|
I'm not being defensive. Why should I say oops? I think you're the one being childish.
|
|
|
|
|
Jason Barry wrote: I'm not being defensive. Why should I say oops? I think you're the one being childish.
I'm being childish because you didn't admit your mistake and tried to throw it off on me? Thanks, I needed a laugh. 
|
|
|
|
|
And since the obvious needs to be explained here I guess... Lincoln started the current republican party. And that's why I mentioned him. Him sharing the name of a bible character was not the reason. There was no confusion on my part.
|
|
|
|
|
Or maybe it is time to turn off the mainstream media mentality. Even with their significant liberal bias:
"Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal. Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter." UCLA Study
The Democrat led Congress has a lower approval rating (8-15%) than Bush.
Last I heard Bush wasn't the only leader that brought troops to Iraq. Others included Australia, England, Poland, totaling about 40 countries. Maybe they thought there was a problem there also. Also, killings in Iraq are down to about what they are in city of Detroit. Is it possible there has been some amount of success?
SS => Qualified in Submarines
"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm". Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
The whining about the main-stream media is a crock.
EXAMPLES:
Right after the 2004 election, it came out the US Troops in Iraq had to go to junk-yards to get armor for their un-armored vehicles. Others used there own money to buy metal plates from Germany. This wasn't a secret - but it never appeared in the papers BEFORE the election. How would the (empty) rhetoric of the Shrub and his gang about supporting our troops looked if this came out before the election? How would it have affected votes - Why didn't the media report this if they were so liberal?
And again, until the 1000th coffin came back to the US, and a contract work sent in a secretly taken photo, the fallen US troops were not returned with honor for serving their country, but brought in like theives in the night (literally), and hidden from public knowledge. If the press was so liberal, they would have pounced all over it. Instead (at the cost of her job), it had to be broken first on the internet.
And the roaring silence about how Dubya and his gang had been closing Vet's hospitals while the need has increased.
And, of course - let's not forget Radio Talk Shows - these guys virtually goose-step for the GOP.
The above, by the way, don't require evaluation by 'organizations' for there liberal or conservative leanings; no need to pay someone to find the results you want; they speak for themselves.
The low approval rating you speak of - carefully labeling it a Democratic congress as though thats when the low ratings began. Sorry, spunky - they always rate extremely low. The problem with the surveys and polls? These people don't include there own - who they generally reelect.
In other words - another garbage statistic.
On the other hand, the distaste for W and his gang? How is that different? Because these are the same polls that gave him huge approval ratings in the past - That is until the truth finally started to come out and no longer ignored.
As for the other troops in Iraq (that haven't been brought home yet). You'll find that few are in combat rolls (For all practical purposes, its the US and GB). And, of course,
<blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">Jim (SS) wrote:</div> Also, killings in Iraq are down to about what they are in city of Detroit.</blockquote>
The absurdity of this statistic borders on obscene - reminds me of McCains talking about how safe it was to walk in a Bagdhad market, also giving an favorable comparison to shopping in the US - carefully leaving out that he was surrounded by troops and helicopter air cover. Maybe that is how he shops.
Jim (SS) wrote: Is it possible there has been some amount of success?
The success, very sadly, is at the whim of the insurgency - if they want to set off bomb, they will - and still do. If they halt or slow down for a while - it may be the troops, but it's far more likely they are doing it to steer political opinions and decisions. IF things are better, we should be able to stop bribing Iraqi insurgents to fight other insurgents - they'll do it because they love their country. Better; consider just how long it will take for a civil war to start if the US/GB pull out. Things there are just great!
Benjamin Disraeli said before the British pariliament: 'Gentlemen, there are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.' Had he met a US Republican, he'd have had to find a fourth level for political deception.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"How do you find out if you're unwanted if everyone you try to ask tells you to stop bothering them and just go away?" - Balboos HaGadol
"It's a sad state of affairs, indeed, when you start reading my tag lines for some sort of enlightenment?" - Balboos HaGadol
|
|
|
|
|
No matter how many quotes and statistics we throw at each other, only history will determine whether socialism has any success at improving peoples plight or dragging a people down. I prefer to throw my vote towards anything that decreases the socialistic tendencies of this government.
Several countries have followed socialism to their detriment or demise, I just hope we become smarter than that. Unfortunately many people are swayed by the promises of their government doing something for them that they are unwilling to do for themselves.
