... if the country pictured in those images attacked Israel.

I'm pretty sure every candidate's position is the same on this point: America defends Israel. I haven't watched all the debates, has Obama taken a non-supportive stance on Israel?

Or is the issue here the word "obliterate" versus a softer word like "attack" or possibly "respond"?

False dichotomy. Responding to an attack against Israel does not equal obliteration.

Oops, just read your second comment. Yes, that of course is the issue.

If the country were less beautiful would her comment be okay?

Heh, no. But the point is to drive home that Iran is a real country and not an abstract enemy state.

Some thoughts on the photos:
There are many vistas in Iran that could pass for medieval Northern Europe. Uwe Boll should shoot a movie here.

Wow! That second picture looks like the cover of Rush's Test For Echo.

What is that dessert? I want some.

Wow that last picture is a lame punchline.

Yeah, I could've done without that last picture as well.

By the way, off topic, but I just heard Hillary Clinton say the following during her O'Reilly interview:

"Rich people, God bless us. We deserve all the opportunities to make sure our country and our blessings continue until the next generation."

I'm not sure she meant what she thought she meant.

Ha, what question prompted that?

"So, Hillary, you and I are very, very wealthy. Do you think that we'll be poor in the future, or will American continue provide for us?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/30/hillary-clinton-takes-on_n_9952...

Vote it up on reddit: http://reddit.com/new

Gorgeous pics. I wish Iran were visit-able.

Yeah, I second that. I also wish I could hope that our next president would be able to say something courageous in the face of Israel/Iran tensions, rather than something exacerbating. Unfortunately, my hopes are muted at best.

Wasn't the original questions "What would you do if Iran conducted a nuclear attack on Israel?" or some such permutation?

Wouldn't the United State respond to a nuclear attack on the UK, Japan, Australia, S Korea, Canada, Mexico, etc with a counter attack of nuclear weapons? That equals obliteration, right? Nagasaki and Hiroshima were obliterated, right? I think this has been policy for the US since the cold war.

Now, is it appropriate for the US to refrain from retaliation if the victim of the attack is Israel?

If someone nuked Tel Aviv versus London or Toronto you would be less appalled?

If someone nuked London, we would totally want to obliterate whoever was responsible. Where nuclear weapons are involved, we have to have a hard line in the sand saying we will not look the other way.

There is a difference between an Arab uprising in Israel demanding a Palestinian state and Iran nuking major cities.

Where should we draw the line if nukes are involved, what policy should we have?

I am not the most pro-Israel person int he world, but if another country nuked one of our allies, we would have to retaliate in a very aggressive manor, right?

Also, please check out the Oreilly interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8YUbvwRecc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9X_nnEJmHM

She is so smart, especially under such fire.

**ABC News' Chris Cuomo asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them." **

I found this on ABC's website, so it was about a nuclear attack.

When she says she would "obliterate" Iran she is not telling some truth, she is participating in a spiraling and potentially destructive process. If Iran were threatening London with nukes and that's what she had to say about it, I'd be equally repulsed. What is she talking about? Blanketing Iran with nuclear bombs? I think that there was a reason the US dropped two nukes on Japan, as opposed to "obliterating" the country. And for anyone who's seen images of either of those cities post-nuke, the thought of more nukes and then still more nukes should be chilling. Which is why, in the case of Israel/Iran tensions, which are both distinct from and tied into other regional conflicts in the middle east, what we need is diplomacy that will move towards reconciliation or at least a cooling off, rather than rhetoric that serves to heighten the tensions and reinforce a regional foreign policy that has taken on a life of its own, completely divorced from and deaf to policies that might actually help alter the status quo around there for the better.

"Nagasaki and Hiroshima were obliterated, right?"

Yes, and it was a horrifying and completely unethical decision. But you make a good point: Clinton is completely willing to maintain what I consider unethical U.S. policy. (Obama is as well, but to a much lesser extent.)

Iran knows that we have the ability to wipe them out, but it's a politician's job to use her words carefully. She could've answered that question by criticizing his hyped-up scenario. She has already increased tensions with Iran, as they are now complaining to the UN about her words.

