Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, there and in the Constitution. The actors established by the founders to guide this republic are tiered in their levels of protection from the vagaries and influences of everyman. The House is the least well protected. They are to be the raucous chamber, the one in which passions are given an ear and either taken up or rejected. Still, they face election only every two years, so they have slack to play with in the chain. The President is given four years. That's a long time. It is hoped that he will have the courage to put the interests of the republic before the transient and misguided pleadings of an easily swayed people. The Senate is to be the slower and more deliberative chamber. Those there are given a six year term, a period during which one might go out of and then return to public favor many times. By the time we reach the federal judiciary, we have lifetime terms that put judges and justices all but out of the reach of the masses. Then we must look also at who "we, the people" really were to begin with. At the time of the Declaration of Independence, some two-thirds of the people living in this country had arrived under some condition of indenture. It was not to these that the franchise was extended. That was restricted to white, male, property owners. In other words, the elite. That's how it went down in the early days of the nation.
Actually, I said they weren't competent to render judgment on the merits of Keynesian economics.
Yes, this is the physician talking. Your words make me think of so many of the physicians that I know.
Unbelieveable!
" protection from the vagaries and influences of everyman"
Saggy, the good thing is that you actually voice what every liberal thinks. It is, however, truely remarkable that you would actually state these beliefs in public and share it is one of your core beliefs.
Do you realize that the majority of the American public would view individuals who hold such views with anger and contempt? I would bet not, as you are as insulated from mainstream America as the Bourbon Kings were in France. Why not just say, "let them eat cake" or "arbeit macht frei"and really let loose, Saggy.
The fact that you are a government employee speaks volumes of our government. No wonder there is such a disconnect between the people and the government when officials and thier lackies (Saggy) hold such contempt for the people they are supposed to be SERVING, not RULING.
Yes, this is the physician talking. Your words make me think of so many of the physicians that I know.
Don't think ill of MDs, no pun intended. In the course of my business, I have many occasions to work with physicians. There are also times with many of those Doctors, in social settings. In the times of social interaction, away from the business side, we periodically get involved in political and social discussion. I have found, in that somewhat limited experience, that most of those MDs do not share the dismissive attitude toward those less fortunate that Hawkeye presents. So if, Dr Hawkeye is really what he portrays, I think he is the exception, not the rule.
" protection from the vagaries and influences of everyman"
Saggy, the good thing is that you actually voice what every liberal thinks. It is, however, truely remarkable that you would actually state these beliefs in public and share it is one of your core beliefs.
Hawkeye,
Perhaps you could explain why the Framers chose a bi-cameral legislature where the body with the shortest terms were to be elected by the people and the the body with the longer terms were to be selected by the state governments and how that reasoning deviates from the comment that you quote above?
Don't think ill of MDs, no pun intended. In the course of my business, I have many occasions to work with physicians. There are also times with many of those Doctors, in social settings. In the times of social interaction, away from the business side, we periodically get involved in political and social discussion. I have found, in that somewhat limited experience, that most of those MDs do not share the dismissive attitude toward those less fortunate that Hawkeye presents. So if, Dr Hawkeye is really what he portrays, I think he is the exception, not the rule.
"Dismissive attitude toward those less fortunate"?
1. I have a volunteer clinic at the VA- how many do you have?
2. I donate over $100,000 per year to charity. How much do you donate?
3. Your friend, Saganista, is the one deriding the rights and priveledges of the common man, as she feels superior and has a right to rule over them.
Who is the pig here?
I only ask of any man what I ask of myself. Work hard. I realize there are those less fortunate, and I support them (in many more ways than a liberal, who only asks others to do thier work for them). If someone is uninitiated and lazy, they gain my wrath.
Again, how much do you donate and how much charity work do you do? Like the typical liberal, probably nothing, as words are cheap, but action is hard.
Perhaps you could explain why the Framers chose a bi-cameral legislature where the body with the shortest terms were to be elected by the people and the the body with the longer terms were to be selected by the state governments and how that reasoning deviates from the comment that you quote above?
So, do you want a House of Lords, in which the elite rule over the "dirty mases" like your friend Saggy? Are you seriously suggesting that you do not have confidence in the ability of your fellow man to make his own decisions and govern himself???? Wow! This is liberalism- contempt for the average citizen.
I guess now I can understand how the libs were so suprised at the outcome in Massachusetts. Libs are that far out of touch with the nation and are doomed. They really have no idea what the rest of the nation thinks of politicians and Washington insiders. The libs really think they are working for the "benefit" of the nation, when in fact, they are the problem.
That would be you, saggy. I've posted facts, quotes, and names of people who are directly involved, and who have testified before Congress. You, on the other hand... have posted nothing more than underinformed opinion and insults.
You've posted your usual retrograde selection of hack pieces. If the time ever comes -- long overdue as it already is -- when you're ready to move on from the world of spinmeisters, whackjobs, and space cadets to take on people who actually know what they are talking about and deal with the facts in a dispassionate and scholarly manner, be sure to let me know. If you wanted to start right now and with respect to the current topic, let me recommend the very fine collection of essays on CRA and related matters jointly published last year by the FRB of Boston and the FRB of San Francisco. I'm sure you would find it quite illuminating...as if you'd come in from the dark...
