muff528 3
jclalor 12
QuoteQuoteQuote***Wasn't this thread started by the same OP who lamented the wasteful cost of ferreting out a measly 198 illegal voters in that other thread?
You do understand the difference between searching through millions and million of already registered voters for false ones, and then finding less than 200, as opposed to verifying new ones?
How is new voter fraud any more illegal or damaging to the electorate than existing voter fraud? So, to you, the important point is not that voter fraud exists, The important point is how that fraud is discovered ....or more likely who is committing fraud. Hey, I have an idea. Let's verify each registration at the point where that registration, fraudulent or not, has the most impact ...at the polls, by requiring a photo ID. Eliminate early voting. Implement an accurate and efficient system to verify absentee ballots. Let's increase penalties for lying on applications and for fabricating voters, and for fraudulent voting and for voter intimidation, etc.
What I was stating was the irony of the GOP crying about voter fraud in Florida, and then their registration drive ends up responsible for almost the same number of all the fraudulent registrations in the state that they were able to uncover in the first place..
You're in search of a problem that does not exist in any significant numbers.
Romney's campaign is so dead the Mormons are gonna baptize it.
muff528 3
Quote..........
What I was stating was the irony of the GOP crying about voter fraud in Florida, and then their registration drive ends up responsible for almost the same number of all the fraudulent registrations in the state that they were able to uncover in the first place..
I'm a registered Repub and I am "against" ALL voter fraud. Some folks seem to be "for" some voter fraud and "against" other voter fraud.
QuoteYou're in search of a problem that does not exist in any significant numbers.
Voter fraud, at any level, is a problem that attacks the core of our republic and should not be tolerated. Indifference or tolerance for ANY voter fraud is even worse than the fraud itself. IMO, of course.
QuoteRomney's campaign is so dead the Mormons are gonna baptize it.
Yes, given 8.1% unemployment, $trillions added to the debt in 3 years, incomprehensible foreign policy, Bengazi-gate, a dead ambassador and the lying coverup, $upport for our avowed enemies and abandonment of our allies, growing dependency on government for basic necessities, cell phones and flat-screen TVs, systematic demonization of our wealth producers, etc. etc .....and the polls are still running neck-and-neck?!? Yep, we're pretty much focked and a has-been nation. I'll take this opportunity to apologize to the rest of the free world ....we dropped the ball so you guys are fucked, too.
jclalor 12
QuoteYes, given 8.1% unemployment, $trillions added to the debt in 3 years, incomprehensible foreign policy, Bengazi-gate, a dead ambassador and the lying coverup, $upport for our avowed enemies and abandonment of our allies, growing dependency on government for basic necessities, cell phones and flat-screen TVs, systematic demonization of our wealth producers, etc. etc .....and the polls are still running neck-and-neck?!? Yep, we're pretty much focked and a has-been nation. I'll take this opportunity to apologize to the rest of the free world ....we dropped the ball so you guys are fucked, too.
I guess you forgot where we were in 2008, where's the Dow right now? Are we still loosing hundreds of thousands of jobs a month?
Is the Libya situation all fucked up? you bet. Who wanted us to send in the troops? who was accusing the Dems of being lax on supporting those "freedom loving" Libyan rebels? What did that get us? And now they want to go do the same thing in Syria.
Basic necessities are cell phones and flat-screen TV's? You better double check who started the low income cell phone program, and it's not a Democrat.
sundevil777 102
QuoteI guess you forgot where we were in 2008, where's the Dow right now? Are we still loosing hundreds of thousands of jobs a month?
Yes, things were really bad, but what got us into that mess? Obummer so often talks about Conservatives wanting to return to the "policies that got us here in the first place."
That is a lie.
What got us in a mess is the housing bubble. Not the derivatives, but the housing bubble itself. That was driven by the liberal demand, explicit demand by liberals enforced by the very real threat of congressional investigation that banks make loans to those not able to that would never have been approved without that threat.
It is liberals that once again want banks to do the same thing again.
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am
And you better check and see that it isn't a low income phone program anymore. It's another free government give-away.
muff528 3
QuoteI guess you forgot where we were in 2008, where's the Dow right now? Are we still loosing hundreds of thousands of jobs a month?
2008 debt ~$9T or ~65% GDP - 2012 debt ~$16T or ~102% GDP. Almost double in 4 years and completely devours GDP now.
Dow don't mean shit and hasn't since the 1950s when the DJIA actually reflected business performance rather than artificial speculation and betting. Don't put too much stock in the Dow.
QuoteIs the Libya situation all fucked up? you bet. Who wanted us to send in the troops? who was accusing the Dems of being lax on supporting those "freedom loving" Libyan rebels? What did that get us? And now they want to go do the same thing in Syria.
