Iamon lyme: A few corrections:

If our media misrepresents anything, it usually falls on the side of favoring governmental actions and covering UP as best it can government misdeeds.


"By that law we are all equal, no one has rights above the other. He was free but made sure the government knew he knew he was free."

I see, so he wanted to remind the government he was free... just in case they forgot or were tempted to ignore that little detail. (?)



One other point I failed to mention... you said: "One guy just sent a 15 page statement to the PM stating he does not stand under any acts or statutes... "

It appears he has given himself permission to ignore any of those acts or statutes if he so chooses.

(V): "From what I've seen...... a big difference. Maybe just your media misrepresents your 'projects' :/ Standards tend to be better here."

If our media misrepresents anything, it usually falls on the side of favoring governmental actions and covering as best it can government misdeeds. But this is only temporary, and the media will reverse itself when the other party is in power... they always do.

As for misrepresenting low income housing, what would be the point of doing that? I can google low income housing and find information nearly identical to your social housing.

"Some people seem to think their freedom can be taken... sorry, but to me that is a big lie."

I see, so it's your belief that once you have a freedom it can never be taken away. That must feel very reassuring.

"One guy just sent a 15 page statement to the PM stating he does not stand under any acts or statutes and is therefore operating as a 'free' man of the land and bound by only common law."

We have guys like that over here too. But they tend to keep to themselves and collect weapons.

"By that law we are all equal, no one has rights above the other. He was free but made sure the government knew he knew he was free."

I see, so he wanted to remind the government of those rights in case they forgot or were tempted to ignore them.

"But you are bound to not harm, defraud or cause loss or damage to anyone or their property under common law."

That's reasonable.

"Hence the reference to common law. Inalienable rights like you state your constitution provides..."

Over here we have a president, fully supported by his party, who has been ignoring our constitutional rights from the day he stepped into office.

"but we don't need to fight and moan."

You have much more important issues to fight and moan over.

Iamon lyme: Subsidies for new homes (often termed 'social housing grant') amount to sizeable public investments. In its 2008–11 Prospectus, the Housing Corporation stated that in the three-year period to 2011 subsidy would be "at least £8 billion".[5] The majority of this would go to housing associations for use in development projects. Since 2003, in an effort to seek greater value for money, much of the funding by the Housing Corporation for new house building has been channelled to fewer than 80 "developing housing associations" that have achieved "partner status" through Partner Programme Agreements.

Housing associations borrow money to pay for new homes and improvements. After the Housing Act 1988, the proportion of the cost of new homes met by capital grant was scaled back by the Government, so borrowing became the primary source of funding for investment. Much of this was simply borrowed from banks and building societies, but after the late-2000s financial crisis these institutions ceased to offer long-term loans, so developing associations are increasingly turning to corporate bonds to raise funds for expansion.

"The only difference I can make out is that your social landlords have more latitude in drawing up allocations policies... other than that, there is no real difference."

From what I've seen...... a big difference. Maybe just your media misrepresents your 'projects' :/ Standards tend to be better here.

"Some people would happily give up many of their freedoms in exchange for being cared for, and others wouldn't like it at all."

Some people seem to think their freedom can be taken... sorry, but to me that is a big lie. Hence the reference to common law. Inalienable rights like you state your constitution provides... but we don't need to fight and moan.

One guy just sent a 15 page statement to the PM stating he does not stand under any acts or statutes and is therefore operating as a 'free' man of the land and bound by only common law. By that law we are all equal, no one has rights above the other. He was free but made sure the government knew he knew he was free.

But you are bound to not harm, defraud or cause loss or damage to anyone or their property under common law.

(V): Okay, I should know better by now... all I had to do was google "social housing in england", and here is what I got:

"A key function of social housing is to provide accommodation that is affordable to people on low incomes. Rents in the social housing sector are kept low through state subsidy. The social housing sector is currently governed by a strictly defined system of rent control to ensure that rents are kept affordable."

"Social housing is allocated on the basis of need
Unlike the private rental sector, in which tenancies are offered according to the free choice of the landlord or existing household in question, social housing is allocated according to need."

