Page 9 of 17
Posted: Thu 09 Oct 2008, 7:18 pm
by beautyqueen85
BlueSwan wrote:Obama viped the floor with McCain in the second debate. McCain needs a game changer to have any chance of winning. Hopefully, that won't happen.
It won't.
Posted: Thu 09 Oct 2008, 7:19 pm
by Danny C
glennjridge wrote:you arent making sense.....unless you are making some weird point that people who run these multiple banks give loans to hundreds of thousands of people with high risk bad credit to....uh... purposely run themelves into the ground and collapse for ....what....in the scheme of things is peanuts for a golden parachute?which they arent even sure they will get(golden parachutes can and are getting blocked).
thats a little rich to believe when you think of all the banks involved. what, they all just happen to be so generous with giving to high risk citizens?
Please tell me you don't believe this woeful shit.
Glenn, banks lend to high-risk customers because there's money to be made. Yes, they accept the increased risks associated with subprime lending, but they offset these risks by charging higher interest rates, and by bundling up these liabilities into packages and selling them on. It's this selling on of subprime mortgages which was responsible for dragging so many companies into the crisis in the first place.
Please, please, if you won't listen to me, go and speak with someone else who has at least a basic financial knowledge. They'll tell you exactly what I just told you. Though how you've managed to make it this far without understanding as basic a concept as this in the first place is utterly beyond me.
And I challenge you to provide
any evidence whatsoever that the laws on lending were relaxed as a result of campaigning by ethnic minorities.
Posted: Thu 09 Oct 2008, 10:23 pm
by glennjridge
I cant figure out why you responded with that, since all you did was define the mechanics of way the banks failed. we already know that. I'm talking how they got there.
its like you seeing a guy on the side of the road with flat tires and you saying to the guy, hey your tires got flat because something sharp that was on the ground punctured the tires. gee .....you dont say!
the comment you made at the end about wanting ANY evidence banks gave loans to minoritys. its on all the news here.dont know about where you live, not even going into their recent raids across the state with ACORNS voter fraud of getting bussloads of homeless people to register to vote for obama.....
get a load of this,its all over the web,TV and newspapers now at least in the US.
http://74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=UTF- ... 1&.intl=us
ACORN's Senator - Yahoo! News
Despite efforts to blame the rescue bill's failure on the GOP, it should be remembered that 95 Democrats -- some 40% of the Democratic Caucus -- withheld support. Obama himself also deserves blame -- not only for the bill's failure, but also for the crisis it was designed to solve.
As the New York Times reports, "Aides to Mr. Obama said he had not directly reached out to try to sway any House Democrats who opposed the measure." Is the reason the fact that the slush fund for ACORN in the original bill, siphoning off 20% of any future profits for such activist groups, was trimmed from the tree?
Obama, who once represented ACORN in a lawsuit against the state of Illinois, was hired by the group to train its community organizers and staff in the methods and tactics of the late Saul Alinsky. ACORN would stage in-your-face protests in bank lobbies, drive-through lanes and even at bank managers' homes to get them to issue risky loans in the inner city or face charges of racism.
Whenever a bank wanted to grow or expand, ACORN would file complaints that it was not sufficiently sensitive to the needs of minorities in providing home loans. Agitators would then be unleashed.
Posted: Thu 09 Oct 2008, 10:48 pm
by glennjridge
BlueSwan wrote:Obama viped the floor with McCain in the second debate. McCain needs a game changer to have any chance of winning. Hopefully, that won't happen.
Obama can totally win.
but I have no idea why anyone outside the states would be any happier other than for obvious novelty reasons.
after all, he falls in line with Mcain on certain religious issues, he's already made inflammatory statements regarding pakistan and getting bin laden and most importantly,you dont know how he's going to be tested by outside forces and what his reponse would be to a major attack.
Posted: Thu 09 Oct 2008, 11:17 pm
by alig
Fugitive1979 wrote:alig wrote:Obamessiah, Odumbo, Obamba.
I could say "McCunt", or "McCrap", but I won't because petty insults show clear, personal bias and render the rest of your argument invalid.
alig wrote:I'm so glad deschanel, dj dc and gregf are on my ignore list. no point in getting bogged down in useless debates and getting pelted with four-letter words.
