marks2065

Nothing illegal was done. Unethical yes, but not illegal. Just capitalists making as much money as they can. Why are you against capitalism? no i believe in capitalism, just don't like hypocrits like Polosi and her supporters for not calling her out on it. If it is illegal for us it should be illegal for them.

I work with a bunch of them... and play with a lot more... yeah.. innocent Go on BELIEVING Some of themn realize that change is coming.... some of them know how good they have it... some of think they deserve it because they are just that much better than everyone else... yet many of them... like George... were born with that silver spoon in thier mouth. Those who protect them decry class warfare..... DUUUUUUDE.. you better learn... that they have been practicing it already and are the big winners so far, and are laughing all the way to the Swiss and Cayman Banks. how about your buddy Polosi and her insider trading deals. the left is looking more corrupt every day and you sit their on your ass and support them. look in the mirror.

That was from an article that actually compared the 2.

Most of those living below poverty level here have more square footage of living space, more tv's, more video games, more cars and more food that the middle class in europe.

Blues, Dave Well I agree, raise taxes on those not paying taxes, you know the 47% of the free loaders many of who are right now sitting on wall street crying for more free stuff.

I think we should hold financial institutions to higher standards than bookies, but that's just me. Me too, but the issue is that they had to cover the bets made because of policy, not because they wanted to. The error in your argument is that CRA loans actually had a lower default rate than loans made by institutions not covered at all by the CRA. the error in your argument is cra caused ALL loan qualifications to be reduced so as to not discriminate. Time to start looking at the cause and effect of the lefts feel good policies. The gist of your argument is that because banks made some loans they **thought** might go bad (but in fact didn't perform any worse than traditional mortgages), they covered them by making REALLY bad loan decisions that had nothing whatever to do with government mandates. Sorry, it's a silly argument. Banks made the **really** bad loans entirely on their own initiative, aided and abetted by Wall Street greed that allowed the crap to be leveraged over and over and over. no that is not what I said read again You are wrong because the majority by far of bad loans were nothing whatever to do with government mandates. Just plain old greed by (mostly middle class) homebuyers who thought the tree would grow to the sky, banks, and investors. They got approved for loans they should not have qualified for because of the lowered standards. period.

Based on the percentages of who lost their homes.... I would say.. its NOT the group you want to bag on did the most damage.. but you go right on ahead believing the way you do... The numbers paint a far different picture than those of you wishing it is just all those silly negroes that the government forced the banks to make loans to. Lets do some numbers just for grins http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/us/13homeowner.html After peaking at 69 percent in 2004, the rate of homeownership for all American households declined to 67.8 percent in 2008. For African-American households, it fell to 47.5 percent in 2008 from 49.4 percent in 2004. SO there are about 39 million afro-american/blacks and the decline was 1.9% at about what 4 people per houshold for about 185250 homes gone poof. Latinos, native and foreign-born together, had a longer period of growth, with homeownership rising until 2006, to 49.8 percent, before falling to 48.9 percent last year. Homeownership for native-born Latinos fell to 53.6 percent from a high of 56.2 percent in 2005. The decline among whites was more modest, to 74.9 percent last year from 76.1 percent in 2004. SO.. there are about 200 MILLION Whites... and the decline was 1.2% or about 2.4 million people at say 4 people per houshold or 600 THOUSAND homes lost ) Darn those silly whites who were forced into buying all those homes by Countrywide... Those numbers seems to get lost in the fringe right telling of this story on places like FAUX Spews. A whole lot of people made a whole lot of money off of the people who should never have been told that yes indeed they could afford those loans. The bottom line. is WHO benefited the most from it. But we know you and your fellow travellers are not willing to ask THOSE questions. DEMOGRAPHICS data from WIKI Race Number Percentage White alone (of which 26.7 million are White Hispanic and Latino Americans, see table below. Excluding these, this category comprises 63.7% or 196.8 million) 223,553,265 72.4% Black or African American alone 38,929,319 12.6% Some other race alone (Mestizo, Mulatto...) 19,107,368 6.2% Asian alone 14,674,252 4.8% Two or more races 9,009,073 2.9% American Indian or Alaska Native alone 2,932,248 0.9% Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander alone 540,013 0.2% Total 308,745,538 100.0% why do you keep bringing race into things? who cares what color the people are? The bottom line is the lending qualifications were lowered for all and many people and banks took out loans they should not have qualified for to the detrement of the country.

