Follow the money.

Isn't it obvious by now that our Democratic led Congress does not represent ordinary Americans. The first thing the Democrats did when they got the majority was to go to the K-Street lobbyists and deliver the message that now the Dems were the ones to be paid.

That's the only difference between a Dem majority and a Rethug majority. The lobbyists pay off the Dems instead of the Rethugs. For an ordinary American, we are screwed either way.

The lesson is that it makes absolutely no sense for anyone who isn't a K-Street lobbyist to vote Democrat. The Democrats will stand up and deliver the bald-faced lie to voters during the election season that voting Dem will make a difference. But it won't. The Democrats serve the lobbyists just like the Rethugs.

This is just yet more documentation for that truth. The Democrat majority will look after the bankers. That's because the bankers have well-funded lobbyists that give big bucks to the Democrats.

If you want something different, then DON'T VOTE DEMOCRAT!

if we want to know what a candidate's priorities are, rather than listening to a bunch of bloviation, we should ask to see a draft budget.

Sell your stuff now and move to Costa Rica. I can help you relocate. I plan to camp out here until either I die or until they hang all these fascists.

The last I heard the Congress passed a huge spending increase for the Pentagon. It would seem the American people prefer to spend their hard earned tax dollars on weapons of mass destruction rather than housing, health care or the children of this country. Our priorities are glaringly evident.

"The main problem here is that they were pushed to buy over-priced homes in bubble-inflated markets. Making matters worse, many of these homeowners were also the victims of subprime mortgage scams."

"They" - they are those who did not belong in the homeowners clique. They - are those who don't read nor ask the simple question: What will this loan cost me once it RESETS?

I am sorry folks "lost" their homes, but really, it was never theirs, they rented it for the duration of the teaser-sucker rate period from the mortgage company, and then were evicted when they couldn't pay the bill. Many got in with no money down, and even got cash back at closing because the property has ALREADY INCREASED IN VALUE, according to the shyster developers - realtors.

This is a crisis of greed, and all parties are at fault. The real victims are those who never got involved in this mess, but are getting hit by the blowback from every economic front.

ThisMachineKillsFascists - how can you help us move to Costa Rica?

I pretty much have to agree with jjpeter. Neither the lenders nor those who got in over their heads with teaser rates on adjustable rate mortgages should be bailed out.

However, the mortgage lenders had to be making money at the teaser rate or it never would have been offered. Either that or they are just stupid, willing to loan money at a loss.

At least temporarily, the rate adjustments could be rolled back to the teaser rate to keep people in their homes and to keep financial institutions solvent. The problem is greed. They want to make more profit. Lock in the teaser rates for now to keep everyone afloat and then negotiate some kind of solution fair for everyone that does NOT require bailouts using OUR TAX DOLLARS. We could temporarily suspend the "hard nosed business practices" for just a little bit of "compassionate conservatism." The real estate market will eventually bounce back, housing prices will go back up and people can sell out of their homes they couldn't really afford and then downsize to something they can afford.

I bought and paid off a 1078 square foot townhouse. Its modest but I could afford it and now I own it, except for ever increasing taxes. A few years back I was thinking of selling and purchasing something a little nicer. I was astounded to find out that "you can really afford a lot more than you think." A mortgage lender was trying to convince me to BORROW a 20% down payment and then take out a mortgage for the remaining 80%. I did not WALK, I RAN out of that office. But a lot of people let their desires outstrip their means and fell for these deals which should have been illegal in the first place.

I agree that these kinds of practices DO cause those of us who were NOT part of the problem a lot of blowback.

Kent

second that xyz, do you have land there in costarica? are you an american expatriot living there already?

the whole american economic system is a giant pyramid scheme. the people at the bottom who buy in last are the ones who get the shaft..

the invisible hand of the market just stole my wallet.

1) home defaulters.. you sign up for a mortgage you cannot afford...too bad. take your lumps

2) bankers... you loaned money to people you knew could not afford to repay it... also too bad. take your lumps

3) everyone else..too bad,..you are going to get stuck with BOTH bills.

they're stealing from the renters because they know the renters will just bend over for the process. a once proud nation.

