Democrats Move Towards Violent Confrontation

[Ray From Cleveland]

Nothing moronic about it

It is, of course, idiotic. Sorry my man...you simply are not qualified or entitled to have an opinion on this, if that is your analysis.

Sorry, be we don't adhere to your leftist views. In America, everybody is entitled to an opinion.

 

[JoeB131]

And handing over your choices and life to the government?

That reminds me of something that happened during the DumBama years. I was in a long line at the post office, and an elderly black lady one person in front of me said aloud "I can't understand why all of us are standing here, and they still only have one postal worker behind the counter!" The worker behind the counter just looked up at the old lady, but said nothing.

So I replied "Don't look now, but this is the way Obama wants our healthcare ran" and of course, she turned around and gave me a dirty look.

Yeah, she was probably thinking "shut up, racist cracker".

Well, let's look at the alternative to the Post office. UPS or FedEx. A lot more expensive, doesn't cover certain parts of the country... that's so much better.

Doctors do need to make great money here because besides their college loans, they have huge malpractice insurance rates to pay. This is especially true for new doctors entering the practice.

Except neither of these are a problem in the European Socialist countries. College is paid for and malpractice is covered by the government... They spend less, live longer and have better results.

But Ray lives in mortal fear he might have to wait in line behind an old black woman who gets the same thing he gets.

 

[lennypartiv]

The debt spending? Yes, republicans. Theynsupported two police actions, but refused to pay for them. Consistently. Seeing a pattern, yet?

I see Dems are siding with the Muslims again.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yeah, she was probably thinking "shut up, racist cracker".

Well, let's look at the alternative to the Post office. UPS or FedEx. A lot more expensive, doesn't cover certain parts of the country... that's so much better.

Yet they have expanded greatly throughout the years, pay their employees exceptional money, and operate at a profit. The post office? Going broke all the time.

You do realize of course that without private pay and private insurance, our medical facilities would close. They can't sustain with government patients because they ripoff providers all the time. So tell me, if medical facilities and personnel can't recoup those government losses any longer via private entities, what do you suppose they will do?

In this country (like I'm sure all) we have good doctors and not so good doctors, great medical facilities and not so great medical facilities. The way our system is now, you have the quality of care you can afford. So what happens if government takes over? After all, we all want the best doctors and surgeons, don't we? And since the good ones can't take care of the entire country, who would be deciding which Americans get the great hospitals and which ones would get shit?

Like always, Democrats would make politics out of it. If in power, the people in red zones would get the welfare doctors and the welfare people would be getting my doctors at the Cleveland Clinic. You think that's fair?

Except neither of these are a problem in the European Socialist countries. College is paid for and malpractice is covered by the government... They spend less, live longer and have better results.

But Ray lives in mortal fear he might have to wait in line behind an old black woman who gets the same thing he gets.

Sure I do, especially when I'm paying for my own and she isn't.

You want to have socialized medical care, then petition your leaders to do so with a consumption tax. We all pay equally. I say 40 cents on every dollar spent should do it to sustain the kind of care we get now. Are you willing to go for that?

 

[DBA]

My definition of rich is well above what you make, however, in "Jesus-Land" as you call it, even someone with your income can live quite well.

No, nobody lives well in Jesus-land. You're surrounded by ignorant, inbred, bible-thumping morons... that would be pretty much Hell for anyone with an above room temperature IQ.

The other cool thing about "Jesus-Land" is that there are more people with morals, which not only makes day to day life more pleasurable, but also helps with business dealings. Who would have thunk it?

No, it just means they are hypocrites and assholes... As Mark Twain observed, "The one thing Jesus wouldn't be if he were here today is a Christian!"

The motivation should stem from the fact they can move up the ladder with hard work. With Socialism, there is very little motivation. The problem with many on the left is they want to complain about not making it but are unwilling to put forth the effort required to do so. They have figured out is is much easier to just sit back and complain in hopes that the government will take money away from those people who have decided to work too hard and give it to them.

Exceptional means not ordinary. While some are born with certain traits that make them exceptional(intelligence, athleticism, etc.), one can make a conscious choice to be exceptional. That may mean staying late and not leaving the office at 5:00 if there is still work to be done. It may mean helping co-workers who are behind when you are all caught up. It may mean taking the initiative and using any free time you have at work to do something productive for the benefit of the company, without direction from superiors. This is how one gets ahead. It works, but sadly, many are just too lazy. They would prefer to complain about their salary and look for handouts.

Funny thing. Did all those things. Those aren't the people who move ahead.

Do you know who moves ahead. They guy willing to stab his coworker in the back while sucking up to the boss. Lots of people who got to be "Managers" on their backs but couldn't manage their way out of a wet paper bag.

"My Boss is an Exceptional Genius" said no one in a working class bar, EVER!"

It honestly makes me wonder if you have any real experience in the working world.

Dodd-Frank blew up the economy. The Democrats wanted to artificially boost the housing market by issuing quotas for lower income households.

Holy fucking shit, did you just say this? How did Dodd Frank cause the RECESSION OF 2008 when it wasn't passed until 2009, AFTER THE CRASH? Did they catch a ride with Doctor Who?

I'm starting to wonder if you are in your 20's, and were too young to remember how the 2008 crash unfolded.

In 2008, Fannie-Mae and Freddie-Mac had quotas that required that 56% loans that had to be given to lower-income folks. They knew, or should have known, that in order to meet these quotas, loan requirements would have to be loosened.

2008 didn't happen because of Fannie Mae. It happened because Bear Sterns, Morgan Stanely, AIG and the rest of the private sector CROOKS took mortgages they knew were worthless and sold them as investments after outright LYING about their value.

Sure, the Chinese don't spend much on military stuff, right? Cheez. I would also like to point out the average Chinese standard of living. It sucks for a reason.

China spends nowhere near what we don on the military. In fact, you can take the next ten countries COMBINED military spending and they don't equal the US, and EIGHT of those countries are allies.

Tax cuts help everyone that gets them. The deregulation and corporate tax cuts from Trump is what has helped our economy as the spike can be easily correlated with these cuts.

No, they really can't be. Economies have crashed after Tax cuts (Like 1990 and 2008) and have improved after tax increases on the rich.

Holy fucking shit, did you just say this? How did Dodd Frank cause the RECESSION OF 2008 when it wasn't passed until 2009, AFTER THE CRASH? Did they catch a ride with Doctor Who?

I'm starting to wonder if you are in your 20's, and were too young to remember how the 2008 crash unfolded.

Sorry, it was the Community Reinvestment Act under Clinton. Either way, it was a Democrat that tanked the economy.

Kudlow: Are the Clintons the real housing crash villains?

Barney Frank's hands were all over it.

His most successful effort was to impose what were called "affordable housing" requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992. Before that time, these two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) had been required to buy only mortgages that institutional investors would buy--in other words, prime mortgages--but Frank and others thought these standards made it too difficult for low income borrowers to buy homes. The affordable housing law required Fannie and Freddie to meet government quotas when they bought loans from banks and other mortgage originators.

