You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PoliGAF 2011: Of Weiners, Boehners, Santorum, and Teabags
- Thread starter PantherLotus
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
jamesinclair
Banned
besada said:And all those solutions ultimately punish the children who will be born anyway. Why are we trying to balance the budget on the backs of the weakest citizens of the state, rather than simply demanding the revenue that is required to care for our children? I know why Republicans believe this stuff, but I can't understand how you think the solution to our financial problems is to punish children. Because regardless of your intentions, that's what all of the stuff you're recommending will do. Move the parents up a tax bracket? That's less money available to spend on their children's health and education.
Your anecdotal evidence to the contrary, the idea that most people decide to have kids for the tax breaks is ridiculous, and one step away from talking about the welfare queen you know down the road. Most people decide to have children because there is a biological imperative to procreate. Try to stop that, and ultimately, they'll have kids anyway, but the kids will suffer.
I'm aware that we don't take enough money from the massive pile available to us, but that's not the fault of children. It's the fault of adults who believe that it's fine to to allow other people to live in misery so long as they get by okay. It's inhumane and repulsive.
I live in a heavily republican county.
18% unemployment.
Babies everywhere. EVERYWHERE.
I tried to find a date on pleantyoffish and I swear to you, 99% of the girls (18-24) have a kid. 50% have two.
Something has gone terribly wrong. These people do NOT understand what having a kid means, financially. These people dont know ANYTHING about finance.
Many of them actually believe that the money will "fix" things. Theyre unemployed. They didnt graduate HS. Government cheque? Sounds good.
If mr IRS sat them down, and said "look, if you have the kid, you pay big money, if you dont...well, you dont" we'd solve a whole lot.
Getting pregnant isnt an accident. Keep government assistance for the few cases of rape. Everyone else? It was a conscious decision, and decisions have consequences.
And that consequence should bee to chip into society, not get a reward for making a mistake.
Gonaria said:No, poor people are fine. They work the jobs that we don't want to. What we should do is require fat people to abort their fetuses cause you just know those babies are going to be fat, have a bunch of health problems, and ratchet up all of our health care premiums.
That, or tax fat people more
Parents with fat kids should be fined x amount for every pound over normal weight their kid is.
jamesinclair
Banned
speculawyer said:We don't have third parties because we don't have a parliamentary system with proportional representation. We have a 'winner take all' system that naturally devolves into a 2-party system.
If we want third parties, we pretty much have to rewrite the constitution. Or rewrite voting rules to be an 'instant run-off voting' system where you vote for your candidates in order of preference.
California just switched to this system.
I hope it means more third parties.
The consensus is that republicans are dead in California.
jamesinclair said:Parents with fat kids should be fined x amount for every pound over normal weight their kid is.
I can't believe how much Democrats hate the poor. Shocking, really.
jamesinclair said:Parents with fat kids should be fined x amount for every pound over normal weight their kid is.
You're a crazy person.
eznark said:I can't believe how much Democrats hate the poor. Shocking, really.
you callin poor people fat?
PhoenixDark
Banned
So many kids...maybe the government should offer tax credits to young mothers who give their children to foster care. Perhaps they'll use the tax credits to start their own businesses, and hire other single mothers.
jobs jobs jobs
jobs jobs jobs
jamesinclair
Banned
eznark said:I can't believe how much Democrats hate the poor. Shocking, really.
Seen the Somali pictures recently?
Im pretty sure poor = bone thin.
Clevinger said:You're a crazy person.
It's child abuse and it costs US money when the kid is 35 and in the hospital with diabetes, breathing problems and a coronary bypass.
Let the negligent child abusers pay for their crimes.
PhoenixDark said:So many kids...maybe the government should offer tax credits to young mothers who give their children to foster care. Perhaps they'll use the tax credits to start their own businesses, and hire other single mothers.
jobs jobs jobs
Republicans would love that, giving financial incentive to go with adoption instead of abortion
jamesinclair said:Seen the Somali pictures recently?
Im pretty sure poor = bone thin.
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=125800
Not only do Democrats want to disenfranchise the uneducated and poor, they also want to tax them more.
I predict the uprise of the Oreo Party
balladofwindfishes
Member
That's all well happy talk but in the real world not supporting children will almost 100% guarentee they will rely on the government their entire life, whether through prison or through welfare.jamesinclair said:And that consequence should bee to chip into society, not get a reward for making a mistake.
