This is why Westboro Baptist Church is a joke

[kandrathe]

Sometimes yes, you do have go on faith, work from something that seems right but really hasn't been able to really be tested because there isn't a way to test it yet and there may never be. You can even question it. But again you can still learn and discover and progress so you do. You don't always want to reinvent the wheel, but you also don't want to feel that the wheel is the only way to get around. That's the whole point.

I don't disagree with this. You do see the inconstancy in that on the one hand we must not talk about the "God" theory, but any other empty unproven/unprovable theory is acceptable.

Circling back around to the Constitution, the imposition of the Establishment clause was to prevent the government (as it had in Europe) from colluding with religions (or atheists), or to enforce a particular religion on the people (or expunge religion). The Free exercise clause was included to allow people to express their faiths (or absence of it), so long as it doesn't interfere with the natural law rights of others.

With marriage, we've failed, as this obviously religious idea has permeated our legal framework. In the vocations of science, those people who have a religious faith are often ostracized, persecuted, and drummed out of their fields. But, as Treesh pointed out, this happens to Atheists, in the general public where religious people discriminate against the minority. I feel that both are wrong.

In the realm of educating children, an unintended consequence of making education equally available for all was that we've constrained it by the rules of the state. As presented by the Atheistic position, the state cannot teach the traditional religious foundations of knowledge, morality, philosophy, ethics, or even acknowledge the spirituality of the bulk of humanity. In the guise of not advocating "a state religion", the state has separated our citizens from the roots of their moral foundations. Then, consider how vehemently people are opposed to enabling private non-profit education to have an equal financial footing with public education (such as voucher programs).

My kids are with teachers from 8:30am to 3:30pm, 5 days a week (after school care from 3:30pm to 6pm), and with their parents from 7am-8:30am, 6pm to 9pm, and weekends. So weekly; with the school -- for about 35 hours, with parents about 46 hours, and with after school caregivers for about 12.5). As a parent, what I want is for the people caring for my children to not undermine what I've done to prepare my children for their adult lives, which focuses on acquiring knowledge, and developing social skills but also includes a solidly grounded foundation for morality, justice, and citizenship.

Columbine is an example of every (responsible) parents nightmare; How do you do everything in your power to ensure that your child doesn't grow up to become a monster? For me, Nietzsche is not on the list (at least not until high school), but when my kid comes home from school with questions, I am prepared.

[Kevin]

Sometimes yes, you do have go on faith, work from something that seems right but really hasn't been able to really be tested because there isn't a way to test it yet and there may never be. You can even question it. But again you can still learn and discover and progress so you do. You don't always want to reinvent the wheel, but you also don't want to feel that the wheel is the only way to get around. That's the whole point.

I don't disagree with this. You do see the inconstancy in that on the one hand we must not talk about the "God" theory, but any other empty unproven/unprovable theory is acceptable.

I didn't speak about that at all. But yes I'm OK with it as long as you still present it as "there is a theory that God did this but you are still free to question it, if you want more information you should talk with someone more familiar with religious studies as they can give you more information than I can." That is what the idea behind science is and I actually had it presented to me that way then we moved on to talking about how to measure, observer, and question and how the current theories fit this. You can talk about it, sure, but a public school is not the place to teach it. Just like I had string theory mentioned but since at the time the Big Bang Theory was the most accepted that is what was discussed more in depth and it was brought up that, yep the theory falls short here. I was told what classes I could take if I wanted to learn more about string theory though.

With marriage, we've failed, as this obviously religious idea has permeated our legal framework.

I agree that marriage should be a religious thing, but it hasn't always been. My limited understanding of it's history seems to tell me that it has usually been a financial contract that had nothing to do with religion or love and had a lot to do with money and buying the rights to sexually own a woman.

Even the "religious history" of marriage can be questioned as this little cartoon likes to point out.

   

[kandrathe]

Only one comment.
I am not angry at the super rich. I just consider sharing wealth to help a country back on its feet.

I just saw a clip from one of the speakers leading the "occupy LA" mob. He called for a rejection of Gandhi's peaceful resistance, and an embrace of the tactics of the French revolution. He said that violence, and blood shed will be necessary. He called for a victory for socialism.

So, then, you are not in lock step with the "occupy" movement. But, measure for the US or for the Netherlands, the total amount (not relative) of money that is given by what you consider to be the "super rich". In the US (as of 2008), the top 50% pay ~97% of income taxes collected. The top 10% provide 70% of income tax revenue. The top 1% of earners pay 38%, of all income tax revenue collected. But, that isn't enough. So now, they want to go after the money they make from risking their wealth on investments (including tax free government bonds).

