If the military force used was necessary or not is debatable. There are good arguments on both sides. Even the current Commander In Chief is on record supporting the action in Afghanistan. And has continued much of the Bush policy in that arena, including Gitmo.

Spending on tax cuts? Failing to force someone to surrender a portion of his or her property is viewed as spending? Only someone in favor of income redistribution and a form of socialism can view that as spending.



Valid argument.

To an extent yes. But, if banks are coerced and encouraged to provide loans to people that they otherwise wouldn't consider by the feds, having the federal government provide the oversight is like having the fox guarding the hen house.

If lending institutions were allowed to make decisions on who they would lend to and base the interest charged on the risk/return ratio like they used to, the mess we are in would have never happened. The first house I bought I had to have 20% down. No 20%, no loan from the bank. I'm sure other people with a stellar credit history may have purchased with less of a down-payment, but as an 20 year old with very little financial track record, that was the deal.




I believe what you are suggesting would fall under the purview of individual local and state government, not the federal government. In fact, many local and state governments do indeed have an active "pervert patrol" and are active in "profiling" those individuals even as I type.

_________________
~POSTURING LIBERALS ARE ONE THEORY SHORT OF A THOUGHT~

_________________

_________________
Thanks for your two cents, but I will give you a whole quarter if you just STFU.

That's government double speak pure and simple. If it isn't yours to begin with, not taking it shouldn't be called an expenditure.

The way they tallied the budget cuts is another example of this government double speak. Using their logic, when I decided to buy a new car earlier this year, and on the way to the dealer, I stopped in a different dealership because at the last minute I succumbed to the struggle within to buy American instead. Because the vehicle I purchased was 15,000.00 less than the one I had intended to buy, by federal government standards, I cut 15,000.00 from my yearly budget, when in reality I spent money I really didn't have to. It's baloney.


Valid argument.

As was yours... There is PLENTY of blame to toss around, but we could have approached things in a more collective manner. The US NEEDS to address inequality. Look at our Gini coefficient. It looks more 3rd world than what the US should...
[/quote]
Not going to get much of an argument from me on this one.



To expand your knowledge base, this is an excerpt from the HUD website in 1995 under the title “The National Homeownership Strategy: Partners in the American Dream”. This document was removed from the website around 2007. Not hard to figure out why.

For many potential homebuyers, the lack of cash available to accumulate the required downpayment and closing costs is the major impediment to purchasing a home. Other households do not have sufficient available income to to make the monthly payments on mortgages financed at market interest rates for standard loan terms. Financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, should address both of these financial barriers to homeownership.





I believe what you are suggesting would fall under the purview of individual local and state government, not the federal government. In fact, many local and state governments do indeed have an active "pervert patrol" and are active in "profiling" those individuals even as I type.[/quote]

Why would the FBI or other agencies not be involved? Much of what they do does violate federal law I believe, what with transmission through computers being interstate commerce. Why not have the gov't come in and randomly evaluate your storage devices if you intend to use a computer and are a single white guy?[/quote]
Apples and oranges my friend.

_________________
~POSTURING LIBERALS ARE ONE THEORY SHORT OF A THOUGHT~

I realize that link is to a wiki article, but it explains the logic behind calling it a tax expenditure. If you don't buy wikipedia, here http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-RIDDIC ... 992-34.pdf.



I actually found that entire document on some guy's wordpress... Interesting read (http://confoundedinterest.files.wordpre ... sdream.pdf). Talked a little bit about lower down payments, but mainly it was discussing things through the administrative chain and getting public funds and stuff like that to help out. Either way, when you look at how everything played out, it was ultimately the magician's work regarding risk that was the overlying factor. When you can take a series of mortgages, roll them together and chop them up so that you hide the risk in selling them as bonds on the open market, the open market will continue to want them. If we had more regulation on the markets then they wouldn't be able to hide the risk, pull the good parts out and leave the bad for the peons, and people knew the true risk of what they were buying, then the bonds wouldn't be bought and the janky mortgages wouldn't be conducted to begin with. The banks wouldn't have anyone to sell the shit to. And before you start in on the Fannie and Freddie and Barney, I'm down with that and I got a bone to pick with him, too. He's smarter than all that mess and he now seems to be angling himself to be a lobbyist.

That quote must have been a popular copy-paste job amongst conservative message boards, too. I popped it into google to find the original document and that quote was everywhere! Do you have that one about the secret, behind closed doors meeting that congress had where they were going to create an Amero and all that... wait, here it is:

To come to a more complete understanding of Russell’s shocking statement about the United States and the possible false flag event coming soon, we need to take a look at a little known event, the March 13, 2008, closed-door session of the House of Congress. It was only the fourth time in our history as a nation such a session was held. The proposed agenda for the meeting was to discuss “New Surveillance Provisions,” but that was just a ruse. The fact that there was a March 13, 2008, closed-door session of the House of Congress is an established fact. The real agenda, according to information leaked after the meeting to alternative media, were these issues:

1. The imminent collapse of the US economy by September, 2008

2. The imminent collapse of the federal government finances by February, 2009

3. The possibility of Civil War as a result of the collapses

4. The advance round-ups of dissidents and insurgents into concentration camps

5. The flight of government officials into “safe facilities” (US underground cities)

6. The formation of the North American Union (NAU): the uniting of Mexico, the United States, and Canada into one union

7. The issuance of the new currency, the Amero, of the NAU, to replace the dollar

Even though there is no way to prove that these were the issues discussed at that meeting, all we need to do is look at the chronology of events since then. The government’s intent is obvious: tip off their own people of what is coming, and provide a way of escape for them when the riots and destruction comes, and leave the rest of us in the dark to be blind sided and destroyed.



Why would the FBI or other agencies not be involved? Much of what they do does violate federal law I believe, what with transmission through computers being interstate commerce. Why not have the gov't come in and randomly evaluate your storage devices if you intend to use a computer and are a single white guy?[/quote]
Apples and oranges my friend.[/quote]

Really? I see what these guys are doing as being just as much a danger to our country. We know where the access points are and we know where they frequently strike. We know how they communicate and we know how the traffic and perpetrate. I would say that going into an area where they have the ability to gain access to victims, be it a plane or a chat room, would warrant a search every time that access is about to occur.

_________________