Republican vs Conservative vs Democrat

[Ordo Mallus]

The person who wrote the above has more beliefs about economics than knowledge.

The person is right. Cap and trade will kill the middle class. The rich don't care, because energy costs are a tiny fraction of their expenses. The poor don't care because they don't pay for their energy. The middle class gets crushed. Multiple times. Minimum wage, again hurts the poor more than it helps them. Welfare does the same.

^this but might wana expand on the welfare thing so other ppl might understand instead of actually having to think about it lol

[Ashmoria]

Anyone following the race in upstate New York? This is the one where the NY Republicans nominated a candidate slightly left of Obama... Also endorsed by the Acornite Working Families Party, Dede Scozzafava, is running against a Democrat, Bill Owens, and a Conservative, Doug Hoffman. Hoffman has been steadily gaining in the polls.

It would be nice to see a Conservative victory only a year after the travesty of 2008.

i think that the republican party NEEDS the democrat to squeek out a victory here.

i mean: what the fuck? to have republican party leaders endorse the non-republican candidate is madness. it NEEDS to have bad bad consequences so they wont do it again. it might be the only thing that saves the republican party from ruin in the '10 election.

[Sibirsky]

Sibirsky, if you love free speech and democratic rights, try to be more like Whiskey Hill here. And less with the "W00t, TWO parties! Now THIS is FREEDOM! YAY for MY party!" childish rubbish. Partisanism when you recognize two parties, is just one better than partisanism when there is only one.

And where do you see me saying that? Besides, the Democrats are for bigger government, and state so, which is fine, but the Republicans are for bigger government also, even thought hey say they're for smaller government, I am for neither ones of the morons.

Good, good. I find myself in a similar position.

Except that I am for bigger government, not smaller as you are. And what I see is government growing, but not fast enough to keep up with the economic power of corporations.

Yes, you are right that government power is growing. But I think I am also right, in thinking that is is shrinking relative to other seats of power.

Perhaps the common point is that in our information age, where power lies is becoming more plain, more explicit, and less hidden behind "legitimacy". This has to be good. If anyone or any collective has appropriated some of your power or mine, or if we unwittingly handed our power over to them, then best we should know. Even if we cannot claim it back.

We should know what is done in our name. With our money. With our authority. It can only serve our interests to know.

If we would rebel, at cost and risk to ourselves, better that we know clearly what we rebel against. Not just "fight the power."

If there was some cause of the two-party system ... some specific feature of the electoral system which tended to make only two sides from the diversity of intentions among the people ... that should be our target, rather than either or both of the factions which benefit from it. Both of them are just doing what parties should, taking all the power they can get.

Government spending grew faster than GDP under Bush II and the first 9 months of Obama. So, I do not agree that it is growing slower than other sectors. Does it matter what this country was meant to be?

[Sibirsky]

Welfare does the same.

Yes, yes, someone who isn't able to work would be better off without welfare than with it.

I was just thinking the same thing. When my father abandoned my mother with a 2 year old daughter and 6 month old son(me) and she had no education, money or hope and after a brief stint on Welfare got her high school diploma and a job, parlaying that eventually into a college degree and owning her own home and raising two successful children, It's clear that Welfare was very damaging to her.

Very well. I am not talking about brief stints on welfare.

Since most of the use of welfare is for brief stints, you then agree that welfare is generally beneficial to the poor, only harming a small proportion who try to make it their sole source of income?

Source?

[KiloMikeAlpha]

WOO HOO Independent Conservatives FTW

You see, the reason people are beginning to vote for the Independent Conservative is that they have been lied to for the better part of 10 years. It makes no difference, Blue or Red, Republican or Democrat. They both have sold out to the special interest groups and have become an oligarchy.

It is time we have Patriots, NOT politicians running this great country.

So why are you trying to become a politician?

I am not trying to become a politician. I am a patriot trying to become a Congressman. There is a difference you know.

[Lucky Bicycle Works]

WOO HOO Independent Conservatives FTW

Ugh. That link uses huge images scaled small. Sucking up all the bandwidth of big pictures but showing them small.

I don't know the technical term for that. But I do know that even nutty conspiracy theorists don't make that mistake any more. It's a 1998 noob mistake. It costs in server bandwidth, and makes the page load slower, and costs the viewer at least time, but also money if they are paying by the kilobyte (eg, on 3G). And all they get is little pictures.

