The Atheist Communist Caliphate Made Flesh, Spread the Clusterfuck Around Thread

[RV]

What an absolute joke. "Restoring the rule of law" my ass.

The Obama administration said Tuesday it could continue to imprison non-U.S. citizens indefinitely even if they have been acquitted of terrorism charges by a U.S. military commission.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D., N.Y.), who has scheduled a Wednesday hearing on military commissions before the House Judiciary subcommittee he heads, questioned the administration's plan to allot prisoners to federal courts, military commissions or indefinite detention.

"What bothers me is that they seem to be saying, 'Some people we have good enough evidence against, so we'll give them a fair trial. Some people the evidence is not so good, so we'll give them a less fair trial. We'll give them just enough due process to ensure a conviction because we know they're guilty. That's not a fair trial, that's a show trial," Mr. Nadler said.

[Brownie]

This sucks, although she'll probably remain AG which wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.

It means we'll be stuck with Giannoulias as Senator and the Mighty Quinn as Gov...

Unless, of course we get some hot GOP revival action, in which case I guess this doesn't suck!

[RV]

This sucks, although she'll probably remain AG which wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.

It means we'll be stuck with Giannoulias as Senator and the Mighty Quinn as Gov...

Unless, of course we get some hot GOP revival action, in which case I guess this doesn't suck!

This just opens the door for CT's dream team of Ditka governoring and Oberweis senatoring.

[Brownie]

I'd much rather see Ditka in the Senate. Much more entertaining, especially during committee hearings.

[Quality Start Machine]

I'd much rather see Ditka in the Senate. Much more entertaining, especially during committee hearings.

Greatest.

Filibuster.

Ever.

[Tank]

I'd much rather see Ditka in the Senate. Much more entertaining, especially during committee hearings.

Greatest.

Filibuster.

Ever.

You really think Ditka would care enough about parliamentary procedure to put that kind of effort in?

I'm more curious whether the CSPAN mics would be sensitive enough to pick up his snoring.

[Quality Start Machine]

I'd much rather see Ditka in the Senate. Much more entertaining, especially during committee hearings.

Greatest.

Filibuster.

Ever.

You really think Ditka would care enough about parliamentary procedure to put that kind of effort in?

I'm more curious whether the CSPAN mics would be sensitive enough to pick up his snoring.

What makes you think they'd tell him he's filibustering?

The GOP would just get him the floor and come back in a week.

[CT III]

This sucks, although she'll probably remain AG which wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.

It means we'll be stuck with Giannoulias as Senator and the Mighty Quinn as Gov...

Unless, of course we get some hot GOP revival action, in which case I guess this doesn't suck!

This just opens the door for CT's dream team of Ditka governoring and Oberweis senatoring.

With Buffone and OB as Ditka's campaign advisors, Da Coach is sure to reach the White House.

[morpheus]

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/7-7-09-housing-crisis-report.pdf

U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Darrell Issa (CA-49), Ranking Member

The housing bubble that burst in 2007 and led to a financial crisis can be traced back to federal government intervention in the U.S. housing market intended to help provide homeownership opportunities for more Americans. This intervention began with two government-backed corporations, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which privatized their profits but socialized their risks, creating powerful incentives for them to act recklessly and exposing taxpayers to tremendous losses. Government intervention also created "affordable" but dangerous lending policies which encouraged lower down payments, looser underwriting standards and higher leverage. Finally, government intervention created a nexus of vested interests – politicians, lenders and lobbyists – who profited from the "affordable" housing market and acted to kill reforms.

Washington must reexamine its politically expedient but irresponsible approach to encouraging higher levels of homeownership based on imprudently small down payments and too little emphasis on borrowers' creditworthiness and ability to repay their loans. Unfortunately, very few elected officials would be comfortable echoing Yale University economist and housing expert Robert Shiller, who writes: "[T]he subprime housing dilemma in the United States points up the problems with over-promoting homeownership. Homeownership, for all its advantages, is not the ideal housing arrangement for all people in all circumstances." However, failing to learn the mistakes of our overleveraged binge on mortgage debt will almost certainly doom the country to repeating the same mistakes again and again.

[Quality Start Machine]

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/7-7-09-housing-crisis-report.pdf

U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Darrell Issa (CA-49), Ranking Member

The housing bubble that burst in 2007 and led to a financial crisis can be traced back to federal government intervention in the U.S. housing market intended to help provide homeownership opportunities for more Americans. This intervention began with two government-backed corporations, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which privatized their profits but socialized their risks, creating powerful incentives for them to act recklessly and exposing taxpayers to tremendous losses. Government intervention also created "affordable" but dangerous lending policies which encouraged lower down payments, looser underwriting standards and higher leverage. Finally, government intervention created a nexus of vested interests – politicians, lenders and lobbyists – who profited from the "affordable" housing market and acted to kill reforms.