You only get what you give - see above.
alig wrote:So how on earth can these socialist jerks get away with killing the economy?! INDICT ALL THESE DEMOCRATS NOW!
Who has been in power for the past 8 years? Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.
alig wrote:People never learn from history and and it is a fact that ignorance is the most expensive liability.
Yes, which is why McCain will probably end up being elected.
alig wrote:Go on, elect a Marxist whose best buddies are racist preachers.
I always thought that bible-bashing preachers were the Republicans best friend?
I don't live in the US, but the way I see it, Obama and the Democrats is the best option for the economy, and world-peace. In my opinion, McCain is a war-mongerer - much like the current administration.
Also, McCain is 76 years old and may well die on the job. From what I have seen of Palin, she is a rather unintelligent, yet psychotic person. God help us all if she gets a shot at being the worlds' most powerful person.
okay, ignoramus:
who was in charge for the past 8 years? Bush AND congress. Bush and McCain tried to pass TWELVE times a bill that would stop this high-risk mortgage scheme. Guess who blocked this in the senate? the DEMOCRATS! guess who downplayed the threat in the Senate? Barney Frank and his Democrat cronies. Check youtube for the videoclips.
Guess who used Fannie Mae and FreddieMac as their personal piggie banks? The Democrats incl. Odumbo who got over 100,000 in donations from them.
So yes, Bush was in charge but he can't do anything without congress where the Democrasts were hell-bent on destroying Bush and the economy.
And who started this mortgage mess? Democrat president Jimmy Carter in 1977 with his "community reinvestment act." It basically said that banks(that are partly owned by the State) should give loans without any questions. So they gave loans to people without inquiring into their line of work or monetary situation. Thus, people who could never repay them, were given loans. This scandal was furthered by Clinton and Janet Reno in the 90s. Come Bush, he tried TWELVE times to stop this mess and yet the Democrats refused to comply.
Bible-bashing, eh? What do you bash? Your emormous ignorance and ego? I guess for someone like you with a bloated self-esteem it's hard to conceive of an entity that could outsmart you. Humanism is the self-adulatory ersatz religion for all atheists.
Posted: Thu 09 Oct 2008, 11:23 pm
by alig
glennjridge wrote:BlueSwan wrote:Obama viped the floor with McCain in the second debate. McCain needs a game changer to have any chance of winning. Hopefully, that won't happen.
Obama can totally win.
but I have no idea why anyone outside the states would be any happier other than for obvious novelty reasons.
after all, he falls in line with Mcain on certain religious issues, he's already made inflammatory statements regarding pakistan and getting bin laden and most importantly,you dont know how he's going to be tested by outside forces and what his reponse would be to a major attack.
Obama on national security? He's the national security threat #1! How would he react to attacks? He would use "tough diplomacy." At the second debate he said that he would intervene for humanitarian reasons and yet he's opposed to the Iraq war even though hundreds of thousands died under Saddam! Obama is straight from a satire. A sleek, two-faced opportunist. Also, Odumbo is in favor of "partial birth abortion" ,i.e. should an abortion fail and the child be born, the child should be left to starve to death. This is the respect Odumbo has for life. But he never was pressed on this issue on the debate because the moderators are in the tank for this conman.
Posted: Fri 10 Oct 2008, 4:35 am
by gregf
Scapegoats
It is hard to get quality evidence just now, for the extent affirmative action
lending played a part. It is quite possible there are some truth in this.
But our Republican friends are fixated on that and missing the bigger picture.
Plenty of these loans went to whites and there is some evidence they have
defaulted quicker than blacks. A major cause has been health bills as these folk
don't get health insurance, a long time Republican stance.
Whites turned these loans into bundled property securities. Whites at Lehmann Bros
sold these on to whites at banks and investment banks around the world. Whites at
Standard and Poors rated these 5*. Whites who manage my retirement fund bought
these 5* "property trusts" because the system said it was safe. The system is wrong.
The Republican obsession with de-regulation is wrong.
Blaming the blacks is the same sort of thinking as blaming the Jews.
It is telling us, that not much has changed in America.
Earmarks
I have only just understood this problem. It is the cause of overspending.