Of course, the whole nine yards of that would be close to 200 pages. You might prefer to tackle first the five-page article using that publication as its guide that appeared in the May 2009 issue of the industry journal, Mortgage Banking. The authors are former FDIC and FRB analysts. Here is one pertinent paragraph therefrom...
The research and observations in "Revisiting the CRA" strongly supports the generally held conclusion that CRA did not cause the subprime mortgage meltdown. It is also clear to us that using a consumer-protection regulation such as CRA as a scapegoat for the industry's excesses in subprime and alternative-product mortgage lending is not only intellectually dishonest, but also severely hampers meaningful industry reform.
You can try to spin, but your 'story' doesn't match the facts.
It consists entirely OF the facts. Bernanke was asked what moments were the worst for him personally, and he began ticking off the chronology of the September actions and interventiins taken to ward off various impending aspects of financial collapse. End of story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
LOL. I never said they did. What they DID do was buy the loans the government forced lenders to make via the CRA quotas, etc.
There is and never was any such thing as a CRA quota, and as has now been mentioned several times, there never were any laws or regulations that forced any lender to lend anything at all to anyone. The notion is sheer invention on your part. The article linked to above presents a brief history of the CRA from even before its inception. Read it. Find out how wrong you and your ignorance-spreading sources really are.
"Dismissive attitude toward those less fortunate"?
1. I have a volunteer clinic at the VA- how many do you have?
2. I donate over $100,000 per year to charity. How much do you donate?
3. Your friend, Saganista, is the one deriding the rights and priveledges of the common man, as she feels superior and has a right to rule over them.
Who is the pig here?
I only ask of any man what I ask of myself. Work hard. I realize there are those less fortunate, and I support them (in many more ways than a liberal, who only asks others to do thier work for them). If someone is uninitiated and lazy, they gain my wrath.
Again, how much do you donate and how much charity work do you do? Like the typical liberal, probably nothing, as words are cheap, but action is hard.
I do a great deal, but feel no compulsion to extol my own virtues in attempts to legitimize my biases. I can only view your postings to form my opinion on the essence of what you represent.
So, do you want a House of Lords, in which the elite rule over the "dirty mases" like your friend Saggy? Are you seriously suggesting that you do not have confidence in the ability of your fellow man to make his own decisions and govern himself???? Wow! This is liberalism- contempt for the average citizen.
I guess now I can understand how the libs were so suprised at the outcome in Massachusetts. Libs are that far out of touch with the nation and are doomed. They really have no idea what the rest of the nation thinks of politicians and Washington insiders. The libs really think they are working for the "benefit" of the nation, when in fact, they are the problem.
And yet the people of Mass elected a senator who is to represent them in the legislature. They did not go to the polling booth thinking they'll be writing the laws themselves. We have a representative democracy. That was Saganista's point. You are the one who is out of touch.
"Dismissive attitude toward those less fortunate"?
1. I have a volunteer clinic at the VA- how many do you have?
2. I donate over $100,000 per year to charity. How much do you donate?
3. Your friend, Saganista, is the one deriding the rights and priveledges of the common man, as she feels superior and has a right to rule over them.
Who is the pig here?
I only ask of any man what I ask of myself. Work hard. I realize there are those less fortunate, and I support them (in many more ways than a liberal, who only asks others to do thier work for them). If someone is uninitiated and lazy, they gain my wrath.
Again, how much do you donate and how much charity work do you do? Like the typical liberal, probably nothing, as words are cheap, but action is hard.
Self righteous blowhard. BTW, I have never heard of a "volunteer clinic" at the VA. Give me the name and address of this VA so that I can verify your claim.
Unbelieveable!
" protection from the vagaries and influences of everyman"
Saggy, the good thing is that you actually voice what every liberal thinks. It is, however, truely remarkable that you would actually state these beliefs in public and share it is one of your core beliefs.
It has nothing do do with any "core beliefs" of mine. It has to do with US history. The original Constitution stands the way the founders wrote it. The masses were excluded -- and quite deliberately so -- from any sort of direct participation at all. Those are just the facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
Do you realize that the majority of the American public would view individuals who hold such views with anger and contempt? I would bet not, as you are as insulated from mainstream America as the Bourbon Kings were in France. Why not just say, "let them eat cake" or "arbeit macht frei"and really let loose, Saggy.
Well, I assure you I had nothing to do with any of it. Let your mobs send the tumbrils round for men named Washington, Franklin, Madison, and Hamilton. This was their work and their very careful collective thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
The fact that you are a government employee speaks volumes of our government. No wonder there is such a disconnect between the people and the government when officials and thier lackies (Saggy) hold such contempt for the people they are supposed to be SERVING, not RULING.
As some others have pointed out here recently, mere contempt might be criticized as molly-coddling with regard to some of your recent behavior. Having already commented on the utter inadequacy of the rest of the above, I will merely note again that the poll in the OP is pointless in that respondents are not remotely competent to answer the question posed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
