The Size And Scope of Government

Originally posted by bill718
Mr. Sasquatch- I agree with some of what you're saying here, but before you go too far down this path, you might consider the following:

1. Conservatives make just as many cartoonish caricatures of Liberals, as big government thugs, hellbent on invading everyone's privacy, and turning America into the USSR.

2. Many of these government intrusions into o ...[text shortened]... e you. (Now are you still having problems recalling any Conservative flaws??)😏

1. I agree with, both parties sell the other as evil.

2. George W. Bush was a leftist. Many of his incentives were really those of Ted Kennedy, and other leftists.

3. Let's keep it apples to apples. Sure the IRS was probably wasteful before Obama, but probably wasn't as intrusive or political. Whether Iraq was wasteful, is another question. Was it more wasteful than the Great Society, or the Community Reinvestment Act which actually was the impetus for crashing the real estate market in 2008? The disagreements on Executive policy don't have anything to do with the IRS malfunctioning.

4. The Benghazi fiasco is not comparable to a war approved by Congress, no matter how ill conceived.

5. If you were awake, after all was said and done, it was Richard Armitrage who leaked the name of Valerie Plame, and he was never attacked or prosecuted.

No one is looking for innocent or perfect. Humans all have faults. It isn't just faults and flaws, but the size and scope of government. Sadly both parties contribute to this.

Originally posted by bill718
Mr. Sasquatch- I agree with some of what you're saying here, but before you go too far down this path, you might consider the following:

1. Conservatives make just as many cartoonish caricatures of Liberals, as big government thugs, hellbent on invading everyone's privacy, and turning America into the USSR.

2. Many of these government intrusions into o ...[text shortened]... e you. (Now are you still having problems recalling any Conservative flaws??)😏

1. Conservatives make just as many cartoonish caricatures of Liberals, as big government thugs, hellbent on invading everyone's privacy, and turning America into the USSR. The National Security Agency, today, was revealed to be collecting the calling data, emails, and electronic communications in every form, of every American in the United States.

2. Many of these government intrusions into our privacy were happening during the George W Bush administration, all in the name of "national security"You're absolutely right, and I didn't agree with them then.

3. The IRS spent 49 million on confrences on 2 years? Oh...I suppose the IRS wasted 0 dollars during the reign of "W" huh...NOT! I guess we're not supposed to talk about the untold billions wasted by "W" in that unnecessary Iraq invasion. (Have they found any of those weapons of mass destruction yet???)Again - you're absolutely right. Saddam was a very bad guy indeed. Bush lied to get us into this war.

4. If you're referring to the events at Benghazi, yes, the Obama administration does have some explaining to do in this area, but how does that compare to wasting 4000+ brave American soldiers lives searching for weapons of mass destruction (that were not there!)Every one of them is my brother or sister. Bush desecrated those lives, war, the sacredness of war, and American values. You're right. You forgot to add that he did not pay for these wars while they were being fought. I'll do it for you. He did not demand shared sacrifice.

5. I don't recall anyone in Obama's administration leaking the name of a member of our intellegence community, just because she and her husband disagrees with the present administrations political views, ala Valorie Plame.
Scooter Libby was disbarred, went to jail, and has a felony conviction. Rightfully so. Bush did not pardon him. Rightfully so.

The Obama administration is not innocent or perfect, but you didn't seem to have problems with some of these items during the reign of George W Bush, so...why the change of heart? (it wouldn't be because Obama has a "D" after his name, would it??) Since folks on your side of the political aisle are just as guilty in many of these areas, I wouldn't be ranting too loudly, if I were you. (Now are you still having problems recalling any Conservative flaws??)😏[/b]

Originally posted by normbenign
1. I agree with, both parties sell the other as evil.

2. George W. Bush was a leftist. Many of his incentives were really those of Ted Kennedy, and other leftists.

3. Let's keep it apples to apples. Sure the IRS was probably wasteful before Obama, but probably wasn't as intrusive or political. Whether Iraq was wasteful, is another question. Was lts and flaws, but the size and scope of government. Sadly both parties contribute to this.

norm: the Community Reinvestment Act which actually was the impetus for crashing the real estate market in 2008?

You know this isn't true; why keep repeating such a brazen lie?

EDIT: Our study concludes that CRA Banks were substantially less likely than other lenders
to make the kinds of risky home purchase loans that helped fuel the foreclosure crisis.
Specifically, our analysis shows that:
(1) CRA Banks were significantly less likely than other lenders to make a high cost loan;
1
Testimony of Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben S. Bernanke on Subprime Mortgage Lending and Mitigating
Foreclosures, before the Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, September 20, 2007.
2
In computing the lending performance of a CRA Bank, only loans originated by the bank are included. While a
bank has the option of including affiliate lending in its CRA assessment (12 CFR §228.22(c)), only direct lending
must be assessed. We note, however, that the conclusions of this report would not be affected by including affiliate
lending in the lending performance of CRA Banks. TRAIGER & HINCKLEY LLP
501FIFTH AVENUE · NEW YORK, NY10017 ·(212) 752-1161 ·www.traigerlaw.com 2
Please also view our related 2009 report The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977: Not Guilty
(2) The average APR on high cost loans originated by CRA Banks was appreciably lower
than the average APR on high cost loans originated by other lenders;
(3) CRA Banks were more than twice as likely as other lenders to retain originated loans in
their portfolio; and
(4) Foreclosure rates were lower in MSAs with greater concentrations of bank branches.
Discussion
(1) High Cost Loans
High cost loans3
are a primary driver of the foreclosure crisis, as borrowers who are
unable to afford their mortgage payments default on their loans. There is a very high statistical
correlation (0.816) between the proportion of lending that is high cost and the foreclosure rate in
the MSAs analyzed.4
Default rates are expected to rise in 2008, as monthly payments increase
on mortgage products that permitted borrowers to pay lower “teaser” rates for the first few years
of a loan.5
• All Borrowers
Unlike other lenders, whose market share of high cost loans in the 15 most populous
MSAs was greater than their overall market share, CRA Banks had a significantly lower market
share of high cost loans than of all loans.
77.2%
22.8%
90.8%
9.2%
All Loans All High Cost Loans
CRA Banks Other Lenders
3
For first lien loans, HMDA requires lenders to report the spread between the APR and comparable Treasury yield,
where the spread is at least three percentage points. These loans are deemed “high cost.” 12 CFR §203.4(b)(12).
4

