Just wait until 2012...

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2010 4:52 AM GMT
    to take out your anger at Obama, if you're disappointed by the slow rate of progress on gay issues.
    Don't fail to vote this year.
    The stakes are much higher than just any midterm election.
    The winners will get the power to REDISTRICT.
    And if a lot of Republicans get elected, they'll have the power to redistrict with a pro-Republican bias.
    That will mean it will be much easier for Republicans to win EVERY election for the next ten years.
    They will tilt the playing fields to their advantage.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101026/ap_on_el_st_lo/us_legislatures_state_of_play

    Bailing on this election will have MAJOR longterm negative consequences that will make achieveing equal rights for gays much more difficult to achieve.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2010 2:59 PM GMT
    Actually, I'm voting republican so we can still have a country that isn't bankrupt, so that we can get the gay community jobs again, so that we can move forward in advocating gay rights. If we keep spending the way we are the whole notion of pushing for gay rights is pretty meaningless, because we won't have a country to do it in.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2010 3:06 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidActually, I'm voting republican so we can still have a country that isn't bankrupt, so that we can get the gay community jobs again, so that we can move forward in advocating gay rights. If we keep spending the way we are the whole notion of pushing for gay rights is pretty meaningless, because we won't have a country to do it in.


    Ridiculous. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2010 3:23 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidActually, I'm voting republican so we can still have a country that isn't bankrupt, so that we can get the gay community jobs again, so that we can move forward in advocating gay rights. If we keep spending the way we are the whole notion of pushing for gay rights is pretty meaningless, because we won't have a country to do it in.


    Most of my colleagues agree with this point of view, especially those who mistakenly cast their votes for Obama. Interesting seeing voters who now say they feel used or lied to. Our goal should be to make certain Obama is a one term president.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2010 3:24 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidActually, I'm voting republican so we can still have a country that isn't bankrupt, so that we can get the gay community jobs again, so that we can move forward in advocating gay rights.
    You mean like in the same way Bush prevented us from bankruptcy, got more jobs for the gay community, and moved forward with gay rights?
  • rioriz

    Posts: 1056

    Oct 27, 2010 3:25 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie saidActually, I'm voting republican so we can still have a country that isn't bankrupt, so that we can get the gay community jobs again, so that we can move forward in advocating gay rights. If we keep spending the way we are the whole notion of pushing for gay rights is pretty meaningless, because we won't have a country to do it in.


    Ridiculous. icon_rolleyes.gif


    I like it!icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2010 3:32 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidActually, I'm voting republican so we can still have a country that isn't bankrupt, so that we can get the gay community jobs again, so that we can move forward in advocating gay rights. If we keep spending the way we are the whole notion of pushing for gay rights is pretty meaningless, because we won't have a country to do it in.

    the current spending was necessitated by the Repub administration's total lack io supervision of the business sector...All Hail Big Business! It is wrong to blame the Dems for the spending necessary to prevent another Great Depression. Even if you want to blame mistakes in the process, this isn't fair because there was no absolute blueprint for solving this mess.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2010 3:36 PM GMT
    paulflexes said
    mocktwinkie saidActually, I'm voting republican so we can still have a country that isn't bankrupt, so that we can get the gay community jobs again, so that we can move forward in advocating gay rights.
    You mean like in the same way Bush prevented us from bankruptcy, got more jobs for the gay community, and moved forward with gay rights?


    What you are seeing now from voters is a backlash against BOTH obama AND Bush's neo-conservative agenda that just ended up exacerbating debt and cowing into do-gooder leftwing liberals who pushed us into the housing crisis.

    We will now see if republicans live up to their word and don't continue their old big-government spend-happy ways..., if not, Americans will be turning to a third party.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2010 3:41 PM GMT
    Mock, your attitude is so bitter, jaded and cynical I truly feel bad for what emotional state you'll be in by the time you hit 40.

    So, did liberal do-gooders (how trite) deregulate your banking industry?

    ...you know, don't bother answer because I feel you may be FUBAR.

    -Doug
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2010 3:43 PM GMT
    meninlove said Mock, your attitude is so bitter, jaded and cynical I truly feel bad for what emotional state you'll be in by the time you hit 40.

    So, did liberal do-gooders (how trite) deregulate your banking industry?

    ...you know, don't bother answer because I feel you may be FUBAR.

    -Doug


    Not sure how your words to describe me have any pertinence whatsoever? Don't I have a right to be angry that my government decides to interfere in something they shouldn't have by pressuring and creating "nothing-to-lose" loopholes for banks to give loans to unqualified people so that we can be in this mess now? Does anyone really like this economy?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2010 3:49 PM GMT
    Mock, Bill and I get angry at lots of things political. Expression of that anger can affect credibility and willingness of others to consider your POV. So how you express it is as important as the anger itself.