I can only conclude that the webmaster is a twerp with a sugar-daddy. And no, I did not look around their site. The page you linked to was quite bad enough thankyou.

[Timesjoke]

Welfare does the same.

Yes, yes, someone who isn't able to work would be better off without welfare than with it.

In most cases it is Government that caused the lack of jobs. Government regulations and taxes are the biggest reason jobs leave America. By trying to rape the rich with unfair taxes, you make them react by figuring out ways to protect their income. Look At California, employers leaving the State and going to friendlier States next door. Greedy? None of us would pay more than we have to so why does anyone else believe business owners should act differently then we do? Do any of you decline to take your legal deductions on your tax returns?

Another mistake many make is they don't understand that government employees do not pay taxes. Sure they have tax deductions on the stubs but they are recycling the same tax dollars, there is no gain for the Government tax collecting. New government jobs hurt the economy, they don't help it for the same reason. The only thing that helps the economy is new earned dollars, and unfortunately liberals in general, and this President specifically hurt business. Obama will be responsible for the loss of more private sector jobs than any other President in history.



Instead of being mad that you don't have as much money as someone else, how about instead just get off your behind and go get your own prosperity?

[Glorious Freedonia]

I hope that American voters won't be stupid enough to go back to conservatives just because Obama hasn't made all their wishes come true in his first six months. He's not perfect, but he's accomplished quite a bit, and people are expecting too much of him.

If conservatism makes a real comeback, America's economy, reputation, and standards for human rights will likely collapse. Not that I expect a conservative comeback to be widespread or long term.

Since when were conservatives ever bad or the economy?

[Kashindahar]

Welfare does the same.

Yes, yes, someone who isn't able to work would be better off without welfare than with it.

In most cases it is Government that caused the lack of jobs. Government regulations and taxes are the biggest reason jobs leave America. By trying to rape the rich with unfair taxes, you make them react by figuring out ways to protect their income. Look At California, employers leaving the State and going to friendlier States next door. Greedy? None of us would pay more than we have to so why does anyone else believe business owners should act differently then we do? Do any of you decline to take your legal deductions on your tax returns?

Another mistake many make is they don't understand that government employees do not pay taxes. Sure they have tax deductions on the stubs but they are recycling the same tax dollars, there is no gain for the Government tax collecting. New government jobs hurt the economy, they don't help it for the same reason. The only thing that helps the economy is new earned dollars, and unfortunately liberals in general, and this President specifically hurt business. Obama will be responsible for the loss of more private sector jobs than any other President in history.



Instead of being mad that you don't have as much money as someone else, how about instead just get off your behind and go get your own prosperity?

How does this help someone who isn't able to work, rather than someone who just can't get a job? Someone on disability legitimately, in other words.

[Kashindahar]

WOO HOO Independent Conservatives FTW

You see, the reason people are beginning to vote for the Independent Conservative is that they have been lied to for the better part of 10 years. It makes no difference, Blue or Red, Republican or Democrat. They both have sold out to the special interest groups and have become an oligarchy.

It is time we have Patriots, NOT politicians running this great country.

So why are you trying to become a politician?

I am not trying to become a politician. I am a patriot trying to become a Congressman. There is a difference you know.

While you don't have to be in congress to be a politician, if you are in congress, you're a politician. It's one of the defining characteristics, you might say.

[Allanea]

I'll see your Newt and raise you a Mark:

“If more Republicans were willing to go down to the floor and lose..., we'd win more as conservatives.”

To add to what I said, the lady apparently also supported the bailout.

[Greed and Death]

Welfare does the same.

Yes, yes, someone who isn't able to work would be better off without welfare than with it.

In most cases it is Government that caused the lack of jobs. Government regulations and taxes are the biggest reason jobs leave America. By trying to rape the rich with unfair taxes, you make them react by figuring out ways to protect their income. Look At California, employers leaving the State and going to friendlier States next door. Greedy? None of us would pay more than we have to so why does anyone else believe business owners should act differently then we do? Do any of you decline to take your legal deductions on your tax returns?

Another mistake many make is they don't understand that government employees do not pay taxes. Sure they have tax deductions on the stubs but they are recycling the same tax dollars, there is no gain for the Government tax collecting. New government jobs hurt the economy, they don't help it for the same reason. The only thing that helps the economy is new earned dollars, and unfortunately liberals in general, and this President specifically hurt business. Obama will be responsible for the loss of more private sector jobs than any other President in history.



