Taxes were cut, where are the jobs?

Taichiliberal said:
As ususal, the then neocon rag WND draws a false conclusion based on the conjecture of a right wing think tank/research center regarding CRA.

The NACA has a history of shady behavior http://blackpoliticalbuzz.blogspot.com/2009/12/nacas-better-business-bureau-complaints.html

That the NACA conned and scammed banks STILL DOES NOT IMPLICATE THE CRA ACT, as THERE IS NO LANGUAGE IN THE CRA THAT FORCES A BANK TO MAKE FALSE LOANS.

The criminal actions of the NACA was NOT solely responsible for the bulk of the bankers chicanery. Note this article from Bloomberg news (no "liberal" source by any means):
http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html
Click to expand...

I don't know what the issue was between the NACA and NAACP, but the NACA, as I stated earlier, was forefront in taking on predatory lenders.
 
job-creators-parasites.jpg
 
Howey said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
As ususal, the then neocon rag WND draws a false conclusion based on the conjecture of a right wing think tank/research center regarding CRA.

The NACA has a history of shady behavior http://blackpoliticalbuzz.blogspot.c...omplaints.html

That the NACA conned and scammed banks STILL DOES NOT IMPLICATE THE CRA ACT, as THERE IS NO LANGUAGE IN THE CRA THAT FORCES A BANK TO MAKE FALSE LOANS.

The criminal actions of the NACA was NOT solely responsible for the bulk of the bankers chicanery. Note this article from Bloomberg news (no "liberal" source by any means):
http://www.businessweek.com/investin...ity_reinv.html
Click to expand...

I don't know what the issue was between the NACA and NAACP, but the NACA, as I stated earlier, was forefront in taking on predatory lenders.
Click to expand...

That may be, but it does not excuse the documented actions in the link I provided....still, our silly neocon/teabagger flunkies keep trying to make the NACA the core reason for housing market fiasco, and that is simply not the case.
 
Althea said:
Well, they can't make the case for Raygunomics, so they'll divert the discussion to another flawed topic.


Ask them about figures re default rates for CRA loans.

BOA hailed CRA paper as a good investment in the early stages of Bush's tenure.
Click to expand...

Bawney Fwank thaid that Fannie and Freddie were finanthialy thound. Tho what ith your point?
 
Taichiliberal said:
Once backed into a corner our insipidly stubborn neocon/teabagger flunkie spews forth bits and parts of reality, then covers it with his usual suppostion and conjecture, backed by biased right wing nut punditry, bloggers and hacks.

Sorry bunky, but you can't snow me. Here's what cuts throughyour smoke screen:


The facts about the subprime mortgage market prove that claim false: Private firms dominated the subprime market boom of 2004-06, and were not even subject to the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act some Republicans vilify.
http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201110140001#facts


Education requires the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth, bunky. Time you learned that.
Click to expand...

After reading your post, I can only deduce a couple of things

1) you are flat out lying
2) you didn't read anything I said
3) you read it but didn't understand it because you have the financial acumen of a two year old

I never once said that the CRA by itself was the only thing that caused the housing bust. I said it was a part of it. There were many other parts as well, which I brilliantly pointed out, but you willfully ignored. You will also note that I didnt blame one party over another. It was bipartisan negligence.

The 100% main culprit was the federal reserve which kept interest rates artificially low and primed the pump.

But, you keep sticking to your false premise. I am sure it keeps you all warm and fuzzy at night
 
FactsRStubborn said:
After reading your post, I can only deduce a couple of things

1) you are flat out lying
2) you didn't read anything I said
3) you read it but didn't understand it because you have the financial acumen of a two year old

I never once said that the CRA by itself was the only thing that caused the housing bust. I said it was a part of it. There were many other parts as well, which I brilliantly pointed out, but you willfully ignored. You will also note that I didnt blame one party over another. It was bipartisan negligence.

The 100% main culprit was the federal reserve which kept interest rates artificially low and primed the pump.

But, you keep sticking to your false premise. I am sure it keeps you all warm and fuzzy at night
Click to expand...
Wrong. There's nothing wrong with low interest rates.

Private lenders were writing notes that they knew were bogus, because Wall St. demanded more paper for MBDs.

There was no risk for anyone, except the taxpayer in the end.

The problem was a lack of sound lending practices by private lenders.

And a bailout of the companies that funded/insured the garbage.
 
Jarod said:
We have been living with the Bush Tax Cuts for a while now, job losses since have been bad...

