Should the government help, possibly even enable, people who have made bad decisions?

Like bailing out lenders who extended credit in bad faith…?

people who have made bad decisions

I think every human being who has ever lived long enough to make a decision fits this category. I’m not entirely sure if or to what extent the government should intervene; but I don’t like the idea of refusing someone help because that person has made a bad decision.

And while many people should have known better than to make a certain decision, others have no indication that a decision will become a bad one until after the fact. Sometimes what appears initially to be a good, well-reasoned decision appears foolish later on.

I suppose I haven’t answered your question or even done a very good job staying on topic. I just don’t like writing people off because they’ve made “bad decisions.” We all make bad decisions. I made several between the ages of 20 and 25; I learned from them, and they have made me the person I am today (for better or worse). I was blessed to have family and friends to help me through my goofs. Not everyone is so fortunate.

Exactly. Of course this proposal is to use FHA to help homeowners, but any help given to homeowners is also help to lenders. Lenders surely don’t want to foreclose.

Josh, you are right. Everyone makes bad decisions. I have made several this year, as a matter of fact. You mentioned learning from your own. Would you have really learned anything, had you not felt the consequences?

Lenders surely don’t want to foreclose.

Bwah hah. At least they don’t right now, in a depressed market - that wasn’t the case 12 months ago when banks were giving out subprime mortgages and extending overly generous HELOCs to boot.

That’s the rub, isn’t it? Lenders themselves were (irrationally) counting on the bubble extending indefinitely. As a lender, you could afford to extend dodgy credit terms, and then foreclose if it didn’t work out, and still flip the property for a profit.

Now there’s a housing glut - so much so that institutional investors can’t reasonably gauge what the worth of the market is. When you have a whole lot of something no one is willing to buy, how do you assess its value?

It really makes me ill, too - my mortgage holder sends me an average of 1 mailer a week asking me to convert from my prime-rate, sub 7% fixed 30 year mortgage to a 5-1 ARM. Do you think they’re REALLY interested in saving me money? (Hint: My holder’s name starts with “Country” and ends in “wide.”)

I think that the people facing foreclosure will have “felt the consequences” even if they get some assistance in dealing with these consequences. Help and accountability do not have to be mutually exclusive.

Funny, but I just wrote about one of my bad decisions over at my own blog.

What’s even funnier is that my bad decision was actually the result of my naivete coupled with the fact that there are people out there who follow the letter of the law wrto federal guidelines in order to make a lot of money.

Frankly I think that help will have to be given in some form or another to ameliorate the consequences of this lending fiasco and I suppose Bush’s program is the best I’ve heard so far.

I know that everyone is either eager to make either the lenders or the borrowers suffer. (It seems like some folks on the left are cheering the lenders’ destruction, while some folks on the right are trumpeting the demise of the borrowers.)

But frankly, I’d just as soon see the economy stay afloat in general.

Andy, I beg to differ. Lenders do not want to foreclose on homes, not at any time.
-
We agree that many of these lenders are not good folks, but you have to understand that bailing out the borrower is also bailing out the lender. The MBA is thrilled to death with this proposal to “help” borrowers.
-
Do you yourself like this proposal or do you think that the government should do more?
-
Josh, your making this out to be like I am cold hearted and judgmental. I am basically just asking questions to provoke an intellectual discussion, not an emotional one. I am not worried about holding people accountable or punishing anyone. My focus is on the behavior that is encouraged. Speaking as the son of an enabling parent, many of my destructive behaviors from my early years would have stopped had I not been getting “help” and had I not known that there was a safety net.

Even the notion that motivation behind this proposal is a desire to help out the little guy and not the banking industry is laughable.

It seems to me than lenders and borrowers alike have put themselves in a pickle. Let them work together to figure a way out (or not). It isn’t up to the rest of us to artificially delay the inevitable results of poor their poor decisions.

I was pleased to hear that Bush had proposed , paltry though it may be, while not doing anything for the banks. The usual GOP M.O. is to bail out the banks and leave people high and dry. Maybe he knew it would be a sore subject, what with Neil Bush’s failure at Silverado, a little enterprise that cost taxpayers $1 billion.