Instead of being mad that you don't have as much money as someone else, how about instead just get off your behind and go get your own prosperity?

How does this help someone who isn't able to work, rather than someone who just can't get a job? Someone on disability legitimately, in other words.

that is not welfare, that is the social security disability plan.
Welfare in the in the US usage refers to a specific set of programs of unemployment funded out of the income tax.
Disability is funded by the social security tax.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

WOO HOO Independent Conservatives FTW

Ugh. That link uses huge images scaled small. Sucking up all the bandwidth of big pictures but showing them small.

I don't know the technical term for that. But I do know that even nutty conspiracy theorists don't make that mistake any more. It's a 1998 noob mistake. It costs in server bandwidth, and makes the page load slower, and costs the viewer at least time, but also money if they are paying by the kilobyte (eg, on 3G). And all they get is little pictures.

I can only conclude that the webmaster is a twerp with a sugar-daddy. And no, I did not look around their site. The page you linked to was quite bad enough thankyou.

I think it is fixed now.

[Sibirsky]

Welfare does the same.

Yes, yes, someone who isn't able to work would be better off without welfare than with it.

In most cases it is Government that caused the lack of jobs. Government regulations and taxes are the biggest reason jobs leave America. By trying to rape the rich with unfair taxes, you make them react by figuring out ways to protect their income. Look At California, employers leaving the State and going to friendlier States next door. Greedy? None of us would pay more than we have to so why does anyone else believe business owners should act differently then we do? Do any of you decline to take your legal deductions on your tax returns?

Another mistake many make is they don't understand that government employees do not pay taxes. Sure they have tax deductions on the stubs but they are recycling the same tax dollars, there is no gain for the Government tax collecting. New government jobs hurt the economy, they don't help it for the same reason. The only thing that helps the economy is new earned dollars, and unfortunately liberals in general, and this President specifically hurt business. Obama will be responsible for the loss of more private sector jobs than any other President in history.



Instead of being mad that you don't have as much money as someone else, how about instead just get off your behind and go get your own prosperity?

Ain't that the truth. The wonderful state of Maryland decided to raise taxes on their 3000 millionaires. They will be happy to pay their fair share the Maryland politicians said. And we will raise an extra $100 million in revenue for the state. It passes, without a problem. The following year, only 2000 millionaires file taxes in Maryland, and the politicians collect $100 million less than in the previous year. Good job!

Also, for instance, sales of $1m+ homes in Montgomery County, Maryland (Maryland's richest county, DC suburb) were down 39%. Yes, housing is a mess. Sales of those same $1m+ homes in Fairfax County, Virginia (The nations's richest county, likewise a DC suburb) were only down 25%. The rich in those two counties are predominantly in the same fields, they're lobbyists and government contractors. As well as any other field you can find elsewhere. So why, the big difference in expensive home sales? Taxes of course. The Marylanders left. For good reason.

[Milks Empire]

In this American context, Conservative and Liberal, are vague ideologies that are constantly redifined by people with agendas.
Republican and Democrat are political parties.
Your definition of Conservative is obviously based on the talk radio "Conservatives"

He's talking about the Conservative Party. Actually read please.

This is my district we're discussing here (and I had a feeling that's what this was about). I'll be voting for Michael Paestella as a write-in.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

Welfare does the same.

Yes, yes, someone who isn't able to work would be better off without welfare than with it.

In most cases it is Government that caused the lack of jobs. Government regulations and taxes are the biggest reason jobs leave America. By trying to rape the rich with unfair taxes, you make them react by figuring out ways to protect their income. Look At California, employers leaving the State and going to friendlier States next door. Greedy? None of us would pay more than we have to so why does anyone else believe business owners should act differently then we do? Do any of you decline to take your legal deductions on your tax returns?

Another mistake many make is they don't understand that government employees do not pay taxes. Sure they have tax deductions on the stubs but they are recycling the same tax dollars, there is no gain for the Government tax collecting. New government jobs hurt the economy, they don't help it for the same reason. The only thing that helps the economy is new earned dollars, and unfortunately liberals in general, and this President specifically hurt business. Obama will be responsible for the loss of more private sector jobs than any other President in history.



Instead of being mad that you don't have as much money as someone else, how about instead just get off your behind and go get your own prosperity?

Ain't that the truth. The wonderful state of Maryland decided to raise taxes on their 3000 millionaires. They will be happy to pay their fair share the Maryland politicians said. And we will raise an extra $100 million in revenue for the state. It passes, without a problem. The following year, only 2000 millionaires file taxes in Maryland, and the politicians collect $100 million less than in the previous year. Good job!

