On Monday, August 19, 2013 6:16:06 AM UTC-7, email@example.com wrote:
Classic un-Constitutional argument for vouchers.
Classic attack on the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Instead of fixing the public schools -- which is happening in some jurisdic
tions, but not nearly fast enough -- throw them completely into the trash.
Effect: relegate the disadvantaged to an even worse "education" than they r
eceive now -- while the more affluent get the goodies.
This country was founded on separation of Church and State, Vouchers are a
n excuse for sending your children to a religious school where they can be
inculcated in whatever belief system you subscribe to.
Which sometimes, disastrously, means not only failing to teach critical th
inking, but actively suppressing the child's ability to think, analyze, spe
culate, IOW, use his/her God-given brains.
Which in turn too often means that the child grows up to be a bigoted adult
who participates in society only from an ignorant, blinkered perspective.
Keep public schools secular. Parents have plenty of ways to influence thei
r children in their choice of belief systems (religions). Houses of worshi
p. Books. Parochial institutions. And on and on.
Instead of being grateful that America is a country where you can practice
your religion freely because nobody can tell you what to think/believe, som
e misguided people want to junk our treasures and turn us into a theocracy.
For just one (citing only the Islamists* because their theocracies are such
a current world menace)-- try doing some research into what the Islamist s
chools, religious leaders, and politicians ARE TEACHING THEIR CHILDREN. E
asily acccessible on-line. Unbelievably horrifying.
Is that what you want your children to become?
Schools must be kept secular. Respect the Constitution. Instead of workin
g to turn America into a theocracy, use some of your passion to IMPROVE THE
PUBLIC SCHOOLS! Every child, rich or poor, is entitled to the best.
*Islamists are the extremists; ordinary Muslims just do their own thing wit
hout attacking others).
actually it's the conservatives that are afraid that in giving the
masses a better education might give them the idea that such things as
early voting are good ideas, or that they might not approve the regional
the real flaw with vouchers is that it's just another method of
funneling more money to the wealthy and still keeping the masses
uneducated: how long before the free market raises the price of
admission and the "rich" that could always afford it just chuck in the
difference while the "masses" are still stuck where they've always been
I mean, in that particular free market just what are the forces that
would tend to lower the cost of admission?
Clearly a load of nonsense. Just look at which groups are on which side of the issue: who is
it that wants to keep low-income children trapped in failing public school systems, and who
is that want to give them a way out?
Hint: it's not the conservatives who are trying to keep these kids from getting a decent
that's just their "public" persona. why educate the masses that you need
to provide labor for your oligarchy? not to mention all the money they
make from building sub-standard schools, publishing text-books and
selling all those school supplies
Government represents all the people. Prayer at government places is almost
invariably Christian; oh, they might toss in a rabbi once in a while,
depending on the location but at best it is Judeo-Christian.
What of the atheists like me? What of the agnostics like my wife (she is
really an atheist, just too chicken to say so)? Where are the Buddhist
prayer wheels? And the animists? Who speaks for them? What of Madam Pele?
I don't see those government folks sacrificing a bottle of gin for her (not
in public at least) or even sticking a ti leaf under a rock.
That's because they are non-profit, spending what they get for the public
good. As far as churches being non-profit, that's fine with me as long as
they also spend it for the public good regardless of affiliation of the
beneficiaries; anything else other than donations, tax the suckers!
Fortunately. But there are many that would disagree with you, they consider
it to be a Christian nation. Under god, yet.
My general thoughts...
1. They stretched things more than a rubber band, e.g., "2) the vouchers
were given to the parents"; they didn't think that the money was eventually
going to wind up with a school?? They could skip a school and opt for a new
2. Just more affirmative action (of which I also don't approve)..."providing
educational assistance to poor children in a demonstrably failing public
3. Although they said, "4) parents who received vouchers were not required
to enroll in a religious-based school", better than 90% did. If it walks
like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Dozens of wrongs don't make a right. BTW, what are you doing that so
severly screws up word wrap?
