Right vs. Left is Logic vs. Emotion

[danielpalos]

Yes, Jefferson the Republican was "full of propaganda and rhetoric".

Folks...if you want to know how radicalized and bat-shit crazy the left has become - just look at danielpalos post here. Jefferson was the architect behind our entire structure of government. You comment is as idiotic as proclaiming that Albert Einstein was "full of propaganda" about creating his Theory of Relativity.

Dumb ass.

so what; he was a Republican, afterward.

No, snowflake. Like almost all of the founders (save for a few nut jobs like Alexander Hamilton), what Thomas Jefferson was, was a small-government conservative.

If the General Welfare clause meant what you LWNJ's claim it means, the federal government would literally have unlimited power. They would be able to murder citizens, strip 1st Amendment rights, strip 2nd Amendment rights, sterilize citizens, and a whole lot more - all they would have to do is declare that those actions were "for the general welfare" of the people and the United States.

Yes...that really is how stupid your argument is and how stupid LWNJ's are.

He was a republican and claimed to subscribe to the republican doctrine.

And, y'all have nothing but red herrings. the common Defense does imply unlimited common offense spending.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, Jefferson the Republican was "full of propaganda and rhetoric".

Folks...if you want to know how radicalized and bat-shit crazy the left has become - just look at danielpalos post here. Jefferson was the architect behind our entire structure of government. You comment is as idiotic as proclaiming that Albert Einstein was "full of propaganda" about creating his Theory of Relativity.

Dumb ass.

so what; he was a Republican, afterward.

No, snowflake. Like almost all of the founders (save for a few nut jobs like Alexander Hamilton), what Thomas Jefferson was, was a small-government conservative.

If the General Welfare clause meant what you LWNJ's claim it means, the federal government would literally have unlimited power. They would be able to murder citizens, strip 1st Amendment rights, strip 2nd Amendment rights, sterilize citizens, and a whole lot more - all they would have to do is declare that those actions were "for the general welfare" of the people and the United States.

Yes...that really is how stupid your argument is and how stupid LWNJ's are.

The only thing the left know about the US Constitution is that was written by a bunch of slave owners who are now dead.

some on the left, actually understand the federal Doctrine.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Yes, Jefferson the Republican was "full of propaganda and rhetoric".

Folks...if you want to know how radicalized and bat-shit crazy the left has become - just look at danielpalos post here. Jefferson was the architect behind our entire structure of government. You comment is as idiotic as proclaiming that Albert Einstein was "full of propaganda" about creating his Theory of Relativity.

Dumb ass.

so what; he was a Republican, afterward.

No, snowflake. Like almost all of the founders (save for a few nut jobs like Alexander Hamilton), what Thomas Jefferson was, was a small-government conservative.

If the General Welfare clause meant what you LWNJ's claim it means, the federal government would literally have unlimited power. They would be able to murder citizens, strip 1st Amendment rights, strip 2nd Amendment rights, sterilize citizens, and a whole lot more - all they would have to do is declare that those actions were "for the general welfare" of the people and the United States.

Yes...that really is how stupid your argument is and how stupid LWNJ's are.

The only thing the left know about the US Constitution is that was written by a bunch of slave owners who are now dead.

some on the left, actually understand the federal Doctrine.

What's Federal law taking precedent over State and local laws have to do with leftists giving so little time and money to charity?

 

[danielpalos]

Folks...if you want to know how radicalized and bat-shit crazy the left has become - just look at danielpalos post here. Jefferson was the architect behind our entire structure of government. You comment is as idiotic as proclaiming that Albert Einstein was "full of propaganda" about creating his Theory of Relativity.

Dumb ass.

so what; he was a Republican, afterward.

No, snowflake. Like almost all of the founders (save for a few nut jobs like Alexander Hamilton), what Thomas Jefferson was, was a small-government conservative.

If the General Welfare clause meant what you LWNJ's claim it means, the federal government would literally have unlimited power. They would be able to murder citizens, strip 1st Amendment rights, strip 2nd Amendment rights, sterilize citizens, and a whole lot more - all they would have to do is declare that those actions were "for the general welfare" of the people and the United States.

Yes...that really is how stupid your argument is and how stupid LWNJ's are.