"Each social landlord operates an allocations policy, stating in advance what factors will be taken into account when deciding who gets preference for the limited amount of social housing on offer. These policies must include 'reasonable preference criteria' that are set out in law, but beyond this, allocations policies can be drawn up at the discretion of the social landlord."


This is what we in the U.S. call "low income housing". The only difference I can make out is that your social landlords have more latitude in drawing up allocations policies... other than that, there is no real difference.

(V): Subject: "... I stand by common law more than statutes and acts. The power on consent is then mine... as we are policed by consent. .... If you are not breaking common law than what is the worry?"

I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. I'm talking about an increasing role of government in our lives, beyond what is necessary or appropriate. I can understand how someone might not be alarmed by this, because everyone has a different idea as to what level of government involvement is appropriate or not. Some people would happily give up many of their freedoms in exchange for being cared for, and others wouldn't like it at all.

(V): "Low income would be the slum owning private landlords renting places out that are 10 years overdue for an extreme makeover!!"

In the US, what we call "low income" housing is government subsidized housing. Sometimes they are called housing developments or "the projects".

"With some areas (eg London) being very expensive many middle class folk do live in social housing... The properties are better maintained than private landlords tend to can be bothered with."

Maintained by whom? If not by private landlords, then who is in charge of those properties? I'm not familiar with the term "social housing"... what exactly is it?

Iamon lyme: ... I stand by common law more than statutes and acts. The power on consent is then mine... as we are policed by consent.

.... If you are not breaking common law than what is the worry?

"I can see you are okay with that, and your complaint is actually about something else... socially funded housing."

No.... I'm not ok with it, but I accept if run well it could be a useful scheme.

"I assume what you call social housing is what we call low income (affordable) housing."

No. it's not the same. With some areas (eg London) being very expensive many middle class folk do live in social housing... The properties are better maintained than private landlords tend to can be bothered with.

Low income would be the slum owning private landlords renting places out that are 10 years overdue for an extreme makeover!!

(V): I assume what you call social housing is what we call low income (affordable) housing.

(V): I wasn't saying they are exactly the same things, but both entail similar risks that can affect prospective homeowners... that much I think we can agree on.

What they do have in common is government involvement in private enterprises and concerns. Some people are concerned about governments encroachment on our private lives and personal business dealings. They see it as the government becoming a nanny state... gradually taking over personal responsibilites to make life easier for us, but at the same time making us more and more dependent on the government. Increased government involvement may be good for government workers (whose salaries are drawn from taxes) but not always so good for the private citizen (who works to pay those taxes).

What you're talking about is government inserting itself into the housing market by offering to underwrite loans. I can see you are okay with that, and your complaint is actually about something else... socially funded housing.

Iamon lyme: It doesn't though, not imo. In the end your banks sold mortgages to other companies, who sold them onto other companies, etc.

...not the same as this.

Any lenders will have to pay a fee to have it 'underwritten'.

It seems the rules will be..

5-20% deposit
20% shared equity loan
75-60% mortgage

It replaces a system called FirstBuy, which helped first time buyers.. now it is being extended to those buying a new home under £600,000 ($900,000 approx)

It does not sort out the problem of a lack of social housing which started in the Thatcher years. Long term tenants were allowed to buy their homes at a greatly reduced price. The money went to the councils, but they were not allowed to reinvest it in new stock by order of Queen Maggie.

(V): "From what Lamon has posted of it's operating nature... no."

But if it has the same result... then yes.

"...the government will effectively underwrite mortgages. It's right the Institute for Fiscal Studies warned there are risks."

We were warned too.

"Some borrowers might be far less conservative in what they aim to buy, some may default rather than tighten their belts."

Yep, that could happen. It happened over here.

"And in no way would such be allowed by the UK people."

So, are you saying "The Government has released a new scheme to help people buy homes" and it WILL be allowed, because its "operating nature" is not the same as mae or mac... even though it essentially does the same thing?

....by "parliament and our press."

Artful Dodger: From what Lamon has posted of it's operating nature... no. And in no way would such be allowed by the UK people... we've seen too much of the results of that, and how close the main UK banks nearly collapsed our financial system beyond control to accept a state backed toxic debt selling system.