I saw nothing that even *hinted* at that.
It seems I have been misinformed. I thought it was the conservative
republicans that were rich.
Of course they have a choice; all they have to do is pony up the tuition.
Ditto the poor white families.
Umm, because they are PUBLIC?
Better to fix the schools that need fixing. Not all that hard...teachers
that can teach, kids that want to learn.
No it isn't But the net result is that government IS subsidising religion.
most states aren't? so you think California is the only state that is
piled trader4 in debt? LOL
but then look at all the others that didn't
It's not that CA has
I'm telly you very s-l-o-w-l-y that after going to doctors one after the
other and you decide to do something about your overweight problem, I
wouldn't accept a 9 month old analysis without checking the batteries in
California is not now or has it ever been bankrupt. Your premise is
wrong, your info is wrong, you are wrong
I don't care a rats ass about how much money you have, why should I?
As for children growing up with substandard education,
that's right you want government money given to the untermenschen so
they can watch the TV ads with the beautiful people extolling the
virtues of "that" school so that they will send their (money and)
children to schools that are coincidentally non-standardized and
On Monday, August 19, 2013 8:08:51 PM UTC-4, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:
So, because some other states are too, it makes CA OK?
NJ has too much debt, for many of the same reasons as
California. What does that change?
More failed logic. Because someone was able to buy a $2mil
house on a $100K salary, pile up $100K in credit card debt,
etc and not go bankrupt, it makes it a safe, sound strategy?
Village idiot. I gave you link after link from credible
sources that say CA is indeed in serious financial trouble,
with massive unfunded liabilities. Your response is that
because the stories are a few months old, they aren't relevant.
I never said that CA is or was bankrupt. Stop lying and using strawmen.
wrote: > > More failed logic. Because someone was able to buy a $2mil
"Was able" is an interesting shift of liability. Who "enabled" people to
buy houses way beyond their means? Who stopped placing sensible
restrictions on who could get a mortgage? Banks were falling all over
themselves to write zero down loans. They did it because they felt they had
to stay competitive and because they knew they would sell off that mortgage
(and its inherent risk of failure) within months to people that believed the
market could only go up. Of course, the rating agencies were labeling these
badly secured mortgages as AAA instruments, furthering the fraud. The
mortgages were tightly bundled into inseparable units to further conceal the
Where does the true "due diligence" requirement of lending money rest? I
believe it's with the banks who were handing out (depositor's - not even
their own!) money. In many states, the borrowers are off the hook if they
relinquish financial interest in the mortgaged property - a contractually
agreed to event with no moral "good or badness" involved.
There wasn't an army of evil natured borrowers conspiring to rip off the
poor big dumb generous banks. Banks were all too happy to give anyone a
loan because if and when it soured, it would be on somebody else's books and
they would have captured huge fees from both the buyer of the house and the
buyer of the mortgage-backed security. These were huge banks that some
allege were *forced* by fear of the Feds (ha! - try greed) to write loans
requiring no cash up front to people unqualified to get them. When enough
zero down loans soured and the market became saturated with repossessions,
the bottom fell out and the financial dominos began to topple.
Good lenders don't write zero down loans because of the increased risk. You
may have noticed that the "zero down" car loans are back. Not much was
learned from the 2008 meltdown. )-"
Several things contributed to the runaway real estate market, but
securitization was the engine driving most of the trouble. Banks were
packaging and selling those loans in the equivalent of sealed barrels. The
rating agencies swore that those bundled mortgages were AAA prime
investments (they weren't!) and they helped fuel the hunger for what turned
out to be a lot of junk debt.
Banks could afford to write risky loans because they held that risk for a
very short time. In their frenzy to cash in on the real estate spec frenzy
they went from requiring 20% down payments, having verified jobs, tangible
income and assets to simply checking for a pulse. Who's to blame for that
decision? The people who lined up for "free" money or the idiots that were
giving it away?