Why is the US government in debt ? Because congressmen can cross the floor
to block legislation so easily. Enforce party discipline in votes and this will be fixed.
Obama.
American has made most of it's own problems but conservatives cant admit that and move on.
America needs a Gorbachev. That's why the world wants Obama to win. What worries me is
that he will be too soft on the most important issue for world peace, Israel & Palestine.
Posted: Fri 10 Oct 2008, 5:57 am
by glennjridge
hard to get quality evidence? what...you think maxim magazine broke this story?
its on all the news now and it was just on CNN and in the new york times.
and this idea about blaming the blacks is on par with the nazii blaming the jews....
little old me didnt create this breaking story, its all over the news here, the FBI are in on this now and ACORN's tactics of using accusations of racism as a weapon to intimadate banks to give out these loans en mass to poor blacks is already out there,....as is their recent bust for massive voting fraud.
on one hand you accuse the conservatives of not being able to admit they were wrong, and now like all compliant liberals you say one cannot say that about minority groups because of their skin color.
coming from you a white australian guy thats pretty insincere. as if you lot are a champion for the black man. oh brother.......
Posted: Fri 10 Oct 2008, 6:10 am
by glennjridge
BTW I should clarify my position because I think its not translating. I'm not saying blacks are the cause of this mess .....for being black and GETTING the loans and their failure to pay them back.
hey,the banks says...loans for everybody! loans all around! I get that.they just want to get a house.
I'm saying ACORN which is a black orginazation, is getting busted for their tactics in which they use the color of their skin to intimadate banks to give these loans out to people who cant afford them, and massive voter fraud by gathering up thousands of people and bogus voting applications. illegal tactics.which now have lent to this finacial disaster.
it just happens.....the people in question ACORN are blacks using the color of their skin to their advantage illegally.
Posted: Fri 10 Oct 2008, 7:08 am
by gregf
Glen, I am all in favour of openness. I am quite prepared to say if
progressives have stuffed up. I am against positive discrimination.
But all that is new to me, so I wont speak on what I don't know.
It's zero in the news here. Even so, why focus on it ?
We need to focus on getting modern international financial regulation.
Why should I invest in the US if I am just going to get ripped off ?
What that regulation should be, is a much more interesting topic.
Shame we cant get to it.
Many here are trying to improve the position of Aboriginals.
I have some very conservative friends, a married couple.
And if I say the word "Aboriginal" I am cut off by ...
"It's all their own fault ; they waste all their money on booze".
A sadly familiar refrain.
Posted: Fri 10 Oct 2008, 4:58 pm
by Danny C
Okay Glenn, if you won't listen to me, try listening to experts - maybe then you'll stop parroting this ignorant nonsense.
Ezra Klein and Daniel Gross in The American Prospect:
DANIEL GROSS EXPLAINS THE WORLD.
This is nothing that readers of this blog don't already know, but it's worth continually stating that the conservative narrative that situates the financial crisis as the latchkey kid of poor black people and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is nonsense on stilts. Daniel Gross
states it well:
"These arguments are generally made by people who read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal and ignore the rest of the paper—economic know-nothings whose opinions are informed mostly by ideology and, occasionally, by prejudice. Let's be honest. Fannie and Freddie, which didn't make subprime loans but did buy subprime loans made by others, were part of the problem. Poor Congressional oversight was part of the problem. Banks that sought to meet CRA requirements by indiscriminately doling out loans to minorities may have been part of the problem. But none of these issues is the cause of the problem. Not by a long shot. From the beginning, subprime has been a symptom, not a cause. And the notion that the Community Reinvestment Act is somehow responsible for poor lending decisions is absurd.[...]
"The Community Reinvestment Act applies to depository banks. But many of the institutions that spurred the massive growth of the subprime market weren't regulated banks. They were outfits such as Argent and American Home Mortgage, which were generally not regulated by the Federal Reserve or other entities that monitored compliance with CRA. These institutions worked hand in glove with Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, entities to which the CRA likewise didn't apply. There's much more. As Barry Ritholtz notes in this fine rant, the CRA didn't force mortgage companies to offer loans for no money down, or to throw underwriting standards out the window, or to encourage mortgage brokers to aggressively seek out new markets. Nor did the CRA force the credit-rating agencies to slap high-grade ratings on packages of subprime debt."