SS => Qualified in Submarines
"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm". Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Balboos wrote: Get your facts straight
You are correct, I seriously believed that the Democrats had control of the House for longer than that.
Either way in my opinion both the president and congress have done very bad job at running the nation for the last few years. George Bush will not be in control in a few months however most of the same congress will be in control for the next president which most likely will be Obama.
John
|
|
|
|
|
One small hope:
Even the the Democrats got control of the house and senate, W still has his Veto.
Since the Democrats don't have the numbers to override him, we were in that lovely state called "Grid Lock" - and you know what gets done.
Any honest spirit of compromise seems to have been destroyed. The venemous rhetoric, though first started by the Bush Camp in the 2000 primaries (Ask McCain if he's willing to remember his family being slandered) - but it has finally spread beyond to the Democrats (Clinton vs Obama supporters not willing to except the winner unless it was their candidate).
With 300 Million Americans, we surely can do better than either of these two.
Unfortunately, with a slight adjustment to the figures, it reminds me of 2004.
How can this be? When a candidate is criticized for graduating from Harvard. When the opposition VP is consisdered 'educationally well rounded' for spending her college years in five different colleges in order to manage to graduate. When speaking as though you were an illiterate is considered an assest - then how can anyone wonder why there's such a mess?
I am thinking of running for Lord-Emperor in 2012 - hopefully I can count on your vote.
There will be no Vice-Lord-Emperor - however, you may admire my concubines from afar.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"How do you find out if you're unwanted if everyone you try to ask tells you to stop bothering them and just go away?" - Balboos HaGadol
"It's a sad state of affairs, indeed, when you start reading my tag lines for some sort of enlightenment?" - Balboos HaGadol
|
|
|
|
|
Actually the facts don't say otherwise. We had a pretty decent run for several years until the home loan debacle started showing it's effects. With Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac all but guaranteeing a loan to anyone, including those who couldn't pay, without requiring what used to be a reasonable amount down, everybody and their brother was speculating on homes going up at a rate of 30-50% per year.
This encouraged builders to build at a rate higher than ever seen in this country. The end result was that when people realized that there was no realistic basis for the prices to be as high as they were, house prices dropped, many of the speculators and those who couldn't afford the home in the first place, just started leaving the homes for the banks. The precipitous drop in prices (back to the near the prices of just a few years ago) and unwillingness of those who had no equity or negative equity to continue to pay for those homes is the cause of the current problems we see.
All those loans that should not have been given are worth significantly less than their face value, and the institutions that have invested in the securities based on those worthless loans now have a much smaller worth than they had just one year ago.
Were it not for several prominent Democrats pushing their socialist ideas of having Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fund loans for poor people (without regard to ability to repay) for many years (back to Carter), we would still be riding the wave of economic growth that we had been so recently.
Those that believe that our wealth should be spread should more appropriately give away some of their wealth to those that they think deserve it, instead of insisting on having their government redistribute their income to those that often don't deserve it.
SS => Qualified in Submarines
"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm". Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Instead of listening to the campaign blame, read what went on with
Fannie May and Freddie Mac:
http://www.kentucky.com/783/story/561554.html[^]
"McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, or his lobbying firm has taken more than $2 million from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dating to 2000. In December, Freddie Mac contributed $250,000 to last month's GOP convention" McCain says he signed onto the oversight bill, but what would you say if this were Obama? (who also took there money). Dating back to 2000? Let's see - what Republican was running for office at that time? Care to guess?
"Freddie Mac secretly paid a Republican consulting firm $2 million to kill legislation that would have regulated and trimmed the mortgage finance giant and its sister company, Fannie Mae, three years before the government took control to prevent their collapse." - that is, while the Republicans ruled house & senate.
There's a lot of blame and sleeze to go around - but I know who was running the show when these seed were sown, fertilzed, and kept watered - whilst the regulators were kept at bay.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"How do you find out if you're unwanted if everyone you try to ask tells you to stop bothering them and just go away?" - Balboos HaGadol
"It's a sad state of affairs, indeed, when you start reading my tag lines for some sort of enlightenment?" - Balboos HaGadol
|
|
|
|
|
|
The first reference is interesting, although I thought Obama got twice that amount.
The one that uses Fox News for 'News' is silly.
The thing is, however, that one can tell nothing but the truth to lie.
