Right vs. Left is Logic vs. Emotion

[JonKoch]

Ex-CIA chief John Brennan: Russians contacted Trump campaign
Ex-CIA chief John Brennan: Russians contacted Trump campaign - CNNPolitics.com


CIA director alerted FBI to pattern of contacts between Russian officials and Trump campaign associates


“I was worried by a number of the contacts that the Russians had with U.S. persons,” Brennan said, adding that he did not see proof of collusion before he left office on Jan. 20, but “felt as though the FBI investigation was certainly well-founded and needed to look into those issues.”





WAPO
CIA director alerted FBI to pattern of contacts between Russian officials and Trump campaign associates

No evidence of collusion or efforts to alter an election, in fact Hillary's acceptance of finances into her "foundation" from foreign government demonstrates a clear actual physical trail that goes well beyond just a face to face encounter with a foreign official. Financial contributions have a way of producing actual evidence, physical evidence that liberal democrats can't seem to find beyond having "met" someone. Likewise Obama must have been in collusion for simply facing foreign officials prior to his presidency. At least produce some actual evidence that places Trump in a different category from others who ran for the executive office, because these constant assumptions to conspire that is being produced are really pathetic. This is why I will get laughing emojis instead because they can't really say what makes Trump's case different from Hillary or any other politician, as well as the lack of a trail of physical evidence that was clearly evident through Mrs Clintons financial contributions from foreign nations which indictates actual conflict of interest to HER political position..

God thing there are investigations going on right cupcake?

Really I see no difference than the birther movements seeking Obama's impeachment, you can always find a fruit cake.

Yeah the "birther" movement based on RACE, whether he was born in US or not, he WAS a US citizen by his mother's birthright VS an INVESTIGATION (NOT IMPEACHMENT) into Russia's involvement in interfering with US elections and IF there were ties to the Cheeto campaign are the same right cupcake?

NOT like it's MUCH easier to show the GOP's YEARS LONG "investigation" on BJ Bill or Hilary/Obama "Bengazzzzzzi" investigations right?

Oh the little boy who cried wolf, isn't that cute. They just had to be nothing more than racist, right? Why? For all those cries of being labeled an "obstructionist", the "party of No!" they want nothing to do with helping THIS president. That "do nothing party" who said we need to put a stop to this administration and their agenda. He won't last to see another term. Does all that rhetoric sound all too familiar, maybe even Deja Vu perhaps? So who IIs the obstructionist? Who is that party of no!? We must resist!! Not my president!!! Yes, the claim that all this resistance just HAD to be because they were simply - racist. Don't make me laugh. Race has been over used... with every occasion that the left felt they were feeling some form of resistance to their agenda, because someone couldn't see as they do and share in the liberal view of government. Liberals simply begin to lose it and come undone under the pressure of political confrontation.

So now you are up in arms, with your little diaper pins, throwing your little Trump tantrums of impeachment (another familiar rhetoric tone because they had to be racist for even suggesting that of Obama- oh my God.) all this because you don't happen to like this particular choice for president. You don't like what he has planned for the direction of this nation. Well .. welcome to the other side of the fence there fruitcake. Oh, and if you want to see some ACTUAL examples of what racist rhetoric really sounds like, look to how liberal democrats treat an African American conservative. Liberals are such hypocrites, you'd think for all their criticisms and concerns they'd actually learn something and know better.

Sorry Cupcake your dodge about BIRTHERS WHICH WAS 100% RACIST TRIPE IS NOTED

Of course you could prove me wrong by showing me where the right wing nutjobs demanded Cheeto's birth cert too?

 

[JonKoch]

Sorry cupcake, I don't use ad hominems, I'm a liberal, no need to facts...

Oh the sweet irony of that statement...

"No need to facts" is the motto of every idiot progressive in the world.

