That's the problem though... the people / Government WANTS to coddle! They WANT to feel like they're the saviour of the people. Not to resort to calling people animals, but we're certainly treating them like "bad puppies" and "terrible-two's toddlers." They screw up, we support the behaviour, and they're back at it. You can see this mentality across the board, from this bailout, to the prison systems, etc.

They screw up, we don't hold them accountable. They blow their paychecks, they get coddled and "supported" for being "disenfranchised" and "victims of their behaviour." I call BULL____. Let them starve. When they don't eat for a month, they'll figure it out.


Thing is, I'm not much of a mortgage expert, but I do know a few basics... so I can't say that I'm going to have the greatest ideas on this issue. Fixing it, and preventing it from happening in the first place are two different issues.

1) Disband FM/FM , and have their executives thoroughly examined. If any evidence of wrongdoing on ANY level, THROW THEM ALL IN PRISON. Every single one of them. I would also investigate EVERY SINGLE politician who received kickbacks (Dodd, Obama, lots of democrats and some republicans) and jail them too. I don't care if we need a huge nationwide election to resupply our politicians, it's about damn time we cleaned house. It'd be the best thing that's happened to us since the Louisiana purchase.

I'd do the same to FM/FM as they did to Enron. There is almost NO difference in what went on at the corporate level.

2) Substantially reduce the amount of mortgages bought and sold on the mortgage market by increasing regulation. Set a specific limit on how many mortgages can be bought from third-party lenders. Now that we've rid ourselves of FM/FM, keep the mortgage market decentralized, insuring local banks through current FDIC legislation. This will hopefully take mortgages off of wall street as well.

3) Carefully sort through the mortgages on a case-by-case basis. If they're "good", return them to the originating bank. If they're "bad," then force a renegotiation of the loan based on the current value of the home, with a FIXED interest rate. Get the residents to continue paying the new mortgage. They don't pay the new rate, then evict them. Set defined rules for determining "good" and "bad", with terms like requiring current residence, down payment paid, etc. We need to keep this from becoming yet another piggy bank and source of kickback for politicians.

etc. etc.

 

And I would argue that they shouldn't have attempted to wage war with the U.S. in the first place. Back to the consequences thing. You attack us, we attack you, plain and simple.

Other than that, I'd advocate a massive reduction in worldwide US military presence, other than to secure national interests, and a very limited humanitarian presence. We need to stop sending food and money to dictators in Africa, who will go about killing innocents anyway.

Solution there... Clean house. Screw the "politics"... they're getting us nowhere. Might actually see a huge increase of value in the U.S. dollar when WE STOP GIVING IT AWAY.


Absolutely.

There was a play based on this... called "The mouse that roared" ... Essentially, a small country wages war against the U.S. because it sends in humanitarian aid after winning. So they send a small army of about 10 archers and a couple guys with sticks to invade the U.S.

Problem is, the U.S. is tired of doing it... so they let the country win.... now they're in charge of cleaning up after other people!

Funny movie... I think they have it in Black/White video.

 

I agree completely, but it happens.

 

Hum. Normally I would just chalk up a non-response to indifference on the subject and leave it at that... but bad form, jsa3mm, for simultaneously praising sensei for "strengthening your points" while conveniently ignoring me systematically addressing or otherwise dismantling those same points. You can't really say "yeah, what he said makes me more right!" while ignoring the guy questioning what you say with valid counter-points.

sensei, I get yelled at (and have gotten dressed down on here, particularly) for the kind of responsible/consequential ideas you have, but I do agree with them.

The problem is, though, that the coddling is a very vicious cycle. The public WANTS to be coddled, so they elect people who will coddle them. At the risk of stereotyping, the typical American just cares how much income they make and what they can spend it on. Some official running for office makes that easier for them, guess how easy it will be to get elected and stay in office?

FM/FM is an awful idea, and we need to think of something better than them. Throwing money at this solution isn't going to help much, especially when it was money that got us into this trouble in the first place.

 

For Afghanastan, I completely agree. A government knowingly harbored a terrorist orginization that attacked us. For Iraq, I still have yet to see any evidence that they were a credible threat to the US. All we did was allow Iran to grow their sphere of influence in the region, which in my mind is a greater threat to US security.

If Iraq was a threat to Israel, let them deal with it. They have better weapons than us anyway, paid for by our own "economic aid" package. How many other nuclear-armed nations do we give aid to? Israel just bought new F-16's better than our own Air Force versions, that have strike capability to Iran without refueling, I'm sure they could have handled Saddam.

This brings me back to my first point, we need to keep our d**k out of other country's business. If a humanitarian or other crisis does arise, action can not be unilateral. The only just cause for going in alone is as a direct response to an imminent US attack. The Bush doctrine is horrible foriegn policy, moving the standard for war from imminent danger to threatening nation. We have a lot of unfriendly nations right now, and this policy asserts the right to invade each and every one of them, going against all modern concepts of national warfare. Terrorism is not a place on the map, it has no fixed position or political party. Simply put, you can not fight terrorism solely by attacking a nation.

 

Just think about how Bush's foreign policy will carry over if McCain wins. We will invade Iran and North Korea, then most likely get nuked in the process.

 

CDogbert, I did reply after you made your points here.

 

The F-16s don't need longer range for our use because we have many other air options to choose from,

I really don't think Iran is an issue with us if we get out of Iraq and stop sabre rattling. Iran was with us after 9/11 (according to people in the current administration) before we started with the ignorant talk about the "axis of evil". Young Iranians like the West and western culture so all we have to do is wait for them to take over their country.

Nobody in their right mind would attack Israel on a major scale. Either Israel would beat them senseless or Israel and the USA would.

Couldn't agree with you more on Bush's foreign policy. And it IS exactly what McCain would follow through on, if he had a chance at winning this election.

Great thread everyone.

I hope you all vote.

 

I voted

I'll be out of town on election day so I printed out a request for an absentee ballot. Since I didn't want to chance it "getting lost in the mail" I took it down to the board of elections. I found out that I could fill out the ballot there, had do fill in the little bubbles like on a high school test.

Here's the national link. You'll have to click on your state for the absentee procedures in your state.

http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/State_and_Territories.shtml

 

Thanks!