Because the same question can be posed for the greek or Italian citizens; their nepotistic leaders have made a mess, and the small guys have to pay. Is that fair?

Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. The leaders may have made a mess, but that's what you get for delegating responsibilities to the state that you should be able to take care of on your own.

You give them the power, and then you complain about how they use it.

[kandrathe]

Even the "religious history" of marriage can be questioned as this little cartoon likes to point out.

Yeah, the Old Testament, can seem inconsistent, which is why most Christians only use it as a reference. Understand too, that it is describes the journey of an ever changing relationship between man and God. Each time there is an agreement, man fails, and then God needs to come up with a new deal (covenant) to redeem his fallen creation.

Judaism has a whole additional cannon of work in the Talmud, to describe how they resolve it. The ancient Hebrew society was polygynous, but also practiced Beena, which is a form of matriarchy (the woman's home is her castle). The women ran the households, but husbands were free to move between them. A husband has the obligation to provide for each wife.

[Taem]

Yeah, the Old Testament, can seem inconsistent, which is why most Christians only use it as a reference. Understand too, that it is describes the journey of an ever changing relationship between man and God. Each time there is an agreement, man fails, and then God needs to come up with a new deal (covenant) to redeem his fallen creation.

There you go again referencing information pastors have told you without actually reading the bible or historical documents. To even bother teaching the Christian version of "creationism" in school, maybe the Judeo-Christen faith would like to amend exactly how "god" created all things in the first place? If we're talking science of god here, I'm sure we can agree that there should be some sort of consistency in the theory, right?

Order of creation / Multiple Gods, Man
GENESIS 1:1 to 1:31 (the order of creation)
Day 1: Sky, Earth, light (GEN 1:3)
Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(GEN 1:4 to 1:10)
Day 3: Plants (GEN 1:11 to 1:12)
Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (GEN 1:14 to 1:19)
Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (GEN 1:20 to 1:23)
Day 6: Land animals and human(s) [plural form of man] (GEN 1:24 to 1:29)
Day 7: Happy at his creation (GEN 1:30)

GENESIS 2:4 to 2:23 (the order of creation)
1st: Earth and heavens (misty)(GEN 2:4 to 2:6)
2nd: Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth) (GEN 2:7)
3rd: Plants (GEN 2:8 to 2:17)
4th: Animals (2:18 to 2:20)
5th: Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib) (2:21 to 2:23)

Summary, Book: Genesis is about the creation of all things, the fall of man, and the lives and times of few generations past Adam. Jewish tradition says Moses wrote Genesis as a sheep herder around (1688 BC). History says the Yahwist, Elohist, and the Priest wrote and compiled parts of Genesis at (950 BC), and again in (400 BC). Please read the link to “how Genesis came to be” in “The Yahwist Tradition” of the History of the Bible section to understand more about Genesis.

Summary, Chapter 1 & 2: Elohim or God is creating the Earth, sky, and all living things.

COMMENT: Of first note is the discrepancies of creation between the two chapters in Genesis; the order of creation is completely different in both versions. Second, in Genesis 1, the deity is referred to as “Elohim” which is a plural of Eloah in the Hebrew, thus the literal translation of “the Gods”. In this tale, the Gods seem satisfied with what they have done saying after each step “it was good” after each of their labors, and rests on the seventh day feeling satisfied. In Genesis 2, God fixes things up as he goes; the first man is lonely and is not satisfied with the animals God gave him, so God creates a woman for him, and so on an so fourth; God has to fix up his creation as he goes. Lastly, of minor note in Genesis 1, you might also have noticed that there are “days”, “evenings”, and “mornings” before the Sun was created on the fourth day.

Besides, you are aware that almost all of the stories in the old testament were taken from other cultures in the Mesopotamia area, stories that are hundreds to even thousands of years older than the time the Israelites fled captivity in Egypt, correct? You make it sound as if all their "lessons" were taught by God and not stolen from other cultures, but this is simply incorrect. The Israelites took out any reference to the multiple gods from the Mesopotamia stories and injected their own jargon. Sure, they kept many records about their journey for 40-years, and their laws if that is to what you where refering, but that is not in dispute. Check out this link also while your at it.