The only thing the left know about the US Constitution is that was written by a bunch of slave owners who are now dead.

some on the left, actually understand the federal Doctrine.

What's Federal law taking precedent over State and local laws have to do with leftists giving so little time and money to charity?

Only in certain Things; the general government has no actual police power within the sovereign States, but for federal obligations. States are not districts or territories.

 

[Weatherman2020]

so what; he was a Republican, afterward.

No, snowflake. Like almost all of the founders (save for a few nut jobs like Alexander Hamilton), what Thomas Jefferson was, was a small-government conservative.

If the General Welfare clause meant what you LWNJ's claim it means, the federal government would literally have unlimited power. They would be able to murder citizens, strip 1st Amendment rights, strip 2nd Amendment rights, sterilize citizens, and a whole lot more - all they would have to do is declare that those actions were "for the general welfare" of the people and the United States.

Yes...that really is how stupid your argument is and how stupid LWNJ's are.

The only thing the left know about the US Constitution is that was written by a bunch of slave owners who are now dead.

some on the left, actually understand the federal Doctrine.

What's Federal law taking precedent over State and local laws have to do with leftists giving so little time and money to charity?

Only in certain Things; the general government has no actual police power within the sovereign States, but for federal obligations. States are not districts or territories.

And how is that relevant to the agenda of the left being based upon feelings?

 

[danielpalos]

No, snowflake. Like almost all of the founders (save for a few nut jobs like Alexander Hamilton), what Thomas Jefferson was, was a small-government conservative.

If the General Welfare clause meant what you LWNJ's claim it means, the federal government would literally have unlimited power. They would be able to murder citizens, strip 1st Amendment rights, strip 2nd Amendment rights, sterilize citizens, and a whole lot more - all they would have to do is declare that those actions were "for the general welfare" of the people and the United States.

Yes...that really is how stupid your argument is and how stupid LWNJ's are.

The only thing the left know about the US Constitution is that was written by a bunch of slave owners who are now dead.

some on the left, actually understand the federal Doctrine.

What's Federal law taking precedent over State and local laws have to do with leftists giving so little time and money to charity?

Only in certain Things; the general government has no actual police power within the sovereign States, but for federal obligations. States are not districts or territories.

And how is that relevant to the agenda of the left being based upon feelings?

i don't resort to fallacy as often as the more fantastical, right wing.

"hate on the poor" lately with nothing but "emotion"?

 

[P@triot]

And, y'all have nothing but red herrings. the common Defense does imply unlimited common offense spending.

A. The best defense is a good offense

B. The U.S. Constitution makes defense the responsibility of the federal government. That means Congress is authorized with establishing their budget. If they decide the budget is unlimited, so be it.

C. The Department of Defense has never had an unlimited budget

D. You continue to embarrass yourself using the term "red herring". You literally do not know how to use it properly

 

[P@triot]

The only thing the left know about the US Constitution is that was written by a bunch of slave owners who are now dead.

some on the left, actually understand the federal Doctrine.

And by "some" he means a grand total of 21....19 of which are already dead.

 

[P@triot]

What's Federal law taking precedent over State and local laws have to do with leftists giving so little time and money to charity?

I always enjoy watching the Weatherman obliterate left-wing idiocy on this board!

 

[P@triot]

Only in certain Things; the general government has no actual police power within the sovereign States, but for federal obligations. States are not districts or territories.

Well no shit. Who has argued otherwise? Immigration is a federal responsibility - so the federal government has every right to chase down illegal aliens in all 50 states and deport them.

 

[JonKoch]

St. Jude's is wonderful, but I did not know it was 100% a conservative organization. No leftists are allowed to contribute, huh? I thought it was a Mason's hospital. Am I confusing it with another one?

We all know the left hardly give anything to charity, study after study shows it. You playing stupid simply shows your level of involvement.

Are you kidding. Red states are charity cases. They soak the money from money making Blue states.

Republicans give an old can of creamed corn to some church and talk about all the charity they give.

Democrats invest in college scholarships which isn't counted a charity. Because Democrats don't want charity. They want jobs. Republicans want food stamps and welfare.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." That's' what Democrats believe.

Republicans: F*ck 'em. Let him die. But give him that can of cream corn first so we can pretend we are charitable.

