Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Indeed I am not sure of what sort of 'tax policy' Mitt Romney really stood for. It was "trust me and you will get a miracle". Economic elites consistently tell us to make sacrifices on their behalf and hold them unaccountable for the results so that they can do wonders for us. Basically that is the bear offering a cold person a warm fur coat over him in return for food -- the bear eats the man and of course the fur coat remains on the bear.

Romney was extremely secretive about his plan for a vibrant economy. In view of what GOP front groups offered, enough people distrusted him that he proved unelectable.

I based my original comments about this on the 2006 Congressional report, whose findings included an observation that, in order to even remotely make the numbers of a plan such as Romney's "add up," the personal exemption would have had to be abolished (although not the standard deduction), which would have more than offset the effect of cutting the current 10% and 15% tax brackets to 8% and 12%, respectively.

The criminal as a rule has the immediate advantage of violating the rules that most of us take for granted. The criminal has his gun pointed at your head before you can grab yours. He has knocked you down, perhaps breaking some of your bones or rendering you unconscious, so that he can grab your wallet before you can do anything. He has put you in a place where your screams during a rape cannot be heard or has you in a position in which you dare not call attention to yourself. Maybe because he believes that 72 virgins await him for doing so he detonates a car bomb with himself in it in front of a hotel that houses American businesspeople. The trick is either in getting away as a fugitive or in not caring about the consequences in the event of failure.

But doesn't the left argue that drugs - well certainly marijuana, anyway - should be legalized because no one obeys those laws either? Seems rather inconsistent to me.

The rest of us think five years ahead before we dare tell off the boss who assigns us some humiliating task. The street criminal who uses brute force thinks at most a few hours ahead -- perhaps of the cheap bacchanal of a drunken binge with the proceeds of a Social Security check (that is, when Social Security was not direct-deposited) or his next drug fix. Death penalty? It might be a deterrent if it were barbarous (crushing, burning, feeding to predatory animals, slow strangulation on piano wire), but we already have more than enough barbarism in our culture as it is.

But have you ever stopped to think that adding a federal "10-20-Life" law to the omnibus gun-control package might get it enough Republican votes to pass in the House and/or overcome a filibuster in the Senate?

Liberals have learned that crime is more a moral failure of the criminal than a rational calculus of the consequences of poverty. I figure that plenty of liberal 'community organizers' have learned to distinguish between the good guys and bad guys.

I know I'm going to get accused of "right-wing extremism" for saying this, but too many liberals believe that the Seventh Commandment states, "Thou shalt not steal - except from someone who has more than you have."

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But why take guns away from mentally-healthy, law-abiding citizens who do not, and never will, do what Adam Lanza etc. did?

And a scared woman home alone with her kids is going to fend off four home invaders armed with AR-15s with her .32-caliber revolver.

But "10-20-Life" might very well make the quartet think twice about invading the home in the first place, no?

Yea, and we all should have RPGs in case the bad guys show up with tanks.

Like Biden alluded to, in close engagement, you're going to be much better off with a 12 gauge and a pistol on your hip. There's no reason in hell for assault rifles outside of military engagements.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

I based my original comments about this on the 2006 Congressional report, whose findings included an observation that, in order to even remotely make the numbers of a plan such as Romney's "add up," the personal exemption would have had to be abolished (although not the standard deduction), which would have more than offset the effect of cutting the current 10% and 15% tax brackets to 8% and 12%, respectively.

In view of his attitudes toward people not already in the elite, any tax 'reform' of Mitt Romney was going to shift taxes away from the super-rich to the non-elite while imposing other economic policies calculated to impose hardships on the common man on behalf of 'economic growth' from which few would see any benefit.

But doesn't the left argue that drugs - well certainly marijuana, anyway - should be legalized because no one obeys those laws either? Seems rather inconsistent to me.

The outlawry of marijuana does far more harm than good.

But have you ever stopped to think that adding a federal "10-20-Life" law to the omnibus gun-control package might get it enough Republican votes to pass in the House and/or overcome a filibuster in the Senate?

The harsh legal penalty for armed robbery in Michigan reflects that every armed robbery is a potential murder. Treating armed robbery as if it were an attempted murder thus makes sense.

I know I'm going to get accused of "right-wing extremism" for saying this, but too many liberals believe that the Seventh Commandment states, "Thou shalt not steal - except from someone who has more than you have."

