Thought this was an excellent article http://newsok.com/state-rep.-doug-cox-the-gop-and-abortion-legislation/article/3835587
I have no idea what the full political views of this guy are, but this article represents something that has been almost completely destroyed in the Republican party, that something is independent rational thought. I don't post this to glorify abortion. Instead, I post it because it is a rare display of honesty by a man who questions his party's refusal to accept how detached their views are from the real world.
Infanticide is now detached from the real World?
ReplyDeleteI guess genocide is also acceptable to the left......
DeleteThat is next.
DeleteAs is the case about 70% of the time Brian, you chose to skip discussion and make a baseless claim like the left accepting genocide as agreeable. That's a pretty stupid statement. Infanticide is not detached from the real world. However, maintaining a view that we are doing something about it by de facto outlaw of abortion is a view that is detached from reality. Again, I know nothing of this man's bigger political view, but he raises the view of what happens in reality. Conservatives in principle are against many things until it is THEY who are thrust into facing a tough consequence.
DeleteAborting a fetus is certainly not a good thing, but once it is born, we could really care less whether it starves or has access to good education if it is born to a shitty parent. I think most who believe we should outlaw abortion are firmly in the camp who enjoy an asshole sense of superiority in seeing a single mother suffer the consequences of not making better choices. As for the kid, meh, it's not their problem.
soooo don't beat it just kill it - that is a nice leftist motto Max. You choose not to accept the baby has a life because it is easier to deal with and that simply is no excuse for murder of an innocent baby.
DeleteAborting a fetus is certainly not a good thing, but once it is born, we could really care less whether it starves or has access to good education if it is born to a shitty parent. I think most who believe we should outlaw abortion are firmly in the camp who enjoy an asshole sense of superiority in seeing a single mother suffer the consequences of not making better choices. As for the kid, meh, it's not their problem.
Delete---------------------
Max,
Name one child who has starved in the U.S. in the last 30 years. As far as education, ever since the formation of the Dept. of Education, our education system has sank to new lows teaching stuff that should only be taught at home and teacher unions loading up on bennies and pensions that are were unheard of until local school boards were nothing more than mandated Federal regulators.
Yes, there are many deadbeat parents in our Country. How many are on the government dime and don't care what their children do, since it will just get them another free service? I honestly couldn't care if a woman gets an abortion, but I don't want tax dollars paying for it, promoting it, and certain limits need to be set for how far along is too far. Birth control is cheap and readily available, so unplanned pregnancies should be virtually unheard of and once again, not provided by big daddy government.
Gotta, there's starved to death as in Africa, and then there's starving where kids are hungry or being fed a diet of shitty food. It's been proven that kids who don't have enough eat do poorly in school. All unions are evil, so that response is predictable, but it doesn't say much. Unions protect bad teachers, that's for sure, but no child left behind also dumped an enormous burden on the education system while not providing any way to pay for it. A lot of teachers teach to the test. Just for curiosity sake, do you acknowledge that or just firmly believe that it is unions that are at the center of the entire mess?
DeleteThe belief that welfare momma's keep spitting out kids just to get more benefits is a tired old saw. What I see from conservatives is a very short sighted mentality, "I don't wanna pay for nobody's stinkin birth control". It's a belief that somehow, we can go through life and never be affected by the actions of others if only we restrict government so sharply it can't do anything. Setting limits on how far along a woman can be sounds reasonable to me, but even when that limit is set, Republicans will enact laws to restrict it even further as they are doing in several states right now.
There is right and there is wrong and each decides for himself those boundaries in which he lives within. One cannot dance with the devil on Saturday and then worship on Sunday. A choice must be made so make it well as we will all be held accountable regardless of what society dictates. Our supreme judge is not elected, He is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last ....
ReplyDeleteThat's actually a somewhat reasonable post. The problem, of course, is that letting others choose is not what conservatives practice regardless of what they preach. Perhaps you don't see calling everyone a piece of shit while proclaiming faith to be a contradiction. If people truly believed they would be judged for their words and deeds, the world would be a different place. Instead, many believe as you say that they can two step with the devil and be right with God for showing up to church.
DeleteSo I should lie to be an acceptable Christian in the eyes of heathens.. no no no... It is called tough love Max and as much as I detest your philosophy I truly believe that there is a chance for you. .
