On cyprus:

1. In a free market, it’s easy to understand what happens when a financial institution becomes insolvent. It goes into bankruptcy, wiping out shareholders. The institution is then liquidated and the recovered money is used to partially pay of depositors, bondholders, and other creditors based on the underlying contracts and laws.
2. In a system with government-imposed deposit insurance, taxpayers (or bank consumers via insurance premiums) are on the hook to compensate depositors when the liquidation occurs. This is what is called the “FDIC resolution” approach in the United States.
3. And in a system of cronyism, the government gives taxpayer money directly to the banks, which protects depositors but also bails out the shareholders and bondholders and allows the institutions to continue operating.

Just for fun....

Oooooh, tell me what happens to car companies when they get bailed out by the government, and the unions become owners and the taxpayers are left paying the bill!!!

The headline says it all
 

Senate Democrats unite to defeat balanced budget motion - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

A microcosm of American politics in one headline...

Wait, if they submit a balanced budget that includes raising taxes the Republicans will vote for it? He's joking, right?

Whether the republicans would vote for it or not was not the point. It was actually a brilliant move by the republicans. It was really just to make a statement that given the opportunity to actually balance the budget using any methods they so desired, Democrats refused. It goes to intentions as well as shattering the whole, "reduce the deficit with a balanced approach." bullshit Obama has been spouting.

They would have opposed larger spending cuts that they might be held to in a real negotiation. That leaves only tax increases to make up the gap and the only tax increases left on the table by their budget would have to come from the middle class which would have looked bad.

It is all a game and republicans are starting to wise up on how to play it with this administration. You can't stop the spending because you don't control the Senate or White House but you can make damn sure that you put the spotlight on the Dem's and their call for ever increasing spending and taxes.

From the L. A. Times

1. 40% of all workers in L. A. County ( L. A. County has 10.2 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes. This is because they are predominantly illegal aliens working without a green card.

2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.

3. 75% of people on the most-wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.

4. Over 2/3 of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal, whose births were paid for by taxpayers.

5. Nearly 35% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.

6. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.

7. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.

8. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.

9. 21 radio stations in L. A. Are Spanish speaking.

10. In L. A. County 5.1 million people speak English, 4.9 million speak Spanish. (There are 10.2 million people in L. A. County .)

(All 10 of the above statements are from the Los Angeles Times)
Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops (the usual reason Liberals state that we need foreign workers), but 29% are on welfare.
Over 70% of the United States ' annual population growth (and over 90% of California , Florida , and New York ) results from immigration.
29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens.

Here's the real problem--we can't talk intelligently about this economic problem and problem of a breakdown in our legal system because the first thing that gets shouted at the first sign of these statistics is RACISM. Meanwhile, there are "rape trees" at the border, illegals used as mules for drugs, default sexual slavery, squalid living conditions, and the American government allowing the sale of "assault" weapons to the drug cartels. Hmmm.

Opponents Call Rahm Emanuel Chicago School Closing Plan 'Racist'

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s decision to close 53 public schools and 61 buildings in largely minority neighborhoods to help close a $1 billion budget shortfall has some opponents calling the Emanuel plan “racist.”

...

“I don’t see any Caucasians being moved, bussed, or murdered in the streets as they travel along gang lines, or stand on the steps of a CPS school,” said Pearson.



School Closing Opponents Call Mayor A Racist Liar « CBS Chicago

Since this is a pictures and videos thread:



The IRS is presently being scrutinized for spending $60k to produce this employee educational video (I had to laugh at the Notaxians) on the grounds that it doesn't actually provide any educational function.

I wonder how much more than $60k will be wasted in the subsequent recriminations. Millions, probably.

Facts hurt people's feelings, which in turn hurt re-elections. Re-election is more important that problem solving... so yeah :dunno:

Hulk Hogan!

Que?

the voice of the giving tree is Terry.

I completely do not post on this site as a video and picture thread, although that "giving tree" Robot Chicken skit is priceless. :)

In the spirit of giving, here's my photo:

I would be willing to place a very large wager that the vast majority of people that opted out of Social Security and in to a privatized account would be worse off. The vast majority of people have no appreciation or understanding of the value of a guaranteed lifetime pension with spousal benefits.

Someone who receives ~$20k a year guaranteed with a 1.5% COLA and lives for 20 years in retirement would need to have almost $350k saved at the time of retirement.

If Social Security was replaced with private investment accounts, the biggest losers would be individual investors and the biggest winners would be the financial services industry (brokers, advisors, Vanguard, Fidelity, etc). This would be similar to the switch from corporate pensions to private 401k accounts.


To be fair, "reducing the deficit" and "eliminating the deficit" are not the same. Taking the deficit down from 10% to 4% would be much better than taking it to 0% or a surplus, economically speaking, so long as the USA continues to run a current account deficit.

I understand this but to 90% of the general public "reducing the deficit" and "eliminating the deficit" are the same thing. It is all a game seperate from the reality of the facts and the Republicans are getting back in the groove.

Pivot onto another topic. What does everyone think about the Supreme Court hearing the two Gay marriage cases?

Completely disregarding your actual views on whether gay marriage is good or not, is this really an issue for the Supreme Court or an issue better left to the States?

I have heard compeling arguments on both sides and I am wondering what some of the members of this board have to say.

Scrappy's daughter:

I see the issue purely religious. Everyone has the right to be miserable. I don't really care that homosexuals marry. :dunno:

That question is actually one of the primary functions of the US Supreme Court- to decide whether something can be regulated at the federal level, or whether it is within the jurisdiction of the states to control.

In this case, there is a very strong argument to be made in favor of the involvement of the Supreme Court. One of the key issues behind the debate on gay marriage has to do with whether homosexual couples should enjoy all of the same benefits and protections which are conferred upon heterosexual couples. Many of these benefits and protections arise at the Federal level, such as filing status with the IRS, eligibility for pension-sharing and other spousal benefits under Federal employment, eligibility for Housing for Married Couples on US military bases, and so on.

Then, of course, there are also many issues arising at the State level. Spousal benefits under private insurance which is regulated by the states, execution of Probate and administration of Wills, even the settlement of such trivial matters as the resolution of landlord-tenant disputes (eg: rules for rental property which regulate the maximum number of non-related persons who may occupy a dwelling.)

As with most matters of Law, there is no simple line of demarcation here. Marriage, from a legal standpoint, has historically arisen out of the Common Law. Attempting to define it legislatively is a relatively new idea.