The Republican Party seems to act as if taxation of the super-rich is a form of theft. Never mind that the US military protects the investments abroad, that government courts enforce contracts and sentence property offenders to prison and establishes high-cost prisons as deterrents to property crime, and that the infrastructure necessary for moving things about is almost entirely some form of public investment.

Just discovered this entry in Neil Howe's blog. Apparently, Neil Howe pretty much nailed how the different generations were going to vote in the last election.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But why take guns away from mentally-healthy, law-abiding citizens who do not, and never will, do what Adam Lanza etc. did?

You never know who might do what Adam Lanza did.

But the proposal is not to take away all guns from people who pass background checks, but only those military weapons no "law-abiding" citizen has any need for.

Why tempt people to become the next Adam Lanza by putting AR-15s in their hands?

And a scared woman home alone with her kids is going to fend off four home invaders armed with AR-15s with her .32-caliber revolver.

That's why the AR-15s should be illegal, and why people should not contribute to the climate of fear and the culture of shootouts by "defending" your home with AR-15s. Live in a safe neighborhood, with a dog, burglar alarm and locks, and mace too if you want, and you won't be invaded by four terrorists or madmen armed with AR-15s. Use an AR-15, and you will be killed in a shootout anyway; and the scared woman's son might go out and kill 20 children with it. And don't let Republicans cut city budgets, so you have a working, adequate police force; it does make a difference.

But "10-20-Life" might very well make the quartet think twice about invading the home in the first place, no?

Well I guess not, since such invasions are already so punishable, at least.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Why tempt people to become the next Adam Lanza by putting AR-15s in their hands?

Thing is, there are lots of hunting rifles that are functionally equivalent to an AR-15. Military weapons have a different look to them that scares people. "Civilian" weapons are just as deadly.

There are some changes to gun laws that might actually help. Banning weapons that look like military weapons isn't really one of them.

Then there is the awkward legal problem that the Founding Fathers wanted their militia armed with military weapons. Very few want to remember this, but the wording of the founding documents and the Prohibition era Supreme Court cases saying the 2nd protects only military weapons but not civilian weapons are still there.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

"Bring a gun to a crime scene" is pretty broad--what happens if you're carrying a gun (legally) and happen to walk into a place where a crime is occurring? What happens if you fire that gun to defend people there?

I suspect that it refers to people who have criminal purposes to begin with. Someone who pointed a deer rifle at some crook raping his child or even pulling the trigger and blowing the rapist away would surely be excused. Self defense.

Call me a "crime-coddler" (ha!), but I do have trouble with "mandatory minimums" or various absolutist "zero tolerance" policies, because they hamstring judges who hear details and nuances of the case which may suggest lesser degrees of criminality, or even non-criminality, of the activities of a defendant. We employ judges * to judge the facts of the case and the defendant, not rubber-stamp sentences dictated by legislators (one aspect of keeping different government powers separate).

Judges need some discretion so that they can determine that one of the critical elements of a crime are not there. You do not want to arrest an airline's flight crew for transporting a drug courier who has his witch's brew of vile chemicals in the luggage compartment, and you do not want to arrest the baggage handlers, either unless they are in on the crime. You do not want to arrest retail clerks for selling kitchen knives subsequently used in a stabbing or a gas station attendant about gasoline who was lied to about the gas being for the mower or a car out of gasoline but was later used instead in an arson fire... maybe the retail clerk or station attendant will talk to the cops about the troublesome purchase.

One should know enough to not take stuff sight-unseen on behalf of a friend, let alone take stuff for cash payment on commercial transportation. Isn't that what the mail, UPS, DHL, or FedEx is for? I don't want to get caught in some foreign country with contraband.

And as far as spree shootings go (as mentioned above), what complicates these as far as deterrence goes is that the shooters often don't expect to, or want to, live--trying to deter them is like trying to deter a suicide bomber. For better or worse, the only measures that can make a dent in this special class of crime where the criminal isn't afraid to die (and often plans on it), is proactively making it harder for them to commit such a crime--the kinds of measures we're discussing here, some of which we must weigh against established freedoms. No easy solutions there, and I certainly don't pretend to have any answers either--just listening to the debate and trying to judge what courses of action may make the most sense, same as a lot of other Americans I suspect.

