AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

EmperorNero wrote:

Hey okie, I want to ask you something. The same as this.
Would you be in favor of every state doing their own thing instead of all doing the same nationally? So for example if they want to practice gay marriage and let in illegal aliens in other states, they can?

It depends upon what issue it is, Nero. Some things are constitutionally guaranteed, so that States should not have the right to take those things away from you.

The issue of illegal aliens is an issue of national security, but it is also an issue of states needing to protect themselves from invasion, so there needs to be a balance, and both federal and state need to enforce the laws that are on the books. I see no problem for example with the Arizona law, because it is not at all in conflict with national security, protecting our borders as a nation. In the case of cities providing safe haven, that is a violation of national illegal immigration laws, so those local ordinances are unconstitutional in my opinion. States should not be able to allow illegal violation of national borders, no way.

Gay marriage, thats a tough issue because if some states allow the practice, then other states are going to be pressured to recognize those marriages when people move around the country. Since marriage is a legal contract and binding as long as the contract is in force, I see a problem with some states going off on a tangent, I think all states need to be on the same page. In regard to other issues that are not lasting but are one time occurences, such as abortion, I think perhaps the states should have more autonomy to decide what should be legal. However even in the case of abortion, you have the issue of the guarantee of life and the pursuit of happiness in the Constitution for example, so perhaps this also becomes a federal issue.

I think you have named some issues that have national implications and constitutional implications, so that most of them need resolution on a national scale, but Nero, I believe that most regulations or ordinances should be determined as local as possible, state, county, and city. A good example would be drivers licenses and speed limits, those are state and local things, and there are a myriad of other things that fall into that category as well. Speed limits for example are not a constitutional issue, such that the constitution guarantees you to be able to do whatever you want in terms of driving, it does not enter the picture at all. In contrast, illegal immigration, gay marriage, and things like abortion are constitutional issues in my opinion and need to perhaps be resolved on a national scale. Perhaps gay marriage could be determined by state, but I think it is going to create a mountain of problems down the line if it happens, and perhaps already is.

So your conclusion is that the government has the right to discriminate against a group of Americans?

You really don't know much about "homeland security" do you?

You want to starve those Americans who lost their jobs (and many lost their homes)?

Barney Frank has been all over the air waves this week with a clear and--we never thought we would say this--perfectly sound message about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:
"They should be abolished."

Two years ago ... Mr. Frank scoffed at the Bush Administration's view than Fan and Fred should be wound down, saying it would never happen.

[Now] Mr. Frank even told Fox Businees, "If we want to subsidize housing then we could do it upfront and let the budget be clear about that."

In fact you are the one blaming Obama for the bailouts. Those bailouts were meant to prevent the banking system from wrecking and thus truly ushering in a real depression. The toxic assets are being dealt with and again you and your Republican cronies are blaming Obama for the rescue.

Would you be in favor of every state doing their own thing instead of all doing the same nationally? So for example if they want to practice gay marriage and let in illegal aliens in other states, they can?

A marriage ought to remain limited to a legal partnership between one male and one female person.

But neither the 2007 Democrat Congress, or the 2009 Democrat Congress, or the 2009 Democrat President did or are now doing a damn thing to correct GWB's error. Up to now, they have instead prolonged and even expanded GWB's error in spite of GWB's subsequent multiple warnings that it had to be corrected.

So, you see no problem with one state saying a company from another state can't sell it's product in that state?
You see no problem with one state charging a tariff for every product shipped into that state from another state?

How about one state charging admission for anyone from another state?

How about one state saying any property that belongs to a citizen of another state is no longer that person's property if it enters that state?

The chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Texas Republican Phil Gramm, himself collected more than $1.5 million in cash from the three industries during the last five years: $496,610 from the insurance industry, $760,404 from the securities industry and $407,956 from banks.

During the final hours of negotiations between the House-Senate conference committee and White House and Treasury officials, dozens of well-heeled lobbyists crowded the corridors outside the room where the final deal-making was going on. Edward Yingling, chief lobbyist for the American Bankers Association, told the New York Times, "If I had to guess, I would say it's probably the most heavily lobbied, most expensive issue" in a generation.

While Democratic and Republican congressmen and industry lobbyists claimed that deregulation would spark competition and improve services to consumers, the same claims have proven bogus in the case of telecommunications, airlines and other industries freed from federal regulations. Consumer groups noted that since the passage of a 1994 banking deregulation bill which permitted bank holding companies to operate in more than one state, both checking fees and ATM fees have risen sharply.

Differing versions of financial services deregulation passed the House and Senate earlier this year, and the conference committee was called to work out a consensus bill and avert a White House veto. The principal bone of contention in the last few days before the agreement had nothing to do with the central thrust of the bill, on which there was near-unanimous bipartisan support.

The sticking point was the effort by Gramm to gut the Community Reinvestment Act, a 1977 anti-redlining law which requires that banks make a certain proportion of their loans in minority and poor neighborhoods. Gramm blocked passage of a similar deregulation bill last year over demands to cripple the CRA, and bank lobbyists were in a panic, during the week before the deal was made, that the dispute would once again prevent any bill from being adopted.

Gramm and other extreme-right Republicans saw the opportunity to damage their political opponents among minority businessmen and community groups, who generally support the Democratic Party. Gramm succeeded in inserting two provisions to weaken the CRA, one reducing the frequency of examinations for CRA compliance to once every five years for smaller banks, the other compelling public disclosure of loans made under the program.

The banking industry had been seeking the repeal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act since the 1980s, if not earlier. In 1987 the Congressional Research Service prepared a report which explored the case for preserving Glass-Steagall and the case against preserving the act.[2]

Respective versions of the legislation were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The third lawmaker associated with the bill was Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Virginia), Chairman of the House Commerce Committee from 1995 to 2001.

The House passed its version of the Financial Services Act of 1999 on 1 July 1999 by a bipartisan vote of 343-86 (|Republicans 205–16; Democrats 138–69; Independent 0–1),[3] [4] [5] two months after the Senate had already passed its version of the bill on May 6th by a much-narrower 54–44 vote along basically-partisan lines (53 Republicans and one Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).[6] [7] [8] [9][10]

how many toxic loans were made last year?
Now compare that number to 2004, 2005, 2006.