Not trying to start a fight, you and I are over the subject of rather religion should in in schools or not. Just pointing out some serious flaws in your logic in that last post.

[Jester]

Why do they need to state that there is no other force? They don't believe another force is involved, but they really have no way of knowing what occurs in the "spiritual realm".

From the perspective of science, there is no "spiritual realm." This is not to deny is conceivable existence in a philosophical sense, but remember NOMA: if it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist, and if it does, it's outside of science's vision entirely. Science does not deal *at all* in supernatural phenomena, full stop.

And yet, NOMA is regularly violated on the other side from creationists and their re-branded "Intelligent Design" allies, who make explicit claims for the relevance of their religion, in a *tangible, measurable sense* to evolution. Science can, should, and indeed must fight back against this, at least to the point of explaining clearly that there are full, naturalistic theories consistent with the evidence that explain all of this, without recourse to any outside force. Whether you believe in one or not is irrelevant - it is not *necessary* for the functioning of evolution. That is not a religious statement, it is a scientific one.

In defense of Establishment, you seek equal protection for non-religious people from public officials talking about anything of faith. But, when the same public officials talk about faith being unnecessary, you don't defend that same spirit of Establishment.

Once again with the prevarication - such a convenient method of generating straw men! Nobody is telling children that faith is unnecessary in some cosmic sense. They are being taught that no outside force need be invoked to explain evolution - which is simply a scientific truth. No claim is being made (in the classroom) about the overall value of religion, or the necessity of faith in some social or personal sense.

It is entirely a functional claim, a question of how to parsimoniously use theory to explain observed evidence. Claiming you do not need a supernatural force to explain evolution should be no more controversial than saying you don't need a banana to make a martini.

As for cosmology... Doesn't this seem a little more mystical than science?

Not unless you completely fail to understand the scientific method. Dark matter is a specific *hypothesis* designed to explain empirical observations. It is no more than tentatively true - a speculation designed to temporarily plug a particular gap between our best theory, and our data. In time, it will either be supported by more evidence, or it will be discarded in favour of a better hypothesis. Science FTW.

Religion, meanwhile, either remains stuck in times long past, or wanders aimlessly, in response to no empirical evidence whatsoever - the attempt to understand the self-admittedly incomprehensible, with no data, no observations, no evidence.

-Jester

[Jester]

I just saw a clip from one of the speakers leading the "occupy LA" mob. He called for a rejection of Gandhi's peaceful resistance, and an embrace of the tactics of the French revolution. He said that violence, and blood shed will be necessary. He called for a victory for socialism.

Um.

You mean this guy?

The wacky unreconstructed Marxist guy senselessly rambling into a microphone in front of some tiny crowd of similarly-minded nobodies? The guy claiming that Gandhi is a tumor? That he left 600 million people in poverty?

If that's your idea of who's "leading" this movement, you're really not paying very close attention - not even to the clips you're watching. Or, perhaps, seeing what confirms your biases, rather than what actually describes the movement.

-Jester

[Ashock]

the movement.

-Jester

That reminds me. It's only 24 days until the 94th anniversary of a similar, albeit much bigger "movement".

The more things change, the more idiots stay the same.

[kandrathe]

You mean this guy?

The wacky unreconstructed Marxist guy senselessly rambling into a microphone in front of some tiny crowd of similarly-minded nobodies? The guy claiming that Gandhi is a tumor? That he left 600 million people in poverty?

If that's your idea of who's "leading" this movement, you're really not paying very close attention - not even to the clips you're watching. Or, perhaps, seeing what confirms your biases, rather than what actually describes the movement.

I didn't say leading, did I? But, put the shoe on the other foot. What something similar had been said at the TParty rally? I was emailed the clip, so no not the "clips I'm watching". I'm trying to ignore "the movement" because winters coming and the movement will die, before the wacky unreconstructed Marxists freeze to death.

[Jester]

I didn't say leading, did I?

A quick glance at your post:

I just saw a clip from one of the speakers leading the "occupy LA" mob.

So, yes. You did say leading.

But, put the shoe on the other foot. What something similar had been said at the TParty rally?

You mean like that "Congress = Slaveowner, Taxpayer = Niggar" guy?

As was (successfully) argued with me before, this man is not representative. There are all sorts of reasons to dislike the Tea Party, latent racism being one of them. But it is not fair to brand the whole movement based ramblings of this one particular attendee - neither in the Tea Party's case, nor the Occupy LA movement.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

So, yes. You did say leading.