I'm sorry, but ideas are one thing, but you're beliefs are unrealistic. Nothing forces anyone to be a chip into society, and you're advocating for the suffering of children born to the wrong parents.
And I'd hope you're not advocating we get people to work (who by the way can't find a job anyway) by starving their children.
jamesinclair said:Seen the Somali pictures recently?
Im pretty sure poor = bone thin.
For those who are literally starving in America, yes. But those who can only afford cheap food - which has tons of HFCS and no fiber - will usually be heavier.
jamesinclair
Banned
balladofwindfishes said:That's all well happy talk but in the real world not supporting children will almost 100% guarentee they will rely on the government their entire life, whether through prison or through welfare.
I'm sorry, but ideas are one thing, but you're beliefs are unrealistic. Nothing forces anyone to be a chip into society, and you're advocating for the suffering of children born to the wrong parents.
And I'd hope you're not advocating we get people to work (who by the way can't find a job anyway) by starving their children.
Im saying that right now, there is absolutely no consequence to having kids. None. Can't afford it? Not a problem. You get rewards.
We need to give the poor and misinformed the tools they need to make the right choices.
Dangling a cheque in front of them does not lead to the right choice.
We need to let them know that having a baby WILL hurt them. And NOT having a baby will help them.
How about sending $125 a year to every woman who doesnt get pregnant from 12-25?
Clevinger said:For those who are literally starving in America, yes. But those who can only afford cheap food - which has tons of HFCS and no fiber - will usually be heavier.
Again this is education based, not economic necessity.
And no kid = no fat kid, so problem solved.
G_Berry said:lol at the Obama hate.
Wasn't your country FUCKED before he took office?
And attacking him for celebrating his birthday? WTF is going on over there?
Maybe you should all get together and pray to god to fi...... oh wait.
Bachman is insane. News at 11
jamesinclair said:Again this is education based, not economic necessity.
No, it's not. If you can't afford anything better than the cheapest food, there's no option. Unless you want to starve.
Their weight has nothing to do with their health. Ideas like this are horrible. How about we save the money by stopping corn subsidies so everything isn't loaded with HFCS.jamesinclair said:It's child abuse and it costs US money when the kid is 35 and in the hospital with diabetes, breathing problems and a coronary bypass.
Let the negligent child abusers pay for their crimes.
jamesinclair said:How about sending $125 a year to every woman who doesnt get pregnant from 12-25?
So you're not anti-fat, you're just anti any procreation? Your plan is wonderful at killing social security, though.
Their weight has nothing to do with their health. Ideas like this are horrible. How about we save the money by stopping corn subsidies so everything isn't loaded with HFCS.
A sane idea to reduce obesity? Well I never....
jamesinclair
Banned
Clevinger said:No, it's not. If you can't afford anything better than the cheapest food, there's no option. Unless you want to starve.
Buying food at the supermarket is cheaper than Taco Bell. Water, free, is cheaper than coke. Fish can be acquired at the local lake for free. Whats healthier than fish?
Lambtron said:Their weight has nothing to do with their health.
....what?
Lambtron said:How about we save the money by stopping corn subsidies so everything isn't loaded with HFCS.
Agreed.
eznark said:So you're not anti-fat, you're just anti any procreation? Your plan is wonderful at killing social security, though.
.
Im anti both.
The massive savings in the school system can be used for old people to die happily.
Lambtron said:Their weight has nothing to do with their health. Ideas like this are horrible. How about we save the money by stopping corn subsidies so everything isn't loaded with HFCS.
Or stop farm subsidies all together. That, and legalize pot and decriminalize drugs. Instantly massive savings
Im anti both.
The massive savings in the school system can be used for old people to die happily.
Well, then our population will get older and older and pretty soon, the working generation won't be able to support the retirees. It would be like the baby boomer retirement fuck up phenomenon all the time
balladofwindfishes
Member
You have to pay for them?jamesinclair said:Im saying that right now, there is absolutely no consequence to having kids. None. Can't afford it? Not a problem. You get rewards.
What country do you live in where a 1,000 dollar a year check from your tax return is somehow magically able to support a child
Because I want to move there. Seems like food, education and rent is pretty cheap in the country you live in if 1,000 dollars a year is enough to support a child and actually make a profit!
balladofwindfishes said:You have to pay for them?