I think we should hold financial institutions to higher standards than bookies, but that's just me. Me too, but the issue is that they had to cover the bets made because of policy, not because they wanted to. The error in your argument is that CRA loans actually had a lower default rate than loans made by institutions not covered at all by the CRA. the error in your argument is cra caused ALL loan qualifications to be reduced so as to not discriminate. Time to start looking at the cause and effect of the lefts feel good policies. The gist of your argument is that because banks made some loans they **thought** might go bad (but in fact didn't perform any worse than traditional mortgages), they covered them by making REALLY bad loan decisions that had nothing whatever to do with government mandates. Sorry, it's a silly argument. Banks made the **really** bad loans entirely on their own initiative, aided and abetted by Wall Street greed that allowed the crap to be leveraged over and over and over. no that is not what I said read again

I think we should hold financial institutions to higher standards than bookies, but that's just me. Me too, but the issue is that they had to cover the bets made because of policy, not because they wanted to. The error in your argument is that CRA loans actually had a lower default rate than loans made by institutions not covered at all by the CRA. the error in your argument is cra caused ALL loan qualifications to be reduced so as to not discriminate. Time to start looking at the cause and effect of the lefts feel good policies.

I think we should hold financial institutions to higher standards than bookies, but that's just me. Me too, but the issue is that they had to cover the bets made because of policy, not because they wanted to.

It's the, "although it certainly played a role after the fact," that opens up a huge hole. It's a weasel line from the author. I agree that the Feds forced banks to reduce their lending standards for minority applicants. What I disagree with is the proportional role that had in the ensuing crisis. The banks started lending indiscriminately to everyone, minority or not, when they found they could make just as much money off the bad loans as the good. That happened because they packaged the loans up, got the ratings agencies to sign off on them, and then sold them to third party investors. The banks now had no financial interest in the bad loans, so they kept reducing their lending standards until anyone could get any loan they wanted. The Feds didn't mandate that. A reduction of standards for minority applicants by itself would not have created the large scale crisis we had. There just aren't enough minorities. It would be discrimination to not offer the weaker leanding standards to all. So just weakening the lending standards for the poor was not an option. This is the issue that caused the collapse. The mortgage bundles would not have been needed to cover their asses if the had not lowered the lending standards. The banks were put in a no win situation knowing that these bad loans were going to fail and used mortgage backed securities to cover their ass, then when it became to much to cover they doubled down and bet against these knowing they would fail. this has been going on for a long time by bookies to cover bets, wall street just used the same idea. The government opened the door and we lost. How many people lost their jobs, homes, and retirements so a few thousand undeserving people could own a house get fabulously wealthier? There fixed that for you It would not have happened if the left didn't start the issue. Capitalism will check itself until the left and the government involved. All so a few thousand could buy a house that couldn't afford a house, see the mess people like you started.

the government was the institution that forced the banks to reduce qualifications under presure from the left to give everybody a house. Once again the left and their entitlement attitude cause the financial mess. seems to be broken record with the left.