Yes, I did.

But it is not fair to brand the whole movement based ramblings of this one particular attendee - neither in the Tea Party's case, nor the Occupy LA movement.

No, it isn't.

I do believe however that the bulk of the protesters are anti-capitalist, and pro-marxism. I don't believe the bulk of them advocate violence, but are willing to break the law as a form of civil disobedience.

They are in fact, about 1%. Just a different 1% than the ones they are protesting against. But, then again, every 1% should be afforded equal protection.

[Jester]

I do believe however that the bulk of the protesters are anti-capitalist, and pro-marxism. I don't believe the bulk of them advocate violence, but are willing to break the law as a form of civil disobedience.

No doubt there is a wide mix of opinions. I would suspect that a fairly small minority are any stripe of Marxist. Anti-Capitalist... well, if by that, you mean against the Capitalist class (that is to say, Wall Street), then yeah, sure. That's the name of the movement. If you mean against any form of market economy? I think not, although no doubt the left tail of the movement goes quite far out.

They are in fact, about 1%. Just a different 1% than the ones they are protesting against. But, then again, every 1% should be afforded equal protection.

You say "in fact." Either that doesn't mean what you think it does, or you're going to have to give me some facts to back up your "fact." If you mean people who strongly agree with their goals, insofar as they have them, they are probably more like 25%. If you mean people who vaguely agree, more like 60%. Time sez: 54% favourables for the Occupy Wall Street movement. 99% is, of course, dreaming. But it's closer than 1%.

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

One thing is for sure, they have more approval than the Tea Party. A lot more, actually.

And protesting against the kleptocracy that is Wall Street and their congressional enablers so we have more of a political democracy is hardly Marxist. Though the results of this kleptocracy have certainly resulted in a multitude of things that Marx warned against, but that is another matter from the OWS movement itself being Marxist. And even if they are Marxist, I say so the hell what. It's no worse than the Tea Party holding a fascist/racist ideology, which a substantial portion of them do.

[kandrathe]

You say "in fact." Either that doesn't mean what you think it does, or you're going to have to give me some facts to back up your "fact." If you mean people who strongly agree with their goals, insofar as they have them, they are probably more like 25%. If you mean people who vaguely agree, more like 60%. Time sez: 54% favourables for the Occupy Wall Street movement. 99% is, of course, dreaming. But it's closer than 1%.

I meant the ones out on the streets (1% is a big stretch even), and not those sitting at home cheering for the potpourri of causes "make rich people pay, tax the banks, wall street is a bunch of big fat meanies, bailouts for main street, legalize pot now, give unions more money, gay marriage now, down with corporations, look a purple turtle...".

According to nationwide Occupy everything organizers, the estimated Facebook + other maybe exceeds 1.2 million. That is still not breaking the 3 million (1%) threshold.

[Jester]

I meant the ones out on the streets (1% is a big stretch even), and not those sitting at home cheering for the potpourri of causes "make rich people pay, tax the banks, wall street is a bunch of big fat meanies, bailouts for main street, legalize pot now, give unions more money, gay marriage now, down with corporations, look a purple turtle...".

According to nationwide Occupy everything organizers, the estimated Facebook + other maybe exceeds 1.2 million. That is still not breaking the 3 million (1%) threshold.

Is that how you calculate the size of the Tea Party movement as well? By unique protesters? Because it would also be very small, by those standards... almost every movement would be.

Also, how are you counting the international dimension here? This is obviously going way beyond the US now...

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Also, how are you counting the international dimension here? This is obviously going way beyond the US now...

I don't think it really matters what happens outside the US. This movement is primarily organized around US tax policy, and the alleged inequity of "1%" of US citizens who control a large percentage of the wealth.

I don't think this is related to the chaffing that has been going on elsewhere due to austerity. If anything, the people in the US have been coddled by their government with tax cuts, supposed health care reform, unprecedented extensions to unemployment benefits, and multi-year bailout of broken state budgets which allow the states to continue on as usual without cutting benefits.

[Treesh]

Also, how are you counting the international dimension here? This is obviously going way beyond the US now...

I don't think it really matters what happens outside the US. This movement is primarily organized around US tax policy, and the alleged inequity of "1%" of US citizens who control a large percentage of the wealth.