But I have to say I was highly offended at Pres. Bush’s speech. He portrayed every affected homeowner as some greedy spendthrift who bought a house they couldn’t afford. That was very typical of Bush, completely lacking in compassion for those less privileged.

Sorry for the dropped tag.

Lenders/Brokers don’t care if they give a loan to someone that can’t afford it, because they don’t hold the loan. They close on it, then sell it to hedge funds or other private investors. They make their percentage point and go to the next person.

What we have going on here, for lenders and borrowers, is moral hazard. When people dont’ feel the consequences of bad decisions, they will continue to make them. When creditors know that if they get in a pickle, the Fed will just print a boatload of money, they will continue to act in ways contrary to the market.

The market is trying to fix itself right now. Its a painful process, but any action by the government just puts off the inevitable crash (likely worsening it as well) rather than letting the market get rid of the bad apples on its own.

Glenn, if you want to get rid of this moral hazard, you have to start with the Fed.

Ron Paul 2008

Andy, I beg to differ. Lenders do not want to foreclose on homes, not at any time.

Sure, they don’t want to foreclose, since foreclosed properties fetch a lot less than they’re worth. They’re double-effed in today’s depressed market, though, and the situation was largely made by irresponsible and irrational lending.

I thought that banks were supposed to be smart and savvy. Turns out that, in many cases, they weren’t. They came up with “creative financing” terms in order to make the sale. To make matters worse, they sold securities backed by these irresponsible loans.

Remind me again; who’s the gatekeeper in the mortgage transaction? The lender or the borrower?

I’m not sure people don’t “feel the consequences” simply because they aren’t forced to pack up their family and move into a cardboard box on the street. I know I for one can learn from my bad decisions without having to have my family starve. “Teaching them a lesson” just doesn’t interest me as much I guess.

Anyways, I find it interesting that the people most interested in criticizing someone else’s poor financial decision are the people who will simultaneously defend a half-trillion dollar war and demand that they not be taxed to pay for it. The irony will about knock you over.

Dolphin, I don’t think anybody is moving into Hooverville. Most people will just go back to renting something they can afford. I realize that dramatics play on emotions, but they are not reality.
-
Sadcox, I am with you. But the argument about the Fed has long been lost. It’s here to stay unfortunately.
-
Okay so Southern Beale is for the proposal. Nice.

They make their percentage point and go to the next person.

They all made tons of $$ on fees and interest, though. I posted a week or so ago about Countrywide; their activities bordered on criminal. Sales reps steered low-income borrowers away from less risky FHA loans, often not even telling them they qualified, instead putting them in less affordable loans that made more money for Countrywide. They charged outrageous fees: $100 to e-mail documents. And they made loans no sane business should have considered, even loaning to people who had defaulted on previous home loans.

So no, I don’t feel sorry for them.

And no, Southern Beale is not “for the proposal.” I was surprised by it. Surprised that Bush offered something. I don’t think it’s enough. It’s a gesture. I was surprised Bush went that far.

Hoovervilles? Well, they’re called family shelters now. You’d be surprised at the folks who turn up at shelters around town. They’re not all crazy homeless people who haven’t taken their meds. We have a lot of families, too. A lot of people living out of their cars.

The difference between the time when we had “Hoovervilles” and now is that it’s far easier to hide the problem.

I don’t think anybody is moving into Hooverville. Most people will just go back to renting something they can afford.

And what exactly do you think people who are living paycheck to paycheck and are then hit with several thousand dollars in fees resulting from their home foreclosure can afford? I have a friend going through a foreclosure (through no fault of his own). It’s not as simple as you might like to make it seem.

I realize that dramatics play on emotions, but they are not reality.

Dramatics? Oh I see, you’re talking about calling it “enabling” (was the intention there to put a home foreclosure on par with being a drug addict, or was that actually unintentional?) to allow someone not to lose their home when their income gets cut in half when one member of the couple passes away and they are unable to sell the home because the market sucks? Is that the kind of thing you’re referring to a dramatic? If so I agree wholeheartedly. Allowing someone to barely keep their home is hardly “enabling” them to do anything other than survive.

Oh Lord….

(Glen’s apparently ignoring me because I’m not playing his game.)

To answer your question: I don’t know enough about the “president’s plan” to say whether or not it’s a good idea. Suffice it to say when I hear the words “Bush” and “plan” together, my skepticism is raised substantially. Foolmuh, can’t get fooled again. Isn’t that the saying in Texas?

