OT - Worth a read ... then cry.

[Swingman]

[Leon]

Sounds like what you and I were talking about last night. The majority of our population has become too stupid to know any better and one party is dependent on that stupidity for it's voter base. The other party is headed in the same direction. Let any one vote, especially those that simply exist, don't contribute their share, no longer have or never have had any thing to loose, and of course let's not leave out non-citizens. The type of person that wants the government to provide more and more financial help to their kind.

These type of people have finally become the majority in our government. They are neither wise, ethical, or capable of following through with commitment, they are simply influential with false hope and promises aimed at the gullible.

[notbob]

I ran across this from another source. It's a grim indictment of how low our greedy system has sunk, the end result of how deregulation, started in the sainted Reagan years, has corrupted our govt almost beyond salvation. Our system is a two party system in name only, the corruption and greed no longer recognizing any party boundries. It's been going on since the savings and loan debacle and shows no signs of letting up. Will Obama do anything? Apparently yes.... sell out our economic future even faster than the last dirtbag. With any luck, I'll die of old age before the US becomes the next UK, a sad forgotten footnote in history.

nb

[Han]

notbob wrote in news:2a8xl.71074$ [e-mail]:

This is where the left and right could get together easily. Get rid of nonsensical regulations, but really, really punish wrongdoers.

little beef: My lab is near one nd of a corridor of maybe 100 feet. There are labs at both ends of the corridor, but most at the end where I am. The building dates from the early 50's. There is 1 (ONE) emergency shower on the corridor. Yesterday 2 people came by to inquire about that (they knew or should have known that there was only one). In the 30 odd years I have been there the shower has never been used (thank god) or even tested. Now there would have to be more showers? When we are not working with flammable solvents anymore?

[Ed Pawlowski]

At 63, I was pretty sure I would. My guess was 30 to 50 years for China to take over. Now, I think it can happen in the next few years if we are not very careful.

[PHT]

think of what is best for America. They are driven by who will contribute the most to their campaigns to keep them in office. I believe that most, if not all, who run for office, only do so because it will led to a greater financial gain for themselves.

As far as the American people go, it is my belief that most have been so brainwashed that they believe that they have to put up with anything that the government throws at them. A good example is at the airports with the security demands. I, myself, no longer fly, unless I am traveling overseas. Here is the U.S. I drive or take a bus or train. I guess you could say that is my method of stating my opposition to the airport security. I do wish that the people would stand up and say "that is enough". But, I know that is never going to happen.

Paul T.

[notbob]

Agreed, Ed. It's jes pathetic. I'm sitting here with mom watching another red herring half century old tv rendition of the attack on Pearl Harbor while our country devolves into chaos. HELLO!! The robber barons are back. How long before we wake up? What's the adage?: those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. The "babyboom" generation has the memory of a 60s drug hippie.

nb

[notbob]

I wanna say, "DUH", for your stating the obvious, but I guess I shouldn't make dispariging comments about someone I agree with. Well said, PHT.

Again, agreed. I'm a major rail fan. I took a plane about 3 yrs ago. What a freak'n nightmare. Not the security, which was trivial, but the insane accomadations! A one and a half hour flight of contemplating my kneecaps was an unacceptable nightmare compared to the return 40 hr train trip back to my org desto. Another example of deregulation.

nb

[Leon]

Unfortunately with the dumb down society that is coming on strong there probably will be a need for more showers.

[PDQ]

government.=20

A direct quote from the editorial is quite revealing as to the honour = among the congress and/or senate:

"In 1997 and 1998, the years leading up to the passage of Phil Gramm's = fateful act that gutted Glass-Steagall, the banking, brokerage and = insurance industries spent $350 million on political contributions and = lobbying. Gramm alone - then the chairman of the Senate Banking = Committee - collected $2.6 million in only five years. The law passed =

90-8 in the Senate, with the support of 38 Democrats, including some = names that might surprise you: Joe Biden, John Kerry, Tom Daschle, Dick = Durbin, even John Edwards."

Is it not amazing just how many of the NOT I crowd are included. Just = note how much Gramm got for what he did. A serious look into the = passage of this bill will result in noting the bill actually passed =

54-44.

P D Q

[Mark & Juanita]

Don't forget that one of the parties is big on letting those who don't exist, or no longer exist vote as well.

Early in the Republic, one had to be a landowner or businessman to vote. That's not a bad idea when you look at where we have gone since the idea that everyone over 18 who can fog a mirror (above mentioned Dem voters exempted) can and should vote. If they can't get to the polls, a bus and a pack of cigarettes will be provided

[Mark & Juanita]

Wow, past the "It's all Bush's fault" to "It's all Reagan's fault" now? Unfortunately, the fact is that Reagan's comment about the government being the problem and not the solution is even more true now than it was in his day. Were it not for all the congresscritters and their minions in Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and using the CRA to assert that "everybody deserves a house", the present mess would not be what it is.