So much has been picked on by the opposition that it'll be hard to squeeze a mae or mac out of a gnats posterior let alone parliament and our press.

Iamon lyme: Why is it government never learns? They keep making the same mistakes over and over.

Artful Dodger: Close enough (for government work)

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/fannie-mae-freddie-mac-credit-crisis.asp

When the housing bubble of 2001-2007 burst, it caused a mortgage security meltdown. This contributed to a general credit crisis, which evolved into a worldwide financial crisis. Many critics have held the United States Congress - and its unwillingness to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - responsible for the credit crisis. In this article, we'll examine the extent to which Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and their allies in Congress contributed to the largest financial and economic crisis since the Great Depression.


A Brief History of Mortgage Markets

For most of the twentieth century, mortgage lending took place mostly at banks, thrifts, credit unions, and savings and loans. The most common type of mortgage was a fixed-rate mortgage and most of the financial institutions originating mortgages held the mortgages that they originated on their books. Starting in 1968, when Fannie Mae was chartered by the U.S. Congress as a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE), and two years later when Freddie Mac was chartered as the same, things began to change quickly. (Fannie Mae was originally created in 1938, but until its privatization in 1968 it was a part of the U.S. government). Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac created a liquid secondary market for mortgages. This meant that financial institutions no longer had to hold onto the mortgages they originated, but could sell them into the secondary market shortly after origination. This in turn freed up their funds such that they could then make additional mortgages.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had a positive influence on the mortgage market by increasing home ownership rates in the United States; however, as history has proved, allowing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to function as implied government-backed monopolies had major repercussions that far outweighed the benefits these organizations provided.

The Privileges of GSE Status

According to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's congressional charters, which gave them GSE status, they operated with certain ties to the United States federal government and, as of September 6, 2008, were placed under the direct supervision of the federal government. According to their congressional charters:

•The president of the United States appoints five of the 18 members of the organizations' boards of directors.

•To support their liquidity, the secretary of the Treasury is authorized, but not required, to purchase up to $2.25 billion of securities from each company.

•Both companies are exempt from state and local taxes.

•Both companies are regulated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). The FHFA regulates the financial safety and soundness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, including implementing, enforcing and monitoring their capital standards, and limiting the size of their mortgage investment portfolios; HUD is responsible for Fannie and Freddie's general housing missions.

Fannie and Freddie's GSE status created certain perceptions in the marketplace, the first of which was that the federal government would step in and bail these organizations out if either firm ever ran into financial trouble. This was known as an "implicit guarantee".

The fact that the market believed in this implicit guarantee allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to borrow money in the bond market at lower rates (yields) than other financial institutions. The yields on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's corporate debt, known as agency debt, was historically about 35 basis points (.35%) higher than U.S. Treasury bonds, while 'AAA-rated' financial firms' debt was historically about 70 basis points (.7%) higher than U.S. Treasury bonds. A 35-basis-point difference might not seem like a lot, but on borrowings measured in trillions of dollars, it adds up to huge sums of money.

With a funding advantage over their Wall Street rivals, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made large profits for more than two decades. Over this time period, there was frequent debate and analysis among financial and housing market professionals, government officials, members of Congress and the executive branch about whether Fannie and Freddie's implied government backing was working mostly to benefit the companies, their management and their investors, or U.S. homeowners (particularly low-income homeowners) as was part of these firms' HUD-administered housing mission.

One thing was clear: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were given a government-sponsored monopoly on a large part of the U.S. secondary mortgage market. It is this monopoly, combined with the government's implicit guarantee to keep these firms afloat, that would later contribute to the mortgage market's collapse.

(V): Isn't that what Fannie and Freddy was all about in the US?

The Government has released a new scheme to help people buy homes....

.... Yet most want the government to invest in new affordable housing, or to help develop areas that have become run down.

That the government will effectively underwrite mortgages.. It's right the Institute for Fiscal Studies warned there are risks. Some borrowers might be far less conservative in what they aim to buy, some may default rather than tighten their belts.