Let's start by treating mental illness more humanely and more effectively than we now do. If limb losses and spinal-cord trauma cripple people's bodies, then mental illness can cripple minds. Let's keep the mentally-ill from having access to firearms.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You never know who might do what Adam Lanza did.

But the proposal is not to take away all guns from people who pass background checks, but only those military weapons no "law-abiding" citizen has any need for.

Why tempt people to become the next Adam Lanza by putting AR-15s in their hands?

That's why the AR-15s should be illegal, and why people should not contribute to the climate of fear and the culture of shootouts by "defending" your home with AR-15s. Live in a safe neighborhood, with a dog, burglar alarm and locks, and mace too if you want, and you won't be invaded by four terrorists or madmen armed with AR-15s. Use an AR-15, and you will be killed in a shootout anyway; and the scared woman's son might go out and kill 20 children with it. And don't let Republicans cut city budgets, so you have a working, adequate police force; it does make a difference.

Well I guess not, since such invasions are already so punishable, at least.

Nice, calm response, Mr. Green, I should learn from you.

As someone who has owned dozens of guns in my lifetime, I am fed up with this meme of equating some limitations on type of guns/ammo to this absolute of "taking our guns away." It is completely dishonest propaganda.

But isn't background checks inherently saying that someone is guilty of something until proven innocent - an alien, tyrannical concept?

Hey, let's carry this to its "logical" conclusion: The soon as everyone is born, they are raised in prison until they can prove they are law-abiding - and then and only then are they to be released.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But isn't background checks inherently saying that someone is guilty of something until proven innocent - an alien, tyrannical concept?

In america; today? ever watch 48 Hours? Dateline NBC?

Are qualifications to have a drivers license inherently saying someone is guilty until proven innocent? How about a license to practice medicine?

Hey, let's carry this to its "logical" conclusion: The soon as everyone is born, they are raised in prison until they can prove they are law-abiding - and then and only then are they to be released.

Not having a gun, is being in prison? I'd say exactly the reverse is the case.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Thing is, there are lots of hunting rifles that are functionally equivalent to an AR-15. Military weapons have a different look to them that scares people. "Civilian" weapons are just as deadly.

There are some changes to gun laws that might actually help. Banning weapons that look like military weapons isn't really one of them.

But AR-15s are military weapons. A line can be drawn, and Senator Feinstein and Co. are drawing it. It is worth supporting her proposal.

Then there is the awkward legal problem that the Founding Fathers wanted their militia armed with military weapons. Very few want to remember this, but the wording of the founding documents and the Prohibition era Supreme Court cases saying the 2nd protects only military weapons but not civilian weapons are still there.

They also wanted their militia "well-regulated." The militia is now the national guard. There is no other "militia" that has been called up in over 200 years. When our "freedom" really needs to be defended, the armed forces are called. It's a red herring.


Thanks, playwrite.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Thing is, there are lots of hunting rifles that are functionally equivalent to an AR-15. Military weapons have a different look to them that scares people. "Civilian" weapons are just as deadly.

There are some changes to gun laws that might actually help. Banning weapons that look like military weapons isn't really one of them.

Then there is the awkward legal problem that the Founding Fathers wanted their militia armed with military weapons. Very few want to remember this, but the wording of the founding documents and the Prohibition era Supreme Court cases saying the 2nd protects only military weapons but not civilian weapons are still there.

I'm pretty much in agreemnt with the first part of this. Civilian ARs are basically Barbie Dolls; I find it hilarious when you see one all dressed up and the owner has no clue why the pistol grip, thumb through stock design, barrel shroud, muzzle brake, flash suppressor or tag along. My Marine son almost died laughing when a proud AR15 owner showed him the thing with a high-powered scope on it.

BUT this mythology reinforces the desire for high capacity clips AND that is the problem. I see absoluting no need for even the 10-round clips being discussed as the limit; I'd like to bring it down to 6. If it was good enough for both Jesse James and Wyatt Earp, it's good enough for macho boys today.

And if we're going to go back to what the Founding Fathers had it mind, then even I would get pissed about being limited to muzzle loading.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

In america; today? ever watch 48 Hours? Dateline NBC?

Are qualifications to have a drivers license inherently saying someone is guilty until proven innocent? How about a license to practice medicine?

But is there a Constitutional Amendment that guarantees the right to drive a car or practice medicine?