See, canuckchuck, thats the beauty of capitalism as practiced in the United States today. We privatize the profits and socialize the costs and losses, as the stockholders take the profits and the taxpayers cover the losses. Its a win win for all. Isn't it?

Actually, those 'banks' that Congress is so 'worried about', will
'Lose' NOTHING...
[They did NOT put-up a Penny of their own-Capital for these mortgages,
bs-ones or otherwise -- the Taxpayers of this country DID!]
And (as Insult upon Injury) all the 'bad-paper' that was wrapped-up in the pretty-CDO's and other worthless-'instruments' that the Fed and Greenspan 'so-encouraged', are now being accepted as 'Collateral' upon low-interest-loans ALSO being allowed by the Fed-Reserve -- and therefore is being accepted (as a future ADDITIONAL-loss by You -- the Taxpayer!) against the much-preferable 'Investments' currently overloading-and-flooding the Commodities-Markets [which is why EVERYTHING is going sky-high in Price -- again, harming the Poor
FAR more than it 'benefits the Wealthy'...].

From the article:

"That's right; Congress wants to take away money from low-income renters to help bankers that made bad loans in the housing bubble. As we all know, when the banks are in trouble, it is not the time to talk about the free market.

The real painful part of this story is it would be very easy to help the real victims in this story: the low- and moderate-income homeowners, who were suckered into buying homes at bubble-inflated prices with bad mortgages. Congress could just temporarily change the rules on foreclosure to allow moderate-income homeowners facing foreclosure the option to stay in their home paying the fair market rent.

This would provide these families with housing security."

If we focus on issues like this and the number of soldiers killed from our communities, and negative effects of pollution on our communities, then the left can start winning again. If we whine piteously about "sexism," against Hillary Clinton, or engage in gun grabbing we will lose, and so will the poor and down trodden, pretty simple. As a bonus if we reign in the corporations it WILL help reduce pollution, clear cutting and other environmental ills, and lead to increased wages for women, African Americans, etc. Identity politics OTH has led to the absurd situation of disempowered groups embracing oligarchs like Hillary Clinton, Condaleza Rice, and Alberto Gonzales. We will either get it it soon or the oligarchy will use p.c. "identity politics," to divide and conquer us, get it?

Identity politics might have been empowering in the 80s for oppressed groups to discover their roots and solidarity, now it's just another tool in the arsenal of the oligarchs to keep us weak, divided and squabbling while they outsource our jobs, trash our environment, and steal our houses.

"they came up with the idea of financing the plan by taking away a stream of funding that had been dedicated to help low-income renters."

Ah, it's taxpayers money, not the money of the low income renters. I am not saying I am either for or against this proposal, but the title of the article is grossly misleading.

"We privatize the profits and socialize the costs and losses, as the stockholders take the profits and the taxpayers cover the losses."

Ever take a capital loss before? I have. If you have, I don't think you would have said the above.

jakenewton, yes I made a broad statement. Let me clarify, although you did not specify the type of capital loss you endured. Yes, as an individual, I have made bad investments and taken a loss. I am referring to the losses on massive scales picked up by the taxpayers, losses made due to bad business decisions, if not directly at least indirectly. Long Term Capital Management. Enron. Bear Stearns. $18 Billion in tax credits to Big Oil is certainly taxpayer money and it is SPECIFICALLY for more exploration for oil, socializing the risk, in spite of their massive profits. Why should I, or you, as a taxpayer subsidize Exxon shareholders already making massive record profits? I'm already subsidizing them with their $4 a gallon gasoline. Aren't capitalists supposed to take risk in search of reward (profit)? Capital gains taxes have been cut to the bone (15%). And big business expects taxpayer subsidies as well? Why should some private enterprise be declared too large to fail and therefore taxpayers should pick up the tab? They hire teams of hundreds of lawyers to figure out ways to "legally" avoid taxes, and then they want taxpayers to bail them out when they go belly up? Please.

Here's a pretty good example of socializing the risks via taxpayer dollars. Bail out your banker because after all he only charges you 15% and pays you 2% so you really do owe him don't you.