I agree that the O'Reilly interview was Clinton at her best. She is indeed the better politician compared to Obama. But I'm supporting an administration, not a politician.

To clarify, when I say she's a better politician, I mean she's better at playing "the game." Obama is less good at it, but that's OK, because the best thing about Obama is that he's trying to undermine "the game."

But yeah, Clinton is smart as a whip. So was Robert McNamara. We don't need another warhawk in office.

Sure, but the question wasn't "How are you going to heal the middle east's problems" it was a stupid unrealistic question about Iran nuking Israel, and she had an emotional gut response to such a heinous act. In retrospect, I think the word might not be the right word, but if she was any less strong on this sort of stupid question, later on we would be seeing Fox news show clips of her saying "Oh if Iran nuked Israel, well... I would get the UN to discuss it." now that would look totally weak on national security, right?

If it was a one-time thing, I'd forgive her. But she has had a long-term pattern of supporting imperial American policies, such as voting to increase the probability of war against both Iraq and Iran.

"Oh if Iran nuked Israel, well... I would get the UN to discuss it."

She's too smart to say something like that, but I've seen her artfully dodge hypotheticals in several debates, and it hasn't hurt her.

One thing I'm pretty sure you can expect from a Hillary Clinton administration is a lot of decisions based on political expedience. She has shown little courage on this front. Her vote for the Iraq war, the gas holiday sham, the mortgage moratorium -- they all show a willingness to compromise effectiveness for political gain. That's the kind of attitude that will lead us into more war. Obama has not been an angel on this front, but he's a step in the right direction. And the best part is: he can win.

Who is Obama putting in his cabinet that you are so excited about? I'm just curious.

I agree "the game" has gotten out of control, but while the republicans are down we should capitalize on it and pass some wonderful legislation. I mean Bush is allowing us to take all the pork out of the farm bill and the dems are stalling.

If Dems were good at "the game" they would show up republicans by halting the pork in legislation.

Oh, and I agree, I would never choose to nuke another country, but I'm not sure what I would do if another country nuked an ally. I'm anti-war and all, but it begs the question: what would we do as liberals in the face of open aggression towards our allies, would be go to war and if so with what tools?

Obviously prevention is important and diplomacy essential, I am by no mean a hawk of any kind.

Why would Dems take pork out? Democrats are no more pork-adverse than Republicans, historically.

"In 2000, Obama supported a temporary sales tax holiday in Illinois while a state lawmaker, but opposed a permanent elimination of the tax, saying benefits were not being passed on to consumers." LA Times http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-campaign27apr27,0,4...

Somehow I do not think Obama is void of politics as usual.

As for her mortgage policy, we definitely need some shot int he are, a temp fix to give America the space to come up with a permanent fix.

I didn't like her Iraq vote then and I don't like it now, but I'm not picking a president based on one vote.

If Democrats want to win and win for a long time they have to show restraint in Congress. We would win more presidential races because pork spending would be branded a republican thing, while for the last 30 years it was considered very democratic.

Also, pork is bad for the US. We should put all that money into R&D for alternative energy or cure cancer or something.

Generally, I prefer the politicians who have endorsed Obama over the politicians who have endorsed Clinton, both nationally and locally here in Nevada. (There are exceptions on both sides.) More importantly, I vastly prefer the way the Obama campaign has been run over the way the Clinton campaign has -- this to me is very indicative of the potential differences in their administrations. Clinton's campaign has had a lot of infighting, loyalty battles, finger pointing, dysfunction, and Mark Penn. There's no wonder Karl Rove has great respect for her. See this article as well: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9891.html

---

We are talking about a different "game." I meant the media "game."

---

She could have even said something like: "We would have to take action to utterly destroy all major military capabilities of Iran if it nuked Israel, doing so in a way that would minimize civilian casualties." That would've been 100 times better than implying we'd obliterate the country off the map.

---

"I am by no mean a hawk"

If you are not a hawk, why do you support one for president? Or to put it another way, what evidence do you have the Clinton is *not* a hawk? It'd be best if you could cite an example that is not politically expedient.

