En Tequila Es Verdad/progressive conservatism/post/2009/05/22/2015

May 22, 2009 8:15 PM - Mike
Mike at The Big Stick said...

Show me people in Hollywood saying things like "it's so great that she decided not to get married when having her baby".Show me Republicans saying, ‘We hate poor people.” But something tells me you think most generally do based on their actions. Actions have meaning. Just because people in Hollywood don’t vocalize it doesn’t mean that out-of-wedlock births aren’t becoming normalized. And despite your celebration of the wonderful tapestry of diversity, out-of-wedlock marriages are generally to blame for a host of social problems. If that's true (sources?), he's being much too gracious -- considering that the majority of the loans involved in the crash were not CRA loans, that CRA lenders have tended to engage in less dangerous lending than others -- and that Clinton and the dems fought to reduce levels of predatory lending, to investigate fraud, and to try and reduce the deleterious effects of the eventual crash, while conservatives blocked them at every turn.This is the text of Bill Clinton’s remarks on the Today Show, 09/25/08. Lauer: [According to a NY Times article] your administration pressured Fannie Mae to increase the number of lower and middle income families and individuals who could get a mortgage and thus own a home and that to accomplish that Fannie Mae lowered their standard for credit, these subprime mortgages, and while the article said it was good intentioned, it was dangerous. Would you agree with that? Clinton: I think, through the lense of this, it looks like that is true. But let’s go back to where we were at the time. At the time they had lots of money, were making lots of money and I thought too much of the money was being given out in value to the shareholders and compensation to the executives. ''Which would you rather deal with: the occasional expleted deletive, or someone who unapologetically incites their followers to riot against you, or talks about torturing and killing those who agree with you? ''Palin tried to get people to riot against you? You’re more popular than I thought! I'm talking about two things: (1) personal preference -- the world (and my corner of it) is already plenty crowded for me, thanks, (2) we are already consuming in excess of the world's production capacity (3) it's all very well to say that "it's just a problem of distribution"*, but until you solve that problem, STFU about having enough resources for everyone, ok?I don’t think anyone argues that petroleum is vital to the survival of worldwide populations. At the end of the day it’s a luxury item. If it went away tomorrow, goods would still get where they need to, just perhaps a little slower (a good-sized chunk of the U.S. navy seems to be doing pretty well on nuclear). As for personal preference, I suspect you know what my reply to that is. Negative birthrate = good, as far as I'm concerned, at least until we get the planet down to something like a billion or two…I’m curious as to how a higher birthrate in SF would effect, let’s say, Thailand?

source