State Of The Union

[VaAugusta]

I was disappointed he didn't list of our enemies and then proceed on how we will deal with them.

[steelish]

I was disappointed he didn't list of our enemies and then proceed on how we will deal with them.

Oh, but he did! (if you are one of those who believe he views the average American citizen as the "enemy")

[SadisticNature]

It's funny how people are quick to call one side a liar over several statements they make and then respond with lies of their own.

As for government control, at least it gives the possibility of selling off assets at a later date. The last thing you want is a country that is trillions of dollars in debt to start giving handouts for private run infrastructure.

I agree that the US education system (K-12) is in shambles and won't be fixed by the Obama bills which also violate the 10th amendment.

I also agree that the US college costs are absurd, and the financing is terrible.

And actually the reason oil is exported in such large countries is that governments have made things called free trade agreements so companies sell wherever they make the most profit. The US government as an organization is not taking oil from the US strategic reserve exporting it to other countries and then buying oil from elsewhere to replenish it. Companies like Exxon are selling oil to the highest bidder, which is often abroad.

As for statewide mass transit its a much harder problem in Canada where provinces are bigger, yet some achievements have been made on that front. The fact is taxpayers are a diverse bunch, I'm sure people who live in downtown cores and don't drive would be willing to express just as much outrage at your idea that their tax dollars should pay for your roads. The fact is taxes come from a diverse group of people with diverse interests, and that diversity means there will be government programs you don't approve of.

As for 'punishing' the banks, it is an established fact that the interest on government loans was well below market value and it is also clearly shown on financial statements for Q3 from major banks that the vast majority of banks relent the money at a sizable profit. Why should the government not charge fees for organizations that exaggerated and caused a crisis, demanded a government bailout, then used it to pad profits. I actually think the government should be looking into criminal charges relating to negligence in causing the recession. I'm fairly sure that many of these companies failed their own risk management checks frequently, and then promptly modified the formulas so they'd pass. Instead of using the academic standard, they are all using variants that don't actually mitigate risk but claim to. If that's not criminal negligence and fraud I don't know what is.

[steelish]

As for statewide mass transit its a much harder problem in Canada where provinces are bigger, yet some achievements have been made on that front. The fact is taxpayers are a diverse bunch, I'm sure people who live in downtown cores and don't drive would be willing to express just as much outrage at your idea that their tax dollars should pay for your roads. The fact is taxes come from a diverse group of people with diverse interests, and that diversity means there will be government programs you don't approve of.

The fact is; Floridians voted on this. It was on a ballot. The citizens of the state voted NO. It was voted down. That is the fact. Now they are going through with it regardless.

Why should the government not charge fees for organizations that exaggerated and caused a crisis, demanded a government bailout, then used it to pad profits.

The banks did exactly what the government REQUIRED them to do...give high risk loans to people the banks knew full well could not afford them. As a result, the housing market crashed and the banks started to fail. They didn't demand a bailout (not all of them, some of them tried to refuse it) and now they're being made out as the bad guy in all this. Mainstream media is not helping to get the facts out there either.

[SadisticNature]

Please feel free to include your evidence on the government requiring the banks to give loans they did not desire to give. My recollection seems to be banks actively lobbying to be able to extend further credit, not complaining about the government forcing them to. See various exemptions that were the result of direct appeals to the Bush administration, most notably Bear Stearns.

[SadisticNature]

Also keep in mind we haven't seen versions of the bills that Obama actually wants to finalize and sign off on. We've seen attempts by the senate and house to put all sorts of special interests through. Maybe Obama will refuse to sign bills that violate certain campaign promises.

[DuncanONeil]

On what subject?

Also keep in mind we haven't seen versions of the bills that Obama actually wants to finalize and sign off on. We've seen attempts by the senate and house to put all sorts of special interests through. Maybe Obama will refuse to sign bills that violate certain campaign promises.

[steelish]

Please feel free to include your evidence on the government requiring the banks to give loans they did not desire to give. My recollection seems to be banks actively lobbying to be able to extend further credit, not complaining about the government forcing them to. See various exemptions that were the result of direct appeals to the Bush administration, most notably Bear Stearns.

