parineum
The people who defaulted on their mortgages did so because they couldn't afford them. The reason they got a loan that they couldn't afford was because they lied about either their income or their debts while getting the no-doc loans.
The failures in process that led yo the industry allowing people to lie to them without verification is another part of the story but it's completely dishonest to act like the people getting the loans they defaulted on had no agency.
Mortgages were given to people with no documentation allowed people to lie about their income and get loans they couldn't afford. That was alright because they had low introductory rates/payments they could afford. The market was getting more expensive and you could refinance to a better loan when you're LTV was more favorable before the balloon payments hit.
Those were the loans that were rated AAA.
Once the market growth slowed just enough to not allow the refinancing before the balloon payments, the defaults started, at first slowly then all at once.
Kids obviously vary in aptitude but the ones that actually get the chance to excel are usually the ones that are getting an extra push at home. Some kids you just can't stop though and excel regardless.
How important is it right now to a very vocal group of people that you attach the word genocide to gaza?
I think a lot of it has to do with the young and idealistic clashing against the old and jaded and both groups yelling at strawmen of each other.
That implies that left wing accounts shouldn't have been banned because they are not notorious for botting.
With the next reply, you hedge and say that the right "outbots" the left. That weakens your initial point that the left wing account bans are unjustified.
However, my initial reply was in response to the claim that it's "widespread knowledge" that the right outbots the left. That is not knowledge I consider to be self evident and I was assuming/asking that you got that knowledge from left leaning sources.
Are you, by chance, of the left?
Part of the reason this next cycle is looking so bad for Republicans is _because_ of the gerrymandering they tried backfiring on them because they cut the lines too close to try and gain more seats.
Isn't there a baseline saying well being is declined?
The "notoriously poor lifestyle" is a oft repeated meme and you're blanket implications of "additives" being causal without naming anything specific or having any sort of evidence supplied. Relying, instead, on the common "knowledge" that's memed around the internet as being self-evident.
The US also has the best healthcare in the world, it's just expensive. People from all over the world come here for treatment.
Laws aren't made by one person. When everyone votes on them, they agree on the language because of how they interpret the words on the paper. The meaning is what the words on the paper say, which is interpreted by different people to mean different things before they even become law.
Yes.
I don't want to pick on you but this is a major pet peeve of mine. A lot of people view the economy as a fixed size of value. As a result, when someone is a millionaire, they consider that million dollars to be something extracted from others. That's a very Feudal view of economics. What's usually the case is that millionaire add a million dollars of value by creating a more valuable product from raw materials.
This example is an easy example. Before Nvidia, there was just a pile of silicon and copper worth $20. It doesn't take $80 to turn that thing into something that is worth $100. The value within the economy increased.
Most of economic activity is growth. There is economic activity that isn't growth, which is what rent-seeking is.
Or, you know, from the idea that they are doing something illegal and the job of law enforcement is to enforce laws.
There's an incredibly easy way to do that, sell it.
If Nvidia takes $20 of parts and sells it for $100, they created $80 of value. If we had VAT, that's what would be taxed (minus things like r and d but, for simplicity...).
It's about whether it's spying.
I think you're trying to hard to dismiss the justification here. There are certainly techniques for monitoring communications that use justifiably classified technologies that were probably developed to monitor communications of adversaries.
Imagine the use of which is helping keep American spies in Iran safe and the knowledge of the technique could help Iran identify those people. That's a perfectly reasonable classification of the technique.
What makes the interpretation of the law secret is that it mentions this hypothetical technology.
Imagine they have the technology to hear speech through walls passively using your WiFi signal. That technology is classified and they have the legal opinion that this doesn't violate the fourth amendment.
Wyden being concerned about whatever this is isn't surprising really but he's always on the extreme end of these interpretations, which I usually agree with, but judges typically don't agree with him.
I think it's probably generous to say the legal justification they are using has just as much chance of being legal as illegal. It would be nice to know what it was though because it can probably be defeated.
There's a lot of stuff they do wrong but that isn't one of them. In this case, the Geneva convention was just written in a different time.