So, now that you have your answer: Whose bad decisions are we talking about rectifying here? Do you want to tackle that question?

Sounds to me like Bush is proposing using the FHA as a guarantor to assume and recollateralize risky loans. Still, under FHA terms, a bank holds the note. On first pass, it sounds like a shell game to me - but at least FHA loans typically have more buyer-friendly ARM terms (1% per year, not to exceed +5 points in the term of the loan, if I recall my first-time buyer program properly). People would still have to carry PMI until they had achieved 20% LTV on the home. That’s a cash cow for lenders. Looks to me like the government is absorbing these private losses by using the FHA as middleman (in transferring subprime loans to traditional vehicles, that is) while still giving plenty back to the banking industry.

Did the proposal also do away with the draconian prepayment penalties that most of these subprimes carried?

Sales reps steered low-income borrowers away from less risky FHA loans, often not even telling them they qualified, instead putting them in less affordable loans that made more money for Countrywide.

They’re sales reps. Making money for their company is their job.

They are not guidance counselors.

Andy, I didn’t realize I was ignoring you and I don’t believe I am playing any games. What is it that you want me to respond to?
-
If the question is “whose bad decisions”, I say both the lenders and the borrowers. Both made bad decisions. The lenders should have known better though and because of that, they are most responsible for this mess, and being responsible, they should suffer the consequences. The consequences to the mortgage industry are much more than the consequences to the borrowers. A lot of these companies are scummy, just as scummy as “pawn your title” business or “check advance” companies who prey on those who don’t know better.

They’re sales reps. Making money for their company is their job.

They are not guidance counselors.

Not that simple. Disclosure is everything. Sure, on the actual loan docs there is usually full disclosure on terms, but what about disclosing every option available to the borrower? Certain ethnicities have suffered behind the, say…less than stellar business practices by banks. For instance, if I know your FICA score qualifies you for b tier terms, and I quote you C tier terms, but fully disclose those, what I have done is probably legal, but is it ethical? And is the employers bottom line the only consideration?

I don’t know for sure, but I would guess that what you described Mack is probably both unethical and illegal, especially if we are talking about a minority. Fair housing laws are not something to be messed with.
-
I wish a mortgage person would chime in to discuss their association’s code of ethics.

I muddled my point with the ethnic thing. Forget that. If a person walks into my bank, fills out an application, and their score (or other qualifying considerations) indicates that they qualify for B tier, (I think most A tier people know they can shop rates) but I quote only C tier rates and terms, but fully disclose those rates and terms, and hell, fees, have I done business ethically? I’ll admit there is some gray area here.

[…] Me Sep4 Discussion About The Bush Plan foreclosures, mortgage stuff I very much enjoy provoking a good discussion, even if some of the discussers (yes I invented that word) tend to delve off into emotionalism and […]

To Mack- Certainly not ethical. I don’t know if the Mortgage Bankers Association has a code of ethics, like the NAR, but hopefully they do.
-
As for Realtors, most state Real Estate laws are taken from the Realtor Code of Ethics, which is pretty tough. We have to disclose everything and if we don’t, we can be fined or even lose our license. Hopefully the MBA and laws are also tough like that. If there isn’t a law that says you have to disclose all of a person’s available options, I don’t think it would be too hard to get one passed right now.

They’re sales reps. Making money for their company is their job.

They are not guidance counselors.

Yeah, ethics, shmethics! Free hand job of the market, beee-yatches! Low income people should just KNOW what loans they’re eligible for, I mean shoot! Banking regulations and FHA and Fannie Mae and all that stuff should just be second nature to people!

Dang, people are so STOOOPID. Who doesn’t know how this stuff works? Don’t we all learn it in school?

Cue ginormous eye roll.

BTW, has anyone looked into the Jeb Bush connection:

Ooops, sorry. Let’s try that again:

BTW, has anyone looked into the Jeb Bush connection:

“Lehman Brothers has appointed Jeb Bush to its private equity advisory board in the latest attempt by a buyout group to influence Capitol Hill.

“Lehman’s move to hire the former Governor of Florida and brother of President Bush follows buyout giant Kohlberg Kravis Roberts hiring two former White House aides to lobby the US federal government on tax and regulatory matters affecting private equity.”