Under any cursory interpretation of the 1895 Coffin v. United States Supreme Court ruling, requiring background checks to exercise any fundamental citizenship right is clearly unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You never know who might do what Adam Lanza did.

But the proposal is not to take away all guns from people who pass background checks, but only those military weapons no "law-abiding" citizen has any need for.

Why tempt people to become the next Adam Lanza by putting AR-15s in their hands?

That's why the AR-15s should be illegal, and why people should not contribute to the climate of fear and the culture of shootouts by "defending" your home with AR-15s. Live in a safe neighborhood, with a dog, burglar alarm and locks, and mace too if you want, and you won't be invaded by four terrorists or madmen armed with AR-15s. Use an AR-15, and you will be killed in a shootout anyway; and the scared woman's son might go out and kill 20 children with it. And don't let Republicans cut city budgets, so you have a working, adequate police force; it does make a difference.

Well I guess not, since such invasions are already so punishable, at least.

Many people do not have the choice to "live in a safe neighborhood" and many times those same "safe" neighborhoods are the targets of criminals as they are the ones who have the loot and may be perceived as less likely to have a firearm for self defense or the capacity or will to resist a violent attacker. Here a is a guy who lived in a "nice" neighborhood and had security systems and also an "assault rifle" and successfully defended his home against 4 heavily armed attackers...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuhKCiY-lu0

Calling 911 wouldn't have saved him....

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But is there a Constitutional Amendment that guarantees the right to drive a car or practice medicine?

Under any cursory interpretation of the 1895 Coffin v. United States Supreme Court ruling, requiring background checks to exercise any fundamental citizenship right is clearly unconstitutional.

Why do you think this applies? Background checks are routine for employment, including employment by the government, so we already use that tool extensively. Buying a gun elevates the individual's ability to offend as well as defend. It's completely reasonable to expect that this activity should be limited, since no right is absolute. And asking people to show that they are not felons or mentally unstable is not the same as presuming them guilty of anything.

Originally Posted by Weave

Many people do not have the choice to "live in a safe neighborhood" and many times those same "safe" neighborhoods are the targets of criminals as they are the ones who have the loot and may be perceived as less likely to have a firearm for self defense or the capacity or will to resist a violent attacker. Here a is a guy who lived in a "nice" neighborhood and had security systems and also an "assault rifle" and successfully defended his home against 4 heavily armed attackers...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuhKCiY-lu0

Calling 911 wouldn't have saved him....

But you miss the point. Why are we in fear of being attacked by armed thugs? Average people don't go about attacking people nor do they invade homes. The thugs are able to do that, because the gun trade is wide open, and they have no trouble getting guns ... guns that originally were purchased legally. Stopping that will have more impact on thuggery than arming the entire populous to the teeth. That's especially true, when most people are incompetent to actually use a weapon properly in a high stress situation.

Originally Posted by playwrite

...No one is saying that people not being able to afford their mortgages wasn't part of the problem...

That is not getting at the real underlying reason of why they couldn't afford those mortgages (i.e., lack of wage growth), who hoisted those mortgages on them (i.e. it wasn't Freddie/Fannie after 2003)...

-"Hoisting" a mortgage on anyone? PW knows that you gotta go through a lottta hoops to get a mortgage. No one is drafted into it. Sheesh.

What ole' Barney got, and PW didn't, is what was behind giving to mortgages to people with little income: The progressive desire to buy votes with money.

Even the NYT saw it coming:

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae

In 1999, The New York Times reported that with the corporation's move towards the subprime market "Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s."

Oh well.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

But you miss the point... The thugs are able to do that, because the gun trade is wide open, and they have no trouble getting guns ... guns that originally were purchased legally...

-You miss the point. Your claims are all completely disproven in the Armed & Considered Dangerous study (1986). Thugs have no problem getting guns, even if they're illegal.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Stopping that will have more impact on thuggery than arming the entire populous to the teeth. That's especially true, when most people are incompetent to actually use a weapon properly in a high stress situation.

-The honest citizen just has to be as competent as the thug, and they might be able to get away with less, since they often have a better idea of what's going on.

Originally Posted by Weave

Many people do not have the choice to "live in a safe neighborhood" and many times those same "safe" neighborhoods are the targets of criminals as they are the ones who have the loot and may be perceived as less likely to have a firearm for self defense or the capacity or will to resist a violent attacker.