"US Bailout of Bond Insurers to Prevent Collapse of US Banking System"

Google it exactly as posted here, and read the article. If the US banking system were to collapse due to lack of taxpayer funds infusions then maybe it SHOULD collapse and be replaced by something less fraudulent.

Welcome to the real world and suck it up. How would it come as any surprise that the Fed would reach out to the bankers to prevent their losses? That's the way this rotten system works against the "common man." I suggest that all people of conscience refuse to pay their Federal Income Taxes to get the attention of these sons-of-bitches that run our government. Any other suggestions?

"Why should I, or you, as a taxpayer subsidize Exxon shareholders already making massive record profits?"

Good question. I would first point out that with the last quarter of Exxon's record profits they also paid record taxes. Equating tax breaks as "subsidy" is a bit misleading I think. It presumes that taxation,which in the US is around 35%, is the "default" position whatever the rate. That is a debatable point.

"I'm already subsidizing them with their $4 a gallon gasoline. "

Um sorry, not true. You are willingly paying that figure in a competitive market. You "demand" gas to that extent, today. Hold on to your hat too, regarding the future.

"Aren't capitalists supposed to take risk in search of reward (profit)?"

The prospecting for and development of mineral deposits is one of the riskiest of economic activities.

"Capital gains taxes have been cut to the bone (15%)."

Your representative government ostensibly believes that providing liquidity into the equities markets is good for the economy as a whole. Perhaps you have some investments earmarked for retirement, etc., I do. Being in that position the "low" rate has advantages for me.

"And big business expects taxpayer subsidies as well?"

I don't know about what they "expect" but the executives have a fiduciary duty to investors to properly take advantage of such things. If you don't like it, the remedy is to lobby your reps and vote with your feet.

"which is more important cutting the size of government or your rich buddies double dipping and lining their pockets with taxpayer money on top of obscene profits. "

You seem to be proposing a false dichotomy, and I am not sure that it applies in this case. We were discussing tax "breaks" or whatever you wish to call it that are already in place. When your elected officials put these in place, or take them away as the case may be, they are affecting the environment in which business is conducted, and business will behave accordingly. Such measures are supposed to be "good", that is, they are incentives for business to act in a manner that has been determined to be "good" by your reps. If you don't like it, your beef is with your reps, not business.

"I would first point out that with the last quarter of Exxon's record profits they also paid record taxes."

I researched this and you are correct.

"Equating tax breaks as "subsidy" is a bit misleading I think."

Note that I said tax CREDITS, not deductions. A credit is a subsidy. A credit is deducted from your tax bill, just as though you'd paid it in full and received an "economic stimulus rebate". It is exactly the same as cash in hand.

It presumes that taxation,which in the US is around 35%, is the "default" position whatever the rate. That is a debatable point.

Historically, from the 1900's to the 1940's or so, US corporations paid as much as 40% of the entire US income tax bill. Today that figure is around 5%. This is corporations in the aggregate, not specifically Exxon or any other, and total dollar amount paid by corps versus individuals, not individual corporate tax rates.

Hey, I'm all for capitalism, and I operate a (very) small business myself. If I go belly up I don't expect taxpayers to bail me out. I expect the same of any other business, large or small.

So, you think anyone owns any property in this country? Think again. Don't pay property taxes and see what happens. Nothing is yours. I mean nothing. You're merely renting from the state. Think hard before "investing" in property. For instance, if you don't pay vehicle taxes in the state where I live, no vehicle tags will be issued to you, and you will be riding "shank's pony." (walking). We, the sheeple, are owned lock, stock and barrel by the State.

Trisha

"Note that I said tax CREDITS, not deductions."

I am ignorant of the specifics. I would just say that energy in general is of course critical to the economy, and in fact it's use is a rough proxy for GDP in the short/medium term. Oil and gasoline are strategic. If it gets to the point where something like rationing makes sense, well, we have precident for that from WWII. Hang on to your hat.

"Hey, I'm all for capitalism, and I operate a (very) small business myself. If I go belly up I don't expect taxpayers to bail me out. I expect the same of any other business, large or small."

Rock on! Been there.