Also, for instance, sales of $1m+ homes in Montgomery County, Maryland (Maryland's richest county, DC suburb) were down 39%. Yes, housing is a mess. Sales of those same $1m+ homes in Fairfax County, Virginia (The nations's richest county, likewise a DC suburb) were only down 25%. The rich in those two counties are predominantly in the same fields, they're lobbyists and government contractors. As well as any other field you can find elsewhere. So why, the big difference in expensive home sales? Taxes of course. The Marylanders left. For good reason.

Nice. I can only hope that in the near future I can learn to express myself this well. Good Job.

[Milks Empire]

*BIG SNIP*

Cut the threadjack, ALL of you (including those who got snipped), or the mods are coming in. This thread is not about welfare. It is about the special election for Congressional district NY-23.

[Goath]

Dede Scozzafava is the most liberal candidate in the race for the NY-23 seat- so much better on gay rights particularly that the founder of DailyKos "endorsed" her (I can't tell you if he was 100% serious). She was nominated in a primary by the Republicans of her district who obviously thought she was the strongest candidate. The conservative Republicans in the district, p-o'ed their brand of Republicanism was ignored in the race, have rallied around the Conservative Party of New York's nominee, Doug Hoffman.

Now, in the end, Scozzafava isn't a Republican like most Americans (or people from other countries who pay attention to US politics) are used to. She's pro-gay, she's pro-choice, and she's pro-union (specifically pro card check). That makes he something of a traditional New England Republican, but not at all the kind of Republican that is currently being embraced by rank-and-file conservatives these days, but she is being embraced by liberal-leaning independents who prefer her over the Democrat, Bill Owens.

With that said- with the divide caused among Republicans the Democrat in this race will almost certainly win. It's going to be close- tremendously close. Had Hoffman not been on the ball, Scozzafava would have won in a landslide. Had Scozzafava not been on the ballot, Hoffman would have won in a slightly smaller landslide. With both of them on the ballot...well...

All this tells national political observers is that the Republican Party will lose miserably, everywhere nationwide, if they allow conservatives (or moderates) to run as a third party.

'Course, I might be totally wrong. :-)

[Timesjoke]

Welfare does the same.

Yes, yes, someone who isn't able to work would be better off without welfare than with it.

In most cases it is Government that caused the lack of jobs. Government regulations and taxes are the biggest reason jobs leave America. By trying to rape the rich with unfair taxes, you make them react by figuring out ways to protect their income. Look At California, employers leaving the State and going to friendlier States next door. Greedy? None of us would pay more than we have to so why does anyone else believe business owners should act differently then we do? Do any of you decline to take your legal deductions on your tax returns?

Another mistake many make is they don't understand that government employees do not pay taxes. Sure they have tax deductions on the stubs but they are recycling the same tax dollars, there is no gain for the Government tax collecting. New government jobs hurt the economy, they don't help it for the same reason. The only thing that helps the economy is new earned dollars, and unfortunately liberals in general, and this President specifically hurt business. Obama will be responsible for the loss of more private sector jobs than any other President in history.



Instead of being mad that you don't have as much money as someone else, how about instead just get off your behind and go get your own prosperity?

How does this help someone who isn't able to work, rather than someone who just can't get a job? Someone on disability legitimately, in other words.

greed and death explained the difference well but I will go further than that.

Why is the inability to work the responsibility of the Government to fix? As I already pointed out, to give that person a dollar the Government must take $1.70 from "someone else". Government meddling caused most of the lost jobs in the first place so why would anyone believe more Government will have any better results?


Less government means more jobs, more jobs means everyone is making more money and then these very few who can't work (not to be confused with those who can but choose not to) can be easily taken care of by their family. Charity is not the responsibility of the Federal Government and it is costing more than it can ever help.

[Goath]

Welfare does the same.

Yes, yes, someone who isn't able to work would be better off without welfare than with it.

In most cases it is Government that caused the lack of jobs. Government regulations and taxes are the biggest reason jobs leave America. By trying to rape the rich with unfair taxes, you make them react by figuring out ways to protect their income. Look At California, employers leaving the State and going to friendlier States next door. Greedy? None of us would pay more than we have to so why does anyone else believe business owners should act differently then we do? Do any of you decline to take your legal deductions on your tax returns?