You may note (in another post in this category) how much money McCain's taken, and more significantly, how much was donated to the GOP convention only this year. Any idea why Fannie May and Freddie Mac would be thanking them so generously if they fought so hard against them?
The thing about attributing money to individuals is that it isn't the whole story - informative as it is. Politicians, more and more of late, lie with selective truth.
In a different article about the lobbying, it made two interesting points: that more than 25 Republican senators supported Hagel's bill (yep - about half of them at the time). But, it never got brought to the floor because it was stopped - by the the Republican senate leadership.
So - which part is true? How do we spin?
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"How do you find out if you're unwanted if everyone you try to ask tells you to stop bothering them and just go away?" - Balboos HaGadol
"It's a sad state of affairs, indeed, when you start reading my tag lines for some sort of enlightenment?" - Balboos HaGadol
|
|
|
|
|
I could totally forget about party lines and concentrate on the ideology. Socialism brings down people and countries. Congressional/Senatorial leaders (Frist (R), Pelosi (D)) playing their games, for whatever reason, are wrong.
The Marxist idea that everyone should receive the same regardless of the effort they put forth is significantly different from the idea put forth in the Declaration of independence "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
I contribute to help my neighbors (local and around the world) as I choose. But don't tell me that I have to contribute to those who choose not to work. I tell my children the same thing; "If you want a house like mine and vacations like mine, get your butt up, get and education, and work as hard as I do."
That's the message I want to get to the leaders of whichever party.
SS => Qualified in Submarines
"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm". Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for link – but a Republican-voting friend (Yes – I am allowed to have those) already sent it to me.
As I noted to him – without context and dates/times, you can put together some awfully condemning things. Nevertheless, I looked into it at that time.
What I did find out: A group of Republicans (lead by Hagel, I believe) did try to stop this. He had ca. Republican 25 followers – almost half at the time. It was not allowed to be brought to the floor for a vote. "Strangely" it was stopped by the GOP leadership. It’s been in and out of the news in the last few days.
Interestingly, both parties were big on the take from the FM’s. Just look at how much the FM's donated to the GOP's convention! But as I said in a rant posted earlier this AM, they were not the real problem – just a distraction. (Yes – crimes were committed by people in these orgs).
The mess is a mortgage crisis brought on by people defaulting on homes – very often middle and even upper middle class people. It’s the part these people choose to ignore. Even though it accounts for the majority of this financial disaster. The FM’s are a fraction, but the root is in the legislative branch (GOP ruled at the time) relaxing regulations and the Executive Branch (i.e., “W”) not doing his job with what regulation was left.
The disaster was caused by mortgage brokers talking people into loans they could never hope to maintain should anything change (e.g., interest rates, energy costs). They got their profit from brokering the loan, then sell the loans to banks and other investors (who thought they were a good deal). Problem: they lied about the risk & no one was there to stop them. Deregulation and holding back the regulators for real-estate is exactly what Reagan did. In his case, the S&L shoe dropped while Poppa-Bush was in office. Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Why did the (self proclaimed) fiscal conservatives allow this to go on? The housing boom it originally sparked was great for the economy (construction, building materials, etc.). So it was allowed. The broker commission on the loan is related to the size of the loan. I’d imagine their donations to political parties were also proportional to the size of these loans.
The congress never legislated to give out un-payable loans. The fact the so many middle class families are losing, too, testifies to the fact that it wasn’t a simple case of giving loans to people without money – the loans were just plain too big. My NYC Police detective neighbor moved in a few months ago. Now there’s a for-sale sign up. This is not the low-income bull-crap the GOP (and that YouTube video) talk about. This is what’s called an ‘inconvenient truth’.
Teddy Roosevelt knew, over a century ago, that unrestrained capitalism will eat its own children. It’s a great system for growth and prosperity. It has shown to be unequaled in creating wealth (a good thing) – until the wealth (and power associated with it) get too concentrated and competition disappears. Then the supply/demand concept fails. That’s the type of problem we’re seeing today. It’s not the concept that’s at fault, it’s humanities natural greed that gunk’s it up.
Red-Herring is the name of the game in politics. Did you ever wonder why NY State elected Hillary Clinton its senator? The GOP candidate’s mantra is was that she’s just a carpet-bagger and not from NY. He was. The problem for him was that she went and found out all about what people in NY State wanted, what they were missing, how life was in the state. Her opponent simply kept trying to give people a reason not to vote for her but no reason why they should vote for him. It was a landslide.