\m/

"So, you think anyone owns any property in this country? Think again. Don't pay property taxes and see what happens. "

Correct of course. But there is an instructive proverb: When a man owes the bank some thousands, let him worry. When a man owes the bank some billions let the bank worry. Your government knows this.

jakenewton sed:

""And big business expects taxpayer subsidies as well?"

I don't know about what they "expect" but the executives have a fiduciary duty to investors to properly take advantage of such things. If you don't like it, the remedy is to lobby your reps and vote with your feet."

I hope you don't hold this position and also call yourself a "Libertarian." You guys on the right need to make up your mind as to which is more important cutting the size of government or your rich buddies double dipping and lining their pockets with taxpayer money on top of obscene profits. To diss government aid for the poor while lining the pockets of the rich with tax payer money all while claiming to be anti government is the rawest, rankest hypocrisy possible and why I am always VERY suspicious of those calling themselves Libertarians. For while I agree with Libertarians on fighting the police state I ALWAYS find that they value property more than liberty and SUDDENLY lose their anti government rhetoric if there is a hand out to the rich to be had.

Always remember the slogan of the American Ruling Class. "I upped my income, up yours." But then seriously, folks. Our job, for those of us who aren't going to Costa Rica, is not to mourn, nor to rage, but to ORGANIZE. Whoever can host a union or community meeting which is more compelling than television, is on the way.

For those of you who think you might like to live on the beach in Costa Rica until "something come up" I say 'go for it' but those of your who want a more comfortable like I can give you my experience in Baja California Sur. Here in Baja life is more expensive than the mainland Mexico as much of the things we need are shipped in from the mainland. I bought a large house down here for $200K-free and clear, a couple of blocks from the beach-taxes are about $160 a year. The average cost of a small two bedroom house here is $180K. We are a family of four and used to live very comfortably on $3500 a month but with the sinking dollar I find I must add another $800 to $1000 a month to make end meet.
The point is: you need an income no matter where you live. In most countries you are not able to work. You can create a company and provide services but the tax rate is high and you must pay for your employee's social security (National Health Insurance)unless they are part time workers such as housekeepers. It is damn near impossible to fire a worker if they want to fight it-most don't but your never know. As I said, things are a bit cheaper on the mainland. As I understand it, life in Costa Rica is not any cheaper unless, of course you are living on the beach. One can rent a small one bedroom house here for $600 a month and eat tortillas and beans which are still cheap even though the price of tortillas has recently double (thanks free trade agreement).
Many tout the Social Security here (National Health service) but it is not easy for a foreigner to get. My wife and I plus our two kids were denied for various reasons. On the other hand medical treatment is cheap by U.S. standards. My son broke his arm and the cost of that incident by very skilled doctors was $300. My blood pressure meds (we are geriatric parents) cost me about $9 a month as compared to $90 co-pay on a group health insurance plan in the States.
If you really think you want to move to foreign country get all the facts or you might get there and be in a 'world of hurt'.

Congressional campaign to watch.

www.carolmillercongress.com

Peace, social and economic justice and human rights.

OK, I don't understand. Is there a law that says if you buy a home you are guaranteed to gain equity? Because, nowhere in the documents I've ever signed was I guaranteed that I could not be upside down on a mortgage if market prices fell. It is one of the risks any homeowner assumes when buying a house. The important part of the process is to understand what the cost of your loan is, and what it will be if you are foolish enough to opt for an adjustable rate. Everyone is told how much they will ultimately have paid for that $200,000 home -- at least I've had that dollar amount pointed out to me. Is it possible that people signed off on their mortgages with the disclosure that in two years their monthly payments would be increasing beyond their ability to pay? If they did, then (gasp!) maybe they deserve to lose the house. I think a lot of people bought houses they couldn't afford (in reality) because they could make (barely) the monthly payments today. They just didn't factor in that a couple of years hence the rates would go up and the value of their home might not be any higher than on the day they signed on the dotted line. And if you were a speculator, well, you can go to h***.

I don't want to subsidize other peoples' stupidity.

KENT SHAW: Great post (1:18 & 5:58). I totally agree with your idea for a plan to defuse the housing sub prime debacle.