Another mistake many make is they don't understand that government employees do not pay taxes. Sure they have tax deductions on the stubs but they are recycling the same tax dollars, there is no gain for the Government tax collecting. New government jobs hurt the economy, they don't help it for the same reason. The only thing that helps the economy is new earned dollars, and unfortunately liberals in general, and this President specifically hurt business. Obama will be responsible for the loss of more private sector jobs than any other President in history.



Instead of being mad that you don't have as much money as someone else, how about instead just get off your behind and go get your own prosperity?

How does this help someone who isn't able to work, rather than someone who just can't get a job? Someone on disability legitimately, in other words.

greed and death explained the difference well but I will go further than that.

Why is the inability to work the responsibility of the Government to fix? As I already pointed out, to give that person a dollar the Government must take $1.70 from "someone else". Government meddling caused most of the lost jobs in the first place so why would anyone believe more Government will have any better results?


Less government means more jobs, more jobs means everyone is making more money and then these very few who can't work (not to be confused with those who can but choose not to) can be easily taken care of by their family. Charity is not the responsibility of the Federal Government and it is costing more than it can ever help.

I know I'm jumping into a deep puddle here, but on what can you base the statement "government meddling caused most of the lost jobs in the first place [...]?" From what I can see, it was the lack of appropriate government regulation of the financial system that has caused this most recent economic kerfluffle.

[Kantria]

I know I'm jumping into a deep puddle here, but on what can you base the statement "government meddling caused most of the lost jobs in the first place [...]?" From what I can see, it was the lack of appropriate government regulation of the financial system that has caused this most recent economic kerfluffle.

That's not a puddle—it's an ocean.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

Welfare does the same.

Yes, yes, someone who isn't able to work would be better off without welfare than with it.

In most cases it is Government that caused the lack of jobs. Government regulations and taxes are the biggest reason jobs leave America. By trying to rape the rich with unfair taxes, you make them react by figuring out ways to protect their income. Look At California, employers leaving the State and going to friendlier States next door. Greedy? None of us would pay more than we have to so why does anyone else believe business owners should act differently then we do? Do any of you decline to take your legal deductions on your tax returns?

Another mistake many make is they don't understand that government employees do not pay taxes. Sure they have tax deductions on the stubs but they are recycling the same tax dollars, there is no gain for the Government tax collecting. New government jobs hurt the economy, they don't help it for the same reason. The only thing that helps the economy is new earned dollars, and unfortunately liberals in general, and this President specifically hurt business. Obama will be responsible for the loss of more private sector jobs than any other President in history.



Instead of being mad that you don't have as much money as someone else, how about instead just get off your behind and go get your own prosperity?

How does this help someone who isn't able to work, rather than someone who just can't get a job? Someone on disability legitimately, in other words.

greed and death explained the difference well but I will go further than that.

Why is the inability to work the responsibility of the Government to fix? As I already pointed out, to give that person a dollar the Government must take $1.70 from "someone else". Government meddling caused most of the lost jobs in the first place so why would anyone believe more Government will have any better results?


Less government means more jobs, more jobs means everyone is making more money and then these very few who can't work (not to be confused with those who can but choose not to) can be easily taken care of by their family. Charity is not the responsibility of the Federal Government and it is costing more than it can ever help.

I know I'm jumping into a deep puddle here, but on what can you base the statement "government meddling caused most of the lost jobs in the first place [...]?" From what I can see, it was the lack of appropriate government regulation of the financial system that has caused this most recent economic kerfluffle.

it was the government forcing banks to lend to people who couldnt afford it. This was a political move to get people into houses. This ended up being fine, for a while, while jobs and the economy was good. As soon as the economy took a bad turn, the house of cards fell down.

The "Flip this house" culture at the time also caused it. I bought a house in Austin TX for 217K in 2000. That same house by 2005 was worth 350K. Well, it wasnt WORTH 350K, but that is what houses on the block were selling for at the time. People didnt care about the value, all they knew was that they could buy a house, make some changes and sell it 6 months later for some huge profit. THAT is why there were so many funky loans. You couldnt possibly afford a 350K house, but you could afford 1K/month payments. The banks knew(or gambled) that once you sold the house in 6 months, they would get thier money back.

Now, that, also, is good if the economy is good. Once there is some sort of hiccup, it all falls apart. Now, the dude who has the 350K house, and who can onoly afford the 1K/mo payments, either has to sell the house (which no one is buying at 350K) OR come up with the ~3K/mo payments. He can't do either, so he hands it back to the bank. Now the bank has a house for 350K that THEY cant sell.