I've provided links to the sources:

During the Carter administration, government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.

The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.

All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense. "Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor," the Fed's guidelines instructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare payments and unemployment benefits as "valid income sources" to qualify for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.

As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was good public policy could be sustained. But it didn't take a financial whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. What does it mean when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities? Most likely, that they are knowingly approving risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs . . . When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and regulators plans to take the credit?

Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.

Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train.

[oww-that-hurt]

I am so speechless that I don't know how to say what I want to say.

How can our government blow so much smoke up our ass and tell us it is good for us and not to worry about this near-4 trillion dollar budget?

Obama should be a used-car salesman at 'Slick Sam's' or something, the way he can stand there in a speech and say what he does into the camera as straight-faced as if he were telling us that sunrise will occur at 8:11 AM in Montana tomorrow.

Thanks, guys, for taking your valuable time to write about such important matters.

[SadisticNature]

I've provided links to the sources:

During the Carter administration, government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.

The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.

All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense. "Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor," the Fed's guidelines instructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare payments and unemployment benefits as "valid income sources" to qualify for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.

As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was good public policy could be sustained. But it didn't take a financial whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. What does it mean when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities? Most likely, that they are knowingly approving risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs . . . When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and regulators plans to take the credit?

Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.

Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train.

This is probably the only post in this entire thread that makes a serious attempt to support statements.

[DuncanONeil]

Banks had a procedure of evaluating the risk of loans. They also conducted this assessment along a geographic area. Certain areas were seen to be at a very high level of risk. Hence banks were reluctant to loan into properties in those areas. The process came to have the term redlining attached to it. (Hey maybe we ought to attach that term to FICO scores! Then all of could qualify for loans!) Specific groups attacked this process of the business of banking, to limit its risk, as unfair and biased. One of the lawyers that took this issue to court, just happens to be, The current President of the USA. Anyway Congress became involved, and with court rulings, passed legislation to require banks to eliminate all such analysis and loan no matter the risk to anyone that asked. It took some 30 to 35 years for the result of this Congressional intervention in business to become known. It was clear to everyone by the end of 2008. But by then it had been forgotten was the catalytic event had been. And the banks took the heat for doing what they were told to do.

Please feel free to include your evidence on the government requiring the banks to give loans they did not desire to give. My recollection seems to be banks actively lobbying to be able to extend further credit, not complaining about the government forcing them to. See various exemptions that were the result of direct appeals to the Bush administration, most notably Bear Stearns.

See the above paragraph.

What do you have to say about the Government forcing banks that did not need or want TARP to take the money?

[SadisticNature]

The citizens voted to not do it with state funds. If the federal government is supplying money to do this or no money at all then I'm fairly sure they'd vote for this.

Furthermore its a different story when its part of a national rail plan.

High speed rail exclusive to a small piece of Florida is very different from high speed rail all over the country with a long term plan of connected routes.

[steelish]

The citizens voted to not do it with state funds. If the federal government is supplying money to do this or no money at all then I'm fairly sure they'd vote for this.

They're giving us state funds to get it started, those funds do not include upkeep, building more parking garages, added police to direct traffic during heavy volume, or revamping the roads surrounding the stations.

I scrolled up after posting the above sentence and saw your other responses, including the one about banks. I'll reply after work. I have to leave in less than one minute, otherwise I would reply now. I had a very large post about this very thing (which no one seemed to be able to rebut) but it was wiped out during the big library crash.

[DuncanONeil]

You think this is not going to require state funds?
What rock have you been living under?

The citizens voted to not do it with state funds. If the federal government is supplying money to do this or no money at all then I'm fairly sure they'd vote for this.

Furthermore its a different story when its part of a national rail plan.

High speed rail exclusive to a small piece of Florida is very different from high speed rail all over the country with a long term plan of connected routes.

[DuncanONeil]

It's funny how people are quick to call one side a liar over several statements they make and then respond with lies of their own.

Explain!!!

As for government control, at least it gives the possibility of selling off assets at a later date. The last thing you want is a country that is trillions of dollars in debt to start giving handouts for private run infrastructure.

