[Daculling]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Chesire', 'I')f you owe the bank 10 k its your problem .

If you owe the bank 500 k its the banks problem , )

[Denny]

When I used the word "morality", it was intentional. Is it moral to expect the whole country to come to the aid of financial institutions, not just once, but seemigly every 12-15 years? Greed sets in, and when their wacky schemes go poof, the greedy ones seem to feel entitled to be bailed out, or else they sink the economy.

I don't see it as moral to bail out the borrowers either, but if I was given the choice to have my money go to the root of the problem, that is borrowers unable to service their mortages, or else have my money go to the middle probelm, help out the financiers left holding the bag, as property values depreciate below the mortgage value, I'd go with helping the borrowers. I also think over the long haul, you'd be more likely to see the little guys eventually repay debts than the financiers who can arrange things so easily to go into chapter 11.

[CrudeAwakening]

Well, there's a reason the lender's expectation of a bailout by the taxpayer is termed "moral hazard".

Unfortunately, this is the way the game is constructed. They get to avoid the strictures of market discipline while the little guy (not just the borrower) bears the brunt. We all pay for their recklessness through inflation.

[Denny]

Hey, a cool plank for a presidential campaign"

MORTGAGE AMNESTY

No, can'gt go whole hog becuase that would look really bad. Let's just say a candidate offered to pay down 15% off everybody's mortgage with public money. A "get America moving campaign".

It would be completely economically irresponsible, mostly unfair, but likely a real vote getter.

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('static66', '[')img]http://[/img]
A city boy, Kenny, moved to the country and bought a donkey from an old farmer for $100. The farmer agreed to deliver the donkey the next day.

The next day the farmer drove up and said, "Sorry son, but I have some bad news, the donkey died."

Kenny replied, "Well then, just give me my money back."

The farmer said, "Can't do that. I went and spent it already."

Kenny said, "OK then, just unload the donkey."

The farmer asked, "What ya gonna do with him?"

Kenny: "I'm going to raffle him off."

Farmer: "You can't raffle off a dead donkey!"

Kenny: "Sure I can. Watch me. I just won't tell anybody he is dead."

A month later the farmer met up with Kenny and asked, "What happened with that dead donkey?"

Kenny: "I raffled him off. I sold 500 tickets at two dollars a piece and made a profit of $898.00."

Farmer: "Didn't anyone complain?"

Kenny: "Just the guy who won. So I gave him his two dollars back."

Kenny grew up and eventually became the chairman of Enron.

Just thought you guys would appreciate some levity.. : )

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ferrelgiraffe', '
')nepotic

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ferrelgiraffe', '
')It was a word that needed to be invented post nine one one

[coberst]

Morality of Politicians Buying Votes

This morning’s Washington Post informs us that “Its Back”. I suspect it never really went away but the article “Earmark Spending Makes a Comeback” informs us that what
Congress Pledged in 2007 is already making a robust comeback.

“More than a year after Congress pledged to curb pork barrel funding known as earmarks; lawmakers are gearing up for another spending binge, directing billions toward organizations and companies in their home districts.

Lawmakers had promised to cut back on earmarks and mandated better disclosure of them after steady criticism that they were funding programs with little debate or oversight. The promises led to an initial decline in earmarks last year that was trumpeted on Capitol Hill. But the new data show that they are surging again, at least in the proposed Pentagon authorization budget, which sets out priorities to be funded in a later appropriations bill.”

We do have a few laws mandating criminal punishment for both politicians and voters when a voter buys a politician but as far as I know we have no such laws when a politician buys a voter.

A politician buying a voter appears to be perfectly legal; but what is the morality of the situation?

I would say that if there is any moral corruption in such a case that most of that moral corruption rests on the shoulders of the voter.

When a voter is bought by a politician that voter is displaying either ignorance of what a citizen in a democracy must understand or that voter is just morally corrupt.

We seldom read about citizens vilifying fellow voters when they accept this bribery. If we had proper intellectuals in this nation they would be leading the chorus of shame directed at such voter behavior.