What country do you live in where a 1,000 dollar a year check from your tax return is somehow magically able to support a child
Because I want to move there. Seems like food, education and rent is pretty cheap in the country you live in if 1,000 dollars a year is enough to support a child and actually make a profit!
People on welfare/ foodstamps get more money per kid. Not to mention the cost for healthcare through medicare/medicaid and for schooling, for which the parent doesn't really contribute to local and federal taxes but still have equal access to all services.
Its in no ones interest for poorer people having alot of kids. Its more likely to keep them down, and the kids are more likely to be in the same position when they grow up.
speculawyer
Member
Gonaria said:Or stop farm subsidies all together. That, and legalize pot and decriminalize drugs. Instantly massive savings
Yes, this needs to be done. We need to cut farm subsidies. But in a phased-in manner.
We need cuts and those are both good ones.
PhoenixDark said:*says Gabron into the mirror three times*
He'll be here soon
Here I am!
Education isn't a social "right" but it is certainly an important thing. I'm not sure that education requires the federal government to be involved though.
Gonaria said:Or stop farm subsidies all together. That, and legalize pot and decriminalize drugs. Instantly massive savings
100% completely and totally agree although "decriminalize drugs" should be "legalize drugs."
Invisible_Insane said:I think that's uncalled for.
Really? You're talking about disenfranchising people, but you don't see how that might be at odds with calling oneself liberal? I thought I was giving you a pretty big benefit of the doubt.
Liberals can certainly have different ideas on how to deal with things, but when you're talking about disenfranchising the poor -- and let's be honest, the poor are the least educated, and the most likely to be disenfranchised by the plan you were discussing -- you've hopped off the bus.
LegendofJoe
Member
I've been thinking about government institutional and organizational design tonight and I was wondering if anyone here has come across research that details operational cost efficiency based on the size of the institution or organization. Basically, I'm wondering what kind of support there is for the Republican argument that social spending programs should be the domain of the states.
Invisible_Insane
Member
No, I'm not. Under the system I briefly sketched earlier, people would be rewarded for being able to demonstrate broader civics knowledge, but I don't think that punishes the people who aren't interested or don't have the time. It might even incentivize parties to cultivate broader civic knowledge in their bases, if designed correctly. But it's completely inaccurate to say that I'm interested in disenfranchizing people. I think there are other more important changes in the way we vote--lengthening the voting period or moving elections to weekends, same day voting in all states, etc.--that would be significantly more important to implement immediately. But even though the bar for designing a fair weighting system like the one I described is high, I don't think that makes it a bad thing to consider.besada said:Really? You're talking about disenfranchising people, but you don't see how that might be at odds with calling oneself liberal? I thought I was giving you a pretty big benefit of the doubt.
Liberals can certainly have different ideas on how to deal with things, but when you're talking about disenfranchising the poor -- and let's be honest, the poor are the least educated, and the most likely to be disenfranchised by the plan you were discussing -- you've hopped off the bus.
Invisible_Insane said:No, I'm not.
In what way is forcing people to pass a test to have full voting rights not disenfranchisement? Just because you let them pull a lever, doesn't mean you haven't disenfranchised them. If their votes count less than other people's votes, which is, I believe what you were suggesting, then yes, you have disenfranchised them.
If not, please clarify.
Gaborn said:Here I am!
Education isn't a social "right" but it is certainly an important thing. I'm not sure that education requires the federal government to be involved though.
100% completely and totally agree although "decriminalize drugs" should be "legalize drugs."
eh, I think it would be a bad idea to legalize crack
Invisible_Insane
Member
See my edit above. I think a system like the one I described is not a question of rights, but a question of additional privileges.besada said:In what way is forcing people to pass a test to have full voting rights not disenfranchisement? Just because you let them pull a lever, doesn't mean you haven't disenfranchised them. If their votes count less than other people's votes, which is, I believe what you were suggesting, then yes, you have disenfranchised them.
If not, please clarify.
The bolded statement is begging the question--what I'm arguing is that it doesn't disenfranchise people to have some votes count more than others.
Gaborn said:Here I am!
Education isn't a social "right" but it is certainly an important thing. I'm not sure that education requires the federal government to be involved though.
Out of curiosity, why don't you think education is a social right? Not only is it needed for people to function well with others, and be productive members of society, but it also in theory makes people into better voters (if they are educated using facts based on observation and proven methods of utilizing and understanding those facts, and not those from a particular book). Plus it would have the added benefit of leveling the playing field a bit between the haves and have-nots. So why shouldn't it be a right?