Essentially, people were using thier houses as a business. They gambled. They lost. The banks gambled. They lost. Boo Hoo. Thats business.

[Xsyne]

I fully, truly, and UTTERLY support any conservative 3rd party candidates. I wholeheartedly encourage them to field conservative party candidates in any election.

Splitting the right wing vote would be the single best thing to happen to the democratic party.

Assuming the Democratic Party doesn't try to get conservative votes by moving to the right. Again.

[Goath]

it was the government forcing banks to lend to people who couldnt afford it. This was a political move to get people into houses. This ended up being fine, for a while, while jobs and the economy was good. As soon as the economy took a bad turn, the house of cards fell down.

The "Flip this house" culture at the time also caused it. I bought a house in Austin TX for 217K in 2000. That same house by 2005 was worth 350K. Well, it wasnt WORTH 350K, but that is what houses on the block were selling for at the time. People didnt care about the value, all they knew was that they could buy a house, make some changes and sell it 6 months later for some huge profit. THAT is why there were so many funky loans. You couldnt possibly afford a 350K house, but you could afford 1K/month payments. The banks knew(or gambled) that once you sold the house in 6 months, they would get thier money back.

Now, that, also, is good if the economy is good. Once there is some sort of hiccup, it all falls apart. Now, the dude who has the 350K house, and who can onoly afford the 1K/mo payments, either has to sell the house (which no one is buying at 350K) OR come up with the ~3K/mo payments. He can't do either, so he hands it back to the bank. Now the bank has a house for 350K that THEY cant sell.

Essentially, people were using thier houses as a business. They gambled. They lost. The banks gambled. They lost. Boo Hoo. Thats business.

Well, yes..but...no. Banks did indeed gamble- they made horrible, greedy decisions based on anticipated profit. They let out horribly irresponsible, unethical loans. Individual home-buyers were horribly irresponsible, too, of course.

This gets into the debate on the financial business bailouts, of course, which were a disgusting necessity if we wanted the American economy to continue plugging along. I abhor corporate bailouts on principle, but when federal regulation fails to do enough to avoid collapse in the run-up to said collapse something has to be done.

Increased regulation of the financial industry- including anti-trust prosecutions to make sure we never again have a business that is "too big to fail"- is the answer to this question. It was a lack of common sense- in regulations and otherwise- that has caused the mess we're in today.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

it was the government forcing banks to lend to people who couldnt afford it. This was a political move to get people into houses. This ended up being fine, for a while, while jobs and the economy was good. As soon as the economy took a bad turn, the house of cards fell down.

The "Flip this house" culture at the time also caused it. I bought a house in Austin TX for 217K in 2000. That same house by 2005 was worth 350K. Well, it wasnt WORTH 350K, but that is what houses on the block were selling for at the time. People didnt care about the value, all they knew was that they could buy a house, make some changes and sell it 6 months later for some huge profit. THAT is why there were so many funky loans. You couldnt possibly afford a 350K house, but you could afford 1K/month payments. The banks knew(or gambled) that once you sold the house in 6 months, they would get thier money back.

Now, that, also, is good if the economy is good. Once there is some sort of hiccup, it all falls apart. Now, the dude who has the 350K house, and who can onoly afford the 1K/mo payments, either has to sell the house (which no one is buying at 350K) OR come up with the ~3K/mo payments. He can't do either, so he hands it back to the bank. Now the bank has a house for 350K that THEY cant sell.

Essentially, people were using thier houses as a business. They gambled. They lost. The banks gambled. They lost. Boo Hoo. Thats business.

Well, yes..but...no. Banks did indeed gamble- they made horrible, greedy decisions based on anticipated profit. They let out horribly irresponsible, unethical loans. Individual home-buyers were horribly irresponsible, too, of course.

This gets into the debate on the financial business bailouts, of course, which were a disgusting necessity if we wanted the American economy to continue plugging along. I abhor corporate bailouts on principle, but when federal regulation fails to do enough to avoid collapse in the run-up to said collapse something has to be done.

Increased regulation of the financial industry- including anti-trust prosecutions to make sure we never again have a business that is "too big to fail"- is the answer to this question. It was a lack of common sense- in regulations and otherwise- that has caused the mess we're in today.

The banks were also being forced into the loans by the govmt as well.