MRRAVEN: Excellent post. I noticed that about the Ayn Rand school of Libertarians, too... business perks on the part of government is okay, but kill anything remotely compassionate towards others in need.

This just makes my blood boil. And on top of the Bear Stearns bailout, I just can't tell you how angry me and so many others are. If this keeps up, the american people simply will not tolerate it anymore.

This slight-of-hand capitalism reminds me of Upton Sinclair's great novel of systemic exploitation, "The Jungle."

The novel depicts an immigrant family that barely scapes up enough money to pay the mortgage of a house that has been flipped several times before to similarly hopeful immigrant families. The families always fail in the end because the system is rigged against them.

It's a great book for summer reading. Great for those who'd blame the poor for it being "their own fault." A good way to renew compassion in heartless times, like now. Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle.

the lower price for houses now is what the houses are realy worth. Save your money live in a trailer where you belong if you can't afford the mortage. Right now being liquid maybe a good idea.

So what else is new? The single party entity gave us a minumum wage instead of a LIVING WAGE for the disenfranchised, which in truth was nothing more than a mega giveaway for business via huge taxcuts all the while wrapping itself in a narrative seemingly benefiting the poor. All the eager beavers are lining up and falling over each other to vote for Clinton or Obama but as this article demonstrates, the Dems are every bit as inimical to the poor as the Repuds. Wake up, people!

Huck, wake up to what?

Are you going to tell us something we haven't heard before or something that will fix it?

And this nation claims to be a Christian country? How does Jesus feel about that?

And p.s. how much is it the homeowners fault when they are being HUSTLED by the bank and assured the "data" (fraudulant) assure the loan will be "safe" just like the thousands of others the bank has loaned "just this year." This hustle is having real serious consequences right in my own neighborhood, the people who were hustled by fast talking "loan officers" are now going to wind up out in the street. And no Jakenewton not everyone has had business school level courses to sort b.s. from financial truth but rather the banks took advantage of those who didn't know any better, many without a college education at all. Shame on the banks for this sort of scam leading to the double dipping of collecting mortgage payments and then repossession a house that can then be resold for FULL market price. And double shame on these scammers claiming to "Libertarians" as they come to the GOVERNMENT with their begging cup out.

jakenewton said "If you don't like it, your beef is with your reps, not business."

Bzzt wrong my beef is with bankers and other elite people who claim to be "Libertarians" who claim they want to slash the size of government and then coming begging to the Federal reserve for a bailout (Bear Stearns) or dip into funds for housing for the poor (this article). How about:

a) The banks shouldering some responsibility for promoting no income check, no asset check, (NIA) loans out of the pure greed of pursuing quick bucks from the housing bubble.

http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=355

b) Don't claim to be a government slashing "Libertarian" if you come piteously whining to the Fed for a bailout like Bear Stearns or want to dip into GOVERNMENT funding for the poor to reinsure sub prime loans:

From the link in the CD article that is the subject of the article:

"POTENTIAL DEAL ON SENATE HOUSING BILL WOULD STEAL FROM THE POOR

WASHINGTON, DC - Responding to pressure from Ranking Member Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL), the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee appears to be on the verge of diverting funds designated for a housing trust fund for housing for the poorest Americans to pay for Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd's (D-CT) new program to refinance homeowners facing foreclosure.

In his bill "The Federal Housing Finance Regulatory Reform Act of 2008," Chairman Dodd proposes to allow the Federal Housing Administration to insure refinanced mortgages of homeowners who face foreclosure. The Congressional Budget Office estimates this new program creates a potential liability for the federal government of $1.7 billion." Can you say Federally funded bailout, I knew you could.

http://www.nlihc.org/detail/article.cfm?article_id=5134&id=48

So in sum don't be surprised if no back ground checks are done that a loan (or several million) are in fact sketchy and own up to poor form in the loan verification practices. The problem is at least 50% the banks cutting corners in search of a fast buck and promoting loans based on fraudulent data (listen to the The This American Life episode for more details). Finally don't claim to be a "Libertarian" if you support rich people's "right" to come begging to the GOVERNMENT for a bailout.

