Get A Job

Actually, I do recall a ton of stories regarding excess, laments that we are such a materialistic society, and so forth. This is hardly news.  I note, KFC, that you did not write about this until now...or am I wrong?

I am sympathetic to your position, I am, but I do think that this economic disaster has caught everyone including Mr. Bush off guard.  At least the depth and breadth of it.  Not to long ago he thought we could spend our way up...that was the impetus behind that "stiulous" package.  Wrong message.  I believe in thrifty life and saving.  I believe in hard work and that children should have jobs, not just for discretionary spending, but to contribute to the household income, as well.

Still, many people have lost a ton of money in things like IRAs and 401ks.  No fault of their own.  In fact, these are people who do, in fact, save.  They were under the impression, though, that there was someone watching the cat...who just kept getting fatter...but alas, the cat has bailed out with seriously golden parachutes and many of us are left holding the bag.

Last point, the economy is hurting to the extent that jobs are not particularly plentiful.  I know in my area, there are precious few jobs relative to the number of unemployed. 

As far as Bbush bashing goes, he has only himself to blame.  It was he who campaigned on balancing budgets and growing the economy during both elections.  The president sets the tone and often the direction of the country.  Why now, at the end of his term can we not make an assessment of his relative progress or lack thereof?

George Bush's finance secretary predicted a possible problem with the big banks in 2003 and proposed a law to regulate them. It was rejected by congress.

I agree that it probably caught Mr. Bush off guard, but his administration tried, unsuccessfully, to stop it.

What worried me now is that so many Americans see the crisis and are willing to vote for Obama, a man whose work as a lawyer representing people who couldn't get mortgages has contributed to the crisis. Yes, helping the poor and (certain) minorities to own homes seemed like a great idea. But now we know that it wasn't.

Yes, let's. He (i.e. his administration) totally failed to explain the seriousness of the situation to congress, even though he (i.e. his finance secretary) saw the problem in 2003. We should blame him for that.

But we should also blame everybody else for not even seeing the problem and refusing to be convinced that there was one.

John McCain was co-sponsor of another law that could have prevented the banking crisis, in 2005 I believe.

And Barack Obama was, I understand, an activist in the 90s who participated in actions convincing banks to give mortgages to the poor and (certain) minorities.

Let's make assessment of all of their relative progress or lack thereof, regarding the banking crisis, the Bush administration (who saw it coming and tried to prevent it), congress (who rejected the propoals), McCain (who also tried to prevent it), and Obama (who took part in causing it).

Let's.

My kids know we have invested for their college, but we tell them it won't be enough (for exactly the reason that happened in the market this past week) and they will have to work full time while going to school.

I couldn't afford college right out of high school and no one bothered to mention the pell grant, so I went into the AF to get my college money.  Once I was out it only payed for 3 years of higher education and the last year I had to come up with myself...luckily I won an academic scholarship.  So I graduated with no debt.

It will stink big time to have our economy go in the crapper, but in a way it will actually benefit the generation whose never known high unemployment rates and how to appreciate a job when they have it.  Benefit them in the long run when they start making money, saving, and learning about debt responsibility.

I hate to see it come, but on the other hand, I wish it'd get here already so we could get over it already. 

Leauki,  you might want to check out the facts before your spread the sort of crap Ann Coulter does:

Link

Link

And there we go. Apparently it is not all right to make assessment.

The second article is about not blaming the poor and minorities, which is non sequitur because I haven't done that. I blamed the activists who tried to make mortgages available to them. They are NOT the same people, and I think the activists claim to represent the poor and minorities to avoid criticism by claiming that criticism of their work is "blaming the poor (and minorities)".

However, I still think we can criticise the activists.

The first article supports my criticism. Sure, it sets up a few strawmen; but it does say that private lenders made loans to people who couldn't afford them. My criticism above was exactly about that: there were activist lawyers who worked to convince banks to allow such loans.

Nothing I said had anything to do with the Clinton administration or government or government policy. So I am a bit surprised about the articles you link to. They address OTHER criticisms. Perhaps they are true.

But your accusation that I failed to check facts because I didn't take into account articles directed at DIFFERENT criticisms is bogus.

I think it is totally legitimate to criticise the activists (and Obama, who was one of them). Such criticism must be allowed.

And if you want to make assessment, as you say, you should address that criticism (NOT other criticisms that you have no idea about whether I agree with them or not).

I am perfectly willing to discuss Bush's role in this. What's so problematic about discussing Obama's role?