N' what is the government gonna charge the lenders to use such a scheme?

What's wrong with the current shared ownership scheme?

...<<< you buy part and rent the 'rest'>>>...

The new Pope got inaugurated today.

Verdict... nicely staged, but still creepy in light of recent news and the shadow of the child abuse cases. Hopefully the new Pope will not just be a figure head, some 'hints' of change were stated in his speech.

Did they have to use a 'blonde, blue eyed' kid.....no.

That an arch bishop is stating that the RCC wealth is open to all.. sorry, the Art collection is open to the public... ... that felt a bit Mafioso.

..... btw many of the UK papers have decided to question the new laws on the press being responsible. The publishers of the Daily Mail, the Sun, the Times, the Telegraph, the Daily Star and the Daily Express said they would wait to make a decision to co-operate or not with the new watchdog.

... ie the ones who's editors and owners were/are responsible for the mess they are in.

.... 'cry babies' comes to mind.

The Media pressure group "Hacked Off" reports there are two more investigations by the police into phone hacking to be reported on soon....

http://hackinginquiry.org/news/the-return-of-the-phone-hacking-scandal

Well it appears after all the wrangling a deal has been struck on the press regulation laws coming into effect. The Politicians won't be able to mess with the regs on a whim, no watering down on request from a media tycoon (such as Murdoch) and like for like apologies.... except in a case of a 2/3 more vote in a later parliament that is!!

ie If the paper publishes a story on page one in big fonts... then the apology has to be on page one in big fonts.

But one has to ask...... there were already criminal laws in place that covered the actions.... so why the buffer zone?

That some of the police and some of the politicians were too much in some of the media's pocket to be fully disclosed??

.... mmmmmm probably. It's nothing new these.. ... get out jail free for the connected cards.

Shakespeare wrote plays about this kinda stuff.

Artful Dodger: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCQa4iFmkW4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1l1XGiXgo0

Some bits from the past!! ;)

From the Low Information Pet Owners Guide:

If your dog has been scratching the furniture and coughing up hairballs, then he is probably a cat.

CBC leader concerned Obama has named no blacks to new Cabinet. “Attorney General Eric Holder, appointed in Obama’s first term, remains the Obama administration’s only black Cabinet-level appointee. According to a Politics365 analysis released last week, that’s the fewest by any president over the last 38 years.”

(V): you Brits have the best kind of humor. That was pretty funny and I'm a Reagan fan!

Iamon lyme: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yovzZkf6OFQ

It's an old interview on Brit TV by the man himself!! ;P

Iamon lyme: And I'm gonna take up golf. Gotta be something good about that game if papa Bamma plays it. Or maybe he's just interested in playin with putters and balls!

Artful Dodger: LOL Yeah, me too! Why not, he's managed to slip and slide his way around the constitution, queening around the country like he was royalty, and spending record amounts of money on himself and his family. Who wouldn't want to vote him in for a third term?

Well all I can say is that if Obama runs for a third term, I'm voting for him this time!

Iamon lyme:

Artful Dodger: Those are our choices?!?! Obama or Biden? I need an aspirin.

What about some other comedy team, like Martin and Lewis, or Abbott and Costello, or...

Oh yeah, I forgot... politics board.

Iamon lyme: Hmmmmm, good point. Let's pick on Joe Biden then!

Artful Dodger: "...let's bash Obama and his incompetency as Salamander in Chief."

What's the point? Obama is not bashful of his incompetency, and his supporters are pleased with themselves as well. These are strange times we are living in... it would be entertaining to watch if we weren't actually affected by any of it. The way I see it, I can either laugh about it or take medication to relieve depression.

Articles: Why Florida Persists in the Zimmerman Prosecution http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/why_florida_persists_in_the_zimmerman_prosecution.html#.UT6xFm0Y3Ig.twitter

The STAR witness in the Trayvon Martin Case Lied under oath. Oops!

Iamon lyme: We'd better get back on topic. Let's see.....how about let's bash Obama and his incompetency as Salamander in Chief. (slippery lizzard)

rod03801: Don't ya just miss my shenanigans??? ;)

Correction: It wasn't Buck Rogers who saved earth from Mings Economic Death Ray apparatus. It was Flash Gordon.