[HeyBub]

Uh, sorry. The current mess was created, not by under-regulation - or even over-regulation - but by the wrong regulations. The Community Development Act of 1977 was tweaked by the Clinton administration in 1995 to REQUIRE banks and lending institutions to serve "disadvantaged markets." The only way to do that was to make loans that violated every sound lending principle.

This worked as long as there was a strong housing market. When the five-year balloon payment came due, people living in a $250,000 house and making payments of $300/month simply re-financed their home that had almost doubled in value in the intervening five years.

This Ponzi scheme collapsed when anybody who could take two consecutive breaths had a house.

You think I jest about serving disadvantaged communities? Drive through the worst part of your town. The only retail establishments you'll see are hookers and a branch of Washinton Mutual or Wells Fargo. Do you think Bank of America actually wants a branch where the only thing in the night depository is urine?

[Robatoy]

A 'pivotal moment' when all things still had a chance to be kept under control happened here: (from the article)

"So the top five investment banks got together on April 28th of that year and =97 with the helpful assistance of then-Goldman Sachs chief and future Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson =97 made a pitch to George Bush's SEC chief at the time, William Donaldson, himself a former investment banker. The banks generously volunteered to submit to new rules restricting them from engaging in excessively risky activity. In exchange, they asked to be released from any lending restrictions."

The rest is history.

[Martin H. Eastburn]

We had one in the middle of a wall that had Electronic machines - e.g. like computers that would the array be larger than most homes.

High current power mains all over the place and a shower head and eye wash right there.

The company put it there and not in the coffee room within 20 feet.

The rationale was if it was needed - who cares if someone had to clean up.

There were soldering stations and chemical use on the floor.

Sometimes it is the hair spray in the eyes that can cause someone to fall down stairs....

Mart> notbob wrote in

[notbob]

Comments are not the same as policy.

nb

[notbob]

Yer point being?

Yer point being?

nb

[Mark & Juanita]

You seem to be a smart person. Perhaps you can extrapolate what happens when many banks make many loans to large numbers of people who will not, under any reasonable circumstances, be able to repay those loans. Now, include the additional fact that the government has guaranteed those loans through Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. For extra credit, include the unintended consequences of what happens to the whole housing market when that large number of buyers starts buying limited numbers of homes. Finally, describe the end state when that large number of people who were not going to be able to afford those mortgages finally start defaulting.

This should be a relatively simple exercise since all of these actions have occurred in very recent history.

[Han]

Mark & Juanita wrote in news:F_KdnaWyP7uJUFjUnZ2dnUVZ [e-mail]:

And what happened after the collapse of the condo market during the crisis of the early 80s? After a few years all was resolved, and the housing market (and the savings and loans) were back on their feet. It was executed at the detriment of the taxpayer (but only temporarily) and some individual S&Ls and some individual condo owners. I fully expect that to happen again, but it will take more than a couple of years, and much ore (temporary?) sacrifice.

Requiring banks to reverse red-lining IMNSHO does not require maing bad loans, and both banks and people entering into stupid loan agreements should be punished. Unfortunately, it is defining those characteristics that is open to interpretation, and humans are fickle. The current extreme reluctance to spend is as bad as the extreme profligance of the earlier years. But hey, boom and bust is a capitalist society's characteristic (you didn't think I would hide, did you?). Again, individual responsibility is required on both sides. And, as Madoff and other schemers have again proven, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably ....

[Maxwell Lol]

I always try to examine other sides. For instance, this is Phil Gramm's comment about the current financial mess.

"The 1992 Housing Bill set quotas or "targets" that Fannie and Freddie were to achieve in meeting the housing needs of low- and moderate-income Americans. In 1995 HUD raised the primary quota for low- and moderate-income housing loans from the 30% set by Congress in

1992 to 40% in 1996 and to 42% in 1997."

"The results? In 1994, 4.5% of the mortgage market was subprime and

31% of those subprime loans were securitized. By 2006, 20.1% of the entire mortgage market was subprime and 81% of those loans were securitized."

"In reality the financial "deregulation" of the last two decades has been greatly exaggerated. As the housing crisis mounted, financial regulators had more power, larger budgets and more personnel than ever. And yet, with the notable exception of Mr. Greenspan's warning about the risk posed by the massive mortgage holdings of Fannie and Freddie, regulators seemed unalarmed as the crisis grew. There is absolutely no evidence that if financial regulators had had more resources or more authority that anything would have been different."