DeleteThe reality Angie, is that you really don't know what I believe, nor, it seems, do you care. I'm "one of them" and as long as you keep me defined by that rigid view, you can skip ever having a reasonable discussion and just dismiss me with taunts of Marxist. Though I don't call myself Christian, I see little in my life that conflicts with how Christ said we should live in the world.
DeleteI'm not completely sure what point the article is trying to make.
ReplyDelete"Denying access to this important contraceptive is a sure way to increase legal and back-alley abortions."
Is that politikspeak for not handing out, or handing out at very low, subsidized cost, the morning after pill? What does this, or the decision to not make the male 'cover up' before entry? Or, gasp, the no-brainerest of them all, just saying 'no'? Outside of rape or incest, the problem with girls getting pregnant when they shouldn't is a matter of choice, no?
Jean
Angie, Your point no doubt is a valid one for you, but can you advise if it holds true for say an agnostic or an atheist?
ReplyDeleteI pander to no faith but yet I believe I live a life as worthy as any other. I obey the law, Give to charity, do not beat my wife and try to live by the ideal that I will accept from all others, that which I do to them. Perhaps at the end, a friend will say "he was not a bad bloke". I would be content with that.
By the way we are having the same debate here regarding the “Morning after” pill .Contraception seems an old fashioned topic now and the Aspirin theory no longer applies it seems. For those too young to remember, the theory is as follows. The girl holds an Aspirin tablet firmly between her knees and just as firmly says no.
Politics should not be part of the argument,morality should be,
Cheers from Aussie
Angie, Your point no doubt is a valid one for you, but can you advise if it holds true for say an agnostic or an atheist?
ReplyDeleteI pander to no faith but yet I believe I live a life as worthy as any other. I obey the law, Give to charity, do not beat my wife and try to live by the ideal that I will accept from all others, that which I do to them. Perhaps at the end, a friend will say "he was not a bad bloke". I would be content with that.
By the way we are having the same debate here regarding the “Morning after” pill .Contraception seems an old fashioned topic now and the Aspirin theory no longer applies it seems. For those too young to remember, the theory is as follows. The girl holds an Aspirin tablet firmly between her knees and just as firmly says no.
Kudo's Angie.
ReplyDeleteLife is about choices. As much as some would like to choose for others they cannot. The unfortunate part is we live with our choices good or bad and the ramifications of the choices.
And yes, you can dance with the Devil on Saturday and off to church on Sunday. Many do just that.
I think it's even bigger then that. We live with each others choices as well, successful choices as well as bad ones.
DeleteYes we do however there is absolutely nothing you or I can do about anyone's choices.
DeletePeople rail about the immorality of abortion. Interesting as it's been around forever. Before the clinics, there was the back alley.
And yes, you can dance with the Devil on Saturday and off to church on Sunday. There have always been the Sunday Christians, the twice a year Christians (Christmas, Easter).
"Nothing we can do"... We can choose not to fund it or at least have a say so as to where our tax dollars go. That is what a representative government is all about. We are supposed to have freedom of religion yet we do not as long as the tax dollars of Christians are used to fund things such as abortions.
DeleteAngie,
Delete"We are supposed to have freedom of religion yet we do not as long as the tax dollars of Christians are used to fund things such as abortions."
I'm not sure I completely agree with that logic, since I bet many taxpayers have religious views that don't sync up with how tax dollars are used. Somewhat of a backward way of treating us all equally, no?
Jean
Angie,
DeleteNot sure I agree with your last sentence. I bet many taxpayers have religious beliefs (or none) that don't quite sync up with how tax dollars are spent, no?
Jean
A small segment does not define the rules for the majority. Supreme court is the final say in all laws passed by congress.
DeleteThey ruled on this one some time ago, like it or not.
"Yes we do however there is absolutely nothing you or I can do about anyone's choices. "
DeleteWe can't control how people think (nor should we) so we can't prevent people from making bad choices. However, I do believe we can prevent and punish some of the worst excess. IMO, deregulation was one of the biggest factors in the home fiasco. Greed was the motivation, but deregulation of the financial industry was the catalyst. Yes, there were a ton of stupid people who bought houses they couldn't afford. But who gave them the loan? Having the regulation in place that we did prior did not keep greed in check, but it kept it more limited and did outright block banks from ultimately robbing the middle class of a lot of wealth.