Dang, people are so STOOOPID. Who doesn’t know how this stuff works? Don’t we all learn it in school?

But I will say that the mortgage brokerage company we used (not countrywide, however) tried to convince us that we seriously consider an interest only balloon note on our mortgage. Their opinion was that with housing prices appreciating like they were, the home value would go up enough over the next 3 years or so that any principal accumulation would be relatively minor in comparison. We could roll our house (as if I’m moving again) and have buckets of capital gains profit to deal with in short order. He actually believed what he was saying was gospel. He was in his mid-thirties and had never seen anything else. He was knowledgeable, he was convincing (to others, that is. I wasn’t biting.), and I’m sure he had tried to convince others this was THE WAY to do it. if you were SMART. He wasn’t being unscrupulous. He was just way, way wrong.

He wasn’t being unscrupulous. He was just way, way wrong.

Yeah but that’s just completely different from him telling you that you only qualified for one more expensive type of loan when in fact you qualitifed for a different type that was more advantageous for you.

Just one more excuse to keep the printing presses running 24/7. Note how gold surged the day he made the proposal.

Is the general consensus that this is a good idea? Aside from all of the dislike of Bush and overall cynicism with govt., most people seem to like this idea. Am I correct? What about you Perfesser?

I don’t know all the details, Glen, but on the surface of it, I do NOT think it’s a good idea. I think Bush’s plan is really an industry bailout disguised as a consumer bailout.

I think that both the industry and the consumers should know better than to offer or accept the kinds of loans that are now defaulting. Everybody is getting just what they deserve.

I also think the housing market is ridiculously inflated and should be allowed to correct of its own accord, i.e. without gov’t bailout or interventions.

Not a very “liberal” attitude I know, but, then, I never was much for labels, one way or the other.

Is the general consensus that this is a good idea? Aside from all of the dislike of Bush and overall cynicism with govt., most people seem to like this idea.

Glen, first off please allow me to go OT and say I’m a little sensitive to the “dislike of Bush” comment … this may not have been your intent but it seems to me conservatives write off most liberal arguments as being just “dislike of Bush,” instead of taking what we say seriously. It’s a cop-out, a way to discount liberals without bothering to look at the content of our arguments.

I’m not saying that’s what you were doing here, but I do think you need to be aware that we are sensitive to that.

As for Bush’s plan, “like” and “dislike” aren’t really the proper terms to use. I think it really won’t do anything. 2 million people are being foreclosed and he’s going to help 60,000 of them refinance with FHA loans? Well, sure, that’s a nice start, but what about everyone else? The tax break is nice, but that doesn’t help everyone, either.

I mean sure, what he’s proposed is great but it’s just the start. He’s putting a band-aid on a hole in the dam. It’s for show.

It’s a cop-out, a way to discount liberals without bothering to look at the content of our arguments.

All too true. I still don’t like him, though.

Ya know, he probably wouldn’t want to have a beer with you, either! Truth be told, I doubt he’d have a beer with any of us.

Aside from all of the dislike of Bush and overall cynicism with govt., most people seem to like this idea.

Hold the phone a second. Given the performance of this administration, especially vis-a-vis domestic policy, I’m absolutely within my rights to say that hearing the phrase “Bush plan” is enough alone to give me pause.

That said, my response was that I didn’t know enough about the plan to say whether or not it’s a good idea. I doubt that you yourself really have all that much depth in the issues here, despite being a real estate agent.

I doubt very much, also, that allowing people to requalify for refinancing under FHA is really going to make that much of a dent. How are people going to be qualified? Will it still be under existing FHA rules? You have to be pretty poor or be a first-time home buyer to qualify today.

Will there be forgiveness for things like big prepayment penalties for existing subprimes? Who underwrites or writes off that expense? Are they just flipping people from one ARM program to another? What’s the profile for the folks who qualify for this proposed program? Are we talking about people who live where real estate is at a *real* premium, like in SoCal or in the DC area, where a 2000 sf home on a postage stamp by the tracks is “worth” $750,000? (If you think houses around here are expensive, you ought to talk to some of the diaspora who recently arrived from Hell-A, courtesy of the Nissan relo.)