Being or not being a hawk is just not what I am voting on this year. For me, its the economy, health care, education and the environment.

Do I think she will end the war, yes. Is that good enough for me, yes.

On the subject of liberalism and defense policy, I found this interesting:
http://harpers.org/archive/2008/04/hbc-90002880

The pork problem has little to do with party, and everything to do with gerrymandering and election laws. Please support http://change-congress.org/.

"Obama supported a temporary sales tax holiday in Illinois while a state lawmaker"

Indeed he did, and I'm not claiming he's immune to politics as usual, just much much more immune than Clinton. But in his defense, Obama is saying that the reason he's against the national gas holiday is because he saw it fail on the state level.

"As for her mortgage policy, we definitely need some shot in the are, a temp fix to give America the space to come up with a permanent fix."

Sure, but Clinton's idea has major economic problems. See: http://www.robertreich.org/reich/20071218.asp?view=print

Pork is not necessarily bad for the u.s. It's only bad when it doesn't benefit you directly. Consider:

$1.3 billion of federal funds has been slated for allocation over seven years for the construction of the second avenue subway. Without federal support you'd be paying something like $10 a ride to take the F into Manhattan. Don't you value that money? Aren't you a fan of your congressperson when s/he brings home that bacon? What do you think farmers in Indiana think about all that money going to build subways in the most subway-dense city in the nation?

Just read the Reich article, and frankly I disagree with him. His premise is that Clinton's plan will encourage banks to be more discriminating with who they pick to get mortgages. I am in this process right now and it is difficult. I am being forced to only buy a place I can actually afford. This is a good thing.

When I started looking banks pre-approved me for homes as expensive as 500K. There is no way, even with excellent credit, that I could afford that expensive of a home. The biggest problem with this entire system was that banks were lending to buyers in a corrupt system where as a buyer you could easily be duped into thinking you can afford than McMansion, when you can't.

Clinton's plan does what we need: force banks to be more picky. Trust me the pendulum will swing back and in a year banks will more easily lend money, but currently, people need less opportunities for debt. Oh and her plans helps regualr people.

Public transport in our nation's most important economic and population hub is not pork. The environmental impact of more people on public transport would be a good step int he right direction.

But speaking of not getting pork, NY gives more in tax dollars than it receives in benefits, while places like Wyoming, SD, ND, etc all get way more federal funds per person than we who need it most on infrastructure.

I may sound bitter, and I am :)

But seriously, pork is like building a bridge to no where or subsidizing farmers or even more money towards corn based ethanol when sugar cane in Louisiana, Texas, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Florida would be cleaner and use less enegery to create.

But Greenspan's plan would do the same, and would do a much better job of not helping out flippers and non-owner-occupied homes. The problem with Clinton's plan isn't in kind, but in degree. Banks should indeed be more picky, but a pure moratorium could make them so picky as to keep the recession ongoing.

Good luck with the property search.

I do not think the recession is hinged on the availability of credit and the cheapness of credit. Lowering interest rates and making credit more readily available creates a false economy based on fake income.

We are only seeing the beginnings of the problems Bush created with deregulation and the FED's low interest rates. Yes, they can increase consumer spending on a superficial level, but in hope that people are going to be able to pay off their debt with increased pay down the line. Somehow I do not see the economy bouncing back on just consumer spending, especially from money that will cause higher bills each month.

The recession will stop when there is some more innovation in the US. Companies that are doing well, IBM and Google, have shifted large amounts of profits into R&D. Expect to see more of this. The economy of the last eight years was about making money off loop holes, that is why banks are in trouble, their products are not better, nor more competitive, in fact they are worse for consumers.

Things will change when small companies are more able to compete and when current regulation are actually enforced - you will see much more of this with either Obama or Clinton. Just my opinion though.

Sorry, as you can see, I'm a little more obsessed with the economy than with foreign affairs.

Strangely enough, I am liking our candidate more and more because of this election. Both are forcing Americans to think about issues and once the ticket is set, I bet we trounce the republicans. I just hope both candidates are somewhere on the ticket at this point.