Gonaria said:eh, I think it would be a bad idea to legalize crack
Addicts will get it anyway. Legalize it and you can tax it, throw that money towards true rehabilitation, and help eliminate the black market.
ivedoneyourmom said:Out of curiosity, why don't you think education is a social right?
He's a Libertarian. They believe most government functions can and should be provided by the private sector.
Gonaria said:eh, I think it would be a bad idea to legalize crack
Personally I think it'd be a bad idea to USE crack. I don't know many (read: Any) people that would try crack simply because it was legal to do so, just like I don't know many (read: Any) people that would eat rat poison simply because there is nothing actually stopping them from doing so. As it is a TINY portion of the population has used it, just 3.5%.
ivedoneyourmom - Because I define rights very narrowly and not in a positive sense. I don't believe rights "flow" from anyone. Essentially I take the limited "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" perspective (and of course property). Note how none of that REQUIRES the intervention of a 3rd party, although in some cases a third party, whether a society, a family, or the government can make these things harder or easier to maintain. With Education if that's a "right" it would imply that others are REQUIRED to provide the service to me as a matter of my birth.
To be clear I think the option of a public education for school children has done a WORLD of good for our population, just as say I think the national highway system has been truly revolutionary in the US. but I don't think either are "rights."
Invisible_Insane
Member
They're bad. Most of the ones that have been put in place by Republican state legislatures seem as if they've been written to target Democratic-leaning constituencies. The "voter fraud" they're responding to is virtually, if not entirely non-existent. I think we should be reforming election law in the other direction--for example, there's no good reason for election day to be on a Tuesday anymore, so we should either make it a holiday or move it to a weekend. I don't think it even needs to be one day.eznark said:Invisible, how do you feel about voter ID laws?
Turnout for elections in the US is exceedingly low, and I think boosting those numbers would lead to a political system that responds to more than just money.
besada said:In what way is forcing people to pass a test to have full voting rights not disenfranchisement? Just because you let them pull a lever, doesn't mean you haven't disenfranchised them. If their votes count less than other people's votes, which is, I believe what you were suggesting, then yes, you have disenfranchised them.
If not, please clarify.
Don't we already require tests and other odd requirements for disenfranchised Americans (some like to call them immigrants) to vote*? Not that I agree with what jamesinclair and Invisible_Insane are proposing, I definitely see better ways to improve democracy than a test.
*I believe residents (after an appropriate amount of time) of the US - legal, illegal, citizen, or not should have the right to determine laws that will effect their future.
Clevinger: I'm aware Gaborn is a Libertarian, but moving education to the private sector is baffling. Isn't that where a lot of the problems in the US's secondary education system come from, and wouldn't it just exacerbate the divide between the haves and have-nots**?
Edit: Gaborn: Thanks for your response, I now have a better understanding of your view - not a right, but still pretty good and important to have.
**I think proper education could potentially solve most of the worlds problems save for natural disasters and what not.
ivedoneyourmom said:Clevinger: I'm aware Gaborn is a Libertarian, but moving education to the private sector is baffling. Isn't that were a lot of the problems in the US's secondary education system come from, and wouldn't it just exacerbate the divide between the haves and have-nots?
To be fair I haven't called for that. My position on education is essentially first of all, the Department of Education which was created in October of 1979 is unnecessary, I would defund it and go back to pre-1979 (and no, I don't think that would drop educational standards).
Second, any funding that schools receive on a per student basis should be treated like a grant, and parents should be allowed to apply the money to a charter school or to transportation to a better public school system rather than it being a flat amount of money that the school gets or doesn't get based on a student's presence.
Invisible_Insane said:See my edit above. I think a system like the one I described is not a question of rights, but a question of additional privileges.
The bolded statement is begging the question--what I'm arguing is that it doesn't disenfranchise people to have some votes count more than others.
Sorry, but if you're weighting votes, regardless of your intent or schema, you're disenfranchising people. Disenfranchisement includes reducing the value of votes for a class, and that's exactly what you're suggesting. You can attempt to obfuscate by saying you're increasing the value of some votes, but that automatically decreases the value of others.
Not only that, but it's more likely to increase sharp class division. People who only get half a vote are less likely to bother, making the problem worse, not better. Rather than do our duty, which is to educate citizens, you've decided that some aren't worth the effort, and we shouldn't let them gum up the works for the rest of us. You were right earlier, it does sound very much like something SomeDude would suggest. Give that some thought, rather than trying to convince me that it's not what it is.