I don't think this is related to the chaffing that has been going on elsewhere due to austerity.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15325171

It may have started here as a protest against various US issues, but since there are no clear cut specific issues, other folks have joined in around the world as well or else just chose to use it as an example of something that CAN be done to try to do something to fix the global problem. We keep being told we live in a global economy so why should it be surprising that something so economically broken in one region is just as broken in other regions? Why shouldn't folks everywhere be able to voice their disgust as well when they see that other people are being allowed to? With the globalization that the US helped foster because of big business, what we do here affects folks in other countries too. What they do in other countries affects us as well. We are not isolated, economically or socially. You may choose to view the multiple protests as separate if you wish, but I choose otherwise. After all, monkey see, monkey do.

[Jester]

I don't think it really matters what happens outside the US. This movement is primarily organized around US tax policy, and the alleged inequity of "1%" of US citizens who control a large percentage of the wealth.

I don't think this is related to the chaffing that has been going on elsewhere due to austerity. If anything, the people in the US have been coddled by their government with tax cuts, supposed health care reform, unprecedented extensions to unemployment benefits, and multi-year bailout of broken state budgets which allow the states to continue on as usual without cutting benefits.

I'm with Treesh here. Does it surprise you, if these things have nothing to do with each other, that they are all operating under the same brand (Occupy Wherever), complaining about the same things (bailouts for the rich, cutbacks for the poor) and are happening at the same time? Or that the original call to protest was from Adbusters, which is Canadian?

I'm having trouble seeing how persistent 9% unemployment counts as "coddled," unless watching your jobs evaporate, your one key asset devalued, and your debts spiral out of control constitutes some kind of pampered existence. We could play the "It could be worse" game, but I think it's pretty clear the economy sucks, people are suffering, and they're sick of seeing the "rescue" being something reserved for AIG and Goldman Sachs. Tax policy is some piece of this, but mostly, it's about the response to the crisis: Save the rich, let the poor go hang.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I'm with Treesh here. Does it surprise you, if these things have nothing to do with each other, that they are all operating under the same brand (Occupy Wherever), complaining about the same things (bailouts for the rich, cutbacks for the poor) and are happening at the same time? Or that the original call to protest was from Adbusters, which is Canadian?

I'm all for protesting against policy. Maybe there is some equivalents in US, and in many nations in Europe. The 99% versus the 1% feels more like protesting against people, for which I'm not very supportive.

I'm having trouble seeing how persistent 9% unemployment counts as "coddled," unless watching your jobs evaporate, your one key asset devalued, and your debts spiral out of control constitutes some kind of pampered existence.

Right, it is counter-intuitive though. The more you give unemployed people, the more people are unemployed. The government is like the worst venture capitalist ever. It's like we gave them some billions of dollars and they blew it on a big party, instead of careful investments in things that would grow the jobs market.

... I think it's pretty clear the economy sucks, people are suffering, and they're sick of seeing the "rescue" being something reserved for AIG and Goldman Sachs. Tax policy is some piece of this, but mostly, it's about the response to the crisis: Save the rich, let the poor go hang.

Much of the bailouts happened on Obama's watch, the "Stimulus I" in February 2009, "Stimulus II" 6 months later were Obama, Reid and Pelosi, then in 2010, "Stimulus III" was Obama, Reid, and Bohner. The Stimulus bills all included more unemployment, and tax cuts across the board. Cash for clunkers, cash for caulkers, cash for quackers, whatever. You can't say that there wasn't a ton of crap in there that was meant to help out "the little guy" and the average citizen. Bailing out the States, meant the states could continue their social services. Then, the feds increased the Student Loan budget as well. Everybody got a big piece of the trillions of dollars borrowed from tomorrows prosperity.

And, it's hilarious how mad these people are at the banks. The banks are suffering the most and are all about to go under due to new cash reserve requirements, zero percent interest and the imposition of Dodd/Frank restricting their income.

The bailouts for GM, AIG, Goldman-Sachs, were management by Obama. But, Paulsen, and Geitner, and Bernancke were all there from Bush to Obama's watch. The Fed hasn't changed policies much, nor has the Treasury department. And... correct me if I'm wrong, but the TARP ($700 billion) recipients need to pay it back. Citigroup and BOA subsequently also had their toxic assets backed by FDIC & Feds for up to 422 $billion, but there is uncertainty how much of those mortgages will default. Fannie/Freddie were nationalized and backed by $400 Billion.