Yeah, I am definitely more concerned with American imperialism than the economy, especially since I think the economy will be in better shape with either candidate. (Assuming that Clinton gives up on bread and circus policies.)

Imperialism, I think is not the right word. We are not trying to completely displace a people and take the land for ourselves, like we did with the native Americans. Instead I think we are acting like Vikings, stealing resources and wealth from other countries. Either way it is bad.

Pork is federal funds earmarked for local purposes. link The people of new york have managed to get by with a subway system that doesn't include a second avenue line for 100 years or so, and the national environmental impact from that single mega-expensive line is negligible. It is certainly beneficial to the people of NYC, though. In fact, building a bridge so that fewer than 100 people don't have to take a ferry is roughly analogous to building a subway line so a few thousand people don't have to walk 5 blocks or take a bus. In both cases it's a lot of federal money spent to help a relatively small number of people and the benefits to the entire nation are negligible.

There are valid arguments to be made for doing away with all of this type of spending, but there are also valid arguments for keeping it. The triborough, throgs neck, and whitestone bridges, the BBT, and much of the NYC park system (not to mention the parkways and expressways) would not have been built if not for pork (though it can be argued the expressways have national infrastructure benefit). The federal government simply has more money than any one state government, and it takes large amounts of concentrated money to get things done. One of the benefits of the strong federal government levying income taxes that FDR helped build is there is this concentrated money source. However, a consequence is that sometimes the money doesn't get spent where you live, and as such on a local level it seems unfair that, e.g. "my tax dollars are being used to help pig farmers in arkansas."

"Pork is federal funds earmarked for local purposes."

Jon, you link to wikipedia, but that's not what it says. It says:

"the appropriation of government spending for projects that are intended primarily to benefit particular constituents or campaign contributors."

I.e., there's an implication that the spending is being done for political gain in some way. Federal money being applied locally does not equal pork -- that would be like saying that the money that went to aid the victims of the Katrina disaster is pork.

brooklynboi makes a reasonable argument that the money that went to the subway is not pork, since infrastructural improvements in the country's financial capital could indeed have widespread reverberations. the problem with earmarks is that they are attached to unrelated bills with little discussion and for political gain. I'd have to read the floor transcript to see if the subway money qualifies for pork in that way.

It doesn't need to be earmarked on an unrelated bill to qualify as pork. That same article lists seven criteria (as defined by two particular groups). Do you not think that manhattanites, some of the richest and most powerful people in America, and some of the largest campaign contributors, would benefit from this subway and be inclined to vote and contribute accordingly? As opposed to Detroit, where there is little money and little influence, and a dire need of good public transit, yet little to no federal dollars?

How widespread could the effects of a second avenue subway that is already covered by buses really be? I would say there could be reverberations in jersey and southern CT at most.

Let me be clear: I'm not saying the 2nd avenue subway is a bad idea, or even that funding it with federal dollars is a bad idea. All I'm saying is there's a bunch of angry Alaskans on Gravina Island calling all y'all hypocrites.

Apparently even some proponents of the subway acknowledge pork in its funding . And as one commenter points out, pork isn't bad when it's in your backyard.

I'm not sure -- don't rich and powerful people have helicopters to take them around?

"How widespread could the effects of a second avenue subway that is already covered by buses really be? I would say there could be reverberations in jersey and southern CT at most."

So you're saying that the infrastructure that helps people to go work for Wall Street, who's influence affects the economy of the entire country, would only effect people in NJ and CT? I'm talking about indirect effects, not just direct effects. This might not be the strongest argument, but you can't make anything like it for the bridge to nowhere.

I'm not defending any one earmark, I'm just saying that you have to consider on a case by case basis to see if something is pork, and the subway thing *may* not qualify.

Here's a ny daily news article crowing about a $125 million earmark from the Transportation Appropriations Bill of 2008, with Schumer and Clinton glad handing and posturing. They might as well put on hard hats and dig a little golden shovel into a fake pile of dirt.