Yes Cupcake keep ignoring how I demolished your right wing talking points on CRA/F-F Buttercup

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

So logic in your minds is
1. Dirty water, air and shitty standards on our food supply.
2. No regulations on the market place leading to explosive depressions every few years.
3. No education for anyone that doesn't have a few tens of thousand per year to pay for their child to go to school.
4. No investment into infrastructure be it water or roads.
5. Third world healthcare system

That my friend is right wing logic. They really do want to turn America into a third world country.

Actually education, and infrastructure are the responsibility of the state to be able to handle as part of their budget. If healthcare in the United States is so "third world", why exactly do so many other nations seek our specialized surgeons for rare advanced treatments over their own government provided health care system?? They are, as you say, "vastly superior" to handle such cases themselves. Regarding regulations - there were 3,853 of them passed under Obama in 2016 alone, What exactly are the environmental concerns that have been addressed among these 3,853? What can you say was missed among the 3,410 regulations signed by the Obama administration in 2015 that he had to create so much more in 2016? You say cutting regulations will hurt this nation but I bet you can't even name 100 - .just 3% among those recently passed regulations that's so vital to our country.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

No evidence of collusion or efforts to alter an election, in fact Hillary's acceptance of finances into her "foundation" from foreign government demonstrates a clear actual physical trail that goes well beyond just a face to face encounter with a foreign official. Financial contributions have a way of producing actual evidence, physical evidence that liberal democrats can't seem to find beyond having "met" someone. Likewise Obama must have been in collusion for simply facing foreign officials prior to his presidency. At least produce some actual evidence that places Trump in a different category from others who ran for the executive office, because these constant assumptions to conspire that is being produced are really pathetic. This is why I will get laughing emojis instead because they can't really say what makes Trump's case different from Hillary or any other politician, as well as the lack of a trail of physical evidence that was clearly evident through Mrs Clintons financial contributions from foreign nations which indictates actual conflict of interest to HER political position..

God thing there are investigations going on right cupcake?

Really I see no difference than the birther movements seeking Obama's impeachment, you can always find a fruit cake.

Yeah the "birther" movement based on RACE, whether he was born in US or not, he WAS a US citizen by his mother's birthright VS an INVESTIGATION (NOT IMPEACHMENT) into Russia's involvement in interfering with US elections and IF there were ties to the Cheeto campaign are the same right cupcake?

NOT like it's MUCH easier to show the GOP's YEARS LONG "investigation" on BJ Bill or Hilary/Obama "Bengazzzzzzi" investigations right?

Oh the little boy who cried wolf, isn't that cute. They just had to be nothing more than racist, right? Why? For all those cries of being labeled an "obstructionist", the "party of No!" they want nothing to do with helping THIS president. That "do nothing party" who said we need to put a stop to this administration and their agenda. He won't last to see another term. Does all that rhetoric sound all too familiar, maybe even Deja Vu perhaps? So who IIs the obstructionist? Who is that party of no!? We must resist!! Not my president!!! Yes, the claim that all this resistance just HAD to be because they were simply - racist. Don't make me laugh. Race has been over used... with every occasion that the left felt they were feeling some form of resistance to their agenda, because someone couldn't see as they do and share in the liberal view of government. Liberals simply begin to lose it and come undone under the pressure of political confrontation.

So now you are up in arms, with your little diaper pins, throwing your little Trump tantrums of impeachment (another familiar rhetoric tone because they had to be racist for even suggesting that of Obama- oh my God.) all this because you don't happen to like this particular choice for president. You don't like what he has planned for the direction of this nation. Well .. welcome to the other side of the fence there fruitcake. Oh, and if you want to see some ACTUAL examples of what racist rhetoric really sounds like, look to how liberal democrats treat an African American conservative. Liberals are such hypocrites, you'd think for all their criticisms and concerns they'd actually learn something and know better.

Sorry Cupcake your dodge about BIRTHERS WHICH WAS 100% RACIST TRIPE IS NOTED

Of course you could prove me wrong by showing me where the right wing nutjobs demanded Cheeto's birth cert too?