Skiptastic
Member
Speaking as an auditor, just because something hasn't screwed up or been taken advantage of doesn't mean you don't enact change to prevent that screw up from happening. I do agree with you that there is really no reason for election day to be a Tuesday, or barring that, making it a national holiday and a federal offense to not allow for ample time to vote. Though can't everyone vote absentee or early or get a ballot a month ahead and just submit whenever? I know I was going to be out of town for the Tuesday election in 2010, so I went in on a Saturday to the county courthouse and voted early. Wasn't a big deal.Invisible_Insane said:They're bad. Most of the ones that have been put in place by Republican state legislatures seem as if they've been written to target Democratic-leaning constituencies. The "voter fraud" they're responding to is virtually, if not entirely non-existent. I think we should be reforming election law in the other direction--there's no good reason for election day to be on a Tuesday anymore, so we should either make it a holiday or move it to a weekend. I don't think it even needs to be a day.
speculawyer
Member
The Texas one is so ridiculous that someone should sue under the equal protection clause. I believe it requires a photo ID but college student IDs are no good. But gun owner permits are good. Now come the fuck on. Could they fucking possibly be any more discriminatory than that? Seriously.Invisible_Insane said:They're bad. Most of the ones that have been put in place by Republican state legislatures seem as if they've been written to target Democratic-leaning constituencies.
speculawyer
Member
And the conservative response would be . . . and the problem with that is what?ivedoneyourmom said:Clevinger: I'm aware Gaborn is a Libertarian, but moving education to the private sector is baffling. Isn't that where a lot of the problems in the US's secondary education system come from, and wouldn't it just exacerbate the divide between the haves and have-nots**?
Gaborn said:To be fair I haven't called for that. My position on education is essentially first of all, the Department of Education which was created in October of 1979 is unnecessary, I would defund it and go back to pre-1979 (and no, I don't think that would drop educational standards).
Second, any funding that schools receive on a per student basis should be treated like a grant, and parents should be allowed to apply the money to a charter school or to transportation to a better public school system rather than it being a flat amount of money that the school gets or doesn't get based on a student's presence.
Yeah, I agree about the Department of Education, education in the US really seems like it should have stayed in the hands of the state, and not the mess it is now, or completely taken over by the federal government. Either would be better than it is now.
Not sure how I feel about private schools though. I kind of like the idea that all the curriculum* be the same at all schools, put everyone at the same starting place prior to entering the job market - or at least something closer to what France has - but I get that has no chance of working here in the US.
*really good curriculum, with second language immersion (probably Chinese), culture studies, and good math-science programs all the way through from k-12 of course.
ivedoneyourmom said:Yeah, I agree about the Department of Education, education in the US really seems like it should have stayed in the hands of the state, and not the mess it is now, or completely taken over by the federal government. Either would be better than it is now.
Not sure how I feel about private schools though. I kind of like the idea that all the curriculum* be the same at all schools, put everyone at the same starting place prior to entering the job market - or at least something closer to what France has - but I get that has no chance of working here in the US.
*really good curriculum, with second education, culture studies, and good math-science programs all the way through from k-12 of course.
I don't personally mind the curriculum as a whole at public schools, I went to one myself. I'm just for giving parents more access to more options and not being "stuck" with a school system they may or may not be happy with since in the US school systems can vary widely in quality. To be honest turning the per student funding into grants wouldn't help every kid in a bad public school to get out, but it WOULD at least help some and more choice (whether you ultimately agree with the choice the parent makes or not) I view as a positive thing.
LegendofJoe
Member
Mobility and choice are economic cornerstones, I agree completely Gaborn.
TacticalFox88
Banned
You know what, I completely agree. The whole system needs to be re-structured. Having a nationwide universal standard instead of letting States set standards would go a LOOOONG way in helping our educational system. Then you won't have situations where the Texas state of Board rewrites history to make the US look good.Gaborn said:I don't personally mind the curriculum as a whole at public schools, I went to one myself. I'm just for giving parents more access to more options and not being "stuck" with a school system they may or may not be happy with since in the US school systems can vary widely in quality. To be honest turning the per student funding into grants wouldn't help every kid in a bad public school to get out, but it WOULD at least help some and more choice (whether you ultimately agree with the choice the parent makes or not) I view as a positive thing.
