1999 SW2: Problem with door locks making noise and not locking
SW2 1999
lock/unlock latches on the door next to the door handle inside. It sounds
like if it were a worm drive setup that the drive is skipping up and over
the gear and grabbing it. At any rate, however it is setup, it is not
working. It also seemed like it was a stuck relay before as it drained the
battery down to a dead nothing. It would not even take a charge from my 10
amp charger. It would kick out the circuit breaker on the charger. Took the
battery to Interstate as it is a 60 month just short of a year old. They
told me that the reason it would not take a charge and kicked out the
breaker was that,..... he explained that it is like a water hose with a kink
in it. Not sure I understood the analogy but I left the battery there and
with their setup it took a charge and held at 12.XX
Still don't know what is wrong with the SW2 though... I am looking for some
help here in that area. I took the fuse out of the r/h fuse box on the
passenger side under the radio on the kick panel. I did not take the one out
from the main box up under the hood in front of the master cylinder. With
the one fuse out, the remote will still make the doors attempt to
unlock/lock. Does the other fuse have to be out to completely open the
circuit? I am not sure where to start looking on this and even at this point
what really to look for. Do I need to take a door panel off? Keep in mind
that I want to leave that as a last resort with all other options of looking
for the cause of the problem exhausted...
Just to throw in my 2 cents with regard to all of the damn belly aching
about Saturn, The Obama nation (actually spelled Abomination) is one F&%@#ed
UP situation that we all have to deal with for the next four years. The ones
that are still 'sticking by his side' know they made a mistake. They just
will not admit to it. They never will.... Doesn't matter if they do or not.
We are all in the same sinking ship... Anly the stupid rats aren't jumping
off....
Ouroboros Rex
No, that would be the republican-generated credit swap meltdown.
SteveT
news:<h746h...@news7.newsguy.com>...
> SW2 1999 wrote:
<snip>
> > Just to throw in my 2 cents with regard to all of the damn belly aching
> > about Saturn, The Obama nation (actually spelled Abomination) is one
> > F&%@#ed UP situation that we all have to deal with for the next four
> > years.
>
> No, that would be the republican-generated credit swap meltdown.
No, the (GW) Bush administration wanted to regulate Fannie Mae and Fredddie
Mac, it was principally the other side that stopped them from doing that.
FWIW, I was on the side of the Dems -- I don't think it's up to government
or agencies thereof to impose such arbitrary regulation but rather up to the
parties to such arrangements to recognize the dangers; government's role
should be limited to providing legal frameworks for enforcing contracts and
adding to information to facilitate informed participation.
Ouroboros Rex
> "Ouroboros Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote in message
> news:<h746h...@news7.newsguy.com>...
>> SW2 1999 wrote:
> <snip>
>>> Just to throw in my 2 cents with regard to all of the damn belly
>>> aching about Saturn, The Obama nation (actually spelled
>>> Abomination) is one F&%@#ed UP situation that we all have to deal
>>> with for the next four years.
>>
>> No, that would be the republican-generated credit swap meltdown.
>
> No, the (GW) Bush administration wanted to regulate Fannie Mae and
> Fredddie Mac, it was principally the other side that stopped them
> from doing that.
At the time, there was a republican majority in Congress. Nothing could
have stopped them from doing that if they had wanted to. The dems couldn't
even get bills to the floor. And, unfortunately, the repubs had passed
their zero downpayment initiative a year or two earlier at Bush's request -
by the time the meltdown occurred, some 40% of F&F's business consisted of
such loans.
FWIW, I was on the side of the Dems -- I don't think
> it's up to government or agencies thereof to impose such arbitrary
> regulation but rather up to the parties to such arrangements to
> recognize the dangers; government's role should be limited to
> providing legal frameworks for enforcing contracts and adding to
> information to facilitate informed participation.
In fact, it was republican deregulation that brought the situation about.
Phil Gramm slipped the Commodities Futures Modernization Act
into a 2000 omnibus bill at the last minute, and Bush and Co. passed the
American Dream Downpayment Initiative in 2003.
http://www.bestsyndication.com/?q=20080921_what_caused_subprime_disaster.htm
"...Since the creation of the Federal Reserve, Congress has been passing
laws in an effort to correct problems caused by the flawed monetary system.
But that all changed in 1999 when lobbyists wrote the "Commodity Futures
Modernization Act" and gave it to lawmakers for consideration.