There's been a big (fraudulent) push to lay the crisis at the feet of
borrowers who signed up for zero down loans. "Zero down loans" = "no skin
in the game" = "very bad idea." It always worried me that the supposedly
more financial astute conservatives were unable or unwilling to acknowledge
that zero down home loans in the midst of a spec frenzy were a very bad idea
on the part of the banks. All they did was to fuel the speculative market
and that eventually got us to the 2008 crash.
The Fed's easy money policy had a lot to do with it, too. Economic numbers
look great - for a while - when money's so cheap you can borrow it for
almost any cockamamie reason. But eventually, the piper must be paid.
<<Bass testified to the FCIC in January 2010 that TBTF banks' leverage at
the end of 2007 - yes end of 2007 (see page 13) shows almost all TBTF Banks
were over 30 times, Citigroup at 68 times leverage; meant an adverse swing
(in the value of the underlying collateral or obligations) of as little as
1.5% wiped them out completely - insolvent>>
So when people complain about home owners living above their means, they
should reflect on banks like Citigroup, buying $68 worth of property or
securities for every dollar spent. Works great until the bottom falls out
of the market and you have to pay off on the VERY big bad bet. The big
investment banks had that contingency "hedged" as well. They would claim
the entire financial sector would collapse unless they got a HUGE government
bailout. It's important for hard-over partisans to remember that both Bush
and Obama were happy to oblige them.
Meanwhile, the poor working couple trying to buy their first house got
priced right out of the market by the rampant speculators. Where did those
speculators get all their money from? A lot of it came from the Bush tax
cuts. Seems the ultra-rich didn't go out and create jobs with that
newly-found money after all. They tried to make a killing in
mortgage-backed securities. In the long run that "tax cut" money actually
helped to destroy jobs when the house of cards fell apart. When someone's
making a "killing" that means someone else is getting "killed" - the Bush
tax cuts ended up "killing" the middle class by making them poorer and the
ultra-rich much richer.
Simple inspection reveals that some of the best numbers the economy has ever
turned in occurred during times of high corporate and personal taxes.
Was there ever a true 0% interest car loan? In the case of a house, the
proceeds go to the owner and the bank is on the hook. In the case of a
car loan, they are shifting money internally so it is easy to offer a
minus % loan on paper. I'm pretty sure they are not taking a bath on
the new car sale.
but in the last kerfuffle, the bank wasn't on the hook. they either
loaned other banks money to the buyer in the form of a mortgage they
serviced, or they bundled tens/hundreds of mortgages and sold them as
In the case of a
On Friday, August 23, 2013 10:28:49 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
More leftist nonsense. There is still some freedom left in this
country, despite what you libs have done. You're able to jump
off a cliff with a hang glider, or even without one, if you want to.
You're able to go 30 miles out into the Alaskan wilderness in winter in
shorts and a tee shirt. That you're enabled to do things doesn't
mean it's OK to do them.
Who stopped placing sensible
For sure some of it was fraud. Some of it was monkey see, monkey do.
Housing had always gone up and the corrections for a very long time
had been modest. A lot of people from individuals to banks, rating
agencies, regulators were lured into complacency.
Now there I disagree. Mortgages have to be bundled to make them
marketable. An institution buying them wants to buy $20 mil or
$100 mil worth of mortgages. They don't want to buy one or two
on grannies farm.
It starts with the lender and yes, most of it belongs there. But it also extends to the institutions that rated the bundled mortgages and to the buyers of those bundled securities. Also throw in the appraisers.
>In many states, the borrowers are off the hook if they
I'd like to see some examples of that, ie where a borrower is off
the hook by state law by just walking away.
But as to the no moral good or badness involved, that is
precisely what you libs want. It's precisely where you're taking
An army no, but there were plenty of people out there that figured heads
I win, tails the bank loses and I don't care.