More left wing claptrap void of any facts.

Poorer conservatives more generous than wealthy liberals – new study

Surprise! Conservatives are more generous than liberals

Who’s More Generous, Liberals or Conservatives?

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers

Debunking the "Conservatives Give More to Charity" Myth



Since the publication of Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism

it has become common for conservatives to say they give more to charity than liberals. Many, many conservatives have cited the book I just linked to for support.

However, that book is just wrong. A recent MIT study countered it finding:

In this paper, we first show that conservatives and liberals are equally generous in their donation habits. This pattern holds at both the individual and state level, and contradicts the conventional wisdom that partisans differ in their generosity. Second, we show that while levels of giving are roughly equivalent, liberals are much more likely to donate to secular organizations, and conservatives are more likely to donate to religious causes, especially their own congregation.


However, there is another issue to address which is: what to count as charity? All of these studies use the IRS definition of "charity" rather than the biblical definition. In the bible, God defines charity as giving to the needy without receiving, or expecting to receive, anything in return. Most "charity" conservatives give is in the form of tithes to their church. The vast majority of that money goes to salaries and building expenses -- for people and buildings that provide the giver with services. A tiny, miniscule fraction goes to the poor and needy.

So, in actuality, it seems that liberals give quite a bit more to biblical charity than conservatives.


Debunking the "Conservatives Give More to Charity" Myth

From your link: "At the individual level, the large bivariate relationship between giving and conservatism vanishes after adjusting for differences in income and religiosity."

So simply remove everyone of faith from the data and bingo! Leftists then give an equal share to charity.

Obama before he ran for President gave less than 1% to charity, and those were political groups. Biden even after becoming VP still only gave a few hundred a year.

Sorry Cupcake which side is "considered" more religious again?

In this paper, we first show that conservatives and liberals are equally generous in their donation habits. This pattern holds at both the individual and state level, and contradicts the conventional wisdom that partisans differ in their generosity. Second, we show that while levels of giving are roughly equivalent, liberals are much more likely to donate to secular organizations, and conservatives are more likely to donate to religious causes, especially their own congregation.


THE FULL QUOTE THOUGH BUTTERCUP:

"In this paper, we argue against the conventional wisdom that political conservatives are inherently more generous toward private charities than liberals. At the individual level, the large bivariate relationship between giving and conservatism vanishes after adjusting for differences in income and religiosity. At the state level, we find no evidence of a relationship between charitable giving and Republican presidential voteshare. Finally, we show that any remaining differences in giving are an artifact of Republicans' greater propensity to give to religious causes, particularly their own church. Taken together, our results counter the notion that political conservatives compensate for their opposition to governmental intervention by supporting private charities."

Who Really Gives? Partisanship and Charitable Giving in the United States by Michele Margolis, Michael Sances :: SSRN

 

[P@triot]

"hate on the poor" lately with nothing but "emotion"?

And once again danielpalos proves the premise of this thread. If someone uses logic and reason, studies history and facts, and deduces that socialism is unsustainable and a failed ideology, the left screams "you hate the poor"!

Emotional meltdown. They know that socialism is a failed ideology, but it feels good (and they also don't want to have to support themselves - hands out feel good to them as well).

 

[JonKoch]

Are you kidding. Red states are charity cases. They soak the money from money making Blue states.

Republicans give an old can of creamed corn to some church and talk about all the charity they give.

Democrats invest in college scholarships which isn't counted a charity. Because Democrats don't want charity. They want jobs. Republicans want food stamps and welfare.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." That's' what Democrats believe.

Republicans: F*ck 'em. Let him die. But give him that can of cream corn first so we can pretend we are charitable.

More left wing claptrap void of any facts.

Poorer conservatives more generous than wealthy liberals – new study

Surprise! Conservatives are more generous than liberals

Who’s More Generous, Liberals or Conservatives?

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers

Debunking the "Conservatives Give More to Charity" Myth



Since the publication of Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism

it has become common for conservatives to say they give more to charity than liberals. Many, many conservatives have cited the book I just linked to for support.