Truth be told, I doubt he’d have a beer with any of us.

Recovery & all that.

I doubt very much, also, that allowing people to requalify for refinancing under FHA is really going to make that much of a dent. How are people going to be qualified?

Good questions, Andy. From what I’ve read, for folks to qualify they have to prove that they were keeping up with their loan payments *prior* to the interest rate hike. When Bush said he wasn’t going to bail out “speculators” who bought homes they couldn’t afford, he meant it.

Nice little punitive element there, eh?

Truth be told, I doubt he’d have a beer with any of us.

Recovery & all that.

I meant a “No-Al” beer, of course ….

Your right Andy. I don’t know the particulars of this idea. I guess the reason that this idea doesn’t bother me is because, like many of you have said, it doesn’t do much. I am with Perfessor. These things need to work themselves out on their own. Government intervention in a market is never good. Just look at the domestic record of the Nixon presidency. There will be some short term pain, but it will all cycle through.
-
Personally and professionally, I should probably support a bailout. But I don’t believe in supporting my interests over what I believe to be right, or the interests of the country as a whole. I believe in freedom and small government and I trust the invisible hand, even though the NAR, which I am forced to pay money to, lobbies for something different.

It really amazes me how a lot of “free market” types are anything but. As soon as the word “correction” enters the lexicon, they run to the Fed to bail ‘em out. And this “mortgage relief” plan or whatever it’s called is a perfect case in point.

It’s nice to see somebody with more time and resources to devote to the research seeing it about the same way:

http://reason.com/news/show/122322.html

“In truth, what Bush has proposed is far worse than a bailout. Federal regulators and policies would supplant market discipline and price signals in the mortgage market. And all because a long-overdue correction in the domestic mortgage-making sector manifested itself this summer.”

I don’t mind principles I don’t agree with. What I do mind is principles that even their advocates don’t really adhere to. There hasn’t been an honest “conservative” in this country since Barry Goldwater.

Perfessor, Bush has never ever ever claimed to be a free market type. He calls himself a conservative, but that really only applies to social issues. As far as economics is concerned, most would agree that Bush is just as much a big government Keynesian as any regular Democrat.
-
It bothers me that you don’t consider me to be an honest conservative. I try to be as principled as I can. Name an issue that you think I am inconsistent or unprincipled on and lets talk about it. On this particular issue, my position is to do nothing, but like I said, this plan doesn’t bother me much because I don’t really think it amounts to anything. Obviously, someone at Reason thinks differently.
-
If I am inconsistent somewhere, I want to know so that I can correct my inconsistency or at least explain it.

If I am inconsistent somewhere, I want to know so that I can correct my inconsistency or at least explain it.

I’d like to know how you can support tossing out the 4th Amendment, and call yourself a conservative.
.

JP, could you please explain elaborate a little bit? When have I advocated that we do away with the fourth amendment?

JP, could you please explain elaborate a little bit? When have I advocated that we do away with the fourth amendment?

You used to have a blog where you openly supported the illegal warrantless wiretapping advocated and practiced by the current administration. I can’t find it, anymore, but I haven’t heard your disavowal of such, in the interim.
.

JP, as long as this republic has existed, our government has intercepted messages from the enemy to the enemy here at home. If someone is on the phone with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan or Pakhistan, the govt. needs to hear their conversation. That doesn’t have anything to do with the Fourth Amendment.

JP, as long as this republic has existed, our government has intercepted messages from the enemy to the enemy here at home. If someone is on the phone with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan or Pakhistan, the govt. needs to hear their conversation. That doesn’t have anything to do with the Fourth Amendment.

Thanks for stating the obvious, Glen! However, you have ONLY the president’s WORD that that is all that’s going on.

Admit it.

No warrants = no separation of powers = NO FUCKING OVERSIGHT.

Prez Hillary won’t trouble you at all with these powers? Sleep well.
.
.

Warrants to intercept messages to Al Qaeda? You people are so amazingly partisan that you would a position as amazingly stupid as this.

Warrants to intercept messages to Al Qaeda?

Glen, let me say this more slowly, because I honestly don’t think you’re a complete idiot, or being deliberately obtuse, because this is how you continually frame the debate.

You trust the current administration to only be doing what they claim to be doing, and conclude that you, as a citizen are not giving up any rights.