Washington must reexamine its politically expedient but irresponsible approach to encouraging higher levels of homeownership based on imprudently small down payments and too little emphasis on borrowers' creditworthiness and ability to repay their loans. Unfortunately, very few elected officials would be comfortable echoing Yale University economist and housing expert Robert Shiller, who writes: "[T]he subprime housing dilemma in the United States points up the problems with over-promoting homeownership. Homeownership, for all its advantages, is not the ideal housing arrangement for all people in all circumstances." However, failing to learn the mistakes of our overleveraged binge on mortgage debt will almost certainly doom the country to repeating the same mistakes again and again.

So the Gubment needs to force its citizenry into fiscal responsibility? When both parties are spending money they don't have, they can't piss and moan over their constituents doing the same thing.

[Gil Gunderson]

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/7-7-09-housing-crisis-report.pdf

U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Darrell Issa (CA-49), Ranking Member

The housing bubble that burst in 2007 and led to a financial crisis can be traced back to federal government intervention in the U.S. housing market intended to help provide homeownership opportunities for more Americans. This intervention began with two government-backed corporations, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which privatized their profits but socialized their risks, creating powerful incentives for them to act recklessly and exposing taxpayers to tremendous losses. Government intervention also created "affordable" but dangerous lending policies which encouraged lower down payments, looser underwriting standards and higher leverage. Finally, government intervention created a nexus of vested interests – politicians, lenders and lobbyists – who profited from the "affordable" housing market and acted to kill reforms.

Washington must reexamine its politically expedient but irresponsible approach to encouraging higher levels of homeownership based on imprudently small down payments and too little emphasis on borrowers' creditworthiness and ability to repay their loans. Unfortunately, very few elected officials would be comfortable echoing Yale University economist and housing expert Robert Shiller, who writes: "[T]he subprime housing dilemma in the United States points up the problems with over-promoting homeownership. Homeownership, for all its advantages, is not the ideal housing arrangement for all people in all circumstances." However, failing to learn the mistakes of our overleveraged binge on mortgage debt will almost certainly doom the country to repeating the same mistakes again and again.

This makes me feel better about my renter status.  Why can't the gubment subsidize me?

[morpheus]

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/7-7-09-housing-crisis-report.pdf

U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Darrell Issa (CA-49), Ranking Member

The housing bubble that burst in 2007 and led to a financial crisis can be traced back to federal government intervention in the U.S. housing market intended to help provide homeownership opportunities for more Americans. This intervention began with two government-backed corporations, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which privatized their profits but socialized their risks, creating powerful incentives for them to act recklessly and exposing taxpayers to tremendous losses. Government intervention also created "affordable" but dangerous lending policies which encouraged lower down payments, looser underwriting standards and higher leverage. Finally, government intervention created a nexus of vested interests – politicians, lenders and lobbyists – who profited from the "affordable" housing market and acted to kill reforms.

Washington must reexamine its politically expedient but irresponsible approach to encouraging higher levels of homeownership based on imprudently small down payments and too little emphasis on borrowers' creditworthiness and ability to repay their loans. Unfortunately, very few elected officials would be comfortable echoing Yale University economist and housing expert Robert Shiller, who writes: "[T]he subprime housing dilemma in the United States points up the problems with over-promoting homeownership. Homeownership, for all its advantages, is not the ideal housing arrangement for all people in all circumstances." However, failing to learn the mistakes of our overleveraged binge on mortgage debt will almost certainly doom the country to repeating the same mistakes again and again.

So the Gubment needs to force its citizenry into fiscal responsibility? When both parties are spending money they don't have, they can't piss and moan over their constituents doing the same thing.

No arguments here Fork...just sayin', the irresponsibility of the people who borrowed too much and then defaulted on their loans should not go as unnoticed as it has thus far.

[RV]

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/7-7-09-housing-crisis-report.pdf

U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Darrell Issa (CA-49), Ranking Member

The housing bubble that burst in 2007 and led to a financial crisis can be traced back to federal government intervention in the U.S. housing market intended to help provide homeownership opportunities for more Americans. This intervention began with two government-backed corporations, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which privatized their profits but socialized their risks, creating powerful incentives for them to act recklessly and exposing taxpayers to tremendous losses. Government intervention also created "affordable" but dangerous lending policies which encouraged lower down payments, looser underwriting standards and higher leverage. Finally, government intervention created a nexus of vested interests – politicians, lenders and lobbyists – who profited from the "affordable" housing market and acted to kill reforms.

Washington must reexamine its politically expedient but irresponsible approach to encouraging higher levels of homeownership based on imprudently small down payments and too little emphasis on borrowers' creditworthiness and ability to repay their loans. Unfortunately, very few elected officials would be comfortable echoing Yale University economist and housing expert Robert Shiller, who writes: "[T]he subprime housing dilemma in the United States points up the problems with over-promoting homeownership. Homeownership, for all its advantages, is not the ideal housing arrangement for all people in all circumstances." However, failing to learn the mistakes of our overleveraged binge on mortgage debt will almost certainly doom the country to repeating the same mistakes again and again.

