RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined

RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Edwynn -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 1:17:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Ah so the fraud and theft of the housing bubble is not a nanny state. How many people are homeless as a result of that bubble? Well, the bubble certainly got its start from the nanny state notion that the government should see to it that more people owned their own homes, which in itself is a nice example of the good intentions road leading to a hell of unintended consequences, but again, fraud and theft are crimes against others. Right. This is like saying that someone who got into their car and drove down the road with the good intention of going to the grocery store is what led to the hell of them getting T-boned by a drunk cement truck driver. Cement truck=financial industry; driver=deregulation; .23 blood alcohol level=Collateralized Debt Obligations and Credit Default Swaps. There were never any good intentions whatsoever in financial deregulation other than to a very few. Party time!

searching4mysir -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 1:22:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: The difference is that I see this as an individual mandate, not really a collective one. Jesus didn't tell people to petition Rome to increase their taxes so that the government could care for the poor. That is the role of the Church (since that is who He was talking to...His flock). He told us, individually, to love the poor and serve the needy. A government can't love anyone. It is wholly incapable of doing so. As a Christian, the mandate is to be Christ to the needy...to be His hands in caring for the poor. The government already has a God complex, let's not make it worse Jesus did not live in a nation of 300 million people. Is there any place where individual charity has been successful in giving aid to the poor and needy on so large a scale? I believe in the principle of subsidiarity, where the closer you are to the problem, the better equipped you more likely are to really solve it. Why does it have to be on a large scale? Why not work within your own community first? You start with the family and broaden out from there to the neighborhood, then the city, then the county, then the state. Rarely do you EVER really need to go as far as the feds, particularly when more often than not they waste money and fuck things up because they are so far removed from the actual problems.

TheHeretic -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 1:37:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I think that the role of the government is military, civic amenities, education, and justice. I think that our current government is a costly and burdensome nanny-state. That's an interesting way to handle the quote boxes, Iamsemisweet. While I may agree with some of what Aylee said in principle, those are not my words, despite your edit to place them in stereo.

Owner59 -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 1:56:08 PM)
God forbid anyone suggest that we spend far to much on military or suggest that`s why we`re in such deep long-term debt........lest they be branded weak-cowardly and/or helping our enemies. IMHO.......there`s more was to measure a nation`s strengths than just with fire-power or how many times over we can incinerate the planet. Our individual security and safety net,market/financial oversight coupled w/ law/rule enforcement(something bush and the cons flubbed),food/drug/water safety, just a few things government does are also part of "national security".

TheHeretic -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 2:07:51 PM)
What a ridiculous comparison, Edwynn. All those people who jumped onto the too-good-to-be-true bandwagon were just innocent victims, huh? They were forced to buy houses they couldn't afford, then had a gun held to their head to take out "equity" they could spend on toys and lifestyle enhancements? I used to work with a guy who took just that path, and wound up simply giving the keys to the bank for a cash payout. His credit is totally thrashed for a couple more years, but he's got his nice car and bigscreen, and figures he stuck it to the bank pretty good. Sure, the banks had gone nuts, but so had the players. It was a feeding frenzy mess, that is still going to take us years to get cleared up, but trying to reduce it to your schoolgirl simplicity of "it's all those baa-aaad people's fault" just argues for me to take back your "n's." I think, however, your position on whether gov't should be our servant, or our nanny, is made quite clear by your approach to the subject.

Edwynn -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 2:29:16 PM)
My approach to the subject is to address the issue of what led to the situation of so many people finding themselves in such critical straits to begin with do to exogenous events and external shocks. And no, you can't understand half that sentence nor any other thing not put in grossly simplified political terms, else you would not repeatedly resort to your usual tactic of playground name calling. You are seriously using "I knew a guy who ... " as foundation and explanation for a worldwide economic calamity, then? That explains a lot.

