Are you denying that predatory lending practices caused the housing bubble and subsequent burst?

I'm not speaking for Stan, but those predatory lending practices were fueled and ignited bv the Federal Government, demanding that banks lend to non-credit worthy applicants.  In fact, those lenders were punished by denial of access to the (borrowing) window at the Fed if they refused.  But in order to make it palatable for them, they were promised that they would face no risk because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would buy all their junk mortgages and the government would in effect guarantee their profit.

With such a setup, who wouldn't go out and make as many stupid loans as possible?  They get punished if they don't and rewarded if they do.  That was probably one of the most effective Government programs ever, and look what it caused.

free is good.

But is the paid software better?  In the thread on US manufacturing, several people said they would prefer to pay more for higher quality.  Is that just bravado and bs?
Besides, I believe Levelwing offered to pay for it for us freeloaders, so it would be free for us.

But I didn't answer the poll because I really have no knowledge of the differences in the sw packages.  But I would be willing to chip in if we decided to buy something that would make it better, and easier to manage.

A big fat Thanks to Levelwing and Pilotspin admin!

snip
. . . the debates (from the soundbites I have seen) have been useless for determining anything of value . . .

'Gimp

The debates were worse than that.  Even when the candidates records or positions were practically identical, they were put into a position where they had to greatly amplify any tiny little differences in order to try to distinguish themselves.  This lead to greatly criticizing each other for their minor differences and the "circular firing squad" was the inevitable result.

In case some of you have been sleeping, and it does appear that way, there is no conservative movement remaining.  The true conservatives (whatever that definition is this week) are a minority, and a small one at that.

Those that define themselves as "True" Conservatives are indeed a minority.  They are the ones that have a moral opinion and believe that everyone should bow to their opinions.  They would rather get nothing than to compromise and get something.

But there are a lot of us "Mostly" Conservatives.  We (actually, I'm speaking for myself here) believe in conservative government spending, but we also believe in providing a safety net for the sick, the injured and the unfortunate.  That does not include the lazy or those that choose not to be a productive citizen.

We believe that it is better to compromise so that both sides get something (win-win) rather than to stand firm, like a mule so that both sides lose.

We don't think the USA should be the world's police, but we do believe in helping people that need help.  That includes victims of groups like ISIS and Boko Haram.

We think that the US should maintain a standing army that can defend us against all aggressors. 

We do believe in American exceptionalism.  We are fortunate to live in a vast country with vast natural resources, and we have a Constitution that allows our citizens to display that exceptionalism.

And we do believe in the Constitution.  It is not a "living breathing evolving" document, but parts of it were written somewhat vague on purpose.  And even where the document is specific, it was often the result of a compromise.  The founders didn't all agree on every part of it.  They realized that if they didn't make some compromises, they would never produce a final copy.

We do believe that the Federal Government has certain responsibilities, but we believe that the Federal Government has usurped more responsibility and power than was intended, or that is productive.  The Federal government has become a behemoth that is holding us back more than it is helping.

And we believe in paying taxes.  But we believe that the TEA party was just a little mistaken.  We are not "taxed enough already"; we are taxed (at the Federal Level) way too much.  We should cut our Federal taxes deeply, but expect that our State and Local taxes may increase (if the States and Cities decide that is what they want).  If my State or City becomes to burdensome, then I can move and still stay in this great country.

And finally, we also believe that we need laws and regulations.  But we need them to keep some people from preying on other people.  We don't need regulations to try to manage our every day living and our every day business practices.

Call me a RINO if you wish.  I call myself a Republican because the choices are limited.  But I don't think that you have to agree with every plank in the Republican party  to be a part of the party.  That is why "True Conservatives" appear to be such a tiny minority.

Isolationism never works. Oh yeah, when was the last time there was a war, a conflict, or a suicide attack in Switzerland?? A thousand years ago or something?

Switzerland is an interesting example.  They have a very fine defensive military.  All young men are required to serve.  Women are permitted to volunteer for any position.  One reason they have never been attacked is they have very mountainous borders that are custom made for the many anti tank ditches they build. 

Since all young men are required to serve in the military, and all military personnel are required to keep their guns at home, Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world.  And when they exit the service, they are able to get a permit to keep their weapon.  But they do have to buy their own ammunition.

But you are correct that their non-interventionist philosophy is one reason they have not been attacked, along with the fact that they would be a formidable target.  Today's air power could change that, but their extremely business friendly environment with low taxes ensures that Countries that have the ability to attack by air also have huge corporations doing business there and have no reason to attack.

Low taxes; business friendly; extensively armed civilians; what's not to love.  And a dangerous place to attack; even by terrorists.

That was a good example you chose.  I mean that, but for a different reason that you may have intended.

I might agree with a few things she says.  Like "Racism is learned"  Racism is taught to children.

