Just_A_Guy

I would submit that it is increase if it comes out of refundable credits. Refundable credits are basically free money from the government.

You are certainly right, in that Bush gave us TARP. But to the extent that libs claim we fiscal conservatives have no right to complain, because Bush spent just as much as Obama does: That's demonstrably false. I think it's also highly questionable that Bush would have started spending money merely for the sake of spending money, as Obama seems to be doing. The Bush bailouts--while obscene--were at least somewhat directed towards the rescue of "key" financial institutions.

Not that I know of, Wyvern. Does BYU also block embedded YouTube videos?

An informative graphic comparing the annual Bush vs Obama deficits (here's the source): Obama's on course to add as much to the national debt in two years as Bush did in eight.

Sounds like Stewart never read de Toqueville. The two are not mutually exclusive. Umm . . . not born yet. Guilt-by-association is a logical fallacy, by the way. Umm . . . we were. (At least, us paleocons. And even the neocons spoke up now and again. Which you'd know if you actually listened to/read Beck and Limbaugh, as opposed to forming your opinions of them based on what Obama told you to think about them). The tea-party movement is not a bunch of mindless morons spouting platitudes fed by Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh. It's fiscal conservatives who were gritting their teeth as "their" president spent like a liberal, and now find that "change" means a president who in ten weeks committed us to as much deficit spending (probably more, depending on whose numbers you use) as Bush committed us to in eight years.

That thought came to me as well. On Saturday I tried to find a song I hadn't heard since I was a little boy--Via Dolorosa--and came across a with footage from Gibson's movie (which I have not seen) set against the song as background.Definitely not the portrayal of the Crucifixion that I'm used to seeing. That said, the footage in the Easter video comes from The Testaments--a movie I find problematic on a multitude of levels. I much prefer The Lamb of God.

Let me get this straight: He met the woman at the same place where he currently works, that was at least 18 months ago, he's working 12-15 hours per week, and he's living with his in-laws. I also see by your profile that you're 29, and I presume he's about the same age. Does he have a second job? Has he had a second job for any of the last 18 months? If no to both of the previous questions--is he currently pursuing a graduate degree? If not, you may wish to ask yourself (and him) why a thirty-year-old man has spent the last year-and-a-half working the same amount of hours per week that I worked as a sixteen-year-old.

FWIW, just Saturday I was talking to a guy who has been trying to refinance his house. The loan officer told him he'd have a better chance of doing so if he got behind 2 or 3 months on his current loan first. That's ridiculous.

You disagree with something I never said. I did not speak in absolutes; what I said was that "by paying off the stupid and careless, we aren't making them any smarter or more careful". As long as at least some of those individuals receiving payoffs acted foolishly and carelessly, my statement is correct. In hindsight, yes; I should have been more tactful (frankly, I don't consider "stupid" much of an insult--I frequently frankly admit that I am stupid. I subscribe to Scott Adams's (creator of Dilbert) philosophy that we're pretty much all idiots at one time or another throughout each and every day. But my apologies if I've offended the sensibilities of others). Nevertheless, in our economic system there is--generally speaking--a correlation between wise decisions/hard work and financial success. (If you have statistical evidence otherwise, I'd really love to see it). In an enormous amount of these foreclosure cases you could trace the borrower's financial woes back to borrowing too much, foregoing opportunities for education, starting a family too early, making inappropriate purchases . . . ad nauseum. This wouldn't be any of my business--people are free to make poor decisions whenever and about whatever they please. But, as our big corporations are learning, when you start accepting (or even demanding) public money you also expose yourself to public scrutiny of your past deeds and future intentions. And if you aren't willing to, as the AA says, "take an honest inventory"--you're going to get yourself on the public's shiz-list pretty darned quick.

I'm not sure if that's a compliment or a condemnation! I've heard he speaks about it at some length in The Miracle of Forgiveness; though I've not yet gotten around to reading the book.

Utah's job market is probably a little better than the rest of the country's right now, generally speaking. But even here things are tough; and wages tend to be somewhat depressed. Here's a good starting point for your job search, if you decide to come on out; and don't forget LDS Employment Resource Services. Good luck.

