin in '96) have rejected the last three male white democrats and now if Obama is in trouble there it must be because he's black. Maybe the voters in those states just don't like democrats? Nah that can't be it, they must be racists. Racism has been trotted out to blame for so many facts that are unpleasant that is is starting to lose its meaning. The charge of racism loses all gravity when it is applied to a political opponent who has done nothing but advocate or vote for a different viewpoint. And that is a shame because there are still racists out there in the national spotlight. For example Philadelphia Enquirer columnist Fatimah Ali wrote a piece promising an all out race war if Obama loses. I guess if the outcome of an election is enough to make someone take up arms against their countrymen it was inevitable any way. That would be the ultimate form of racisim wouldn't it? http://www.philly.com/dailynews/opinion/20...eorge_Bush.html

I need to switch my Baseball alligience. It would be so nice to be a fan of a team tht did not sell off all their players after every succesful year. Marlins face costly off season. Fire sale likely?

I bought the land back in May, then contracted the house in June. The walkdown is on Sept 9. The day after I'm going on a long road trip to pick up all of my dogs, they are scattered out over three states. And for all the lonely Obsidanites my hospitality is always yours if you bring me booze. I like Flying Dog, Rolling Rock, Guiness, and Knob Creek bourbon.

I just picked up The Name of the Wind by Patrick Rothfuss. I haven't read any fantasy in a while. Anyone ever heard of it? I just saw it on the shelf.

Emo? I'm not familiar with that one. What does it mean? Wannabes? Just curious. As for the teenage goth chicks of the early 90's and late 80's just remeber, speed metal had not come around yet, hard drugs were expensive and hard to come by, and everyone of that ilk thought grunge music (Alice in Chains, Stone Temple Pilots, Ministry, etc) was cutting edge. It's probably changed a LOT since then.

Drove by the house for the first time in over a week today. They have all the siding on now and are starting to add drywall to the interior. Only two more weeks hopefully. It's looking like they will finish on time.

I will be honest, I do not date very much. After the divorce I've become very wary. And when I do I'm very picky. I won't date a woman younger than 30 and prefer a woman who has done something with her life (i.e. at least went to college). Keeping that criteria I have met very few dummies. Most of the women I've dated post divorce are just like me, been there and done that and just looking for a fun time and a little companionship to distract them from their real life problems. There was one who, I think, wanted to get serious but I gently broke it off early. I don't want to get married again, possibly ever, and certainly not soon. When I was younger I had only one rule, don't sleep with anyone you don't want to see again. Unless there was some kind of mutual understanding up front. Of course there were a few I thought understood and was wrong about. But I was not at all discriminatory about who I dated. The raving beauties always turned me off a little mentally because I found so many to be self centered and materialistic to a fault. Most were not really dumb though but they acted the part because I think they thought they were supposed to. My favorites were the ones who were quiet or never dated in HS then getting into college they were starting to really go out and live a little for the first time. They were always fun to be around. And Goth chicks, wild stuff there but for most of them it was just a phase. Most Goth girls I found were attracted to guys like me (the beach bum type) because we were the polar opposite of who they hung around with regularly.

Sitting at work with nothing to do. Absolutely nothing. I've been so busy I have not had time to think for weeks. Now all I can do is read my new issue of Popular Mechanics, surf the web, and watch the clock. Maybe I'll order Chinese for lunch. Watching the Olympics has me jonesing for Kung Pow chicken. This afternoon I'm going to this cool furniture store called Wood You. They make all wood furniture and do custom jobs to. I've always wanted a really cool desk and bookcase. Then I'm going to see the puppies and take them to the park. Writing this took 3 minutes. Only six more hours to kill.

They didn't' court martial me (I'm back home now) all they did was dock my last weeks pay (well after the Captain signed my paper) and send me home greyhound. What I really want to fight is my re-enlistment code. That sucker is the big thing that pisses me off, because I've got an RE-4 which means I'm unable to re-enlist and most federal agencies won't even look at me for a job... I'm just wondering how the heck to go about getting that changed. I had bipolar well before I entered the military, I just didn't think it was a big thing because I told my recruiter and all he asked was "are you on medications?" to which I responded no and he just went on like there wasn't a problem in the world. the thing I did knowingly (and stupidly) conceal was that I'd had counseling up until about 2 months before entering the navy. :shruggies: I guess I'll go Job corp or Borders (currently working on the app to the latter) I was curious about this so I did a little research. It all depends on th type of discharge you got. It sounds lie this will be an entry level separation or "For the Good of the Service" discharge which it a General Discharge or Medical Discharge. It that is true there may be very little you can do about the RE code. If it is a General on "Other than Honorable" that you would have legal standing to challenge since you did not deceive the service to enter. I've posted the Link below. The short answer is if you can upgrade the discharge it upgrades the RE code. Ironic isn't it, you have to hope for a bad deal to try to get a better one but if they give you a fair deal you have no shot at a better one. That's the US military for you. http://en.allexperts.com/q/Careers-Militar...ent-Navy-re.htm

Romance is an important aspect of any relationship. You can't have a healthy relationship without it but by itself it will not mean a healthy relationship. Romance should not be confused with love. You can have romance without love but love requires romance. I'm 37 now. I've been in relationships with many women but I can honestly say I have only loved two of them and married one of those. The first love died when the romance cooled off and we drifted away from each other due to career pressures. I was in the military at the time she had just gotten out and was starting her nursing career. I was sent overseas and the seperation drove us apart. Maybe had we had longer to build something it might have endured. I was very sad but told myself it was just bad luck and bad timing. The second love I actually married. There the romance was all we had. The other apects of love like mutual respect, complementary personalities, common outlook on life, etc. we had none of that. We were great in bed but for most of the rest of the time we were like two scorpions in a jar. It lasted seven stormy years and ended badly as all such relationships do. So you see here are two examples of failed relationships, one had all the other elements but no romance, the other had all romance and nothing else, Neither was healthy. Romance is important, it's like the mortar for the bricks. Without the mortar the house collapses but you need the bricks for the house. Thats my $.02

I've never been a big Rum drinker, I guess I just don't care for the taste. Sour mash whiskey like Bourbon is about the only hard stuff I'll drink. But American distilleries have elevated that to a form of fine art! As for the Russian invasion, heck I don't really know. Since I moved up here I've been in a news vacuum. All my stuff is in storage so the only entertainment I have is my XM, my work laptop, and a 7" LCD TV with a DVR/DVD player. Plus a few books and DVDs. Heck I'm only going to be here a month and a half so I don't even have cable. So I only get 4 channels. @theslug: It's coming along nicely now. Just the frame and foundation are up but it is nice to see. I've been working building a fence around the perimeter of the property and I should finish that by next weekend. Right now I'm living in a pretty crappy studio apartment next to Shelby County Community College. The house will be done next month. Originally it was to be ready for walkdown on 9/1 but it will be delayed at least a week. I've heard that is not unusual tho so what can you do. So? Whats the job?? Are you going to tell us or not?

Took the day off and worked on the new place today. Now sitting in a partially darkend room with a glass of Knob Creek listening th the Marlins vs Mets game on my XM radio. I was going to watch the Opening Ceremony but I'm not up for it. I'll record it instead. I'll catch the Rays vs Mariners game later if the whisky doesen't get me first.

What you don't know is that she, or he, had been enticing him -the hamster- all night and had planned the whole event. Now that IS evil. Must have been like that goldfish from South Park.