    You could easily paint me as a liberal do-gooder and I had zip to do with the crisis. Liberal do-gooders are most often found in the ranks of the volunteers, that group you want to take over looking after the needy etc after you kill social services.

    -Doug
  • westsideindy

    Posts: 46

    Oct 27, 2010 3:51 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidActually, I'm voting republican so we can still have a country that isn't bankrupt, so that we can get the gay community jobs again, so that we can move forward in advocating gay rights. If we keep spending the way we are the whole notion of pushing for gay rights is pretty meaningless, because we won't have a country to do it in.


    Thanks for saying that Mocktwinkie, your right
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2010 3:54 PM GMT
    meninlove said Mock, Bill and I get angry at lots of things political. Expression of that anger can affect credibility and willingness of others to consider your POV. So how you express it is as important as the anger itself.

    You could easily paint me as a liberal do-gooder and I had zip to do with the crisis. Liberal do-gooders are most often found in the ranks of the volunteers, that group you want to take over looking after the needy etc after you kill social services.

    -Doug


    It depends on how you're defining it. I'm defining it as someone who wants to spend someone else's money to "do-good". This has nothing to do with volunteer work which has no relation to leveraging money that could result in economic collapse.

    I'm very much for volunteer work and donations out of free will, and I think we need more of it in our society.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2010 3:55 PM GMT
    westsideindy said
    mocktwinkie saidActually, I'm voting republican so we can still have a country that isn't bankrupt, so that we can get the gay community jobs again, so that we can move forward in advocating gay rights. If we keep spending the way we are the whole notion of pushing for gay rights is pretty meaningless, because we won't have a country to do it in.


    Thanks for saying that Mocktwinkie, your right



    This completely intrigues me. Would you guys please state how previous Republican governments advanced gay rights? I've asked this question repeatedly and it gets so silent on the topic you can hear the internet winds whistle.

    What are the Republicans saying now about gay rights?


    curious -Doug
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2010 3:56 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    westsideindy said
    mocktwinkie saidActually, I'm voting republican so we can still have a country that isn't bankrupt, so that we can get the gay community jobs again, so that we can move forward in advocating gay rights. If we keep spending the way we are the whole notion of pushing for gay rights is pretty meaningless, because we won't have a country to do it in.


    Thanks for saying that Mocktwinkie, your right



    This completely intrigues me. Would you guys please state how previous Republican governments advanced gay rights? I've asked this question repeatedly and it gets so silent on the topic you can hear the internet winds whistle.

    What are the Republicans saying now about gay rights?


    curious -Doug


    Has nothing to do with that, it has to do with having a healthy economic situation so WE can keep advocating for gay rights. Got it? And we already have gay rights issues moving forward as we speak without the help of obama or any dems. We have gay republicans trying to get DADT repealed and we have the republican former solicitor general Theodore Olson championing equal gay rights with his "conservative case for gay marriage". http://www.newsweek.com/2010/01/08/the-conservative-case-for-gay-marriage.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2010 4:24 PM GMT
    CAJock753 said
    mocktwinkie saidActually, I'm voting republican so we can still have a country that isn't bankrupt, so that we can get the gay community jobs again, so that we can move forward in advocating gay rights. If we keep spending the way we are the whole notion of pushing for gay rights is pretty meaningless, because we won't have a country to do it in.


    Most of my colleagues agree with this point of view, especially those who mistakenly cast their votes for Obama. Interesting seeing voters who now say they feel used or lied to. Our goal should be to make certain Obama is a one term president.

    I and most of the people I know agree completely with both these posts. One thing that is hardening the anti-Obama view is his arrogant rhetoric that Republicans can sit in the back seat. Contrast that with his 2004 speech that we are all one, and his true Chicago politician self is clear.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2010 4:28 PM GMT
    Hmmmm...one ex and a few gay conservatives doing nothing more than speak. Yoiur log cabin republicans accomplished a court case, but in stark contrast the conservatives in power have voted against DADT's repeal.

    Let's see, a rich or poor country has little bearing on gay rights. Look outside the US for examples.

    Obama gave you a gay and lesbian nationally proclaimed month and the Mathew Shephard Act. Obama has also appointed more gays than the conservative gov't did.

    Anyways, comparisons won't wash with you and there's no way I can change your mind, so rant away, but do try understand what I said about credibility, expressed anger and others' consideration of your POV.

