Grizalltheway wrote:The housing market is a giant **** storm that's going to take a loong time to clean up. And it's not as though McCain could have just waved a wand and made it go away.
No, but while the house is on fire, you don't run to the store for a takeout order.
The housing market is a shit storm ONLY because 60% of the foreclosures were voluntary foreclosures by people who had the means to pay but just CHOSE not to. The fact that THAT is legal is what caused a degraded housing market to absolutely and utterly collapse in many areas of the country. It was like pouring gasoline on a fire that would have long been out by now.Grizalltheway wrote:The housing market is a giant shit storm that's going to take a loong time to clean up. And it's not as though McCain could have just waved a wand and made it go away.
You can thank the Community Reinvestment Act also.AZGrizFan wrote:The housing market is a shit storm ONLY because 60% of the foreclosures were voluntary foreclosures by people who had the means to pay but just CHOSE not to. The fact that THAT is legal is what caused a degraded housing market to absolutely and utterly collapse in many areas of the country. It was like pouring gasoline on a fire that would have long been out by now.Grizalltheway wrote:The housing market is a giant shit storm that's going to take a loong time to clean up. And it's not as though McCain could have just waved a wand and made it go away.
You can thank the 60% of Americans without a moral backbone who've helped drive this country into an economic depression that'll take years to recover from...
Oh, and FYI: The last three "economic expansions" have been relatively jobless expansions. When the jobs go away in an economic downturn, about 75% of them NEVER come back.
One of the 5 C's of credit is "Character". These people have NONE.ASUG8 wrote:AZGrizFan wrote:
The housing market is a shit storm ONLY because 60% of the foreclosures were voluntary foreclosures by people who had the means to pay but just CHOSE not to. The fact that THAT is legal is what caused a degraded housing market to absolutely and utterly collapse in many areas of the country. It was like pouring gasoline on a fire that would have long been out by now.
You can thank the 60% of Americans without a moral backbone who've helped drive this country into an economic depression that'll take years to recover from...
Oh, and FYI: The last three "economic expansions" have been relatively jobless expansions. When the jobs go away in an economic downturn, about 75% of them NEVER come back.
You can thank the Community Reinvestment Act also.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/05/opinion/o ... ?hpt=hp_t2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;There are two Rick Santorums: The first one I might not agree with, but the second one truly scares me.
"Santorum One" pushes for less government regulation for corporations and shrinking the federal government. You may or may not agree with these positions, but they are both mainstream conservative fare.
Then there's "Santorum Two." This Santorum wants to impose conservative Christian law upon America. Am I being hyperbolic or overly dramatic with this statement? I wish I were, but I'm not.
Plainly put, Rick Santorum wants to convert our current legal system into one that requires our laws to be in agreement with religious law, not unlike what the Taliban want to do in Afghanistan.
Santorum is not hiding this. The only reason you may not be aware of it is because up until his recent surge in the polls, the media were ignoring him. However, "Santorum Two" was out there telling anyone who would listen.
He told a crowd at a November campaign stop in Iowa in no uncertain terms, "our civil laws have to comport with a higher law: God's law."
On Thanksgiving Day at an Iowa candidates' forum, he reiterated: "We have civil laws, but our civil laws have to comport with the higher law."
I always get a kick out of it when I see my old pal Dean Obeidallah cited. It really is a nice opinion piece.FargoBison wrote:I wonder if Santorum is enjoying the spotlight, his rise will be a short one....
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/05/opinion/o ... ?hpt=hp_t2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;There are two Rick Santorums: The first one I might not agree with, but the second one truly scares me.
"Santorum One" pushes for less government regulation for corporations and shrinking the federal government. You may or may not agree with these positions, but they are both mainstream conservative fare.
Then there's "Santorum Two." This Santorum wants to impose conservative Christian law upon America. Am I being hyperbolic or overly dramatic with this statement? I wish I were, but I'm not.
Plainly put, Rick Santorum wants to convert our current legal system into one that requires our laws to be in agreement with religious law, not unlike what the Taliban want to do in Afghanistan.
Santorum is not hiding this. The only reason you may not be aware of it is because up until his recent surge in the polls, the media were ignoring him. However, "Santorum Two" was out there telling anyone who would listen.
He told a crowd at a November campaign stop in Iowa in no uncertain terms, "our civil laws have to comport with a higher law: God's law."
On Thanksgiving Day at an Iowa candidates' forum, he reiterated: "We have civil laws, but our civil laws have to comport with the higher law."