That is nothing short of nationalization! And what gives rise to the cry of leading us to socialism.

I agree that the US education system (K-12) is in shambles and won't be fixed by the Obama bills which also violate the 10th amendment.

Much of what Obama wants to can be said to viloate that amendment!

I also agree that the US college costs are absurd, and the financing is terrible.

But is more Government handouts the solution. First insurance companies, banks, auto, and now universities???

And actually the reason oil is exported in such large countries is that governments have made things called free trade agreements so companies sell wherever they make the most profit. The US government as an organization is not taking oil from the US strategic reserve exporting it to other countries and then buying oil from elsewhere to replenish it. Companies like Exxon are selling oil to the highest bidder, which is often abroad.

Therefore, by your estimation the US would be exporting every drop of oil it can produce. Well such is not the case. Exports only account for about 12.5% of production!

As for statewide mass transit its a much harder problem in Canada where provinces are bigger, yet some achievements have been made on that front. The fact is taxpayers are a diverse bunch, I'm sure people who live in downtown cores and don't drive would be willing to express just as much outrage at your idea that their tax dollars should pay for your roads. The fact is taxes come from a diverse group of people with diverse interests, and that diversity means there will be government programs you don't approve of.

Does not address the question raised. By this argument nobody should give a rats ... and let NAMBLA do as it sees fit!

As for 'punishing' the banks, it is an established fact that the interest on government loans was well below market value and it is also clearly shown on financial statements for Q3 from major banks that the vast majority of banks relent the money at a sizable profit. Why should the government not charge fees for organizations that exaggerated and caused a crisis, demanded a government bailout, then used it to pad profits. I actually think the government should be looking into criminal charges relating to negligence in causing the recession. I'm fairly sure that many of these companies failed their own risk management checks frequently, and then promptly modified the formulas so they'd pass. Instead of using the academic standard, they are all using variants that don't actually mitigate risk but claim to. If that's not criminal negligence and fraud I don't know what is.

Most all of the banks have already paid back the Government for the monies, that many were forced to take and pay for the privilege. A fee is to be assessed to the banks on top of this to recover funds that other entities are not paying, and likely never will. This is a punishment. There is adequate evidence that the entity that caused the "crisis" was in fact Congress. Therefore all the remedies you espouse are do to Congress more than the banks. Kind of hard to stay within a risk management level when the Government demands that you engage in activities that such programs were say are ill considered.

[SadisticNature]

I don't see how exporting 12.5% means that I'm wrong about this. Most of the time the most profitable contract will be in the US because the transport costs are far lower. Also markets fluctuate wildly, so sometimes it will be profitable to sell abroad.

Nothing I said earlier says that the US would sell every drop of oil abroad, just that they are allowed to under free trade agreements, and thus will when they have the economic incentive to do so.

I'm frequently responding to arguments on this board of the form "As a taxpayer I believe X therefore the government should support X." yet when I point out that there are also taxpayers who believe the opposite of X you dismiss it as irrelevant. My argument is not that the government should support X or the opposite, its rather that if you want to argue the government has an obligation to support only services a particular taxpayer is willing to pay for then the government can't provide any services at all because for every service there exists a taxpayer who wouldn't want to pay for it. Some criminals pay taxes (they don't want to go down like Capone did), I'm sure they'd be happy if every level of government spent $0 on police. Similarly for arsonists and fire departments, etc..

As for reading of various national documents, people can't even agree on what those are or what mandates they provide.

For instance, I don't see how any US document gives the federal government a mandate to occupy a foreign country after already having declared victory in the war for which those troops were present.

If an American citizen has an entitlement to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, does the entitlement to life include medically necessary care? If so, since the government is responsible for providing said right, are they responsible for compensating the health care providers for it?

What does a right of freedom of speech even mean for Americans? You live in a country where the chief justice of the supreme court sent war protesters to jail for protesting a war with the oft quoted line "Freedom of speech does not give one the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre." yet freedom of speech supports KKK marches. You live in a country where leftist discussions lead to the McCarthy witch hunts and the shameful trial of Oppenheimer under the Eisenhower administration, yet freedom of speech supports neo-nazi demonstrations. It seems to me your governments and courts have a long history of acting in violation of the rights afforded to you by your fancy paper documents.