RACIST my ass, you couldn't even provide me three racist remarks within the last 8 years from a sitting republican in Congress. I have already said racism is the liberal cop out towards any political who doesn't share in their political ideological viewls. Don't worry fruitcake, I got your liberal racism approach pegged.

 

[Papageorgio]

Uh...no I didn't. Slyhunter asked you that in post #752. Are you finding it difficult to follow along in the thread?

Sorry Cupcake, didn't see you jumped into the thread but didn't add anything of value to it

When will you add some value to ANY thread?

You shouldn't pick your nose you stupid kid. Love how you attack others then cry like a baby when it is done in kind to you.

Sorry cupcake, I don't use ad hominems, I'm a liberal, no need to facts and history are on my side

More BS and more name calling, you really are a Regressive.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/---- Senate Dems may have gotten more votes because they came from Blue States with larger populations. That proves nothing. Here's some facts Spanky:
In Eight Years Barack Obama Has Obliterated the Democrat Party in ...
www.thegatewaypundit.com/.../eight-years-barack-obama-obliterated-democrat-party...
Nov 9, 2016 - In 2009 Democrats held 60 seats in the US Senate. ... Under President Obama, Democrats have lost 900+ state legislature seats, 12 .... Many of those precious little snowflakes have never had to work a job in their life, parents ...
Democrats lost over 1,000 seats under Obama | Fox News
www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/.../democrats-lost-over-1000-seats-under-obama.ht...
Dec 27, 2016 - The Democratic Party suffered huge losses at every level during Obama’s West Wing tenure. The grand total: a net loss of 1,042 state and federal Democratic posts, including congressional and state legislative seats, governorships and the presidency. ... Democratic U.S. Senate seats ...

Yes ignore the Cit United study as well as GOP gerrymandering memo cupcake. Typical righttard

Excuses excuses excuses

Socialism never has and never will make anyone's life better, but you can choose if you want. Just leave the rest of us out of it

US was Founded on socialism cupcake.....

The US was founded on a limited government, the preamble made it clear "to provide for the common defense and promote the common welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity". There is nothing stating the government would supply all of your needs, they believed in individual rights of the people, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Again, not the provision of needs towards dependency by a large empowering government over the people you are hard pressed to find facts the clearly dictate the Founders views and intention for a socialist form of government.

Good thing the Founders got rid of that "limited: states thing called the Articles of Confederation and went for the BIG FEDERAL GOV'T CONSTITUTION, WHERE THEY PUT THAT "GENERAL WELFARE" CLAUSE IN RIGHT CUPCAKE?


"All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it." Ben Franklin



BUT YOU MORONS KEEP UP YOUR FALSE PREMISES BUTTERCUP



GOV'T SHOULD LIFT THE WEAKEST UP, BY ALL MEANS NECESSARY!!!

/---- Not so fast Cupcake:
The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."[3][4]

The Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5][6]Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5][7] but a qualification on the taxing power[5][8][9] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[5][10][11] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[5] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[12]

These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government.[13]

 

[RealDave]

It's logical for Repugs to support the traitor Trump who loves Russia more than his own country? That's a head-scratcher.

The real head scratcher is how we can run three independent investigations, believe in the significance of establishing a senate judiciary and house intelligence committee to handle investigations impartially by demanding an independent investigation, all because democrats trust a news story to be honest in its conclusions over the lack of any evidence producing a crime in the first place.

I believe most of us are familiar with the consequences in starting search parties and using state resources over intensionally, misleading, or false information, I can easily see the same accountability parallel being concluded here surrounding certain newspaper publications. The same penalties ought to apply in the case of intentionally piecing together, reporting falsified or misleading claims, and allowing such strong accusations to be published resulting in the waste of taxpayer dollars. Let these media sources be held responsible for such actions. Flip the investigation around that places the newspaper or media outlet in the hot seat, if such reporting is deemed to have occurred.