I agree. And these people only have their credit wrecked for what, 7½ years from the date of the first late pay that led to foreclosure? Which will be what, often 5-6 years after the actual foreclosure? After that, they'll be able to purchase again. But if you were a lender, would you ever lend to a person who you thought had strategic defaulted a mortgage before? I sure as hell wouldn't. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me....AZGrizFan wrote:The housing market is a **** storm ONLY because 60% of the foreclosures were voluntary foreclosures by people who had the means to pay but just CHOSE not to. The fact that THAT is legal is what caused a degraded housing market to absolutely and utterly collapse in many areas of the country. It was like pouring gasoline on a fire that would have long been out by now.Grizalltheway wrote:The housing market is a giant **** storm that's going to take a loong time to clean up. And it's not as though McCain could have just waved a wand and made it go away.
You can thank the 60% of Americans without a moral backbone who've helped drive this country into an economic depression that'll take years to recover from...
Oh, and FYI: The last three "economic expansions" have been relatively jobless expansions. When the jobs go away in an economic downturn, about 75% of them NEVER come back.
These aren't Americans, Jon. They're Iowegians.dbackjon wrote:But Americans will NEVER support a Christian Taliban-like candidate...
Proof here that they will.
Ah, yes. The good old days when a shitbird had to actually wait 7 years to get decent credit again.BDKJMU wrote:I agree. And these people only have their credit wrecked for what, 7½ years from the date of the first late pay that led to foreclosure? Which will be what, often 5-6 years after the actual foreclosure? After that, they'll be able to purchase again. But if you were a lender, would you ever lend to a person who you thought had strategic defaulted a mortgage before? I sure as hell wouldn't. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me....
And Obama couldn't prosecute anyone on Wall Street for the same reason.AZGrizFan wrote:The housing market is a shit storm ONLY because 60% of the foreclosures were voluntary foreclosures by people who had the means to pay but just CHOSE not to. The fact that THAT is legal is what caused a degraded housing market to absolutely and utterly collapse in many areas of the country. It was like pouring gasoline on a fire that would have long been out by now.Grizalltheway wrote:The housing market is a giant shit storm that's going to take a loong time to clean up. And it's not as though McCain could have just waved a wand and made it go away.
You can thank the 60% of Americans without a moral backbone who've helped drive this country into an economic depression that'll take years to recover from...
Oh, and FYI: The last three "economic expansions" have been relatively jobless expansions. When the jobs go away in an economic downturn, about 75% of them NEVER come back.
We'll see how hilarious it is when Obama wins in a landslide.AZGrizFan wrote:That logic (of '86's) is hilarious. The '08 Iowa Dem caucuses had THREE candidates within 7 points of each other, yet somehow they managed. This vote reallly doesn't mean shit except it got one nutjob out of the race. Once we get this herd thinned to a manageable number, we'll be just fine.BDKJMU wrote:
Yeah, the Donks were sure hurt in 08' when they were fractured between Obama & Hillary almost all the way to the donk convention.
Not just Tuesday nights result. I've been saying all along that the GOP is too divided right now. Of course the GOP will eventually pick a candidate. The question is whether or not the entire party will get behind the winner. Right now I don't think so. If Romney wins the evangelicals might not vote in large numbers. If Santorum wins the moderates might vote Obama, or not at all.AZGrizFan wrote:I am not the one understimating them. '86 is. HE is the one who thinks (because of the split vote last night) that somehow obama was the winner last night.kalm wrote:
I think you're underestimating the bat shit crazy wing of your party. The fundies are a block so if they can be splintered in the short term to give Mitt the nomination then called back into the fold by one of their own being nominated VP, it makes sense.
Not the same thing. There was never much doubt that Dems would support the eventual winner, no matter who it was, that is not a given here.BDKJMU wrote:Yeah, the Donks were sure hurt in 08' when they were fractured between Obama & Hillary almost all the way to the donk convention.BlueHen86 wrote:
Might not be a bad idea. It gives the evangelicals a reason to vote for Romney, something they aren't doing right now.
The big winner in Iowa last night was Obama. If the GOP stays this fractured Obama will win in a landslide. A Romney-Perry ticket might work.
And people were saying the SAME THING in 92' about the donks. The donks were too divided, and the question was would the entire party get behind the winner. In the 1st 4 Donk contests, you had 4 different winners. NONE were Clinton. In the 1st 9 contests, you had 5 different winners. The economy was considered Jan 92' as shi**y. Economy Jan 12' is considered as shi**y. By the fall of 92' was on the upswing, as it might be this fall.BlueHen86 wrote:Not just Tuesday nights result. I've been saying all along that the GOP is too divided right now. Of course the GOP will eventually pick a candidate. The question is whether or not the entire party will get behind the winner. Right now I don't think so. If Romney wins the evangelicals might not vote in large numbers. If Santorum wins the moderates might vote Obama, or not at all.AZGrizFan wrote:
I am not the one understimating them. '86 is. HE is the one who thinks (because of the split vote last night) that somehow obama was the winner last night.