I have purchased several homes and am currently in the middle of refinancing. I'm well aware of how difficult it can be to buy property and select a mortgage and so I am very sympathetic to those people who truly did not understand what they were getting themselves into. I've had mortgage brokers agree verbally to rates and loan amounts and then send paperwork with entirely different figures. And having to pay for an appraisal for each broker/lender puts poor people at an even greater disadvantage, they are likely stuck with one broker/lender who knows he has no competition.

However, I suspect that most of the recent foreclosures are due to greedy people who wanted to make some quick $$$ on what they thought were sure-thing real estate markets. And they screwed up because the property values dropped. I do not want to bail these people out !!! I pray that Congress figures out a way to identify them and exclude them from any bailout program.

"Bzzt wrong my beef is with bankers and other elite people who claim to be "Libertarians" who claim they want to slash the size of government and then coming begging to the Federal reserve for a bailout "

What is your best example of a "libertarian" asking for a bailout? Names please. And this is not like the example we were talking about, a so called "tax break" for oil companies that was already in place, set up by congress. Your problem is with your government officials, your example from Dodd being a perfect illustration of the kind of thing that should draw your anger, not business.

Jakenewton would you claim to be a "Libertarian" answer the question yes or no please.

If you answer yes how can you possible justify Bear Stearns getting GOVERNMENT breaks from the Fed or the GOVERNMENT funding a refinance of loans to the tune of 1.7 billion? To claim to be a "Libertarian" and then come begging to the GOVERNMENT for a welfare like handout is the most blatant hypocrisy I can imagine.

If you don't claim to be a Libertarian please make sure to call all your Libertarian friends on it when they try to justify rich people piteously coming to the GOVERNMENT for a bailout (welfare), thanks!

p.s. jakenewton this thread ought to be about the GOVERNMENT bailout of banks who gave out sketchy loans with no background checks at all as that is the subject of the CD article, please don't disingenuously change the subject, thanks!

In jakenewton's defense, although he is completely capable of defending himself, I don't believe he has claimed to be a libertarian. He seems to be pro-business, and there is nothing wrong with that. I am pro-business as long as the playing fields are flat and fair. Small business provides most jobs in this country. What I am against is unfair bailouts with taxpayer dollars. We can't call ourselves a free-market economy when taxpayer dollars are used to bail out the Bear Stearnses, the Long Term Capital Managements, the Enrons, the Chryslers, and on and on. Too big to fail? That is simply the big money owned press trying to pull the wool over our eyes as they stick both hands into our pockets. Small businesses do not get the same treatment because they don't have the big dollars it takes to grease the political palms.

Kent Shaw I find 90+% of these rabidly pro BIG business, pro greed types tend to claim to be "Libertarian." YMMV. I am OK with small businesses where people make a living for themselves sufficient to buy a modest house. In fact I am in essence co-owner with my mother of a small landscaping business.
The ultra greedy "global pool of money" can go f*ck itself however:

http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=355

Unlike so called Libertarians I do not mind paying a fair rate of tax to fund care of the disabled and others who can't cope in the global society, basic research, environmental laws, and health and safety laws. All things that won't be provided by the self centered promoters of the "free market" being the provider all social goods. Since the ultra greedy self centered people proclaim they must have the "freedom" to spend money however they like even if it means millions starving, rising ocean levels, and the disabled in the streets (like Charles Dicken's England) and mass species dieoff it is my opinion that eventually we will have to fight these people in the street just to survive.

Glover, the context of the article demonstrates that despite party affilation, legislation is skewed to favor corporations. It does not matter if it is Republican or Democratic. Despite the lip service the two front runners pay to these issues, the legislation always favors the enfranchised. Since you seem to be in agreement with this view point, it begs the question: why keep voting for those who (Like Obama, Clinton, and McCain) who fund the dysfunction.

" I don't believe he has claimed to be a libertarian."

That's correct. It would be a gross oversimplification of my position on things. I admit that on many issues I will use what I understand a libertarioan view as a starting point only, since I find that in a generic sence my thinking overlaps with much of what they say.

