SkyDekker

So, who is going to spend the approx. one trilllion dollars to cover current M0?

I would find a way to spend it on somebody I don't know. Pay off a lay-aways for random people. Go to a diner and pick up the tab for a couple of people. Buy coffee for everybody after me in the drive through

Let's hope that the son doesn't create an international incident to show North Koreans how decisive he is.

Pretty sure he meant that climate change is still based on science, whatever that science is. Unless of course you think a divine being is responsible for changes in climate.

I think that statement is just too general. I think you take their general sentiment, and mix it with the diplomat's sentiment and throw in a little aid worker and then try and make your own opinion.

I wasn't trying to "go anywhere" with it. I was asking for some clarification. Specially since I see foreign policy as something much grander than just military operations. Hence my confusion with the concept of service men and women. Since, if we are just talking about the front line troops, then no, I don't think that their travel has any bearing on foreign policy on the Presidential and Government level. When we talk about them as the whole establishment or apparatus, then yes, they have a bearing and form a part of the overall foreign policy. Should we listen to our service members, off course we should. However, since they are the ones on the front lines and the ones we ask to lay down their lives for us, their opinion is also somewhat biased. Hence my questions on trusting their opinion more than anyone else's.

Maybe on the military aspect of foreign policy. There is a lot more to foreign policy than the military.

lol, obviously in your haste in trying to slam me, you didn't read the whole quote. When sombody states that, on foreign policy, they trust the opinion of servicemen and women more than anyone else's, it is a fair question to ask. Pretty sure that establishment is made up of service men and women.

Seriously? You think the military should dictate foreign policy?

More like a student who is $5 million in debt, is trying to borrow more and has a rich Daddy.

Why is it unrealistic. It indicates that in general, you need buckets of money to win an election. In order to get those buckets of money, you have to make concessions. The bigger the money, the bigger the concessions/favours. Well, it is what you have. Not too many poor powerbrokers in DC. I also indicated many times that I don't think it is an issue now. I have, repeatedly, stated that it is a possible and maybe even plausibel end result of the current road we are on. I never advocated stripping anybody of wealth. I am trying to have a discussion about the dangers of a small group of people amassing the majority of wealth.

You are personalizing it. Let's say one candidate has $5 Billion in campaign funds and his opposition has $1 million. Who do you think has a much better chance of getting elected?

Absolutely. But, I don't think the racism was perceived. The FHA actively encouraged racial discrimination. It employed restrictive covenants to insure against "inharmoneous racial groups". Under FHA policy land next to that owned by (visual) minorities was classed as undesirable. HOLC bought homes in white neighbourhoods could not be sold to blacks. HOLC loans could only be made if racial segregation was maintained. Hard to build wealth if you are prevented from buying quality real estate.

Which legislation stated they had to make bad loans? The CRA? If the loans were so bad, why did so many institutions not governed by the CRA write these bad loans?

But that is the point, with a plutarchy, that is no longer a possibility. Election campaigns are getting more and more expensive. Every cycle, more money is required to get elected. When the circle that holds the wealth gets small enough, the politicians don't matter anymore. I am deliberately trying to look at this without a party ideology. The rest of your post is regarding poverty and I agree with your opinions regarding that issue. As I said earlier, the problem isn't now, or in the immediate future. The problem resides in what lies at the end of the road that we are on. I don't have an issue with people getting rich, I am relatively rich and working to get even richer. I have no delusions of eliminating poverty, it will always exist to some extent. I do have a concern with the continued path of the widening wealth gap and the exponential accumulation of wealth by a small group (whomever that group is) at the top. As a side note. It is that concern that underlies Warren Buffet's view on taxation.

I can't believe you support killing innocent people.

Agreed. Doesn't contradict what I wrote.

How did you get to that conclusion?

Exactly, all those roads lead to instability. It may even be inevitable, but wouldn't it be prudent to at least try and delay it. Try and rig the system as much in favour of keeping a government of the people, by the people for the people?

Well, it is not really opinion. If the CRA forced loans that were not profitable, there is no way that financial institutions not governed by the CRA would have entered that market. Stating that government forced loans created the crash, or that the CRA forced the crash is simply not supportable by any evidence.

The issue isn't trust fund babies. The potential problems associated with a large majority of wealth held by a small group of people are significant. There are enough examples of that thourghout history. At the current level in the US, I dont think there is any issue. But, that is a mere snapshot in time. Try and look into the future and try and predict where this path may lead to. If the potential of a plutarchy is significant, it would warrent taking some form of action now. That is not jealousy, that is an attempt at preservation.

No, derivatives were used to increase the profit being made from them. Those derivatives made bundled subprime mortgages an "investment" (read gambling) vehicle. It didn't matter what the terms of the mortgage were. Hence, without the derivative market and the lax lending rules, this simply woudl not have happened. From the last article you linked to: CRA didn't cause the crash. It was what created the environement that spawned the derivatives. Those derivatives drove the demand for subprime mortgages. Hence the incredible influx of all financial institutions, old and new, into the subprime market. The CRA created that environment because there was not enough regulation in the "exotic" mortgage market or the derivative market. One of the reasons Canada faired THAT much better than the US is the presence of that regulation.

Again, that relates to the CRA and the banks subject to it. 50% Of subprime loans were written by non-depository financial institutions. They are not subject to the CRA. The fact that ACORN was so desperate to get involved in the subprime mortgage business shows that the creation of mortgage derivatives made subprime loans incredably profitable. These non-depository banks weren't forced to take on subprime loans. They took them on willingly so they could sell them and make money. If the mortgage derivative market was not allowed, there is no way this would have happened. If mortgages were better regulated, this would not have happened either. CRA forces them to do business in their communities, it didn't stipulate what shape the mortgages had to take.

Possibly, but warmongering would be based on perceived motivation.

Both video's don't play for me. But if it relates to Obama and Citi bank that it would be off teh mark. Citi bank is subject to CRA. You were claiming fed.gov forcing non-depository banks to write subprime mortgages.