I don't think the government should be there to solve problems. But on the other hand, the government CAN punish excess and create some rules that bring stability. I think the government should punish excess and manipulation. Not because punishing excess is fair, but because I believe punishing excess creates more opportunity for those in the bottom to climb up. With fewer and fewer opportunities to legitimately climb up, my life experience tells me that people will stop trying to do things legitimately.
But who gave them the loan??????? Banks forced by coercion under the CRA!
DeletePunish manipulation, yes, but punish excess???? What motivation is left to go out and be successful if it will all be taxed away under the guise of "spread the wealth around? If you don't like your plight in life, get off your welfare collecting ass (not you personally, Mike) and do something about it. I'm sick of hearing the left complain about the wealthy while passing and supporting programs designed to trap people in near poverty lifestyles.
I've debunked that bullshit countless times on MW. The CRA was started in the freaking 1970's and had no relation to what was going on here. The CRA forced banks to lend to the communities they were a part of. It did not, repeat did not force banks to create no income no job loans. Once we repealed Glass/Steagall and allowed investment banks to become home lenders, a virtual ocean of capital became available to fuel the housing bubble. Throw in those assholes at Moodys and the other ratings agencies who were too fucking stupid to honestly rate pools of mortgages and you have what happened. If you are seriously pushing the CRA as the cause Brian, you are not remotely accurate.
DeleteTo the rest, I've got a little more agreement. I think we do have a lot of people on disability or other programs who do not belong there and I also think we, people of mine and your generation, have created a very large group of young people who feel they deserve something for very little hard work. On the flip side, however, the right in this country has not done any better. Whereas the left allegedly seeks to redistribute wealth downward, the right seeks to redistribute it upward. I reject both. What I want is for the country to be strong and continue growing. If you believe the right is somehow less interested in welfare then the left, God bless. BTW, I started a new topic that addresses a lot of this if you are willing to read the link.
The CRA under went numerous changes after the initial implementation:
ReplyDeleteLegislative changes 1999
In 1999 the Congress enacted and President Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act. This law repealed the part of the Glass–Steagall Act that had prohibited a bank from offering a full range of investment, commercial banking, and insurance services since its enactment in 1933. A similar bill was introduced in 1998 by Senator Phil Gramm but it was unable to complete the legislative process into law. Resistance to enacting the 1998 bill, as well as the subsequent 1999 bill, centered around the legislation's language which would expand the types of banking institutions of the time into other areas of service but would not be subject to CRA compliance in order to do so. The Senator also demanded full disclosure of any financial "deals" which community groups had with banks, accusing such groups of "extortion".
In the fall of 1999, Senators Christopher Dodd and Charles E. Schumer prevented another impasse by securing a compromise between Sen. Gramm and the Clinton Administration by agreeing to amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. ch. 16) to allow banks to merge or expand into other types of financial institutions. The new Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act's FDIC related provisions, along with the addition of sub-section § 2903(c) directly to Title 12, insured any bank holding institution wishing to be re-designated as a financial holding institution by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System would also have to follow Community Reinvestment Act compliance guidelines before any merger or expansion could take effect.
At the same time the G-L-B Act's changes to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act would now allow for bank expansions into new lines of business, non-affiliated groups entering into agreements with these bank or financial institutions would also have to be reported as outlined under the newly added section to Title 12, § 1831y. (CRA Sunshine Requirements), satisfying Sen. Gramm's concerns.
In conjunction with the above Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act changes, smaller banks would be reviewed less frequently for CRA compliance by the addition of §2908. (Small Bank Regulatory Relief) directly to Chapter 30, (the existing CRA laws), itself. The 1999 Act also mandated two studies to be conducted in connection with the "Community Reinvestment Act":
the first report by the Federal Reserve, to be delivered to Congress by March 15, 2000, is a comprehensive study of CRA to focus on default and delinquency rates, and the profitability of loans made in connection with CRA;
the second report to be conducted by the Treasury Department over the next two years, is intended to determine the impact of the Act on the provision of services to low- and moderate-income neighborhoods and people, as intended by CRA.
On signing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, President Clinton said that it, "establishes the principles that, as we expand the powers of banks, we will expand the reach of the [Community Reinvestment] Act".
Regulatory changes 2005
In 2002 there was an inter-agency review of the effectiveness of the 1995 regulatory changes to the Community Reinvestment Act and new proposals were considered.
In 2003, researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York noted that dramatic changes in the financial services landscape had weakened the CRA, and that in 2003 less than 30 percent of all home purchase loans were subject to intensive review under the CRA.