"Kent Shaw I find 90+% of these rabidly pro BIG business, pro greed types tend to claim to be "Libertarian." "

Let's try a different way. I believe you were trying to claim hypocracy somewhere, but you have yet to produce a hypocrite. What would be your best example of a prominent *individual* who both lobbies for advantages in their business from the government but at the same time denounces government interference?

*ultra greedy*

The question I have for you would be, just *who* is to be the arbiter of what is "greed" and what is merely reasonable self interest? You? Greed is an extremely subjective term after all.

"YMMV. "

Indeed.

Greed is a house bigger than you need for yourself and your family simply because you can or perhaps two houses, greed is gorging yourself while a billion people starve, greed is laughing at the starving when your own stomach is full and you are fat, greed is collecting interest solely to stack coins in the bank, greed is "flipping houses," while others sleep in the parks, greed is cutting all the trees on your property because you think it's your "right" with no respect for life, greed is laughing at the needy and saying, "I've got mine," greed is consuming more than you need for yourself and basic tools of your trade, greed is to use the old religious terms greed, gluttony, and sloth, and I would add usary banned by many faith traditions as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins

The "freedom" to be a heartless self serving prick does not impress me. Someday soon the masses will gather will gather with torches in front of the gated communities for we will not tolerate a new middle ages, and cannot sustain endless Dubais:

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/5807/mike_davis_on_a_paradise_built_on_oil

Those of you like jakenewton who laugh and pretend not to know what greed is in a "it's all relative man" way will fall for we will NOT tolerate the new middle ages you are constructing for us, count on it... Jakenewton did you cringe when Clinton asked what the meaning of is, is? So did I, and I cringe as well when people like yourself ask what the meaning of greed is when you know exactly what it is and pretend not to... Greed is *NOT* subjective it's taking more than you need for your day to day life, pretty damn simple, no?

Stop lying and deceiving, OK?

Jakenewton you claim "I will use what I understand a libertarioan (sic) view as a starting point." Yet clearly a pure Libertarian would denounce taking government handouts for the rich, yet you do not. As the heroic Joseph Welch said to the declining Senator McCartyh:

"You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6444

I believe firmly that those who claim allegiance with the "Libertarian" viewpoint when it suits their aims of gutting programs for the poor while simultaneously asking for handouts for the rich utterly lack basic human decency and deserve nothing but our ridicule and scorn. Sadly I find most so called "Libertarians" engage in this sort of sophistry and weaseling when it comes to bailouts for the rich and slapdowns for the poor. How do you sleep at night?

p.s. hootowl=mrraven500 in case you didn't catch that on the other item, multiple computers, sorry.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger already solved this problem while he was still makling movies, a long time before he was ever elected to anything, and it's always worth quoting the tagline from one of his immortal gems of the cinema:

"Less talk, more killing."

For more peacefully inclined individuals, maybe it's time to stop voting for the corporate Democrats and corporate Republicans, and stop believing the Big Media propaganda about how no third party ever has a chance.

It's really us who don't have a chance, with two corporate parties and right-wing billionaires running the country.

Clinton/Obama and their corporate friends will flush us down the toilet just as fast as Bush/McCain.

A third party is only impossible as long as voters believe the propaganda. Maybe we could even find a couple of candidates with more credibility than Nader and Bob Barr and Ron Paul, if we start looking right about now.

"Those of you like jakenewton who laugh and pretend not to know what greed is "

I didn't "laugh".

*I* think I know what "greed" is, *you* think you know what "greed" is, and both are our own opinion and nothing more. Yet *you* want to be the ultimate arbiter of what "greed" is, with no consideration at all of what I think about it. Then you will go ahead and try to get your government to adapt laws in congruence with your own personal belief, that will enable them to sieze my property under threat of arms. No thanks pal, you can take that and stuff it.

hootowl quotes me:

""I will use what I understand a libertarioan (sic) view as a starting point."

Yet disengenuously omits the very important "in many cases".

"Yet clearly a pure Libertarian would denounce taking government handouts for the rich, yet you do not."

Who are you calling a "pure libertarian?"

Any reduction in taxes or tax rates for any group is not a "handout", it's a "giveback", get it? No government has money to give anyone until they first *take* it from mae and you. Duh.