It certainly sounds like pork, but again, I'd have to see how it was discussed and argued on the floor to really know.

Oh I can totally make it for the bridge. The bridge would connect granville island, which has lots of developable land, to Ketchikan, the 5th most populous city in Alaska (granted, at 7,410), and the only population in the area. More usable land makes for a better fishing and tourism industry and more affordable housing, which encourages people to move to alaska, relieving the stresses on other parts of the U.S. What with global warming on the march, Ketchikan could become the Manhattan of the future, and bridge building will only get more expensive as time goes on, so it's a good idea to build now.

On the other hand, no, I predict zero economic impact on the stock market because some upper east side traders who don't currently take taxis or private limousines to work can get to their offices 20% faster by taking the subway instead of the bus.

2nd avenue subway is the porkiest pork that ever porked. Unless LA gets its own billion or two for a subway to the sea. Then i'll let it slide.

Why do you require such a deep and thorough analysis of the subway appropriations bill to know it's pork when a few muckraking articles on gravina island are enough to convince you the bridge is pork?

I'd like to hijack this thread a moment to wish everyone out there a happy May Day and encourage you ladies to do your duty and grab some May Pole.

Now back to...what was it? Something about Iran?

Because more than 3% of the U.S. population lives or works in NYC and .002% live or work in Alaska. That doesn't seal the deal, but it certainly makes me look at the Alaska one more critically.

I say we shoo all those folks off that island in Alaska and make it a preserve.

Our subway system in NYC is for a city of 1/2 our population. It is 2 decades behind in catching up to our current commuter levels. Trust me when I saw the subway system needs much more than the 2nd ave line. And anyway LA should get more money for infrastructure, just not subways, I don;t know how they would do in an earthquake.

Happy May Day Mr. Jon May.

I don't think Tokyo is too concerned, so we needn't be either. Subways are generally quite safe during earthquakes.

CM, you are apparently a populationist. I can see which side you would come down on pre-great compromise.

Can anyone explain to me why a mortgage foreclosure moratorium for two months like a year from now would do anything for anybody?

Why do you say a year from now? Clinton initially proposed the idea last December, with the intention of getting Congress to pass it quickly.

I assumed it was her plan for when she was in office. I always heard her talk about it as a future goal.

Taking a break from paying bills for a brief period can help people get their heads above water some times. I think the assumption is lenders are typically not as close to the debt line as borrowers, so the borrowers can catch their breaths and the lenders won't be terribly affected.

Also, with the deregulation from Bush, buyers could qualify for these fixed-to-variable loans where there was no down payment, instead they got a normal mortgage loan and a line of equity credit for the down payment. An equity line of credit follows credit card interest rates, while the mortgage is usually much lower. Anyway, the fixed rate on the ELC became variable this year for the first group of buyers that got those loans. Now they have to pay like 16% interest on say 50K. That is a huge monthly payment on top of their normal mortgage payments. We have six more years of people going from fixed to variable on their ELC and this problem will continue for a long time.

Jon is right, the lenders should have more wiggle room, but because of even more deregulation, Banks were buying and selling mortgages like baseball cards. And once the value of a mortgage plummeted (mortgage being used as an investment in someone else's debt), those with a huge potion of their investments that were mortgages stumbled, hence the Bear Sterns problem. Investing in Debt is a odd proposition, but that is basically was bonds are. The bond market in general is worth shit right now.

A temporary freeze on rate would keep them at the levels the buyers thought they could afford and might buy time for then to refinance, basically paying to change the terms of the mortgage which can cost upfront up to 15K, but you need this upfront cash to refinance.

I understand subprime loans, and the massive mortgages people are now having to pay, leading to foreclosures. After all, I live in the state with the highest number of foreclosures in the country, and in a city that's been greatly affected.

I put the blame of the subprime crisis more on the government and its deregulations than on the mortgage industry. And the fact is that while hedge funds and mortgage company upper management have gotten dirty rich off the subprime crisis, there are lots of people who are losing their jobs because of the failing industry.