Personally I learn by history and hindsight. I think we should re-install some secular ruthless dictators in these countries to keep a lid on some of these 7th century barbarians. They actually did a very good job keeping them contained. The dictators occasionally asserted themselves with a lot of spouting rhetoric (like Chavez or Hussein) but they were, for the most part, harmless outside their own borders. Of course there was the occasional exception but we could compartmentalize the responses. Not good for those folks who wanted real freedom and self-determination and would welcome a deliverer, but what the hey. Also, some jihadists would occasionally get loose and do some damage, but we could learn to get used to these "man-caused disasters".
QuoteBasic necessities are cell phones and flat-screen TV's? You better double check who started the low income cell phone program, and it's not a Democrat.
So are you "for" or "against" the program? I couldn't tell by your response.
jclalor 12
QuoteQuoteQuoteI guess you forgot where we were in 2008, where's the Dow right now? Are we still loosing hundreds of thousands of jobs a month?
Yes, things were really bad, but what got us into that mess? Obummer so often talks about Conservatives wanting to return to the "policies that got us here in the first place."
That is a lie.
What got us in a mess is the housing bubble. Not the derivatives, but the housing bubble itself. That was driven by the liberal demand, explicit demand by liberals enforced by the very real threat of congressional investigation that banks make loans to those not able to that would never have been approved without that threat.
It is liberals that once again want banks to do the same thing again.
When everyone can buy something, the price goes up, supply and demand. The reason everyone could buy a house was bi-partisain deregulation with Clinton and Gingrich. Deregulate derivatives and banks could lend a fortune without the reserves to back up the loans, they would then bundle the loans and sell them to investment banks. Everyone was getting rich. The housing bubble burst and someone had to pay back the loans, like AIG. AIG did not have anything close to the reserves needed, and all the banks that had loans bundled into derivatives with AIG were going to go belly up. Thats where tarp came in, the best thing Bush ever did.
Blaming the whole thing on forcing banks to make loans to low income is just silly. The banks went head first. Now you want to elect Romney who will deregulate again, good luck with that.
kallend 2,148
Quote
What got us in a mess is the housing bubble. Not the derivatives, but the housing bubble itself. That was driven by the liberal demand, explicit demand by liberals enforced by the very real threat of congressional investigation that banks make loans to those not able to that would never have been approved without that threat.
A nice right wing theory that has been debunked over and over, including by the Federal Reserve.
GREED by big banks and investors, incompetence by ratings agencies, and deregulation gave us this mess. CRA loans weren't even a drop in the bucket.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Debunked by the Federal Reserve....that's a good one.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote***Wasn't this thread started by the same OP who lamented the wasteful cost of ferreting out a measly 198 illegal voters in that other thread?
You do understand the difference between searching through millions and million of already registered voters for false ones, and then finding less than 200, as opposed to verifying new ones?
How is new voter fraud any more illegal or damaging to the electorate than existing voter fraud? So, to you, the important point is not that voter fraud exists, The important point is how that fraud is discovered ....or more likely who is committing fraud. Hey, I have an idea. Let's verify each registration at the point where that registration, fraudulent or not, has the most impact ...at the polls, by requiring a photo ID. Eliminate early voting. Implement an accurate and efficient system to verify absentee ballots. Let's increase penalties for lying on applications and for fabricating voters, and for fraudulent voting and for voter intimidation, etc.
What I was stating was the irony of the GOP crying about voter fraud in Florida, and then their registration drive ends up responsible for almost the same number of all the fraudulent registrations in the state that they were able to uncover in the first place..
You're in search of a problem that does not exist in any significant numbers.
Romney's campaign is so dead the Mormons are gonna baptize it.
I don't think, the politicians care where the votes come from or how... just as long as they get votes. If, something comes of it they just want to be sure they aren't involved or get caught. They just want to win the election.
Chuck
kallend 2,148
QuoteDebunked by the Federal Reserve....that's a good one.
Is there something about the word "including" that escapes you?
FACT is, the loans that brought down the banking system were not CRA loans. They were loans the banks made on their own initiative, aided and abetted by the sheer greed of Wall Street.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
sundevil777 102
QuoteQuote
What got us in a mess is the housing bubble. Not the derivatives, but the housing bubble itself. That was driven by the liberal demand, explicit demand by liberals enforced by the very real threat of congressional investigation that banks make loans to those not able to that would never have been approved without that threat.
A nice right wing theory that has been debunked over and over, including by the Federal Reserve.
GREED by big banks and investors, incompetence by ratings agencies, and deregulation gave us this mess. CRA loans weren't even a drop in the bucket.