It is about misdirection, as you note.  The one article tries to change the debate (a favorite tactic), and debate whether Fannie and Freddie caused the problem.  I find almost no one arguing that, only that mismanagement on their part contributed to their problems, and to the over all failure of the market.  The problem - which is never addressed in either article - was caused by forcing lenders (and there is no qualifier on the lenders - they may be federal or private) to make loans that were not sound financially.  Based upon the erroneous assumption that there was no down side (the same argument that was made about the dot com bust).  Tracing the legislation back shows the sponsorship generally crossed party lines, but was predominantly demcorat in nature (Schumer and Frank).

The second link was of course just desperation.  The only ones that link blogs to support an argument are those without it.

And KFC - you mention V-Tech - is that Virginia Tech?  If so, that is a state school.  But in today's "tech world" it may be just another fly by night ECPI.

To this degree I'll give you a nod but I think for those who were totally caught off guard their heads were completely buried in the sand.  I remember we were talking about the end of this prosperity two years ago in my office; planning for it even with some of our clients.  We were telling them to pay off their debts and start socking it away to be prepared. 

I also wrote right here on JU a few days ago on that 1999 NY Times Article where there was a warning that if the economy slid even a little the government was going to be caught holding all these mortgages and there would have to be some sort of bailing out.  Just exactly what happened. 

 Those who were awake were not caught off guard.  Nobody could predict how far it would go, of course, but to not see this coming you'd have to be asleep  totally or drunken with all the excesses.   

more than convincing from what I've read and remember.  The Clinton administration was putting pressure on the banks to give these loans out.  The administration has to bear quite a bit of the blame here for doing so. 

all my kids worked  summers and Christmas break.  While in college two of them picked up a part-time job at Applebees waiting tables.  Brian was not allowed to work while going to VMI.  All three did well and came out of school owing about 20K each.  One of them has already paid off his school loan while the other two can be expected to pay about $200 a month or so for 10 years.  That's reasonable and there's no reason (for the most part) that one should have a much bigger burden than that. 

Thanks for setting me straight.  You're right.  I didn't think it was but I guess it is a state school.  I've actually been there when Liberty went against V-Tech in a x-country race my son was racing in way back in 2000. 

I wasted four years on a German university. I was lazy. I finally quit and moved to Ireland where I worked full-time and studied in the evenings on a private college that cost money. That was more succesfull.

When I studied in Israel I also paid for it myself.

Most of the people I started studying with 10 years ago in Germany are still students working on their first degree!

Leauki

I was told yesterday I could go to Israel and be considered an Israeli citizen.  I never thought about that before.  Remember I told you my Tuesday teacher is a Jewish Christian who is very knowledgeable about the scriptures and Israel?  He takes tours to Israel twice a year and has done so for about 35 years or so.  He turned 73 yesterday.   Anyhow he's the one who told me.  I just never thought about it but who knows.....if it gets bad here, I could go to Israel! 

My grandfather's grandfather was a Jewish Rabbi who denounced God.  I'm thinking it had something to do with the Holocaust but am unsure.  Anyhow this Rabbi's daughter married a Catholic and I came from that line.  Her brother was my great Uncle Harry who I met a few times before he died and was a communist Jew.  I'll have to look more into this. 

...still paying for my education 

I could have told you that. I thought it was common knowledge that children of Jewish women are Jews?

Your grandfather's grandfather...

As far as I know for Israeli citizenship you'd have to be Jewish, have a Jewish parent, or a Jewish grand parent. I assume the Rabbi was married to a Jewish woman. Therefor his daughter was Jewish. She married a Catholic but her child would still be Jewish.

1. Grandfather's grandfather (Jewish)

2. His daughter, i.e. grandfather's mother (Jewish)

3. Her son, i.e. grandfather (Jewish)

4. His son, i.e. father (not Jewish)

5. his daughter, i.e. you (not Jewish)

So I guess that gives you a Jewish grand parent and you would thus be eligible for Israeli citizenship.

But you wouldn't have Jewish status, meaning that you better bring your own husband, because you wouldn't be able to get married in Israel.

Yes, I remember. I hope he is well.

I wonder from which tribe your family descends?

If you find out, I WANNA KNOW. 

Moses split one tribe (Joseph) into two (Menasseh and Ephraim).

12 Tribes received land in Israel. The priestly tribe (Levi) received cities all over the country instead.

When Israel split up into two kingdoms, the tribes split four-ways:

Yehuda, Benjamin, and Simeon founded the kingdom of Judaea, capital Jerusalem. From those four tribes (those three plus the Levi half) descend the Jews.

Dan fled the the civil war into Egypt and further south.

Levi remained all over the place.

The other tribes founded the northern kingdom of Israel, capital Shomron (Samaria).

When the Babylonians invaded the northern tribes became the "10 lost tribes".

That's 13 original tribes with Levi split into two (14) minus the four (including half of Levi) of the south.