However, that book is just wrong. A recent MIT study countered it finding:

In this paper, we first show that conservatives and liberals are equally generous in their donation habits. This pattern holds at both the individual and state level, and contradicts the conventional wisdom that partisans differ in their generosity. Second, we show that while levels of giving are roughly equivalent, liberals are much more likely to donate to secular organizations, and conservatives are more likely to donate to religious causes, especially their own congregation.


However, there is another issue to address which is: what to count as charity? All of these studies use the IRS definition of "charity" rather than the biblical definition. In the bible, God defines charity as giving to the needy without receiving, or expecting to receive, anything in return. Most "charity" conservatives give is in the form of tithes to their church. The vast majority of that money goes to salaries and building expenses -- for people and buildings that provide the giver with services. A tiny, miniscule fraction goes to the poor and needy.

So, in actuality, it seems that liberals give quite a bit more to biblical charity than conservatives.


Debunking the "Conservatives Give More to Charity" Myth

A. I am directly involved in the finances of a large church and two international charities for kids in poverty. 85%-90% goes to programs.
B. I directly work with charity volunteers in the West. I can get a hundred volunteers without asking in conservative areas, but when the same event moves to Los Angeles or San Fran it's like pulling teeth.

Easy to attack things you have no knowledge of, isn't it?

Sure Cupcake, I believe you

Anecdotal VS science, Hmm it's a tough choice Cupcake

You have one leftwing professor from a leftist seminary, I have the data.

Poorer conservatives more generous than wealthy liberals – new study

Surprise! Conservatives are more generous than liberals

Who’s More Generous, Liberals or Conservatives?

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers

Got it Cupcake, you'll stick to right wing memes

As two MIT political scientists determined in a 2013 paper, the inclination to give appears to have virtually no relationship to one's partisan or ideological views. There are distinctions, however, in the kind of giving between the two poles.


...The source of the notion that conservatives are more generous is the 2006 book "Who Really Cares," by Arthur C. Brooks, who later became president of the pro-business American Enterprise Institute.



The book was a brief for "compassionate conservatism," but its claim raised a lot of skepticism, and not only among liberals. One problem noted across the political spectrum was Brooks' reliance on the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey to distinguish "liberal" from "conservative." The problem was that the survey didn't seem to accurately measure those categories and didn't distinguish well between social conservatives or liberals and fiscal conservatives or liberals.



What the MIT researchers did find, however, was that conservatives give more to religious organizations, such as their own churches, and liberals more to secular recipients. Conservatives may give more overall, MIT says, but that's because they tend to be richer, so they have more money to give and get a larger tax benefit from giving it. (One of the things that makes social scientists skeptical of the benchmark survey Brooks used, in fact, is that it somehow concluded that liberals are richer than conservatives.)


The degree of religious contribution is important, because a 2007 study by Indiana University found that only 10% to 25% of church donations end up being spent on social welfare purposes, of which assistance to the poor is only a subset. In other words, if you think of "giving" as "giving to the poor," a lot of the money donated by conservatives may be missing the target.


LATIMES

Who's more charitable -- conservatives or liberals?


CONservatives "believe" charity should take care of ALL the poor, liberals think it's PART OF A GOV'T SOLUTION CUPCAKE!

 

[JonKoch]

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

You need a lot to learn about racism fruitcake.

Trump's daughter Ivanka was blessed with wealth that she never earned or had to work hard and struggle as perhaps an average middle class American would, Does that mean pointing out to someone's social status and wealth makes the individual sexist, or racist based on that statement you provided? Sorry Roger Ailes statement is not racist.

Referring to someone as black, like African American, does not make someone racist. Using the N Word in a inferior tone would. Damn your an idiot!

Ted Cruz discussing the achievements of our nation overcoming race, and the gratitude Americans share for equal opportunity now compared to if such republican measures to end slavery under Lincoln never happened, is not racist. That segment you quoted shows he is stating fact of our achievements, how far we've come compared to what we could have been. A successful nomination for a race that has been subject to so much wrong IS an achievement - dumbass. Not racist.

Rep Kris Crawford stating an "opinion" and Colin Powell stating an opinion is not EVIDENCE of racism. I can state an "opinion" that the democrat liberal party are run by the Democrat Socialist Party. Does that make my opinion valid and accurate without siting evidence? Evidently you believe so, just as my socialist statement just has to be evidence of such, right?