Gwen's right; we discussed this a couple of months ago and I think MarginofError ultimately posted an extract from the Church Handbook of Instructions. From a legal standpoint, as a matter of state law, some states (e.g. California) allow pretty much anyone to perform a wedding ceremony. From a Church standpoint, though, as others have said--it must be a currently serving ecclesiastical officer. I have seen weddings done in the chapel. I'm not aware of any prohibition against it; I would suspect the decision is more a function of the number of anticipated guests.

And at least some people realized this back in 2002. This article seemed a lot funnier then.

Oh, absolutely. I apologize if I made it look like that was the current teaching of the Church--I just wanted to provide documentation for those who were unaware that it was ever taught at all.

My primary point here isn't the injustice of mugging the smart and careful to pay the stupid and careless. It's that by paying off the stupid and careless, we aren't making them any smarter or more careful. We're just throwing money at people (of all social classes) who will make the same mistakes all over again as soon as they get a chance to do so--because they're still having the administration and people of all political persuasions telling most of them that they've done nothing wrong. This whole stimulus would be easier to swallow if it wasn't being used as a tool to perpetuate class envy.

Buying a house is not like buying groceries, or even like buying a car. When you're putting a six-figure amount of money on the line, you don't have time not to research this stuff. The banks are selling a product. You never take a salesman's representations at face value, no matter what he's selling. This is basic stuff. You don't trust the guy on your doorstep selling you a revolutionary new vacuum cleaner for a couple hundred bucks. Why do you trust the guy at the bank selling you a loan package for tens of thousands of dollars? Are the banks guilty? Yes. Are the homeowners innocent? No. The same greed that controlled the bankers, controlled the homeowners. It just manifested itself in different ways. When I hear homeowners argue that they "didn't do this on purpose, and it is mean-spirited to keep at them when they are just decent people who were misled, and are in trouble right now", I see a red-flag warning me that they still have the same sense of entitlement that made them easy targets in the first place.

. . . . . Sincerely yours, Spencer W. Kimball N. Eldon Tanner Marion G. Romney Gordon B. Hinckley The First Presidency A PDF of the letter can be found by a google search. I should note that it is a (relatively) long-ish letter dealing with a number of different situations that may come up during interviews.

Umm . . . the trouble was that the wealth of the chiefs was all on paper, built primarily on IOUs from the indians. And the indians suddenly upped and decided they wouldn't/couldn't pay on those IOUs.

I could as easily say that you speak as if there's no correlation between cause and effect. The truth, of course, lies somewhere in the middle. But I think it's accurate to say that there are a heck of a lot of people who don't want to admit that they were overextended, or invested unwisely, or are now reaping the consequences of poor decisions (regarding education, family planning, and/or a host of other issues) made years or decades ago. Those were the individuals to whom my remarks were addressed. Right now there's plenty of blame and envy going around, and a marked dearth of introspection. Government can't solve stupid and impulsive, and it should not mug the smart and the careful in an attempt to do so.

But the damage to our national character remained, and is now being exacerbated as Americans of every social class look to our current government to erase the consequences of their own stupidity.

Quod erat demonstratum. Well played, sir. Vort appears to have been dead-on.

Well, capitalism saved socialism in China. About time socialism returned the favor, yes? :)

Hmm, yes; "mine elder brethren" (the elders of the church = Levites?). I think the question remains, though--why would Laban have had them in the first place? And why would Zoram--their apparent guardian--have gone along with the plan to take them outside of the temple, let alone outside of the city? More questions than answers, methinks.

In point of fact, David O. McKay prayed to the Lord and asked for permission to remove the ban. He received the answer that the time to lift the ban had not yet arrived. I believe his son recounted the story later; it's in McKay's biography by Mary Jane Woodger. I think all we can really say is that we don't know why the ban came about; but we know that it came about through one man we accept as a prophet of God (Brigham Young); was confirmed by direct revelation to another man we accept as a prophet of God (David McKay), and was ended by yet another man we accept as a prophet of God (Spencer Kimball). We know, by a careful study of the scriptures, that God is not quite as egalitarian as we 21st-century Americans would like Him to be. But anything else really comes down to speculation.

MAD forum?