We’re not talking about “warrants to intercept al Qaeda communications.” We’re talking about warrants OUGHT to be required when a U.S. citizen’s communications are intercepted, period.

But they no longer are, thanks in large part to spineless Democrats in Congress. Not that it matters — obviously, the current administration has not felt in ANY way constrained by ANY law, at ANY time.

Do you think the entire top echelon of the DoJ were ready to resign because of a dispute over surveilling ONLY terrorists? I can’t believe you’d swallow that. You have to know that this power to spy on anyone at any time, without oversight, is not only a temptation to abuse, but is actively being abused.

And it will be abused by the Democratic president in 2009.
.

Bullshit!
-
Nothing but complete and total wackjob bullshit!

That may be the most coherent and painfully accurate thing I have ever read in a comment that had the name “Jefferson Prestonian” attached to it.

Nothing but complete and total wackjob bullshit!

I’m guessing you’ll suddenly see the light on 1/20/2009.
.

Glen’s excellent rebuttal of “bullshit!” notwithstanding, let me close by extensively quoting from Glenn Greenwald, who on 2/10/2006 wrote:

(3) The right-leaning Jon Henke at QandO provides further evidence that one need not ascribe to a liberal political philosophy in order to find the Administration’s excesses and deceit repugnant to the values on which this country was founded. Jon points to a new article from National Journal reporting that only a small minority of detainees at Guantanamo had anything to do with Al Qaeda, and that the Administration’s assurances regarding who it was who was detained there were fundamentally false. As Jon concludes:

This is why we have due process. This is why we have transparency. This is why a free people who want to remain that way ought to insist we apply due process and transparency even to suspected terrorists. Instead, we’ve largely stood by while the Bush administration has run roughshod over innocent people; while the Bush administration detained innocent civilians and lawful combatants, and abused them into false confessions. And then that administration had the temerity to say that legislation removing legal recourse by those people “reaffirm[s] the values we share as a Nation and our commitment to the rule of law”….

I couldn’t agree more. For me, the real trigger - the final straw - was the due process-less but indefinite detention of U.S. citizen Jose Padilla in a military prison with no access to lawyers or even charges of any kind, while the Administration argued that he no right to even have a court review his detention, which occurred on U.S. soil. To me, nothing is more un-American than that – nothing.

JP, we are talking about phone calls FROM foreigners to people on American soil. Congress was even briefed on this program. No President has ever needed a warrant to intercept messages FROM other countries during a time of war. This doesn’t have anything to do with Padilla or Club Gitmo. If the President has to get a warrant every time a phone call is made to America from Al Qaeda, then we are screwed.
-
You are not opposing George Bush when you oppose this program, you are opposing America. Would I want President Hillary to have this program? Damn right I would, because I despise the enemy more than I despise her. Do you really think that people sit around all day long worrying about you guys? Believe it or not, you and your Marxists allies are not really that important.
-
How are they abusing this? What is your evidence? Do you know anybody that was listened to? What motive would these career bureaucrats, most of which hate the President just as much as you, have to listen to your phone calls with your cousin Francois? It takes a wacked out insomniac who has nothing better to do than sit in front of a computer all day and night to believe this stuff.
-
Are you a George Noory fan? I am sorry for being so insulting, but good grief. This stuff gets on my nerves. A group of people in this country actually believes the idiot George Bush is more of a threat than Al Qaeda.
-
Maybe your side will win the election and then maybe we will be united against the real enemy. I guess that’s our only hope.

How are they abusing this? What is your evidence? Do you know anybody that was listened to?

Well, isn’t that just the beauty of not needing warrants? There’s no evidence!

Again, YOU trust the administration when they SAY they “only listen to terrorists.” I don’t. If that were true, they would have gone to court, and shown cause why FISA — which John Yoo and the legal eagles for Bush praised, until the news broke that they had IGNORED FISA for YEARS — interfered with legitimate anti-terrorism intelligence-gathering. But no, they didn’t do that. As I said, James Comey and much of the top level staff of DoJ weren’t ready to resign over spying on terrorists, you can bet your bottom dollar on that.

And again, I suspect you won’t trust the upcoming Democratic administration when they say “we don’t need warrants; we’re ONLY listening to terrorists.”
.