Ex-CIA chief John Brennan: Russians contacted Trump campaign
Ex-CIA chief John Brennan: Russians contacted Trump campaign - CNNPolitics.com


CIA director alerted FBI to pattern of contacts between Russian officials and Trump campaign associates


“I was worried by a number of the contacts that the Russians had with U.S. persons,” Brennan said, adding that he did not see proof of collusion before he left office on Jan. 20, but “felt as though the FBI investigation was certainly well-founded and needed to look into those issues.”





WAPO
CIA director alerted FBI to pattern of contacts between Russian officials and Trump campaign associates

No evidence of collusion or efforts to alter an election, in fact Hillary's acceptance of finances into her "foundation" from foreign government demonstrates a clear actual physical trail that goes well beyond just a face to face encounter with a foreign official. Financial contributions have a way of producing actual evidence, physical evidence that liberal democrats can't seem to find beyond having "met" someone. Likewise Obama must have been in collusion for simply facing foreign officials prior to his presidency. At least produce some actual evidence that places Trump in a different category from others who ran for the executive office, because these constant assumptions to conspire that is being produced are really pathetic. This is why I will get laughing emojis instead because they can't really say what makes Trump's case different from Hillary or any other politician, as well as the lack of a trail of physical evidence that was clearly evident through Mrs Clintons financial contributions from foreign nations which indictates actual conflict of interest to HER political position..

Actually, there is evidence that Russia interfered in our elections.

The Clinton Foundation is a charity & the Clintons take o money from it. Agent Orange does get foreign monies in his pocket every day from his business interests overseas.

Neither Obama nor Clinton had people lying about Russian contacts.

In response to your reply regarding Clinton "lying", Mrs Clinton only needed to meet privately at a tarmac regarding her investigation in seeking to get herself cleared.

Regarding Russia collusion:
As quoted among those involved in the investigation.

SOURCE 1
CNN’S WOLF BLITZER: “The last time we spoke, Senator, I asked you if you had actually seen evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, and you said to me -- and I am quoting you now -- you said, ‘not at this time.’ Has anything changed since we spoke last?”


SEN. FEINSTEIN: “Well, no -- no, it hasn't. …”


BLITZER: “But, I just want to be precise, Senator. In all of the -- you have had access from the Intelligence Committee, from the Judiciary Committee, all of the access you have had to very sensitive information, so far you have not seen any evidence of collusion, is that right?”


SEN. FEINSTEIN: “Well, evidence that would establish that there's collusion. There are all kinds of rumors around, there are newspaper stories, but that's not necessarily evidence.”


Feinstein: Still No Evidence Of Trump Camp-Russia Collusion


SOURCE 2 There Remains No Evidence Of Trump-Russia Collusion


SOURCE 3
"President Obama's former director of national intelligence and his former acting CIA director have both said they have seen no evidence of collusion," the official said. "Clapper repeated his assertion today."

The official also pointed to statements from some Democrats who said they had not seen evidence of collusion either.

White House highlights Clapper's lack of evidence on Trump-Russia collusion - CNNPolitics.com

After nearly 5 months of looking into this, it seems rather apparent that these are the only resulting Facts.

Mrs Clinton met who on the tarmac?

How do you find evidence of a collusion if you don't investigate? YOur sorcres did say there wass enough evidence for an investigation.

 

[RealDave]

So logic in your minds is
1. Dirty water, air and shitty standards on our food supply.
2. No regulations on the market place leading to explosive depressions every few years.
3. No education for anyone that doesn't have a few tens of thousand per year to pay for their child to go to school.
4. No investment into infrastructure be it water or roads.
5. Third world healthcare system

That my friend is right wing logic. They really do want to turn America into a third world country.