But I"m not so sure I agree with her conclusions of WHO is doing the teaching, or how to cure racism.

Racism is taught to children by their parents, the media, their friends and by experience.

Feel to chime in here on my opinions, but I think racism being taught to children by parents is on a "uuuuuuuuge" decline.
Likewise with regards to friends.  It is just not as acceptable as it used to be.  A mixed couple can walk down the street hand-in-hand today and it has minuscule response as compared to a generation or two ago.

I think today's racism is learned primarily from the news media, social media and personal experience.

And at the risk of "blaming the victim" here, I believe black people have to take the lead in reducing teaching racism by example.  For one thing, racism doesn't negatively affect me as much as it affects blacks, so I (speaking generically for white people) don't have the same motivation to end racism as black people do (or should).

Jaybird, as much as I respect and admire you, I think your constant rants about racism has a reverse effect.  You put those of us that genuinely want to do our part to help on the defensive.  You make us want to point out how you are wrong.  And once people take sides, it only gets worse.

Here is my advice to you and all blacks, and you can take it for what it is worth and reject it if you wish, but I think you would be much better served to point out the good things you do.  Black history month may be a good start, but again, it puts white kids on the defensive and it tries to draw distinctions.  Instead, point out the good things you do and see.  You seem to be successful.  Expand more on that.  Tell us about how you and other blacks succeeded in the face of diversity instead of drilling home how your (the generic black person) failures are someone else's (my) fault.

Tell us about success stories so that we see that success is a black goal, just like it is a white goal.

I admit that I am surprised when I walk into a meeting with a bunch of experts, and see that some of them are black.  Is that racist of me  Maybe, but I am genuinely happy to see that, even if I am surprised.  Conversely, I am not surprised when I see a news story about a rape or murder and see that the perp is black.  I am saddened, but not surprised.  Is that racist of me?  If so, how do we change that?  Do we stop reporting black crime?  Newspapers already tend to leave out the race if the perp is black, but race is in the first sentence if the perp is white.  Maybe if crime was condoned and tolerated less by the black neighborhoods there would be less black crime to report.  Perhaps if entire neighborhoods would not clam up when police are looking for suspects the image of condoning and tolerating crime by blacks would be reduced, thereby reducing the teaching of racism by example.

Just a few thoughts.   Curing racism is going to take effort by everyone.  But not everyone feels that have a dog in the fight.  Those of us that feel motivated to help need to go out of the way to reduce the teaching of racism by example.


Just my two cents worth.

I moved about 5 miles away to a new house.  Same City, Same Zip.
I changed my address with credit cards, driver's license, auto registration, magazines, FAA, health insurance . . .

It was that last one that pissed me off.  It wasn't my insurance company, but they said I also had to change my address with the Market Place. 

I always hate using that web site so I decided to call them  I was on hold for around 4 minutes, and the entire call took around 18 minutes (the iphone reports total time).  Just to change my address they had to ask a million questions, including whether I was currently incarcerated, of any anyone in my family was incarcerated.  I had to listen to several very long disclaimers about how it is a Federal crime to use the system fraudulently and I had to agree each time.  They had to verify that my name is the same as on my SS card (which I haven't seen in 30 years).  The questions just went on and on.

We paid some telephone operator a quarter of an hour pay to change one address.  That might only be a few bucks, but how many times a day does that get repeated.  And why do they need to know if I am in jail in order to change my address?

You seemed to be delineating a difference between SS and what you are calling welfare by suggesting you are entitled to your SS because you "paid in", but folks getting welfare are just taking charity. It is wrong to pretend SS isn't welfare. It is. It is also wrong to suggest that everyone on welfare is taking "charity" and giving nothing back. In point of fact, huge numbers of people on assistance are working and paying taxes just like everyone else. That was the point of my response.

I understood the point of your response.  You apparently completely misunderstood the point of my post.

I had money deducted from my paycheck for nearly 50 years for something called the "Federal Insurance Contribution Act".  For all that time the promise was that upon reaching a certain age, I would be paid an amount based on my contributions.

THAT is NOT charity.  No way; no how.  Do you consider it charity if your house burns down and your insurance policy pays you to rebuild it?  NO.  How about if you have no insurance and your house burns down and the neighbors chip in to give you money and a place to live?  THAT is charity.

And I repeat; charity is not a bad thing.  The only bad thing is the way the government administers it.

When people accept money or assistance for no reason other than they NEED it, THAT is charity.
Nowhere did I say that nobody on assistance is working or paying taxes.  You invented that.  But to me, that is irrelevant.  If they are taking money from the general fund base strictly on their need, that is charity.

I don't even call unemployment benefits charity because that is funded by a specific tax, even though that tax is paid for by the employer, or even if I think the system is predictably abused.  If you tell people that you will pay them if they don't find a job, guess what; they won't try so hard to find a job.