    -Doug
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2010 4:29 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    meninlove said Mock, your attitude is so bitter, jaded and cynical I truly feel bad for what emotional state you'll be in by the time you hit 40.

    So, did liberal do-gooders (how trite) deregulate your banking industry?

    ...you know, don't bother answer because I feel you may be FUBAR.

    -Doug


    Not sure how your words to describe me have any pertinence whatsoever? Don't I have a right to be angry that my government decides to interfere in something they shouldn't have by pressuring and creating "nothing-to-lose" loopholes for banks to give loans to unqualified people so that we can be in this mess now? Does anyone really like this economy?


    Except the banks were never pressured to do anything of the sort. Rather, they - along with politicians from both parties - pushed for deregulation (or, in the case of derivatives, preemptively prevent regulation) saying the markets would police themselves. Instead, they all engaged in extensive fraud and the lack of scrutiny regarding derivatives created systemic risk.

    Please read a book and stop taking dictation from Fox News.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2010 4:43 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    meninlove said Mock, your attitude is so bitter, jaded and cynical I truly feel bad for what emotional state you'll be in by the time you hit 40.

    So, did liberal do-gooders (how trite) deregulate your banking industry?

    ...you know, don't bother answer because I feel you may be FUBAR.

    -Doug


    Not sure how your words to describe me have any pertinence whatsoever? Don't I have a right to be angry that my government decides to interfere in something they shouldn't have by pressuring and creating "nothing-to-lose" loopholes for banks to give loans to unqualified people so that we can be in this mess now? Does anyone really like this economy?


    Except the banks were never pressured to do anything of the sort. Rather, they - along with politicians from both parties - pushed for deregulation (or, in the case of derivatives, preemptively prevent regulation) saying the markets would police themselves. Instead, they all engaged in extensive fraud and the lack of scrutiny regarding derivatives created systemic risk.

    Please read a book and stop taking dictation from Fox News.


    Nope. You keep repeating this lie as though it were somehow even remotely true. Fox news has nothing to do with what happened. Fannie and Freddie were directed by order of congress to push for more subprime lending in order to create more "diversity" and home-ownership among people who would otherwise in a normal setting be UNABLE to purchase homes, at the same time the government was granting the added insurance risk in exchange for the banks to pursue riskier lending, which they were eager to do knowing that they would have a "risk free" party pursuing their greedy endeavors (greed is a natural part of any business pursuit, mind you, because it's based on making money). Ultimately, the taxpayers were put on the hook if these institutions were to fail. The bailouts are proof of this.

    And yes, both parties played their part but it was democrats chiefly who tried to push this agenda. Bush and other republicans went along with it and that's why people are so angry. They are tired of fake conservatives who say one thing about fiscal conservatism and do another. People are angry at both obama and the former white house.

    It had nothing to do with deregulation. The banks would never have engaged in these practices if they were not certain there would be a risk free environment for them by taxpayers being on the hook, plain and simple.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2010 5:50 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    meninlove said Mock, your attitude is so bitter, jaded and cynical I truly feel bad for what emotional state you'll be in by the time you hit 40.

    So, did liberal do-gooders (how trite) deregulate your banking industry?

    ...you know, don't bother answer because I feel you may be FUBAR.

    -Doug


    Not sure how your words to describe me have any pertinence whatsoever? Don't I have a right to be angry that my government decides to interfere in something they shouldn't have by pressuring and creating "nothing-to-lose" loopholes for banks to give loans to unqualified people so that we can be in this mess now? Does anyone really like this economy?


    Except the banks were never pressured to do anything of the sort. Rather, they - along with politicians from both parties - pushed for deregulation (or, in the case of derivatives, preemptively prevent regulation) saying the markets would police themselves. Instead, they all engaged in extensive fraud and the lack of scrutiny regarding derivatives created systemic risk.

    Please read a book and stop taking dictation from Fox News.


    Nope. You keep repeating this lie as though it were somehow even remotely true. Fox news has nothing to do with what happened. Fannie and Freddie were directed by order of congress to push for more subprime lending in order to create more "diversity" and home-ownership among people who would otherwise in a normal setting be UNABLE to purchase homes, at the same time the government was granting the added insurance risk in exchange for the banks to pursue riskier lending, which they were eager to do knowing that they would have a "risk free" party pursuing their greedy endeavors (greed is a natural part of any business pursuit, mind you, because it's based on making money). Ultimately, the taxpayers were put on the hook if these institutions were to fail. The bailouts are proof of this.

    And yes, both parties played their part but it was democrats chiefly who tried to push this agenda. Bush and other republicans went along with it and that's why people are so angry. They are tired of fake conservatives who say one thing about fiscal conservatism and do another. People are angry at both obama and the former white house.