Apples and oranges. The GOP has to reconcile between the true conservatives and the Christian right, that may not be easy to do. There was no equivalent for the Dems in 1992.BDKJMU wrote:And people were saying the SAME THING in 92' about the donks. In the 1st 4 Donk contests, you had 4 different winners. NONE were Clinton. In the 1st 9 contests, you had 5 different winners.BlueHen86 wrote:
Not just Tuesday nights result. I've been saying all along that the GOP is too divided right now. Of course the GOP will eventually pick a candidate. The question is whether or not the entire party will get behind the winner. Right now I don't think so. If Romney wins the evangelicals might not vote in large numbers. If Santorum wins the moderates might vote Obama, or not at all.
Yeah there was- southern & Reagan democrats, moderate dems, and the liberal left wing of the party.BlueHen86 wrote:Apples and oranges. The GOP has to reconcile between the true conservatives and the Christian right, that may not be easy to do. There was no equivalent for the Dems in 1992.BDKJMU wrote:
And people were saying the SAME THING in 92' about the donks. In the 1st 4 Donk contests, you had 4 different winners. NONE were Clinton. In the 1st 9 contests, you had 5 different winners.
I don't think the divide between them is as great as the divide in the GOP right now. This upcoming election reminds me of 2004, the GOP will pick a candidate that doesn't excite the party enough to unseat a vulnerable President.BDKJMU wrote:Yeah there was- southern & Reagan democrats, moderate dems, and the liberal left wing of the party.BlueHen86 wrote:
Apples and oranges. The GOP has to reconcile between the true conservatives and the Christian right, that may not be easy to do. There was no equivalent for the Dems in 1992.
Great comparison, TTBF.TwinTownBisonFan wrote:Lots of comparisons to draw - and the biggest mistake anyone can make is reading too much from Iowa... where Huckabee won in 08 for the GOP mind you.
The comparison that STILL seems the most apt is 2004. When Democrats were filled with bile and fury over Bush and most Americans didn't get why they were so angry. Same is true here... Romney is John Kerry in every way - milquetoast and bland, with his finger in the wind... about as genuine as an Amway salesman. Santorum/Gingrich/Perry/flavor of the week is Howard Dean - tapping in to the anger of the base...
It's a CNN opinion piece. That is all.FargoBison wrote:I wonder if Santorum is enjoying the spotlight, his rise will be a short one....
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/05/opinion/o ... ?hpt=hp_t2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;There are two Rick Santorums: The first one I might not agree with, but the second one truly scares me.
"Santorum One" pushes for less government regulation for corporations and shrinking the federal government. You may or may not agree with these positions, but they are both mainstream conservative fare.
Then there's "Santorum Two." This Santorum wants to impose conservative Christian law upon America. Am I being hyperbolic or overly dramatic with this statement? I wish I were, but I'm not.
Plainly put, Rick Santorum wants to convert our current legal system into one that requires our laws to be in agreement with religious law, not unlike what the Taliban want to do in Afghanistan.
Santorum is not hiding this. The only reason you may not be aware of it is because up until his recent surge in the polls, the media were ignoring him. However, "Santorum Two" was out there telling anyone who would listen.
He told a crowd at a November campaign stop in Iowa in no uncertain terms, "our civil laws have to comport with a higher law: God's law."
On Thanksgiving Day at an Iowa candidates' forum, he reiterated: "We have civil laws, but our civil laws have to comport with the higher law."
D1B wrote:You fucks ruined the nation before Obama was elected. He's cleaning up your mess and doing a great job. He saved the nation. Republicans will never acknowledge this, because they hate blacks and hispanics.ASUG8 wrote:
Herman Cain had a shot until his past libido did him in.
I think most Republicans certainly don't see BHO as a viable alternative given his lack of performance so far.
Conk Urban legend. It was the securitization of housing loans that drove the bad loans and the bubble. In other words to paraphrase 89hens boy Matt Taiibi, it was '(free) market driven.'ASUG8 wrote:You can thank the Community Reinvestment Act also.AZGrizFan wrote:
The housing market is a shit storm ONLY because 60% of the foreclosures were voluntary foreclosures by people who had the means to pay but just CHOSE not to. The fact that THAT is legal is what caused a degraded housing market to absolutely and utterly collapse in many areas of the country. It was like pouring gasoline on a fire that would have long been out by now.
You can thank the 60% of Americans without a moral backbone who've helped drive this country into an economic depression that'll take years to recover from...