I thought tax cuts were designed to create jobs, what gives?
Click to expand...

We have been living with JFK's Tax Cuts for over 60 years now, job losses since have been bad...

I thought tax cuts were designed to create jobs, what gives?

How about that Jarod, what gives ?
 
Althea said:
Wrong. There's nothing wrong with low interest rates.

Private lenders were writing notes that they knew were bogus, because Wall St. demanded more paper for MBDs.

There was no risk for anyone, except the taxpayer in the end.

The problem was a lack of sound lending practices by private lenders.

And a bailout of the companies that funded/insured the garbage.
Click to expand...

Jane you ignorant slut. I didn't say there was anything wrong with low interest rates. I said they were artificially low. They would not be this low if the free market were allowed to work. Higher interst rates would cause more saving, which would lead to kore capital. But, that takes time and the wizards of smart think they know better and think they can manipulate the free market and the law of supply and deman. You can't.

I don't disagree that there was a lack of sound lending practices, but just blaming it on the banks and ignoring the other factors is just willfully ignorance on your part. It was a multi factorial cluster fuck with the gobblement right at the center of it pushing "home ownership". So they found a way to make billions. Now throw in the concept of moral hazard and BINGO financial crises. Te wizards of smart knew the politicians would blink and bail them out so they made bigger and bigger bets knowing that the politicians would dump it on the taxpayer.

It was like someone told you that you could go to Vegas and keep all of your winnings, but someone else would cover your losses. How would you bet? That is moral hazard.
 
There's nothing wrong with low interest rates.
Click to expand...

It all depends on who the low interest rates are for, doesn't it?

If there is relatively little risk and you can be almost certain to get your money back, a low interest rate is fine and dandy. But if there is a higher risk, like the person you are lending to has no credit history, or limited income... these things have to be considered when determining interest rates because you won't always get your money back. The more risky the loan, the higher the interest rate, that is the general rule of finance.

What we had with housing, was an interest rate through F&F that was mandated low by the government, in spite of the risk to the lenders. This 'tinkering' with how things work in the REAL world of finance, is ultimately what led to the disaster. You can point fingers at both parties, because both share the blame for it. Government had no business backing low-interest loans to low-income families who didn't have the credit or capital to secure such loans. It's pretty much that simple.
 
FactsRStubborn said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Once backed into a corner our insipidly stubborn neocon/teabagger flunkie spews forth bits and parts of reality, then covers it with his usual suppostion and conjecture, backed by biased right wing nut punditry, bloggers and hacks.

Sorry bunky, but you can't snow me. Here's what cuts throughyour smoke screen:


The facts about the subprime mortgage market prove that claim false: Private firms dominated the subprime market boom of 2004-06, and were not even subject to the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act some Republicans vilify.
http://politicalcorrection.org/factc...10140001#facts


Education requires the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth, bunky. Time you learned that.
Click to expand...


After reading your post, I can only deduce a couple of things

1) you are flat out lying
2) you didn't read anything I said
3) you read it but didn't understand it because you have the financial acumen of a two year old

I never once said that the CRA by itself was the only thing that caused the housing bust. I said it was a part of it. There were many other parts as well, which I brilliantly pointed out, but you willfully ignored. You will also note that I didnt blame one party over another. It was bipartisan negligence.

The 100% main culprit was the federal reserve which kept interest rates artificially low and primed the pump.

But, you keep sticking to your false premise. I am sure it keeps you all warm and fuzzy at night
Click to expand...


And as you can see by reading http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...-cut-where-are-the-jobs&p=1039925#post1039925 this insipidly stubborn neocon/teabagger flunkie keeps regurgitating his disproven assertions to no avail other than satisfying his delusion of intelligence on the subject at hand.

Bottom line: the CRA of 1977 had NOTHING to do with the subprime mortage fiasco in any shape, form or manner. NO bank was forced to purposely make bad loans to minorities....they were merely to INCLUDE minorities of low income along with the non-minority (aka white people) of low income loans (as they banks were NOT in the habit of making bad loans to low income white folk) The CRA of 1977 DID NOT force bankers to bundle those bad loans with good ones and then sell them to each other and unsuspecting banks A matter of fact, a matter of history that our insipidly stubborn friend refuses to accept. Instead, he spins a tale of supposition and conjecture to try and force his assertion into reality. Sadly, the historical facts that I sourced just won't go along.