Which is about like saying that because one had a flat tire due to poor maintenance of a vehicle one missed boarding a jetliner that crashed. (More likely a blowout of a tire causes a dangerous collision).

The problem is that the crooks had firearms. Because of their firearms they had the perverse courage with which to do what would likely have been horrible crimes. Let's make it more difficult for criminals to get firearms.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

... PW knows that you gotta go through a lottta hoops to get a mortgage.

I can understand your ignorance back then - living in someone else's trailer and never having gone through any bank loan application let alone a mortgage. But years after the housing bubble? That ignorance is just a combination of your laziness and stupidity.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

... You miss the point. Your claims are all completely disproven in the Armed & Considered Dangerous study (1986). Thugs have no problem getting guns, even if they're illegal.

There is a real world trial of controlling guns in a previously open-sell environment: Australia. I'll take empiricism over theory any day.

Originally Posted by JDG 66 ...

The honest citizen just has to be as competent as the thug, and they might be able to get away with less, since they often have a better idea of what's going on.

Wrong; the honest citizen has to be as willing to kill as the thug. That can't be taught, nor can it be anticipated until the situation arises.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But is there a Constitutional Amendment that guarantees the right to drive a car or practice medicine?

No, but that's a different question. And the constitutional amendment clearly states that these arm-bearers must be well-regulated.

Under any cursory interpretation of the 1895 Coffin v. United States Supreme Court ruling, requiring background checks to exercise any fundamental citizenship right is clearly unconstitutional.

But not according to recent rulings that say gun control is constitutional.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

That is not getting at the real underlying reason of why they couldn't afford those mortgages (i.e., lack of wage growth), who hoisted those mortgages on them (i.e. it wasn't Freddie/Fannie after 2003)...

When housing prices were rising, crooked lenders let people buy much more house than they could afford with the expectation that the borrower would default leaving the lender a foreclosed property that could be sold for a bigger profit than a lender could get from interest and fees alone. The lender was effectively using a borrower as a shell purchaser and speculating on real estate in a way that would otherwise be illegal.

-"Hoisting" a mortgage on anyone? PW knows that you gotta go through a lottta hoops to get a mortgage. No one is drafted into it. Sheesh.

Not with a liar loan of the sort commonplace in certain markets ten years ago. With a liar loan the lender often misrepresents the creditworthiness of a borrower and the borrower accedes or is shown the door.

What ole' Barney got, and PW didn't, is what was behind giving to mortgages to people with little income: The progressive desire to buy votes with money.

Barney Frank intended to get people out of slums and into low-cost houses where the jobs are. That is a winning proposition. Those deals did far better.

-The honest citizen just has to be as competent (in using a weapon) as the thug, and they might be able to get away with less, since they often have a better idea of what's going on.

The crook usually has surprise on his side, unless the family tiger -- I mean dog -- gets him first. (Dogs have keener senses, especially at night, and they can size up weaknesses like a Big Cat). The crook as a rule is much more ruthless and more willing to pull the trigger. The crook already thinks of other people as impediments to be pushed out of the way by whatever means are available. The honest person has some qualms about using lethal force and contemplates the guilt that he will feel, and is scared of a stray bullet hitting an innocent person.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

There is a real world trial of controlling guns in a previously open-sell environment: Australia. I'll take empiricism over theory any day...

-Sorry, Mr. H. We already covered the multi-million dollar boondoggle:

Originally Posted by JDG 66

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn, noted that the level of legal gun ownership in New South Wales increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had had little to no effect on violence... It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice."

In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker (a former state president of the SSAA(SA)) and Dr Samara McPhedran (Women in Shooting and Hunting) found no evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide...

...IOW, the Austrailian program AT BEST was a multi-million dollar boondoggle...

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

...That can't be taught, nor can it be anticipated until the situation arises.

1) Someone willing to carry a gun is a lot more likely to be the sort to use it. This is a famous case that I'm sure NPR never covered:

http://articles.latimes.com/1992-04-...1_watch-dealer

...naturally, certain libtards sided with the 5 thugs he killed (and several more he wounded or captured);

2) Who says most thugs are actually willing to kill? Most are bullies;

3) It can't be taught? Nonsense. Try reading On Combat and On Killing by David Grossman. It takes some more than others. Even with the training, some feel bad about killing, even if the deceased is a piece of trash. But they can do it. I explained this to you years ago. Sheesh.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

...Wrong; the honest citizen has to be as willing to kill as the thug...