At first, this quota was 30%; that is, of all the loans they bought, 30% had to be made to people at or below the median income in their communities. HUD, however, was given authority to administer these quotas, and between 1992 and 2007, the quotas were raised from 30% to 50% under Clinton in 2000 and to 55% under Bush in 2007. Despite Frank's effort to make this seem like a partisan issue, it isn't. The Bush administration was just as guilty of this error as the Clinton administration. And Frank is right to say that he eventually saw his error and corrected it when he got the power to do so in 2007, but by then it was too late.

 

[Faun]

My definition of rich is well above what you make, however, in "Jesus-Land" as you call it, even someone with your income can live quite well.

No, nobody lives well in Jesus-land. You're surrounded by ignorant, inbred, bible-thumping morons... that would be pretty much Hell for anyone with an above room temperature IQ.

The other cool thing about "Jesus-Land" is that there are more people with morals, which not only makes day to day life more pleasurable, but also helps with business dealings. Who would have thunk it?

No, it just means they are hypocrites and assholes... As Mark Twain observed, "The one thing Jesus wouldn't be if he were here today is a Christian!"

The motivation should stem from the fact they can move up the ladder with hard work. With Socialism, there is very little motivation. The problem with many on the left is they want to complain about not making it but are unwilling to put forth the effort required to do so. They have figured out is is much easier to just sit back and complain in hopes that the government will take money away from those people who have decided to work too hard and give it to them.

Exceptional means not ordinary. While some are born with certain traits that make them exceptional(intelligence, athleticism, etc.), one can make a conscious choice to be exceptional. That may mean staying late and not leaving the office at 5:00 if there is still work to be done. It may mean helping co-workers who are behind when you are all caught up. It may mean taking the initiative and using any free time you have at work to do something productive for the benefit of the company, without direction from superiors. This is how one gets ahead. It works, but sadly, many are just too lazy. They would prefer to complain about their salary and look for handouts.

Funny thing. Did all those things. Those aren't the people who move ahead.

Do you know who moves ahead. They guy willing to stab his coworker in the back while sucking up to the boss. Lots of people who got to be "Managers" on their backs but couldn't manage their way out of a wet paper bag.

"My Boss is an Exceptional Genius" said no one in a working class bar, EVER!"

It honestly makes me wonder if you have any real experience in the working world.

Dodd-Frank blew up the economy. The Democrats wanted to artificially boost the housing market by issuing quotas for lower income households.

Holy fucking shit, did you just say this? How did Dodd Frank cause the RECESSION OF 2008 when it wasn't passed until 2009, AFTER THE CRASH? Did they catch a ride with Doctor Who?

I'm starting to wonder if you are in your 20's, and were too young to remember how the 2008 crash unfolded.

In 2008, Fannie-Mae and Freddie-Mac had quotas that required that 56% loans that had to be given to lower-income folks. They knew, or should have known, that in order to meet these quotas, loan requirements would have to be loosened.

2008 didn't happen because of Fannie Mae. It happened because Bear Sterns, Morgan Stanely, AIG and the rest of the private sector CROOKS took mortgages they knew were worthless and sold them as investments after outright LYING about their value.

Sure, the Chinese don't spend much on military stuff, right? Cheez. I would also like to point out the average Chinese standard of living. It sucks for a reason.

China spends nowhere near what we don on the military. In fact, you can take the next ten countries COMBINED military spending and they don't equal the US, and EIGHT of those countries are allies.

Tax cuts help everyone that gets them. The deregulation and corporate tax cuts from Trump is what has helped our economy as the spike can be easily correlated with these cuts.

No, they really can't be. Economies have crashed after Tax cuts (Like 1990 and 2008) and have improved after tax increases on the rich.

Holy fucking shit, did you just say this? How did Dodd Frank cause the RECESSION OF 2008 when it wasn't passed until 2009, AFTER THE CRASH? Did they catch a ride with Doctor Who?

I'm starting to wonder if you are in your 20's, and were too young to remember how the 2008 crash unfolded.

Sorry, it was the Community Reinvestment Act under Clinton. Either way, it was a Democrat that tanked the economy.

Kudlow: Are the Clintons the real housing crash villains?

Barney Frank's hands were all over it.

His most successful effort was to impose what were called "affordable housing" requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992. Before that time, these two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) had been required to buy only mortgages that institutional investors would buy--in other words, prime mortgages--but Frank and others thought these standards made it too difficult for low income borrowers to buy homes. The affordable housing law required Fannie and Freddie to meet government quotas when they bought loans from banks and other mortgage originators.

At first, this quota was 30%; that is, of all the loans they bought, 30% had to be made to people at or below the median income in their communities. HUD, however, was given authority to administer these quotas, and between 1992 and 2007, the quotas were raised from 30% to 50% under Clinton in 2000 and to 55% under Bush in 2007. Despite Frank's effort to make this seem like a partisan issue, it isn't. The Bush administration was just as guilty of this error as the Clinton administration. And Frank is right to say that he eventually saw his error and corrected it when he got the power to do so in 2007, but by then it was too late.

"His most successful effort was to impose what were called "affordable housing" requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992."

So now you're blaming GHW Bush??

 

[JoeB131]

Yet they have expanded greatly throughout the years, pay their employees exceptional money, and operate at a profit. The post office? Going broke all the time.

They operate at a profit because they aren't providing services to everyone. The post office is providing A PUBLIC SERVICE.

And the only reason why it's "going broke" is the GOP shitheads required it to fund it's own pensions for the next 25 years. They are easily paying for operations, thanks to an infusion of money delivering Amazon.

You do realize of course that without private pay and private insurance, our medical facilities would close. They can't sustain with government patients because they ripoff providers all the time. So tell me, if medical facilities and personnel can't recoup those government losses any longer via private entities, what do you suppose they will do?

One more time- We spend more per capita than any other nation, and we get the worst results, with 43 million people with no coverage and 25 million with inadeqate coverage before ACA kicked in. We have the lowest life expectency and the highest infant mortality rate in the industrialized world. 62% of bankruptcies are linked to medical crisis. The last thing I worry about is what the Poor Medical-Industrial Complex will do.

In this country (like I'm sure all) we have good doctors and not so good doctors, great medical facilities and not so great medical facilities. The way our system is now, you have the quality of care you can afford. So what happens if government takes over? After all, we all want the best doctors and surgeons, don't we? And since the good ones can't take care of the entire country, who would be deciding which Americans get the great hospitals and which ones would get shit?

Again, if rich people got the same care as poor folks did, we'd get better health care. Just remember, just because some rich Arab can fly in here and get medical treatment you can't get because you don't even have insurance, is not anything to be proud of.

Like always, Democrats would make politics out of it. If in power, the people in red zones would get the welfare doctors and the welfare people would be getting my doctors at the Cleveland Clinic. You think that's fair?

