This sums it up pretty well

Desh said:
It was an attempt to get the people in control of congress (which were Rs) to deal with the problem before it got out of hand.
No the attempt was not sucessful. That does not mean it was not no one attempted to do something.

Why cant you admitt that the people who could have done something and refused to act when told of the problem were the republicans who controled our entire government a the time.

They failed to act when they could have.

So in your mind the the dems bare the woeight of the failure when they were prevented from acting by a R controlled congress. How fair.
Click to expand...

In my mind the bubble saw both Republican and Democratic Congresses, and that the blame falls to both of them. You are the only person on the board that refuses to accept that, and that resolution would not have done anything...I suppose that is one way of covering your ass-- try to pass a worthless resolution, then when the Republicans vote it down because it is a waste of time, cry that the Republicans hate America.

People on both sides of the spectrum all agree that both parties fucked up, Desh-- you are the one that can't accept that.
 
Desh said:
It was an attempt to get the people in control of congress (which were Rs) to deal with the problem before it got out of hand.
No the attempt was not sucessful. That does not mean it was not no one attempted to do something.

Why cant you admitt that the people who could have done something and refused to act when told of the problem were the republicans who controled our entire government a the time.

They failed to act when they could have.

So in your mind the the dems bare the woeight of the failure when they were prevented from acting by a R controlled congress. How fair.
Click to expand...

Since you have such a "good" grasp on this situation desh.... please explain to us....

1) Why did the 1999 bill (signed by Clinton) receive BI PARTISAN support in overwhelming numbers?

2) If the Dems knew this was such a problem... WHY did they not introduce a bill at the start of 2007 to reverse the 1999 bill? It would not have changed the loans outstanding, but it would correct the problem for the future.

3) WHY did the Dems not make this the second major issue behind Iraq during the election years of 2002, 2004 or 2006?

4) Why did they not go to state legislatures that the Dems controlled and have them enact STATE regulations to curb this practice?

Still waiting on your response desh....
 
uscitizen said:
a resoloution is not the same thing as a bill is it ?
Click to expand...
Nope. It has no binding authority whatsoever. It was feel good legislation that did nothing at all to solve the problem.

Resolving to make legislation against "predatory practices" that does nothing to define them or limit them leaves it open to such idiocy as assuming all sub-prime loans were predatory because they "said so" in this idiotic resolution that wasted our cash (and you should look up how much it costs to run a session of Congress if you don't think it is a waste of cash) and did nothing at all to solve the issue.

She will never see anything wrong with anybody on the D side regardless that sub-prime lending was exactly what the law in 1992 opened. It is bad legislation to muck around so minutely into banking practices. These people didn't recognize sub-primes as predatory, they believed that some lenders were predatory but sub-primes could be shined up to a nice golden sheen.

No matter how much you try to shine a turd, it is still a turd.
 
Superfreak said:
Since you have such a "good" grasp on this situation desh.... please explain to us....

1) Why did the 1999 bill (signed by Clinton) receive BI PARTISAN support in overwhelming numbers?


They should not have supported it. It was touted as a cunsumer protection bill though. everytime I find something about it that is of the age it was brought in they talk of only the consumer protection parts of it.

2) If the Dems knew this was such a problem... WHY did they not introduce a bill at the start of 2007 to reverse the 1999 bill? It would not have changed the loans outstanding, but it would correct the problem for the future.


They have been working on legilation on it since bebore they took the majority.

3) WHY did the Dems not make this the second major issue behind Iraq during the election years of 2002, 2004 or 2006?

Oh what a bunch of shit. The rs were fucking up so many things at once what were they supposed to do?

4) Why did they not go to state legislatures that the Dems controlled and have them enact STATE regulations to curb this practice?

The states came to them begging for help because they could not control it.

Still waiting on your response desh....
Click to expand...


GTo back through the thread where I have shown these things already
 
Desh said:
GTo back through the thread where I have shown these things already
Click to expand...

Thats just it Desh... you haven't shown anything but excuses.

"They should not have supported it. It was touted as a cunsumer protection bill though. everytime I find something about it that is of the age it was brought in they talk of only the consumer protection parts of it."

Your excuse above is that they were too stupid to understand what the bill entailed. Not good.

"They have been working on legilation on it since bebore they took the majority."

Your excuse above is that they "have been working on it". For a YEAR? I thought they knew what the problem was? Why haven't they put forth a bill to correct the problem for future loans desh?

"Oh what a bunch of shit. The rs were fucking up so many things at once what were they supposed to do?"

Your excuse is that they didn't have time to worry about this or make it a campaign issue????? Pathetic.

"The states came to them begging for help because they could not control it."

Excuse above is that the Dems are too inept to do it on their own at the state level? Sad.
 
Desh said:
http://www.realtor.org/subprime_lending.nsf/pages/subprime_lending

realtors see it whay cant you?
Click to expand...
While predatory lending is a small subset of sub-prime lending, it is not the totality of the problem. The vast majority of the subprime loans made were NOT predatory. So while the action by Congress you cited does not contain a single concrete provision to do anything what so ever, if it did, it would only have applied to this limited subset.

If anything, there is more likely to have been fraud on the part of the borrower; about 70% of the stated income loans reported higher than actual income in the loan documents. That's fraud.
 
Last edited:
"No matter how much you try to shine a turd, it is still a turd."

Amen to that brother Damo, but unfortunately that is our govt.
 
Troglodyte27 said:
While predatory lending is a small subset of sub-prime lending, it is not the totality of the problem. The vast majority of the subprime loans made were NOT predatory. If anything, there is more likely to have been fraud on the part of the borrower; about 70% of the stated income loans reported higher than actual income in the loan documents. That's fraud.
Click to expand...


Where is your poroof of these claims
 
It is just amazing to me that she can't tell no one is arguing that this was a bad practice--- we just differ in that we see the blame falls on more than just the Republican Party...it is so sad, the levels of denial she will take herself to in order to escape any wrongdoing on the part of the Democrats.
 
Damocles said:
Nope. It has no binding authority whatsoever. It was feel good legislation that did nothing at all to solve the problem.

Resolving to make legislation against "predatory practices" that does nothing to define them or limit them leaves it open to such idiocy as assuming all sub-prime loans were predatory because they "said so" in this idiotic resolution that wasted our cash (and you should look up how much it costs to run a session of Congress if you don't think it is a waste of cash) and did nothing at all to solve the issue.

She will never see anything wrong with anybody on the D side regardless that sub-prime lending was exactly what the law in 1992 opened. It is bad legislation to muck around so minutely into banking practices. These people didn't recognize sub-primes as predatory, they believed that some lenders were predatory but sub-primes could be shined up to a nice golden sheen.

No matter how much you try to shine a turd, it is still a turd.
Click to expand...



I showed where the dems who tried to bring it to the attention of the body.

They did not have the numbers to force any action. Why did the powers in control refuse to adress what had been brought to their attention?
 
Desh said:
I showed where the dems who tried to bring it to the attention of the body.

They did not have the numbers to force any action. Why did the powers in control refuse to adress what had been brought to their attention?
Click to expand...

Why did "the powers in control" need to waste their time on a piece of useless legislation?

Perhaps if the Democrats had tried to bring the problem to the attention of the body by actually proposing the solution, it might have been more effective. Instead they just said "hey guys, there is a problem! We should probably acknowledge that, then do nothing to correct it"...and when the Republicans said "um, what will that accomplish?", the Democrats threw up their hands and shouted "We tried! They hate America!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top