It was an honest mistake... I wasn't trying to *cough* rewrite history.

I a monly me: The Raygun years

I crack me up

Nowimoff T Opic

or

Justan O Thername

How about

Iaman Obody

I'm changing my name to: Youareon Lyou

dang, it doesn't work!

I am only me: oops again (oopsie poopsie)

That should read "We have the right to ask for any amount IN damages..." (not OF damages)



But now that I think about it, the amount CAN be damaging, so I was right the first time...


... never mind

(V): "Lobbyists"

I was wondering about that... I don't know if there are or have been lobbyists persuading lawmakers to reject tort reform. It seems odd to me that people would be running around telling lawmakers "We have the right to ask for any amount of damages we want. It's not our fault the judges rule in our favor." Yeah, right... it's always someone elses fault.

But just because it seems odd to me, that doesn't mean it isn't true. In fact, it probably means it is true.

Antibiotics. The lack of new ones a bigger threat to our way of living than terrorism... ... Northern Ireland based, etc.... As it appears some of the old angers are still burning.

anyway.. no new ones developed since the late 80's. Pharmaceutical companies have not been interested thanks to it not being profitable. And the over use now leaves in a position where resistant bacteria will make simple operations possibly 'deadly' in just 20 years time.

"""But as I indicated before, they are not the ones who institute law... it's the lawmakers (politicians) who do that. And as I've already pointed out the law does not MAKE them do it, the law ALLOWS them to do it."""

Lobbyists... I wonder what Douglas Adams would say about them?

"Don't Panic" or "Mostly Harmless"

I am on lyme: "Believing lies can also cause inefficiencies"

I should have just left it at that. I've been trying to avoid saying anything too inflammatory...

Inflammatory, maybe... but not TOO inflammatory.

(V): "I've already told you how many politicians have wanted government to take over the healthcare industry."

[ No, that's paranoid. ]

Then what is your explanation for why those same politicians have always resisted tort reform?


"No. When Raygun started off dropping taxes the US debt started rising. Nice cuts for the rich, but no way for the economy to absorb it, this was left untreated for decades."

Ohhhh, I get it now! That explains why our country suffered under Rayguns administration, until Buck Rogers saved us all from Emperor Mings Economic Death Ray apparatus. So where was Dr Who when all this was happening?

"Who profits from the current tort laws.... lawyers, insurance firms and the middle men. Each wanting to take their piece of any payouts. One gets a million.. the other has to get 1.5 million, because it has to be bigger or better."

Exactly, so you can add them to the list of people whose interests would be (negatively) affected by tort reform. But as I indicated before, they are not the ones who institute law... it's the lawmakers (politicians) who do that. And as I've already pointed out the law does not MAKE them do it, the law ALLOWS them to do it.


"We could have delt with the problem of over inflated prices by dealing with the cause. But now we will have to deal with less accessibility and poorer health coverage."

[ You have been for years already. ]

According to the same politicians who have resisted any effort to reform healthcare... in other words, the same liars who have claimed that if they are in control there will be greater accessibility and better health coverage. If you believe that, then I guess I should believe it too... (?)


"Small problem with one bank in particular failing. It'd caused a domino effect in the rest of the industry.... With the amount of lending done interbank."

As I've already said "Banks and other types of businesses have failed due to stupidity before, and fraud has always existed. Why do you think people are aways being cautioned to be careful in their business dealings?"

When the government here forced banks into making bad home loans it created a bubble that was ready to break at any time. Banks and other businesses have failed before without government intervention, but in this case government intervention was the catalyst.


" Lying is a moral issue, not an efficiency issue."

[ Really... It can cause a great deal of inefficiency in the business world. Especially if you end up with a deal worth far less because of the lying. Or, like in the case of the Madoff investors.... screwed.]

I didn't say lying doesn't cause inefficiency. I said they are not the same things. Just because one thing can cause another doesn't mean they are the same.

Believing lies can also cause inefficiencies, but being a fool who believes everything he hears is not the same thing either.