Actually, I kind of do.

Why should your ability to pay determine the level of health care you get?

Sure I do, especially when I'm paying for my own and she isn't.

You want to have socialized medical care, then petition your leaders to do so with a consumption tax. We all pay equally. I say 40 cents on every dollar spent should do it to sustain the kind of care we get now. Are you willing to go for that?

Nope. Exhoribitant taxes on the rich, bring back estate taxes... that's how we should pay for it.

But the reality- We spend 17% of GDP on health care while the rest of the world is spending 8-11%. We are ALREADY spending that kind of money, we just aren't spending it smartly.

 

[JoeB131]

Sorry, it was the Community Reinvestment Act under Clinton. Either way, it was a Democrat that tanked the economy.

1) Don't try to walk back your mistake. You blamed "Dodd-Frank" (a sensible response to Wall Street's abuses.

2) The CRA has been in effect since 1977 when Jimmy Carter signed it in response to banks "Redlining" black neighborhoods. It did not cause the crash.

Even the Banking Industry is not making that claim.

No, the CRA Did Not Cause the Financial Crisis - The Big Picture

Showing that the CRA wasn’t the cause of the financial crisis is rather easy. As Warren Buffett pal Charlie Munger says, “Invert, always invert.” In this case, let’s assume Moore and Kudlow are correct, and the CRA did require banks to lend to unqualified, low-income buyers. What would that world have looked like?

Here’s what we should have seen:

• Home sales and prices in urban, minority communities would have led the national home market higher, with gains in percentage terms surpassing national figures;
• CRA mandated loans would have defaulted at higher rates;
• Foreclosures in these distressed urban CRA neighborhoods should have far outpaced those in the suburbs;
• Local lenders making these mortgages should have failed at much higher rates;
• Portfolios of banks participating in the Troubled Asset Relief Program should have been filled with securities made up of toxic CRA loans;
• Investors looking to profit should have been buying up properties financed with defaulted CRA loans; and
• Congressional testimony of financial industry executives after the crisis should have spelled out how the CRA was a direct cause, with compelling evidence backing their claims.

Yet none of these things happened. And they should have, if the CRA was at fault. It’s no surprise that in congressional testimony, various experts were asked about the CRA — from former Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair to the Federal Reserve’sdirector of Consumer and Community Affairs — and none blamed the crisis on the CRA.

If that isn’t enough to dismiss the claim, consider this: Where did mortgages, especially subprime mortgages, default in large numbers?

It wasn’t Harlem, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit or any other poor, largely minority urban area covered by the CRA. No, the crisis was worst in Florida, Arizona, Nevada and California. Indeed, the vast majority of the housing collapse took place in the suburbs and exurbs, not the inner cities.

But if you really want to blame a CRA, I can offer you some help — check out the credit rating agencies. As the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission concluded in its autopsy of the crisis: “The three credit-rating agencies were key enablers of the financial meltdown. The mortgage-related securities at the heart of the crisis could not have been marketed and sold without their seal of approval.”

The raters stamped AAA grades — the same as given to U.S. government debt — on what they should have known were junk mortgage securities in order to gain market share and win big fees. With the raters’ seal of approval, the country’s biggest banks gorged on this garbage. The results, as we now know, were catastrophic.


In short, you engage in the same Dog Whistle politics that the GOP has been engaging in since Tricky Dick. It was them poor people's fault!!!

Nope, it wasn't some middle class asshole buying a McMansion hoping to flip it in a couple of years, and the bank selling that undercapitalized loan as an investment. It was them poor people. You keep telling yourself that.

 

[DBA]

My definition of rich is well above what you make, however, in "Jesus-Land" as you call it, even someone with your income can live quite well.

No, nobody lives well in Jesus-land. You're surrounded by ignorant, inbred, bible-thumping morons... that would be pretty much Hell for anyone with an above room temperature IQ.

The other cool thing about "Jesus-Land" is that there are more people with morals, which not only makes day to day life more pleasurable, but also helps with business dealings. Who would have thunk it?

No, it just means they are hypocrites and assholes... As Mark Twain observed, "The one thing Jesus wouldn't be if he were here today is a Christian!"

The motivation should stem from the fact they can move up the ladder with hard work. With Socialism, there is very little motivation. The problem with many on the left is they want to complain about not making it but are unwilling to put forth the effort required to do so. They have figured out is is much easier to just sit back and complain in hopes that the government will take money away from those people who have decided to work too hard and give it to them.

Exceptional means not ordinary. While some are born with certain traits that make them exceptional(intelligence, athleticism, etc.), one can make a conscious choice to be exceptional. That may mean staying late and not leaving the office at 5:00 if there is still work to be done. It may mean helping co-workers who are behind when you are all caught up. It may mean taking the initiative and using any free time you have at work to do something productive for the benefit of the company, without direction from superiors. This is how one gets ahead. It works, but sadly, many are just too lazy. They would prefer to complain about their salary and look for handouts.

Funny thing. Did all those things. Those aren't the people who move ahead.

Do you know who moves ahead. They guy willing to stab his coworker in the back while sucking up to the boss. Lots of people who got to be "Managers" on their backs but couldn't manage their way out of a wet paper bag.

"My Boss is an Exceptional Genius" said no one in a working class bar, EVER!"

It honestly makes me wonder if you have any real experience in the working world.

Dodd-Frank blew up the economy. The Democrats wanted to artificially boost the housing market by issuing quotas for lower income households.

Holy fucking shit, did you just say this? How did Dodd Frank cause the RECESSION OF 2008 when it wasn't passed until 2009, AFTER THE CRASH? Did they catch a ride with Doctor Who?

I'm starting to wonder if you are in your 20's, and were too young to remember how the 2008 crash unfolded.

In 2008, Fannie-Mae and Freddie-Mac had quotas that required that 56% loans that had to be given to lower-income folks. They knew, or should have known, that in order to meet these quotas, loan requirements would have to be loosened.

2008 didn't happen because of Fannie Mae. It happened because Bear Sterns, Morgan Stanely, AIG and the rest of the private sector CROOKS took mortgages they knew were worthless and sold them as investments after outright LYING about their value.

Sure, the Chinese don't spend much on military stuff, right? Cheez. I would also like to point out the average Chinese standard of living. It sucks for a reason.

China spends nowhere near what we don on the military. In fact, you can take the next ten countries COMBINED military spending and they don't equal the US, and EIGHT of those countries are allies.

Tax cuts help everyone that gets them. The deregulation and corporate tax cuts from Trump is what has helped our economy as the spike can be easily correlated with these cuts.

No, they really can't be. Economies have crashed after Tax cuts (Like 1990 and 2008) and have improved after tax increases on the rich.

Holy fucking shit, did you just say this? How did Dodd Frank cause the RECESSION OF 2008 when it wasn't passed until 2009, AFTER THE CRASH? Did they catch a ride with Doctor Who?