BenevolentM -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 2:36:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: It's the big question for this thread. Is it the role of government to be the dedicated servant of the people, or the costly and burdensome nanny? "For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?' And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'" (Matthew 25.35-40 ESV) Are we a Christian nation only when it is convenient? I agree. It is irrelevant whether or not it was done in the name of God. It need only be done in the name of truth. The sticking point for monotheists is that it is not being done in the name of God per se. The services are regarded as being doled out by a pretender to God. Recall what the legal justification for putting Christ to death was? It was blasphemy. In "Could you resist and why would you want to?" http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4027050 I wrote: "It seems likely to me that many of the so called faithful will be cast into Hell due to their unwillingness to accept, as ironic as this may seem, His Word? If God were to appear to them today, they would shun Him."

Owner59 -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 2:42:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic What a ridiculous comparison, Edwynn. All those people who jumped onto the too-good-to-be-true bandwagon were just innocent victims, huh? They were forced to buy houses they couldn't afford, then had a gun held to their head to take out "equity" they could spend on toys and lifestyle enhancements? I used to work with a guy who took just that path, and wound up simply giving the keys to the bank for a cash payout. His credit is totally thrashed for a couple more years, but he's got his nice car and bigscreen, and figures he stuck it to the bank pretty good. Sure, the banks had gone nuts, but so had the players. It was a feeding frenzy mess, that is still going to take us years to get cleared up, but trying to reduce it to your schoolgirl simplicity of "it's all those baa-aaad people's fault" just argues for me to take back your "n's." I think, however, your position on whether gov't should be our servant, or our nanny, is made quite clear by your approach to the subject. Better than trying to be ignorant and succeeding. Not sure you`re going to get any traction with trying to stop folks from finding out WTF happened and how to prevent future financial disasters by codling and protecting the perps and spinning them into victims. You don`t even want to name them let alone go after them.......poor uptrodden WallStreeters.....always getting blamed for their fuck-ups......the outrage![8\|]

Edwynn -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 2:45:03 PM)
quote: All those people who jumped onto the too-good-to-be-true bandwagon were just innocent victims, huh? They were forced to buy houses they couldn't afford, then had a gun held to their head to take out "equity" they could spend on toys and lifestyle enhancements? To explain to those who need it: It's called a loan application for a reason. One party *applies* for a loan offered by another, the *offering party* then *accepts* or *rejects* the application. News as this apparently is for some, the *applicant* does not accept or reject his own application, the person offering the application does.

TheHeretic -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 3:02:32 PM)
No, I'm using it as a particular example of a behavior and mentality which became a component in the frenzy. A component you wish to deny the existence of, in your bleatings of singular blame. I'll use my house, and what happened too my old neighborhood as examples too, if needed. Also, the guy who teased me for buying when I did, and while the prices have dropped considerably further since then, now cannot get financed to buy anything himself, and is getting hit with rent increases.

TheHeretic -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 3:08:16 PM)
But the applicant must choose to walk in the door, and fill out the fucking application in the first place, must't s/he? Presumably after doing a bit of due diligence on their ability to meet the obligations incurred in the agreement?

Edwynn -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 3:24:47 PM)
Mortgage brokers worked door-to-door in poorer neighborhoods, but regardless, loan salesmen offering an incomprehensible bubble loan contract to a widow that didn't even need a re-fi, at a higher rate than qualified for, her house gone in three years and she's living with son or daughter now. But hey, if granny can't act responsibly and deal with a contract the lender paid a lawyer $5,000 to write with express purpose of maximum obfuscation ... Well, caveat emptor and all that. Tuff, granny. While on the subject; financially irresponsible people have been around since time immemorial. For the most part financially responsible lenders have been around along with that, their job being to filter out such potential lenders, that's what they get paid for as financial intermediaries. That's their job. It's called the banking system, and that is how it was and still is defined, financial intermediation. Would you consider a car rental company as acting responsible in their business for loaning a car out with no proof of insurance and no deposit? Financial deregulation directly resulted in nationwide irresponsible lending, period. But yeah, as soon as we can find the loan applicants who put a gun to the lenders' heads and forced them to offer stated income/stated assets loans (i.e. no verification 'no doc' loans) them I'm all with you; we should lock them up. Absolutely.