(and to continue, I wouldn’t blame you if you DIDN’T trust the Democratic administration when they said that. What good is America unless we uphold the Constitution and Rule of Law?)
.

“Rule of Law”- what rule of law? Utter and complete nonsense.

“Rule of Law”- what rule of law?

You dispute that the administration repeatedly violated FISA for YEARS, prior to the Democrats caving and making the law-breaking legal?
.

I tell you what. Prosecute them. Prosecute all of them. While your at it, enforce the “rule of law” on the 20 million illegal aliens in this country.
-
I am done with this JP. You win. Great job.

You win. Great job.

Well, thanks. You didn’t put up much of a fight.

My point was that no true conservative would so casually toss away the 4th Amendment. I think those who would are more authoritarian than conservative, Glen… willing to cede rights to a protector who promises to keep us safe.
.

You didn’t make a fourth amendment case. People on American soil don’t have the right to talk to take phone calls from people who want to blow us up. I haven’t ceded any rights to the Bush Administration and neither have you. In your dream world you have, but not in reality.

You didn’t make a fourth amendment case. People on American soil don’t have the right to talk to take phone calls from people who want to blow us up.

Glen, for Christ’s sake.

Do you know how FISA operated, up until the summer recess? Did you know that intelligence gatherers have had the lawful ability to listen in on any suspicious U.S/foreign communication for up to seven days (extended from the original 72 hours, written into the 1978 law) prior to applying for a warrant?

If this were solely about listening to terrorists, obviously, no one would care.

It plainly is NOT just about “listening to terrorists.” If it were, I don’t think James Comey and much of the upper ranks of DoJ were prepared to resign because they thought terrorists’ rights were bring violated. And if you were intellectually honest, you’d wonder about that, too.

You asked me to prove that these powers are being violated. Can you prove they’re only being used to spy on terrorists?

No, you can’t. And you know why?

Because the 4th Amendment requirement for warrants against U.S. citizens’ search/seizure are gone. It’s a secret who’s being surveilled, isn’t it? Well, that’s convenient for the lawbreakers.

Now, no actual conservative I know is willing to stand up for that, and put that much trust in one branch of government, with ZERO oversight. Cowardly authoritarians, sure… but not “strict constructionist” conservatives.
.

“Cowardly Authoritarian”. JP, I am dead serious when I say this. Set up a time and a place for us to meet. Please let me know and I will be there. I would like for you to find out how cowardly I am.

I am dead serious when I say this.

I know you are, Glen. But no matter how brave you are online, or with your fists, mano-a-mano, it won’t make your sacrifice of the 4th Amendment to the authoritarins any less cowardly.
.

Once again this has nothing to do with the fourth amendment. Absolutely nothing. What this is is utter stupidity and de-facto support for our enemies. Bush is the farthest thing from an authoritarian. In fact, Bush is a lot closer to being a weak pansy. You want an authoritarian who uses power to against political enemies, elect another Clinton.
-
Good luck and sleep well tonight knowing you are safe.

Once again this has nothing to do with the fourth amendment.

So you say, but where’s your proof?

This administration admits that at least one American can be on one end of a communication that they suspect involves terrorism… and their suspicion is all that’s needed. No warrant, no oversight, no proof that the 4th Amendment was violated.

That you trust any branch of the government when they say “trust us — we’re not violating your rights, but you have no guarantee of that” indicates that you are not a conservative, Glen, but you ARE, instead, an authoritarian. You would trade freedom for the illusion of safety. It’s sad that you don’t see it for what it is.
.

And Glen, if you’re so proud of your views on this topic, what happened to http://glendean.typepad.com/christianlibertarian/2006/08/temporary_victo.html ?

It’s been scrubbed from Google cache and archive.org.
.

What part of:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

… does Glen not understand?
.

I can’t believe I wasted this much of my time and energy on somebody like you.

I can’t believe I wasted this much of my time and energy on somebody like you.

I can’t believe anyone calling themselves a conservative is willing to trade liberty for a wistful promise of safety. We all have to be amazed by something, I reckon.
.

[…] MLS Contact Me Sep13 This REALTOR Says No To A Government Fix Uncategorized As I stated in this post, the Bush plan to aid homeowners doesn’t bother me that much. It is certainly less […]