I'm starting to wonder if you are in your 20's, and were too young to remember how the 2008 crash unfolded.

Sorry, it was the Community Reinvestment Act under Clinton. Either way, it was a Democrat that tanked the economy.

Kudlow: Are the Clintons the real housing crash villains?

Barney Frank's hands were all over it.

His most successful effort was to impose what were called "affordable housing" requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992. Before that time, these two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) had been required to buy only mortgages that institutional investors would buy--in other words, prime mortgages--but Frank and others thought these standards made it too difficult for low income borrowers to buy homes. The affordable housing law required Fannie and Freddie to meet government quotas when they bought loans from banks and other mortgage originators.

At first, this quota was 30%; that is, of all the loans they bought, 30% had to be made to people at or below the median income in their communities. HUD, however, was given authority to administer these quotas, and between 1992 and 2007, the quotas were raised from 30% to 50% under Clinton in 2000 and to 55% under Bush in 2007. Despite Frank's effort to make this seem like a partisan issue, it isn't. The Bush administration was just as guilty of this error as the Clinton administration. And Frank is right to say that he eventually saw his error and corrected it when he got the power to do so in 2007, but by then it was too late.

"His most successful effort was to impose what were called "affordable housing" requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992."

So now you're blaming GHW Bush??

My definition of rich is well above what you make, however, in "Jesus-Land" as you call it, even someone with your income can live quite well.

No, nobody lives well in Jesus-land. You're surrounded by ignorant, inbred, bible-thumping morons... that would be pretty much Hell for anyone with an above room temperature IQ.

The other cool thing about "Jesus-Land" is that there are more people with morals, which not only makes day to day life more pleasurable, but also helps with business dealings. Who would have thunk it?

No, it just means they are hypocrites and assholes... As Mark Twain observed, "The one thing Jesus wouldn't be if he were here today is a Christian!"

The motivation should stem from the fact they can move up the ladder with hard work. With Socialism, there is very little motivation. The problem with many on the left is they want to complain about not making it but are unwilling to put forth the effort required to do so. They have figured out is is much easier to just sit back and complain in hopes that the government will take money away from those people who have decided to work too hard and give it to them.

Exceptional means not ordinary. While some are born with certain traits that make them exceptional(intelligence, athleticism, etc.), one can make a conscious choice to be exceptional. That may mean staying late and not leaving the office at 5:00 if there is still work to be done. It may mean helping co-workers who are behind when you are all caught up. It may mean taking the initiative and using any free time you have at work to do something productive for the benefit of the company, without direction from superiors. This is how one gets ahead. It works, but sadly, many are just too lazy. They would prefer to complain about their salary and look for handouts.

Funny thing. Did all those things. Those aren't the people who move ahead.

Do you know who moves ahead. They guy willing to stab his coworker in the back while sucking up to the boss. Lots of people who got to be "Managers" on their backs but couldn't manage their way out of a wet paper bag.

"My Boss is an Exceptional Genius" said no one in a working class bar, EVER!"

It honestly makes me wonder if you have any real experience in the working world.

Dodd-Frank blew up the economy. The Democrats wanted to artificially boost the housing market by issuing quotas for lower income households.

Holy fucking shit, did you just say this? How did Dodd Frank cause the RECESSION OF 2008 when it wasn't passed until 2009, AFTER THE CRASH? Did they catch a ride with Doctor Who?

I'm starting to wonder if you are in your 20's, and were too young to remember how the 2008 crash unfolded.

In 2008, Fannie-Mae and Freddie-Mac had quotas that required that 56% loans that had to be given to lower-income folks. They knew, or should have known, that in order to meet these quotas, loan requirements would have to be loosened.

2008 didn't happen because of Fannie Mae. It happened because Bear Sterns, Morgan Stanely, AIG and the rest of the private sector CROOKS took mortgages they knew were worthless and sold them as investments after outright LYING about their value.

Sure, the Chinese don't spend much on military stuff, right? Cheez. I would also like to point out the average Chinese standard of living. It sucks for a reason.

China spends nowhere near what we don on the military. In fact, you can take the next ten countries COMBINED military spending and they don't equal the US, and EIGHT of those countries are allies.

Tax cuts help everyone that gets them. The deregulation and corporate tax cuts from Trump is what has helped our economy as the spike can be easily correlated with these cuts.

No, they really can't be. Economies have crashed after Tax cuts (Like 1990 and 2008) and have improved after tax increases on the rich.

Holy fucking shit, did you just say this? How did Dodd Frank cause the RECESSION OF 2008 when it wasn't passed until 2009, AFTER THE CRASH? Did they catch a ride with Doctor Who?

I'm starting to wonder if you are in your 20's, and were too young to remember how the 2008 crash unfolded.

Sorry, it was the Community Reinvestment Act under Clinton. Either way, it was a Democrat that tanked the economy.

Kudlow: Are the Clintons the real housing crash villains?

Barney Frank's hands were all over it.

His most successful effort was to impose what were called "affordable housing" requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992. Before that time, these two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) had been required to buy only mortgages that institutional investors would buy--in other words, prime mortgages--but Frank and others thought these standards made it too difficult for low income borrowers to buy homes. The affordable housing law required Fannie and Freddie to meet government quotas when they bought loans from banks and other mortgage originators.

At first, this quota was 30%; that is, of all the loans they bought, 30% had to be made to people at or below the median income in their communities. HUD, however, was given authority to administer these quotas, and between 1992 and 2007, the quotas were raised from 30% to 50% under Clinton in 2000 and to 55% under Bush in 2007. Despite Frank's effort to make this seem like a partisan issue, it isn't. The Bush administration was just as guilty of this error as the Clinton administration. And Frank is right to say that he eventually saw his error and corrected it when he got the power to do so in 2007, but by then it was too late.

"His most successful effort was to impose what were called "affordable housing" requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992."

So now you're blaming GHW Bush??

You are very confused. "His" refers to Barney Frank, the Congressman. You need to read the article from the link. The stimulus, if you will, of the 2008 crash was a push by the Clinton administration to allow lower income folks to buy houses via the Community Reinvestment Act, which had been around for quite some time. Clinton pushed his HUD secretary to ramp up the social welfare program by providing incentives(higher credit ratings) and quotas to banks who complied with his more stringent requitements. Barney Frank had started this deregulation as far back as 1992, but as late as 2003 Barney said: "I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation toward subsidized housing." In short, the Democrats bleeding heart superseeded their brains and ultimately led to the finacial crisis. Some Republicans went along for the economic boom and the banks certainly took advantage, but we all know how the ball got started.

