Irony on steroids.
Your post indicates that you cannot speak to the argument you're making about CA pensions. I asked you a very simple question that you cannot answer.
As America Changes, Some Anxious Whites Feel Left Behind
- Thread starter Guno צְבִי
- Start date
Your post indicates that you cannot speak to the argument you're making about CA pensions. I asked you a very simple question that you cannot answer.
Boris The Animal
It's Just Boris!
To put it simply, Leftists think THEY are the only ones qualified to rule the masses.
Sent from my LGL84VL using Tapatalk
Sent from my LGL84VL using Tapatalk
Nope. It was you guys deregulating morrtgages beginning in 2004.
Remove your head from your ass and read what Bush's Working Group and the Federal Reserve said...it was your mortgages from 2004-7 that caused the crisis. You all were in 100% control of government.
“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-cen...s update.pdf
"Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "
https://www.federalreserve.gov/images/20081203_analysis.pdf
evince
Truthmatters
GRAM LEACH BLIELY would have been fine
the Bush admin were the ones left to implement it as Clinton ended his second term right as it was implemented.
Bush nominated Cox
Cox refused to Implement the rules as written
he stalled those rules for 8 fucking years
the result was the subprime mess
those rules would have forced the Banks to be regulated
holding back those rules for eight years meant the banks were self regulating during that time
it was deregulation of the banks by merely NOT IMPLEMENTING WRITTEN LAW
the republican party cheated as always
Boris The Animal
It's Just Boris!
Hey numbnuts, ever hear of the Dudd-Fag Bill? It was your leftist loons that did this. And Bush warned about it.
Sent from my LGL84VL using Tapatalk
evince
Truthmatters
SEC Votes for Final Rules Defining How Banks Can Be Securities Brokers
Eight Years After Passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Key Provisions Will Now Be Implemented
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2007-190
Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2007 - Ending eight years of stalled negotiations and impasse, the Commission today voted to adopt, jointly with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), new rules that will finally implement the bank broker provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. The Board will consider these final rules at its Sept. 24, 2007 meeting. The Commission and the Board consulted with and sought the concurrence of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of Thrift Supervision.
eight fucking years
Eight Years After Passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Key Provisions Will Now Be Implemented
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2007-190
Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2007 - Ending eight years of stalled negotiations and impasse, the Commission today voted to adopt, jointly with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), new rules that will finally implement the bank broker provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. The Board will consider these final rules at its Sept. 24, 2007 meeting. The Commission and the Board consulted with and sought the concurrence of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of Thrift Supervision.
eight fucking years
evince
Truthmatters
https://www.mercurynews.com/2008/09/26/sec-chief-acknowledges-failure-of-voluntary-oversight/
News
SEC chief acknowledges failure of ‘voluntary oversight”
By Mercury News | themerc@bayareanewsgroup.com |
September 26, 2008 at 3:11 pm
News
SEC chief acknowledges failure of ‘voluntary oversight”
By Mercury News | themerc@bayareanewsgroup.com |
September 26, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Nope. You're wrong, as usual.
Bush wasn't warning about anything. In fact, Bush is the one who encouraged the mortgage bubble, even going so far as to tie the housing bubble to his tax cuts while campaigning in 2004:
From Fox News, March 26th, 2004:
Bush Ties Policy to Record Home Ownership
Touting his tax cuts as the economy's savior — and pointing to the strong housing market as proof — Bush said "more people own their own home now than ever." More than 50 percent of minorities owned their own homes in the last three months of 2003 for the first time ever, the president said.
So right there you have Bush tying his tax cuts to the housing market in 2004, when the bubble was getting underway.
Conservatives controlled all three branches of government from 2003-2007.
This is entirely on you.
Secondly, it's ironic that you label the Soviet flag as the flag of Democrats when Trump is the one who gets all his money and support from former Soviet officials, like Putin who was a KGB officer.
Projection would be the explanation there, I suppose...
evince
Truthmatters
WASHINGTON — The chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, a longtime proponent of deregulation, acknowledged Friday that failures in a voluntary supervision program for Wall Street’s largest investment banks had contributed to the global financial crisis, and he abruptly shut the program down.
The SEC’s oversight responsibilities will largely shift to the Federal Reserve.
Also Friday, the SEC’s inspector general released a report strongly criticizing the agency’s performance in monitoring Bear Stearns before it collapsed in March. Christopher Cox, the commission chairman, said he agreed that the oversight program was “fundamentally flawed from the beginning.”
The SEC’s oversight responsibilities will largely shift to the Federal Reserve.
Also Friday, the SEC’s inspector general released a report strongly criticizing the agency’s performance in monitoring Bear Stearns before it collapsed in March. Christopher Cox, the commission chairman, said he agreed that the oversight program was “fundamentally flawed from the beginning.”
The links said Bush was the one who killed GSE reform.
Do you know how to read?
evince
Truthmatters
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r21707830-How-the-Bush-Administration-Protected-Predatory-Lending
Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers
By Eliot Spitzer
Thursday, February 14, 2008; Page A25
Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.
Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.
Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.
What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.
Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.
Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.
In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.
But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.
Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.
When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.
The writer was governor of New York.
post 333
the whole time the Bush assholes were fighting the sates who were trying to make state laws to regulate the banks
Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers
By Eliot Spitzer
Thursday, February 14, 2008; Page A25
Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.
Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.
Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.
What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.
Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.
Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.
In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.
But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.
Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.
When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.
The writer was governor of New York.
post 333
the whole time the Bush assholes were fighting the sates who were trying to make state laws to regulate the banks
Last edited:
That's exactly right.
All 50 State Attorneys General opposed Bush invoking the OCC to undo state protections against predatory lending.
Conservatives were desperate to inflate a mortgage bubble to cover for the failure of their tax cuts to deliver on any of the promises made of them.
It was a deliberate act intended to make the economy look like it was growing in time for the 2004 election as a result of the tax cut when it was really growing as a result of the debt-linked mortgage bubble they were inflating.
Conservatives are the worst.
evince
Truthmatters
an so they could fight a war for oil
evince
Truthmatters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_are_all_Keynesians_now
The phrase gained new life in the midst of the global financial crisis of 2008, when economists called for massive investment in infrastructure and job creation as a means of economic stimulation.[9
The phrase gained new life in the midst of the global financial crisis of 2008, when economists called for massive investment in infrastructure and job creation as a means of economic stimulation.[9
Boris The Animal
It's Just Boris!
Compared to you shitstains, yes.