Indeed, in each of the 15 most populous MSAs, CRA Banks were less likely than other
lenders to originate a high cost loan. Overall, CRA Banks were 66 percent less likely than other
lenders to originate a high cost loan

http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-7-08.pdf

Originally posted by no1marauder
There are many more than two parties.

Right.

There are the two parties and then there are the rest who are not invited to debate in political discussions and shunned by the press and have no chance of winning.

Originally posted by whodey
Right.

There are the two parties and then there are the rest who are not invited to debate in political discussions and shunned by the press and have no chance of winning.

If people voted for them, they'd win.

Originally posted by no1marauder
If people voted for them, they'd win.

But they don't represent the people, they represent corporate America and themselves.

With their mountains of information about the people and their teams of psychologists to interpret the data and influence in the press the people are easily manipulated.

Originally posted by normbenign
[b]1. I agree with, both parties sell the other as evil.

Only sold as evil?

Stop hijacking the thread. Back to the discussion.

No1: defend these things. Defend the NSA. Defend government.

Originally posted by whodey
But they don't represent the people, they represent corporate America and themselves.

With their mountains of information about the people and their teams of psychologists to interpret the data and influence in the press the people are easily manipulated.

You don't need all that stuff to manipulate stupid people.

Originally posted by normbenign
Tax rates of 90% were always a joke. Nobody actually paid those rates. Who, in his right mind, would continue to work and earn if 98% were confiscated? If find it difficult to understand why people continue to fork over 50%, and the truth is that they don't even at that level they find shelters, and loopholes.

It isn't 90% of your entire income, genius.

One of the "advantages" of keeping the populace uneducated is that they don't understand what "marginal tax rate" means. This is useful for those few people who actually have to pay those 90% marginal rates because those same people can afford propaganda campaigns terrorizing the regular people with thoughts of 90% income taxes.

Idiot Bob: "I make 40,000 a year, I can't survive on take home of $4,000 for the entire year!"

Karl Rove: "That's right, Bob, you're a clever and if I may say so strikingly handsome individual, those liberals are just like the Commies, taking the last bag of rice from starving grannies to fund the government and their Mao-style slimy beaurocrats"

Idiot Bob: "Those bastards! We must stop them!"

Originally posted by no1marauder
If people voted for them, they'd win.

Dream on

Originally posted by no1marauder
If people voted for them, they'd win.

That's a big IF.

😉

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Stop hijacking the thread. Back to the discussion.

No1: defend these things. Defend the NSA. Defend government.

I don't even like government; I agree with Tom Paine:

To understand the nature and quantity of government proper for man, it is necessary to attend to his character. As Nature created him for social life, she fitted him for the station she intended. In all cases she made his natural wants greater than his individual powers. No one man is capable, without the aid of society, of supplying his own wants, and those wants, acting upon every individual, impel the whole of them into society, as naturally as gravitation acts to a centre.

But she has gone further. She has not only forced man into society by a diversity of wants which the reciprocal aid of each other can supply, but she has implanted in him a system of social affections, which, though not necessary to his existence, are essential to his happiness. There is no period in life when this love for society ceases to act. It begins and ends with our being.

If we examine with attention into the composition and constitution of man, the diversity of his wants, and the diversity of talents in different men for reciprocally accommodating the wants of each other, his propensity to society, and consequently to preserve the advantages resulting from it, we shall easily discover, that a great part of what is called government is mere imposition.

Government is no farther necessary than to supply the few cases to which society and civilisation are not conveniently competent; and instances are not wanting to show, that everything which government can usefully add thereto, has been performed by the common consent of society, without government.

http://www.ushistory.org/Paine/rights/c2-01.htm

Of course, right wing laissez faire fanatics like yourself and norm deny our basic nature and desire a society where great masses are left to suffer in poverty and ill health so that a relative few can amass great wealth presumably because they are so innately superior to the average Man. To this twisted vision, I cannot agree.

You've thrown a few of your well-worn lies in the first post, so I don't feel like responding to it. If you want to start a thread specifically about NSA, do so, but I'm not going to dignify your usual falsifying about Benghazi. Government, like any man made contrivance, is a tool and is not always used correctly by those temporarily wielding power. One does not always swear off the use of a hammer because one once hit their thumb with one, however.

EDIT: Actually I see you did start a NSA thread. Do I have to say that I agree with the position of the ACLU regarding these types of broad warrants and think that the Patriot Act should be repealed?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Of course, right wing laissez faire fanatics like yourself and norm deny our basic nature and desire a society where great masses are left to suffer in poverty and ill health so that a relative few can amass great wealth presumably because they are so innately superior to the average Man. To this twisted vision, I cannot agree.

Y ...[text shortened]... not always swear off the use of a hammer because one once hit their thumb with one, however.

If you want to see the result of your political views put into action vs the result of conservative views put into action, look at Russia vs the US. Compare greater China to Hong Kong.

I find it predictable that your defense of Obama's continuation of Bush policies is that Obama is a leftist who will put forth a version of this society closer to the way you'd like to see things. It is a pathetic attempt to side step the issue.