 

[JoeB131]

You are very confused. "His" refers to Barney Frank, the Congressman. You need to read the article from the link. The stimulus, if you will, of the 2008 crash was a push by the Clinton administration to allow lower income folks to buy houses via the Community Reinvestment Act, which had been around for quite some time. Clinton pushed his HUD secretary to ramp up the social welfare program by providing incentives(higher credit ratings) and quotas to banks who complied with his more stringent requitements. Barney Frank had started this deregulation as far back as 1992, but as late as 2003 Barney said: "I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation toward subsidized housing." In short, the Democrats bleeding heart superseeded their brains and ultimately led to the finacial crisis. Some Republicans went along for the economic boom and the banks certainly took advantage, but we all know how the ball got started.

Except the CRA had nothing to do with it.

The economy didn't crash because a very few poor people qualified for loans.

It crashed because middle class people were buying McMansions they couldn't afford, hoping to flip them a couple years later. Banks NOT participating in CRA approved these questionable loans because they figured even if the borrowers defaulted, they'd have put a bunch of money into these buildings and they'd be able to resell them at a profit.

They sold these bad mortgages as "investments". Then the whole thing fell apart, because Dubya Bush's SEC was too busy watching porn on their computers.

The SEC Employees Watching Porn At Work Were Making Over $200,000/Year

 

[DBA]

Sorry, it was the Community Reinvestment Act under Clinton. Either way, it was a Democrat that tanked the economy.

1) Don't try to walk back your mistake. You blamed "Dodd-Frank" (a sensible response to Wall Street's abuses.

2) The CRA has been in effect since 1977 when Jimmy Carter signed it in response to banks "Redlining" black neighborhoods. It did not cause the crash.

Even the Banking Industry is not making that claim.

No, the CRA Did Not Cause the Financial Crisis - The Big Picture

Showing that the CRA wasn’t the cause of the financial crisis is rather easy. As Warren Buffett pal Charlie Munger says, “Invert, always invert.” In this case, let’s assume Moore and Kudlow are correct, and the CRA did require banks to lend to unqualified, low-income buyers. What would that world have looked like?

Here’s what we should have seen:

• Home sales and prices in urban, minority communities would have led the national home market higher, with gains in percentage terms surpassing national figures;
• CRA mandated loans would have defaulted at higher rates;
• Foreclosures in these distressed urban CRA neighborhoods should have far outpaced those in the suburbs;
• Local lenders making these mortgages should have failed at much higher rates;
• Portfolios of banks participating in the Troubled Asset Relief Program should have been filled with securities made up of toxic CRA loans;
• Investors looking to profit should have been buying up properties financed with defaulted CRA loans; and
• Congressional testimony of financial industry executives after the crisis should have spelled out how the CRA was a direct cause, with compelling evidence backing their claims.

Yet none of these things happened. And they should have, if the CRA was at fault. It’s no surprise that in congressional testimony, various experts were asked about the CRA — from former Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair to the Federal Reserve’sdirector of Consumer and Community Affairs — and none blamed the crisis on the CRA.

If that isn’t enough to dismiss the claim, consider this: Where did mortgages, especially subprime mortgages, default in large numbers?

It wasn’t Harlem, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit or any other poor, largely minority urban area covered by the CRA. No, the crisis was worst in Florida, Arizona, Nevada and California. Indeed, the vast majority of the housing collapse took place in the suburbs and exurbs, not the inner cities.

But if you really want to blame a CRA, I can offer you some help — check out the credit rating agencies. As the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission concluded in its autopsy of the crisis: “The three credit-rating agencies were key enablers of the financial meltdown. The mortgage-related securities at the heart of the crisis could not have been marketed and sold without their seal of approval.”

The raters stamped AAA grades — the same as given to U.S. government debt — on what they should have known were junk mortgage securities in order to gain market share and win big fees. With the raters’ seal of approval, the country’s biggest banks gorged on this garbage. The results, as we now know, were catastrophic.


In short, you engage in the same Dog Whistle politics that the GOP has been engaging in since Tricky Dick. It was them poor people's fault!!!

Nope, it wasn't some middle class asshole buying a McMansion hoping to flip it in a couple of years, and the bank selling that undercapitalized loan as an investment. It was them poor people. You keep telling yourself that.

I am not walking anyting back, I simply got my bills mixed up. At any rate, you just aren't too smart. This article is about as idotic as the entire Democratic Party.

Even if we are to believe the liberal dribble about Republicans being greedy Wall Street folks, then in this case, it is the Republicans that were greedy but very smart and the Democrats that were sympathetic but very stupid. If that is the way you want to portray it then so be it. Republicans smart/greedy...Democrats dumb/generous.

 

[DBA]

You are very confused. "His" refers to Barney Frank, the Congressman. You need to read the article from the link. The stimulus, if you will, of the 2008 crash was a push by the Clinton administration to allow lower income folks to buy houses via the Community Reinvestment Act, which had been around for quite some time. Clinton pushed his HUD secretary to ramp up the social welfare program by providing incentives(higher credit ratings) and quotas to banks who complied with his more stringent requitements. Barney Frank had started this deregulation as far back as 1992, but as late as 2003 Barney said: "I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation toward subsidized housing." In short, the Democrats bleeding heart superseeded their brains and ultimately led to the finacial crisis. Some Republicans went along for the economic boom and the banks certainly took advantage, but we all know how the ball got started.

Except the CRA had nothing to do with it.

The economy didn't crash because a very few poor people qualified for loans.

It crashed because middle class people were buying McMansions they couldn't afford, hoping to flip them a couple years later. Banks NOT participating in CRA approved these questionable loans because they figured even if the borrowers defaulted, they'd have put a bunch of money into these buildings and they'd be able to resell them at a profit.

They sold these bad mortgages as "investments". Then the whole thing fell apart, because Dubya Bush's SEC was too busy watching porn on their computers.

The SEC Employees Watching Porn At Work Were Making Over $200,000/Year

No, it was Clinton's HUD secretary who changed the rules for the regulators of the CRA. LIke I said above, Democrats were either stupid, greedy or a little of both.

 

[DBA]

Nope. Exhoribitant taxes on the rich, bring back estate taxes... that's how we should pay for it.

Instead of trying to transorm American into the country YOU want, you should move. This is pure envy, nothing more. I never see any posts from you about how to get the lazy people in the country working. All I ever read is about how to take money from people that made it and giving it to those that didn't.

Estate taxes are nothing more than confiscation.

 

[Faun]

My definition of rich is well above what you make, however, in "Jesus-Land" as you call it, even someone with your income can live quite well.

No, nobody lives well in Jesus-land. You're surrounded by ignorant, inbred, bible-thumping morons... that would be pretty much Hell for anyone with an above room temperature IQ.

The other cool thing about "Jesus-Land" is that there are more people with morals, which not only makes day to day life more pleasurable, but also helps with business dealings. Who would have thunk it?

No, it just means they are hypocrites and assholes... As Mark Twain observed, "The one thing Jesus wouldn't be if he were here today is a Christian!"