You have a lot to learn about racism. Now let me show you what racism REALLY looks like, perhaps by a slim margin you may actually learn something.


Party trumps race’ for Steele foes

Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican.

Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an “Uncle Tom” and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log.

Operatives for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) also obtained a copy of his credit report — the only Republican candidate so targeted.

‘Party trumps race’ for Steele foes

THAT'S what racism looks like, and we had to learn that from your own liberal democrats. So ends today's lesson on what RACISM actually is.

Sorry Cupcake, my original posit stands, GOPers/CONservatives birther nonsense was built on racist BS led by the Cheeto

 

[JonKoch]

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

He just stated the interpretation of the general welfare clause and it is not what you are implying it to be, thise views you are attempting to imply is not the trrue intention of the Founders as it was originally written. You have a lot to learn about looking to the "original meaning" within the context it was written.

Sorry Cupcake, your side lost a LONG time ago on this Buttercup

 

[JonKoch]

We don't have SS, Medicare, SNAP, etc??

We don't have murders, rape, and armed robbery??? Oh wait....we do?!? Well if that happens, it must be legal then, uh?

How does it feel being my personal bitch in this debate?

SCOTUS rulings say it's OK to have "murders, rape, and armed robbery???" Buttercup

People violate the law every day (they are called Dumbocrats). That includes left-wing Supreme Court Justices intentionally ignoring the U.S. Constitution in favor of their own personal political agenda.

Weird, it's like YOU live in some ALTERNATE UNIVERSE where facts and history don't matter like when you blame Gov't policy like CRA for Dubya's failure to reign in the Banksters in their WORLD WIDE SUBPRIME BUBBLE?



Yeah I can see how THIS was on BJ Bill's shoulders Cupcake:

Looks to me you're already started writing your autobiography. In case you haven't been paying attention I already recently debunked all that "blame Bush and banks" BS through an earlier post. However here it is again in showing you're completely wrong yet again. Wow, surprising as it may be.


.
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. ..]

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...



This below taken from an actual government document, identified by the GAO/GGD abbreviated attachment, 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

CUPCAKE YOUR FIRST LINK


Yet Again, It Wasn't the Community Reinvestment Act...

Another attempt to blame the Community Reinvestment Act for the subprime crisis. Don't believe a word of it:

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


AS FOR BLOOMBERGS BS, A WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST WAS CONGRESS'S FAULT BUTTERCUP??? LOL



Let’s just be clear about what the CRA does and doesn’t do. It simply says that if you open a branch office in a low income neighborhood and collect deposits there, you are obligated to do a certain amount of lending in that neighborhood. In other words, you can’t open a branch office in Harlem and use deposits from there to only fund loans in high-end Tribeca. A bank must make credit available on the same terms in both neighborhoods. In other words, a “red line” can’t be drawn around Harlem, a term that dates to when banks supposedly used colored pencils to draw no-loan zones on maps.

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’s director 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.

Now consider that much of the rest of the developed world also had a boom and bust in residential real estate that was worse than in the U.S. Oh, right -- those countries didn’t have the CRA.

What's more, many of the lenders that made the subprime loans that contributed so much to the collapse were private non-bank lenders that weren’t covered by the CRA. Almost 400 of these went bankrupt soon after housing began to wobble.

I have called the CRA blame meme “the big lie” -- and with good reason. It’s an old trope, tinged with elements of dog-whistle politics, blaming low-income residents in the inner cities regardless of what the data show.

Lending to Poor People Didn't Cause the Financial Crisis


BANKSTERS DROPPED ALL UNDERWRITING STANDARDS CUPCAKE, YOU KNOW WHAT THOSE ARE? HINT GOV'T BACKED LOANS REQUIRED THEM

 

[JonKoch]

We don't have SS, Medicare, SNAP, etc??

We don't have murders, rape, and armed robbery??? Oh wait....we do?!? Well if that happens, it must be legal then, uh?

How does it feel being my personal bitch in this debate?

SCOTUS rulings say it's OK to have "murders, rape, and armed robbery???" Buttercup

People violate the law every day (they are called Dumbocrats). That includes left-wing Supreme Court Justices intentionally ignoring the U.S. Constitution in favor of their own personal political agenda.