Oh, and FYI: The last three "economic expansions" have been relatively jobless expansions. When the jobs go away in an economic downturn, about 75% of them NEVER come back.
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=27212" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Here are some numbers for you. There were approximately $1.4 trillion worth of subprime loans outstanding in the United States by the end of 2007. By May 2009, there were foreclosure filings against approximately 5.1 million properties. If it was only the subprime market's fault, 1.4 trillion would have covered the entire problem, right?
Yet the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, and the FDIC forked out more than $13 trillion to fix the "housing correction," as Hank Paulson steadfastly referred to the Second Great Bank Depression as late as November 20, 2008, while he was treasury secretary. With that money, the government could have bought up every residential mortgage in the country — there were about $11.9 trillion worth at the end of December 2008 — and still have had a trillion left over to buy homes for every single American who couldn't afford them, and pay their health care to boot.
http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/06 ... -all-time/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;I’m always amazed at these people who think the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 caused the Housing and Credit Crisis of… 2007. You’d have to be as dumb as a bag of hammers to think that a law gets passed in 1977, magically does not affect the housing market adversely for 30 years, and then suddenly explodes in toxic leverage and brings down the entire international financial system a generation later.
For the last time: the Community Reinvestment Act DID NOT FORCE BANKS TO LEND TO UNWORTHY BORROWERS. It did not force banks to open branches in bad neighborhoods or rescue “burned out” communities. It did not actually force banks to do anything at all, as a matter of fact. All the act did was specify that if you wanted to get FDIC insurance, you had to actually lend to the people whose deposits you held. And this was not mandated by quotas or numerical targets. There was no specific mechanism for this at all. The act just forced banks to be subject to periodic reviews by the banks’ primary regulator, whoever that happened to be — the Fed, the OCC, the FDIC, and the state banking institutions. These regulators were supposed to look at the banks’ lending history and make sure that they weren’t refusing to lend to their own depositors, a practice that was common in ghetto bank branches through the seventies.
Since we have all seen how completely and totally ineffectual the banking regulators have been in the last fifteen years in enforcing even the most basic criminal statutes, it again strains the imagination to conceive of the mind that would believe that somehow all these different ineffectual regulators ignored all other laws for decades but chose to hammer the banks with the CRA, forcing them all to give out loans to poor black people.
It’s not true and it’s absurd. The CRA, again, did not force anyone to make any kind of loan. I’m going to quote from the Federal Reserve’s own description of the law:
“Nor does the law require institutions to make high-risk loans that jeopardize their safety. To the contrary, the law makes it clear that an institution’s CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner.”
This crisis had nothing to do with the CRA and everything to do with the collapse of mortgage underwriting standards, coupled with advances in the technology of securitization, which allowed banks to lend to unworthy borrowers and then sell off these dicey mortgages to secondary buyers. The driving forces in this crisis were bonuses for mortgage brokers and appraisers, underwriting fees for the securitizing firms, and commissions for the institutional fixed-income fund managers who bought this stuff from the investment banks. It was a purely market-driven process and had absolutely nothing to do with government-mandated social engineering.
It blows my mind, the lengths people will go to to blame disasters on liberals and minorities. The really ironic thing is that if you want to blame the Democrats for this stuff, there are plenty of real misdeeds to bash them for. The fact that the Limbaugh/Hannity crowd decided to focus on a basically irrelevant law like the CRA shows that they know their audiences will buy pretty much anything, so long as the punchline is black slobs on welfare breaking the back of hardworking America...
I’ve got to add something else, because this is just so ridiculous, this pegging the financial crisis on the CRA.
First of all, the agencies that conduct CRA examinations have absolutely no enforcement powers. None — zero. Even if you flunk your CRA examination, you cannot be ordered to do anything.
In fact, the government chose to address this issue in 1989 by making the results of CRA exams public. The idea here is that you’d see a little bit of a deterrent here — in the absence of real enforcement powers, banks might at least be embarrassed into lending to their depositors if the fact that they didn’t lend to minorities was explicitly made public.
On the other hand, the government didn’t want CRA exams to be such a huge burden. So in 1999, as part of Gramm-Leach-Bliley, they mandated that CRA exams would only take place once every four or five years for all banks that were deemed “Satisfactory” or better in their exams.
In the period 2002-2008, state member banks evaluated by the Fed scored the following: 15.8% were “outstanding,” 83.7% were “satisfactory,” and only .5% had a “needs to improve” or worse rating.
So, the housing bubble was caused by half of one percent of all banks being so embarrassed by public disclosure of their CRA rating that they went bonkers and started forking over million-dollar mortgages to every crackhead in sight.
