Bolas

How many of those famous individuals that you mentioned above ever really did lose it all, including their freedom? Usually they get fined some and a slap on the wrist. Thinking one can regulate away greed and force intelligence is assinine. The issues is not regulations it's the lack of consequences for their decisions. It's basically this: Someone gives you $10,000 and will give you whatevever you make from it every time you profit PLUS will eat all losses. As you have no risk, why not go for the most you can make? Eventually you'll probably lose all their money but you're so far ahead, who cares? So the next time they give you the money they may add a few rules which you find a way around, profit, lose it all, more rules. The person can either keep adding more rules foolishly hoping they can eventually control the person or even better hold them fully accountable for any losses. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Hence why I disagree with DUI checkpoints as it removes probable cause other than smell. Coincidently, most are calling them license or insurance checkpoints now so thelocalities know what they're doing is suspect. Because those items are there to assist a driver, not "interrogate" them. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

I stated this above somewhere. The difference is the car is one's personal property whereas a search to enter an airport, federal building, sporting event etc. is simply a condition of accessing their property. A better example would be requiring breathalyzers on all residences that would not let you out if you were drunk to prevent public intoxication. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

I know what the original intention of them was, before they were exploited and others factors changed which made them non sustainable. Do you know why health insurance is generally tied to one's employment as well as other non pay benefits? Yes, the days of personal responsibility and accountability/consequence for ones actions/inactions were so horrid. Everyone (companies included) looking to the government for everything is far better, some have been doing so for multiple generations now. Do you reallllly want to have a VOUCHER... for a few hundred dollars to give to YOUR "insurance company" . They are the ones who WILL not insure the OLD or the POOR already.... no profits to be made. Now they have expanded that pool of PRE EXISTING CONDITIONS even further.. to include.. your shit flying Did you ever think that the reason they exclude so many is because anyone they exclude invariably the gov't picks up if the person can't afford to pay? If there was not that safety net for them or others things would be very different less than a generation or so. Either public outcry and negative PR would force them to change their practices, private charities would take over caring for them, or if noone really gave a shit about those people they'd either learn to fend for themselves or die trying, either way creating more self sustainable people and reducing greatly the numbers in poverty. The gov't keeps coming to the rescue. While appreciated af first it quickly leads to expected, needed, then demanded. Yet you are on the bandwagon that wishes to eliminate any such program and replace it with SQUAT.. and HOPE that some charity .... yeah.. good luck with that shit. What a great way to run a FIRST WORLD country.... into being just another THIRD WORLD SHITHOLE... How do you propose to deal with the issue? If nothing is done we will all become a THIRD WORLD SHITHOLE as OUR CURRENT CHOICES AND DIRECTION ARE NONSUSTAINABLE. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

I know what the original intention of them was, before they were exploited and others factors changed which made them non sustainable. Do you know why health insurance is generally tied to one's employment as well as other non pay benefits? Yes, the days of personal responsibility and accountability/consequence for ones actions/inactions were so horrid. Everyone (companies included) looking to the government for everything is far better, some have been doing so for multiple generations now. Do you reallllly want to have a VOUCHER... for a few hundred dollars to give to YOUR "insurance company" . They are the ones who WILL not insure the OLD or the POOR already.... no profits to be made. Now they have expanded that pool of PRE EXISTING CONDITIONS even further.. to include.. your shit flying Did you ever think that the reason they exclude so many is because anyone they exclude invariably the gov't picks up if the person can't afford to pay? If there was not that safety net for them or others things would be very different less than a generation or so. Either public outcry and negative PR would force them to change their practices, private charities would take over caring for them, or if noone really gave a shit about those people they'd either learn to fend for themselves or die trying, either way creating more self sustainable people and reducing greatly the numbers in poverty. The gov't keeps coming to the rescue. While appreciated af first it quickly leads to expected, needed, then demanded. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

I know what the original intention of them was, before they were exploited and others factors changed which made them non sustainable. Do you know why health insurance is generally tied to one's employment as well as other non pay benefits? Yes, the days of personal responsibility and accountability/consequence for ones actions/inactions were so horrid. Everyone (companies included) looking to the government for everything is far better, some have been doing so for multiple generations now. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

So ya kill your own bugs? Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

It really depends on the financial and legal reprecussions they may or may not end up facing AKA "if they get away with it." Seeing people that were living the high life for a few years then losing it all including their freedom if laws were also broken sure would be likely to deter others more than additional regulations. Those in the financial industry.. will seek to have no regulations at all... so the next round of get rich quick asssholes can gin up the next great thing to use to bilk BILLIONS or TRILLIO)NS from Main Street again... Yeah... lets turn over all of SS to them to... especially since we just turned over the whole health insurance industry to the same idiots... that sounds like a GREAT IDEA If we turn it over, we turn it all and don't let them pick and choose like we're doing currently. Healthcare would become all private. Medicaid and Medicare would no longer exist. No gov't subsidy or assistance for care but they still have to support everyone, not just the profitable. Turn over all the IOU's in SS to private companies. Once again, they now have to provide retirement AND disability income for all Americans. The industries would never want that because they know it's not sustainable. They righfully only want the profitable parts which they're getting more and more of. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

well, the buyers of those mortgages might take greater care, or not listen to ratings agencies that clearly failed. Or they could have contracts that involve claw backs if a threshold percentage of those loans fail. I don't think we need government regulation to fix this, necessarily. People will demand higher rates or better insurance to buy unreliable money vehicles. They were demanding those things before the gov't said it would insure them all. Once risk was removed, what was the incentive to not? Not to mention they were being regulated to do x% of those types of loans and were being fined/sued if non compliant... Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

It really depends on the financial and legal reprecussions they may or may not end up facing AKA "if they get away with it." Seeing people that were living the high life for a few years then losing it all including their freedom if laws were also broken sure would be likely to deter others more than additional regulations. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

are you saying you would borrow money to make a few points in the market? risky. personally, i would not do it. analyzing risk of the open market is very very ....well, risky. No. I'm not saying taking a loan to put money into the market. I'm saying taking a loan instead of taking money already in the market out.