I understand that liberals don't want to have their responsibility recognized, no no, drop in the bucket, nothing to see here, move along to blaming conservatives and capitalism...
http://blog.heritage.org/2008/10/09/what-didnt-cause-the-financial-crisis/
*** Greed was indeed a problem, but not just on Wall Street and in the mortgage industry. It also motivated buyers who thought they could get something for nothing. Don’t omit the political greed, although politicians want to mask this by holding hearings about the faults of others but not of themselves. Thanks to politics, our government was not only an enabler, but actually required lenders to issue something-for-nothing loans.
As noted by George Mason University economics professor Russell Roberts, “For 1996, HUD [Department of Housing and Urban Development] required that 12 percent of all mortgage purchases by Fannie and Freddie be ‘special affordable’ loans, typically to borrowers with income less than 60 percent of their area’s median income. That number was increased to 20 percent in 2000 and 22 percent in 2005. The 2008 goal was to be 28 percent.”
The left’s affordable-housing agenda created not just incentives but actual mandates for bad behavior, especially with their political allies running those GSEs. Public outrage stopped the Clintons from taking over health care. But their HUD stealthily sowed the seeds of today’s financial mess.
Government regulation cannot now be the all-purpose answer when it was the source of the problem.”
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am
kallend 2,148
QuoteQuoteQuote
What got us in a mess is the housing bubble. Not the derivatives, but the housing bubble itself. That was driven by the liberal demand, explicit demand by liberals enforced by the very real threat of congressional investigation that banks make loans to those not able to that would never have been approved without that threat.
A nice right wing theory that has been debunked over and over, including by the Federal Reserve.
GREED by big banks and investors, incompetence by ratings agencies, and deregulation gave us this mess. CRA loans weren't even a drop in the bucket.
I understand that liberals don't want to have their responsibility recognized, no no, drop in the bucket, nothing to see here, move along to blaming conservatives and capitalism...
http://blog.heritage.org/2008/10/09/what-didnt-cause-the-financial-crisis/
*** Greed was indeed a problem, but not just on Wall Street and in the mortgage industry. It also motivated buyers who thought they could get something for nothing. Don’t omit the political greed, although politicians want to mask this by holding hearings about the faults of others but not of themselves. Thanks to politics, our government was not only an enabler, but actually required lenders to issue something-for-nothing loans.
As noted by George Mason University economics professor Russell Roberts, “For 1996, HUD [Department of Housing and Urban Development] required that 12 percent of all mortgage purchases by Fannie and Freddie be ‘special affordable’ loans, typically to borrowers with income less than 60 percent of their area’s median income. That number was increased to 20 percent in 2000 and 22 percent in 2005. The 2008 goal was to be 28 percent.”
The left’s affordable-housing agenda created not just incentives but actual mandates for bad behavior, especially with their political allies running those GSEs. Public outrage stopped the Clintons from taking over health care. But their HUD stealthily sowed the seeds of today’s financial mess.
Government regulation cannot now be the all-purpose answer when it was the source of the problem.”
Heritage Foundation - nice impartial source, NOT.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
sundevil777 102
QuoteHeritage Foundation - nice impartial source, NOT
Of course they are not. What "impartial" sources are the source of your wisdom?
Since you have chosen to not let us know how they are wrong, then it is implied you accept their analysis.
Here's more, definitely not impartial, but very wise analysis fer 'ya:
http://www.heritage.org/events/2009/04/getting-off-track-how-government-actions-and-interventions-caused-prolonged-and-worsened-the-financial-crisis?query=Getting+Off+Track:+How+Government+Actions+and+Interventions+Caused+Prolonged+and+Worsened+the+Financial+Crisis
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am
kallend 2,148
QuoteQuoteHeritage Foundation - nice impartial source, NOT
Of course they are not. What "impartial" sources are the source of your wisdom?
The default rate for CRA loans is totally impartial. UNLIKE the Heritage Foundation.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteQuoteI guess you forgot where we were in 2008, where's the Dow right now? Are we still loosing hundreds of thousands of jobs a month?
2008 debt ~$9T or ~65% GDP - 2012 debt ~$16T or ~102% GDP. Almost double in 4 years and completely devours GDP now.
Dow don't mean shit and hasn't since the 1950s when the DJIA actually reflected business performance rather than artificial speculation and betting. Don't put too much stock in the Dow.
Though I would certainly choose the S&P500 over the DOW, your argument misses the boat. People's personal wealth, outside of their home (which should not be more than 35% of total), is measured fairly accurately by the stock index. 401k balances were in the crapper in 2009 - down 60%! If people didn't panic and sell out, it recovered over the next 18 months. No small matter.
Quote
How is new voter fraud any more illegal or damaging to the electorate than existing voter fraud? So, to you, the important point is not that voter fraud exists, The important point is how that fraud is discovered ....or more likely who is committing fraud. Hey, I have an idea. Let's verify each registration at the point where that registration, fraudulent or not, has the most impact ...at the polls, by requiring a photo ID. Eliminate early voting. Implement an accurate and efficient system to verify absentee ballots. Let's increase penalties for lying on applications and for fabricating voters, and for fraudulent voting and for voter intimidation, etc.