I'm not against some sort of foreclosure moratorium -- I just think it needs to be carefully crafted to help those who are in greatest need, and not all the flippers, etc. who ought not to be bailed out.

Wait, I thought it was just a payment holiday, not a freeze in rates. Though a freeze in rates would be nice for borrowers, it translates to unexpected loss for lenders who (whether predatory or not) likely factored the rate increases into their bottom line. As opposed to a payment holiday/foreclosure forbearance (wc?) in which everyone's getting paid, they're just getting paid late.

I'm in over my head here. Can we just go back to talking about why the gas tax holiday is a terrible idea?

Banks offered loans that they should have known that people couldn't afford to repay. The banks that did this lost a fortune. This is good; they'll be more careful next time. The banks that didn't do this are laughing at their foolish, short-term-thinking competitors.

People who took out loans they couldn't afford to repay (and anyone with an interest-only loan pretty much had to know they couldn't repay it in the long run, right?) are going to lose their houses, but they shouldn't have had those houses in the first place so this is good too. Next time they'll wait until they can actually afford a fixed rate loan. It's sad, but if you can't afford the payments on a home loan, you shouldn't be buying a home. Renting is not a moral failure. As a matter of fact, I think that every single person who reads this blog is a renter (though I don't know about this new Brooklyn-based character), and I think we're all more or less good people (except for jbg).

The mortgage crisis is nothing more than the market fixing a problem that's been coming for a while. We're better off that it happened now and not ten years from now.

Plus, if the market really tanks, I'll be able to buy a place in LA on the cheap. I'm rooting for the pricing collapse to continue.

I can only afford to buy because of the current state of things. I completely agree with Ingen, this is good for the market int he long term, but most companies fall prey to the same mistakes if deregulation continues.

Messing up and incurring the full brunt of the consequences is something the social safety net of the government is designed to protect against. If too many banks go out of business and too many home owners lose their shirts because they made dumb decisions we'll have massive poverty, crime, anger, and general civil unrest. Even the dumb and short-sighted and greedy contribute to the economy and stability of the country, and while it's fine to teach them the error of their ways, too much of it helps nobody. Thus some sort of bailout or smoothing of the correction is helpful.

"The banks that did this lost a fortune. This is good; they'll be more careful next time"

Not really true. Most of those banks sold off their debts to large conglomerate banks, the very same large banks that have been getting bailed out by the government. Even the CEO of Bear Sterns walked away with millions. This is very similar to what happened in the 80's S&L crisis, and no one was more careful the next time. Why? Because the CEO's get to walk away with tons of money, and the low-level employees work toward short-term gains.

"It's sad, but if you can't afford the payments on a home loan, you shouldn't be buying a home. Renting is not a moral failure."

This is very true, but again, I blame the Bush administration for this more than the individual renters. Why? Several reasons: 1) They inflated the American-dream value of home ownership (this happens on both sides of the aisle) 2) They inflated the stability of the housing market, giving false hope to subprime buyers that equity would bail them out of any interest variance; and 3) They've de-regulated lending practices to usurious levels.

1) The American government needs to emphasize to Americans that home ownership is not an essential part of the American dream; 2) We need better lending and mortgate regulations; and 3) We have some obligation to help out those screwed subprime buyers, as long as they are not flippers. "Help" does not mean "let them keep their house," but it does mean "don't let them fall on their face." This is not only ethical but also practical, as it could help reduce crime.

You blame the Bush administration for encouraging home ownership? You're giving them a lot more credit than I would.

The reason people were buying homes was because they saw the value of homes shooting up and had access to cheap cash... it made home ownership seem like a good investment. They thought they could buy the home without paying down the principal on the loan and trust that the increasing value of the property would provide them with enough equity to maintain their stability. When the market crashed, this scheme was no longer viable. It was like a game of hot potatoe and whoever bought last lost.

People who are going to lose their house because they can't pay their mortgages aren't going to be living on the street or turning to crime - they're simply going to either file for bankruptcy, or walk away from the mortgage leaving the bank to deal with the loss. As far as I understand, some mortgages say that the bank cannot go after the mortgagee for the unpaid portion of the debt, so those people will simply walk away and the bank will eat the loss. If the bank CAN go after the mortgagee for the unpaid portion of the mortgage, and the house dropped in value, those people will end up declaring bankruptcy.

