Oh REALLY?

Care to show me the oil slick the size of Florida from these "natural cracks". If it is so natural, you would think you can show it in Google or any other satellite map pictures.

Geesh, you really need to do better than just spouting back Faux News talking points.

First, Freddie and Fannie was not part of the government. There was an implicit understanding that government would back Freddie and Fannie, but they were run by CEO's and boards. Not senators or bureaucrats.

Second, if it was just another housing bubble, it would not have crashed the entire system. US has gone through many housing bubbles since the Great Depression, some just as harsh or even worse than what we just went through. But they didn't cause the whole financial system to crash. But it did this time, why? Because Wall Street created these CDO's and other derivatives that leveraged and concentrated these risks to ungodly levels. And it was all done outside any regulation. If there were ANY KIND of regulation (or if Glass-Steagal was never repealed), this whole thing could have been easily avoided.

It is fine to wish for smaller government, but it is idiotic to blame the government for something that Wall Street created outside regulatory purview.

After the last big screw up (aka Great Depression), the government stepped in an created a whole slew of legislations and regulations (including creating SEC) that has kept things in check and economy humming for many many decades. It is when Reagan started spouting "government is the problem" and other BS and started gutting all the safeguards - including repealing of Glass-Steagall Act - that bubble started growing to epic proportions and the economy crashed.

Spouting "why people continue to believe they need government to save them is beyond me" may make you libertarian-chic, anyone who has any cursory knowledge of what cause the Great Recession can point out that lack of regulation (especially of the derivatives market) was THE reason why things got so bad.

Mod this reply up! The main reason why the big banks are doing well now is because of two things:

1. Government took over risky stuff off their balance sheet so they were not in such dire straits any more.

2. Government pumped ENORMOUS amount of liquidity into the system so that borrowing is free. It is easy to make money when you borrow for nothing and lend it out for 5%.

All these have long term costs for the government and we will all start feeling it real soon while the bankers will be giving themselves billions on how "well" they made it out.

Fermion, you are referring to I-90 bridge which is about 5 miles south of the 520 bridge. I can tell you that even with the two bridges, the rush hour commute is quite bad. And I-90 is about to lose some of the space to a commuter rail line. Living with just a single bridge between Seattle and the Eastside communities would be harrowing.

This is a VERY popular and widely used bridge. About 115,000 vehicles carrying 155,000 people use the 520 bridge daily. Even counting both ways, MS employees only constitute less than 10% of the daily travel on this bridge. Expecting MS to foot the bill on this bridge is quite unfair.

There is a "power and wealth" angle to this story, but your angle ain't it.

At both end of this bridge is two of the wealthiest neighborhoods in Puget Sound; Montlake and Median. Montlake and its west coastline neighborhoods of the Lake Washington is the "old Seattle money" and Medina and its east coast line neighborhoods are where the "new tech money" billionaires live (including Gates).

They have been waging a major battle against the 520 redesign for over a decade. They do not want anything other than an exact replica of the current bridge (4 narrow lanes). They have thrown numerous roadblocks against the redesign and fought the city hall for many many years with lawsuits and environmental challenges. Now that all of those battle have been fought and lost, the same neighborhood association is now backing this new proposal since they know this would reboot the process and will tie up the contruction of the bridge for at least another decade.

Opposing this bridge is EXACTLY what is wrong with those with power and wealth. They will not be inconvenienced one bit even if there is greater good for the vast majority of the citizens. They like the things as they are, and they will fight any change that encroach on their turf. If you want to "rise up and slay" aristocracy, then you should throw your full support for this bridge to be rebuilt.

Seriously, do you even live in Seattle? Do you know what 520 bridge is like? Do you even know all the politics around this bridge redesign? No? Then, STFU!!! This bridge goes through VERY wealthy neighborhoods on both sides of the bridge. These neighborhoods have been dead set against ANY expansion of the bridge and they have been backing any and all candidates with proposals that would delay the contructions of the new bridge. These redesigns have been decades in making, while the bridge is hanging by the thread on every major windstorm. The sucker needs to get replaces ASAP. It does not matter if it is 6 lanes or 8 lanes. It needs to move forward for the good of all people living in the Puget Sound area.

Last time I checked, there were something like 1500 or so complaints about sudden acceleartion filed. They recalled 8 million cars, but if you include every model with the complaint, you are probably looking at 4X or 5X of that number. Even if you stick with 8 million, 1500 out if 8 million is 0.019%. Good luck trying to reproduce a problem that has a reproducible rate of 0.019%.

You can say the samething about US healthcare. Do you seriously believe that a typical insurance premiums cover the entire cost of the US healthcare system? HA!!! Only reason the insurance premium is as low as it is because the insurance companies dump chronically sick and old to the Medicare and Medicaid. If they had to pay for all of that, your premiums would be even higher than what it is right now!

Truly deranged thinking is that paying twice as much (per capita) while covering half as many people as other countries is good healthcare and worth keeping.

I understand your point as well, but even with the numbers that the lawyers provided, people getting burned with hot coffee was not a major problem. You say the meat example is bogus, let's go the other way. You know that ecoli and other pathogens are common enough problems that kill thousands of people every year. Many of these deaths can easily be prevented by cooking the meat thoroughly to 170'. However, restaurants still serve rare steaks and do not cook chicken hot enough because it makes them taste like rubber. So the actual risk is very very high and only negative side is taste. So the risk is much, much higher (in both severity and count) than getting someone getting burned with the coffee. Yet, we do not ban restaurants from serving undercooked meat. Why not? Should we? Based on your argument we should.

Hey, you think 190' is dangerous, then how about we start banning lighters, charcoals? Or even cooked chickens and hamburgers since to killed the bacteria they have to be heated to 170' (only 20' from "3rd degree burns in seconds"!!!

What part of just because they CAN do damage doesn't mean they should be banned do you not understand???

I like my cup of coffee hot because if I am buying at McDonalds, I am driving and picking it up at a drive-thru. I am not going to drinking right away because I am driving. I don't want the coffee to be cold and lukewarm by the time I get to work. Why is that so complicated? And I've never spilled coffee on myself like an idiot. I do just fine with a piping hot cup of coffee.

If we start banning things because of just their "potential" to do harm, we are going to have to get rid of a ton of things.

You need to make up your mind. Either the coffee was so hot that you can't even drink, in which case the woman WOULD have know that it could cause burns. OR the temperature cools down quite quickly (which is why some of us want the coffee REALLY hot) and the woman bought the coffee from McDonalds specifically for that reason. Either case, she should have know better. Now she just makes them make lukewarm coffee like everyone else. What about those of us who want them hot? We are adults, I can take care of myself.