This is going on now, too, and unlike 2004, it’s working like it did in the NY State senate race. For the most part, McCain’s campaign had been against Obama instead of for himself. Note that I don’t like Obama (I understand the word change means whatever everyone thinks it does, which isn’t necessarily anything at all). I just know that the maverick of 2000 is now the ass-kisser of 2004 and beyond. And he supports policies that have failed for an administration that has failed, by and large, with everything it’s touched.
As always, the Democrats were blamed – but this time it seems people are recalling that the massive debit spending was done under a pure Republican rule.
‘Tax and Spend’ beats ‘Borrow and Spend’ in my book.
Our futures’ been mortgaged to the tune of $10 Billion. You already know what happens when the mortgage is too big . . .
(No Matter who wins – we’re all screwed)
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"How do you find out if you're unwanted if everyone you try to ask tells you to stop bothering them and just go away?" - Balboos HaGadol
"It's a sad state of affairs, indeed, when you start reading my tag lines for some sort of enlightenment?" - Balboos HaGadol
|
|
|
|
|
All kinds of blame to spread around! But very few of them are owning up to it.
Banks don't make bad loans to make money. They do make a mistake now and again. However until they were forced to make bad loans by BAD government policy it wasn't the rule. Forcing banks to give out bad loans is financial affirmative action!
Again we find that socialism doesn't work. Only this time it's right here in our own house.
What REALLY ticks me off is that they haven't bothered to FIX the problem and repealed the CRA.
ed
~"Watch your thoughts; they become your words. Watch your words they become your actions.
Watch your actions; they become your habits. Watch your habits; they become your character.
Watch your character; it becomes your destiny."
-Frank Outlaw.
|
|
|
|
|
Not fixing the problem is a problem that crosses party lines - just like the porous Mexican border. Both have adjendas that were and are well served.
But here's a point of interest that no one has noted:
1 - Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac only account for about 20% of the loans in the country. That's huge. But it's not everything.
2 - Giving loans to those that are relatively poor is the problem per se. If one gets in touch with reality, one sees that people of all financial levels were encouraged to take loans far beyond their means and and bit of common sense. As soon as interest rates increased AND energy cost took away any cushin they may have had left, they defaulted.\
It's more GOP Smoke and Mirror to blame the Fannie & Freddy - they contributed but a fraction to this. As did the law. The the root cause is far from this.
The root: an mortgage industry making (read that encouraging) loans that they knew were bad business sense, but did give them easy profits. The mortgage writers sold them to banks and other investors (after some creative book-keeping of sorts) - all of whom were cashing in big-time on this. Profits were huge. Bigger loans = bigger commissions.
The law may have said to give loans to poor people - and we can debate about how far that should go. And the comment that not everyone can have everything? I fully agree. That's how life works. BUT, the fact is that deregulation and calling off the actual auditor oversite are primarily to blame. These auditors, etc., are Federal employees under the Executive Branch. That means the watchers were under the control of those who didn't want business interfered with: and guess who was (and is) in charge of the Executive Branch (Hint: His father also enjoyed massive real-estate based banking failures due to deregulation).
The loans that were made were rediculous. A real true fact: The police detective family that moved in across from my home only a few months ago has that For-Sale sign up - because they were convinced to buy a house that took every spare cent they had. They were the poor that are used in GOP-based excuses. They were part the Majority of those losing there homes. Given loans they couldn't afford by mortgage brokers who didn't care about what happens next, and encouraged (by the repurchase of the loans) by banks.
NO ONE MADE THEM DO THIS - BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY - NO ONE STOPPED THEM!
The borrowers signed the dotted line - but it's already been shown they were encouraged to over-borrow. They may not be innoncent, but it's the mortgage industry that's supposed to evaluate the max loan size for a given income.
The Federal government was supposed to be guaranteeing sensible loans. The Money to guarantee the loans was, indeed, to help the lower income. Common sense was still supposed to take party. The loans to be given weren't proscribe in the law as ' must be impossibly large'. The law doesn't make the impossible-sized loans. A greed real estate market did. The Building boom and help to the economy were exactly what the administration would want. Everyone was happy.
Centering the argument on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? It's liking making sure you flush the toilet on the Titanic before heading for the life boats.