I'll admit I don't know much about SOX, but I think sometimes simple straightforward regulation is passed over in favor of needlessly complex systems that just "feed the lawyers" to find ways around the rules. I believe the major reason why Canada escaped the financial meltdown is that lenders have to hold on to their mortgages for a period of time before they can sell them to another lender. If you know you have to hold a mortgage for a couple of years, you will do the due diligence to make sure the borrower can pay. If you know the mortgage will be someone else's problem before the ink is even dry, and that you will make a commission both at the closing and when you sell it off to someone else, why would you care if the borrower can make the payments? Two years before you can sell the mortgage (even one year would be sufficient!); simple and effective. Canada also has a wider range of mortgage products, including 40 and even 50 year mortgages. Lower payments, as so little principle comes off, but a great return for the lender over the lifetime of the loan. Don Hopefully after this mess, such a reg as that would not be necessary. I sure miss the days of caveat emptor and accountability... Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

are you saying you would borrow money to make a few points in the market? risky. personally, i would not do it. analyzing risk of the open market is very very ....well, risky. No. I'm not saying taking a loan to put money into the market. I'm saying taking a loan instead of taking money already in the market out.

I agree with most of your debt free ideas... I've got goals of being totally debt free (including the house) by 50. However, if one is in a position to get a loan for less interest than their money is making in the market (especially once you factor in that the sale profits are taxable income) I think they're better off. I think the key is not be underwater on anything. Don't owe more on an item than it's worth or owe more in credit cards/other unsecured loans than you have.

At this point I agree with you as those regulations and bailouts have left very few small banks. With such limited choice now, there needs to be some protections but even so some of the current state and fed regs should be reviewed and revised/standardized. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

An even better solution would have been for the government not to get involved in the financial industry (Fannie, Freddie) as well as not force businesses to make an x% of loans to a cetain group. I agree straight out bailouts are bad, but if the stupid policies and regulations were partly to blame for the mess, I think they're warranted. Unfortunately, that money comes from all of us, not the idiots that proposed and voted for the legislation. Hmmm... There's an interesting concept. Hold those that vote for and/or approve new legislation and regulation accountable for the results/impact.

Dishonesty on all sides, the buyers of the houses for lying about their status (whether prompted to or not), the loan officers for lying about the documents, the companies for lying about the signatures, and now committing forgery to try to foreclose. Such is the price of always trying to take the easy road. I'm sorta glad this is so expensive and painful for all involved. Perhaps after this lessons will be finally learned. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

No worries there. The memories of Boogie in Belize 2010 will always be with me. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Sorry... So... You don't love me anymore?? So what we did last night was just sex to you? I don't really know *what* to call it but I really would prefer to forget it ever happened... The tapioca pudding and the leiderhosen was just too much, huh? (I knew I shoulda just gone with the chocolate) Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

That's what balance transfers are for after the introductory.

Sorry... So... You don't love me anymore?? So what we did last night was just sex to you? Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Tell that to the tandem student I have to land down wind in 10 to 15 because the winds shifted and you couldn't figure out how to read and adapt to a landing pattern from 1000 feet above it. You really should learn how to be a skydiver before you advise us on how to do this thing. (throwing the BS flag) I've jumped at DZs that had a large arrow on the ground indicating the madatory landing direction for all. Everyone landed that direction, even if it was a slight downwind (3-4 mph) EXCEPT the tandems. They all chased the sock on their landings. At one DZ. apparently the TMs told the DZO that if they had to land with the arrow regardless of L&V wind direction it was more dangerous for them and their passengers so they refused and said they'd not jump. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Lets break all of the rules and make an accountant's head explode. Happychick Markus (Little Spoon) Dr. Dive and Ladydyver Amazon Big Sky Grannyinthesky Tall Guy Nidaho Skych1k Bob Moore Vskydiver and JohnMitchell Skootz and Sheepfucker Grimmie NWFlyer and monkycndo Lucky Kdub Olympia Deb Skybytch and Keith Airtime1 Shell666 DBCooper NDFallrate Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

One additional issue with the FMD rule I've seen is while some race down to set the pattern, others will hold in brakes so they don't have to be the one that sets the pattern. I think a landing crosswind and downwind on a L&V day should be a part of the student progression. Maybe make it a safety day thing too and bring in larger mains for people to use if they're not comfortable doing it on their current one.

I'm assuming you are talking about unplanned ones? If so, you'd probably have to ask one of the non-skydiving locals. The rest of us have been thoroughly trained on our life saving procedures. "This one done come out born with all their limbs." "You were with one of dem dere skyplane jumpers!!!" Must be different locals than I've met. The ones I've met were just asking me to put on pants. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.