Weird, it's like YOU live in some ALTERNATE UNIVERSE where facts and history don't matter like when you blame Gov't policy like CRA for Dubya's failure to reign in the Banksters in their WORLD WIDE SUBPRIME BUBBLE?



Yeah I can see how THIS was on BJ Bill's shoulders Cupcake:

Looks to me you're already started writing your autobiography. In case you haven't been paying attention I already recently debunked all that "blame Bush and banks" BS through an earlier post. However here it is again in showing you're completely wrong yet again. Wow, surprising as it may be.


.
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. ..]

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...



This below taken from an actual government document, identified by the GAO/GGD abbreviated attachment, 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

Yes, Clinton gave US good, well performing loans with his change in CRA, Why blame him again Bubba?

TIMELINE BUTTERCUP:

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush's President's Working Group on Financial Markets March 2008

"The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007"





Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf


FACTS on Dubya's great recession


NOTE ANYTHING OBVIOUS HERE CUPCAKE:

OR THIS:

THIS:

DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!


November 27, 2007

A Snapshot of the Subprime Market



Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding: 2007 $1.3 trillion

Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding in 2003: $332 billion

Percentage increase from 2003: 292%


Number of subprime mortgages made in 2005-2006 projected to end in foreclosure:

1 in 5



Proportion of subprime mortgages made from 2004 to 2006 that come with "exploding" adjustable interest rates: 89-93%


Proportion approved without fully documented income: 43-50%


Proportion with no escrow for taxes and insurance: 75%



Proportion of completed foreclosures attributable to adjustable rate loans out of all loans made in 2006 and bundled in subprime mortgage backed securities: 93%


Subprime share of all mortgage originations in 2006: 28%


Subprime share of all mortgage origination in 2003: 8%




ANYTHING ELSE CUPCAKE?

 

[P@triot]

So I just want to be crystal clear on this: your saying that the housing bubble was the result of George W. Bush's policies. Is that correct?

Yep

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush's President's Working Group on Financial Markets March 2008

"The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007."

ANYTHING ELSE CUPCAKE?

As a matter of fact....yes. In this entire thread, you've been praising socialism. For instance, in response to someone stating that "socialism has never worked and never will", you replied in post #902:

US was Founded on socialism cupcake.....

You've had at least half a dozen comments in this thread supporting the "wonders" of socialism. And yet you just proved that government intervention in the free market causes collapse (specifically, Bill Clinton's intervention - but hey, if it makes you feel slightly better to blame George W. Bush - go for it...you're still proving that government intervention in the free market always ends in collapse). Thanks for being my bitch, bitch!

 

[JonKoch]

We don't have SS, Medicare, SNAP, etc??

We don't have murders, rape, and armed robbery??? Oh wait....we do?!? Well if that happens, it must be legal then, uh?

How does it feel being my personal bitch in this debate?

SCOTUS rulings say it's OK to have "murders, rape, and armed robbery???" Buttercup

People violate the law every day (they are called Dumbocrats). That includes left-wing Supreme Court Justices intentionally ignoring the U.S. Constitution in favor of their own personal political agenda.

Weird, it's like YOU live in some ALTERNATE UNIVERSE where facts and history don't matter like when you blame Gov't policy like CRA for Dubya's failure to reign in the Banksters in their WORLD WIDE SUBPRIME BUBBLE?



Yeah I can see how THIS was on BJ Bill's shoulders Cupcake:

Looks to me you're already started writing your autobiography. In case you haven't been paying attention I already recently debunked all that "blame Bush and banks" BS through an earlier post. However here it is again in showing you're completely wrong yet again. Wow, surprising as it may be.


.
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. ..]

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...



This below taken from an actual government document, identified by the GAO/GGD abbreviated attachment, 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

Subprime share of all mortgage originations in 2006: 28%


Subprime share of all mortgage origination in 2003: 8%

ANYTHING ELSE CUPCAKE?

 

[P@triot]

Yes, Clinton gave US good, well performing loans with his change in CRA

And then - according to you - George W. Bush came along and collapsed the entire housing market with his policies. Proving yet again that socialism never works. That government intervention in the free market always creates collapse and ends in failure.