It's the, "although it certainly played a role after the fact," that opens up a huge hole. It's a weasel line from the author. I agree that the Feds forced banks to reduce their lending standards for minority applicants. What I disagree with is the proportional role that had in the ensuing crisis. The banks started lending indiscriminately to everyone, minority or not, when they found they could make just as much money off the bad loans as the good. That happened because they packaged the loans up, got the ratings agencies to sign off on them, and then sold them to third party investors. The banks now had no financial interest in the bad loans, so they kept reducing their lending standards until anyone could get any loan they wanted. The Feds didn't mandate that. A reduction of standards for minority applicants by itself would not have created the large scale crisis we had. There just aren't enough minorities. It would be discrimination to not offer the weaker leanding standards to all. So just weakening the lending standards for the poor was not an option. This is the issue that caused the collapse. The mortgage bundles would not have been needed to cover their asses if the had not lowered the lending standards. The banks were put in a no win situation knowing that these bad loans were going to fail and used mortgage backed securities to cover their ass, then when it became to much to cover they doubled down and bet against these knowing they would fail. this has been going on for a long time by bookies to cover bets, wall street just used the same idea. The government opened the door and we lost. How many people lost their jobs, homes, and retirements so a few thousand undeserving people could own a house?

I think it was the government twisting the bankers arms to give loans to unqualified people was the start and all that wall street did was find a way to make money off it and ran with the idea. What the government does not understand is that the free market will find ways to use what is gievn them and if they had not pushed for unqualified people to get these bad loans the issue would not have happened. This is just one more reason the government needs to step aside and not try to control things they do not understand. everything the feds do ends up a corrupt mess.

And again... I said somethign to the effect that I think that ALL voters need to be accomodated.. and the suppression of ANY votes by Americans.... is un-American. The fact that thousands of precints across this country have seen concerted efforts at voter suppression.. is CRIMINAL.. no matter who does it. The fact that one party does it in far greater numbers in todays world is rather telling.. but oh.. it does seem the fringe right here is good with any means to win... no matter the means... the outcome is all important... getting the ability to kiss some more rich ass for christ. you mean likr the black panthers in 2008? or do you mean the prison voting in minnesota for Al franken? Those evil Black Panthers must have really skeered you.... must be their large manhood or something. I love it when the usual suspects find a grain of sand in a flood of boulders of election misdeeds. Whats good for the rePUBICLOWN party.. is good for America.. no matter the means.. the ends justify anything to get into power for their masters... Just a wee bit more kissing the collective 1% ass for christ... different day.... same asses If you want to be taken seriously you need to stand against and point out all voter fraud, otherwise you are just a hypocrite.

You should try and be more factual, unemployment insurance is not free money. yes it is, it is money that is given to you with out having to wrk fot it. the employer pays for the insurance not you. In its origonal form it is not to bad but extending it up to 99 weeks it causes lazy people to sit and wait.

and some say it would not produce more revenue than is already being collectected. It would also reduce the total number of different collection methods (like capital gains andretirement accounts) at this time. so yes it would add a national sales tax it would be revenue nutral, less # of avenues to collect tax and simplified.

this is interesting read and graf top help you out. http://www.radford.edu/wkovarik/oil/

he didn't say we needed more taxes, just a more fair way of collecting it.

political right or left does not make someone lazy, giving them free money does.

math that had the wrong numbers

No the right is not saying we need more taxes, the right wants all people to pay some taxes and the bigger users to pay more. In this plan the more you buy the more you pay. All people paying something and the bigger users paying more, what could be more fair? not to mention all imports would now be subject to federal tax when purchased.

maybe when the unemployment is stoped the unemployed americans will change their minds about what they will or will not do.

Everything the right has put out has been bashed and stomped on, . National Review IS part of the right. Clearly some of the folks on the right recognize Cain's nonsense. Everyone is bashing it, even others in the recent debate, the problem they see with 999 is that it takes the money and control out of Washington. It's nonsense, poorly thought out nonsense. www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/10/herman-cain Is that what you teach your students? just bash any Idea and close your mind to it? You are telling me there is not one good idea in his plan? not one little piece of the entire plan that could be good? The plan stands or falls as a whole, not in pieces. My students are good at math. They recognize nonsense without my assistance. Even Grover Norquist thinks it a bad plan. Why do yoiu think it is a bad plan? It's a perfect example of Einstein's dictum: "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong". I asked what you thought was wrong with the 999 plan. I don't think Einstein has any idea what is right or wrong about it.

and with the data they used they would have been correct. unfortunately they have been using flawed data. Wonder how the flawed data about AGW changes their predictions on that subject?