- Most thugs are cowards. Point a gun at them, and they're not so hot:

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/201...-jewelry-shop/

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...den-grove.html

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...charm-edition/

...even granny's can do it:

http://www.wisn.com/news/south-east-...z/-/index.html

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xi6...-gunpoint_news

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

...Not with a liar loan of the sort commonplace in certain markets ten years ago. With a liar loan the lender often misrepresents the creditworthiness of a borrower and the borrower accedes or is shown the door...

-Nonsense.

Are you that gullible?

Besides, if the option is to get shown the door, that's a good indication that they couldn't get a loan honestly.

Are you that gullible?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

...Barney Frank intended to get people out of slums and into low-cost houses where the jobs are. That is a winning proposition. Those deals did far better...

-With the taxpayer footing the bill. Obviously it didn't work out, because even he's admitted he was wrong.

Congratulations!

Thanks for being civil.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I can understand your ignorance back then - living in someone else's trailer and never having gone through any bank loan application let alone a mortgage. But years after the housing bubble? That ignorance is just a combination of your laziness and stupidity.

-Why is PW picking on PBrower2a?!

They're on the same side this. Weird.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Why is PW picking on PBrower2a?!

They're on the same side this. Weird.

No, my response was explicitly to your assertion that one needed to 'go through a lot of hoops back then to obtain a mortgage.'
Again, only someone never having been involved in getting a mortgage or just about any bank loan during that period would be capable of making such an idiotic assertion (they have to be brain dead as well, but that's a given in your case).
PBrower is one of the smarter people on this forum.

Originally Posted by playwrite

No, my response was explicitly to your assertion that one needed to 'go through a lot of hoops back then to obtain a mortgage.'

Indeed one of the surest signs of a rip-off is "easy credit". Mortgage credit used to be difficult to get unless one fit a certain demographic. Basically one had to show that one (1) had a steady job, and (2) that one expected to stay at it indefinitely. An assembly-line worker who showed no signs of wanting to be anything else was a good credit risk. An assembly-line worker taking accounting courses at night to be a cost accountant was too much of a risk. Owning and operating a business made one a poor risk for a mortgage loan unless the business had become a cash cow. Surprisingly the "junior executive" was a horrible risk because he was spending huge amounts of money on clothes, golf-club memberships, and 'entertainment' of clients.

It was a good practice. Mortgage lenders wanted borrowers who had solved every problem that they had or were satisfied with the lives that they had were good risks.

Again, only someone never having been involved in getting a mortgage or just about any bank loan during that period would be capable of making such an idiotic assertion (they have to be brain dead as well, but that's a given in your case).

JDG invariably substitutes bluster for learning or even knowledge of the news. I knew that the American economy was headed for a crash, perhaps even as bad as that of 1929-1933, based upon an article on bad lending practices and rating of 'bundled' loans.... in Business Week Magazine in 2005. Sure, it is possible to get a boom based on suspect activity, but when anything goes wrong the suspect activity rips apart one institution after another -- even those with tangential connections that nobody realizes -- asunder. Yes, bad lending in California and Nevada could ravage the RV industry in northern Indiana.

(Don't be surprised if JDG accuses me of reading such an article in Granma (newspaper of the Communist Party of Cuba). Business Week it was. Capitalism is fine. Corruption and dishonesty in capitalism are even more dangerous to capitalism than Marxism ever was.

As for those loans intended to get slum-dwellers into very basic owner-occupied housing in places with more jobs... they were more successful than the average loan. Liar loans were built practically to ensure the failure of the borrower so that the lender could make a profit on a foreclosure. In the old days, mortgage lending was so designed that the lender lost something in a foreclosure that happened early -- which explains why the lending officers had to make potential borrowers go through the hoops. That is something that I know from listening to people when I was a child.

I have been around long enough to know that bankers didn't find it adequate to simply verify income -- they insisted upon talking to the supervisor. If your supervisor had anything derogatory to say about your attitude on the job (as in "he grumbles" or "He dreams of bigger things") the lending officer wisely turned down the loan. Don't give me that much credit; back then, JDG wasn't even born.

PBrower is one of the smarter people on this forum.

Compliment appreciated!