Either way, we already have a system in place to protect buyers if the can't pay their debts -- bankruptcy. We don't need moratoriums, we don't need rate freezes... perhaps we need a public awareness campaign of the inner workings of bankruptcy law, but that's about as far as we need to go.

Bankruptcy hurts your credit in the long run, but it should.

PS. I have never had a problem with CEOs walking away with big paychecks. The CEOs aren't the only ones who have an impact on the direction a company takes, the stockholders who elect the board do as well... and the stockholders most assuredly do not get golden parachutes when a company fails. I'd be interested to see an analysis of how well savvy investors do at avoiding companies that floundered during the S&L and the current situation. Or, company's that have single investors with a large enough ownership share to have a sizable impact on the direction of the company... do they fare better in these instances?

"You blame the Bush administration for encouraging home ownership?"

Yes, I do, but not exclusively. Many people feel like happiness can't be achieved w/o home ownership, and the government bears some responsibility for this widespread belief.

"When the market crashed, this scheme was no longer viable. It was like a game of hot potatoe and whoever bought last lost." (sic, mr. dan quayle)

So? You could explain the stock market crash in the late 1920's in a similar way. Just because the problem can be attributed to human irrationality, that doesn't mean the government shouldn't take steps to prevent it, hence the large market reforms after the 1920's that some credit for our general economic growth ever since.

"Either way, we already have a system in place to protect buyers if the can't pay their debts -- bankruptcy."

Though even that has been eroded by the Bush administration.

"the stockholders most assuredly do not get golden parachutes when a company fails"

It depends when they get out.

I love the Quayle E! It's almost as good as the Oxford Comma.

RE: the 1920s - fair enough.

RE: investors - fair enough again.

RE: Bush and bankruptcy reform - I know nothing about this.

Bankruptcy bill: http://themiddleclass.org/bill/bankruptcy-abuse-prevention-and-consumer-...

"Who gives a fuck about an Oxford comma?
I've seen those English dramas too
They're cruel
So if there's any other way
To spell the word
It's fine with me, with me"

I had to look up that Oxford comma song. How could you write a song about Oxford commas and never use one in the lyrics? Tres sad.

Also, the middle class website's chairs are still weird.

Totally not feeling that VW.

I'm on the fence about VW, Jesse. They have a couple of catchy songs, but their lyrics can be cloying.

I think that bankruptcy is not the only thing we can do as a country to prevent problems like this. Wide spread regulation can help prevent predatory lenders. Also education is important. The media definitely was swept up in this and promoted all the cheap money option to consumers.

Also Bear Sterns is not just their CEO, the company as a whole has collapsed. This would have had awful reprecussion to worldwide economies, so a "bail out" was necessary, but by dramatically decreasing the value of the shares, it wasn't so much of a bailout as a steep discount to JP Morgan so that they could keep all the other parts of BS afloat.

Now CEO payouts is a completely other topic, something that is wide spread and the main cause of concern for both me and my republican dad on why the middle class is shrinking. Warren Buffet said, back in the early 90s I think, that CEOs should not make more that 5x their lowest paid employee. Or something like that. Basically money is now all tied up in these individuals. This is changing as boards are no longer being stacked with fellow CEOs, where they just all approved packages for each other.

The other big problem with huge CEO pay and payouts is that it robs the R&D budgets. R&D is where American can maintain its dominance as a world leader.

For me, this is one of THE most important things that needs to be changed in America.

You can visit Iran anytime you like. You might have trouble booking the flight in the US but you can use a travel agent. You will not get kidnapped or anything like you might think.

If you go to Tehran be prepared for smog and it would be good to know someone there to show you the ropes.

Is it even legal for Americans to visit Iran?

Apparently it's not illegal:

http://www.travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1142.html

http://www.travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_920.html
-I like how it's a "Travel Warning," in caps.