Invisible_Insane
Member
I have repeatedly insisted, and will insist again that I don't see this system as an alternative to educating people. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be making our best efforts to educate the underinformed. But you seem determined to believe that, so don't let what I've actually said get in the way.besada said:Sorry, but if you're weighting votes, regardless of your intent or schema, you're disenfranchising people. Disenfranchisement includes reducing the value of votes for a class, and that's exactly what you're suggesting. You can attempt to obfuscate by saying you're increasing the value of some votes, but that automatically decreases the value of others.
Not only that, but it's more likely to increase sharp class division. People who only get half a vote are less likely to bother, making the problem worse, not better. Rather than do our duty, which is to educate citizens, you've decided that some aren't worth the effort, and we shouldn't let them gum up the works for the rest of us. You were right earlier, it does sound very much like something SomeDude would suggest. Give that some thought, rather than trying to convince me that it's not what it is.
It should be clarified, though, that when I referred to SomeDude, the "anti-democratic" ideas I had in mind were more along the lines of undoing the direct election of senators. I don't think the system was designed to work that way, and it very nearly placed the likes of Sharron Angle in the Senate. I'm not suggesting we "throw away what's left of our democracy," as someone suggested earlier.
TacticalFox88 said:You know what, I completely agree. The whole system needs to be re-structured. Having a nationwide universal standard instead of letting States set standards would go a LOOOONG way in helping our educational system. Then you won't have situations where the Texas state of Board rewrites history to make the US look good.
I don't agree with a one size fits all policy to THAT extent, micromanaging details. I have no problem with different districts having different points of emphasis even where I VEHEMENTLY disagree. Although I think one clear thing is I agree with the Supreme Court, ID is just creationism by another name and has no place in the science classroom.
Then focus on educating citizens, rather than engaging in speculative plans to reduce their voting effectiveness which aren't going to pass Constitutional muster anyway. The SC was pretty clear on this when they explicitly supported the idea of one man, one vote in Reynolds v Sims back in 64, and they've slapped down dozens of schemas that drifted away from that standard since. The standard is ensuring that votes are weighted as evenly as is practicable.Invisible_Insane said:I have repeatedly insisted, and will insist again that I don't see this system as an alternative to educating people. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be making our best efforts to educate the underinformed. But you seem determined to believe that, so don't let what I've actually said get in the way.
You're suggesting we intentionally distort the weighting of votes, which is not only unconstitutional, but which I find to be repulsive and, as I've said before, a long damn way from anything resembling liberal thought. You can continue to attempt to obfuscate the outcome of such a plan, and argue that there's nothing wrong with it, and maybe you'll convince someone else, but this is hardly the first time I've run across a frustrated intellectual who thought it would be a good idea to reduce the voting power of stupid people. It's an old, incredibly common, and truly ugly idea. Being a stupid, uneducated troglodyte doesn't mean you lose your rights to have your vote count as much as your neighbors. And if you think it does, I have a real problem with that. I'm sorry if that bothers you, but that's how it is.
I love Fridays. All the horrible news attempts to get buried.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/06/business/fannie-mae-seeks-more-help-as-its-loss-grows.html
Fannie Mae, the mortgage-finance company under government conservatorship, reported a $2.9 billion second-quarter loss on Friday and said it would seek $5.1 billion in Treasury Department aid to balance its books.
Fannie Mae requested the money to eliminate a net worth deficit of $5.1 billion for the three-month period that ended June 30, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing by the company, which is based in Washington. The loss, which compares with a $1.2 billion loss a year earlier, was mostly a result of credit-related expenses on home loans made before the 2008 financial collapse.
Fannie Mae also made a $2.3 billion payment to the Treasury in the second quarter. As of the second quarter, Fannie Mae has drawn $104.8 billion in Treasury aid and paid $14.7 billion in dividends, the company reported. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac together have drawn about $170 billion in taxpayer aid.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/06/business/fannie-mae-seeks-more-help-as-its-loss-grows.html
speculawyer
Member
Only 6% of scientists are GOPers.
Reality . . .
http://people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/Most scientists identify as Democrats (55%), while 32% identify as independents and just 6% say they are Republicans. When the leanings of independents are considered, fully 81% identify as Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party, compared with 12% who either identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP.
Reality . . .
- Status
- Not open for further replies.