The motivation should stem from the fact they can move up the ladder with hard work. With Socialism, there is very little motivation. The problem with many on the left is they want to complain about not making it but are unwilling to put forth the effort required to do so. They have figured out is is much easier to just sit back and complain in hopes that the government will take money away from those people who have decided to work too hard and give it to them.

Exceptional means not ordinary. While some are born with certain traits that make them exceptional(intelligence, athleticism, etc.), one can make a conscious choice to be exceptional. That may mean staying late and not leaving the office at 5:00 if there is still work to be done. It may mean helping co-workers who are behind when you are all caught up. It may mean taking the initiative and using any free time you have at work to do something productive for the benefit of the company, without direction from superiors. This is how one gets ahead. It works, but sadly, many are just too lazy. They would prefer to complain about their salary and look for handouts.

Funny thing. Did all those things. Those aren't the people who move ahead.

Do you know who moves ahead. They guy willing to stab his coworker in the back while sucking up to the boss. Lots of people who got to be "Managers" on their backs but couldn't manage their way out of a wet paper bag.

"My Boss is an Exceptional Genius" said no one in a working class bar, EVER!"

It honestly makes me wonder if you have any real experience in the working world.

Dodd-Frank blew up the economy. The Democrats wanted to artificially boost the housing market by issuing quotas for lower income households.

Holy fucking shit, did you just say this? How did Dodd Frank cause the RECESSION OF 2008 when it wasn't passed until 2009, AFTER THE CRASH? Did they catch a ride with Doctor Who?

I'm starting to wonder if you are in your 20's, and were too young to remember how the 2008 crash unfolded.

In 2008, Fannie-Mae and Freddie-Mac had quotas that required that 56% loans that had to be given to lower-income folks. They knew, or should have known, that in order to meet these quotas, loan requirements would have to be loosened.

2008 didn't happen because of Fannie Mae. It happened because Bear Sterns, Morgan Stanely, AIG and the rest of the private sector CROOKS took mortgages they knew were worthless and sold them as investments after outright LYING about their value.

Sure, the Chinese don't spend much on military stuff, right? Cheez. I would also like to point out the average Chinese standard of living. It sucks for a reason.

China spends nowhere near what we don on the military. In fact, you can take the next ten countries COMBINED military spending and they don't equal the US, and EIGHT of those countries are allies.

Tax cuts help everyone that gets them. The deregulation and corporate tax cuts from Trump is what has helped our economy as the spike can be easily correlated with these cuts.

No, they really can't be. Economies have crashed after Tax cuts (Like 1990 and 2008) and have improved after tax increases on the rich.

Holy fucking shit, did you just say this? How did Dodd Frank cause the RECESSION OF 2008 when it wasn't passed until 2009, AFTER THE CRASH? Did they catch a ride with Doctor Who?

I'm starting to wonder if you are in your 20's, and were too young to remember how the 2008 crash unfolded.

Sorry, it was the Community Reinvestment Act under Clinton. Either way, it was a Democrat that tanked the economy.

Kudlow: Are the Clintons the real housing crash villains?

Barney Frank's hands were all over it.

His most successful effort was to impose what were called "affordable housing" requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992. Before that time, these two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) had been required to buy only mortgages that institutional investors would buy--in other words, prime mortgages--but Frank and others thought these standards made it too difficult for low income borrowers to buy homes. The affordable housing law required Fannie and Freddie to meet government quotas when they bought loans from banks and other mortgage originators.

At first, this quota was 30%; that is, of all the loans they bought, 30% had to be made to people at or below the median income in their communities. HUD, however, was given authority to administer these quotas, and between 1992 and 2007, the quotas were raised from 30% to 50% under Clinton in 2000 and to 55% under Bush in 2007. Despite Frank's effort to make this seem like a partisan issue, it isn't. The Bush administration was just as guilty of this error as the Clinton administration. And Frank is right to say that he eventually saw his error and corrected it when he got the power to do so in 2007, but by then it was too late.

"His most successful effort was to impose what were called "affordable housing" requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992."

So now you're blaming GHW Bush??

My definition of rich is well above what you make, however, in "Jesus-Land" as you call it, even someone with your income can live quite well.

No, nobody lives well in Jesus-land. You're surrounded by ignorant, inbred, bible-thumping morons... that would be pretty much Hell for anyone with an above room temperature IQ.

The other cool thing about "Jesus-Land" is that there are more people with morals, which not only makes day to day life more pleasurable, but also helps with business dealings. Who would have thunk it?

No, it just means they are hypocrites and assholes... As Mark Twain observed, "The one thing Jesus wouldn't be if he were here today is a Christian!"

The motivation should stem from the fact they can move up the ladder with hard work. With Socialism, there is very little motivation. The problem with many on the left is they want to complain about not making it but are unwilling to put forth the effort required to do so. They have figured out is is much easier to just sit back and complain in hopes that the government will take money away from those people who have decided to work too hard and give it to them.

Exceptional means not ordinary. While some are born with certain traits that make them exceptional(intelligence, athleticism, etc.), one can make a conscious choice to be exceptional. That may mean staying late and not leaving the office at 5:00 if there is still work to be done. It may mean helping co-workers who are behind when you are all caught up. It may mean taking the initiative and using any free time you have at work to do something productive for the benefit of the company, without direction from superiors. This is how one gets ahead. It works, but sadly, many are just too lazy. They would prefer to complain about their salary and look for handouts.

Funny thing. Did all those things. Those aren't the people who move ahead.

Do you know who moves ahead. They guy willing to stab his coworker in the back while sucking up to the boss. Lots of people who got to be "Managers" on their backs but couldn't manage their way out of a wet paper bag.

"My Boss is an Exceptional Genius" said no one in a working class bar, EVER!"

It honestly makes me wonder if you have any real experience in the working world.

Dodd-Frank blew up the economy. The Democrats wanted to artificially boost the housing market by issuing quotas for lower income households.

Holy fucking shit, did you just say this? How did Dodd Frank cause the RECESSION OF 2008 when it wasn't passed until 2009, AFTER THE CRASH? Did they catch a ride with Doctor Who?

I'm starting to wonder if you are in your 20's, and were too young to remember how the 2008 crash unfolded.

In 2008, Fannie-Mae and Freddie-Mac had quotas that required that 56% loans that had to be given to lower-income folks. They knew, or should have known, that in order to meet these quotas, loan requirements would have to be loosened.

2008 didn't happen because of Fannie Mae. It happened because Bear Sterns, Morgan Stanely, AIG and the rest of the private sector CROOKS took mortgages they knew were worthless and sold them as investments after outright LYING about their value.

Sure, the Chinese don't spend much on military stuff, right? Cheez. I would also like to point out the average Chinese standard of living. It sucks for a reason.

China spends nowhere near what we don on the military. In fact, you can take the next ten countries COMBINED military spending and they don't equal the US, and EIGHT of those countries are allies.

Tax cuts help everyone that gets them. The deregulation and corporate tax cuts from Trump is what has helped our economy as the spike can be easily correlated with these cuts.