But, when the government keeps BOA, Citigroup, Freddie and Fanny afloat, don't people realize that it's their mortgages that are being propped up? Otherwise, some bureaucrat would be foreclosing left and right. I'm sure the reason I'm still in my home is due to probably due to TARP. People don't see that because of the governments policy, the banks have been able to allow people to stay in their homes rather than be foreclosed upon?

[Jester]

]Right, it is counter-intuitive though. The more you give unemployed people, the more people are unemployed. The government is like the worst venture capitalist ever. It's like we gave them some billions of dollars and they blew it on a big party, instead of careful investments in things that would grow the jobs market.

There are, roughly, three reasons people are unemployed.

1) They want to be unemployed.
2) They want to be employed, but are delaying to find a better job.
3) They want to be employed, but aren't able to find jobs, at all.

Increasing or decreasing unemployment benefits alters categories 1 and 2, but doesn't have much traction on category 3. You can't really cause businesses to expand by making workers more desperate. Indeed, if workers are desperate, they'll cut back spending, depressing demand, and further reducing incentive to hire.

The current jobs crisis has almost nothing to do with 1 and 2, and everything to do with 3. People didn't suddenly and collectively shift their preferences for leisure, or raise their expectations for better jobs. The jobs just up and vanished, and aren't coming back until demand picks up. Failing to pay unemployment insurance now, or cutting it back, would be bad for everyone.

But hey, you're right, we can also think of this as a party! Hellz yeah, the federal government continues to pay us a pittance to survive without work! Woo! Unemployment roolz! Somebody pass the beer bong!

Much of the bailouts happened on Obama's watch, the "Stimulus I" in February 2009, "Stimulus II" 6 months later were Obama, Reid and Pelosi, then in 2010, "Stimulus III" was Obama, Reid, and Bohner. The Stimulus bills all included more unemployment, and tax cuts across the board. Cash for clunkers, cash for caulkers, cash for quackers, whatever. You can't say that there wasn't a ton of crap in there that was meant to help out "the little guy" and the average citizen. Bailing out the States, meant the states could continue their social services. Then, the feds increased the Student Loan budget as well. Everybody got a big piece of the trillions of dollars borrowed from tomorrows prosperity.

Cash for clunkers was popular, but by and large a waste. Also, it has no traction on the poorest, who do not have clunkers, because they do not drive. Tax cuts largely benefit those who pay taxes, again, not the poorest, who don't. That the states did not default on their various obligations is fantastic, but that's just continuing the status quo, not contributing anything new.

The banks, on the other hand, were basically forgiven the whole credit default swap issue, with their terrible decisions being "insured" not by AIG, who couldn't foot the bill, but by the taxpayer.

And what was the cost, to those who led the financial sector down this path? Rack and ruin? Jail time? Tar and feathers? Smaller bonuses? Nope, they're pretty much still rich and powerful. Bonuses here in London just reached a new record high - I don't know the US case, but nothing fundamental has changed. The same old casino playing the same old games.

And, it's hilarious how mad these people are at the banks. The banks are suffering the most and are all about to go under due to new cash reserve requirements, zero percent interest and the imposition of Dodd/Frank restricting their income.

We'll see. But many of them would have gone under already, many times over, were it not for massive injections of government liquidity. If they still fail, well, maybe they shouldn't have been playing with fire in the first place. (By fire, I mean an ever-increasing web of collateralized debt obligations backed by credit default swaps, all insured by AIG, which could not possibly cover the kind of losses the industry would face in the event of a serious crisis.)

But, when the government keeps BOA, Citigroup, Freddie and Fanny afloat, don't people realize that it's their mortgages that are being propped up? Otherwise, some bureaucrat would be foreclosing left and right. I'm sure the reason I'm still in my home is due to probably due to TARP. People don't see that because of the governments policy, the banks have been able to allow people to stay in their homes rather than be foreclosed upon?

There are many ways the government could prop up the mortgage market. They could do it directly - just shave a whole whack off mortgage values on primary residences, financed directly by the government. Or they could nationalize the banks' balance sheets, sort them out, guarantee mortgages as part of a larger restructuring, and spit them back out in a couple years when things have calmed down.

But no, they decided to just give enormous sacks of cash to Wall Street, and hoped they'd go do the right thing with them. Their risks were insured ex post, their balance sheets were propped up, they got loans at absurdly good rates. The folks who were supposed to fix the crisis were all drawn from the same pool of Wall Street financiers and high-end Econ/Finance academics, a three-legged technocratic chimaera. If that's not a textbook case of regulatory capture, I don't know what is.

-Jester