<small></small>
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"How do you find out if you're unwanted if everyone you try to ask tells you to stop bothering them and just go away?" - Balboos HaGadol
"It's a sad state of affairs, indeed, when you start reading my tag lines for some sort of enlightenment?" - Balboos HaGadol
|
|
|
|
|
Banks DON'T loan money to people who can't pay them back unless REQUIRED to by the government. They weren't doing it prior being regulated to by the government. ALL loans that were shaky had to be offset by other holdings. That was the regulations back then. Then the affirmative action took over and banks were REQUIRED to make bad loans. The BAD loans are the ones that are causing the problems. NOT ones made to the those that could afford it. With the requirements to make bad loans the regulations were changed enabling companies like Countrywide to come into play. They didn't have to offset loans anymore. The regulations were changed. (Clinton administration) Now Countrywide could come in, make a bunch of shaky loans, sell them quickly (FM & FM) and go sell some more.
FM & FM bought them up to inflate their 'holdings' which is how they 'fixed' their bonuses. (Clinton administration) It wasn't them specifically that created the problem as you say. It was the financial affirmative action that started and then steamrolled the whole mess. Real profits weren't huge...they were accounting profits based on value which weren't there. But the folks that created the wave just rode that wave. And not one of them is being held responsible. When the republicans tried to introduce legislation to stop it.. it was blocked by democrats. Funny that republicans are still being blamed for something they tried to stop from the start then tried to fix after democrats pushed it thru. And now we are letting democrats try to fix it!
Back when the whole thing started if you stood against the CRA you were labeled racist. See where that got us now!
ed
~"Watch your thoughts; they become your words. Watch your words they become your actions.
Watch your actions; they become your habits. Watch your habits; they become your character.
Watch your character; it becomes your destiny."
-Frank Outlaw.
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps it’s different where you live, but my mortgage was originally brokered by just that – a mortgage broker. It was resold to CitiBank.
The banks make mortgages – but so do lots of other business.
Similarly, the buying up of loans by FM & FM - how, exactly does that relate to the Europeans buy up these loans, too. And the Asian nations? Maybe they thougth this paper was a good investment? Or did they want to go broke?
Ed K wrote: The BAD loans are the ones that are causing the problems. NOT ones made to the those that could afford it.
We're really not making much progress on this point, but I'll say it one last time: borrowers were encouraged to take loans beyond their means due to some very creative financing. Regulations were loosened and worse: no one was checking up (i.e., auditing). This is incredibly like the S&L disaster, and for the same reason: cutting regulations only works with honest and ethical people.
We're talking about big business - (say Enron five times in eight seconds). They have one and only one motive. Maximize profits. That's there job. Ethics are an inconvenience that must be dealt with, gotten around, bought off, or, if all else fails, accepted.
Those making loans were being allowed to behave like used-car-dealers. They found a way to finance a $675,000 home for a $50,000 yr detective. No some poor slob - that is, until he had to put his home up for sale before he was in it a year. This was never the intent of any laws. The (deliberate) confusion of admittedly questionable legislation to put home ownership into the hands of the poor as the cause of this disaster is a load of crap.
A financial house of cards built with an unregulated loan industry and encouraged by the (temporary) short term boom it caused in real estate, construction, and the other related industries collapsed. It had to. The % of loans made by the FM & FM just plain can't account for it.
Grab a Computer. Do the Math.
(to the relief of many of you, this is my last round in this particular hamster cage).
|
|
|
|
|
Balboos wrote: The banks make mortgages – but so do lots of other business.
Balboos wrote: Similarly, the buying up of loans by FM & FM - how, exactly does that relate to the Europeans buy up these loans, too. And the Asian nations? Maybe they thougth this paper was a good investment? Or did they want to go broke?
You are showing your ignorance here. You should make that your last point because you still don't understand what's going on. You need to understand monetary policy plus understand banking regulations before you go and start trying to tell me what's going on.
ed
~"Watch your thoughts; they become your words. Watch your words they become your actions.
Watch your actions; they become your habits. Watch your habits; they become your character.
Watch your character; it becomes your destiny."
-Frank Outlaw.
|
|
|
|
|
Keep that damn government off the backs of business.
I do understand how it works.
Business
Profits: Private - keep your government fingers off<br />
Losses: Socialism - oh how they want the government money now!