It never ceases to amaze me how these neocon/teabagger flunkies keep carrying water for the very people who literally spit in their faces. The bankers cheated and stole from the American people, and then got us to bail them out. Blaming a federal program designed to prevent the racist practice of red-lining is yet another smoke screen...but as proven here in the chronology of the posts, that neocon/teabagger dog just won't fly.
 
L
Taichiliberal said:
And as you can see by reading http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...-cut-where-are-the-jobs&p=1039925#post1039925 this insipidly stubborn neocon/teabagger flunkie keeps regurgitating his disproven assertions to no avail other than satisfying his delusion of intelligence on the subject at hand.

Bottom line: the CRA of 1977 had NOTHING to do with the subprime mortage fiasco in any shape, form or manner. NO bank was forced to purposely make bad loans to minorities....they were merely to INCLUDE minorities of low income along with the non-minority (aka white people) of low income loans. The CRA of 1977 DID NOT force bankers to bundle those bad loans with good ones and then sell them to each other and unsuspecting banks A matter of fact, a matter of history that our insipidly stubborn friend refuses to accept. Instead, he spins a tale of supposition and conjecture to try and force his assertion into reality. Sadly, the historical facts that I sourced just won't go along.

It never ceases to amaze me how these neocon/teabagger flunkies keep carrying water for the very people who literally spit in their faces. The bankers cheated and stole from the American people, and then got us to bail them out. Blaming a federal program designed to prevent the racist practice of red-lining is yet another smoke screen...but as proven here in the chronology of the posts, that neocon/teabagger dog just won't fly.
Click to expand...

Not anyone in jail, either, which makes me wonder if some states are moving forward on their lawsuits.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Once backed into a corner our insipidly stubborn neocon/teabagger flunkie spews forth bits and parts of reality, then covers it with his usual suppostion and conjecture, backed by biased right wing nut punditry, bloggers and hacks.

Sorry bunky, but you can't snow me. Here's what cuts throughyour smoke screen:


The facts about the subprime mortgage market prove that claim false: Private firms dominated the subprime market boom of 2004-06, and were not even subject to the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act some Republicans vilify.
http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201110140001#facts


Education requires the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth, bunky. Time you learned that.
Click to expand...


OMG, you are ranting about 'the WHOLE truth' and citing Media Matters thinking that is the truth? You're a joke....Take your straw argument, and name calling somewhere else.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Their heads would explode, as they are currently doing everything BUT providing the actual quote(s) from the CRA of 1977 that supports any of their claims and assertions.

And remember, all this is an aside from the FACT that the Bush tax cuts (reaganomics by any other name) DID NOT produce the jobs the neocons/teabaggers and libertarian lunkheads all swore they would.
Click to expand...


'Neocons' 'Teabaggers' 'Lunkheads'....Look here you shithead marxist, read this and learn something.

The main cause of the current economic crisis is the boom-and-bust cycle that was caused by the Greenspan Fed. Years of artificially-lowered interest rates caused trillions of dollars in mal-investment in real estate and other industries, and now we must endure the bust. But crackpot egalitarianism within the Fed and, indeed, in the entire Washington establishment, has made the crisis infinitely worse.

In the early 1990s the Boston Fed did all that it could to fabricate "evidence" of widespread lending discrimination against racial minorities. But when Peter Brimelow and Leslie Spencer of Forbes magazine asked Boston Fed official Alicia Munnel what evidence of discrimination she really had, she was forced to admit that she had none.

Fighting discrimination was not the Fed's real goal. The real goal was to achieve a more "egalitarian distribution" of housing, period. So under the phony guise of "fighting discrimination" the Fed, the Congress, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and myriad other federal government agencies forced, bribed, and extorted mortgage lenders of all kinds into making literally trillions of dollars in bad loans to unqualified borrowers. Countrywide Bank alone was praised by the Fed for making $600 billion in such loans (shortly before it went bankrupt).

The Fed's "smoking gun" in this entire charade is a Boston Fed publication entitled "Closing the Gap: A Guide to Equal Opportunity Lending." There is a gap, you see, between the value of real estate owned by middle- and upper-income Americans on the one hand, and lower-income Americans on the other. (There is also a luxury automobile gap, a two-week European vacation gap, a luxury boat gap, an expensive suit gap, and many others). The federal government has used all of its powers of threats, force, and intimidation over the past two decades to try to close the housing "gap." "The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston wants to be helpful to lenders as they work to close the mortgage gap," the publication states.