[DuncanONeil]

Your knee jerk response was that, of course our oil gets sold overseas. The evil oil company wants to make as much money as possible. By implication that would mean all of it!
Now to try and lay off that because of transportation. Sorry but all they would have to do is to sell the oil FOB origin. Then the transportation does not matter.
Free trade has little to do with but to seriously refute would take more time than this site will allow for a response.

I don't see how exporting 12.5% means that I'm wrong about this. Most of the time the most profitable contract will be in the US because the transport costs are far lower. Also markets fluctuate wildly, so sometimes it will be profitable to sell abroad.

Nothing I said earlier says that the US would sell every drop of oil abroad, just that they are allowed to under free trade agreements, and thus will when they have the economic incentive to do so.

I'm frequently responding to arguments on this board of the form "As a taxpayer I believe X therefore the government should support X." yet when I point out that there are also taxpayers who believe the opposite of X you dismiss it as irrelevant. My argument is not that the government should support X or the opposite, its rather that if you want to argue the government has an obligation to support only services a particular taxpayer is willing to pay for then the government can't provide any services at all because for every service there exists a taxpayer who wouldn't want to pay for it. Some criminals pay taxes (they don't want to go down like Capone did), I'm sure they'd be happy if every level of government spent $0 on police. Similarly for arsonists and fire departments, etc..

What has this got to do with oil??

As for reading of various national documents, people can't even agree on what those are or what mandates they provide.

I thought this was a response to a discussion on oil? What documents are you talking about?

For instance, I don't see how any US document gives the federal government a mandate to occupy a foreign country after already having declared victory in the war for which those troops were present.

Care to be a little more specific? Or is this just intended as filler or just a snide remark?

If an American citizen has an entitlement to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, does the entitlement to life include medically necessary care? If so, since the government is responsible for providing said right, are they responsible for compensating the health care providers for it?

No one in the US is denied medically necessary care! And those that receive it are not funded by the Government

What does a right of freedom of speech even mean for Americans? You live in a country where the chief justice of the supreme court sent war protesters to jail for protesting a war with the oft quoted line "Freedom of speech does not give one the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre." yet freedom of speech supports KKK marches. You live in a country where leftist discussions lead to the McCarthy witch hunts and the shameful trial of Oppenheimer under the Eisenhower administration, yet freedom of speech supports neo-nazi demonstrations. It seems to me your governments and courts have a long history of acting in violation of the rights afforded to you by your fancy paper documents.

Based on this comment you would fit in quite well at the ACLU. First of all the Supreme Court sends no one to jail! And you provide, again, no specifics for analysis. Then there is the propensity to through up past history as if it was headlines in yesterdays daily paper!

[SadisticNature]

Your knee jerk response was that, of course our oil gets sold overseas. The evil oil company wants to make as much money as possible. By implication that would mean all of it!
Now to try and lay off that because of transportation. Sorry but all they would have to do is to sell the oil FOB origin. Then the transportation does not matter.
Free trade has little to do with but to seriously refute would take more time than this site will allow for a response.





What has this got to do with oil??



I thought this was a response to a discussion on oil? What documents are you talking about?



Care to be a little more specific? Or is this just intended as filler or just a snide remark?



No one in the US is denied medically necessary care! And those that receive it are not funded by the Government



Based on this comment you would fit in quite well at the ACLU. First of all the Supreme Court sends no one to jail! And you provide, again, no specifics for analysis. Then there is the propensity to through up past history as if it was headlines in yesterdays daily paper!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

The supreme court rules on the constitutionality of a criminal conviction. By upholding it as constitutional they send someone to jail. So you are wrong. History informs the future. Your fundamental argument in this thread is that historic documents should be used with historic interpretations to limit the mandate of government, yet when someone presents history you don't like you attempt to shut it down by being irrelevant due to being not current. It would be equally ridiculous for me to tell you to stop quoting some document from the 18th century in a thread about the 21st.