    It had nothing to do with deregulation. The banks would never have engaged in these practices if they were not certain there would be a risk free environment for them by taxpayers being on the hook, plain and simple.



    Here's the problem. You're entire premise if flawed because a) the Financial Services Modernization Act (which Clinton signed in 2000) actually weakened CRA and removed what little incentive there was for compliance, and b) the mortgages themselves are a tiny part of the problem. The lack of regulation of OTC derivatives led to extensive fraud and gambling - from Enron to Lehman Brothers -which is what actually blew up the world economy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2010 5:59 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    meninlove said Mock, your attitude is so bitter, jaded and cynical I truly feel bad for what emotional state you'll be in by the time you hit 40.

    So, did liberal do-gooders (how trite) deregulate your banking industry?

    ...you know, don't bother answer because I feel you may be FUBAR.

    -Doug


    Not sure how your words to describe me have any pertinence whatsoever? Don't I have a right to be angry that my government decides to interfere in something they shouldn't have by pressuring and creating "nothing-to-lose" loopholes for banks to give loans to unqualified people so that we can be in this mess now? Does anyone really like this economy?


    Except the banks were never pressured to do anything of the sort. Rather, they - along with politicians from both parties - pushed for deregulation (or, in the case of derivatives, preemptively prevent regulation) saying the markets would police themselves. Instead, they all engaged in extensive fraud and the lack of scrutiny regarding derivatives created systemic risk.

    Please read a book and stop taking dictation from Fox News.


    Nope. You keep repeating this lie as though it were somehow even remotely true. Fox news has nothing to do with what happened. Fannie and Freddie were directed by order of congress to push for more subprime lending in order to create more "diversity" and home-ownership among people who would otherwise in a normal setting be UNABLE to purchase homes, at the same time the government was granting the added insurance risk in exchange for the banks to pursue riskier lending, which they were eager to do knowing that they would have a "risk free" party pursuing their greedy endeavors (greed is a natural part of any business pursuit, mind you, because it's based on making money). Ultimately, the taxpayers were put on the hook if these institutions were to fail. The bailouts are proof of this.

    And yes, both parties played their part but it was democrats chiefly who tried to push this agenda. Bush and other republicans went along with it and that's why people are so angry. They are tired of fake conservatives who say one thing about fiscal conservatism and do another. People are angry at both obama and the former white house.

    It had nothing to do with deregulation. The banks would never have engaged in these practices if they were not certain there would be a risk free environment for them by taxpayers being on the hook, plain and simple.



    Here's the problem. You're entire premise if flawed because a) the Financial Services Modernization Act (which Clinton signed in 2000) actually weakened CRA and removed what little incentive there was for compliance, and b) the mortgages themselves are a tiny part of the problem. The lack of regulation of OTC derivatives led to extensive fraud and gambling - from Enron to Lehman Brothers -which is what actually blew up the world economy.


    CRA only played a certain part, although a significant part, FDIC is what created a "no-loss" scenario for the banks. The government granted added insurance risk in exchange for the banks pushing into riskier lending practices. Derivatives were a result of the banks knowing that taxpayers would be on the hook, it has nothing to do with the cause of the problem.

    Furthermore, the Clinton administration was key in pressuring banks to lower their lending standards.

    "Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits."---http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html

    So please don't tell me that Clinton was trying to do just the opposite.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2010 6:14 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidCRA only played a certain part, although a significant part, FDIC is what created a "no-loss" scenario for the banks. The government granted added insurance risk in exchange for the banks pushing into riskier lending practices. Derivatives were a result of the banks knowing that taxpayers would be on the hook, it has nothing to do with the cause of the problem.

    Furthermore, the Clinton administration was key in pressuring banks to lower their lending standards.

    "Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits."---http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html

    So please don't tell me that Clinton was trying to do just the opposite.



    Simply untrue. The banks and other companies interested in derivatives pushed for FSMA and the CFTA, which pushed the government to deregulated that existing derivatives market and prohibit regulation of growing derivatives markets in energy, finance, etc. That was pushed (and, yes, signed by Clinton) by Phil Gramm and his wife Wendy who oversaw the commodities department and who refused to implement any regulation despite the enormous growth of the market, which Warren Buffet called financial "weapons of mass destruction."

    What you want is to blame "do-gooders" and, low-income and people of color, for what implosion of the economy, which was actually caused by the extensive greed, fraud and immorality of the financial services industry.

    Those of us who have a moral compass understand that, yes, greed is a driver, but so is love and loyalty, and it is government job's to incentivize the latter and steer us away from the former.