In addition to closing the "mortgage gap," the Fed also pressured lenders to adopt a more vigorous racial hiring quota system, presumably under the theory that minority loan officers would be more likely to acquiesce in the Fed's dictates to make more mortgage loans to its political mascots, sub-prime borrowers.

The Boston Fed report claims that it is only offering lenders "guidelines," and "suggestions," but it is very clear that failure to obey the Fed's "guidelines" can lead to serious financial problems for any mortgage lender. The report states in bold type that "Failure to comply with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act or Regulation B can subject a financial institution to civil liability for actual and punitive damages in individual or class actions. Liability for punitive damages can be as much as $10,000 in individual actions and the lesser of $500,000 or 1 percent of the creditor's net worth in class actions."

All lenders — banks, independent mortgage companies, etc. — were told that they needed to pay close attention to "such laws and regulations as the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B), the Fair Housing Act, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (Regulation C), and the Community Reinvestment Act." A "conscientious [bank] Board will recognize the potential liability associated with noncompliance . . ." Ah, the subtle power of suggestion.

The Fed instructed lenders to ignore traditional measures of creditworthiness when it came to "minority and low-income consumers." Traditional underwriting standards were said to contain "arbitrary or unreasonable measures of creditworthiness." "Special standards" that "are appropriate to the economic culture of urban, lower-income, and non-traditional consumers" were urged. For example, traditional underwriting standards take into consideration such things as age, location, and condition of a house, but these should be abandoned when it comes to sub-prime borrowers, said the Fed.

Traditional ratios of mortgage payments to monthly income can also be ignored, said the Fed. And besides, "the secondary market [i.e., Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] is willing to consider ratios above the standard" ones for other borrowers. "Lack of credit history" should not be a factor either. "Successful participation in credit counseling" was said to be an adequate substitute.

Lenders were repeatedly urged to "work with special secondary mortgage market programs" such as those administered by Fannie and Freddie. Lenders were told to "be aware that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have issued statements to the effect that they understand urban areas require different appraisal methods." If a sub-prime borrower has a property appraisal problem, then the Fed or Fannie Mae could help to find "another experienced appraiser" who would presumably see to it that the property was "correctly" reappraised so that the sub-prime loan could be made. Yours truly was always under the impression that shopping around for "the right" appraiser who would give you the number you wanted (for a fee) was fraudulent and illegal. Silly me.

In sum, the Fed's policy of housing market socialism (endorsed and supplemented by numerous federal laws and regulations), combined with the boom-and-bust cycle that it created, has been an unmitigated economic catastrophe for the entire world. Naturally, the Fed's response has been to grant itself even more powers, while the executive branch and Congress are busy nationalizing the capital markets, a move that will kill American capitalism. Abolishing the Fed would be a very modest first step in dismantling our rotten Leviathan state so that the next generation can at least have some hope of living in a reasonably free and prosperous society.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo154.html
Click to expand...


And don't give me any of your stupid shit from thinkprogress, mediamatters, or any other leftist BS site, then ask me a strawman question...You have no intention of debating anything about this, you are a flame thrower, and worse yet a dupe of the liberal marxist left, a useful idiot as they are called.
 
Barney Frank Caught Lying About Fannie Mae
Don't Regulate Fannie Mae or Freddy Mac
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EVIDENCE FOUND!!! Clinton administration's "BANK AFFIRMATIVE ACTION" They forced banks to make
 
j-mac said:
'Neocons' 'Teabaggers' 'Lunkheads'....Look here you shithead marxist, read this and learn something.




And don't give me any of your stupid shit from thinkprogress, mediamatters, or any other leftist BS site, then ask me a strawman question...You have no intention of debating anything about this, you are a flame thrower, and worse yet a dupe of the liberal marxist left, a useful idiot as they are called.
Click to expand...

But it's fine for you to post bloviating diatribes from Lew Rockwell...

:rofl2:
 
bravo said:
Barney Frank Caught Lying About Fannie Mae

Don't Regulate Fannie Mae or Freddy Mac

-----------------------------------------------------------------
EVIDENCE FOUND!!! Clinton administration's "BANK AFFIRMATIVE ACTION" They forced banks to make
Click to expand...

^unwatched
 
j-mac said:
'Neocons' 'Teabaggers' 'Lunkheads'....Look here you shithead marxist, read this and learn something.
Click to expand...

Lol... you decry Media Matters and then trot out an oped from Lew Rockwell, the ghostwriter of all of Ron Paul's racist diatribes?

Fail!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top