Actually education, and infrastructure are the responsibility of the state to be able to handle as part of their budget. If healthcare in the United States is so "third world", why exactly do so many other nations seek our specialized surgeons for rare advanced treatments over their own government provided health care system?? They are, as you say, "vastly superior" to handle such cases themselves. Regarding regulations - there were 3,853 of them passed under Obama in 2016 alone, What exactly are the environmental concerns that have been addressed among these 3,853? What can you say was missed among the 3,410 regulations signed by the Obama administration in 2015 that he had to create so much more in 2016? You say cutting regulations will hurt this nation but I bet you can't even name 100 - .just 3% among those recently passed regulations that's so vital to our country.

Education is a matter of national security. Years ago, I had a National Defense Loan to help pay for college. In is our country's best interest to produce well educated citizens. I see no problem with the federal government setting guidelines & helping fund projects.

I like of federal highway system. Its great to know that when the interstate highway I am traveling on does not end at the State line. Again, it is a matter of national security & one reason why it was built in the first place.

The problem with our healthcare system is no quality. It is access for all. No one said it was third world country.

AS for regulations, it is good to protect our waterways & air. It is good to keep Wall Street from not giving us yet another near financial meltdown. New regulations stem from extending existing regulations like requiting clean streams along with clean rivers. New regulations stem from growing technology. New regulations stem from blocking all the ways corporations get around existing regulations.

More often than not, a new regulation is created because some person or some country has found a new way to do harm to someone or our environment or country.

 

[P@triot]

HALF OF AMERICA MAKES 11% OF ALL WAGES, ABOUT HALF OF WHAT THE TOP 1% "JOPB CREATORS" MAKE BUTTERCUP

Is there a point in there somewhere?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Harding/Coolidge 'believed in' laizze affaie economies, brought US the GOP great depression

Snowflake...Dumbocrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt oversaw The Great Depression. And even left-wing UCLA is on record stating that his idiotic left-wing policies prolonged it (as did his own Secretary of Treasury - Henry Morgenthau Jr.).

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate

Misguided government policies prolonged Great Depression

It must really suck to see all of these left-wing people and institutions obliterating every idiotic belief you had about the left-wing ideology. I know the MIT atmospheric physicist really made you lose your shit earlier, this stuff should cause you to need immediate psychiatric hospitalization.

'We're Spending More Than Ever and It Doesn't Work'

When did the Great Depression begin? And when was FDR elected? The only mistake made was FDR not spending enough for long enough. As soon as we did (WWII) good bye Great Depression.

Dumbass, the federal government can't spend their way to sustain an economy and then think they will generate enough tax revenue on the back end to hopefully break even, that's not how the economic works.

 

[P@triot]

Sorry cupcake, I don't use ad hominems, I'm a liberal, no need to facts...

Oh the sweet irony of that statement...

"No need to facts" is the motto of every idiot progressive in the world.

Your editing noted Cupcake

Snowflake....I didn't edit anything. Your dumb ass literally wrote "I'm a liberal, no need to facts".

That's called "Freudian Slip". It's when one accidentally says what they truly believe and are thinking at the moment.

 

[P@triot]

Harding/Coolidge 'believed in' laizze affaie economies, brought US the GOP great depression

Snowflake...Dumbocrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt oversaw The Great Depression. And even left-wing UCLA is on record stating that his idiotic left-wing policies prolonged it (as did his own Secretary of Treasury - Henry Morgenthau Jr.).

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate

Misguided government policies prolonged Great Depression

It must really suck to see all of these left-wing people and institutions obliterating every idiotic belief you had about the left-wing ideology. I know the MIT atmospheric physicist really made you lose your shit earlier, this stuff should cause you to need immediate psychiatric hospitalization.

'We're Spending More Than Ever and It Doesn't Work'

Oh got it Cupcake, I forgot the guy elected late 1932 was responsible for Harding/Coolidges 1929 crash *shaking head*

Crashes happen. Black Monday was catastrophic under Ronald Reagan. The difference is, Reagan's policy made Tuesday just fine, while FDR's idiotic left-wing socialism made a decade of misery called The Great Depression.