    You're objectivist mentality - taken to its absurd conclusion - would mean that if I came to your house and stole your shit, that's okay because I'm greedy and want it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2010 6:17 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    rickrick91 saidto take out your anger at Obama, if you're disappointed by the slow rate of progress on gay issues.
    Don't fail to vote this year.
    The stakes are much higher than just any midterm election.
    The winners will get the power to REDISTRICT.
    And if a lot of Republicans get elected, they'll have the power to redistrict with a pro-Republican bias.
    That will mean it will be much easier for Republicans to win EVERY election for the next ten years.
    They will tilt the playing fields to their advantage.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101026/ap_on_el_st_lo/us_legislatures_state_of_play

    Bailing on this election will have MAJOR longterm negative consequences that will make achieveing equal rights for gays much more difficult to achieve.


    Yeah.... Democrats knew they had a very rare opportunity to do whatever they wanted over the past 2 years because they had COMPLETE CONTROL of both chambers of Congress AND the Presidency and yet.... they did NOTHING for the gays.

    You honestly believe that they will do anything for the gays if given another 2 years?


    Hate crimes
    Lily Ledbetter Act
    Extension of benefits to partners of federal employees
    Introduced DADT repeal

    More than any other administration in just two years.

    So, please stop LYING
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2010 6:18 PM GMT
    Mock - The detailed chronology shybuffguy presented in the other thread covers this and is in agreement with what you write. There is no making one see the light who does not want to see, and no convincing a fool not to be a fool.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2010 6:34 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie saidCRA only played a certain part, although a significant part, FDIC is what created a "no-loss" scenario for the banks. The government granted added insurance risk in exchange for the banks pushing into riskier lending practices. Derivatives were a result of the banks knowing that taxpayers would be on the hook, it has nothing to do with the cause of the problem.

    Furthermore, the Clinton administration was key in pressuring banks to lower their lending standards.

    "Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits."---http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html

    So please don't tell me that Clinton was trying to do just the opposite.



    Simply untrue. The banks and other companies interested in derivatives pushed for FSMA and the CFTA, which pushed the government to deregulated that existing derivatives market and prohibit regulation of growing derivatives markets in energy, finance, etc. That was pushed (and, yes, signed by Clinton) by Phil Gramm and his wife Wendy who oversaw the commodities department and who refused to implement any regulation despite the enormous growth of the market, which Warren Buffet called financial "weapons of mass destruction."

    What you want is to blame "do-gooders" and, low-income and people of color, for what implosion of the economy, which was actually caused by the extensive greed, fraud and immorality of the financial services industry.

    Those of us who have a moral compass understand that, yes, greed is a driver, but so is love and loyalty, and it is government job's to incentivize the latter and steer us away from the former.

    You're objectivist mentality - taken to its absurd conclusion - would mean that if I came to your house and stole your shit, that's okay because I'm greedy and want it.


    I did not blame the low-income people and people of color who were the recipients, I am putting the rightful responsibility on the white do-gooders who thought that they could artificially fabricate equality by doing shenanigans like this -- they DON'T WORK (although it's true that people should not be buying homes they can't afford).

    The very type of liberal mindset that drives your economic principles were the ones that caused this crisis. They aren't based on logic or long-term sustainability, or the bigger picture, or the realization that "doing good" today may result in greater hurt tomorrow. You think that you can coerce civilization into behaving in a utopian way and LESS equality is what follows.

    You are correct in that the banks DID want the standards to be lowered (of course they did), and they DID want to exercise their greed. The point is that the government went out of their way to make this possible for them by granting them the added insurance risk among other things to make it possible when it would have otherwise been IMPOSSIBLE if the government hadn't interfered in the natural flow of the market. The banks would not have engaged in risky behavior that they know wouldn't be cushioned by taxpayer dollars (but obviously you could care less about the taxpayers). What part of that can't you comprehend?

    Of COURSE there was greed as a driving factor simply because it's an ever present factor in everything in life..., but as to the question: "who bears the most blame", the majority of it rests on leftwing minds in congress and government who decided to create this risk-free environment for the banks in the name of "doing good". They WANTED the banks to give loans to more people who couldn't afford them, the result is that everybody jumped on the bandwagon, some people started buying multiple houses and so on. Of course greed was a factor, it's ALWAYS a factor in the human experience. It's a component of reality and every one of our lives. None of us seem willing to just completely give up our standard of living even though we know other people out there are being taken advantage of so we can have the comforts that we currently experience, and yet we do it anyway. It's part of life. Get over it. It doesn't mean we can't be compassionate or help the poor because we should do every bit of it, but many strategies government has in mind to save the poor ends up making them poorer and in a greater world of hurt.