Huge fees? I wouldn't call them huge. They were the typical
normal profits that lenders get from such transactions.
These were huge banks that some
You do if the CRA and regulators say by law you have to make
them. Now, I'm not saying that was the sole reason for the problems,
but it was clearly one of the reasons.
Nothing wrong with that. And these mortgages have been packaged and bought
for decades. What do you think Fannie and Freddie, both created by
the fed govt have been doing?
It wasn't anything new specific to these loans. Most banks haven't been
holding on to the mortgages they wrote for a long time. And lenders
are not limited to banks.
Both. Because it wasn't free money that was being given away.
People were buying houses and agreeing to make the mortgage payments.
I don't know who the astute conservatives are that are refusing
to acknowledge that zero down loans are a risky idea. I agree
they helped fuel the speculative trouble.
And the Fed has gotten almost zero of the blame. I've said that
here a long time. That the Fed deserves a lot of the blame.
The low interest rates were justified in terms of performance of
the overall economy and inflation. I think it was you who was
just trying to blame Bush for having a terrible job creation
record. While I don't agree that it was terrible, (unemployment
was at 4.6%), you can't have it both ways. What do you think
would have happened to jobs if the FED raised interest rates?
But at the same time the FED has buildings full on analysts that
are tracking all kinds of economic statistics. They had to have
known how real estate had doubled or more in price in many major
markets in a short time. That is a classic sign of trouble brewing.
They could have sounded an alarm, gone to bank regulators to
see what the risk was, etc. No sign they did anything. Neither
did any of the fed or state bank regulators either.
Same thing the FED did with the stock market bubble in 1999 -2000.
Even a fool could see what was happening, but besides Greenspans
mentioning "irrational exuberance", they did nothing. And there
they had a direct too, the margin reqt for buying stocks, which
they could have raised.
And where were all those bank regulators while this was happening?
Where was Barney Frank, chair of the House Financial Services Committee,
who pronounced Fannie and Freddie sound just weeks before they went kaput? Where were the other members of that committee? Anyone in the entire
House or Senate? The WH?
Who exactly is complaining about homeowner's living beyond their
means causing the crisis and not also assigning blame to all the
other players? I've said many times here that there is a long list
of people who are responsible, not just the homeowners who bought
houses they couldn't afford.
I see, so then explain the stock market bubble under Clinton with
his higher income tax rates. I suppose that is Bush's fault too.
And ignore the fact that the US govt has heavily subsidized
housing for a long time. Subsidized it under with huge support
by both Democrats and Republicans. As I pointed out before,
earn $150,000 in a job, hand over 30% of it. Start a small business,
earn $150,000, hand over 30% of it. But buy a house on zero down,
live in it for 3 years or at least claim you did, sell it for
a $150K profit and voila!, it's tax free. And along the way,
you can deduct all the mortgage interest and the real estate taxes
from your income. Then you're surprised when people do what
the govt is incentivizing them to do?
Seems the ultra-rich didn't go out and create jobs with that
Oh please. Bush gave tax cuts to almost everyone paying taxes.
For the lower income, many wound up paying no income tax at all.
You make it sound like the ultra-rich took that tax cut and
used it all, most of it, a lot of it, to buy junk mortgages.
There is no evidence of that at all. Those mortgage securities
were sold mostly to institutions and all over the world.
But it's typical lib lunacy to try to ascribe everything bad
that happens to people being allowed to keep a little more of
their own money.
In the long run that "tax cut" money actually
There you go again. If you're lib feet smell, you'd try
to blame that on the Bush tax cuts too.
And there you have it folks. The classic lib lunacy and outright lie.
That it's a zero sum game. That if one person is getting ahead, then
it's because someone else is falling behind and they are screwing them.
The Bush tax cuts didn't make the middle class poorer, the
middle class got tax cuts!
Try taking a course in economics.
Great idea. We'll just tax our way to prosperity! Another lib classic!
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.