Thank goodness we've your banking expertise in our midst.
If only you'd just stay informed about reality, instead of what you would like to have as reality, we'd all be much enlightened.
In the meantime, keep blaming the mess on FM&FM and the law to make housing avialable to the lower classes.
BUT,
Most important of all -
Continue to Ignore anything to the contrary - such as entire developments of huge homes with pools, etc., in foreclosure. Those don't count in your reckoning. Just close your eyes, click your heels together three times, and they'll disappear from Fox News
For myself? I don't have the luxury of going through life cherry-picking data to make me feel all warm and cozy. My taxes are going to be raised to pay the $10 Trillion GOP debt.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"How do you find out if you're unwanted if everyone you try to ask tells you to stop bothering them and just go away?" - Balboos HaGadol
"It's a sad state of affairs, indeed, when you start reading my tag lines for some sort of enlightenment?" - Balboos HaGadol
|
|
|
|
|
Get a clue!
Balboos wrote: In the meantime, keep blaming the mess on FM&FM and the law to make housing avialable to the lower classes.
I haven't said they were to blame. They aren't. They added to the problem (corruption)... in a huge way!
Look...after working for Countrywide and banks for the last several years I've seen what's going on. I've been in the middle of it. It wasn't the GOP. I know you want to hate businesses but the businesses did what they had to. They were required by government to make bad loans. That is the bottom line. There is NO other entity to blame other than the government forcing banks to make bad loans. PERIOD. It just so happens that the democrats were the ones who, with all good intentions, created the regulations.
ed
~"Watch your thoughts; they become your words. Watch your words they become your actions.
Watch your actions; they become your habits. Watch your habits; they become your character.
Watch your character; it becomes your destiny."
-Frank Outlaw.
|
|
|
|
|
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae
"In 1999, Fannie Mae came under pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans to low and moderate income borrowers. <u>At the same time, institutions in the primary mortgage market pressed Fannie Mae to ease credit requirements on the mortgages it was willing to purchase, enabling them to make loans to subprime borrowers at interest rates higher than conventional loans.</u> Shareholders also pressured Fannie Mae to maintain its record profits.[7]
"In 2000, due to a re-assessment of the housing market by HUD, anti-predatory lending rules were put into place that disallowed risky, high-cost loans from being credited toward affordable housing goals. <b>In <big>2004</big>, these rules were dropped and high-risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals.</b>[8]
And who was minding the store when the 2004 rules were dropped? For that matter, who was running the congress and senate during 1999, when this was put into effect?
U.S. Gov't Lesson 1: The Legislative Branch makes the laws - NOT the executive branch. So what party was running the Legislative branch . . .
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"How do you find out if you're unwanted if everyone you try to ask tells you to stop bothering them and just go away?" - Balboos HaGadol
"It's a sad state of affairs, indeed, when you start reading my tag lines for some sort of enlightenment?" - Balboos HaGadol
|
|
|
|
|
|
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
You criticize citations from respected newspapers and then refer me to a right-wing shill?
Doesn't surprise me in the least.
You still don't get it - and I'm afraid never will.
These people have been picking your pockets while waving the flag.
Why don't you look at the homes being forclosed? (www.foreclosurestore.com) Let's try something neutral, like McCains Home State (Las Vegas Zip = 89191). Scan through a few pages of listings. These aren't homes for the poor. This is nation wide. It's not socialism that got us into the mess; it's deregulation. Don't bother looking under the bed for Stalin and his boogy-men.
Redistribution of wealth? Take a look at federal spending: the industrial states pay, the rural states collect. For Palin's Alaska, it's $33K Federal dollars per person. Price supports and subsidies to farmers. Ranchers grazing on government land for a tiny fraction of the cost of grazing rights. Socialism? Where've you been? Why not call in to Levin (or Rush Limbaugh) and ask them about the traditional socialist welfare "state" of rural America, the very heart of "conservatism".
Most of all: Who had 2000 - 2006 to FIX IT and didn't do squat?
Then ask why.
Ask that last questions over and over until you figure out the answer.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"How do you find out if you're unwanted if everyone you try to ask tells you to stop bothering them and just go away?" - Balboos HaGadol
"It's a sad state of affairs, indeed, when you start reading my tag lines for some sort of enlightenment?" - Balboos HaGadol
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