UCLA admits it. FDR's own Secretary of the Treasury - Henry Morgenthau Jr. - admits it. Speaks volumes that you can't, even in the face of facts.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

We know how you fascists hate choice - but that's how it goes.

Got it buttercup, it's "choices" why the Cheeto/GOP "health care reform" (aka tax cuts for the rich), strips 23 million from health insurance???

How does tax cuts for the rich strip anyone else of anything? That's only possible if those people are parasites mooching off of the wealthy. And if they are doing that - they deserve to lose anything they are taking.

Got it Cupcake, you're not only a liar, you're ignorant too

HINT Tax cuts for the rich WITHOUT cutting spending (or as Ronnie/Dubya did, EXPLODING spending) creates debts dumb*ss

You do realize Newt Gingrich and the republicans ran Congress under President Clinton, don't you? As well as the republicans took control of the purse strings and stopped the wasted endless federal extensions after democrats spent $820 billion dollar stimulus that only resulted in the slowest economic growth in 30 years.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards.

Private lenders would never make risky loans if their ass was on the line for the loans. That's the beauty of pure capitalism - it flawlessly balances itself. It was only because Bill Clinton's idiotic 1997 Community Re-Investment Act forced banks to make loans they previously wouldn't make - and then incentivized them to make extremely risky loans by backing them up with Freddie and Fannie - that the housing market collapsed.

That's a fact. Collapse is what happens every time the government interferes in the private sector. But you don't care because you're only interested in government handouts like a typical selfish, greedy, progressive.

Ignore reality Cupcake


"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.




Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them.


THANKS TO THE "INNOVATION CUPCAKE, THEY BUNDLED AND SOLD THOSE LOANS OFF. Keep up your BS meme on F/F, CRA, etc


The banks have known for 30 years the risks involved on the loan products they sold. This is why they lobbied so hard to allow them to sell the bad products to investors so they would not be holding the bad paper or the risks.


The developed the products like stated income stated assets then bundled them to make it appear they were blended risks and then sold them to multiple investors.


Who bought these high risk loans? Mostly pension funds and Insurances seeking higher returns who lost almost half of the pension funds value and the public that depended on those funds for retirement.




Nobody forced the big five investment banks to do what they did; they were not subject to CRA or other regulations common to depository banks. In fact, they mainly bought and sold loans rather than originate them. They did it because they thought they would make money.


WORLD WIDE SUBPRIME BUBBLE CUPCAKE, ONE CHEERED ON BY DUBYA IN THE USA

FACTS on Dubya's great recession

Another liberal just crying to be educated. You need to layoff on the MSNBC and CNN and actually do some research before you start feed off their BS like a lost sheep. Let me share some facts with you fruitcake and perhaps you will walk out of here actually learning something from actual research.



Up until 1995 the Community Reinvestment Act was largely a requirement to support "community groups" in poor neighborhoods. ... But after 1995 the scope of the law was dramatically increased.

Over the strenuous objections of the banks themselves and some Republicans in Congress, CRA was renewed and modified in such a way that it gave far more power to the federal government to punish banks for not lending more widely in poor neighborhoods. The classic "fair housing" laws from the Martin Luther King Jr. era of civil rights were deemed insufficient. ... Subprime loans to minority applicants exploded ten fold in the mid-1990s as a result. ...[/Color]


Under New Deal-era regulatory rules of Glass-Steagall, commercial banks and investment banks were separated. When that act was repealed as part of banking deregulation in 1999, commercial banks and investment banks were able to merge, subject to approval by regulators.


However, the banks' CRA rating was taken into account in the decision. This meant that a high CRA rating became an important prerequisite for mergers, which increased the pressure on the banks to make these risky loans. The banks also were given permission to put these loans into packages of securities that could then be sold into investment markets.