DeleteIn early 2005, the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) implemented new rules that – among other changes – allowed thrifts with over $1 billion in assets to tweak the long standing 50-25-25 CRA ratings thresholds by continuing to meet 50 percent of their overall CRA rating through lending activity as always but the other 50 percent could be any combination of lending, investment, and services that the thrift wanted. The obligations to adhere to 25 percent for services and 25 percent for investments became optional and the means to securing a satisfactory CRA rating was left to the discretion of the qualifying thrifts instead (See the notes in the "2005" column of Table I. for the specifics). In April 2005, a contingent of Democratic Congressmen issued a letter protesting these changes, saying they undercut the ability of the CRA to "meet the needs of low and moderate-income persons and communities". The changes were also opposed by community groups concerned that it would weaken the CRA.
After enacting a technical regulatory amendment in the interim incorporating a different formula for stratifying both metropolitan and rural zones to better align with an expanded definition of them under the CRA in the process, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB), and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) also put a new set of regulations into effect in September 2005 - mirroring much of what the OTS had already initiated earlier in the year (See the notes in the "2005" column of Table I.' for the specifics). These regulations also included less restrictive definitions of "small" and "intermediate small" banks. "Intermediate small banks" were defined as banks with assets of less than $1 billion but more than $250 million, which allowed these banks to opt for examination as either as a small bank or a large bank. Currently banks with assets greater than $1.061 billion have their CRA performance evaluated according to lending, investment and service tests. The agencies use the Consumer Price Index to adjust the asset size thresholds for small and large institutions annually
Anyone go to jail?
ReplyDeleteAny realtor?
Mortgage broker?
Appariser?
Lender?
Lawmaker?
Fed reserve person?
No everyone properly scolded and off to the races.
Government did allow the housing bubble to happen. Government did say, everyone should be a homeowner.
We the citizens rewarded them properly with re-election to office.
"Government did allow the housing bubble to happen. Government did say, everyone should be a homeowner."
DeleteWhether you are saying this or not Lou, I think people can read into this sentence and ad, "ergo, this is just another example of government incompetence and why we should just deregulate everything and let the markets work it out." I don't think it's fair to say the government allowed the housing bubble to happen because as you mention above, the ability to apply oversight was taken away by the repeal of Glass/Steagall. If we follow the money, I don't think we can find any way for this to happen without opening the floodgates between bond traders and corrupt loan originators; gates that previously were closed.
Barney Frank stepping in to help expand the balance sheets of Fannie and Freddy was not positive. As for the CRA, that bill was working fine until they started to mess with it which is why I find it ludicrous to say that because it was created, we had the housing bubble. Bush said he would to see everyone own a home and on paper, there is nothing wrong with that. That doesn't mean we all need homes that are way too big and truly unaffordable. THAT is where the shitbags of wall street and mortgage brokering came in. THEY were the ones who told unqualified borrowers that they could easily afford a home that was 5-10 times their yearly income.
Why didn't people go to jail? I think it comes to down a few reasons. One, I tend to believe that bank lobbyists put on a full court press to shut this down; both parties are utterly owned by the banks. Two, in the aftermath of letting Lehman fail, I think our credit markets took a real hit in credibility and I believe that Washington was truly in fear to tear the lid off of how F'n corrupt our financial markets really are. Lastly, and this is related to point one, enormous effort has gone into severely handcuffing the government from being able to prosecute fraud. We basically believed that if we simply let the markets regulate themselves, everything would be alright. Several great book have been written about the subject and even the non political ones make it clear that many participants in the market are not honest people, nor are the firms they work for.
Of course, the leftist view is also that rich people don't go to jail save for a small handful. Market Watch today has a several stories on market corruption. It's same ol same ol.
Unintended consequences at best or I should say as always.
DeleteIf the Fed would not have lowered interest rates and left them low, would the bubble have happened?
If congress and the prez's in the past would have been a bit more responsible in their lawmaking business could it have happened?
The CRA is a prime example of a good law expanded and made bad by government not intentionally but with the idea of helping people.
A sad commentary however without government interference in trying to fix things, the results are now history.
De-regulate everything? No, why not reinstate Glass-Steagall? A good law tosses and replaced with a law that will take years to implement, sad.
The leftist view? The commoner is the only one that goes to jail. How often do you see a politician go to jail? But then again most are the rich.