No, they really can't be. Economies have crashed after Tax cuts (Like 1990 and 2008) and have improved after tax increases on the rich.

Holy fucking shit, did you just say this? How did Dodd Frank cause the RECESSION OF 2008 when it wasn't passed until 2009, AFTER THE CRASH? Did they catch a ride with Doctor Who?

I'm starting to wonder if you are in your 20's, and were too young to remember how the 2008 crash unfolded.

Sorry, it was the Community Reinvestment Act under Clinton. Either way, it was a Democrat that tanked the economy.

Kudlow: Are the Clintons the real housing crash villains?

Barney Frank's hands were all over it.

His most successful effort was to impose what were called "affordable housing" requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992. Before that time, these two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) had been required to buy only mortgages that institutional investors would buy--in other words, prime mortgages--but Frank and others thought these standards made it too difficult for low income borrowers to buy homes. The affordable housing law required Fannie and Freddie to meet government quotas when they bought loans from banks and other mortgage originators.

At first, this quota was 30%; that is, of all the loans they bought, 30% had to be made to people at or below the median income in their communities. HUD, however, was given authority to administer these quotas, and between 1992 and 2007, the quotas were raised from 30% to 50% under Clinton in 2000 and to 55% under Bush in 2007. Despite Frank's effort to make this seem like a partisan issue, it isn't. The Bush administration was just as guilty of this error as the Clinton administration. And Frank is right to say that he eventually saw his error and corrected it when he got the power to do so in 2007, but by then it was too late.

"His most successful effort was to impose what were called "affordable housing" requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992."

So now you're blaming GHW Bush??

You are very confused. "His" refers to Barney Frank, the Congressman. You need to read the article from the link. The stimulus, if you will, of the 2008 crash was a push by the Clinton administration to allow lower income folks to buy houses via the Community Reinvestment Act, which had been around for quite some time. Clinton pushed his HUD secretary to ramp up the social welfare program by providing incentives(higher credit ratings) and quotas to banks who complied with his more stringent requitements. Barney Frank had started this deregulation as far back as 1992, but as late as 2003 Barney said: "I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation toward subsidized housing." In short, the Democrats bleeding heart superseeded their brains and ultimately led to the finacial crisis. Some Republicans went along for the economic boom and the banks certainly took advantage, but we all know how the ball got started.

Wait, what? So why do you blame a Congressman in 1992 while we had a Republican president with a Democrat; but in 1997, it now becomes the president's fault because then we had a Democrat president with a Republican president. Either the fault is with the Congress or it's with the president. Or both even. You switch out of political convenience.

Regardless, it doesn't matter. The CRA didn't cause the crash anyway.

The Community Reinvestment Act and the Recent Mortgage Crisis

Our analysis of the loan data found that about 60 percent of higher-priced loan originations went to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods. Such borrowers are not the populations targeted by the CRA. In addition, more than 20 percent of the higher-priced loans were extended to lower-income borrowers or borrowers in lower-income areas by independent nonbank institutions--that is, institutions not covered by the CRA.

Putting together these facts provides a striking result: Only 6 percent of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas, the local geographies that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation purposes. This result undermines the assertion by critics of the potential for a substantial role for the CRA in the subprime crisis. In other words, the very small share of all higher-priced loan originations that can reasonably be attributed to the CRA makes it hard to imagine how this law could have contributed in any meaningful way to the current subprime crisis.​

 

[NoVote]

Fucking tard maniacs are only in DC. Most of the nutsac's posting big bad boy talk are living in small towns in their mothers basement. I live in a leftard state in a moron leftard city and not a single tard here even cares who the president is. They are only tards the first week in November every other year and couldn't name the president today and don't even own guns. PPPPFFFFTTTT. If any civil war starts in DC it would be over the same day, long before the people here get home from work to watch reruns of Andy Griffith.

 

[Ernie S.]

It is perfectly legal to hire foreign nationals to do research that reveals dirt on opponents.
It is only illegal to get dirt for free that is not revealing criminal behavior that a president has the legal duty to investigate.
So it seems unlikely there is anything illegal about Trump investigating whether or not Hunter Biden committed a crime.

It's not legal for candidates to hire foreign nationals to gather dirt on rival candidates.

But it is when you have a TREATY SIGNED BY BLOW JOB HISSELF FOR EXACTLY THAT!!!....PAWNED AGAIN....ROTFLMFAO....YOU keep getting dumber....a symptom of TDS, UNDOUBTEDLY!!!!

DOH! Did You Know There's a Treaty Between the USA & Ukraine Regarding Cooperation ...
5 days ago · My goodness. It was passed when Joe Biden was a member of the U.S. Senate and then signed by then-President Bill Clinton

Dumbfuck, treaties don't allow candidates to break the law.

No quid pro quo and it was a conversation between 2 heads of State, not between a "candidate" and a foreign operative. I'm sure, if you read transcripts of President obama's conversations with foreign leaders while he was POTUS (and probably before and after) you would find similar favors asked and in the case of Joe Biden's conversations, quid pro quo was demanded.This is much ado about nothing and the world feel slightly embarrassed for the Democrat Party. This shit proves Democrats are irrational and incapable of competent leadership.

Quid pro quo is not a required element of the law in question. And despite being a "conversation between two heads of state," trump is still a candidate campaigning for an upcoming election and it's still illegal to solicit aid for his campaign from a foreign national.

Let me see if I have this straight... The PRESIDENT of the United States asked for cooperation from a foreign head of state about a possible conflict of interest involving a former Vice President and current candidate who essentially blackmailed The former head of this foreign state to quash an investigation involving a company run by a corrupt Minister of Ecology and Conservation with strong ties to the former Vice President's son, and this indicates to you corruption on the part of the current President. Do I have that right?

You sir, are insane. I'm at a loss to explain how incredible silly this whole investigation has been.
First, we waste a couple years investigating the President because of false allegations contained in a dossier compiled by a foreign agent and paid for by the Clinton campaign. The crux of the accusations was a connection between the Trump campaign and foreign agents with the only evidence came from papers paid for by the Clinton campaign and provided by foreign agents.
MY GOD, man!

 

[Faun]

It's not legal for candidates to hire foreign nationals to gather dirt on rival candidates.

But it is when you have a TREATY SIGNED BY BLOW JOB HISSELF FOR EXACTLY THAT!!!....PAWNED AGAIN....ROTFLMFAO....YOU keep getting dumber....a symptom of TDS, UNDOUBTEDLY!!!!

DOH! Did You Know There's a Treaty Between the USA & Ukraine Regarding Cooperation ...
5 days ago · My goodness. It was passed when Joe Biden was a member of the U.S. Senate and then signed by then-President Bill Clinton

Dumbfuck, treaties don't allow candidates to break the law.