Economist's View: Yet Again, It Wasn't the Community Reinvestment Act...



The government document letter outlining the changes:


Federal Reserve Board: Merger Process Needs Guidelines for Community Reinvestment Issues

( letter report 9/24/1999 GAO/GGD-99-180 )


In 1993, the Clinton Administration instructed the federal bank regulators to revise the CRA regulations by moving from a process- and paperwork-based system to a performance-based system focusing on results, especially the results in LMI areas of an institution's communities. Based on these instructions, the federal banking agencies replaced the qualitative CRA examination system with a more quantitative system that is based on actual performance.

( PAGE 4 )


After the performance-based CRA regulations were issued in 1995, FFIEC published Interagency Questions and Answers regarding Community Reinvestment in 1997 and 1999. The 1989 statement was withdrawn effective April 5, 1999, and replaced by the Interagency Questions and Answers regarding Community Reinvestment.13 The 1989 Statement, which was in effect during the mergers contained in our study, including guidance on the following issues: * the basic components of an effective CRA policy, * the role of examination reports on CRA performance in reviewing applications, * the need for periodic review and documentation by financial institutions of their CRA performance, and * the role of commitments in assessing and institution's performance. Most notably, the regulators concluded in the Statement that the CRA record of the institution, as reflected in its examination reports, would be given great weight in the application process. In the Interagency Questions and Answers for 1999, the regulators continued to stress the significants of the CRA examination in the application process, and they stated the examination is an important, and often controlling, factor in the consideration of an institution's record. 14 According to the 1989 Statement, the CRA examination is not conclusive evidence in the face of significant and supported allegations from a commenter. Moreover, the balance may be shifted further when the examination is not recent or the particular issue raised in the 13 Questions and Answers regarding Community Reinvestment, 64 Fed. Reg. 23618-23648 (1999). 14 64 Fed. Reg. at 23641. GAO/GGD-99-180

(Page 9)


Guidelines for Community of Reinvestment Issues B-280468 application preceding was not addressed in the examination. During the development of the performance-based CRA regulations, a number of commenters expressed concern that the regulators may provide a "safe harbor" to depository institutions from challenges to their CRA performance record in the application process if they achieved an outstanding CRA rating. However, in the preamble of the 1995 final rule on the CRA regulations, the regulators reconfirmed the importance of the public comments in the applications process by acknowledging that materials related to CRA performance received during the applications process can and do provide relevant and valuable information.

Federal Reserve Board: Merger Process Needs Guidelines for



"It was not the banks that created the mortgage crisis. It was, plain and simple, Congress who forced everybody to go and give mortgages to people who were on the cusp. Now, I'm not saying I'm sure that was terrible policy, because a lot of those people who got homes still have them and they wouldn't have gotten them without that."

"But they were the ones who pushed Fannie and Freddie to make a bunch of loans that were imprudent, if you will. They were the ones that pushed the banks to loan to everybody. And now we want to go vilify the banks because it's one target, it's easy to blame them and congress certainly isn't going to blame themselves. At the same time, Congress is trying to pressure banks to loosen their lending standards to make more loans. This is exactly the same speech they criticized them for."

Bloomberg: 'Plain and simple,' Congress caused the mortgage crisis, not the banks | Capital New York

 

[P@triot]

True cupcake, and we ALL know Detroit was an island of itself...

 

[P@triot]

Here is the idiotic emotion of the left-wing ideology...

 

[P@triot]

Another perfect example of the idiotic emotion behind the left-wing ideology...

 

[JonKoch]

God thing there are investigations going on right cupcake?

Really I see no difference than the birther movements seeking Obama's impeachment, you can always find a fruit cake.

Yeah the "birther" movement based on RACE, whether he was born in US or not, he WAS a US citizen by his mother's birthright VS an INVESTIGATION (NOT IMPEACHMENT) into Russia's involvement in interfering with US elections and IF there were ties to the Cheeto campaign are the same right cupcake?