The bill had little chance of a hearing, but while the Republican Congress
was deadlocked with the Democrats in an effort to pass a budget, the Act was
slipped into a budget compromise. Sponsored by Rep. Thomas Ewing [R-IL] and
cosponsored by Rep. Tom Bliley (R-VA) Rep. Larry Combest (R-TX) Rep. John
LaFalce (D-NY) Rep. James Leach (R-IA) the bill went to the Senate without
debate.
The budget compromise later went to the Senate and then to President Bill
Clinton for his signature. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000
was signed into law on December 21, 2000. The purpose was to allow new
financial products called swaps to be unregulated. Neither the SEC nor he
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) would be able to regulate them."
http://www.hud.gov/news/release.cfm?content=pr03-140.cfm
"Today we are taking action to bring many thousands of Americans closer to
the great goal of owning a home," said President Bush. "These funds will
help American families achieve their goals, strengthen our communities, and
our entire nation."
"This is a good day for thousands of families who have only dreamed about
sharing in the American Dream of homeownership," said Jackson. "Not only
will this law allow thousands of hard-working Americans to unlock the door
to homeownership, it will also help close the gap that separates minority
households from the rest of the country when it comes to owning a home to
call their own."
High downpayment and closing costs represent the most significant barrier to
homeownership for first-time homebuyers. The American Dream Downpayment Act
will provide a maximum downpayment assistance grant of either $10,000 or six
percent of the purchase price of the home, whichever is greater. In
addition, the Bush Administration is committed to reforming the homebuying
process that would lower closing costs by approximately $700 per loan,
further stimulating homeownership for all Americans..."
And don't forget Gramm-Leach-Bliley, another Phil Gramm gem, which allowed
banks to become brokers.
http://library.findlaw.com/2000/Oct/1/128177.html
"On November 4, 1999, Congress passed sweeping legislation that will
dramatically reshape the financial services industry by removing barriers
between banks, insurance companies, and investment firms which have existed
since the Great Depression. President Clinton is expected to sign this
historic legislation...."
"...Permits bank holding companies that qualify as Financial Holding
Companies ("FHC") to engage in an expanded array of activities, and to
acquire companies engaged in such activities, that are financial in nature,
incidental to, or complementary to financial activities, subject to certain
Federal Reserve Board restrictions. For example, the Act designates the
following as permissible FHC activities: underwriting; dealing and market
making without any revenue limitation (such as sponsoring and distributing
all types of mutual funds); operating investment companies; insurance
underwriting and agency activities; merchant banking; and insurance company
portfolio investments. "
SteveT
> SteveT wrote:
>> "Ouroboros Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote in message
>> news:<h746h...@news7.newsguy.com>...
>>> SW2 1999 wrote:
>> <snip>
You're seem very skilled at selecting from among the facts those you
wish to present, far more than I have been so far! :) <grin> Since there are
almost always two sides to every story, you are at least partly correct:
From
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-10-12-congress-meltdown_N.htm
[noting, parenthetically, that _USA Today_ is far from being a right-leaning
journal]:
<snip>
"The bill barring most regulation of derivative trading was inserted into an
11,000-page budget measure that became law as the nation was focused on the
disputed 2000 presidential election. It was sponsored by Republican Sens.
Phil Gramm of Texas and Richard Lugar of Indiana - with support from
Democrats, the Clinton administration and then-Federal Reserve chairman Alan
Greenspan. Few opposed it.
"Sen. Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat who help negotiate the bill for
Democrats, says he put aside his qualms because Wall Street and Greenspan
were adamant that less regulation would help the stock market.
<snip>
"A bill barring derivatives from being regulated as futures contracts passed
the House in October 2000, by a vote of 377-4.
<snip>
"2. Protecting Fannie, Freddie
"In 2005, Congress rejected a Republican-sponsored bill aimed at curbing
risky investments by mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, thanks to
resistance from mostly Democrats. It was the latest in a string of
unsuccessful attempts to rein in the two agencies. In this case, Congress
ignored Greenspan's warning about the financial risks Fannie and Freddie
were taking on."
For more complete (and unfiltered) thoughts, also see hits at
http://www.goodsearch.com/search.aspx?keywords=%28fannie+OR+freddie%29+%28regulate+OR+regulation%29.
And always take anything you read with at least a modicum of NaCl.