Out of curiousity, how do underage youth manage to obtain alcohol at bars and liquor stores?
sundevil777 102
QuoteQuoteQuoteHeritage Foundation - nice impartial source, NOT
Of course they are not. What "impartial" sources are the source of your wisdom?
The default rate for CRA loans is totally impartial. UNLIKE the Heritage Foundation.
It seems that you assume that any loan that was made with easy terms as a result of the CRA would be labeled a CRA loan. I assert that is not likely. The banks knew that the gov't (freddie/fannie) was buying loans no matter their "terms/worth". They didn't have to be labeled CRA.
The Heritage Foundation is not impartial, but it is a logical fallacy to claim their analysis as you have done.
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am
QuoteQuote
The default rate for CRA loans is totally impartial. UNLIKE the Heritage Foundation.
It seems that you assume that any loan that was made with easy terms as a result of the CRA would be labeled a CRA loan. I assert that is not likely. The banks knew that the gov't (freddie/fannie) was buying loans no matter their "terms/worth". They didn't have to be labeled CRA.
This is a convenient hypothesis, if unsupported by any actual evidence. Seems like you want Kallend to hunt for it, even if it is non existent.
jclalor 12
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteHeritage Foundation - nice impartial source, NOT
Of course they are not. What "impartial" sources are the source of your wisdom?
The default rate for CRA loans is totally impartial. UNLIKE the Heritage Foundation.
It seems that you assume that any loan that was made with easy terms as a result of the CRA would be labeled a CRA loan. I assert that is not likely. The banks knew that the gov't (freddie/fannie) was buying loans no matter their "terms/worth". They didn't have to be labeled CRA.
The Heritage Foundation is not impartial, but it is a logical fallacy to claim their analysis as you have done.
QuoteYes, there were plenty of reckless and immoral borrowers taking out mortgages they knew (or should have known) they couldn't afford. And yes, you can make a case that the federal government's zeal to increase homeownership levels was partly responsible for lowering lending standards. But the idea that the government is primarily to blame for this whole mess is delusional. It was the private market -- not government programs -- that made, packaged, and sold most of these wretched loans without regard to their quality. The packaging, combined with credit default swaps and other esoteric derivatives, spread the contagion throughout the world. That's why what initially seemed to be a large but containable U.S. mortgage problem touched off a worldwide financial crisis.
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/13/financial-crisis-myths/
sundevil777 102
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteHeritage Foundation - nice impartial source, NOT
Of course they are not. What "impartial" sources are the source of your wisdom?
The default rate for CRA loans is totally impartial. UNLIKE the Heritage Foundation.
It seems that you assume that any loan that was made with easy terms as a result of the CRA would be labeled a CRA loan. I assert that is not likely. The banks knew that the gov't (freddie/fannie) was buying loans no matter their "terms/worth". They didn't have to be labeled CRA.
The Heritage Foundation is not impartial, but it is a logical fallacy to claim their analysis as you have done.QuoteYes, there were plenty of reckless and immoral borrowers taking out mortgages they knew (or should have known) they couldn't afford. And yes, you can make a case that the federal government's zeal to increase homeownership levels was partly responsible for lowering lending standards. But the idea that the government is primarily to blame for this whole mess is delusional. It was the private market -- not government programs -- that made, packaged, and sold most of these wretched loans without regard to their quality. The packaging, combined with credit default swaps and other esoteric derivatives, spread the contagion throughout the world. That's why what initially seemed to be a large but containable U.S. mortgage problem touched off a worldwide financial crisis.
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/13/financial-crisis-myths/
That completely ignores the driving influence that freddie/fannie had in deliberately buying the bad loans. Banks could write them and then sell them to the govt. That is an important factor.
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am
QuoteQuoteDebunked by the Federal Reserve....that's a good one.
Is there something about the word "including" that escapes you?
FACT is, the loans that brought down the banking system were not CRA loans. They were loans the banks made on their own initiative, aided and abetted by the sheer greed of Wall Street.
The fed was the only source you cited. What were the other sources who have debunked the claim? Media Matters?
You do understand the difference between searching through millions and million of already registered voters for false ones, and then finding less than 200, as opposed to verifying new ones?
How is new voter fraud any more illegal or damaging to the electorate than existing voter fraud? So, to you, the important point is not that voter fraud exists, The important point is how that fraud is discovered ....or more likely who is committing fraud. Hey, I have an idea. Let's verify each registration at the point where that registration, fraudulent or not, has the most impact ...at the polls, by requiring a photo ID. Eliminate early voting. Implement an accurate and efficient system to verify absentee ballots. Let's increase penalties for lying on applications and for fabricating voters, and for fraudulent voting and for voter intimidation, etc.