NOT like it's MUCH easier to show the GOP's YEARS LONG "investigation" on BJ Bill or Hilary/Obama "Bengazzzzzzi" investigations right?

Oh the little boy who cried wolf, isn't that cute. They just had to be nothing more than racist, right? Why? For all those cries of being labeled an "obstructionist", the "party of No!" they want nothing to do with helping THIS president. That "do nothing party" who said we need to put a stop to this administration and their agenda. He won't last to see another term. Does all that rhetoric sound all too familiar, maybe even Deja Vu perhaps? So who IIs the obstructionist? Who is that party of no!? We must resist!! Not my president!!! Yes, the claim that all this resistance just HAD to be because they were simply - racist. Don't make me laugh. Race has been over used... with every occasion that the left felt they were feeling some form of resistance to their agenda, because someone couldn't see as they do and share in the liberal view of government. Liberals simply begin to lose it and come undone under the pressure of political confrontation.

So now you are up in arms, with your little diaper pins, throwing your little Trump tantrums of impeachment (another familiar rhetoric tone because they had to be racist for even suggesting that of Obama- oh my God.) all this because you don't happen to like this particular choice for president. You don't like what he has planned for the direction of this nation. Well .. welcome to the other side of the fence there fruitcake. Oh, and if you want to see some ACTUAL examples of what racist rhetoric really sounds like, look to how liberal democrats treat an African American conservative. Liberals are such hypocrites, you'd think for all their criticisms and concerns they'd actually learn something and know better.

Sorry Cupcake your dodge about BIRTHERS WHICH WAS 100% RACIST TRIPE IS NOTED

Of course you could prove me wrong by showing me where the right wing nutjobs demanded Cheeto's birth cert too?

RACIST my ass, you couldn't even provide me three racist remarks within the last 8 years from a sitting republican in Congress. I have already said racism is the liberal cop out towards any political who doesn't share in their political ideological viewls. Don't worry fruitcake, I got your liberal racism approach pegged.

Congress huh Buttercup?

BITE ME

 

[JonKoch]

Yes ignore the Cit United study as well as GOP gerrymandering memo cupcake. Typical righttard

Excuses excuses excuses

Socialism never has and never will make anyone's life better, but you can choose if you want. Just leave the rest of us out of it

US was Founded on socialism cupcake.....

The US was founded on a limited government, the preamble made it clear "to provide for the common defense and promote the common welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity". There is nothing stating the government would supply all of your needs, they believed in individual rights of the people, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Again, not the provision of needs towards dependency by a large empowering government over the people you are hard pressed to find facts the clearly dictate the Founders views and intention for a socialist form of government.

Good thing the Founders got rid of that "limited: states thing called the Articles of Confederation and went for the BIG FEDERAL GOV'T CONSTITUTION, WHERE THEY PUT THAT "GENERAL WELFARE" CLAUSE IN RIGHT CUPCAKE?


"All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it." Ben Franklin



BUT YOU MORONS KEEP UP YOUR FALSE PREMISES BUTTERCUP



GOV'T SHOULD LIFT THE WEAKEST UP, BY ALL MEANS NECESSARY!!!

/---- Not so fast Cupcake:
The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."[3][4]

The Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5][6]Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5][7] but a qualification on the taxing power[5][8][9] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[5][10][11] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[5] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[12]

These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government.[13]

Yet the General Welfare clause has been used to get US SS, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, etc. Go figure Cupcake

 

[JonKoch]

HALF OF AMERICA MAKES 11% OF ALL WAGES, ABOUT HALF OF WHAT THE TOP 1% "JOPB CREATORS" MAKE BUTTERCUP

Is there a point in there somewhere?

Your dodge on YOUR LIE about Dubya cheering on the Banksters in their Subprime housing bubble noted Cupcake