No quid pro quo and it was a conversation between 2 heads of State, not between a "candidate" and a foreign operative. I'm sure, if you read transcripts of President obama's conversations with foreign leaders while he was POTUS (and probably before and after) you would find similar favors asked and in the case of Joe Biden's conversations, quid pro quo was demanded.This is much ado about nothing and the world feel slightly embarrassed for the Democrat Party. This shit proves Democrats are irrational and incapable of competent leadership.

Quid pro quo is not a required element of the law in question. And despite being a "conversation between two heads of state," trump is still a candidate campaigning for an upcoming election and it's still illegal to solicit aid for his campaign from a foreign national.

Let me see if I have this straight... The PRESIDENT of the United States asked for cooperation from a foreign head of state about a possible conflict of interest involving a former Vice President and current candidate who essentially blackmailed The former head of this foreign state to quash an investigation involving a company run by a corrupt Minister of Ecology and Conservation with strong ties to the former Vice President's son, and this indicates to you corruption on the part of the current President. Do I have that right?

You sir, are insane. I'm at a loss to explain how incredible silly this whole investigation has been.
First, we waste a couple years investigating the President because of false allegations contained in a dossier compiled by a foreign agent and paid for by the Clinton campaign. The crux of the accusations was a connection between the Trump campaign and foreign agents with the only evidence came from papers paid for by the Clinton campaign and provided by foreign agents.
MY GOD, man!

Because it's not legal to use foreign nations to eliminate political rivals in an election. It's not my problem you neither understand that or care that our president is inviting foreign nations to interfere with our elections.

 

[anynameyouwish]

Sorry, it was the Community Reinvestment Act under Clinton. Either way, it was a Democrat that tanked the economy.

1) Don't try to walk back your mistake. You blamed "Dodd-Frank" (a sensible response to Wall Street's abuses.

2) The CRA has been in effect since 1977 when Jimmy Carter signed it in response to banks "Redlining" black neighborhoods. It did not cause the crash.

Even the Banking Industry is not making that claim.

No, the CRA Did Not Cause the Financial Crisis - The Big Picture

Showing that the CRA wasn’t the cause of the financial crisis is rather easy. As Warren Buffett pal Charlie Munger says, “Invert, always invert.” In this case, let’s assume Moore and Kudlow are correct, and the CRA did require banks to lend to unqualified, low-income buyers. What would that world have looked like?

Here’s what we should have seen:

• Home sales and prices in urban, minority communities would have led the national home market higher, with gains in percentage terms surpassing national figures;
• CRA mandated loans would have defaulted at higher rates;
• Foreclosures in these distressed urban CRA neighborhoods should have far outpaced those in the suburbs;
• Local lenders making these mortgages should have failed at much higher rates;
• Portfolios of banks participating in the Troubled Asset Relief Program should have been filled with securities made up of toxic CRA loans;
• Investors looking to profit should have been buying up properties financed with defaulted CRA loans; and
• Congressional testimony of financial industry executives after the crisis should have spelled out how the CRA was a direct cause, with compelling evidence backing their claims.

Yet none of these things happened. And they should have, if the CRA was at fault. It’s no surprise that in congressional testimony, various experts were asked about the CRA — from former Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair to the Federal Reserve’sdirector of Consumer and Community Affairs — and none blamed the crisis on the CRA.

If that isn’t enough to dismiss the claim, consider this: Where did mortgages, especially subprime mortgages, default in large numbers?

It wasn’t Harlem, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit or any other poor, largely minority urban area covered by the CRA. No, the crisis was worst in Florida, Arizona, Nevada and California. Indeed, the vast majority of the housing collapse took place in the suburbs and exurbs, not the inner cities.

But if you really want to blame a CRA, I can offer you some help — check out the credit rating agencies. As the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission concluded in its autopsy of the crisis: “The three credit-rating agencies were key enablers of the financial meltdown. The mortgage-related securities at the heart of the crisis could not have been marketed and sold without their seal of approval.”

The raters stamped AAA grades — the same as given to U.S. government debt — on what they should have known were junk mortgage securities in order to gain market share and win big fees. With the raters’ seal of approval, the country’s biggest banks gorged on this garbage. The results, as we now know, were catastrophic.


In short, you engage in the same Dog Whistle politics that the GOP has been engaging in since Tricky Dick. It was them poor people's fault!!!

Nope, it wasn't some middle class asshole buying a McMansion hoping to flip it in a couple of years, and the bank selling that undercapitalized loan as an investment. It was them poor people. You keep telling yourself that.

I am not walking anyting back, I simply got my bills mixed up. At any rate, you just aren't too smart. This article is about as idotic as the entire Democratic Party.

Even if we are to believe the liberal dribble about Republicans being greedy Wall Street folks, then in this case, it is the Republicans that were greedy but very smart and the Democrats that were sympathetic but very stupid. If that is the way you want to portray it then so be it. Republicans smart/greedy...Democrats dumb/generous.

I would say Republicans are greedy, overly authoritative, overly punitive and dangerously theocratic who rely on DUMB voters.

Democrats are too socialist, too forgiving on crime, and they rely on DUMB voters.

Is there a third choice?

perhaps we call call it the PALATABLE Party

or the RATIONAL Party

 

[Dana7360]

Why do Democrats want violence?


<< Rolling Thunder Chief Predicts if Democrats Impeach Trump Bikers Will Descend on DC >>

It Will Be Ugly... Rolling Thunder Chief Predicts if Democrats Impeach Trump Bikers Will Descend on DC

I don't see any democrat threatening violence in your post.

I see republicans threatening it.

So you all will be violent if trump is impeached.

I highly doubt it. Most of you trump supporters are old, fat and lazy. The last thing you people are going to do is get off your fat butts to do anything beyond getting another beer.

So go ahead and threaten violence. It's nothing that we haven't experienced in the past.

We just laugh at you and how ridiculous you are.

 

[Dana7360]

More than Rolling Thunder shoud descend on DC. Active duty military should descend on DC

Naw, DC police can handle a few bikers.

Hell they may just join in, shitforbrains. Its not like you leftards have been making friends of law enforcement or the military for that matter. I know, we're all ah skered that you cream puffs are gonna light candles, whine and start swinging your purses.

Seriously? My office was in a complex a five-minute walk to the Pentagon. We had military offices right in our building. Having seen some of our military up close and the diversity that makes up the military, I doubt that they would march across the 14th St. bridge to go help the idiot in the White House. Those scary bikers probably would end up in the Potomac.

You're replying to a person who is so stupid that they don't know about the Posse Comitatus Act.

It's a waste of time to try to debate with a person who doesn't know it's illegal for our military to do any police action in the United States.

That person also is too stupid to know that it takes two to fight. While the geriatric bikers may show up, why would anyone who supports the rule of law and constitution show up to fight with a bunch of geriatric bikers? Maybe they plan to fight among themselves.

Whatever they plan to do, if they actually get off their old, fat butts, a bunch of bikers aren't going to incite violence especially if there's no one there to fight with.