TheHeretic -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 3:42:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn Mortgage brokers worked door-to-door in poorer neighborhoods. Yes, Edwynn, they did. And who do you suppose got them going there? Under Clinton, bank regulators have breathed the first real life into enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act, a 20-year-old statute meant to combat "redlining" by requiring banks to serve their low-income communities. The administration also has sent a clear message by stiffening enforcement of the fair housing and fair lending laws. The bottom line: Between 1993 and 1997, home loans grew by 72% to blacks and by 45% to Latinos, far faster than the total growth rate. Lenders also have opened the door wider to minorities because of new initiatives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--the giant federally chartered corporations that play critical, if obscure, roles in the home finance system. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages from lenders and bundle them into securities; that provides lenders the funds to lend more. In 1992, Congress mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and creative in stimulating minority gains. It has aimed extensive advertising campaigns at minorities that explain how to buy a home and opened three dozen local offices to encourage lenders to serve these markets. Most importantly, Fannie Mae has agreed to buy more loans with very low down payments--or with mortgage payments that represent an unusually high percentage of a buyer's income. That's made banks willing to lend to lower-income families they once might have rejected. http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/31/news/mn-42807 Good intentions paved a road to hell. The marchers marched, and the pipers piped, and the nanny nodded in approval.

Edwynn -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 3:53:12 PM)
How many foreclosures in the 90's, pre-financial deregulation, vs. now, post-deregulation? If there was anything in that re-print of yours that mentioned incentivization for more re-fi loans I can't seem to find it. Thanks for proving the point, though; responsible home owning incentivization as practiced in the 90's demonstrably did not substantially increase foreclosures, while deregulation in 1999 and 2000 most demonstrably did result in increase of defaults and foreclosures to unprecedented levels. Responsible subprime loans existed in the 90's, no-doc loans did not come into being until after deregulation.

TheHeretic -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 4:08:34 PM)
Very good, Edwynn. Yes. There were more foreclosures after the bubble burst, than there were beforehand. So your point is that once we start nanny programs, the unintended consequences will inevitably lead to a need for continued nanny state interventions and controls?

Edwynn -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 4:29:07 PM)
Your willful ignorance knowing no bounds, your dancing quite clumsily around the word 'deregulation' notwithstanding; I said pre- vs. post-deregulation, which you dishonestly re-state as pre- vs. post-bubble in false substantiation of your unproven claim. However that may be, in so doing you are now inadvertently considering The Financial Services Modernization Act and The Commodity Futures Modernization Act to be nanny state legislation, then. Didn't mean to say that, did you? That's what happens when you try to put your simple words in someone else's mouth to replace theirs you can't understand.

TheHeretic -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 4:55:36 PM)
Such lovely, tizzies of denial you throw, Edwynn. Gotta love the insults and affectations of intellectual superiority. Deregulation threw the doors open even wider, but the PEOPLE were crowding to get through them, and until you acknowledge that the blame spreads all over the place, you are just revealing yourself as petty, and small, and as simplistic as your cement truck analogy made you look to begin with. Your posts have provided the answer to the question I asked at the start of the thread, though. You think government's role should be the nanny. Thank you for being as clear as you are capable of. [:)]

Edwynn -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 5:49:44 PM)
I think the government's role is not to be nanny to investment bankers, which is clear to all but yourself. As pointed out, irresponsible potential borrowers have always been there. The post-dereg. offering of no-doc loans is about as much banging of lenders on doors of borrowers as it gets. The readers can see well enough who is in denial here. Carry on.

TheHeretic -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 6:51:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn The readers can see well enough who is in denial here. Yep. Your status as a nanny stater is thoroughly confirmed.

Owner59 -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 10:01:32 PM)
Folks.......this is the breadth and depth of the opposition...... Basically given up on ideas or an argument,fallen into a masturbation game, realone/wilur style...... Like cheating at solitaire or trying to fuck a pillow......pointless and empty.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875