This stuff isn't just a question of warring political narratives. You often get the feeling that folks like Krauthammer and Kristol know that they're shadowboxing, releasing an argument into the wild that's meant to blunt damage to Republicans but should never ever be used to construct policy. But what happens when you spend years and years telling angry people crazy things is that the angry people begin believing crazy things, then they run for Congress, then you have the House Republican Caucus, and occasionally they get to make real policy. If this narrative about the inherent riskiness of the poor and the evils of the CRA were to take, you might see some pretty bad, damaging policy built atop it. So I'm glad to see Gross not only knock back the narrative, but also the implications:
"Lending money to poor people and minorities isn't inherently risky. There's plenty of evidence that in fact it's not that risky at all. That's what we've learned from several decades of microlending programs, at home and abroad, with their very high repayment rates. And as the New York Times recently reported, Nehemiah Homes, a long-running initiative to build homes and sell them to the working poor in subprime areas of New York's outer boroughs, has a repayment rate that lenders in Greenwich, Conn., would envy. In 27 years, there have been fewer than 10 defaults on the project's 3,900 homes. That's a rate of 0.25 percent.
"On the other hand, lending money recklessly to obscenely rich white guys, such as Richard Fuld of Lehman Bros. or Jimmy Cayne of Bear Stearns, can be really risky. In fact, it's even more risky, since they have a lot more borrowing capacity. And here, again, it's difficult to imagine how Jimmy Carter could be responsible for the supremely poor decision-making seen in the financial system. I await the Krauthammer column in which he points out the specific provision of the Community Reinvestment Act that forced Bear Stearns to run with an absurd leverage ratio of 33 to 1, which instructed Bear Stearns hedge-fund managers to blow up hundreds of millions of their clients' money, and that required its septuagenarian CEO to play bridge while his company ran into trouble. Perhaps Neil Cavuto knows which CRA clause required Lehman Bros. to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars in short-term debt in the capital markets and then buy tens of billions of dollars of commercial real estate at the top of the market. I can't find it.[...]
"Lending money to poor people doesn't make you poor. Lending money poorly to rich people does."
As the kids say, word.
Let that be an end to this ridiculous scapegoating.
Posted: Fri 10 Oct 2008, 7:01 pm
by Fugitive1979
alig wrote:okay, ignoramus:
Sorry, but I stopped after I read that first line because I couldn't be bothered reading more obscenely biased, offensive pap.
You really must be obsessed.
As for my ego and self-esteem, I don't know how you can comment on that because you don't know me. Although, in my opinion, I don't think it is any bigger than anyone elses.
Posted: Fri 10 Oct 2008, 7:45 pm
by Danny C
Fugitive1979 wrote:As for my ego and self-esteem, I don't know how you can comment on that because you don't know me.
To be honest, he's not really qualified to comment on anything. Everything he writes is dripping with ignorance, unsubstantiated slurs and vitriol. I don't mind people disagreeing with me if they present justification or reasonable arguments. Hell, even Glenn tries to bolster his drivel with some kind of corroborative evidence. But "Ali G" is just a vacuous little troll, and a nasty, cretinous one at that. And he doesn't have the guts to debate with people who are his intellectual superiors (ie about 99% of this forum) - he just puts them on ignore. I've yet to see him make a single positive contribution to this community.
Posted: Fri 10 Oct 2008, 11:50 pm
by West 4th
Danny C pretty well summed it up in that clip.
It's not hard to figure out why people on the right are quick to blame minorities for all their problems. Look at the campaign rally's McCain and Palin are having? They're a few slurs away from a clan rally.
McCain can run the dirtiest presidential campaing he wants but for once people want solutions not mud slinging.
As long as you continue to support them things will never get better for you.
Posted: Sat 11 Oct 2008, 12:44 am
by glennjridge
I'm not blaming the minoritys for all the problems. just the ones that dropped the the clintons the minute a man with dark skin like theirs showed up.meanwhile whites cross lines and vote for a black man based on examining issues.
but hey,Obama isnt that far liberal for my opinion. he thinks marriage is between a man and a woman, he said he will do what he has to to get bin laden and terrorists...gee I can see why you prefer him over Mcain.