After the southern kingdom was overrun too and after the first exile the Jews (anf half of Levi) returned to Israel.

Survivors of the northern tribe of Menasseh and Ephraim became known as the Shomronim (Samaritans).

Occasionally a lost tribe is thought to be found, often in India. But most Israelites from all over the world are Jews (Judaeans).

The tribe of Dan was discovered in Ethiopia and most of them live in Israel now. They were officially converted to Judaism to avoid the legal problems of having a third distinct Israelite culture and religion in Israel (Samaritan, Jewish, Dan).

Samaritans today live near their holy temple site near Shomron in the territories and in Holon in Israel. They are Israeli citizens.

Unless KFC has Ethiopian or Indian ancestors, it is likely that her family descends from Yehuda/Benjamin/Simeon (i.e. non-priestly Jews) or Levi (usually family name "Kohen" or "Levi").

It would be more correct to say 11 tribes received land. 

From what I understand Leauki no one knows because the records were lost so unless you have a last name Rubin, Simon, Levi, or some variation you can't really know.  And with those who changed their names to assimilate with the non Jews because of the Holocaust or coming here to America it  just further complicates things. 

I know my great uncle's last name was Warsaw so I'm thinking that's the family name.  So where did that come from?  From the town of Warsaw perhaps?  I'm planning on calling my uncle's daughter who lives in Florida somewhere and see what she knows.  Her last name is the same as her father's "Warsaw."   Maybe they came from Poland and just took that as their name?  Not sure. 

There is some belief that the Anti-Christ will come from the tribe of Dan because of the description of this tribe as well as being ommitted from the listing as a tribe because of adulterous heathen activities.  I'm starting to think myself personally there could be a Muslim connection as well.  Time will tell. 

Of course I believe the tribe of Judah was protected even in Babylon and kept clear so the Christ child would be born exactly as predicted, from the royal line of David who came from the tribe of Judah. 

12 -1 (Joseph) + 2 (Menasseh and Emphraim) = 13

13 - 1 (Levi) = 12

Those three tribes pretty much merged completely. However, since Yehuda is the assimilation tribe (all Jews with no tribal affiliation join the tribe of Yehuda), it's safe to assume "Yehuda", when i doubt.

Today only the distinction between Judaeans (of either tribe), Dan, and the northern tribes is still relevant. That's it.

I think that's more because of their Ethiopian heritage. Anti-Christ beliefs are relatively new and came after Christianity. Dan's exile to Egypt was 700 years before Jesus was born. They were basically lost during Jesus' time.

As for the Muslim connection, Muslims believe that the Quraish tribe of Mekka descends from Yishmael. There are some (Muslim) Somali tribes that trace their heritage from Quraish and Yishmael as well. (Those Somali tribes are very supportive of Jews and Israel btw.)

The royal line belongs to the tribe of Yehuda, yes.

Leauki beat me to it.

while I agree with what you're saying it's also like you're saying there are 13 tribes.  In Revelation Chap 7 only 12 Tribes are mentioned including Levi .  In Numbers 34 it mentions 12. Dan is there but Levi is omitted because it's about land allotment. 

These are the 12 mentioned in Revelation.

Judah,Reuben,Gad,Aser,Nepthalim,Manasses,Simeon,Levi,Issachar,Zabulon,Joseph,Benjamin. 

Notice  Manasses is inserted for the tribe of Dan.  And Ephraim is missing.  Joseph and Levi are mentioned. 

Dan and Ephraim got in trouble with God so therefore he left them off his list.

While I agree the AC title is new to the New Testament times this man of perdition was mentioned in Daniel 9. 

There were 12 original tribes and 13 after the reform.

You have eard of the 10 lost tribes?

13 - 1 (Levi) + 2 (Levi split between Judaea and Samaria) = 14

14 - 4 (Yehuda, Simeon, Benjamin, Judaean Levi) = 10

Those 10 tribes were the tribes lost after the Babylonian invasion.

One of them showed up on Ethiopia (Dan).

Two of them showed up as Samaritans (Ephraim and Menasseh).

Others are occasionally found in India and Africa. Some of them have been acknowledges. Most appear to be of the Menasseh tribe.

That contradicts the Hebrew Bible where Menasseh and Ephraim form the house of Joseph. Menasseh was the son of Joseph. Listing his tribe as an equal to a tribe of Joseph (which includes Menasseh) is a logical mistake. Dan is missing, not "replaced".

Since Joseph is included, Ephraim is included. Ephraim was Joseph's son. Who says Dan and Ephraim got in trouble with G-d? And why is Ephraim still part of the equation (as "Joseph") if G-d was angry with them?