This makes me feel better about my renter status.  Why can't the gubment subsidize me?

Not that I'm complaining about my mortgage interest deduction (I got mine), but THIS:

If the goal of the deduction is just to increase homeownership, then it would make far more sense just to give a flat tax credit to people who buy homes. If the credit was independent of home value, then this would eliminate the incentive to buy bigger homes. If the credit was independent of borrowing, then this would decrease the incentive to over-borrow.

I have no datafaggotry to back this up, but doesn't the uncapped mortgage interest deduction - an INCENTIVE to tether yourself to a house - make even less sense when people are (I'm assuming) changing jobs and moving from city to city more than they did 30 or 40 years ago?

[Oleg]

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/7-7-09-housing-crisis-report.pdf

U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Darrell Issa (CA-49), Ranking Member

The housing bubble that burst in 2007 and led to a financial crisis can be traced back to federal government intervention in the U.S. housing market intended to help provide homeownership opportunities for more Americans. This intervention began with two government-backed corporations, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which privatized their profits but socialized their risks, creating powerful incentives for them to act recklessly and exposing taxpayers to tremendous losses. Government intervention also created "affordable" but dangerous lending policies which encouraged lower down payments, looser underwriting standards and higher leverage. Finally, government intervention created a nexus of vested interests – politicians, lenders and lobbyists – who profited from the "affordable" housing market and acted to kill reforms.

Washington must reexamine its politically expedient but irresponsible approach to encouraging higher levels of homeownership based on imprudently small down payments and too little emphasis on borrowers' creditworthiness and ability to repay their loans. Unfortunately, very few elected officials would be comfortable echoing Yale University economist and housing expert Robert Shiller, who writes: "[T]he subprime housing dilemma in the United States points up the problems with over-promoting homeownership. Homeownership, for all its advantages, is not the ideal housing arrangement for all people in all circumstances." However, failing to learn the mistakes of our overleveraged binge on mortgage debt will almost certainly doom the country to repeating the same mistakes again and again.

This makes me feel better about my renter status.  Why can't the gubment subsidize me?

Not that I'm complaining about my mortgage interest deduction (I got mine), but THIS:

If the goal of the deduction is just to increase homeownership, then it would make far more sense just to give a flat tax credit to people who buy homes. If the credit was independent of home value, then this would eliminate the incentive to buy bigger homes. If the credit was independent of borrowing, then this would decrease the incentive to over-borrow.

I have no datafaggotry to back this up, but doesn't the uncapped mortgage interest deduction - an INCENTIVE to tether yourself to a house - make even less sense when people are (I'm assuming) changing jobs and moving from city to city more than they did 30 or 40 years ago?

The other side is that it's an incentive for people to continue to upgrade their homes as they get older, raise families and make more money.

As I've said before, the problem is that people simply don't understand what they're buying, home or mortgage.  Someone can look at the monthly payment and not realize how the payment is calculated or how ARMs and such work.

Part of the problem is that the same innovation that produced very good products (ARMs, IOs, etc) was the used as a money grab to qualify unqualified borrowers.

The way we calculated debt-to-income ratios was to use the monthly payment.  Well, if the monthly payment was IO or an ARM, the fact that the payment would eventually go up was never taken into account.  What made this possible was that our underwriting guidelines were very much set by the banks that bought our loans, not by Freddie/Fannie.  In other words, if Meryl Lynch wanted loans that were set at a certain interest rate (say 9%) they would allow borrowers with lower credit scores (say 600) and they would allow for 80/20 or 100 LTV financing.  The biggest concern wasn't making good loans, it was making loans that could be sold as securities.  After the initial loosening of the guidelines by Freddie/Fannie, the rest was set by the buyers of the loans.

Frankly, this securitization of mortgages happened way before Freddie/Fannie loosened their guidelines in the 90s (read Liar's Poker).  That was really the start of this mess.

Morph (and his ilk) would like to blame the liberal policies of Freddie/Fannie.  And, they're not blameless.  But to lay the full blame at their feet is playing politics.

[Tank]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/burris/1659702,roland-burris-senate-reelection-2010-070909.article

Sneed has learned U.S. Sen. Roland Burris has decided NOT to seek election to the seat he fought the government to keep.

Sen. Burris is planning to announce his decision Friday by issuing a statement to the press. But he's reportedly not planning to field any questions from the press.

The decision by Burris was based on his inability to raise campaign funds; campaign disclosures with the Federal Election Commission are expected to be filed next week...and he has reportedly only raised approximately $20,000

A source tells Sneed that Burris, who was appointed to Barack Obama's senate seat by former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, has been very concerned about his legacy.

"After 20 years in government service, Burris didn't want the last four months in office to be that legacy," said a source./quote]